Whom Should You Believe?

What Does Nature Teach?

Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?

An Interview with a Biochemist

Is Evolution a Fact?

Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?

Why We Believe in a Creator

Intriguing Patterns in Plants

How Can I Defend my Belief in Creation?

Does it Matter What You Believe?

Whom Should You Believe?

This short (1 page) article introduces the reader to the articles in the magazine. It also introduces the reader to what the JW organization wants the reader to think. It asks “Whom Should You Believe?” implying that belief in a creator and in creation is just a matter of who you believe; analyzing scientific data and drawing conclusions from it is not the way to go. They point out that a majority of people “believe that God created the Universe,” implying that the reader should also believe this way if they want to conform. Of course, it is the old fallacy that “If people believe it, it must be true!” Utter nonsense.

The article points out that “almost 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayer.” In reality, the biologists and physicists believe a lot less than that; the mathematicians, i.e., non-scientists, believe by a higher percentage. Even so, the majority of this group does NOT believe is such a God. Why don’t they express it that way? Of course, it is because they want to slant what is being said in their favor. Again, they use the “If people believe it, it must be true!” fallacy.

The article invites the reader to “investigate some of the evidence yourself.” (But of course, the only evidence presented is the slanted articles in the reader’s hand.) The article tells readers to not “let others tell you what you are allowed to think and believe.” It is good to investigate the evidence, but, will the evidence presented in this magazine be correct? We will see.

What Does Nature Teach?

The article starts by quoting Job 12:7,8, which says that the reader can observe animals, and they will “instruct you.” The article then talks about tubercles on whale fins and seagull wings and points out their supposedly excellent “design.” The article claims that scientists are observing animals to learn to improve aircraft wings, in a field called “biomimetics.” Hairlike structures on a gecko’s feet are claimed to have inspired scientists to make a “gecko tape” for “medical applications where chemical adhesives cannot be used.” The article then asks “Who deserves the credit?” for these ideas.

The article quotes Microbiologist Michael Behe, who noted “strong appearance of design [in nature].” The article then asks “Does it seem logical to you, then, for highly trained researchers who crudely mimic systems in nature to solve difficult engineering problems to attribute the genius of devising the original idea to unintelligent evolution?...Really, who deserves more credit, the master artist or the student who imitates his technique?” The article implies that functional aspects of animals were “designed,” and that it was not evolution, because evolution is “unintelligent.” But, what proof do they show for this? None.

The article concludes that a logical conclusion for “many thinking people” should be that God designed these things to be as they are. But the only proof provided for this is a bible verse, Psalm 104:24.

Instinctively Wise Navigators

A side panel talks about ants and birds as “navigators.” Pharaoh ants lay down “scent marker trails” that other ants can follow to get back to the nest. These trails extend from the nest at angles of 50 to 60 degrees. Birds can navigate by sensing magnetic direction and by noting the sun’s position at sunset. The side panel then asks “Who programmed the ant with an understanding of geometry? Who provided birds with a compass, a biological clock, and a brain capable of interpreting the information those instruments provide? Unintelligent evolution? Or an intelligent Creator?” Again, they only beg the question. They again call evolution “unintelligent.” There is no evidence given to support the point. The article asks “Who provided animals with these abilities?”, implying that there is a personality behind the “design.” The article is highly slanted in favor of intelligent design.

Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?

In this article, the author immediately presents the fallacy that evolution involves the origin on life. Of course, evolution does not address the origin of life at all. Most Christians don’t realize this, and the article doesn’t educate the reader on this reality at all. In fact, the article defines evolution as “the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions.” This definition is wrong. The accepted definition for evolution is that it is the change in animal and plant life over time as a result of random mutation and natural selection. It does not address the origin of life. The process of life originating from non-organic matter is called Abiogenesis. Evolution is completely separate from Abiogenesis. It is amazing that the writer of this article purposefully keeps the reader ignorant of this reality.

In the article, the writer does not accept any allegorical interpretation of Genesis. He views Adam as having really been the first man created by God. The author says frankly, “Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible,” and “When the Bible touches on history, health, and science, its accounts have repeatedly been proved reliable.” But none of the article addresses the major discrepancies between scientific realities and what the bible says.

An Interview with a Biochemist

This article is an interview with biochemist Michael Behe, who wrote the book Darwin’s Black Box – The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Generally, Mr. Behe’s view is that “complex functional arrangements” in nature imply purposeful design. But he and the article give no proof for this conjecture.

