by wannaexit 18 Replies latest jw friends
ARS: do ANY of you ever look up ANYTHING on your own?
Only all the time, and not in the WT. That's the nice thing about being out of the cult. I can Fact Check using independently verifiable sources.
This is something no JW can do, at least not with serious consequences.
The accusation of intellectual dishonesty by Rama Singh is simply nonsense. The Awake quotation was perfectly reasonable in keeping with Singh's position as a respected evolutionist and was not quoted out of any context. I have read both Singh's original article 'Darwin's legacy: Why biology is not physics, or why evolution has not become common sense", and his letter to the Editor of Awake and find that his accusations is utterly groundless.
The point of the Awake article was simply to show that not all scientifically minded people believe that Life is the result of Evolution and quotes Singh's article for his observation on this very topic wherein he discusses why it is that Evolution is not even now widely accepted even by 'educated people such as biologists, non biologists and the lay public', p. 870, par.10 and that the opposition to evolution also comes not just from creationists but from a "significant proportion of scientists, especially from the physical and medical sciences, also do not believe in evolution". Singh, p.869, par.6.
Singh in his article laments the simple fact that Evolution has not been explained as well as it should especially to the lay public who do not observe the process in the natural world. He then attempts to explain the so-called facts of Evolution which of course are easily refuted by anyone knowledgeable of the subjects. Nevertheless, I enjoyed his article because someone has finally addressed the issue of Evolution and common sense in that the lay public do not see the process in Nature and that many in the scientific community do not believe in it.
scholar JW
TerryWalstrom - "Intellectual honesty is the willingness to be wrong when evidence disproves your opinion or belief. Intellectual dishonesty is unwillingness to allow complete evidence to come to light. The dark, dark pathway is the road taken by the GB and their feckless writing staff.
Yup.
If you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
They do not misquote Rama Singh; they do something far worse: They quote him exactly - but out of context and create an impression of sympathy by an academic with their views.
It is akin to the Watchtower, for example, candidly writing that some in the organization have strayed from the "truth" and opponents using that quote to imply the Watchtower's teaching is not effective because some are leaving.
Duh! Place the quote in context. Same with their use of Rama Singh's words - place them in their original context because it changes what's being said by him.
ARS and Scholar,
I can't believe scholar is here! When are you taking me up on our blood discussion?
Guys this is very silly. They used his words, but contextually as has already been pointed out, they misrepresented his position. Less than 2% of actual scientists (not ministers who got a degree in biology), think creation explains abiogenesis. So I guess technically 2% is "some" scientists. I wonder if I saw 100 doctors about the mole on my arm, and 2 said it was cool, while 98 called it cancer......if I would just let it be or get it removed. But more importantly.....
Evolution explaining diversity of life IS SOMETHING JW"S BELIEVE!!!
This point cannot be made often enough. In order for the amount of animals on the ark to turn into the amount of species we have today.....you HAVE to have evolution. In fact.....you have to have it at a very high rate!
Call it Micro or macro....I don't care. But evolution is something JW's have to believe in, if they continue to want to believe in the literal account of Noahs ark. Period. End of story.
Yea, I hadn't had a chance yet to actually look up what it means to be intellectually dishonest. The post earlier defining it, and some research proves this is what they did.
Regardless of being a misquote or out of context, it's intellectual dishonesty and they should be held accountable.
Scholar JW...
The question is not if the quote is wrong but what impression the casual reader would be left with. Most readers with a bias towards creation would imply that the quote is saying that many scientists question evolution and are prepared to accept some form of intelligent design. Anyone reading the conext of the original material can see this is not the case.
The way the quote is presented and it's lack of context has been done so deliberately by the society to create the impression of support for creation. It is dishonest and the author has every right to question it's use.
The WTS and Witnesses in general are very quick to defend the organisation when they see the position of the society supposedly misrepresented and aspects of the religion taken out of context. They do not afford the same courtesy to those whom they quote in matters such as this.
i would also add that they are also happy to spin their own doctrine. Just look at the way the question of shunning is handled on jw.org for an example.
