Does Science Disprove the Bible or Back it up?

[AlanF]

Brother Rando wrote:

Quote

 

:: I have no clue what you're trying to say. Did I say the earth was destroyed? No. Did I say the earth will be destroyed? No. I said that the universe is extremely dangerous for life.

You were being deceptive to lead the reader that the earth will be destroyed

 

I said nothing of the sort. If you continue to claim that I did, quote my words where you claim I did.

Perhaps you think that the culprit is where I asked you if "the asteroid strike and massive volcanism that wiped out the dinosaurs and 70% of life on earth 65 million years ago" is part of "Jehovah's fingerprints" that "are all over the Universe".

Your comprehension of the English language is obviously so poor that you can't understand simple sentences. Apparently you learned English in school, and have only a grade-school comprehension.

Quote

and that your faith is in man-made theories fall short of the glory of Jehovah.

This is basically gobble-de-goop. Let's parse your sentence by putting this last part with the first part:

'You were being deceptive to lead the reader that . . . your faith is in man-made theories fall short of the glory of Jehovah.'

Even this simplified sentence is gobble-de-goop.

Quote

Atheistism is a man-made religion

"Atheistism"? Try using a dictionary.

Atheism is NOT a religion; it is merely lack of belief in and gods. Atheism is no more a religion than not believing in the Tooth Fairy is a religion.

Quote

that teaches theories and lies as facts and truth.

There are no "teachings of atheism" since it is not a belief system. All that atheists believe is that there is no believable evidence for any gods.

Having been misled by Watch Tower writers, you're confusing the fact that the Theory of Evolution eliminates the need for belief in the Christian God with atheism. The two are philosophically related, but not dependent on one another. Atheism existed long before Darwin's explanation of Evolution, and there are plenty of people who accept evolution who also believe in some sort of gods.

Quote

Gravity didn't come about from an explosion nor can you provide one successful conclusion.

No one knows precisely how most physical "laws" operate, much less how they came to be. "God did it" is NOT an explanation.

Quote

Gravity is a law that was set in motion.

Gravity is not a law -- see my above quote of Bertrand Russell.

Quote

When added to our system of things, the earth began to rotate. "After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day." (Genesis 1:4-5)

Are you trying to say, "When gravity was added to our system of things, the earth began to rotate."? How did you manage to get that from Genesis?

Quote

If you can't comprehend the simplest of things, how can I even share the deep things of God with you?  It would be like turning on a light for a blind person, one who is dying.

LOL! That's quite funny, coming from someone who can't understand simple English, who doesn't understand the tiniest bit of science, and who can't respond to 95% of the challenges put to him.

AlanF

[BroRando]

There's a huge difference between science and theology that theorists who pretend only to practice science.  You worship what you don't know, Nature.  In other words, there is no difference from those whom claim a gigantic explosion created the universe and the druids who worship trees.  The very same theorists who proclaim the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution as science,  No, they hide behind the name SCIENCE.  

Atheism is the biggest cult of them all, teaching and following man made doctrines and trying to dress their theories as Science.  The Big Bang is not science but a theory and will always be just that.  If a scientist had just one single success at building something from an explosion, I'm all ears...  and it be NEWS...  but not one single hypothesis has been achieved.  Not One. 

Listen, if you don't want to believe in a higher intelligent source, then don't, it won't change my life.  There's one reason you Personally responded.  You simply got your Pride hurt from the quote below:

On 2/19/2018 at 2:03 PM, Brother Rando said:

Scientists are among the most intelligible people on earth, or at least, they would like us to think they are.  One must consider the source, that a significant number of scientists are atheists, denying the possibility of a higher intelligence.

 And just so you know, when teaching an explosion caused the universe and the earth nestled in the perfect position, elements to cause that explosion would have to exist PRIOR to the sudden release of energy.  Things that make you go ummmmmmmmm...  "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing." (Isaiah 40:26)

CONCLUSION. After decades of research in virtually all branches of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting life. Now that's science. 

[AlanF]

Brother Rando referenced the jw.org article "Is It Unscientific to Believe in God?". Unfortunately, this article and those following it are rife with misconceptions and misrepresentations. I won't discuss most of them here, but will concentrate on one misrepresentation.

Paragraph 5 starts off by mentioning the potential or actual belief in God of "some educated people" and "many scientists". It leads into paragraph 6, which together with paragraph 5 asks, "Can scientists who believe in a Creator and who are convinced that the design evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer be dismissed as naive?" Paragraph 6 then cites a New York Times book review that reports "on scientists who believe that intelligent design is responsible for our cosmos and life in it" as follows: "They have Ph.D.’s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific."

