Leo's observation is a great indicator of Watchtower epistemology: Although some truth can be discovered through observation and investigation, it will always be subordinate to truth revealed through divine writ. If that which is discovered through natural phenomenon seems to contradict the Bible, then it is the conclusion of natural phenomenon that is wrong. Because the Bible is considered the a priori Inspired Word of God, it exists outside of the realm of meaningful analytic inquiry. That is to say, it can be investigated only to the extent that the results of that investigation reinforce pre-existing belief.
When any investigation reveals information that might challenge that belief, then one of the following happens: (1) the source is discredited and the information rejected. For example, in the article I mention, Biblical scholars are characterized as unreliable and unable to agree on anything; (2) WT eisegesis is altered to allow for that information (such as in the recent implicit shift to creative days that are unspecified "eons" in length) while still maintaining the infallable inspiration of the Bible or (3) the information is ignored, chalked up to "wait on Jehovah" or something similar, or explained through convoluted and baseless hypotheses, like the recent "overlapping generations" nonsense.