A History of the Watchtower’s Opposition to Organic Evolution

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

Originally published in the JW Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, Spring, 1997 pp. 3-13.

Introduction

Creationism is a critically important doctrine in Watchtower theology. The basis of their theology is the belief that God created humans and all life and can recreate a person again in the resurrection. If evolution is true God is at best a bystander who is impotent or does not exist. The Watchtower has consistently opposed human evolution from their very beginning, and evolution of animals from the 1930’s on. The first booklet on the subject was published in 1912 (Russell 1912) and the latest is a 255 page hardback that so far has been published in 27 languages and almost 30 million copies.

Evolution touches on Watchtower theology in many areas. The Society taught that before the fall of Adam, animals were not carnivorous because they were not created carnivorous and became so only later due to humankinds’ fall. One Watchtower article even implied that carnivorous animals not only did not exist before the garden of eden fall but existed only after the flood of Noah. In support of this theory the Watchtower once taught that “the wolf and the jackal [could] have originated from dogs that had gone wild instead of the reverse” (Miner 1925: 404).

The early history of the Watchtower’s teaching on the Creation-Evolution Controversy 

Surprising to many is some of the Watchtower’s early major compromises on evolution. Russell taught that, although mankind was a special creation of God the animals may not be.

Many of the blind devotees of Science, bent upon ignoring the power, and, if possible, the very existence of the divine Creator, attempt to account for all things by so-called laws of nature. They seize upon the great variety in nature and the evident relationship between some of its parts as evidence, proof, that they all sprang from one source. The definite objects of their attack are man and the Scriptural declaration that he was the special creation of God. Their particular desire is to disprove this Scriptural statement, and hence they construct a theory of Evolution as respects plant and animal life and fit this to man, claiming that he is the development of this natural process of evolution . . . As for the lower animals we will not on their behalf quarrel with the deductions of evolutionists, although we do hold that the fixity of species today is not very favorable to their contention. If an evolutionary process did take place in the past we hold that it was so under divine supervision and guidance–that different species of plants and animals were brought to perfection, so that no further evolutionary processes in them are possible. On the other hand, be it noted that the Scriptural account might be understood to rather favor the Evolution theory in respect to the lower creatures. For instance the statement, “God said, Let the earth bring forth the grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree etc and again, “God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and the fowl” ; and again “God said, Let that the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things and beasts.” But when we come to the creation of man there is no suggestion that this was a bringing forth or a development. On the contrary, the account is most explicit that God formed man and “God created man in his own image.” This distinction in the statement implies that there was a difference between the ordinary development of plant life and the special creation of man to be the lord of earth the representative of the Creator (Empasis mine Zion’s Watch Tower Jan 1, 1907 p. 12-13).

Although Russell clearly compromised here as to the creation of animals, he also taught that:

Whoever believes that Adam was developed from a monkey is in violent conflict with the faith once delivered to the saints, to the effect that man was specially created in the image of his Maker. Scientists agree that there is a wide difference between the so-called “man-ape” and even the lowest form of human being. Professor Rice points out that the highest man-ape known has a brain capacity of only 34 cubic inches, while the lowest of men has 68 cubic inches of brain capacity. In other words, the very lowest form of man has twice the brain capacity of the highest ape. He says, “No specimen of the stone age that has yet been discovered is inferior to the lowest of existing man.” A reasonable inference from this statement would be that we have today lower specimens forms or humanity than any of those discovered by science supposed to belong to the remote past (Empasis mine Zion’s Watch Tower Jan 1, 1907 p. 12-13).

A short time later the Society taught that microevolution may have occurred, but not macroevolution, of animals:

One theory regarding the creation (excepting man) by a process of evolution, to which we see no serious objection, we briefly state as follows: It assumes that the various species of the present are fixed and unchangeable as far as nature or kind is concerned and though present natures may be developed to a much higher standard, even to perfection, these species or natures will forever be the same. This theory further assumes that none of these fixed species were originally created so, but that in the remote past they were developed from the earth, and by gradual processes of evolution from one form to another. These evolutions, under divinely established laws, in which changes of food and climate played an important part, may have continued until the fixed species, as at present seen, were established, beyond which change is impossible, the ultimate purpose of the Creator in this respect, to all appearances; having been reached. Though each of the various families of plants and animals is capable of improvement or of degradation none of them is susceptible of change into, nor can they be produced from, other families or kinds. Though each of these may attain to the perfection of its own fixed nature, the Creator’s design as to nature having been attained further change in this respect is impossible. It is claimed that the original plants and animals from which present fixed varieties came, became extinct before the creation of man. Skeletons and fossils of animals and plants which do not now exist, found deep below the earth’s surface, favor this theory. This view neither ignores nor rejects the Bible teaching that man was a direct and perfect creation made in the mental and moral image of his Maker (Empasis mine. The Golden Age, Nov. 12, 1919 p. 103-104).

Later the Watchtower backtracked when they said:

The conflict between Evolution and the Bible has been sharp. Nevertheless, unnecessary friction has been generated. Only in respect to man does the Bible declare a special, direct creation of God. The statements of Genesis in respect to the lower creatures rather favor something along the lines of specialized evolution. God said “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth.” (Genesis 1: 20, 21) This is exactly in harmony with our scientific findings that the beginning of life came from the waters, and later extended to the birds, and later still to land animals (Empasis mine The Golden Age, Feb. 18, 1920 p. 341).