The naive reader will have gotten the impression that many reputable scientists reject Darwinism and the natural evolution of the universe based not on religious precepts but on scientific premises. But that is not what the New York Times book review actually says. Paragraph 7 goes on to say that what proponents of intelligent design deny "is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ‘naturalistic’ theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life." The footnote for paragraph 7 states:

<< Prominent academics and scientists who have gone on record as subscribing to the idea of “an Intelligent Designer” include Phillip E. Johnson, who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley; biochemist Michael J. Behe, author of the book Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution; mathematician William A. Dembski; philosopher of logic Alvin Plantinga; physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson; astronomer Allan Sandage; and others too numerous to list. >>

The 2002 book review is of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Edited by Robert T. Pennock, MIT Press, 2002) which is a compendium of articles by scientists and supporters of Intelligent Design. The complete book review can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/14/books/supernatural-selection.html

The review begins with the following, which contains the quote from jw.org:

<< In the last decade or so, creationism has grown sophisticated. Oh, the old-fashioned creationists are still around, especially in the Bible Belt. They're the ones who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that God created it and all its inhabitants in six days and that fossils are a product of Noah's flood. In the early 1990's, however, a new breed of creationists appeared. These "neo-creos," as they have been called, are no Dogpatch hayseeds. They have Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific and philosophical, invoking esoteric ideas in molecular biology, information theory and the logic of hypothesis testing. >>

Obviously, this "new breed of creationists" who claim to base their premises on scientific criteria are first and foremost creationists -- "neo-creos" who merely pretend to base their "intelligent design" ideas on science, but are just using science to rationalize their religious beliefs. The New York Times book review makes all this extremely clear.

The first three people mentioned in the footnote for paragraph 7 are members of the Discovery Institute ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute ), a politically conservative creationist think tank that promotes conservative Christian values and Intelligent Design. In 1999 an internal document that has come to be known as the Wedge Document was published (unauthorized) on the Internet. It lays out the Discovery Institute's long term strategy, "whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and 'reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.' " ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy ). In other words, the DI's goal is to replace science with religion in American culture.

As for the supposed scientists listed in the footnote:

Phillip Johnson is not a scientist, but a lawyer with no scientific training, who converted to Evangelical Christianity in the late 1980s. He is a co-founder of the Intelligent Design movement. In an internal DI magazine he wrote:

<< The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself. >> (ibid.)

So Johnson lists the three leading "scientists" listed in the paragraph 7 footnote as key Intelligent Design figures, i.e., they all have essentially religious motivations for their claims.

Michael Behe is a biochemist, but accepts evolution in its theistic form, i.e., that evolution has been guided by God.

William Dembski is not a scientist, but a mathematician, philosopher and theologian. Until 2016 he was a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is an old-earth creationist, and accepts a form of evolution but does not accept universal common descent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski ).

Alvin Plantinga is not a scientist but primarily a philosopher of Christianity. He accepts theistic evolution.

John Polkinghorne is a physicist, theologian and Anglican priest. He apparently accepts theistic evolution.

Freeman Dyson is a physicist and mathematician, and non-denominational Christian. He fully accepts evolution but wrote, "I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson )

Allan Sandage was an astronomer and born-again Christian. His views on evolution are unclear, but he seems to have accepted a vague form of theistic evolution.

From the above information, it is quite clear that some of the "scientists and academics" cited by the jw.org article reject Evolution for religious reasons, while others accept Evolution but, again for religious reasons, believe it is guided by their God.

In conclusion, the jw.org article attempts to use the "argument from authority" to convince readers that they should accept a Creator because some academics and scientists do. It presents no actual evidence. It actually misrepresents some of the academics and scientists, because some reject Evolution ONLY because of their religious beliefs, and others accept Evolution -- but not the sort of evolution caricatured by the Watch Tower Society. In fact, the WTS explicitly rejects the theistic evolution that most believing scientists accept.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Brother Rando continues to ignore all arguments put to him, and to write mostly gibberish.

Quote

There's a huge difference between science and theology that theorists who pretend only to practice science.

Pure gibberish. What are you really trying to say?

Quote

You worship what you don't know, Nature.

I worship nothing. Worship involves according great reverence to something, which I accord to nothing.

Quote

In other words, there is no difference from those whom claim a gigantic explosion created the universe and the druids who worship trees.

Your logic escapes me. See if you can write something coherent.

Quote

The very same theorists who proclaim the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution as science,  No, they hide behind the name SCIENCE.

Again, largely gibberish.

Quote

Atheism

Good! You managed to spell it right this time.

Quote

is the biggest cult of them all, teaching and following man made doctrines and trying to dress their theories as Science.

I already explained this to you: atheism is NOT a belief system; it is LACK OF BELIEF IN ANY GODS, due to lack of evidence for any gods.

Is lack of belief in Thor or Zeus or Brahma a belief system? Of course not. Do you believe in them? No. Does that make you and atheist? Yes!

So you, Brother Rando, are an atheist. The only difference between you and me is that I believe in one less god.

Quote

The Big Bang is not science but a theory and will always be just that.

I already explained this to you: a scientific theory is -- well, just Google it and try to learn something.

Quote

If a scientist had just one single success at building something from an explosion, I'm all ears...  and it be NEWS...  but not one single hypothesis has been achieved.  Not One.

You're wrong, of course. But because you've completely ignored almost all that I've said, I'll let you do your own research.

Quote

Listen, if you don't want to believe in a higher intelligent source, then don't, it won't change my life.

Show me some good, solid evidence, and I'll believe. Of course, you'll have to deal with all the contrary evidence I've set forth in my posts here.

Quote

 

There's one reason you Personally responded.  You simply got your Pride hurt from the quote below:

::: Scientists are among the most intelligible people on earth, or at least, they would like us to think they are.  One must consider the source, that a significant number of scientists are atheists, denying the possibility of a higher intelligence.

