HeKS raises a sobering point:
>>Darwinists . . . don’t seem to understand that people are capable of, for example, making ‘statements against interest’, or simply acknowledging facts and data that generally are inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, or with the popular notions of evolutionary theory, or with popular misconceptions regarding the evidence supporting the theory (or theories). Instead, they think – quite ridiculously – that it is inappropriate to quote anyone in support of a premise used in an anti-evolutionary argument unless the person being quoted agrees with a conclusion along the lines of “evolutionary theory is nonsense”.
This creates a ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ scenario, because if an ID proponent quotes an evolutionary biologist (or any other person in any field) who ‘believes in evolution’, then it is quote-mining, but if they quote someone else who also accepts ID, then the quote is to be understood as worthless, because the person they are quoting is already biased in their favor . . . >>
This all too common New Atheist/ Darwinist debater’s rhetorical stunt is an example of conclusion already in hand, let’s find some handy talking points. Yet another selectively hyperskeptical debate pattern that should be corrected by Darwinists and which should be avoided by us all.
Instead, while no authority is better than his facts and logic (i/l/o underlying assumptions), in practical argument, credible witnesses, summaries of experiences and facts, expert testimony to technical facts etc are all important to prudent reasoning.
So we need to assess the reasonable credibility of such sources, and we need to distinguish fact, logic and controlling assumptions. Where, it is very possible to make a key admission against interest — which is a key courtroom proof.
In that context, we then need to reckon with the context of arguments and warrant per inference to best explanation and other ways to ground a conclusion, however provisionally or however firmly.
Nor should we lose sight of the underlying worldviews level issues and influences:
HeKS has given us excellent food for thought. END
HeKs was being too kind KF, they know but the term quote mine appears to have been created to disqualify quotes that are used by critics of their position without being able to show anything wrong with the quotes.
A lot of these evolutionists do not want their position to be false because for them it has philosophical implications, so they will try and discredit with rhetoric, rather than honestly deal with rare moments of honesty by other evolution proponents.
JJ, sadly, in some cases you have a point. KF
Evolutionists have often protested ‘unfair’ to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point… The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. ~ Andrew Snelling
Coyne complains the book is ‘heavily larded’ with quotations from evolutionists. This leads into his being upset with being quoted himself, as discussed above. That aside, however. I don’t know what to make of this statement. What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists? Quotes from accountants? ~ Michael Behe
B, as in you host a considerable collection of quotes: http://bevets.com/quotes.htm with evo quotes: http://bevets.com/equotesj.htm KF
We might get more light on the subject if we had quotes from accountants than the nonsense some of the materialist evolutionists spout! 🙂
Seriously, though, the fact that some people are unable to grasp the concept of a statement against interest is quite telling. Of what we cannot be sure: perhaps either their lack of intellectual ability or their lack of intellectual integrity.
That isn’t to say that sometimes quotes aren’t taken out of context. Indeed, there a couple of quotes from Darwin that are regularly taken out of context (maybe a post for another time). But the regular cries of quote-mining are mostly of the “Wolf!” variety.
ES, I agree. And, I gather Darwin used his who can trust a monkey’s mind point to stop doubts on his theory, not to highlight that naturalistic epistemology driven by evolutionism becomes self referentially incoherent. Which incoherence is fatal. KF
PS: Let’s see if our materialists out there are willing to try to claim Nancy Pearcey is twisting out of context when she argues:
_____
I am finding the secondary captcha is behaving really oddly, cycling endlessly. I have had to use a trick to break through it.
kf @6:
Yes, that is one of the quotes I was thinking about.
The other that jumps to mind is the well-known “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ . . . ” quote.
—-
What is the trick you used to deal with this disastrous Captcha nonsense we have recently been saddled with?
F/N: Gould on gaps and stasis etc, here on — including a live case of accusation, where to this day while there was an error of “the” major groups, I cannot understand why the objector would latch on to that in the teeth of the following corrected cite: “transitions between
themajor groups are characteristically abrupt”. Where in context, we can see:I point out that characteristic implies a dominant, defining pattern that distinguishes from other things that may be held similar.
Cf. Dictionaries, e.g.:
KF
EA,
1: I copied off the intended comment post, cut it out then
2: put up a short nonsense phrase that on first level captcha then post comment became a comment zxcvb; then
3: went to the edit — we have 20 minutes — and copy-pasted over the nonsense phrase.
4: Update, and voila, the posted comment went through.
Annoying, but it seems there is a major spamming and trolling problem being tackled in the background.
As for the refresh the captcha then post comment, I have to change my habit of setting up that first then commenting.
If you see the second level captcha pop up, hit back on browser until you get the comment you wanted then do the short phrase and update, I guess is the way we have to go.
Brought to you courtesy your friendly neighbourhood troll.
KF
Evidence. Facts.
Roy, that evidence and those facts will normally be presented first on a literature review that will cite the work, analysis and/or conclusions of known figures. Then, further observations and analysis will be presented and conclusions will be drawn. Where, some highly relevant facts include key admissions against interest. KF
@Roy
Are you suggesting that evidence/facts and quotes from evolutionists are mutually exclusive?
They usually are when propagated by creationists/IDers.
But what I’m actually saying is that science is based on evidence, not on arguments from authority, and so a book concerning evolution doesn’t have to contain quotes at all. Behe’s quibbling over what kind of quotes such a book should contain is missing the point entirely.
@Roy
Of course it doesn’t have to. But with so many great quotes given against interest, surely one cannot blame Behe for including them. After all, it isn’t as though evolutionists consistently present evidence free from any kind of interpretive evaluation. It seems a bit of a double-standard to accuse Behe of not sticking with the evidence in quoting evolutionists. Those very same evolutionists must also have stepped outside the evidence, else Behe couldn’t provide quotes that were not about the evidence, could he?
Roy, you are now on record as a false accuser who did not even bother to do a check — as could easily have been done — before accusing away. Please leave this thread and do not return if you are unwilling to apologise for a longstanding string of abusive trollish rhetorical stunts. KF