While some of these statements are not clear, the Society clearly did not have a very well thought out view and only later did they recognize the major problems of macroevolution. Some of their statements may seem to allow only for microevolution, which is almost universally accepted among creationists, many of whom prefer not to use the term evolution to describe this process, but change within the created kinds.

The Later History of the Watchtower’s Opposition to Evolution

The Watchtower soon began to openly oppose all macroevolution of plants and animals. They also became much more involved in the public creation-evolution controversy, more even than currently. Many Watchtower articles published in the 1920’s and 1930’s remind one of the creation-evolution debates still taking place today. For example Shelton (1924: 216) reviewed the press coverage of an evolution school text book controversy. He notes the daily press generally favored teaching only evolution and justified this position by “hiding behind what they call freedom of thought, speech, and press.”

Shelton’s response to this position was: “these same papers oppose another form of freedom of thought, speech and press by opposing the teaching of religion in the public schools.” Evidently Shelton is referring to teaching creationism which he labels “teaching of religion.” Shelton stresses that the press assumes that “evolution is science, that the question is closed, is no longer open to debate; and that only the ignorant and those who cannot think will attack the doctrine of evolution” (1924: 216).

The typical response by evolutionists against their critics in the 1920’s focused on trying to discredit the personality, ethics, and motivations of creationists instead of attempting to intellectually answer their arguments. Shelton concludes “the idea that an attack upon evolution is an attack upon science is absurd. Evolution is not science . . . from its very beginning it has been a speculative philosophy based more upon hypothesis than fact” (1924: 216). Shelton then briefly reviews the long history of biological evolution beginning with Empedocles. He notes that even Darwin’s grandfather taught the theory of sexual selection, which means Darwin’s main contribution was not original because natural selection is actually only a form of sexual selection. This article’s arguments would fit without hardly a change in most contemporary creation magazines. This strong stand against evolution was taught by the Watchtower from the 1920s to date.

Why the Watchtower Grew

A major reason why the Watchtower has grown from a handful of followers that once gathered each week to study the works of Charles Russell at the turn of the century to over 5 million adherents today is because they have not capitulated to naturalism nor have they allowed their basis (theism) to erode as have many of the mainline churches. The Watchtower’s struggle against atheistic evolutionary naturalism has no doubt gained them many converts throughout their history. They often quoted examples of mainline churches denigrating or even outright denying major Christian doctrines, especially those churches connected with colleges and universities:

Rochester is an important religious center. In one of these centers recently one of the “doctahs” who furnish food for the mind has explained to a waiting world that it is not true that man descended from the monkey. He originally came from a plant somewhat like the cabbage. In another center another “doctah” thought that in a little while the chemists would be able to make a synthetic “doctah,” thus proving that man really had no Creator. Honest now! Could you blame the Almighty God for wiping the slate completely clean of such walking trash? (Woodworth 1927 p. 15).

The judgment of the Watchtower relative to the churches is “who could ever have seen that evolution would invade the nominal church! But it has. This fact may seem strange to uninformed persons; but those who are familiar with God’s plan are not surprised. The Jehovah God has told us that the dogs (infidels-evolutionists) should lick Jezebel’s blood (absorb the spirit of anti-Christ). Truly the evolutionists gain as the nominal church declines.” (1925 p. 509).

Another example was a forum held at Oxford where Dr. Charles Gore “the greatest of the living English Theologians” at the time stated that he concluded the Genesis account of creation was false, there never was a Garden of Eden and humans have lived on the earth for tens of thousands of years. Further, the Bishop allegedly believed that Noah never existed, the flood was merely a local overflow of some streams around Babylon and the Ark account, even though mentioned by Jesus and the apostle Peter as true, was a “manifest impossibility” (Woodworth, 1929 p. 407). Gore evidently also believed the Tower of Babel confusion of tongues account never occurred, Methuselah did not live to be 969 years, and every other Bible event which is out of the ordinary is false. Such teachings have alienated multi millions from the established churches and it is no wonder that the Watchtower Society has grown enormously. The cults contain a very important lesson for the Church: if core beliefs are watered down too far, there is no point in drinking. Most people want a solid meal, and meals that are over adulterated are not palatable, nor will most people find much point in wasting their time dining at a table which does not serve healthful food.

Among the many other examples the Watchtower provided where clergymen and religious colleges had “capitulated” to evolution included the case of Dr. Richard Lull, a professor of paleontology at Yale who “startled the delegates to the annual Episcopalian Convention . . . when he declared that he had proven the theory of organic evolution to his own satisfaction” (1924: 217). Professor Lull criticized the creationist world view as a belief in an “occasional wonder-working god” concluding that “the evolutionist’s god is an imminent god, and as such, a much more continuous and potent factor in our lives than the occasional wonder-working god of the older theology” (Shelton 1924: 17).

