This is another incredibly embarrassing article for any JW with even a little scientific knowledge. I can't believe they included that box on how evolution is not a scientific theory. Thank you, StrongHaiku for the link to the Scientific American webpage on 15 answers to creationists. It's an excellent article, indeed. In particular, for any lurking JWs who still buy into this notion that evolution is not scientific because it can't be observed, reproduced or it does not make predictions, please note that:
(1) These are simple negative assertions made by the WT, without a shred of evidence to support them.
(2) Evolution has been observed, has been reproduced and does make predictions. In fact, the article that StrongHaiku posted includes this observation:
Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
One recent excellent example is the discovery of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik roseae, which was only able to be discovered based on paleontologists making predictions about where such a fossil might be found, based on evolutionary theory