 

LOL! I got my pride hurt by your posting a false, nearly nonsensical claim?

Quote

And just so you know, when teaching an explosion caused the universe and the earth nestled in the perfect position, elements to cause that explosion would have to exist PRIOR to the sudden release of energy.  Things that make you go ummmmmmmmm...  "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing." (Isaiah 40:26)

In a simple-minded way, you're right. While details are far from being worked out yet, scientists are actively working on the mechanisms that "caused" the Big Bang. Of course, having learned everything you know from Watch Tower literature, you're almost completely ignorant of such.

AlanF

[BroRando]

The truth is simple.  Take a look for yourself.  Take Care.

 

A Brain Pathologist Explains His Faith

Professor Rajesh Kalaria talks about his work and faith. What stimulated his interest in science? What caused him to question the origin of life?

Irène Hof Laurenceau: An Orthopedic Surgeon Explains Her Faith

Her work with leg prosthetics moved her to question her belief in evolution.

Monica Richardson: A Physician Explains Her Faith

She questioned whether birth was a miracle or if it had a designer. What conclusion did she draw from her experience as a physician?

An Embryologist Explains His Faith

Professor Yan-Der Hsuuw believed in evolution, but changed his view after becoming a research scientist.

A Consultant Surgeon Explains His Faith

For many years, Dr. Guillermo Perez believed in evolution, but now he is convinced that our body was designed by God. What made him change his mind?

A Kidney Specialist Explains Her Faith

Why did a doctor and former atheist start thinking about God and the meaning of life? What caused her to change her view of these things?

A Software Designer Explains His Faith

When Dr. Fan Yu began his career as a research mathematician he believed in evolution. Now he believes that life was designed and was created by God. Why?

Massimo Tistarelli: A Roboticist Explains His Faith

His high regard for science led him to question his belief in evolution.

An Experimental Physicist Explains His Faith

Two key facts from nature convinced Wenlong He that there is a Creator.

“I Am Convinced That There Is a Creator”

Frédéric Dumoulin was disgusted with religion and so became an atheist. How has studying both the Bible and the design of living things convinced him that there is a Creator?

A Biotechnologist Explains His Faith

Dr. Hans Kristian Kotlar’s study of the immune system caused him to question the origin of life. How did studying the Bible answer his questions?

A Microbiologist Explains Her Faith

The unexpected complexity of cell chemistry caused Feng-Ling Yang, a scientist in Taiwan, to change her view of evolution. Why?

A Biochemist Explains Her Faith

Learn the scientific facts she considered and why she has faith in GodÂ’s Word.

A Biochemist Explains His Faith

What made this researcher reconsider the origin of life, and what convinced him that the Bible is from God?

A Mathematician Explains His Faith

Why does Professor Gene Hwang find that his religious beliefs do not conflict with his secular studies?

A Classical Pianist Explains His Faith

Music itself convinced this former atheist to believe in a Creator. What led him to believe that the Bible is from God?

Petr Muzny: A Law Professor Explains His Faith

He was born under a Communist regime. The idea of a Creator was considered to be nonsense. Notice what changed his mind.

“I Am Convinced That Life Was Designed by God”

Read why one scientist changed his view of the Bible, evolution, and the origin of life.

[Matthew9969]

I have faith that a cup of coffe will wake me up....... wait I have to be awake already in order to drink it.

[AlanF]

Brother Rando posted a number of personal faith testimonies by JWs, and wrote:

Quote

The truth is simple.  Take a look for yourself.  

So let's take a look at the testimonies. But first, let's nail down a couple of important definitions and other considerations.

The "Argument From Design" (aka the Teleological Argument; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design ) is the argument that God's existence is demonstrable from the perceived evidence of design in the universe. But the argument, in the form that results in the claim that the Christian God is the Supreme Designer, amounts to a string of special pleadings: that a perception of design implies actual design; that such perceived 'design' implies a designer; that such a 'designer' is supernatural; that this supernatural designer is the Christian God. The argument also begs the question of the origin of this 'designer'. It implies that this 'designer' is more complex and difficult to explain than anything it supposedly designed. In the end, The Argument From Design is self-defeating.

The "Argument From Personal Incredulity" takes the form "I can't believe P, therefore not-P." It is a specific form of "the argument from ignorance" and is a form of the fallacy called non sequitur ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy ). This reference explains things nicely:

<< The divine fallacy is an informal fallacy that often happens when people say something must be the result of superior, divine, alien or supernatural cause because it is unimaginable for it not to be so. A similar fallacy, known as argument from incredulity, appeal to common sense, or personal incredulity, asserts that because something is so incredible or difficult to imagine it is wrong. Arguments from incredulity are called non sequiturs. Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

Arguments from incredulity happen when people make their inability to comprehend or make sense of a concept their argument. >>

This argument is also a form of the fallacious "argument from ignorance" ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity )

The Argument From Design and The Argument From Personal Incredulity, with respect to evolution, abiogenesis, the existence of gods or God, etc., are closely related. "I can't imagine how the eye was not designed" invokes both Arguments. Whether such skepticism is justified is a completely separate question. We will see that each of Brother Rando's example testimonies invoke these fallacies as if they are conclusive.

