Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quoting, Misquoting, Quote-Mining

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD Editors: There is nothing new under the sun says the teacher. With all the furor over false quote mining charges recently, it seems appropriate to revisit this piece Dr. Dembski first published on April 26,2005 (making it among the first of the now 11,000+ UD posts).

Unlike the serious sciences (e.g., quantum electrodynamics, which is accurate up to 14 decimal places), evolution has become an exercise in filling holes by digging others. Fortunately, the cognitive dissonance associated with this exercise can’t be suppressed indefinitely, so occasionally evolutionists fess-up that some gaping hole really is there and can’t be filled simply by digging another hole. Such admissions, of course, provide ready material for evolution critics like me. Indeed, it’s one of the few pleasures in this business sticking it to the evolutionists when they make some particularly egregious admission. Consider the following admission by Peter Ward (Ward is a well-known expert on ammonite fossils and does not favor a ID-based view):

“The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.
— Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1992), 29.

Pretty convincing indicator that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory, wouldn’t you say? Note that this is not a misquote: I indicate clearly that Ward does not support ID and there’s sufficient unedited material here to make clear that he really is saying that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory.

You’d think, therefore, that the evolutionary community might be grateful to evolution critics for drawing their attention to this problem, treating it as an incentive to get the lead out and figure out just what happened during the Cambrian. But that’s not what happens. Rather, evolution critics are charged with “quote mining,” misrepresenting the true state of evolutionary theory by focusing on a few scattered problems rather than toeing the party line and admitting that evolution is overwhelmingly confirmed.

This happened when I quoted from the above passage by Ward in a popular piece titled “Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge” (go here). In due course I received the following email:

Dear Dr. Dembski,

I would appreciate the citation for your recent quote from Peter Ward, “The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.”

Thank you,

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.

Innocent enough request. The piece in which the quote appeared was popular, so I hadn’t given the reference. I wrote back giving the full citation. Next thing I read on the web is a piece (co-authored by Hurd) twice as long as my original piece focused on the sin of quote-mining (go here). And, as is now standard operating procedure, the original author of the quote is contacted for comment on being “quote-mined.” Predictably, the author (in this case Ward) is shocked and dismayed at being quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution. Evolutionists may not know much about what actually happened in the course of natural history, but they have this script down:

We [i.e., Gary Hurd et al.] emailed and then telephoned Peter Ward to ask him for a citation to this quote. He actually couldn’t recall where he had written this. Ultimately we had to ask William Dembski for the citation, which he promptly provided. We would like to thank him publicly for this courtesy. Professor Ward was not at all pleased, and wished us to convey to Dr. Dembski his displeasure at his writing being manipulated in this fashion. We consider this as done herein.

Word of advice: if you are an evolutionist and don’t want to be quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution, resist the urge — don’t criticize it. If tempted, even if the reality of evolution’s gaping holes is staring you in the face, close your eyes and repeat the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution.”

Through long experience, this has been found to be the most effective way to rejoin your fellow sleepwalkers.

