independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
The watchtowers take on Evolution Hello all.
Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies.
I cant believe I used to read this stuff and keep a straight face. yxl1 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
|
So what is the debate/discussion you would like to create with this thread ? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: Hello all.
http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm One interesting point they make: Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies.
I cant believe I used to read this stuff and keep a straight face. yxl1 i really don't think that evolution is "really a religious doctrine" not at all. darwin's theory is scientific, it addresses natural selection. i wonder why the watchtower would even feel the need to bring this up?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: So what is the debate/discussion you would like to create with this thread ?
Evolution as a religion Evolution as a philosophy of life Or maybe quotes from the link... Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by “their own desires"
Ok? [Edited 3/2/09 11:57am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: Hello all.
http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm One interesting point they make: Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies.
I cant believe I used to read this stuff and keep a straight face. yxl1 What I find irony is that, they suddenly seem to object against 'religious doctrine'. And evolution is far from religious...it is scientific. It has been proven, not once, but many thousends of times. They just BELIEF it isn't. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: Hello all.
http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm One interesting point they make: Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies.
I cant believe I used to read this stuff and keep a straight face. yxl1 They do not use the word 'theory' in it's scientific definition. In science, a theory is the analysis of a set of FACTS in their relation to one another. We have the theory of gravity, the theory of light, atomic theory ect. In the WT literature, they use theory as meaning speculation only. They also have a bad habit of misquoting their sources when indeed they give any references at all. Also they haven't commented much on the vast amount of scientific data that has come to light since their book on evolution was published back in 1985. "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-Dr Seuss
Pain is something to carry, like a radio...You should stand up for your right to feel your pain- Jim Morrison | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: Hello all.
http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm One interesting point they make: Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent tendencies.
I cant believe I used to read this stuff and keep a straight face. yxl1 I know. I can't believe my mom use to make us to attend the JW meetings, and my sister and I went without a fuss!!! “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.” Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What I like about this, is at least they have the balls to say " Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible". In a perverse sense,I find this more admirable than the plethora of religions who attempt to shoehorn evolutionary fact into their otherwise entirely incompatible creation stories.
"It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Otherwise, what struck me about the article is just how poor it was. Just about every major point they use to "win" the argument could be comfortably (and correctly) countered by use of the smallest amount of knowledge and logic. I suppose in a sense that is comforting, but equally it is worrying that so many people can be pursuaded by such ignorant nonsense.. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: Otherwise, what struck me about the article is just how poor it was. Just about every major point they use to "win" the argument could be comfortably (and correctly) countered by use of the smallest amount of knowledge and logic. I suppose in a sense that is comforting, but equally it is worrying that so many people can be pursuaded by such ignorant nonsense..
Co-sign. Have to love the idea that universal scientific concensus was achieved from some drunken orgy of mutual ear tickling.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mordang said: yxl1 said: Hello all.
http://www.watchtower.org...cle_01.htm One interesting point they make: I cant believe I used to read this stuff and keep a straight face. yxl1 What I find irony is that, they suddenly seem to object against 'religious doctrine'. And evolution is far from religious...it is scientific. It has been proven, not once, but many thousends of times. They just BELIEF it isn't. Is evolution really scientific? The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe p. 19. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey p. 199. According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”— p. 828. Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138. Truth is incontrovertible,
Malice may distort it, Ignorance may deride it, But there it is. Go to the source - www.watchtower.org 2 all the haterz on the internet somebody's lookin' at you. No more candy 4 you they got ur number now fool. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NewSystem said: mordang said: What I find irony is that, they suddenly seem to object against 'religious doctrine'. And evolution is far from religious...it is scientific. It has been proven, not once, but many thousends of times. They just BELIEF it isn't. Is evolution really scientific? The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe p. 19. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey p. 199. According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”— p. 828. Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138. Why don't you give us the direct link were you got this from: http://wiki.answers.com/Q..._evolution Did you actualy think about it or was it just old fashioned copy paste no questions asked type of thing? Is evolution really scientific?
The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Nice touch to put "scientific methode" between ironic quotation marks. There is a more elaborate definition on Wiki. "Scientific method refers to techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe p. 19.
You confuse creation with evolution here. I don't care how JW's see it. What Robert Jastrow says is true btw, no doubt about that. There are some theories and there have been succesfull experiments (Miller–Urey experiment) , but it is certainly not clear cut. It means "we don't know yet". It is a matter of time. We don't know a lot of stuff yet. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that something didn't happen. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey p. 199.
The same, this is about the lack of evidence on the way life was created -how did life start- , not evolution itself. According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”— p. 828.
This is a quote from June 25, 1981, p. 828. - couldn't find an older one? This whole thing is based upon a quote from 3 decades ago?.....Most scientists of this alledged increasing number would be dead by now. I tried to figure out some names, but helas. Is this increasment still going on? Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
You sure like your classics. "The only acceptable explanation"....so all 99,9% of the scientists have it wrong. Their acceptable explanations are unacceptable...to him. The man is undoubtely smart, but let's his belief cloud his scientific judgement. He's an icon in many publications over ID, I fount his name all over the net concerning the quote above. One of the few, because there are not many others. It is a bit bleak, considering the mountains of scientific papers that refute his statement. Now I can't convince you, as you are most propably just someone with little understanding about modern science and that is no problem. That you are a believer is not a problem. But I think that people should commit themself to finding the truth and not to the things that you want to be true. And I do think that that's the case with a lot of religious people. They see that science (evolution) has an eroding effect on the foundations of their belief and therefore, unwillingly perhaps, pervert the truth to protect that what they hold dearest. Well it won't go away...because as we progress in science these perversions will come to light...it's just a matter of time and thoughtfull investigation. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NewSystem said: mordang said: What I find irony is that, they suddenly seem to object against 'religious doctrine'. And evolution is far from religious...it is scientific. It has been proven, not once, but many thousends of times. They just BELIEF it isn't. Is evolution really scientific? The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe p. 19. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey p. 199. According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”— p. 828. Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138. What I think people get too hung up on is that it is evolution OR religious doctrine and by religious doctrine I mean Christian 6 days theory thang. Let's just forget about the thousands of other creation myths and whatever the Bible says is 100% literal truth. There are still a lot of questions in the theory of evolution or theories as there are several components to the theory of evolution. NO it has not been proven, it is a theory, but it has scientific merits. At the same time, just because there may be parts of the theory of evolution which are on shaky ground does not mean that creationism is true. There is no scientific basis to ANY creation myth. And I'm sorry but creation scientist is an oxymoron. BTW, science can give you answers, but you often just get more questions instead. [Edited 3/4/09 12:35pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
How come the right-wing factions, whenever presented with a group they don't like, address them using a title that ends in "ist". Evolutionist, Abortionist, etc. I've even heard references to Homosexualists!
We are stardust. We are golden.
Feb. 12th -28th: Two weeks of corporate and nationalistic dick-stroking in the guise of a sporting event. I can not wait. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rather than stifling research, the Bible encourages the search for answers to both scientific and spiritual questions.
Aka Torah
*-) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
moderator
