|
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC, New York
Posts: 114
|
One religion's view of evolution
I offically belong to the Jehovah's Witness religion (in name only), and as a fundamentalist religion, they believe in the literalness of the Genesis story. They believe man was only created about 6,000 years ago, though the earth itself may be billions of years old (a strange combo of beliefs). Anyway, I was looking through some of the books they produce for a certain unrelated topic, but came upon one about evolution. This article pretty much sums up their position today, even though it was written in 1971. There's no point in talking to JW's about evolution, because most feel the sentiments expressed in this article. Of course it's silly, but most of my family believes this stuff  . Anyway, here it is (it's taken from The Watchtower magazine):
Quote:
*** w71 1/15 46-51 Evolution Undermines Faith ***
Evolution Undermines Faith
THE teaching of evolution is not designed to build
faith in God. It does not encourage one to view the
Bible with deep respect. So it comes as a surprise to
some persons when they realize that large numbers of
the clergy of Christendom freely endorse evolution and
that it is advocated in the textbooks used in their
church-supported schools.
2 As to the development of this trend in the Roman
Catholic Church, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“In 1950 the encyclical Humani generis [issued by Pope
Pius XII] marked the starting point of a new
development . . . evolution was expressly recognized
as a valid hypothesis.” In line with this, A.
Hulsbosch, a seminary teacher in Holland and a member
of the Order of St. Augustine, has said: “We can no
longer deny that, on the biological side, man
originates in the animal kingdom.” And Peter
Schoonenberg, S. J., a visiting professor at Duquesne
University, a Catholic school, wrote: “When we now
consider the genesis of the human species we meet with
the lowest grade of parenthood, for the first men had
no human but animal ‘parents.”’ However, this is in
direct conflict with the Bible, which plainly states
that Adam was the “son of God” and that he was made
‘in the image’ of God.—Luke 3:38; Gen. 1:26.
3 These Catholic teachers of evolution are not passive
about it, but want to make sure that their students
have it thoroughly impressed on their minds. This is
indicated by the fact that the preface of one edition
of the biology textbook used at Iona (Catholic)
College says: “The most general principle of all in
biology is evolution. Most treatments of the subject
make such a statement, but fail in conviction that it
is really true. . . . In this book we have tried to
make evolution as pervasive as it really is in the
world of life. Every topic has its evolutionary
background and aspects.” Can there be any doubt as to
how such instruction affects the students? Not long
ago U.S. News & World Report, when featuring “Growing
Unrest in the Catholic Church,” said: “A St. Louis
priest estimated that 25 per cent of his Catholic
students definitely doubted the existence of God and
another 25 per cent were agnostics. Notre Dame
University officials were taken aback recently when a
graduate complained that ‘as I was exposed to the best
that Notre Dame had to offer, I grew farther and
farther away from Christianity.’”
4 It is not only the Roman Catholic Church that, by
its support of evolution, is undermining faith in God
and his Word. The Protestant churches are doing the
same. In a letter dated “18 October, 1949,” the
archbishop of Canterbury freely said: “The Christian
Church as a whole has accepted the theory of evolution
as scientifically established.” In the noted
Protestant publication The Christian Century, Dr. Paul
Holmer, professor of theology at Yale University
divinity school, writes: “I confess to deep
appreciation of the talents and labors that have made
evolution a prevailing scientific conclusion in our
time.” It should be kept in mind that, when these
writers refer to evolution, they do not mean simply
the fact that there is variety in life forms or that
land areas undergo change as a result of the forces
that work on them; they are talking about the origin
of man and other living things. The Protestant
Interpreter’s Bible bluntly stated their view in this
way: “The reptile was content to stay in the swamp;
man wanted to climb out of it. He had and still has
primitive instincts against which he must struggle,
for he began on the plane of the animal; but he has
not been content to dwell there.”
5 Despite such statements, some clergymen contend that
they are not repudiating the Bible. But on what basis?
