scientific evidence sometimes credible, other times not

by never a jw 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  never a jw

  I apologize if this has been covered before. I found an article in the Watchtower of October 15, 2013. It is quite interesting how science is sometimes credible, sometimes is not. Reminds me of the 607 vs 587 BCE "controversy". Some historical information is reliable, other is not, the governing body may say. Quite convenient. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are so filled with hypocrisy and fallacy.

  One widespread false teaching that blinds people to the truth about God is the doctrine of evolution. This human reasoning contradicts the Bible and robs people of hope. In its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously; it thus implies that human life has no purpose.

  On the other hand, fundamentalists of Christendom teach that the universe, including our earth and all life on it, is only a few thousand years old. Those who teach this doctrine—known as creationism— may have high regard for the Bible, but they contend that God created all things in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago. They reject credible scientific evidence that contradicts their view. As a result, the teaching of creationism actually discredits the Bible, making it appear unreasonable and inaccurate. Individuals who promote such views might remind us of some in the first century who had a zeal for God “but not according to accurate knowledge.”
• 

  Oubliette

  It's called Confirmation Bias: We only accept ideas that confirm what we already believe. All other ideas, teaching or evidence are summarily dismissed.

  BTW, there was no "scientific evidence" in paragraph #3. The theory of evolution is a theory based on evidence, however none of that evidence was presented in the paragraph as you implied. Also, the word "evolution" is tricky because it can and does mean different things depending on who uses it and how it is used.

  The WT writers are completely aware of this and play verbal "sleight of hand" with their word games.

  Notice all the highly connotative language used in that one paragraph in an effort to bias the reader's opinion against "evolution":

  • false teaching
  • blinds
  • doctrine
  • This human reasoning
  • contradicts the Bible
  • robs people of hope

  Who would want to believe anything that fit that description?!? And that was all just in two sentences!

  The final sentence over-simplifies the theory and then draws a conclusion that does not necessarily follow logically from the premise:

  In its basic form, the teaching of evolution asserts that all life came into existence spontaneously; it thus implies that human life has no purpose.

  Who wants to believe that their life has no purpose? No one, so we emotionally reject the premise without carefully considering the validity or logic of the argument. Very slick manipulation.

  The writers of WT literature are masters of the use of propaganda. Ya' gotta' give 'em credit for that!

  Paragraph #4 also does not contain any evidence, it only refers to it.

  In essence, these two paragraphs together are a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as a False Dichotomy. This type of either/or, black and white thinking is typical of the manipulative techniques of propagandists. They present two, or in this case three, choices as if they are the only ones. (There are in fact many other choices). They present them in such a way that only one choice can be right and the others are "obviously wrong."

  But they are only "obviously wrong" choices because they've been dishonestly presented in a manner that precludes any other option. The reader is carefully led along to the precise conclusion the writer desires:

  • Evolution is wrong
  • Creationism is wrong
  • We are right! See how balanced and smart we are!

  This article is NOT about SCIENCE or EVIDENCE, but is only made to appear that way. It is just another example of how loaded language can be used to manipulate people.

  The Awake!, June 22, 2000 had a very informative series of articles on propaganda. It's a fascinating read, which by the way PROVE that the WT writers know what propaganda is and how to use it. Now that's some EVIDENCE!

  • Propaganda Can Be Deadly
  • The Manipulation of Information
  • Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

  
• 

  never a jw

  Thank you Oubliette, I am glad you completed my own thoughts in a much better way than I could ever do it
• 

  Oubliette

  You're most welcome!

  I'm becoming a champion of the idea of everyone developing good, solid Critical Thinking Skills. Anyone trained in the use of these skills is very unlikely to be easily misled or fall for the propaganda of any cult.
• 

  Narcissistic Supply

  The Watchtower and the JW’s are just a petri dish (a cultural medium) that allows the Narcissist to fully devour and prey on their victims?

  That’s all it is. It’s not really watchtower driven. It’s not really jeho witness driven. It’s driven by the hand to mouth narcissist. It’s a grass roots narcissistic movement. And i mean that literally.

  The jeho witnesses and the watchtower insulate the narcissist and allows them to prey on their victims and entrap the spirit of the individual. Really mind boggling black magic sort of stuff.
• 

  Phizzy

  What a steaming pile of sh** that article must be.

  From Wiki " Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations,......." It is not about the origin of life.

  The study of the origin of life is : Abiogenesis " biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth." (More at TalkOrigins Archive).

  Scientific evidence is peer reviewd and is tested, far different from the presentations of the WT which they never allow "peers" to comment on, and their "evidence" is not allowed to be tested.

  The WT does not know its arse from its elbow on matters scientific, and is even worse at Theology.
• 

  never a jw

  I just remembered. Doesn't the Watchtower support its position agaist evolution by borrowing from the Creationists arguments? So they use Creationists's "research" and conclusions in the seconnd paragraph of the article, then stabbed them in the back in the third paragraph. Nice!
• 

  tec

  Yes, Phizzy, I was going to say the same thing, re: evolution. The 'teaching' of evolution (theory of evolution) has to do with life forms in existence, and how they adapt/change over time. Something else entirely covers how life forms came into existence.

  Peace,

  tammy