In the article, Mr. Behe talks in a vague way about “complex molecular machines” and claims that “Nobody has made a serious attempt… that explains how such molecular machines arose by Darwinian processes.” So, for him, a supposed lack of evidence is proof of non-existence. Some scientist, indeed!

Is Evolution a Fact?

This article introduces the concept of “macroevolution,” i.e., the evolution of an organism into another species, as opposed to “microevolution,” the idea that organisms do change over time, but not to the point of a species change. Darwin, and most modern scientists, do not draw a distinction, and agree that both occur. This article, however, claims that macroevolution never occurs.

The author points out that scientists tried in the 1930s to irradiate plants to induce mutations, with the hope that a mutation would provide a more desirable trait in the plant. What they found was that almost all mutations made the plant worse in some way. Then, the author concludes that their failure proves that mutations cannot make a more desirable trait. Again, a false reasoning is used, that lack of proof is proof that the concept is wrong. Science doesn’t work that way. There are many possible explanations for why the irradiation tests failed to provide more desirable traits. The test may have been too short. It may have been that they did not test enough plants to finally get the one positive result. In nature, we understand that most mutations give bad results. But those resulting plants die and don’t reproduce. It’s the mutations, however unlikely, that result in more favorable characteristics that give the plant a greater chance to survive and reproduce. The mutation in these plants then carries on to the next generation. After many generations of such changes, evolution occurs.

Furthermore, evolution from one species to another occurs over thousands to millions of years. A species change in an experiment that is only a few years long would be highly unlikely. But, of course, the author says that the failure to produce a new species is the proof that species change does not occur. To draw this conclusion is just really bad science.

The author appears to delight in calling evolution “unintelligent.” He apparently thinks that “intelligence” is necessary for any positive genetic change to occur. This is not true. Scientific analysis has proven that genetic changes often occur from generation to generation. It should be obvious that some changes, however infrequent, will give a more beneficial result to the organism. There does not have to be any “intelligence” in the process.

The author makes some wild statements that are just wrong. For example, he says, “Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record [of fossils] shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.” I suppose he is referring to the Cambrian explosion, although he does not specifically say so. The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of complex multi-cellular organisms between roughly 542 and 530 million years ago. More recent analysis of the micro-fossil record reveals that there was plenty of evolution before the Cambrian period that led up to the more complex organisms of the Cambrian period. Micro-fossils were not detected in the 19th century due to limitations in technology and lack of interest in the early development of small organisms. Another major factor that influenced the Cambrian explosion is that global warming occurred just before the Cambrian period, which allowed much more plant life, which resulted in much more oxygen in the atmosphere. Metazoans utilized this oxygen via respiration for the first time in the Cambrian period.

The author further states in a summary box that, “According to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged.” The whole statement is patently false. The fossil record indicates that animals changed over time. For example, earlier dinosaurs went extinct while later dinosaurs started up. The horse did not start until 10 million years after the last dinosaur went extinct. One animal in particular, man, has only been around for a few 100 thousand years. The change in animals over time has been well documented by scientists. Even in the past 5000 years, we have seen the change over time of wolves into the domesticated dog. (That subject, in itself, is fascinating. The reader is encouraged to study it. There were no Chihuahuas or French Poodles 5000 years ago.)

This article, as it turned out, is the main article of the magazine. The author tries to convince the reader that all animals and plants appeared suddenly and did not significantly change over time, thus implying that God created them. The article is grossly negligent in acknowledging all of the fossil evidence that indicates that species started and ended at many various times throughout the last 250 million years. The article, to me, was preposterous. Wrong information is being taught here, with the ultimate purpose of bringing people into the bondage of the Jehovah’s Witness religion. People deserve to understand that this information is wrong. Articles like this should be vigorously and thoroughly opposed.

Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?

In this article, the author explains the biblical view (according to Jehovah Witnesses) of the creation of the universe, animals, and man. The author agrees with geologists that the earth is about 4 billion years old. The author claims that the “days” of creation in Genesis are not 24 hour periods. The author claims that the creation of plants and animals in Genesis was not an evolution.

