Here is a good example of the sort of complex misrepresentations that the Watchtower Society performs. The 1998 Creator book says the following (chap. 2, pp. 14-16, How Did Our Universe Get Here? -- The Controversy):
Attempts to Explain the Beginning
Can experts now explain the origin of the universe? Many scientists, uncomfortable with the idea that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, speculate that by some mechanism it created itself out of nothing. Does that sound reasonable to you? Such speculations usually involve some variation of a theory (inflationary universe model)* conceived in 1979 by physicist Alan Guth. Yet, more recently, Dr. Guth admitted that his theory "does not explain how the universe arose from nothing." Dr. Andrei Linde was more explicit in a Scientific American article: "Explaining this initial singularity -- where and when it all began -- still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology."
If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early development of our universe, should we not look elsewhere for an explanation? Indeed, you have valid reasons to consider some evidence that many have overlooked but that may give you real insight on this issue. The evidence includes the precise measurements of four fundamental forces that are responsible for all properties and changes affecting matter. At the mere mention of fundamental forces, some may hesitate, thinking, ?That?s solely for physicists.? Not so. The basic facts are worth considering because they affect us.
* The inflation theory speculates as to what happened a fraction of a second after the beginning of the universe. Advocates of inflation hold that the universe was initially submicroscopic and then inflated faster than the speed of light, a claim that cannot be tested in a laboratory. Inflation remains a debated theory.
First, the reader will note that either no references, or woefully incomplete ones, are given for the quotations. Most readers wouldn't bother going to the trouble of digging them up.
Second, the author uses a bait and switch technique of argumentation. The topic is "attempts to explain the beginning", and the author raises the question, "can experts now explain the origin of the universe?" Not, "what happened after the origin of the universe?" but "what can explain the origin of the universe?" The author then brings in the "inflationary universe model" of physicist Alan Guth, as if this is supposed to be one of those theories of origin. But Guth's inflationary theory, as a cursory reading of the literature of physics and cosmology shows, is just one part of some Big Bang theories. Indeed, the author's footnote explicitly explains that "inflation theory speculates as to what happened a fraction of a second after the beginning of the universe." Obviously, the author is confused about whether he is dealing with theories of the origin or initial creation of the universe, and what happened in the instants after that creation. He is further confused by not understanding one of the basics of Big Bang theories: No physicist claims to know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang. Indeed, if someone asks about that, he will quickly be informed that science can say nothing about it, since it involves phenomena completely outside both the realm of physics, and our own universe. I know this from personal experience with Alan Guth, because not long after he was hired as an associate professor at MIT in 1980, I attended a lecture he gave on the relatively new idea of the "inflationary universe". Still being a JW in my outlook on creation and evolution, after the lecture I questioned him about his theory, because it made little sense to me. I specifically asked him about what caused the Big Bang, and he told me that I was asking a poor question, for the reasons I explained above. Point being: no one can say what "happened" before the universe existed.
All of this is lost on the Creator book's author. He is hopelessly confused about the origin of the universe versus what happened after that origin. He mixes up what physicists say about the origin (basically, "we don't know anything about it") with what they say happened afterwards (of which "inflationary theory" is but one aspect). He is completely confused about the huge distinction between Alan Guth's theory of what happened after the instant of the Big Bang, and what Dr. Andrei Linde said in the quoted Scientific American article, i.e., about "explaining this initial singularity -- where and when it all began."
All of this just goes to show that Watchtower writers are incompetent to write anything significant about science -- as if anyone who has come out of the Watchtower cult need be told this.
AlanF