A. Hulsbosch, of Holland, claims: “The earthly man
taken as a whole is a two-sided being; on the
biological side he is related to the animal, and on
the personal he is the image of God.” In this way the
body is viewed as a product of evolution, but there is
said to be another part of man that did not evolve. On
this point, Rudolph Bandas, a member of the Roman
Pontifical Academy of Theology, has written: “The soul
is outside the process of evolution. The soul is
rational, simple, spiritual and immortal—it cannot
evolve out of mere animal life.” Similarly, Raymond
Nogar, a Catholic priest, in his book The Wisdom of
Evolution, says: “Biologically, man like the lynx, is
a special kind of animal. He belongs in the animal
kingdom with all the rest of the animals. . . . The
soul of man (and woman) was created immediately by God
and is spiritual and immortal.” Those who make such
statements are either grossly ignorant of the
Scriptures or they are deliberately deceptive.
6 The Bible makes no allowance for biological relation
of man to animals. As to fleshly organisms, the
apostle Paul was inspired by the Creator to write:
“Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of
mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and
another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” (1 Cor.
15:39) Nor is it possession of a “soul” that makes man
differ from the animals. The Bible shows that animals
are souls even as men are souls. (Gen. 1:21, 24; Lev.
24:18; Num. 31:28) Furthermore, the Scriptures do not
say that when God formed Adam and gave him life, God
gave man a soul, but, rather, that man “came to be a
living soul,” that “Adam became a living soul.” (Gen.
2:7; 1 Cor. 15:45) Thus man himself is a soul. So, if,
as the clergy say, the soul did not evolve, then man
did not evolve.
7 In their endeavors to fit the Bible in with the
theory of evolution, it is common for clergymen to
argue that the Bible account about Adam is simply an
allegory, a parable, but not historical fact. Says
Dutch Jesuit Trooster: “Let us first of all become
completely aware that the story of paradise is not
history in our modern sense of the word.” He reasons
that Adam here was not “the first man” but that he
represents every man, and that every man, though he
has the opportunity for communion with God, commits
his own act that alienates him from God. But the Bible
does not allow for this view either. Adam is said to
be “the first man,” not every man. (1 Cor. 15:45) The
Bible writer Luke lists Adam along with seventy-four
other men in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke
3:23-38) If one was simply allegorical, what about the
rest? Also, Jude, a half brother of Jesus, wrote that
Enoch was “the seventh one in line from Adam,” but
Enoch certainly was not the seventh in line from every
man. (Jude 14) And Genesis 5:3 says that Adam fathered
a son by the name Seth at the age of a hundred and
thirty years. Is that true of every man? Of course
not! By accepting evolution as fact, and seeking to
interpret the Bible to fit evolution, they are
downgrading God’s Word and exalting materialistic
“science.”
8 Whether they are aware of it or not, religious
advocates of evolution thus join hands with atheistic
communists whose avowed aim is to root out faith in
God. Karl Marx was so pleased with Darwin’s work on
evolution that he wrote him a letter asking permission
to dedicate the English edition of Das Kapital (called
“the bible of the Communist movement”) to him. Openly
a ninth-year school textbook published in the Soviet
Union declares: “The study of the laws of evolution of
the organic world assists in the working out of the
materialistic conception . . . In addition, this
teaching arms us for the antireligious struggle, by
giving us the materialistic interpretation of the
appearance of purpose in the organic world, and at the
same time proving the origin of man from lower
animals.” Additionally, an essay by evolutionist
Julian S. Huxley on “Darwin and the Idea of Evolution”
states: “To begin with, if evolution is accepted as a
fact, much of the theological framework of the world’s
major religions is destroyed, or is conveniently . . .
represented as significant myth.” Yet, the clergy are
out front in proclaiming that evolution is a fact and
that the Bible accounts are merely myth. Why do they
do it?
9 It is not that evolution is solidly founded on fact.
At the conclusion of a recent UNESCO conference in
Paris, France, a published news report announced: “The
only certainty about the origins of modern man (homo
sapiens) is that they are ‘uncertain.”’ And the book
Creation and Evolution, by Ulrich A. Hauber, a
Catholic monsignor whose publication bears the
imprimatur of the bishop of Davenport, acknowledges
the uncertainty of it, saying: “The theory of
evolution does not explain all the facts, it seems to
run counter to some of them.” Despite this, he goes on
to say: “But it is an eminently reasonable theory.”
