Some Scholars "feel" that...

by enigma1863 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • enigma1863

    I am tired of JWs using spin words to make it sound like scientist and scholars are not sure about what they are talking about whenever the WTBS doesn't agree with what they are saying. They'll say stuff like the bible is true but some scientists feel evolution is...

    do you know any good examples of these twisting of words?

  • DesirousOfChange

    I always suspected that those "scholars" mentioned in WT publications were members of the WT Writing Dept. You know how "scholarly" they all are.


  • freemindfade

    There is a huge one here, they actually got called out on it. This is the most recent example:

  • Phizzy

    Whenever creationists like the JW's say that scientists "believe" in Evolution they are using the wrong word deliberately, as a form of propaganda/mind-control.

    They wish the R&F JW's to think that one can choose to "believe" in Evolution or not, as people are free to choose or not to believe in JW's baseless, without evidence teachings.

    To simply "believe" something is to trust that it is true without satisfactory evidence, if the evidence is there you don't have to "believe", you examine the evidence and realise that something is factually true.

    The overwhelming evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection is there for all to see.

  • enigma1863

    I found this to be helpful info:

  • TerryWalstrom

    Their tactics only work on people who have never gone to college.

    Having citations in support of your facts is the first lesson learned in "higher education."

    No wonder they discourage it so!

  • WheninDoubt

    Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (/ˈdɑrwɪn/;[1] 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist,[2] best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory.[I] He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors,[3] and in a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.

    Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, and biologist. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858

    Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin, who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, now more commonly referred to as selective breeding.


    The magazine was established in 1866 by Alexander Strahan and a group of intellectuals anxious to promote intelligent and independent opinion about the great issues of their day.[citation needed] They intended it to be the church-minded counterpart[1] And in May 1877 published an article on the "Ethics of Belief" from a distinguished Cambridge Don on moral skepticism in law and philosophy. Prof Clifford developed scientific theories on metaphysical beliefs, rationalism, and the empirical value of scientific enquiry that underpinned advanced physics. By the end of the century his views had a practicable impact upon new social realism. Clifford was quickly rebutted by Prof Wise in June 1877. Articles by Rev R.F. Littledale, a regular contributor included "Christianity and Patriotism


    Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.

    The classical design argument looked at order in the world and concluded that God must have caused it. Archdeacon William Paley {1} in the nineteenth century refined the argument. He also gave it perhaps it’s most eloquent and persuasive formulation. Paley looked at the order of human artifacts and compared it to the order in living beings. If human intelligence was responsible for artifacts, reasoned Paley, then some intelligent power greater than man must have accounted for living beings.


    Discovery Institute
    September 7, 2004

    Recently, various news agencies have reported on the growing controversy surrounding the publication of an article arguing for the theory of intelligent design in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The Proceedings is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

    in the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in new life forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.


    Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)

    Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

    Should I continue? The argument of evolution is more prominent in the scholarly realm than theology. Creationist do not elude hypothesis or genetics but rather involvement of man. None of this comes from Jehovah’s Witnesses as you poorly accuse, but by your own science community. Also it has nothing to do with higher education as was remarked here. You can find more intelligent people in a community of high school grads than you can on a college campus full of sex crazed drunks, but somehow I can’t find an evolutionist to answer how can they explain cloning that was man-made and not natural selection. I’m an ignorant scholastic.

  • enigma1863
    I don't think I understand your point with these examples. I agree that you can be very intelligent, well educated and still believe in weird things.
  • Vidiot

    enigma1863 - "I am tired of JWs using spin words to make it sound like scientist and scholars are not sure about what they are talking about whenever the WTBS doesn't agree with what they are saying."

    Yup; it's pretty telling when misdirection and straw men arguments are the best recourse they can come up with.


    Once again, for the lurkers, newbies, and trolls...

    ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

Share this