Religion vs Atheism! Bwahahahahahahahah

[Simon Moon]

Sure they would, all of these things are ad hoc rationalizations as to why what is manifestly apparent in reality is not true.  I think you misunderstand the belief I'm referring to.  They have..for decades now (if not centuries)..pegged the truth of their religion on reality being, somehow, false.  

You might think that evolutionary biology leaves room for a god - but it doesn't leave room for the god they believe in, which is a god defined by it's directly contradictory claims to the facts of biology, and their claims would be materially false were biology.. : snickers : ..A Fact.  There's a reason that some religions (or sub-cults, if you prefer) expend so much effort and cash trying to memory whole this stuff..and it isn't because it poses no threat to their specific beliefs, not even in their own minds.

Consider them as normal people, meaningfully the same as you and I or steve, using the same coping methods for the same ends as the rest of us.  Just as I have to find a way to continue trudging along in the face of evidence to the contrary with respect to my belief in american greatness and exceptionalism, they have to find a way to trudge along with the plain and apparent facts of biology - which jw's do value as contemporary westerners..in the main, that stand in contradiction to what they wish to assert is true.

It would be easier, ofc, to assert a continued belief in an intervening god and concede that biology is not an area that god intervenes in..but that's not their claim, that's not consistent with their religious beliefs...and therein lies the trouble, for them.  A special creator that doesn't specially create is about as cogent (theologically) as a christ who doesn't redeem.

I had a girlfriend when I was at University who was studying the phylogenetic evolution of a species of sea birds. Her masters degree had her gather samples from all around the world (sent to her by researchers), and she had access to equipment which allowed her to sequence these samples and show a very clear relationship and evolutionary path demonstrating that this species of bird has evolved a) differently in different parts of the world from a common ancestor, and b) clearly migrated around the globe in a particular pattern. It was a fascinating thesis.

At the time I also worked with a very religious man in my holiday job, who did not believe in evolution and we had many conversations on this topic. The upshot was that he simply did not believe that her research was real, or demonstrated the clearly very evident results. They were at times ridiculous circular conversations and it was hard for me not to get angry at the sheer ignorance, arrogance and stubbornness of the man. When presented with evidence his mind completely went into full blown denial mode - simply discounting the facts since they disagreed with his beliefs.

Richard Dawkins tells a story (I believe it is in his book, "The Greatest Show on Earth") about a colleague on an air flight back to the US from South America. He and the gentleman sitting next to him strike a up a conversation, where the guy asks Dawkins' friend what he was doing in South America. He said he was returning from studying fish.

The guy wants to hear more, so Dawkin's friend says, they were studying the color patterns on the fish. He said that fish in one part of the river that had small stones on the bottom, seemed to have patterns that had small spots. Where the same species in another part of the river that had larger stones, had patterns with larger spots.

Of course, the speculation was that the fish had color patterns that allowed them to blend in better, depending on stone size. So, they took fish from one part of the river, to a part with different size stones, and within just a few generations, the patters on the fish began to match the stone size in that part of the river, due to environmental pressures.

The guy said it was fascinating, and it made complete sense. He asked Dawkins' friend, what field of science it was he studied, and he answered, "evolutionary biology". The guy immediately shut down, stopped talking, and ignored Dawkins' friend for the rest of the flight.