Month: May 2025

  • Jehovah’s Witnesses—“Micro” “Macro” evolution and abiogenesis

    In the main, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no problem with “micro-evolution,” the stuff of bird beak variations that Darwin found on the islands. Where they object to it, it is because of correctly anticipating the truckloads of dogma that atheists will drive through the door it cracks open. 

    One can always argue with “macro-evolution” but there hardly seems a point. Plenty of religious people will say: ‘Yes, God created life and he did it by means of evolution.’ Better to focus on ‘abiogenesis,’ the origin of life. Did it happen on its own? Or did it require the “spark” of God? Standing up to macro is probably worth doing, but nothing gets the job done like standing up to spontaneous abiogenesis. This is what the most recent Watchtower publications do, such as ‘The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking.’ The last book to seriously take on macro was 40 years ago: ‘Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?’

    I wrote a book recently entitled: ‘A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen.’ (searchable on Amazon) An appendix section examines the progress that scientists specializing in origin of life have made. As much as I would like to say, ‘just buy the book,’ most of that material is available free, in less polished form, here.

    It fits in the Workman’s Theodicy book because a successful quest to show life came about on its own makes any theodicy, even the theodicy that works, little more than a work of fiction.

    I put three appendixes into the work, all items that are relevant to the theme but don’t easily fit into the main narrative. One is the origin-of-life investigations. Then, there is an item on slavery and those who say the Bible condones it. Lastly, there is coverage of a recent book by Benjamin Labatut entitled ‘When We Cease to Understand the World.’ That piece of historical fiction curiously intertwines themes of advance mathematics, quantum physics, world war, and madness. Somehow it seemed to have a place, especially for its contention that the madness took on serious form around the time of the First World War, something that especially resonates with Witnesses. It also fits for its suggestion that when humans pour of full strength all they have to offer (mathematics, quantum physics) it does not negate the ‘man is dominating man to his injury’ verse of Ecclesiastes 8:9 but merely accelerates the chaos. That too fits into the Witnesses’ narrative that God’s universal sovereignty is the prime issue before all creation today.

    ******  The bookstore

  • At the Darwin Martin Frank Lloyd Wright Home

    Not too long ago we visited the Frank Lloyd Wright house in Buffalo. FLW is regarded as an artist who brooked no interference from his clients. In one bedroom, the built-in bed was 4 feet long. When the clients complained, he told them it was their own fault. They had insisted upon a closet, so he put it at the head of the bed. Couldn’t he have extended the tail end another two feet? he was asked. There was room. No, he could not, he said, that would mess up the lines of the house.

    He also had a phrase of “client-proofing” the house, building in furniture in such a way that it would be impractical for clients to bring in their own. And lastly, this particular client had a lot of books, but FLW wanted them tucked away for appearance sake. He concealed a bookshelf area around the chimney/heat grate which was also concealed. “Wouldn’t that harm the books?” my wife asked. “Not his problem,” the guide answered.

    Few clients wanted to see Wright ever again after his work was finished. However, Darwin Martin, the Buffalo client, was an exception. A self-made man, he was in awe of Wright’s talent. When he died, Wright said he had lost a great friend, “and I think he was a better friend to me than I was to him.” This is because, after an initial creative spurt, Wright’s personal life fell into scandal, so that people crossed the street when they saw him coming. Martin saw him through, continually lending him money (which was never repaid), and thus made possible the second half of Wright’s career in which he designed even more ambitious things.

    At the guide’s mention of scandal—it involved ditching his family to take up with another woman, a most peculiar one—something clicked. Yet, I couldn’t quite put my finger on it and wracked my brains trying. It seemed as though it didn’t involve Wright directly, only someone who was taken in a defrauding by his new weird wife. Wright was taken in by this cultish woman, also, and they prevailed over their own utopian community. The guide was no help to me. She kept track only of Frank Lloyd Wright’s architectural life, not his private life which got strange.

