I still have the impression that one publication of the WT explicitly says that the WT (and/or JWs) believes in "creation science" but I don't recall exactly where I read that. Perhaps it was an Awake! article from the early 1980s.
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [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.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [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.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
hooberus, in answer to your question of "Can you give examples of ways to disprove Evolution (to the satisfaction of the naturalistic community?)" I say the following. Richard Dawkins himself gave an example which would qualify as such. He stated it in his God Delusion book, but I don't remember where in the book it is mentioned. He said that if a fossil of a definite rabbit was found in a definite pre-Cambrian period layer it would (in his mind) disprove biological evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit says the following. ' "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist J. B. S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study.
... Some accounts use this response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by any empirical evidence. This followed an assertion by philosopher, Karl Popper, who had proposed that falsifiability is an essential feature of a scientific theory. Popper also expressed doubts about the scientific status of evolutionary theory, although he later concluded that the field of study was genuinely scientific.
... Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."[20] '
However, admittedly the same article says the following.
'Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify those errors.[2] '
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [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.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding the usage and meaning of the term "creation science" note the following.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w says the following. "Young-earth creationism, also known variously as literal-day creationism, literal creationism, or creation science, is a movement dedicated to providing purportedly scientific support for a particular literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis. Their reading of Genesis and subsequent attempts to gather evidence in support of their view puts them at odds with the scientific consensus on common descent and deep time."
https://ncse.ngo/young-earth-creationism says the following. 'Young Earth Creationists are among the more organized creationist movements. Two of the largest groups, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research produce magazines, websites, books, and videos for general audiences as well as publish journals which report on so-called "creation science".'
https://ncse.ngo/henry-morris-dies says the following. "Henry Morris, the founder of the "creation science" movement, died on February 25, 2006, in Santee, California, at the age of 87. ... Morris ... moved to California in order to establish the Creation Science Research Center, a creationist auxiliary .... Morris reorganized what remained as the Institute for Creation Research. Morris served as the president of the ICR from 1970 to 1995 ...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science says the following. 'Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] ... Creation science (dubbed "scientific creationism" at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the 1960s.[49] '
Morris coauthored a book copyright 1982 which was called What is creation science?
Rattigan350 I might have been wrong in thinking that the WT's LIfe--How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation? book (copyright 1985) says that JWs believe in "creation science" (in regards to using that term to describe the JWs view). Today I looked through the book to see if says uses the specific expression of "creation science" to describe it beliefs, but I didn't find it doing so. However To me the book promotes the idea of "creation science". That is because of two things. I do see the book using the word "Creation" (on page 10 of the book, and elsewhere in the book) to describe its beliefs. Furthermore, on pages 10-11 I see the book says that the book will examine both the claim "that creation is not scientific" and the idea that the Genesis account of creation is "in harmony with the discoveries of modern science".
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [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.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Rattigan350, though the WT says that JWs are not creationists they actually are creationists, though not the young earth creationist type. The WT defines creationists as only those who believe in young earth creationism, but old earth non-evolutionary creationism (even if it incorporates a biosphere of hundreds of millions of years) is still a type of creationism. JWs are creationist since they believe Jehovah God created the universe and all biological life without using a macroevolutionary process. The WT's LIfe--How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation? book (copyright 1985) says that JWs believe in "creation science" not creationism, but a few years ago I examined some literature (written from before 1985) by young earth creationists which promote young earth creationism, and those books said the books promoted "creation science". As a result, even the term term "creation science" is a term created by creationists (probably specifically of the young earth type of creationism) to refer to creationism (including young earth creationism) in a way that sounds scientific. Another term used is "Scientific Creationism" and i have a book ("Copyright 1974, Second Edition 1985") with that term as its title; it is authored by Henry M. Morris of the "Institute for Creation Research".
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [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.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Hi hooberus. I accept your definition of evolution (which includes the origin of life from lifeless chemicals, and subsequent biological evolution to multiple taxonomic groups of life), except I wouldn't use the word "guided'. I think evolution is unguided.
I like that your definition is broad enough to allow for multiple possible mechanisms of evolution (including horizontal gene transfer) and multiple rates of evolution. I think that most of biological evolution in the animal kingdom happened in a punctuated equilibrium manner involving allopatric speciation. Genetic mutations, environmental conditions (including changes in environmental conditions), and natural selection also play a major role.
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: In an earlier post instead of saying "I word it that we because of us have different ..." I should have said "I word it that we because all of us have different ..." or I should have said "I word it that we all have different ...".
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
What are the odds that the Bible is correct about what it says about Armageddon, not merely what it said about when Armageddon would happen?
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
What are the odds that Armageddon will ever happen?
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
What are the odds that Armageddon will happen in any of our lifetimes? I word it that we because we have different lifetimes (with possible rare exceptions, we will die on different days).
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [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.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Eric Chaisson (the author of the web page mentioned in my prior post) at https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html says the following.
"A Symmetry Argument Physicists are mainly charged with the application of the laws of Nature to the present state of something in order to predict its future. Although, in recent years, a renewed respect for the role of chance has somewhat diminished our ability to predict outcomes in the old, mechanistic, Newtonian sense, we still like to try our hand at predicting general trends, if not the details. In the case of the whole Universe, that “something” is literally all things—nothing in particular, just everything in general. Hence, if we find it hard to mentally reverse time to appreciate the earliest epoch of the Universe, we can instead take advantage of the natural symmetry of a model Universe that will eventually contract, and thereby predict the physical events destined to occur as a closed Universe nears its final phase of total collapse (see Figure 1.16). This procedure is valid only because the mathematics describing contraction are a mirror image of those for expansion. In other words, the events that will occur just prior to the end of a contracting Universe mimic those that already happened just after the start of an expanding Universe. Not that time ever does reverse, as best we know. Rather, we can use some of the symmetry built into the laws of physics to estimate the final events of such a hypothetically closed Universe, thus gaining some inkling of the initial events ~14 billion years ago. FIGURE
Even if the real Universe is not closed in this way and will never collapse to a singularity, astrophysicists employ closed models in order to understand theoretically some of the highlights of the earliest epoch of either a closed or an open evolutionary Universe. It’s an example of how we can use symmetry and scaling arguments—to scale models up, or scale them down, in this case to scale them back in time—in order to recreate mentally places and times we could never actually visit physically."