Theistic Evolution
(cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution )

The Watch Tower Society is adamant that "theistic evolution" is anti-biblical. In some forms it certainly is, but in other forms it is not. The JWs specifically ignore the latter.

The September, 2006 Awake! contains the Watch Tower Society's only discussion of theistic evolution, in an article on the question "Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?" It is a classic example of the way the Society misrepresents a subject by creating a caricature of it, and then knocks down that caricature. The caricature is that all theistic evolutionists deny the Genesis story of the creation of mankind, and so theistic evolution must be wrong. The fallacy here is that many theistic evolutionists believe that God did something magical with the two people called Adam and Eve, such that they were something new in the line of humans that stretches back several million years. Nothing in that magic contradicts Genesis, so the Society's argumentation is blatantly fallacious.

Of course, the above says nothing about whether the supposed "magic" involved in God's creating Adam and Eve represents reality. But then, much in Genesis and the Bible generally demonstrably does not represent reality.

 

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no4-2017-august/rajesh-kalaria-brain-pathologist-interview/
Rajesh Kalaria
A Brain Pathologist Explains His Faith

Kalaria studied the pathology of the human brain in college and beyond. He does not seem to have studied evolution at a college level, although it was likely touched on in his biology and pathology courses.

Awake! pulls the old bait-and-switcheroo on its readers. First it asks Kalaria, "Why did you accept the teaching of evolution?" He answers that he accepted evolution because others around him, including teachers and professors, did so. Awake! then switches the topic to a different one: "In time you reconsidered the question of the origin of life. Why?" Kalaria answers that some JWs explained some Bible teachings to him. He gives no specific answer to the question asked. Awake! then mixes up evolution and the origin of life (termed abiogenesis) with this question: "Did your medical knowledge hinder your belief in creation?" Kalaria responds that living things are well-designed and complex, and that it makes no sense to him that such complex things are the product of an "unguided process".

Two take-away points from this: Awake! deliberately mixes up evolution and abiogenesis -- two independent areas of science that have completely different lines of evidence; Kalaria accepts creation over Awake!'s caricature of evolution because of the "Argument from Design" -- an argument put forth for thousands of years and philosophically debunked 250 years ago by philosopher David Hume.

Awake! then asks Kalaria: "Why did you become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?". He says that there is evidence that the Bible is God's Word, such as its accuracy on scientific matters, its accuracy of prophecy, etc. But those two claims are demonstrably wrong.

The book of Genesis lists the order of creation of life as plants, then all sea life and all flying creatures, then all land animals. But the fossil record and genetics show a very different story. First came plants and then animals in the sea, then plants on land, then animals including insects on land, then some flying insects, then more animals on land, then the extinction of 96% of sea life and 80% of land life, then more of all kinds of life for the next 250 million years, with major extinctions in between. So Genesis' order of creation is wrong.

Furthermore, Kalaria became a JW in the early 1970s, when the Watch Tower Society was teaching that each of the six creative days of Genesis were 7,000 years long. That means that plant life is less than 34,000 years old, sea life and flying creatures less than 20,000 years, and land creatures less than 13,000 years. So when Kalaria accepted JWs' version of the history of life, and then concluded that when the Bible touches on scientific matters it is consistently correct, he is speaking nonsense, because science has extremely solid evidence that macroscopic life has existed for at least 600 million years.

As for accuracy of prophecy, the Bible contains many unfulfilled prophecies, 'prophecies' and 'fulfillments' that were obviously written after-the-fact, and prophecies that were simply wrong. For example, as I showed in my first post above, Ezekiel falsely prophesied that Tyre would soon be destroyed by the Babylonians and never be rebuilt. But some 250 years passed before it was destroyed by the Greeks, and it was soon rebuilt. It was a thriving city in Jesus' day and today has a population over 100,000. Ezekiel even admits that his prophecy was wrong, and that in compensation for Tyre, God would allow Babylon to sack Egypt and make it desolate for 40 years. While Babylon did attack Egypt, Egypt was never desolate for 40 years during Babylon's rule. In fact, in 548 BCE Egypt's king Amasis formed an alliance with the Babylonians, Croesus of Lydia, and Sparta against the Persians under Cyrus the Great.

Isaiah 23 also contains the false prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and then be desolate for 70 years, and then be rebuilt. Not only is this inconsistent with Ezekiel's prophecy, but nothing remotely like that occurred until Tyre was temporarily destroyed by Alexander the Great around 332 BCE. And it was rebuilt far sooner than 70 years later.

Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would be destroyed and never rebuilt. While it was conquered by Persia in 539 BCE, it was never destroyed. Indeed, it was inhabited by many people, including a Jewish community, through at least 700 CE.

Clearly, Kalaria's conversion to the JWs is built on a foundation of sand.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/viewpoints-origin-of-life/irene-hof-laurenceau-orthopedic-surgeon/
Irène Hof Laurenceau
An Orthopedic Surgeon Explains Her Faith

Laurenceau says:

"If we see someone skating or dancing, we have to believe that there's a designer who is superior to us. . . It's difficult to imagine that it could be the result of evolution."