    At last it dawned upon me the next day. It was Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva. She had defected to the West in the late 60s. The Indian embassy where she requested asylum, then the Italian embassy where she was quickly transferred, didn’t even know that Stalin had a daughter. A manuscript she had smuggled of life under her father’s Soviet Union made her wealthy. But, raised communist, she knew nothing of money nor how to manage it. unscrupulous ones managed to syphon it all away, the greatest of whom was Wright’s strange wife and the society she ran. She died, if not in poverty, then at least in very modest circumstances. I’ll tell the tour guide about it, should I see her again.

    Frank Lloyd Wright buildings are a nightmare to maintain. The architect designed them beyond the technical capacities of the time. Martin’s company, the Larkin Soap company, where he served as right-hand man, at one time the highest paid employee in all America, went out of business during the Great Depression. In time, the house fell into disrepair. It surely would have met the wrecking ball had not another architect bought it just for the sake of preservation. The back quarters—the conservatory and carriage house—actually was demolished, leaving only the home proper. Later, these items were rebuilt to true specifications so that the visitor cannot tell they are not original.

    You can’t take pictures inside, however you can stroll the grounds at any time. Had I been permitted to take pictures, I might have shown how Wright liked to “hide the corners” of a room. Take a 15 foot wall, for instance, and build twelve feet of it up front, protruding. It has the effect of concealing the end pieces not protruding. Wright grumbled that Americans “lived in boxes.” He didn’t want his designs to reflect that.

    I might, had pictures been permitted, documented how Wright brought the outdoors in via the use of outdoor materials extended inside. And, I probably would have shown the compressed (lowered) ceilings in places where Lloyd didn’t want people to linger—the front porch, for example, where people were either to leave or enter, but not remain. Figuring a man’s home was his castle, Wright worked to conceal the front doors, conveying that you don’t come to visit without an invitation. The ceilings of hallways were compressed, too. People were not to remain there. They were to pass through quickly to join the life in one room or the other.

    And yes, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand is inspired by Wright’s career, our guide confirmed. This conflicts with the view of another architect I knew who said it wasn’t. However, he probably meant to convey that it was not a biography of the man. It clearly is inspired by him. Wright’s radical breakaway from Louis Sullivan, his former employer, to form his own unique American architecture free from Roman or Greek influence, parallels exactly Howard Roark’s rejection of his day’s traditional architecture. Now that I think of it, Roark was used to channel Ayn Rand’s own peculiar ‘objectivism’ philosophy, and the latter Wright also was attracted to offbeat things and a strong woman who championed them. Maybe there are more parallels than I first thought. Ah, well—a project for another time.

    IMG_1446

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • “Just Give up and Admit You’re an A**hole”

    You have to have a high tolerance for profanity if you are going to listen to Ani Difranco. Fortunately, I do. In a world in which the f-bomb has become the new “um," one either gets used to it or resigns oneself to not coming out of the Kingdom Hall. I even opined once about Ani that she might be the next Bob Dylan, with the footnote that she is a lot cruder than Bob, but then, it is a cruder age, isn’t it?

    So, I was not unduly put off by her song lyrics to a friend that he should “just give up and admit you’re an asshole.” I liked the forthrightness of it. (It may be that the “he” is a “she,” for the singer was lesbian in her early years before going straight and thus infuriating many of her fans.)

    And if that one did just give up and admit to being an asshole, what consequences might ensue? Not so bad as one might think: First, “You would be in some good company." Next, the line that his friends would probably forgive him. or maybe she is "just thinking of me." And then she says that she takes the person "as is."

    Um—isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I could be wrong and I freely admit I don’t pick up on every nuance of contemporary song. I was easily the oldest person at that concert the kids brought me to. Not to be dogmatic. Since people can be so much worse, maybe simply admitting you’re an asshole is the new sainthood. Maybe it’s just me who recalls a time when you actually had to do good things to be christened a saint. It does seem to be though, at least to me, one more evidence that that crazy long list of negatives (19 adjectives!) at 2 Timothy 3:1-5 does indeed have special relevance in our time; It's not just the way people have always been.

    It is one of her favorite songs, she says. It represents the beauty of forgiveness.