Comments
Where are the many gradual fossils between the small shellies of the Precambrian and the trilobites of the Cambrian, Matzke? Show them to us that we may come worship at your feet. You are the delusional one, dude.Mapou
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Matzke #38: Meyer and Luskin are delusional. Saying “we don’t understand the exact relationships of many small shellies” is far different from …
Nobody says this; that is not a quote. By saying “we don’t understand the exact relationships ..)” you are suggesting that we understand quite a lot and we are only quibbling about details. To suggest this is very cunning indeed, however this is not the case. What is being said about small shellies is that they “are very difficult indeed to interpret.” (Valentine) , “many SSFs are still poorly understood.” (Valentine) , “largely problematic” and “hard to diagnose even at the phylum level” (Marshall).
… saying “these small shellies are totally irrelevant and can be safely ignored.” Meyer and Luskin do the latter.
Meyer and Luskin base their position on the findings of the likes of Valentine and Marshall. If Meyer and Luskin are delusional then so are James Valentine and Charles Marshall. Is that what you are saying?Box
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Matzke, I've noticed that you have stated this,,
'Over (here) in reality'
,, quite a few times. I find that to be a very peculiar thing for a Darwinist to say since advances in quantum mechanics have now shown that 'reality' is Theistic in its basis and 'reality' is not materialistic in its basis as is presupposed by atheistic neo-Darwinists. ,,, Notes:
Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU
If you have trouble accepting the implications of the preceding video, don’t feel alone, Nobel prize winner Anthony Leggett, who developed Leggett’s inequality to try to prove that an objective material reality exists when we are not looking at it, still does not believe the results of the experiment that he himself was integral in devising, even though the inequality was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude. He seems to have done this simply because the results contradicted the ‘realism’ he believes in (realism is the notion that an objective material reality exists apart from our conscious observation of it).
A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
In fact there are several other intersecting lines of evidence from quantum besides Leggett's Inequality that give clear evidence that mind precedes matter. Evidence that allows the argument for God from consciousness to be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
supplemental note:
Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel (Atheist) Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128
bornagain77
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Meyer and Luskin are delusional. Saying "we don't understand the exact relationships of many small shellies" is far different from saying "these small shellies are totally irrelevant and can be safely ignored." Meyer and Luskin do the latter. Over in reality, here is the conclusion of a 43-page review article largely on the small shellies, Maloof et al. (2010):
CONCLUSIONS In his chapter on the imperfection of the geological record, Darwin alludes in passing to a different explanation for the supposed sudden appearance of animals in the lowest fossiliferous strata. He writes "[w]e should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy" (Darwin, 1859, p. 307). It is this explanation -- the incompleteness of our knowledge -- that has turned out to be closer to the truth. The problem of missing fossil ancestors was solved by the discovery of the Precambrian fossil record, the problem that nearly all the animal phyla appear in the Lower Cambrian with no evidence of intermediate taxa was solved by the recognition that most Lower Cambrian fossils represent stem-groups of living phyla, and the problem of the explosive diversification of animals at the start of the Tommotian was solved by improved correlation and radiometric dating of Lower Cambrian sequences -- to which we contribute here -- showing that this diversification was drawn out over more than 20 m.y. p. 1752 of: Adam C. Maloof, Susannah M. Porter, John L. Moore, Frank Oe. Dudas, Samuel A. Bowring, John A. Higgins, David A. Fike, and Michael P. Eddy (2010). "The earliest Cambrian record of animals and ocean geochemical change." GSA Bulletin, 122(11/12), pp. 1731-1774. doi: 10.1130/B30346.1
NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Matzke #33: (…) in fact, several of the class Cambrian phyla have been tied to various small shellies, so their origin from the small shellies is undisputed. Everyone except Stephen Meyer and his fans, and authors from decades ago before most people knew about the small shellies, think this is incredibly important and relevant evidence.
On evolutionnews there are two recent (October 23) articles on small shelly fossils; one by Luskin and one by Meyer himself. The content strongly differs with Matzke’s and, unlike Matzke, both Luskin and Meyer substantiate their position.
Luskin: Other authorities agree that these small shelly fossils [SSFs] are of unclear evolutionary significance and affinity. In his book On the Origin of Phyla, James Valentine argues that the SSFs "are very difficult indeed to interpret." Valentine's 2013 book, The Cambrian Explosion, co-written with Douglas Erwin, notes that "many SSFs are still poorly understood." Simon Conway Morris found them so unimportant that he does not mention them in either of his authoritative books on the Cambrian explosion (Crucible of Creation or Life's Solution).