Plainly these religious spokesmen have fallen into the
trap against which the Bible warns: “Look out: perhaps
there may be someone who will carry you off as his
prey through the philosophy and empty deception
according to the tradition of men, according to the
elementary things of the world and not according to
Christ.” (Col. 2:8) Their choosing evolution in
preference to the Word of God is because they want to
be acceptable to the world, really a part of the
world. Even the scientific community realizes this. As
reported in Le Monde et la Vie, March 1964, a French
biologist and professor of zoology at Strasbourg
University, said: “I am well aware that the most
stubborn supporters of evolution are nowadays
recruited among priests, monks and every kind of
clerical dignitaries; they thus believe that they put
themselves in the know.” But in so doing they also
make it plain that they are not disciples of Jesus
Christ, who said that his followers would be “no part
of the world.”—John 17:16.
10 They give their support to evolution, not because
it is fact, but because their desire to be acceptable
to the world far outweighs their love of the truth. (2
Thess. 2:9-12) This is also true of many scientists.
Their education gives them status in the world, and if
they want to be well thought of in the world they go
along with what is popular. Just as the Bible’s moral
standards are not popular in worldly circles, so, too,
belief that man was created by God and so is obligated
to conform to those standards is not popular. Thus
personal pride coupled with fear of man becomes a
snare to them, and it is the Devil who lays that
snare.—Rev. 12:9; 2 Cor. 4:4.
11 In April of 1969 it was reported in the New York
Post that the governing body of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States had also gone on record as
endorsing evolution. They took the position that “it
is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as
a scientific description of creation.” Opponents of
the report that was presented for adoption strenuously
argued for the literal truthfulness of the book of
Genesis and denied that it was compatible with the
theory of evolution. One of them declared: “We make
serious accusations against the integrity of the
Apostles and Jesus Christ himself if we accept the
theory of evolution.” Nevertheless, another speaker
rose and declared: “I am a geologist and I would like
to bring to the Assembly the established fact that
evolution exists and that no action by this General
Assembly can rescind this fact.” In whom did that
religious body express its faith—the Creator, who made
all things, or men who have studied some of God’s
handiwork but who say that they know more about it
than God? To their shame they overwhelmingly voted in
favor of imperfect men and their theory of
evolution.—Ps. 40:4, 5.
12 About four years earlier, Le Figaro, a Paris daily,
in its religious news of June 15, 1965, took note of
an event of similar significance. It reported that the
general of the Jesuit order, Pedro Arrupe, in his talk
following his induction and in which he defined the
new policy of this religious body, said they would put
emphasis on the knowledge of the books of Jesuit
evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin. “The importance of
this declaration,” notes Le Figaro, “is stressed by
the fact that there is no doubt in the clerical
circles of Rome that ‘Father’ Arrupe’s point of view
completely harmonizes with the sovereign Pontiff’s.”
That this news report was no misinterpretation of
matters is evident from the facts, already examined,
showing that Catholic spokesmen definitely are among
the foremost advocates of this faith-destroying dogma.
13 To those who professed to worship the true God but
whose devotion was merely a matter of tradition,
Jehovah issued a strong rebuke through his prophet
Isaiah: “Woe to those who are going very deep in
concealing counsel from Jehovah . . . The perversity
of you men! Should the potter himself be accounted
just like the clay? For should the thing made say
respecting its maker: ‘He did not make me’? And does
the very thing formed actually say respecting its
former: ‘He showed no understanding’?” That rebuke
applies with equal force today to the clergy of
Christendom for their “perversity” in concealing the
truth of God’s Word and denying the works of God.—Isa.
29:15, 16.
RESULTS OF BELIEF IN EVOLUTION
14 The whole process that undermines one’s faith
starts with what seems to many people to be such a
small thing: simply taking the position that a portion
of the first book of the Bible is not strictly
historical. But if the account of creation, and
consequently what is said there about Adam and Eve, is
not historical, what is it? “Myth,” replies the United
Church of Canada. As the Jesuit writer S. Trooster put
it: “We must even bear in mind that Adam as ancestor
has been as artificially invented as other legendary
tribal ancestors.” Now, if a person is willing to
accept that viewpoint, is that all there is to it? Can
one go right on believing the rest of the Bible?