Another example of The Argument From Personal Incredulity.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/viewpoints-origin-of-life/monica-richardson-physician/
Monica Richardson
A Physician Explains Her Faith

The article starts off talking about abiogenesis: "Monica Richardson changed her view on the origin of life based not only on her education but also on her experience as a physician." But the video ignores abiogenesis and speaks only about evolution -- another instance of bait-and-switch.

Richardson studied genetics and chemistry in college, but judging by her appearance of age, that was likely in the 1960s when genetics was barely known and evolution was much less well developed in its details than today. Today, the fossil record of evolution is astonishingly consistent with genetics -- which Richardson appears to know nothing about.

Once again we see The Argument From Personal Incredulity from a JW: "I can't believe there is a design without a designer."

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no2-2016-april/professor-yan-der-hsuuw-embryologist/
Yan-Der Hsuuw
An Embryologist Explains His Faith

Hsuuw is another JW with relatively little education in evolution. Born in 1966, his college years studying veterinary medicine and embryology taught him things about evolution that are often outmoded today, especially where genetics combines with fossil-based evolutionary ideas.

Hsuuw had always believed in gods of some sort, so it was a small step to home in on the Christian God. Awake! asked him, "Why did you start reading the Bible?" He had two reasons: "of the many gods that people worship, one must be greater than the others. But which one? Second, I knew that the Bible is a highly respected book." Somehow he concluded that praying would be good, and so he prayed for help to learn about the God he had somehow concluded exists. Then he met the JWs, who "showed" him that the Bible is in harmony with science. He gives a typical example from the JW book of stereotypes -- that the Psalmist speaks of all the embryo's parts as being down in writing. While this point is arguable as to its efficacy in "proving God", even any number of such examples do not negate the many places where the Bible is completely at odds with science and with reality, as discussed above. The Koran correctly states many things, but it is the incorrect things that it states that prove it is a man-made book. So it is with the Bible.

In answer to Awake!'s question, "What convinced you that God created life?" Hsuuw states that the complexity of embryo development led him to conclude that life was created. Awake!'s question is a good example of the fallacy known as the False Dilemma -- where only two alternatives are presented, but more than two exist. In Awake!'s imaginary world, there are only two alternatives: evolution/abiogenesis and direct creation by God. But many people of the Christian faith subscribe to various forms of "theistic evolution", where some variety of god creates parts of the universe and life. In an extreme view, a deistic god would have created the universe with the capacity for life to arise by chemical means, and then for evolution by natural selection to produce the life we see today. In another view, a god would have directly created a few life forms and then let evolution by natural selection run its course. In another view, a more hands-on god would have created each "kind" of life separately. Whether that god is the Christian God is a separate issue. In all these cases, one's favorite god would have been responsible for 'creation', and so he would be "The Creator".

But the JWs are far too narrow-minded and doctrinaire to consider such possibilities. They're so closed-minded that Watch Tower publications only once address the question of theistic evolution -- and then they merely say, "it's wrong".

Hsuuw says that his basic reason for believing in the JW version of creation is that when he considers embryological development, "when I consider the beauty of it all, I’m convinced that life was designed by God." Yet another instance of The Argument From Personal Incredulity.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201405/guillermo-perez-interview/
Dr. Guillermo Perez
A Consultant Surgeon Explains His Faith

Awake! says that Perez, probably in his 60s judging by his picture, once believed in evolution, but now is convinced that the human body was designed by God. He was raised as a Catholic, and accepted the Catholic view that evolution was directed by God. Once again it should be noted that evolution directed by God IS creation.

After some discussion with JWs, Perez liked the "simple logic" of the Bible, which says "every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." Perez apparently does not understand that that is exactly what theistic evolution is all about.

Awake! continues its pursuit of fallacies with this question: "Did your study of the human body help you to accept creation?" which again implicitly assumes that theistic evolution is not creation and did not happen.

Awake! and Perez go back and forth on the amazing ability of the human body to repair damage. This is yet another implied Argument From Personal Incredulity.

Finally Perez says that he became a JW because they're friendly, they always answered his Bible questions, and he admired their courage in proselytizing. He likes telling people about "our Creator’s promise to end sickness and suffering".

Perez clearly does not have much of substance to say about his JW faith.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201309/céline-granolleras-kidney-specialist-faith/
Dr. Céline Granolleras
A Kidney Specialist Explains Her Faith

Awake! says that "Granolleras is a medical doctor in France who specializes in kidney disease. More than 20 years after becoming a doctor, she came to the conclusion that there is a Creator who cares for us." When younger, she did not believe in a God, but thought that eventually scientists will explain how life began without any gods.

Her husband and family became JWs, and many years later she began reading the Bible for herself. Before that, she had a suspicion that the human body was designed, and one day decided that the Bible God had to be the designer of the human blood system and the whole body. Once again we see The Argument From Design and The Argument From Personal Incredulity.