Shelton also notes on the very same day at a nearby conference of the presidents of 57 Presbyterian universities and colleges, Dr. Cleland McAfee upheld the theory of evolution “from a theological viewpoint because our religion is broad enough to encompass all of the discoveries of science” (1924: 217). We today see that this was the beginning of the widespread acceptance of evolutionary naturalism in the churches and eventually a total rejection of a creator God, or at the least the acceptance of a functional atheistic position which now dominates most all colleges including most so-called Christian colleges (Bergman 1996). This reasoning, which is unfortunately common among college presidents, is one reason why millions of people have turned away from the churches to the Watchtower. The degree of the Watchtower opposition to evolution which has caused much of their growth is illustrated by the following Watchtower quote:

Two great lies have captured the world . . . He [Satan] has . . . put the Darwinian lie into nearly all the scholarship of the world . . . In his book “The Origin of the Species,” Darwin tries to make out that the law of evolution created, evolved, and brought man up through the different species to the monkey, or ape; and that man is the descendant of the ape . . . Darwin’s basic claim that any law can create is but the fabric of an absurdity. Law implies a creator of some sort, and the law of evolution is no exception . . . All the laws of the universe combined could not create even one germ of life of any kind. It is plain to see that the aim of the Darwinian theory is to discredit the Bible account of creation and to thrust Jehovah out of this earth which He has created. Satan is an adept . . . master in counterfeiting . . . he has taken the law of evolution and exalted it in to a creative force, and by a new name with a scientific sound–‘Universal Force’–he has accomplished the trick to the satisfaction of at least a majority of modern scholars, the trick of turning the Bible into a book of fables. As a result Jehovah’s personality has become a myth to many modern scholars” (Smith 1928: 246).

The Watchtower’s first booklet on evolution focused on the problem of clergy rejection of the creationism world view (Russell 1912). Shelton relates, as reported on May 24, 1922, that the evolutionists won in the struggle in Kentucky to teach only evolution in the schools. Evolutionary naturalism thus continued to be taught in the Kentucky public schools. The vote was close–19 to 17– and the question was only whether Darwinism should be permitted to be taught in Kentucky public schools. The clergy were “called in to help decide the matter.” The majority contended that evolution should be taught, saying that to reject such teaching would offend some of the brightest minds of today. Shelton added that the actions of these clergy state that they believe “it is safer to offend God than man, that it is better to retain the favor of the bright minds of the world then to continue in the favor of their Lord and Head–Jesus Christ” (1922: 533).

Many persons have tried to harmonize evolutionary naturalism and theism, but the Watchtower recognized “all writers of the Darwinian school acknowledge the antagonism between the creative and evolutionary theories.” They quote the Britannica which said “it is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation . . . the question how far the doctrine of evolution . . . by assuming an intelligible and adequate principle of change, simply eliminates the notion of creation . . .” (quoted in Tucker, 1925: 117) Of course evolution can be defined in such a way so no conflict exists, but the term as used by scientists today refers to naturalism (i.e. atheism) and unless stated otherwise, this is the definition normally used in discussions of this topic. Thus the Watchtower adds that “the evolutionary proposition cannot be debated intelligently until its proponents agree upon a definition of terms, or tell us plainly what they mean by the term ‘evolution.’ Thus defined we can know whether or not evolution is antagonistic to creation” (1925: 117).

Two assumptions Darwinism makes are 1. the law of evolution can create a new form of life and 2. the law of evolution teaches species never become fixed. Both views the Watchtower taught are false because each piece of the creation was created perfect in a fixed form that can reproduce only after its kind. God pronounced His work good after each creative day, and it cannot become more perfect but can only degenerate or de-evolve, which is the opposite of evolution. The Watchtower concludes that “the evolution theory of Darwin is Godless, Christless, and prayerless. It is the only religious system. . . that is prayerless.” They then note one of the major conflicts between evolution and Christianity is “the logical goal” of Darwinianism “is ‘the survival of the fittest’; and this theory would eventually weaken and eat the heart out of all efforts of humanity to raise the downtrodden or distressed, to help the sick . . . the opposite course is taught in the parable of the good Samaritan” (Smith 1928: 248).

The Watchtower often quoted respected scientists such as Prof. William Bateson and Prof. A. Wigand who rejected evolution. In the 1920s many other prominent scientists could have been cited who were not evolutionists or opposed this world view. Wigand was a professor of botany at the university of Marburg in Germany and completed major important research in several biology areas (McIver 1988 p. 304). Today it would be more difficult to identify eminent scientists who openly opposed and wrote against macroevolution doctrine.

The Watchtower has throughout their history frequently quoted scientists who support the veracity of the Creation world view, and this has enabled many Watchtower followers to maintain their theism. For example, they quote Norman Krase “one of the world’s greatest chemists” and the discoverer of synthetic alcohol who said “there is as much reason to believe that the arrangement of atoms, the beautifully interrelated system in which they appear, is a matter of chance as to believe that the pouring of materials from a bag in the sky would produce a building” (Woodworth 1928: 40). Another example is a quotation by Dr. D. W. Swann taken from an address he made before the American Chemical Society Institute: “either one accepts the view of creation handed down by the Bible, or else the scientist nods his head and says he can not answer. Science has been able to see the workings of life, but as for getting any clear conception of the beginnings we are at a loss” (Woodworth, 1928:40).

Shelton, after reviewing the critics of creationism, notes that a common theme is an “a priori assumption that those who oppose evolution are either ignorant or unbalanced (’emotional’ as Professor Lull politely terms it). These belong to the non-intellectual classes. All evolutionists belong to the intellectual crowd.” (1924: 217) Shelton mentions that one evolutionist noted that evolution was not discussed in his text book for the reason that the author did not consider it necessary because the theory was already too well established to require such a discussion. Shelton then notes this assumption is convenient since it “does away with the necessity of furnishing proof of the theory.” (1924: 249) Shelton then concludes “how men can hold to these ideas and still hold the Bible, remain in a church, and call themselves Christians is beyond our comprehension unless, of course, we adopt the characteristic attitude of the evolutionists toward those who differ from them and say of them, as they do of us, that such are ignorant and lacking in intelligence.” The vast majority of university academics today no longer believe the Bible and most have left both the church and theism (Bergman 1996).

