Upon arrival at the Jehovah’s Witnesses meeting place, we were greeted warmly with people shaking our hands and trying their hardest to make us welcome. We received a copy of their bible, a hymnal, and a copy of the magazine “ The Watchtower” , which anyone who has J.W missionaries stop by their house is familiar with. We sat near the back, and an elderly man informed us that the speaker had fallen ill and that there would be just a lesson during the service.
The lesson was read out of the magazine, and after each paragraph was read the man who was leading the lesson would ask the congregation questions about it. It was similar to lesson in school were a passage from a text book is read and then the teacher questions the students knowledge. People would raise their hand, and a microphone was handed to them and they would answer the question.
The lesson it self was on hard decisions, or really just decisions in general, and how to make ones that “honor god”. Through out the lesson people shared personal stories, summed up the paragraphs, and read scripture versus. The lesson even detailed a step by step process on how to make decisions. I think this is what religion does for people, it allows them to have step by step instructions for life. In actuality , the advice wasn’t all that bad. Aside from the “ pray for help” bit, the steps were pretty sound. Do not be presumptuous, do research, and other such pieces of advice, that make sense. I think this process and is what makes the Jehovah’s Witness religion appealing. However, I believe one doesn’t need a religion to follow such pieces of advice , nor to talk about your issues with your friends and community.
Now, time to get into some controversy. When talking about decisions and looking to god for answers rather than others the topic of blood transfusions was brought up. I am very opinionated on this subject firstly because both my parents are doctors, secondly I am an atheist, and thirdly I have been in a position before in my life were I have needed a blood transfusion. I would like to say once again I have tremendous respect for religion and religious people, however this belief is absurd. It puts people’s lives in danger, which is worth no amount of faith. Furthermore, biblical evidence for such an assertion is also haphazard. Jehovah’s witnesses point to Leviticus, and Genesis as evidence against blood transfusions, however, the amount of absurd things said in both those books which are not followed by modern day Christians are endless. Leviticus says interesting things about menstruating women ( Lev. 15, 19-31), and how adulterers shall be put to death (Lev. 20, 10) I could continue but I won’t. All this evidence is if I believed in the bible at all, which I don’t making the idea that blood transfusions are wrong to be even more ridiculous.
After the lesson was concluded, some very kind people came up to us, asking our names and why we were there. We received so literature that consisted of, a small book called “ What does the bible really teach” and another one directed at young people, as well as two brochures that were titled “ The Origin of Life” and “ Was life Created” ( I will return to said brochures in a second). A very kind women showed me were they receive donations, and told me none of the Jehovah’s Witness pastors or speakers were paid. She said that if a person feels as if they should they can make a donation, but there is no pressure to do so. I must say I appreciate that part of the religion. Some religions I feel take advantage of their congregation finically and it was nice to see some differentiation.
Now for those brochures. I believe in evolution, not because I am an atheist, but I believe in it for the same reason I believe in gravity. It is fact. After thoroughly reading the brochures, I have come up with a summery of what they said, as well as other creationist arguments. I will attempt to repudiate them all, keep in mind I have a grade 11 biology education and I am by no means a scientist.
- Design in nature is so similar to that of design by man
- Physical evidence for evolution , such as fossils and genetic coding, is invalid because it shows no real connections between species
- Genetic mutations cannot bring rise to new species
- The earth and nature are so beautiful and complex, they must have been a product of some intelligent designer .
- How can the earth and life have been created from nothing?
The first point is that human made products are similar to processes used in the natural world. This disproves evolution? How? Yes spiders make a kind of thread, as do humans, hence forth evolution by natural selection does not exist? Humans and dragonflies both use compound lenses is an example given. Dragonflies have compound lenses has a way of seeing, and have developed said lenses as a means of survival. Humans have developed compound lenses to use in motion detectors. Just because something can be retrospectively designed, doesn’t mean it was designed in the first place. It just means that modern day man has taken inspiration from nature
The second point is that some how physical evidence for evolution is invalid because it shows no connection between organisms. Well this is just wrong , there is no other way to say it. The brochures state that because fossils are taken from periods of time that differ between millions of years, that connections cannot be made and that any similarities are merely speculation. Morphological similarities between species, and the development of these species are evident in the fossil record. One can see with the development between different kinds of jaw shapes in early hominids. Early hominids had jaws with larger teeth for ripping meat, and as agriculture became apparent humans developed grinding molars suitable for chewing vegetation. This is one of the many examples I can pull from to show there is in fact evidence for evolution in the fossil record.
The third point concerns genetic mutations, and the brochure postulates that macroevolution relies on the concept that mutations make brand new species. This, once again, is very wrong. Mutations’ role in natural selection is that when a trait which is favorable occurs it remains prominent among a population because said organism reproduces and passes along this trait, where as when a negative mutation occur said organism dies out and does not reproduce making this trait disappear from the gene pool. No one has ever said that one single genetic mutation has led to the rise of an entirely new species. It is think like this that has led to statements by creationist such as “ how can a dog give birth to a cat?” It is a sad argument of the willfully ignorant.
One of the most common argument that creationist always use is that the nature and life is so complex that there must have been a designer. I heard once a great analogy to disprove this assertion, and I will link the video if I can find it. Let us look at a car. It appears as if it has been designed, it has complex processes such an engine that could not have just sprung up willy-nilly . Yes at the surface a car has been designed, but really it has been base on previous innovation starting with the invention of the wheel. At one point someone realized that you can move objects more easily if you roll them on logs or other circular objects, after that the innovation of the axel allowed for even easy transport, that evolved into some kind of cabin being added , then horses to drawn carriages, then is really took of with invention of the combustion engine. So yes a car is designed, but it also based on previous innovation. The same is accurate in biology, organisms adapt to their environment over long amounts of time giving the appearance of design.
How can the earth and life been created from nothing? This question infuriates atheists because firstly it combines both biology and physics to entirely different fields, and it is an over simplistic questions that trivializes one of larger questions in science. I am about to enter metaphysics land, I hope I can get you to follow, it makes my mind explode as well. This argument was also taken from another atheist thinker who I will link. So there are two types of creation, ex materia, and ex nihlo. Ex materia is creation from previously existing materials, this kind of creation is the only kind we have seen on earth, where as ex nihlo is creation from nothing. In order for something to exist it needs a creator with the intent to create, materials in which to create said object, as well as the actual action of creation. Theists will say that atheists say that the universe was created ex nihlo, but in actuality they are saying this themselves. Though there is a creator in their theory, the neglect what god mad the universe out of, there was no previous material in which created the universe , hence theists are also arguing for the “ something out of nothing” fallacy. We do not know how the first matter on earth came about, physics hasn’t gotten there yet. I am content in saying “ I don’t know” rather than just saying the magical words that take the mystery out of everything “ god did it”
I hadn’t planned on going on that rant, but I knew it was going to come up eventually, and with the brochures that were given to me I just couldn’t help myself.
I know I will be hearing form these people soon, which I actually look forward to. I learned a lot today about a religion I knew very little about, and I enjoyed it very much
No comments:
Post a Comment