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

by Disillusioned JW 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  One of my definitions of Evolution (in the context of debate) is:

  “A version of the history of life on Earth in which it is claimed that all biological life that has ever existed came about solely by non-intelligently guided naturalistic processes.”

  I think this accurately describes Evolution in the context of the Creation/Evolution debate.

  TonusOH wrote:

  I believe that in science, the working definition is "descent with modification."

  “descent with modification” can be vague (even possibly compatible with creationism depending on the situation), and is just one of several evolutionary scenarios, so it’s not a definition that’s comprehensive.

  Also, evolutionary theory allows for traits to to be received laterally and not just by descent.
• 

  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.
  
• 

  hooberus

  . . . except I wouldn't use the word "guided'. I think evolution is unguided.

  I agree with you on on that. A more clear way to say my definition could be:

  “A version of the history of life on Earth in which it is claimed that all biological life that has ever existed came about solely by naturalistic processes (as opposed to intelligently guided).
  
• 

  hooberus

  From the article on page 4

  Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.

  Can you give examples of ways to disprove Evolution (to the satisfaction of the naturalistic community?)
• 

  Rattigan350

  JWs aren't creationists.

  And the whole fossil thing is ridiculous.

  The very fact that females have mammaries that are triggered by pregnancy, and ovaries and a uterus and a canal that fits a penis that allows for fertilization and they get pleasure in the process; whereas men don’t have that, they have penis that fits in the canal that when ready to do that will take a shape to fit into it to fertilize those eggs and gets pleasure in the process.

  Evolution can not explain how an organism can split off and then evolve to the male and also evolve to the female where they have those separate functions. How would that one that evoles to a male know to alter the DNA to put a penis between the legs and then to make it erect to enter another person and then fertilze? How can a vagina evolve to fit a penis and then produce lubrication; when evolution has neither gender coordinating with each other. Why would mammaries even evolve since it is for the offspring? How could DNA of a mother evolve and mutate to develop organs for someone else?

  This all says there must be intelligent design. a creator that designed both to work together and he made it pleasurable so it gets done.
• 

  markweatherill

  Evolution can not explain
  

  Well, yes it can, whether you accept it or not.

  And then the question is whether you accept, or don't accept it, based on knowing what the explanations are, or based on refusing to know what the explanations are.
• 

  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".
  
• 

  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".
• 

  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] '
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  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.