Why does WT rarely reference creationist scientist?

by Sanchy 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Sanchy

  In watching the latest video in the series "Was it designed?" at tv-dot-jw-dot-org, I got to wondering why is it that Watchtower hardly references scientist that are creationist. I know its only a minority from that group, but there are enough out there for them to reference from.

  Take for instance the video mentioned above. It presents the structure of the Seahorse's tail in an attempt to demonstrate that it is too complex and it's "design" too clever to have been a result of evolution. The video then proceeds to quote an engineering professor that appears to agree in that nature makes things just right. The professor's name is Ross Hatton, and a quick google search of his name reveals that he is, as Watchtowers calls it, "an evolutionist".

  As another example, the authors of the brochure "The Origin of Life - 5 Questions worth Asking" reference quotes from various scientist in attempting to bring credibility to their argument, yet none of them are creationist, as the brochure itself awkwardly admits at each asterisk note.
  

  Are there any quotes that you know of in recent WT literature that reference scientist that believe in creation?
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  Because creationists will come with theological bagage the wt dosent want.
• 

  Simon

  "creation scientists" is an oxymoron
• 

  Amelia Ashton

  I think finding a scientist or any academic who base their beliefs on evidence and facts lose their belief in fairy tales quite quickly and as more is known about how we got here a scientist with an imaginary friend becomes increasingly hard to find.

  We have a local fossil museum run by creationists and not a single quote is from this century and most are from pre moon landings. That is pretty damning evidence in itself.
• 

  jp1692

  Similar to what Simon said, there is no such thing as a “creationist scientist.” It’s a contradiction in terms and opposing philosophical world views.

  The closest thing would be a scientist that believes in a God. There are many of those, but they’re not “creationists” in the world-was-created-in-six-literal-days belief. No.
• 

  jp1692

  Michael Behe, the author of Darwin’s Black Box is a serious biochemist that argues that there is a god that is the creator of all things. His lines of reasoning are generally of the “argument from design” type.

  Behe is also a Catholic, but he most definitely is NOT a “creationist.”
• 

  2+2=5

  Doesn’t the WT(creationists) deny that they are creationists? Because they accept the earth is very old and wasn’t created in literal days, they don’t accept the title.

  They pick from the bible what they’ll accept as literal and what should be taken as figurative.
• 

  cofty

  Every time I put it to a JW on a cart that they are creationists they take offence. You have to explain the difference to them between old-earth and young-earth varieties of stupid.
• 

  _Morpheus

  Every time I put it to a JW on a cart that they are creationists they take offence. You have to explain the difference to them between old-earth and young-earth varieties of stupid.

  Even at that, cofty, they are a weird hybrid of young earth/old earth creationists. They sort of kind of are willing to admit that dinosaurs and such lived 100,000’s of years ago and that earth is eons of time old, but also twist into pretzels to make it all fit into the model that globe was wipped out with a flood 4k years ago and ignore the geological evidance of that.
  
  
• 

  2+2=5

  It must be a special variety of stupid.