Jehovas Witnesses – Dumb or Misleading?

Click to read full pamphlet


After getting my hands on the latest religious propaganda from the Jehovas Witnesses, I start to wonder if the common member actually knows that the informations being presented in this pamphlet are both misleading and wrong.

Do they ever research the claims that the Watchtower society publishes? Or do they just automatically assume that they are right?

I know what my atheist and skeptic friends would say, they are delusional and indoctrinated into a belief system where you obey blindly and do not question the authority.

A friend of mine has adressed the major points on the Q&A section of the pamphlet.

You can download the entire pamphlet (~7 MB) by clicking the image above.

The Q&A starts on Page 7.



Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from
non-living matter.

Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell
sprang from nonliving chemicals.



The pamphlet states that “at least three different types of complex molecules must work together (DNA, RNA, and proteins) for a cell to survive).”

What makes this statement fallacious is the fact that you do not need to have a cell that consists of these three elements to have life.

The definition of life when science talks about it, is a self-replecating molecule. Regardless of its medium.



Fact: Researches have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientsits have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity.


In question 1 the pamphlet states that life cannot spring from non-living matter. In question 2 they state that scientists have indeed been able to observed spontanous formation of the building blocks of life.

The Miller-Urey experiment as the pamphlet points out.

The pamphlet fails to point out that a lot of progress has been made after the original experiment was conducted in 1952. Both re-created and tweaked to fit better to the current proposed model of the primitive Earth.

Also in simulations scientists have looked at how the Earth could have sprung life from non-organic matter.

It is a good example of how religious propaganda tries to fit itself into the gaps of ignorance by ignoring research protocols.



Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

Question: What takes greater faith – to believe that millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind.


To quote my friend directly.

“I had to laugh at this point, I’m sorry but I really did. This is drivel, pure and simple. Can you find me one scientist, anywhere, who has ever proposed that RNA formed by chance and chance alone? You can’t, because none is stupid enough to propose such a notion. I happen to agree entirely that proteins cannot form by chance, that RNA cannot form by chance, and certainly that DNA cannot form by chance. A modern cell certainly can’t form by chance.”

It all ends with a common creationist “misunderstanding” of evolution. Talking about chance, when there are non-random events that controls it, known as natural selection.

But if it was chance? What is more likely, that it came to be small probabilites, or by magic?

The notion that cells can form spontaneously is preposterous and if someone made that claim they better be able to demonstrate how it would be possible.


My friend sums it up with.

I think that this booklet is extremely well written if it has the goal of hoodwinking the uninformed. It presents what sound like scientific ideas in a manner to make the reader think they are preposterous, and it steers the reader towards the notion of a deity as the only alternative should the reader choose to reject the fallacious notion of science presented. In short, it’s a dishonest publication aimed at those who are unfortunate enough not to have the education to see it’s fallacies, and my opinion of religious literature has dropped yet further after reading it.”

What do you think?

Post comments below.

And make sure to visit and register at:

Recent Posts

  • Omskæring af drenge
  • Circumcision–Would you tattoo a child?
  • Response to Erica
  • Updating & 13.5% to goal
  • Now accepting donations

Support Tylzen

Support my work


My Archive