Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

by Disillusioned JW 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism? [which has an article called "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? - (an expose of creationist Dr. Duane Gish)"] says the following.

    'A look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.


    With the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices. But stubbornly, the creationist movement refused to die. Scientists had misjudged their opponents because they had assessed the creationist arguments from a scientific standpoint. Many failed to realize that it is not facts or theories that drive the creationist machine; it is strong religious beliefs, and the need to protect traditional lifestyles and values from the threat of secularism and "godless" evolution. Because of this, creationists do not use the methods of science to spread their message. They rely on charisma, religious faith, and emotional appeals which depict evolution as a destroyer of society (LaHaye 1974) and evolutionists as materialistic atheists who conspire to suppress creationism while hiding the many supposed weaknesses of evolution (Gish 1990a).

    In recent years, some scientists have implied or stated that creationists regularly use distortion and deception when promoting creationism (Kitcher 1984; Godfrey 1984). For example, Tim Berra, a zoology professor at Ohio State University has stated: "The arguments of these fundamentalist missionaries often involve tortured logic, a stubborn denial of the evidence, a shallow understanding, or a reckless disregard for the truth" (1990: 125-126). Do creationists knowingly use deception to promote their cause?


    According to the book, The Creationist Movement in Modern America, the psychology of creationists is very different from that of evolutionists (Eve and Harrold 1991). The authors say that creationists tend to perceive the world through the filter of their religious beliefs, and they differ from their opponents in "their most profound understandings of reality, religion, American society, and the nature of the scientific enterprise" (pp. 67).

    In light of that perspective, it is not surprising that some people who have met or debated Gish have come to the conclusion that he is not knowingly dishonest.' says the following.

    Bowden, M.
    c.1977, Sovereign Publications
    ISBN: 0-9506042-0-8
    An all-out attack on paleoanthropology, heavily criticizing all aspects of the evidence for human evolution. Besides being hopelessly mistaken in many areas, it's mostly obsolete since so many new finds and reinterpretations have been made in paleoanthro since 1977.


    Gish, Duane
    c.1978, Creation-Life Publishers
    ISBN: 0-89051-046-6
    Duane Gish has written three books in an ongoing attempt to discredit the fossil record as evidence for evolution. This was the first of the three. Long on polemics and short on details, riddled with mistakes in the few facts it does offer, this book shows little evidence that Gish really understands the details of the topics he is attacking.

    Gish, Duane
    c.1985, Creation-Life Publishers
    ISBN: 0-89051-112-8
    Despite the different title, this is really just a rewrite or update of Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Like the earlier version, it's full of errors of many kinds.

    Gish, Duane T.
    c.1995, ICR
    ISBN: 0-89051-112-8
    The third and (so far) latest version of Gish's ongoing attack on the fossil record as support for evolution. Like the two earlier versions, it's full of mistakes and fallacies of many kinds. It's interesting to note that this book is nearly twice the size of Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, which itself was twice the size of the first edition, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! The books keep getting longer because the collection of fossil evidence that supports evolution, which Gish is trying to refute, keeps getting larger.'

    Months ago I saw the book EVOLUTION: THE CHALLENGE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD at a thrift store and I thought of buying it, but I decided against doing so because I suspected it likely has numerous false and misleading claims in it, and I didn't want to spend a lot of time fact checking it. Due to what the article called "Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? - (an expose of creationist Dr. Duane Gish)" says it looks like I made a wise choice to not purchase that book. However, studying Gish's book would have caused me to see specific examples of the extent of the flaws of creationist statements about evolution, as well as seeing some problems with evolutionism. The WT in its criticisms of evolution and evolutionism is considerably influenced by creationist literature.