The Watchtower also quotes an article from the Philadelphia Public Ledger which points out that “it is the evolutionist, and not the supporters of the Bible that are showing the intolerance in the discussion of this question, and the merest glance at the columns of almost any newspaper ought to make this plain to everybody” (Woodworth 1925: 20). The letter points out that textbooks teach evolution as proved fact and exclude other views from consideration. It then asks, “is it not intolerance to exclude all mention of” information which goes against evolution?

Indoctrination in Schools

Shelton writes in the Watchtower journal that he believes in complete freedom of speech, press and thought, but also believes that “schools should teach truth, fact; not theories and speculations which have no foundation. Yet we know that these doctrines [of evolution] are taught in the schools as though they were proven facts” (1922:535). Another question the Watchtower asks is, has Darwinian theory “been beneficial or hurtful to the world?” The Watchtower answers, “Whenever accepted, the Darwinian theory of evolution, has, to a large extent, surely made the world more cruel than it was before” (Smith 1928: 247). The Watchtower writer states in his early youth he “lived in a German community settled largely by them, and found them as kindly disposed and peaceful people as could be found. But there is no doubt that during the last 50 years as a nation they have changed and showed cruelty” (Smith 1928: 247). The Watchtower writer concludes one reason for this change was that Germany “took a larger dose of the Darwinian theory of evolution then the same classes of other nations.” The writer then correctly notes that “all men have a theology of some sort.”

The Watchtower also attacked the so-called higher critics who “have been poisoning all the various systems of churchianity” stating the higher critics were infidels and that an evolutionist cannot be a Christian (Woodworth 1923: 605). They are especially hard on the colleges, claiming that the “poisonous doctrines these men” are teaching to students in seminaries and colleges affects Christianity in every quarter and in every denomination.

The Watchtower’s concern about Darwinism is that although it “admits the great First Cause,” it eliminates “the Creator as an unnecessary encumbrance” and consequently the Watchtower asks “what is their [the evolutionists] hope of a future life?” (Tucker, 1925: 509). The claim that Charles Darwin “admits the great First Cause” is taken from his conclusion in the last page of The Origin of Species–a statement which some critics conclude Darwin wrote only to capitulate to the feelings of his wife and many others in his family and his friends that were creationists. Today even accepting a “great first cause” is regarded as a creationism view rejected by most all evolutionists.

The arguments the Watchtower uses to defend the creationist world view include the observation that life comes only from life. The first life forms thus must have either been created by God or were brought forth by spontaneous generation as taught by evolution theory (Shelton 1924: 218). Shelton reviews some of the historically accepted theories of spontaneous generation showing that the work by Redi and others have proved that higher animals such as mice, fleas or insects could not spontaneously generate. Then bacteria, which was discovered in 1683, was wrongly felt to be a life form so simple that it could have created itself. Pasteur and others later proved that bacteria also could not spontaneously generate. Evolution theory was held with enormous confidence at a time when our knowledge of biology was at its infancy and critically important fields such as molecular biology had not yet been born. Scientists have learned more about biology in the past 20 years then they have in the previous six thousand combined (Behe 1996).

Shelton also recounts a number of the foibles of scientists such as professor Huxley’s claim of discovering a slimy substance which he claimed was composed of “undifferentiated protoplasm” that somehow could easily produce life and existed in great amounts at the bottom of the sea. It was later discovered that this miracle substance was merely a precipitate of common gypsum that could not generate life or anything close.

Shelton admits that the work of Tyndall and Pasteur was important in disproving spontaneous generation. In his words “what Redi had done for the larger forms of life, Tyndall and Pasteur did for the protozoa and bacteria.” (1924:219) Shelton also discusses the wonders of the cell, and given what we know today about cytology, this area may prove to be evolution’s fatal plank (Behe 1996). Biochemist Behe uses some of the same examples as Shelton does to illustrate the impossibility of naturalistic evolution. These examples include aspects of the blood, how it clots, and the body’s repair and muscle system among others. Given the multi-thousands of examples available today, though, Shelton underestimated the gravity of the design argument.

Through the years the Watchtower has printed hundreds of similar articles which reveal the wonders of nature and the proof that this provides for a belief in God. They have also printed hundreds of articles about well known scientists or others who personally give the Creator credit for their accomplishments. The Watchtower recognized that the familiar argument for a creator is the existence of the creation. In their words

there can be but one explanation of the mystery of life: It originated with and depends upon an intelligent Creator. Astronomical students watch the whirling worlds in the vast canopy of the heavens . . . reflecting on the exactness and precision and the movements of these enormous bodies they realize the mightiness of the mind that must govern it all, and calmly admit these wonders to be beyond human comprehension. Blind Chance or Supreme Intelligence? To which shall we attribute them? Any biped who has ever been privileged to gaze through a telescope should have no difficulty in answering; and particularly, if he has looked through the telescope of God’s Word (East 1925: 659).

The Watchtower then discusses the life of the famous African-American scientist Dr. George Washington Carver who stated in a lecture that he “attributed his successes to the aid of God” (East 1925: 660).

The Fossil Record 

Other arguments the Watchtower use against evolution include, if it was true the fossils record would be filled with transitional forms and evidence of new organisms and organs coming into existence would be all around us. Sheldon acknowledged that variations exist but stresses it is “always within the species,” a type of change which today is referred to as microevolution. He adds that “if the tendency to variation was unlimited, then the origin of one species from another might be possible” but, as most people now realize, the variation range is clearly limited (1922: 534). They often quoted scientists such as Gerrit S. Miller the Curator of the Smithsonian Institution who said “feeble threads” linked man and the monkeys (Woodworth 1930 p. 561).