The article draws a distinction in different types of animal, using the biblical word “kind.” The claim is that God created different “kinds” of animals, and they may have changed a little over time to adapt to their environment, but that they still didn’t change into another “kind.” But, of course, they don’t say what a “kind” is, or how it relates to species, so it’s rather hard to distinguish exactly what is being claimed. Even so, the author claims that there has been no change in “kind” from the “kind” of animals that God originally created. This, of course, denies the reality already determined through careful analysis of the fossil record, namely, that animals evolved from lower orders of life.

Why We Believe in a Creator

This article gives several opinions of various Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, they all say that God created the animals, and that there is no change over time into new species. Some of them are even scientists who deny evolution, saying that the biblical account of the creation is accurate. If these people really do claim what is said in the article, they are very rare exceptions. The vast majority of scientists would say that evolution is real and is supported by a vast amount of evidence.

Intriguing Patterns in Plants

This article points out that some plants have an interesting shape. The author tries to imply that patterns in plants imply an “intelligent designer.” Of course, they do not. Patterns in plants can be caused by many things, like the direction of sunlight, genetic structure, and the direction that cells move when they divide, etc. The argument in the article is very weak.

How Can I Defend My Belief in Creation?

In this article, the author assumes that the reader is now a creationist (probably as a result of reading the lies in the previous articles) and offers suggestions on how to defend the belief in creation. Quoting from several Jehovah’s Witnesses, he says that you can do one of several things to defend your beliefs, such as:

1.  Consider the complexity of the world around us, and assume that complexity implies design.

2.  Accept that “having a spiritual side,” having appreciation for beauty and having a desire to learn are not characteristics required to survive, so they must come from a god.

The author tells the reader, if confronted by an evolutionist, to ask him to ‘prove’ evolution. If they can’t do it, evolution must not be true.

The author does acknowledge a few realities. He admits that the earth is billions of years old, and that plants and animals came into existence over a period of more than just one 24-hour period.

The author claims that Christians should be strong in their beliefs on creation, because the bible says it’s so. In one paragraph, he rather skillfully uses multiple fallacies to make his point to students:

“There is no reason to feel awkward or ashamed because you believe in creation. Considering the evidence, it’s entirely reasonable – indeed scientific – to believe that we are the product of intelligent design. In the end it is really evolution – not creation – that requires a huge leap of faith and miracles without a miracle maker. In fact, after considering the other articles in this issue of Awake! no doubt you will be convinced that the evidence supports creation. And once you have thought the matter through using your power of reason, you will feel more confident about defending your belief in the classroom.”

That paragraph is remarkable. He says to “consider the evidence,” but the only evidence presented is “the other articles in this issue of Awake!”, which is not evidence at all; it is a pack of lies. He calls intelligent design “reasonable” and “scientific,” when it is neither. And, as the ultimate insult to reason, he claims that “once you have thought the matter through using your power of reason,” you will be convinced of biblical creation. This may sound reassuring to a reader, but it is not factual at all! Reason requires analysis of the facts, and the facts of evolution are not presented in the article!

Does It Matter What You Believe?

In this article, the author recognizes that if Evolution is true, the bible is just wrong about the supposed creation by God of all plants, animals and people. And, if the bible is wrong, the “ultimate meaning of life is nonexistent” and there is no god that intervenes in human affairs. This is presented as an unthinkable, scary and unacceptable view. So, the author concludes that there must be a god, the bible must be right, and evolution must be wrong.

The idea of evolution clearly causes the author to be uncomfortable. It appears that he would much prefer to live in the cocoon of his beliefs where he (falsely) feels safe and protected. He, in effect, is trapped by his own beliefs; he will not accept an alternative because it is too scary for him, and he just does not have the courage to live in a world without his imaginary god to comfort him.

Such a person will remain trapped in his beliefs, probably for the rest of his life. It takes courage to consider the ramifications of the bible being wrong, and apparently, some people just don’t have the courage to even consider it.

In conclusion, the September 2006 issue of Awake! magazine offers no evidence for evolution when there is abundant evidence in modern science for it, and offers opinions and false arguments in favor of intelligent design. It may be interesting to analyze the false arguments to see how they can be used to dupe some people, but the magazine, in general, is absolutely worthless in providing correct knowledge of these matters, and it does a great disservice to humanity by providing wrong information. Furthermore, the magazine may dupe less-informed people into believing its falsehoods, so that they are further trapped in the Jehovah’s Witness religion.

Opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent 
the opinions of the Atlanta Freethought Society.