  • waton

    evolution, as revealed in the fossil record, is a process that is an ingenious creative method, more subtle than the "tinkering by god" theory of the fundamentalists.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze




    Examination of the above fits with a Creation paradigm, not deep time. In addition to all this, the study of genetics utterly disproves evolution as Dr. Sanford ( world-famous geneticist and author of over 100 peer-reviewed science papers) explains at the National Institutes of Health .... starting at around the 17 minute mark.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Though Francis Hitching is convinced of biological evolution (but not of natural selection) the website gives criticism of his The Neck of the Giraffe book in addition to the books of various creationist authors, but I think that Hitching's book has a lot of informative accurate content. [To my surprise I haven't yet been able to find any online article written by an evolutionist (whether by a scientist or by a non-scientist) about Hitching's book which which says anything positive about the book. Granted Hitching's book promotes some incorrect ideas, but a lot of the content of the book is factual and important information.] In Hitching's book called The Neck of the Giraffe Hitching said that Bowden's book called Apemen - Fact of Fallacy? is the best of the creationist books, yet sharply criticizes that creationist book.

  • truth_b_known

    Has anyone else ever noticed that it seems only Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity, tend to be the only ones who create such disharmony over this debate. I find the debate itself very specific, though most do not spell things out.

    The debate is presented in this way -

    Life - How did it get here? By Evolution or Creation?

    First, the question is inappropriate. No life comes from evolution. The correct question is - By abiogenesis or creation?

    Second, it is misleading in that the question is often posed in a very specific context - Life? How did it get here? By abiogenesis or the God of the Bible?

    Why is this? Because Christianity has the Biblical creations account as a foundation, a core principle teaching. To disprove it would be looked on as catastrophic by many Christians. Therefor, the very life of their faith is caught up in a life and death battle.

    As someone once told me "If you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics suck." So, I don't think the Watchtower has a monopoly on the charlatanism used in attempt to prove the Biblical creation theory. I believe there is sufficient evidence of that.

    What is sad is that by accepting the impending reality that the Bible's creation account and the Garden of Eden story are only allegorical would be a huge step in doing what is necessary to keep the faith, any faith for that matter, alive. That is to say, the faith needs to evolve or it will go extinct.

  • Vidqun

    Information system: computer > quantum computer > advanced programming vs. cell nucleus > DNA/RNA > information system + manufacturing system (preprogrammed). The computer needs a designer, manufacturer and programmer. Yet the cell and its programming and manufacturing system have as yet not been duplicated from scratch. It is impossible for an information system to develop on its own. It needs a designer, manufacturer and programmer.

  • waton
    for an information system to develop on its own. It needs a designer, manufacturer and programmer

    V: or, if not a designer in a hands on involvement, at a minimum,

    the energy, the place, the laws, the choice of outcomes, the incentive to happen. and: energy is uncreated.
  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @vidqun: it has been proven in practice that complex information systems can evolve without any further input. You can actually build a Turing-complete computer (a system that can compute ANY computable problem) with just 3 simple rules which boil down to: the fittest survive, sexual reproduction is a thing and overpopulation is bad.

    Likewise, RNA and DNA has successfully been “created” from “nothing” in the lab. Across the Universe we are finding that these building blocks of life are naturally occurring all over the place and it seems just a matter of time and chance before you got enough. Of the ~50 building blocks of DNA life forms, we’ve been able to create all but ~10 in the lab simply by simulating an early earth environment.

  • waton
    we’ve been able to create all but ~10 in the lab simply by simulating an early earth environment.

    AM: that only leaves the small detail to also furnish the sun energy the earth, the lab.

    just because we find out how it works -- does not mean it was not work in the first place.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    Likewise, RNA and DNA has successfully been “created” from “nothing” in the lab.

    Anonymous: Do you have a link to a peer reviewed paper for this ?

    I'm curious, what did you think of the data I presented above showing the impossibility of even an 8 letter genetic word being homogeneous to a genetic population in many billions of years (longer than the age of the universe)?

    Keep in mind that there is a 100 million base pair difference between us and chimps (supposedly our closest evolutionary relative); this is not even counting the nearly 400 million base pairs difference resulting from their genome being 13% longer than ours.

Share this