Granolleras claims that she researched all of her questions without reference to JW publications in concluding that the Bible is a book of True Prophecy. In particular she claims that "it shows exactly how much time would elapse between the 20th year of the reign of the Persian ruler Artaxerxes and the year Jesus would present himself as the Messiah." This is the famous "69 weeks" prophecy of Daniel 9:25, which some claim to be 69 "weeks of years" (483 years) from the 20th year of Artaxerxes I (455 BCE) to 29 CE when Jesus was supposedly anointed as the Messiah. The problem with her claim is that very few modern Bible scholars go along with this claim. The claim was common until the late 19th century, but when a variety of ancient cuneiform texts were found in the 1860s through the 1930s, which solidly established the chronology of Persian kings of the 5th century BCE, it became firmly established that the 20th year of Artaxerxes was not 455 BCE but 445 BCE. Many Bible commentators have tried, sometimes seemingly successfully and sometimes not, to reconcile the problem. The point here is that no modern Bible scholars who accept solidly established Persian chronology accept the 455 BCE date. Only the Watch Tower Society and a tiny handful of others continue with the 19th century claim of 455 BCE rather than 445 BCE. Therefore, Granolleras most assuredly used JW literature to "research" this question. Indeed, Granolleras almost certainly found the question in JW literature in the first place.

Having done her research in JW literature, Granolleras concludes: "Finally, I concluded that this Bible prophecy had come true on time and that it must have been inspired by God." Of course, she failed to account for any of the failures of "Bible prophecy" as described above.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no3-2017-june/fan-yu-software-designer-explains-faith/
Fan Yu
A Software Designer Explains His Faith

Raised in China during the Cultural Revolution, Yu accepted evolution and was an atheist. Eventually he moved to the U.S. and later learned the JWs' views on the idea of a Creator in the Bible. He apparently learned enough false ideas from the JWs that he performed the usual bogus creationist probability calculations that result in the conclusion that spontaneous formation of proteins is essentially impossible and therefore that abiogenesis is impossible. Of course, this has only to do with abiogenesis, not evolution, and so it is clear that Yu blindly accepted JW teachings rather than learning actual science and only then coming to conclusions. Yet again we see a JW having bought into The Argument From Personal Incredulity.

Yu was also convinced to become a JW because of Bible prophecies that supposedly came true, but of course was never informed of the many that failed.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/viewpoints-origin-of-life/massimo-tistarelli-roboticist/
Massimo Tistarelli
A Roboticist Explains His Faith

Tistarelli basically accepts The Argument From Design, and obviously never looked into the details of evolution apart from Watch Tower literature. Yet another Argument From Personal Incredulity.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201407/wenlong-he-interview/
Wenlong He
An Experimental Physicist Explains His Faith

Raised in China, He was an atheist and accepted evolution until he came in contact with the JWs. He says that he considered the 2nd law of thermodynamics to conclude that there must be an external agent, a Creator outside the universe, and in some unspecified manner this Creator must be the biblical God.

Unfortunately, He's application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is completely wrong, and a bit of online research will show why. No one reading this post would understand the necessarily simplified explanation that I could give, so I'm not goint to bother.

He's other big point for accepting the Bible was "that the universe and the earth seem to be specifically designed to support life." But this is yet another claim that science has pretty well debunked. Again online searches for the topic will turn up reams of discussion that show why such thinking is wrong.

To show how shallow He's thinking on these things is, consider his comments on the fact that earth's atmosphere "blocks much harmful radiation while allowing other needed radiation to reach the earth’s surface":

<< Why did that fact impress you?

I was intrigued by the introduction to the Bible’s creation account and its reference to light. It states: “God said: ‘Let there be light.’ Then there was light.” Only a very narrow band of the vast spectrum of solar radiation is visible light, but light is vital for life. Plants need it to produce food, and we need light to see. The atmosphere’s special transparency to light cannot be a coincidence. >>

Implicit in He's comments is the idea that life was designed first, and afterwards the earth's environment was designed to fit it. But that's putting the cart before the horse big time! Obviously, since the earth came to exist long before any life did, whatever life came to exist had to fit the earth's environment. Thus, eyes see "visible light" and plants use it to produce food because it's almost the only useful radiation from the sun that gets through the atmosphere to the surface. The rest of He's comments show that he accepted bogus, ass-backwards JW arguments like this without giving them any real thought.

Yet again we see virtually blind acceptance of The Argument From Design.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201404/frederic-dumoulin-interview/
Frédéric Dumoulin
“I Am Convinced That There Is a Creator”

Dumoulin, now a pharmaceutical researcher, accepted evolution while growing up an atheist. After he came in contact with the JWs he began thinking about the origin of life -- abiogenesis, not evolution. But there are no scientific theories on abiogenesis, because there is too little information for a scientific theory to be formed. There are various hypotheses and speculations, but these are far from scientific theories. The fact that Dumoulin and Awake! speak in these terms proves that they have no knowledge of what real science says about these things, but only knowledge of what creationists and popularizers of misconceptions say.

Dumoulin says, "I found that whenever the Bible comments on scientific matters, it is accurate." Of course, much of what I've written in this thread proves that, while the Bible is accurate in some things, it is completely wrong in other things, such as the order of creation in Genesis, Noah's Flood, etc.