The author accurately points out some of the problems of making interpretations and drawing conclusions from this scanty fragmented fossil record evidence. For example, they quote a story which details the finding of one of the more well known missing links–a tooth found 45 feet below the surface, and a month later a skull roof was found three feet from where the tooth was found, and later a thigh bone was found 45 feet away and even later another tooth was found. Then began the debates and arguments about if the parts belong together and what they mean. All this prompted the Watchtower to conclude “a missing link they wanted, and a missing link it was!” (Shelton 1925: 493) Shelton effectively reviewed a wide variety of contradictory evidence presented by the evolutionary “experts” who endeavored to interpret the different alleged prehuman fossil finds. Unfortunately the article is marred with much name calling and inaccurate or exaggerated information.

Theological issues of evolution that require answers include the question, where are these “missing” links in the plan of salvation? Will they be destroyed like animals, or will they be eligible for God’s paradise? At what point during their evolution are they eligible for paradise? (for example, see Mackaye 1925: 20). In answer, the Watchtower teaches that “man was made in the image of the Creator, and was perfect in the day that he was created” (Whitehouse 1925: 48).

Shelton notes that many evolutionists claim that their strongest fossil record evidence is of the horse evolution. The series of fossil forms that they arrange to prove horse evolution start with a small 5-toed animal about the size of a fox and ends with the modern full sized horse. Sheldon argues many thousands of links must have existed between these two examples, yet as is still recognized today, scientists have “a mere handful, and has not the slightest evidence of the genetic relationship existing between them. It is not proven and not provable that any of these ‘ancestors’ of the horse are even remotely connected with him.”

The Other Side

Unfortunately, as is true with so many areas of the Watchtower, much of the good that they accomplish is often seriously polluted by the bad. They obviously once taught, and still teach, much good–otherwise they would not have grown so enormously fast and been able to tenaciously hold multi-millions of people to their doctrines to the degree that they forsake family, friends, career and wealth. A good example of the foolishness they mixed in with a reasonably effective critique of some of the major ideas of Darwinism is their opposition to the germ theory.

Most Christian churches taught that life has historically changed, specifically it has deteriorated since creation due to the fall of Adam. As Dr. Charles Stiles recognized many years ago “germs were not created as they are today, but that they later evolved into disease germs . . . these germs were originally created in some form other than as disease germs.” (quoted in The San Antonio Express April 1, 1923) Stiles then noted that the change that has occurred since Adam would be classified as “evolution” since change has occurred. Shelton responds that Stile’s conclusion is foolish because it is based on the belief that germs cause disease, an idea that the Watchtower then rejected. The Watchtower taught that “it has never been proven that a single disease is due to germs” (Shelton 1924: 249). The Watchtower reasoned microorganisms could not have evolved into disease germs because germs do not cause disease but only return dead organic matter to the “inorganic” state. Further, disease could not be caused by germs because the illnesses described by early writers such as Hippocrates over 3,000 years ago manifest the same symptoms then as they do today. The Watchtower then asks if “it is reasonable to think that germs would evolve since this time” and concludes that they evidently haven’t because the disease symptoms are the same.

Is The Watchtower’s Critique Scholarly?

Many of the Watchtower’s critiques could be effectively refuted by a competent evolutionist. For example, Shelton states that “there is no agency in nature, except man, to prevent the varieties from mingling.” Here he refers to the evolution theory which says that one specie type with different traits can be separated, and the two groups that were merely varieties of one species can eventually become so different that they may be classified as two separate species. Among the methods that produce permanent separation includes geographical isolation because of barriers such as mountains, rivers or lakes and barriers produced by earthquakes or floods. Other means that cause reproductive isolation include differences in mating seasons or habits. Some of the criticism was inappropriate such as the account of a small boy who was playing near Mr. Darwin, who asked his mother “Why is Mr. Darwin so like a monkey in looks?” The author comments that, in view of Darwin’s hairy face and appearance ” that possibly when he looked into a mirror, what he saw suggested his line of research” (Woodworth 1928: 569).

Unfortunately, the Watchtower is also guilty of name calling themselves which does not help their case. For example, they note that

William J. Bryan is causing consternation in the ranks of the monkeyites. It is queer how some people insist on having monkey progenitors. Perhaps the monkey-like tendency to foolishness and apeish mannerisms has something to do with it. But how much more beautiful, reasonable, and acceptable the Bible’s statement that ‘God formed man of the dust of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (Barnes 1922:750).

Another problem is their many irresponsible statements about evolution. In 1919 they wrote “The evolution theory has gone into the discard as a result of the discovery of the now well-established Mendelian law of heredity” (1919 p. 103). Shelton even concludes that already in the 1920’s “the very foundations of uniformitarianism ” were crumbling in geology (1924: 217). Although uniformitarianism is far less accepted and is far less universal today than it once was, it still dominates geology. The Watchtower also has not been consistent. In 1919 they even announced that they saw “no serious objection” to creation of life except man “by a process of evolution . . .under divinely established laws” (1919 p. 105). The Watchtower also once claimed that “only in respect to man does the Bible declare a special, direct creation of God” (Woodworth 1920, p. 341). The Watchtower eventually firmly rejected this view, and have since then consistently condemned all macroevolution. These major confessions to an atheistic world view, though, are a serious blot in their history.

