Why does JW.org deliberately misrepresent the scientific position on evolution?

You mean where you throw in a couple of out of context quotes to assert an argument that no evolutionary biologist will claim. Specifically, That evolution is the origin of life on this planet. The JWs arent the only ones to use such deceptive tactics.

It doesn't. The "authoritative" scientific groups who have declared that evolution is a fact are not the only voices among scientists.

And those who disagree are not all "creationists", that is young earth creationists, who believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days. The Bible in fact uses the word "day" to mean a specific period of time, and it is not always 24 hours - it can be 12 hours or even the entire period of creation.

The truth is that many scientists will deliberately dismiss any evidence that suggests that there might be an intelligence involved in the development of life, or of the universe. One scientific journal authority said that he would not allow "a divine foot in the door".

But, real science is nothing more than structured inquiry. If the data suggest intelligence, instead of discarding it, it would be more scientific to explore it. When anyone says that we follow the science unless it points toward intelligence, it is no longer science.

The brochure entitled "The Origin of Life- Five Questions Worth Asking" can be found easily by putting those words in the search box. It covers the five strongest scientific objections to evolution.

Another brochure entitled "Was Life Created?" can be found the same way. It has strong evidence in living things for intelligence, and a very large scientific bibliography,

I encourage everyone to look into these brochures, found at http://www.jw.org/

PS Some feel that evolution does not, and does not have to, address the beginning of life. However if it does not, then how could it explain the mechanism of life? It is like walking into a theater at the middle of the movie, and insisting that you know how it started! Or even worse, insisting that the beginning of the movie is not important to the story! The evolution theorists insist that they don't address the beginning of the process, but the real truth is that they cannot explain how something as complicated as life began. All they have are some predetermined amounts of chemicals forming a few amino acids in a destructive environment. Life requires hundreds, perhaps thousands, of specific amino acids put together in a specific way. So, who plays the role of the scientist who measured out the chemicals?

Evolution cannot be observed and is not scientific.

Fossils disprove evolution

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?

JW do not misrepresent the scientific position of evolution.................they give another explanation to the THEORY of evolution!

See a more expansive article here

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g20150...

The conlusion:.................CONCLUSION. While many insist that an evolutionary origin of life is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life developed.

Here is an article by Dr Hans Kristian

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g20140...

And a pharmaceutical researcher at Ghent University in Belgium

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g20140...

Again it is there outlook on life, I know you do not agree, that is your prerogative we all have views do we not ?

Terry

EDIT....EDIT

You might wan a see:

The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/The-Origin...

You say that it is a "deliberate" misrepresentation, but in their publications, they then go on to explain exactly what is meant.

So then, how does that constitute a "deliberate" misrepresentation?

It doesn't.

You are merely seeking to debate over terminology, and yet, I could just as easily pick at some of your comments to your question, for example,

"the fossil record contains pretty much exactly what is expected if evolution is correct."

"pretty much exactly"? The conflict in meaning of the words used speaks for itself.

"if evolution is correct"? Hang on a minute, if you have a problem with "jw.org deliberately misrepresent[ing] the scientific position on evolution," then what is the big deal if [biological] evolution is NOT correct?

"It is completely scientific." Is it? Note the commentary at:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0...

that includes the following:

"All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens."

Is he/she for real? Well, sadly, yes he/she is. What we are saying is that biological evolution IS a fact, we just don't know HOW it happens.

But then, if you go to:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/e...

it explains the "mechanisms" by which evolution occurs! So, according to what is claimed there, they KNOW "how it happens."

So, which is it? Do they know how biological evolution happens, or don't they?

No, they don't know AT ALL, do they, Space Wasp. It is mere speculation.

The variations observed in nature are allowed for according to what the Bible itself says, that is, "according to their kinds," or as we would say, their genus." [Genesis 1:21]

You cannot prove what it states there to be wrong, as it IS evident in nature. So, which is more "scientific"? That statement in Genesis, or one that merely affirms what the Bible says happens, calls it biological evolution, and then completely and utterly confounds its credibility by saying that indirect "evidence" of evolution which has not been proved and which theories go against the FACTS is, nonetheless, scientific?

NOTHING in that last site explains HOW life evolved from simple to complex life forms. It doesn't even come close.

The FACTS are that the real issue in biological change is all about what happens at the DNA level, which concerns information. The information carried on the DNA, the molecule of heredity, is like a recipe, a set of instructions for the manufacture of specific things.

For biological evolution to explain how life has come to exist as we see it today, it would necessitate that, in every case where simple life forms have become more complex, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net INCREASE of information during the alleged millions of years.

But the FACT is that a one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hands, hooves, paws, brains, etc. which is seen in complex life forms that we see. So for protozoa to have given rise to such life forms, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information, and great gobby gunks of it, Space Wasp.

The reality (which evolutionists concede when pressed) is that such changes invariably gets rid of information. To have a way to add information, evolutionists claim genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection).

However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever mutations are studied, they invariably turn out to have LOST or DEGRADED the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage—e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.

As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection [i.e. the more specialized they become], the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change.

The FACT is that less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.

"truthful representation," Space Wasp? Tch!

JW's messiah is Yosef who was crucified on a pole in 1066.

JW's leaders are Freemasons. Freemasonry was created by Sionists.

JW's await a king aka antichrist. Why? Because Jesus will come back to end the flying antichrist's rule when this antichrist conceives a thought in his evil mind that he 666-isotope-ray-lasered everyone.

So, when antichrist comes (in a few years), JW's will welcome him.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arius

ALL fundies do, why point them out.