Dumoulin also cites The Argument From Design as another reason he believes in a Creator and rejects evolution. Of course, neither he nor Awake! mention theistic evolution, which is also creation.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201402/hans-kristian-kotlar-faith/
Dr. Hans Kristian Kotlar
A Biotechnologist Explains His Faith

With Catholic/Protestant parents, Kotlar always believed in God, and practiced prayer. Apparently without really thinking much about them, he accepted evolution and abiogenesis, but confused the two. He was especially interested in "the meaning of life". After meeting two JWs, he asked them if the Bible is in harmony with science. They read Isaiah 40:26 to him:

<< Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing. >>

The scripture intrigued him, but all it really says is that God is really powerful, and he created and can count the stars. The New World Translation's rendering of "dynamic energy" is extremely misleading, because it uses the modern scientific term "energy" to translate a Hebrew word meaning "power". A large bull has much power, but that power simply refers to the fact that it is quite strong. That strength has nothing to do with the modern scientific concept of "energy". So Kotlar was deceived by a deliberately misleading scripture translation.

Kotlar says that "it also seemed reasonable that only an intelligent Source of energy could account for the order in the universe." Obviously he bought the misleading translation and applied it to the modern scientific concept of energy, and went much further by adding the idea of "order" to it.

Awake! asks, "Did your view of evolution change?" Kotlar answers with a classic creationist trope:

<< I gradually realized that the various theories of evolution lacked rigorous scientific proof. In fact, they are basically stories invented to explain how the remarkable designs found within living things, such as the immune system, could originate in a mindless manner. >>

Kotlar continues to confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Nor does he understand how science works. Scientific theories rarely contain "rigorous proof". Rather, they are collections of statements that organize basic facts into comprehensible generalizations of how things behave. After someone proposes some organizing ideas, a hypothesis is set forth. This is tested against new data. If all new data is consistent with the hypothesis, the hypothesis is given more weight in the science community. If the hypothesis is inconsistent with new data, it is rejected, and a new hypothesis might be proposed. Hypotheses must also make correct predictions about what new data will be found. Incorrect predictions result in dropping the hypothesis. After a good deal of time has passed, and the hypothesis has passed all tests, it is given the label "theory of whatever". Thus we have the "theory of gravity", "theory of atoms", "theory of evolution". No such theories are "rigorously proved", but are accepted because they have a great weight of evidence behind them. Thus we have "the theory of evolution" but no "theory of abiogenesis".

Kotlar again shows a gross lack of knowledge of scientific practice by labeling "the various theories of evolution" as mere "stories invented to explain how the remarkable designs found within living things . . . could originate in a mindless manner." Having been tested over and over, the explanations that historically led to the Theory of Evolution are not mere stories, any more than the explanations behind the great weight of evidence for Atomic Theory or Gravitational Theory or the Germ Theory of disease are mere stories.

With such gross incompetence in science as his background, it is no wonder that he finally concluded "that life is a product of an intelligent Creator." But this is again The Argument From Design and The Argument From Personal Incredulity.

We should also note that Kotlar apparently became a JW in the late 1970s, when the Watch Tower Society was teaching that life has existed on the earth for no more than 34,000 years. Since this was a prominent JW teaching at that time, Kotlar was surely aware of it, which speaks volumes about his scientific knowledge and competence as a scientist.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201401/feng-ling-yang-explains-faith/
Feng-Ling Yang
A Microbiologist Explains Her Faith

Yang grew up as a Taoist, and accepted evolution as a matter of course. She had the usual repertoire of questions for which JWs claim to have the only real answers (why is there suffering, selfishness, etc.) but could find no answers until she came into contact with the JWs. She "liked mathematics and was fascinated by the way physical and chemical laws govern the structure of things." She believed "the theory of evolution to be a fact" because she "was taught nothing to the contrary." The JWs gave her the Bible's answers to her questions, including "the purpose of life". She "was impressed by the accuracy of its prophecies" and gradually "became convinced that the Bible is from God." Of course, the JWs gave her no hint of the Bible's many scientific inaccuracies or failed prophecies.

In the late 1990s, Yang read the book Darwin's Black Box by Intelligent Design promoter Michael Behe (Awake! does not inform the reader of these details) and became convinced "that the molecular machines in living cells are so complex that they could not have originated randomly" and so she "felt that life must have been created." Of course, other scientists have thoroughly debunked Behe's claims, showing that his concept of "irreducible complexity" in biology is wrong. In the famous 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania "intelligent design" court case, Behe's claims were thoroughly trashed by expert witnesses who showed that he actually lied in court about various aspects of his claims. The judge concluded that Intelligent Design is not a proper scientific idea but a purely religious one, which has resulted in the gradual decline of the Intelligent Design movement.

Behe, by the way, accepts theistic evolution, and that knowledge is likely why Watch Tower publications have not mentioned him since 2008. Those publications have carefully concealed Behe's acceptance of evolution.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201301/biochemist-interview/
Dr. Paola Chiozzi
A Biochemist Explains Her Faith

In early childhood Chiozzi felt that life was the product of superhuman wisdom, but later doubted God because of her question, "Why would the Creator of so much beauty allow suffering and death?" As a molecular biologist she studied programmed cell death, which somehow convinced her that "this marvelous process was clearly designed by someone who wants us to be healthy." Yet she still was left with the question, "Why do people suffer and die?" When contacted by the JWs, she learned their ideas about "original sin" and concluded that these harmonized with her research: "Since nearly all our cells are regularly replaced, living forever is certainly feasible."