In a critique of evolution, a Watchtower writer notes a large gap exists between humans and their alleged monkey ancestors and that this gap “between man and monkey has been the dumping place for the skeletons of pygmies, giants, freaks, and all kinds of animals prehistoric, antediluvian and modern. It is visited periodically by feather-weight scientists who seldom leave without adding or subtracting a few million years from the age of the monkey’s tail” (Kent 1925: 752). While this may be entertaining writing, it doesn’t help us understand the problem. Another example is in a humorous story, often repeated in secular and sacred literature in different variations. The Golden Age writer tells it as follows: Some reasons given as to “why the Darwinian theory cannot be true” monkey’s are peaceable, hardly ever get sick, don’t drink wine, smoke, chew tobacco, or live as humans (Monkey, 1925: 655). Unfortunately, the Watchtower has often misunderstood evolution theory. Note the following statement

let evolutionists tell us why animals do not evolve into creatures with three eyes, or ten for that matter; and why their stomachs do not get larger and larger, since their tendency is to eat more and more . . . the eye was an eye from the beginning . . . the eye did not move around into some other part of the body, but stayed in the head from time immemorial. Some animals would like to have an eye in their rear, for defense’s sake; but they do not develop one there. The Bible informs us that man cannot add anything to his stature; neither can animals (Whitehouse 1925: 48)

Defining Terms

Terminology is always a problem when discussing issues such as creation and evolution. The Watchtower attempts to define evolution by stating that in a broad sense it means “unrolling of the scroll of the universe” including the stars, the elements and both the inorganic and organic world (Nash 1922:501). The Watchtower stresses that the terms “Darwinism” and “evolution” are not synonymous and that the question of creation is not a theological but a historical one. Everything around us changes, and if evolution is defined as mere change “no one can live in this world half a century and not see evolution in everything” because change occurs all around us. Nash even then finds “evolution of thought and ideals” in the Bible by noting the old testament is a record of progress and progress is synonymous for evolution. If evolution is only a synonym for progress and improvement, then evolution has occurred (Rosenkrans 1922: 503). Of course, Darwinist evolution is not this, but is an atheistic world view and this is what is usually meant by evolution when creationism is discussed.

The Watchtower acknowledges de-evolution, noting “the only changes that nature seems to ever undergo is to slip back, [to] deteriorate from the original, if not provided with the necessary food and environment. A species may thus become extinct, as some have already; but that is not evolution!” (Whitehouse 1925: 48). Some examples given of de-evolution include deep sea fishes that lost their eyes because of continually living in the dark. Actually “any part of the body which is not used will become useless through inactivity” (Whitehouse 1925: 48).

Ironically after Dr. Carver made these statements a New York Times editorial lambasted him for his creationist world view stating “real chemists . . . do not scorn books out of which they can learn what other chemists have done, and they do not ascribe their successes, when they have any, to ‘inspiration.'” The Golden Age then printed Dr. Carver’s reply, namely that God created, and if humans interpret correctly the purpose the creator had in mind in creating, then one is divinely inspired and that “I am not interested in any science that leaves God out; in fact, I am not interested in anything that leaves out God” (quoted in East 1925: 660).

The Watchtower and Short Age Creationism

The Watchtower has printed very few articles about the problem of time. They are not strictly short age creationists but teach each creation day was 7,000 years long which includes God’s day of rest. They criticize the Seventh-day Adventists for their teaching the days were 24 hours long, concluding that “The Bible teaches” that the length of the 7 days are “about seven thousand years each” (Woodsworth 1930 p. 38). If each of the days were 7,000 years long the entire creation week is 49,000 years long. Their comments on age tend to be more journalistic then scientific. For example, one Golden Age article noted a professor determined a certain species of hackberries was 15 million years old asking how could “this age . . . be so accurately determined.” The answer the Watchtower facetiously gives, is “the date is stamped in indelible ink on each seed” and on “the other side of each seed are stamped the words, ‘What fools these mortals be!'” (Woodworth 1929: 559).

Some of Their Arguments Against Evolution

One excellent point against evolution was that “it is almost impossible to conceive how the first rudiments of important organs could have been of any use; or how, if they were not of any use, they could have been preserved for further development by natural selection” (Scruton 1927: 717).

Some of the Watchtower’s best writing relied heavily upon the work of creation scientists that are part of what they condemn as Christendom or Babylon the Great. An example is an article based on a book by Dr. Williams, a former president of Franklin College in Ohio. The article title was part of the title of his book, a 128 page work called The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved (1928) which they relied heavily upon to produce this article. In their review the Watchtower gave Williams credit for his work stating that

Dr. Williams claims to be a thoroughly- concentrated child of God; and that he has a zeal for God nobody who reads his book can question. Certainly no one can dispute the masterly way in which he handles his subject. Probably no other man is so well qualified to discuss it” (Woodworth 1928: 707).

Among the proofs that Williams uses includes population data, unity of languages, human migration patterns which shows that the human race began in one place and that “if evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist.”

Williams also argues that the fact that all races inter breed points to the unity of the human race and that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve which is irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which denies unity for at least the last two million years (the date theorized in the 1920’s). The author then tries to make a case for these suppositions.

Another argument Williams uses is the difficulty of eliminating recessive genes by natural selection, a fact which argues that humans still have the recessive traits of our long lost ancestors, and can produce a biological throwback called an atavism, a now disproven belief which was once touted as clear proof of evolution. Williams quotes Darwin who noted that in spite of all efforts, “not one change of species into another is on record” (p. 708). Interestingly, Williams argued in 1928 that the Piltdown fossils were a fake.