    That is a beautiful quality. Trouble is, it tends not to work with an asshole who remains an asshole and who thinks that just admitting he is an asshole is enough. There is something evocative in the lyrics of a generation that demands to be loved but does not attend to what might make them lovable. Forgiveness is a central theme of the Bible, too, but it works best when the basis for forgiveness is understood and the one who is forgiven does not take that forgiveness for granted but makes changes.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Why do the Apostles Speak so Little About Living Forever on Earth if That is the Hope for All Mankind?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses think the first century congregation represents a major unfolding of God’s purpose toward humankind. It represents just how “Abraham’s seed” is to bring blessings to “all the nations.” (Genesis 12:3, 18:18) Galatians 3:8 ties that seed to the early congregation. It is a new page in God’s handbook, that some from humankind would rule with Christ to bring blessings to the earth, the “twelve tribes.”

    Jesus makes with the twelve, who have stuck with him through all his tribulations, the new covenant to be part of this kingdom. (Luke 22:30) It is “reserved in the heavens for you.” (1 Peter 1:4) The focus of the New Testament is on this new development, that some are called to heaven, to rule over the earth. “Have you begun ruling as kings without us?” Paul addresses the unruly Corinthians. “I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings.” Plainly, not everyone can be a king. Plainly, there needs be ones to be kings over. Enter Revelation 21:

    Revelation 21:3-5 picks up on how the seed will fulfill that promise to Abraham of bringing earthly blessings by means of his seed. There, that heavenly arrangement, called “New Jerusalem” (‘old ‘Jerusalem was the seat of government for God’s ancient people) descends from heaven to benefit “mankind” and “peoples.” Those “peoples” and “mankind” don’t go up to the New Jerusalem; rather, the New Jerusalem descends to them.

    Paul does refer to a gathering of the “things of the heaven” and “things on the earth” at Ephesians 1:10.

    1 Corinthians 15:24-26 relates how, once the kingdom has succeeded in bringing death to nothing, that kingdom itself will be handed over to Christ’s “God and Father.”

    Revelation 7:9 tells of a “great crowd” gathered who will survive the great tribulation.) Witnesses associate this group with the “other sheep” of John 10:16.) No sense in gathering them when the great tribulation is yet centuries off. So most of the NT focuses on those with the heavenly hope.

    This either resonates with a person or it doesn’t. Jehovah’s Witnesses appreciate that God put humans on earth, which he told them to fill and multiply, because he wanted them there, not because he wanted them somewhere else. The “covenant for a kingdom” is a major revelation in just how he will succeed in that, undoing the negative effects of Adam and Eve’s rebellion. The New Testament is primarily messaging to and from those with and about that heavenly hope.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses love the earth, appreciate it as the gift he gives to mankind. (Psalm 115:16) They don’t hope to leave it. They hope to live forever on it once it is restored to God’s original purpose. They appreciate Jesus promise (of the “Lord’s prayer”) that once God’s kingdom comes, his will is to take place “on earth, as it is in heaven.’ (Matthew 6:9) Blessed a the meek, he says. Why? Because they will inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5)

    ******  The bookstore

  • They will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but … will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.” (2 Timothy 4:3)

    There is a speaker who uses his own children to illustrate the verse. He doesn’t use them specifically, but he has several of them, and the application would not likely have occurred to him otherwise.

    ‘Say your child approaches mom for an ice cream bar at 4PM, clearly not ice cream time,’ he says. ‘Mom says no. Unperturbed; the child then approaches dad with the same question. Dad says no.’

    Searching for someone to tickle her ears—tell her what she wants to hear—but so far, her search is unrewarded. 

    He continues: ‘But, if she can find a grandparent . . . ‘

    Ah yes, in that case her search will pay off in spades. 

    The illustration is a favorite with his children and whenever he travels to give a public talk, they want to know if it is the one where he talks about the ice cream.

    As for me, I many times used to explain that if they were to "not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled” and the verse was written long ago, perhaps it also was fulfilled long ago. If so, that would account for how most church teachings are not found in the Bible, at least not straightforwardly. It is the attempt to read them in that causes people to tear out their hair in frustration.

    ******  The bookstore