I've noticed that Watchtower doesn't reference much of anything anymore.
Why does WT rarely reference creationist scientist?
The JWs I have spoken to on carts are completely ignorant as to how dinosaurs really became extinct or the time frame of when.
OGTG - I've noticed that Watchtower doesn't reference much of anything anymore.
Spot on, it's just all warm and fuzzy stuff these days.
JWs don't trust scientists at all.
What's the objection to the term creationist scientist? There are scientists who don't believe in evolution and believe in creation. Don't understand the objection to the term. If they have a science doctorate and work in science they are a scientist. Why is it an oxymoron? I believe in evolution by the way, just baffled by the objection the the term.
Another, perhaps overlooked factor, is that some Writing Department brother once quoted such a creationist in an article that made it into publication, Jerry Bergman. Bergman is an ex-Witness who is highly critical of the org, and quoting such ones in the publications is real no-no. Oops!
But I think the other comments above are on the mark. Org policy has long been to distinguish themselves from, and be independent of, the churches as much as possible, and creationists are major Fundamentalists. It's like the org's reluctance to use terms like "New Testament" and "the afterlife." They'll use them rarely for the benefit of non-believers, but generally avoid them in order to be different.
OGTG and RB: agreed!
As far as I am concerned, anyone who believes that the human race began when god created Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago, is a creationist, and there are plenty of scientists who are therefore creationists. Of course, the term ‘scientist’ has a wide variety of applications, hence the Awake! often features articles where ‘scientists’ explains their faith, and these include microbiologists, biochemists, embryologists, pathologists, physicists, surgeons etc etc. The Watchtower should have no trouble quoting from these people for they are fellow Witnesses, so why don’t they? Perhaps because these people are not biologists have not produced a thesis or a research papers on any aspect of evolution that would carry any weight, therefore there is nothing of worth from these people to quote.
I was always puzzled when the WT quoted Christendom theologians or scientists in support of their position on some issue.
I'd think, "Wait a minute. Aren't these people the WT usually denounces? How can they suddenly be credible authorities? And if they're credible sources, why aren't JWs allowed to read their writings?"
The sciences are becoming ever more specialized. Scientist very competitive for reputations and funds. They are desperate to be cited in published paper,but have their reputation tarnished by implicit or real goofs. Therefore probably would really push back if their name would appear in an article on wt or "awake" paper, particularly when reading their content was once hailed as the equivalent of an college education.
lack of quotes, fear of bad publicity, cost of law suits, being associated with questionable "science". even if they are themselves adhere to it. . and
yes, serious science can be done outside the establishment. read the Einstein story.
It’s odd isn’t it. They are being very ‘savvy’.... they hold clear creationist views but a few years back stated clearly in the literature that JWs are not creationists.
I think the GB have enough insight into their ridiculous doctrines and world beliefs, that when they see creationists are effortlessly mocked with fact and science...... it’s a dangerous group to associate the JW brand to.
Oddly they also once said they don’t take the bible literally ..... they literally do.
I think it’s all nothing more than safety netting the brand.
Just watched this. Sidepoint--a woman narrator! Wow. I have never encountered that before, unless it was a narrator for a woman's life story.