The Watchtower’s major criticism of the book is that Dr. Williams will use part of the proceeds of the sales to help build churches. The Watchtower comments that “the churches have had their day. They have become centers of belief in evolution and unbelief in the Bible . . .” (Woodworth 1928: 709).

The Watchtower writers themselves have ventured forth on evolution far less successfully. Woodworth, for example, discounts evolution by concluding that if the theory were true, then “we might entertain reasonable hopes of grafting puppies and pears, alligators and apricots . . . but this can never be done; for the laws governing cells are fixed, and so comprehensive as to include even the germs, which are minute animal organisms, and differentiate them from bacteria, which are microscopic plants.” In fact, cells as diverse as human and mouse have been fused, and the differences between prokaryotic cells are comparatively minor as are the differences between eukaryotic cells. Further, germs are not “animal organisms,” nor are bacteria “plants.” Germs are pathogenic bacteria and all bacteria are prokaryotes, specifically in the kingdom of monera. True, we have the benefit of more research today, but Woodworth’s writing was naive even for the 1930s (Woodworth 1926: 647).

Similar mistakes are made throughout Watchtower articles. One concluded that a dominant trait existed not because of dominance, but because a certain seed did not receive “the full proportion of the heredity admixture” (Woodworth 1926: 548). These irresponsible poorly researched and thought out articles clearly demonstrate the writer had little knowledge of biology and this does not lend credibility to the Watchtower’s position. Further, they likely alienated informed scientists and contributed to the large number of evolutionists among scientists today. Well written and researched documented articles need to be produced to convince evolutionists. Many of the articles reveal little evidence of reading and much evidence of pondering some of the common obvious concerns relative to evolution. For example, Woodworth asks

do animals have souls? . . . If animals do not have souls, then did the ‘missing link’ or the creature from which man sprang have a soul ? Did the lowest form of man have a soul? . . . Now when this creature first walked upright and began throwing cocoanuts at other missing links and learned how to build fires, did he develop a soul? If so, how did he do it and why? Did the rudiments of a soul exist far down in the history of the race, and the soul evolve from the very low form of soul to the highly-developed souls that some men now claim to possess, or did man at some time, in some mysterious manner, take on a full grown soul? Or did God decide that man had progressed to such a point that he ought to have a soul, and arbitrarily gave him one?”

These are useful questions, as is the question if “our bodies have developed by evolution, but our souls have not” how can this be explained? (Woodworth 1926: 438).

Conversely, some of the Watchtower’s articles also relied heavily upon irresponsible pseudoscience books and articles such as the theory that the human races were caused by “glandular differences” that taught if the adrenal gland is too active, hair grows on the body which is black and course. A normal adrenal gland is less active and produces normal hair which is thin and silky (Coulter 1929: 611). The Watchtower accepts the glandular idea but criticizes the articles’ conclusion that the races exist due to evolution, arguing instead that “the scriptures prove, however, that the change instituted in the glands was not an evolutionary change, but a severe, radical change” caused by God (Coulter 1929: 611). These specific God caused changes which brought this about, the Watchtower argues, was the change of the mild climate of the Edenic world to the severe climate of the post edenic world and also the climate changes which occurred after the deluge, and, last, changes that occurred due to humans eating of meat for the first time after the deluge (Coulter 1929: 612). As to intermarriage, the Watchtower taught that

there must have been intensive intermarriage, which would tend toward emphasizing certain hereditary traits. Thus, if one of Noah’s sons had but a tendency to have a receding brow, through intensive intermarriage and in the course of a few generations this condition would be seriously in evidence; which is signal evidence, not of evolution, but of degeneration. After Babel this condition of intermarriage would be intensified still more, until in these days intermarriage between two distinct races is looked upon as criminal (Coulter 1929: 614).

In fact, intermarriage would not result in the intensification of most race hereditary traits, but of their spreading and blending so that the distinguishable racial differences would become far less distinct.

Some Conclusions 

This review covers articles in the Watchtower publications only up to the 1930s. The Watchtower’s efforts in support of creationism has resulted in multi-thousands of copies of creationists books and creationists magazine articles in over 100 languages. They also have played a significant role in the backlash against creationism (Jukes 1984). In the area of evolution criticism, the publications after the 1940s have improved somewhat but still contain many errors. In the past 30 years, creationists have commonly focused on the impossibility that the incredibly complex design apparent everywhere in nature could evolve by natural selection selecting variations caused by mutations. A number of their latter articles relied extensively on respected secular publications and either summarized the material therein, or discussed the implications of the material presented for evolutionary theory. Since about the 1970s the articles on evolution were also more responsible and, although written for a lay audience, they not uncommonly make valid points in an interesting way.

Much of the change is due to administration changes caused by the death of key individuals including the Watchtower president, J.F. Rutherford the Awake! editor Clayton J. Woodworth and prominent leaders such as William Van Amberg. Ironically, most of the modern remnant lived on the earth when these atrocious articles were produced in the 1920s and 1930s–and it is these persons that are supposedly now judging those living on the earth! Indeed, those who lived during the Rutherford era compared to those who follow the Watchtower today have a large number of major differences not only in doctrine, but in their general outlook on life. In fact, a Witness who openly held the views taught in the 1930s or even the 1950s would be disfellowshipped today.