The main problem with this thinking is that it ignores the fact that if programmed cell death due to original sin is what makes people die after 80-some years, and God designed programmed cell death, then God is personally responsible for the fact that mankind dies rather than lives forever. But JWs refuse to think about this, because it means that with one hand God gives life and with the other takes it away, all the while pretending that this is due to some kind of justice. No one besides those indoctrinated in Christianity accepts such blatant nonsense.

Chiozzi accepted that nonsense and became a JW.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201310/davey-loos-science-researcher-explains-faith/
Dr. Davey Loos
A Biochemist Explains His Faith

Here we find an explicit example of where Watch Tower writers deliberately conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Awake! states about Loos:

<< At one time, he doubted the existence of a Creator, believing instead in evolution. Later, he changed his mind. What caused a researcher to reconsider his beliefs about the origin of life? >>

Loos grew up believing in God, but what he learned in college about the origin of living things (natural processes) made it difficult for him "to accept the existence of God." In 1999 a JW gave him a copy of the book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? which he read. Of it he says, "I was impressed by the quality of the research that it presented. I began to wonder if evolution really did explain the designs seen in nature." That speaks volumes about Loos' competence as a scientist, since the book is largely a recap of material from Intelligent Design publications, which are entirely based on The Argument From Design and The Argument From Personal Incredulity, and entirely motivated by Christian religious convictions.

Loos studied photosynthesis in sea-living cyanobacteria, and due to its "marvelous mechanisms" eventually concluded "that life must have been designed by God." Later, the supposed detailed fulfillment of Bible prophecies convinced him that the Bible is from God, and so, by unspecified reasoning processes, he became a JW. He claims that "our faith is not blind faith that ignores the facts of science". But as shown above, that is simply not true.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201511/mathematics-scientist-believe-in-god/
Dr. Gene Hwang
A Mathematician Explains His Faith

Right off the bat, Hwang confuses evolution and abiogenesis: "My school taught the theory of evolution, but no one explained how life itself began." In 1978 he began learning JW teachings. Of the Bible, he says, "I was impressed by its account of how the earth was prepared for human life. The six creative periods described in Genesis, albeit in simple language, seemed to fit the facts." Really "fit the facts"? At that time JWs taught that the creative days of Genesis were 7,000 years long, and that life had existed for no more than 34,000 years. So what "facts" is Hwang talking about? He says, "Still, for many years I did not commit to belief in a Creator."

Eventually Hwang accepted The Argument From Design and became a JW.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201311/eldar-nebolsin-pianist-explains-faith/
Eldar Nebolsin
A Classical Pianist Explains His Faith

Nebolsin's story is essentially that, for emotional reasons, he accepted JW teachings. Apparently, The Argument From Design played a big part.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/viewpoints-origin-of-life/petr-muzny-law-professor/
Petr Muzny
A Law Professor Explains His Faith

Before becoming a JW, Muzny went along with mainstream thinking in accepting evolution. Eventually he decided that The Argument From Design was sufficient to accept the existence of a Creator, which in some unspecified manner led him to become a JW.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201304/i-am-convinced-that-life-was-designed-by-god/
Brett Schenck
“I Am Convinced That Life Was Designed by God”

"A retired environmental consultant in the United States", Schenck studied ecology in college, and later, "the interdependency of plants, animals, and the environment." He always accepted the existence of God and respected the Bible. He also accepted evolution, and so was a theistic evolutionist. He did not think that the Bible came from God, but after some JWs convinced him that the Bible is scientifically accurate, he gradually "became convinced that the Bible is the Word of God." Unfortunately, his example of "scientifically accurate" is Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7, ('circle of the earth' and 'hanging the earth upon nothing') which was thoroughly debunked above. So Schenck obviously did little by way of careful research in this field.

Among other things, Schenck was convinced that the Bible is the Word of God by its "prophecies that had come true", which overall claim was thoroughly debunked above and has been by many commentators. Eventually, he became convinced that evolution is wrong by The Argument From Design and The Argument From Personal Incredulity.

Note that all of the above testimonies are not based on solid facts, but on the emotional appeal of The Argument From Design and/or the refusal to think about solid facts related to The Argument From Personal Incredulity. Watch Tower literature on abiogenesis and evolution is based on similar considerations.

It's interesting that these testimonies come from people who became JWs after getting their technical educations or after becoming famous. This is apparently an example of the Watch Tower Society trying to argue by weight of authority -- always a dangerous game to play.

Apparently Brother Rando thinks that such personal testimonies based largely on false reasonings support his contention that the Bible is the Word of God. Why he does so in the context of the JW religion is a mystery, though, because he rejects certain teachings clearly set out in the Bible and in Watch Tower literature, as shown in the thread https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/42501-1914-problematic-not-at-all/?page=2 . Clearly, Brother Rando is an apostate according to Watch Tower standards, because he rejects certain teachings of the Governing Body and of the Bible.

AlanF

[BroRando]

If I was to call your mother 'a monkey' and your father 'an ape' you would have no objection.  You certainly act in an animalistic manner.  You try to impress with smooth words which are nothing more than a grunt and a shrug.  Yet you claim  (Job 26:7) as a mere fallacy.  I think God's Word is highly intelligent and that offends you.

On 2/19/2018 at 2:03 PM, Brother Rando said:

 “He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing;” (Job 26:7)