15 By his accepting the philosophies of men in
preference to the Word of God on even this one point
he will find that the stage has been set for the
complete ruin of his faith. Why so? Because Jesus
Christ quoted the Genesis account concerning Adam and
Eve as historical fact, referring to it at the same
time that he talked about Moses, who was also a
genuine historical person. (Matt. 19:3-9) Jesus’
apostle Paul, who wrote fourteen books of the
Christian Greek Scriptures, likewise showed in his
writings that he believed in the literal truthfulness
of those early chapters of Genesis. (1 Tim. 2:13, 14)
The same is true of the Christian Bible writers Luke
and Jude. (Luke 3:38; Jude 14) A willingness to go
along with the idea that part of Genesis is “myth” or
“artificially invented” legend thus leads one to the
conclusion that Jesus Christ was deluded and that his
apostles too were in error. It thus becomes obvious
that one who is willing to accept the currently
popular viewpoint of many of the clergy concerning
Genesis is having his faith seriously undermined.
16 Of course, if a person allows evolution to guide
his thinking and classifies the Scripture record of
creation as “unhistorical,” it means that he does not
believe that Adam broke God’s law, as reported in
Genesis chapter 3. Nor does he believe that mankind is
born in sin because of the transgression of Adam. It
is not only outright atheists who say they do not
believe in these Bible teachings. Says Newsweek of
August 22, 1966: “Canadian Jesuit Biblicist Father
David Stanley points out, . . . ‘If you accept
evolution, Adam . . . was only a primate. The myth of
a fall doesn’t fit at all.”’ Also, the book Evolution
and the Doctrine of Original Sin, published in 1968
with the imprimatur of the archbishop of Newark, takes
the same view. It first states the fundamental Bible
belief that “every human being begins his life in a
sinful state because of the sin of Adam,” but then
adds: “Those who take the scientific doctrine of
evolution seriously can no longer accept this
traditional presentation.” And the book shows that its
author definitely does take that “doctrine of
evolution” seriously. So seriously does he take it
that he is willing to mold his viewpoint of the entire
Bible to conform to it.
17 Now, how does this affect one’s attitude toward the
ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Belief in the sin of
the first man Adam is directly related to belief in
the ransom, as the apostle Paul explains at
considerable length in his inspired letter to the
Roman Christians. (Rom. 5:12-19) And to the Corinthian
congregation he wrote: “Since death is through a man,
resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For
just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ
all will be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:21, 22) Obviously,
when clergymen classify as “myth” what the Bible says
about the reason for the ransom, they sow seeds of
doubt about validity of the ransom itself. The 1970
edition of World Book Encyclopedia, in its article on
evolution, realistically observes: “The reality of
sin, and of redemption from sin, is held to be
essential to the Christian faith. But if man is in the
process of evolving from a lower state, sin tends to
become mere imperfection, and the Gospel of redemption
from the guilt of sin tends to lose all meaning.” When
that has happened, where is one’s faith? It is gone.
18 If you are a member of one of the churches of
Christendom, some of the things that you have read
here may have come as a shock to you. You may feel
that your minister is different, that he does not
believe and teach such things. But would it not be
wise to find out? Ask him whether he believes that the
Bible account of Adam and Eve is historical fact. If
he says that he does not, then you know that he
disagrees with Jesus Christ and the inspired writers
of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Ask whether he
accepts the teaching of evolution. If he does, it
makes little difference whether he professes to
believe in Jesus Christ as mankind’s ransomer, because
such belief has no meaning if man is evolving, moving
upward; it only has meaning to one who recognizes that
the first man, by disobedience, fell into sin. What
will you do if you find that the minister of your
church endorses evolution? Will you stay with him, as
a follower of man? He cannot give you eternal life.
But God can, and he will if you exercise faith in his
provision for eternal life through his Son Jesus
Christ and if you carry on worship now in association
with those who worship him “with spirit and
truth.”—John 4:24.
[Footnotes]
God in Creation and Evolution, 1965, p. vii.
God’s World in the Making, 1964, pp. 55, 56.
Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin, p. 43.
|
Any comments?
[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: crownboy ]</p>
|
07-05-2002, 03:53 PM