References

Anonymous. Life-How Did it Get Here, by Evolution or by Creation? 1995. Brooklyn, N.Y. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

______. “Creationism–Is It Scientific?” Awake! March 8, 1983 p. 12-15.

______. “Evolution, Creation, or Creationism; Which Do You Believe?” Awake! March 22, 1983 p. 12-15.

______. “Questions From Readers.” The Watchtower Sept. 1, 1986 p. 30.

______. “Effects of the Evolution Theory.” Awake! Aug. 8, 1995. p. 4-7.

Behe, Michael. Darwin’s Black Box. N.Y. Basic Books 1996.

Barnes, L.D. “Miscellaneous Items of Interest.” The Golden Age Aug. 30, 1922 p. 750.

Coulter, Kenneth Ralph. “Of One Blood All Nations of Men.” The Golden Age June 26, 1929 p.611-614.

East, Henry Charles. “An Unscientific [?] Scientist.” The Golden Age July 15, 1925 p. 659-660.

Franz, Fred. (Ed.) Did Man Get Here By Evolution or by Creation? N.Y. 1967.

______. “Life–How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?” N.Y. 1985.

Jukes, Thomas H. “Quackery in the Classroom: The Aspirations of the Creationists.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures July 1984 p. 193-205 Vol. 7 No. 3.

Kent, A.H. “The Origin of Evolutionism.” The Golden Age Aug. 26, 1925 p. 751-753.

Levin, Malcolm P. “Life–How It Got Here: A Critique of a View from the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” ??? p. 28-34.

Mackaye, John A. “Location of First Missing Link.” The Golden Age Oct. 7, 1925 p. 20.

McIver, Tom. Anti-Evolution; An Annotated Bibliography. Jefferson, North Carolina; McFarland Co, Pub. 1988.

Miner, Lavinia. “Insects and Animals.” The Golden Age March 25, 1925 p. 404.

Monkey, Chimpan Z. “In Defense of Monkeys.” The Golden Age July 15, 1925 p.655.

Nash, Annie L. “In Defense of Evolution.” The Golden Age May 10, 1922 p. 501.

Quackenbush, Colin. Evolution Versus the New World. New York WTBTS 1950.

Raines, Ken. Letter, dated May 15, 1995.

Rosenkrans, O.L. Jr. “Man Created in God’s Image” Zion’s Watch Tower Jan 1, 1907 p. 12-13 (p. 3921 reprints).

Russell, Charles T. The New Creation. Vol 6 Studies in the Scripture Allegheny, PA WtBTS 1904.

______. “Man Created In God’s Image.” Zion’s Watch Tower Jan 1, 1907 p. 12-13.

______. The Bible Versus The Evolution Theory. N.Y. WTBTS 1912.

______. “The Creation of Things Mundane.” The Watch Tower Dec. 1, 1912. p. 371-373 (p. 3921 in reprints).

Scruton, Fred’k. “Missing Links.” The Golden Age Aug. 10, 1927 p. 717.

Shelton, Herbert M. “Darwinism in the Schools.” The Golden Age May 24, 1922 p. 533-536.

______. “A Study of the Theory of Evolution in Two Parts.” The Golden Age Jan.2, 1924 p.216-251.

______. “The Ape-Man Revealed.” The Golden Age May 6, 1925 p. 493-497.

Smith, Thomas R. “Jehovah or Darwin: Which?” The Golden Age Jan. 17, 1923 p. 246-248.

Tucker, Leonard. “The Hopes of Evolutionists.” The Golden Age May 6, 1925 p. 509.

______. “What is Evolution.” The Golden Age Nov. 18, 1925 p. 117.

Whitehouse, J. “Harpooning the Evolution Theory.” The Golden Age Oct. 21, 1925 p. 48-49.

Woodworth, Clayton J. Jr. “Evolutionists Guessing” The Golden Age. Nov. 12 1919 p. 103.

______. “Life of the Saurians” The Golden Age Feb. 18, 1920 p. 341.

______. “The Goal of Evolution.” The Golden Age May 20, 1922 p. 502-510.

______. “The Fallacy of Evolution.” The Golden Age July 14, 1926 p. 647-650.

______. “Presbyterian Texts” The Golden Age Oct. 5, 1927 p. 15.

______. “Social and Educational.” The Golden Age Nov. 12, 1919 p. 103-104.

______. “Science and Invention.” The Golden Age Feb 18, 1920 p. 341.

______. “Evolutionists not Christians.” The Golden Age June 20, 1923 p. 605-606.

______. “The Intolerable Conceit of Evolutionists.” The Golden Age Oct. 7, 1925 p. 20.

______. “Where are the Missing Links?” The Golden Age April 7, 1926 p. 438-440.

______. “Presbyterian Texts.” The Golden Age Oct. 5, 1927.

______. “Where Darwin Got His Idea.” The Golden Age May 30, 1928 p. 509.

______. “Evolution Disproved.” The Golden Age Aug. 8, 1928 p. 707-709.

______. “Reverences the Creator.” The Golden Age Oct. 17, 1928 p. 40.

______. “Doctor Gore’s New Commentary.” The Golden Age March 20, 1929 p. 407.

______. “Hackberries Fifteen Million Years Old.” The Golden Age May 29, 1929 p. 559.

______. “This Speaks for Itself.” The Golden Age May 28 1930 p. 561.

______. “Adventists Misunderstand Creative Days.” The Golden Age Oct. 15, 1930 p. 38.

• ← Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Have Mental Problems
• The Watchtower’s Half-Century Crusade Against the Germ Theory →