Meyer: (…) Marshall himself, like many other Cambrian experts, does not regard the small shelly fossils as obviously ancestral to most of the animals that arise in the main explosive period of the Cambrian radiation. In one 2006 paper he depicts them as (apparently) disconnected from the later more significant pulses of morphological innovation. In fact, Marshall notes repeatedly that the small shelly fossils are "largely problematic" and "hard to diagnose even at the phylum level." Moreover, in a technical article published in 2010, Marshall specifically excludes the small shelly fossils from the ten million year "geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing quite disparate body plans" that he and co-author James Valentine designate "as the Cambrian explosion." In any case, treating the first appearance of the small shelly fossils as the beginning of the Cambrian explosion does little to explain the main pulse of the morphological innovation that occurs later during the 10-million-year window that paleontologists commonly designate as "the explosion."
Box
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Correction: Then he tries very hard to explain why he (Ward) does not think it is a problem.Mapou
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Nick Matzke, As I wrote earlier, Ward did indeed say that the sudden appearance of large and complex skeletal metazoans was a problem for Darwinian evolution. Then he tries very hard to explain why he (Ward) does think it is a problem. But nobody has to accept Ward's pronouncements as truth. Who in the hell is he? It is still a big problem and many are not convinced by Ward's cockamamie explanations. Ward posits that the smallish and simple skeletal metazoans of the pre-Cambrian were the Darwinian precursors of the much bigger and much more complex trilobites and brachiopods that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. But we all know that it is a bunch of dishonest hogwash. It's just an attempt to cover up the problem by quickly sweeping it under the rug, hoping nobody is looking. The fact is that the gradual succession of ever more complex and bigger fossils from the Precambrian fossils to the large and complex trilobites are nowhere to be found. The truth cannot be denied. Darwin would not be satisfied.Mapou
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
class Cambrian phyla --> classic Cambrian phylaNickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
The answers are: 1. Not much -- back then, it was roughly "poof, trilobites". 2. Since the 1950s we have found 100+ million years of various fossils preceding the first trilobites 3. The relationship of the Ediacarans to the classic Cambrian phyla is still debated, but at the very least they show that multicellularity had evolved and they are thus probably stem-groups to metazoans or basal metazoan clades. 4. The "small shellies" gradually increase in complexity over ~20 million years from tiny simple tubes right up to the very point where the classic phyla body fossils are found -- in fact, several of the class Cambrian phyla have been tied to various small shellies, so their origin from the small shellies is undisputed. Everyone except Stephen Meyer and his fans, and authors from decades ago before most people knew about the small shellies, think this is incredibly important and relevant evidence. The different Peter Ward quotes are, I think, stating these different points (I don't have the book handy). Selecting a quote out of context, not understanding the detail of which of the points above it is addressing, and then pretending it is some kind of authoritative statement on the fact of the matter on the fossil evidence as it exists at present, is precisely what scientists are annoyed about when they level the quote-mining complaint at creationists/IDists.NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
More on the specific topic of what Peter Ward meant, versus how Dembski abused his quote: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/why_do_scientists_get_so_angry/
27 BoxDecember 23, 2013 at 6:53 am Very interesting! Meyer quotes Peter Ward: Although many paleontologists initially showed interest in the possibility that the Cambrian animal forms might have evolved from the Ediacaran organisms, paleontologist Peter Ward explains that “later study cast doubt on the affinity between these ancient remains preserved in sandstones [the Australian Ediacaran] and living creatures of today” (that is, animals representing phyla that first arose in the Cambrian). – Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 181 So, contrary to the allegedly damning quote for Dembski, Ward here states that affinity is now in doubt. And what’s interesting is that this quote is from the same book: Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail, p.36. So page 36(!), that is one page after the page containing the quote that allegedly discredits Dembski. Unfortunately I don’t have Ward’s book. I’m curious to find out what Ward is trying to say here. From here it seems like a bunch of mixed messages.
It only seems mixed because you are probably failing to distinguish several details that are scientifically important. To wit: 1. What did the the Precambrian-to-Cambrian fossil record look like before 1950? 2. What did the the Precambrian-to-Cambrian fossil record look like after discoveries in recent decades? 3. What is the relationship of the NON-skeletonized Ediacaran-type fossils that occur before the classic Cambrian representatives of the phyla, like trilobites? 4. What is the relationship of the SKELETONIZED fossils that occur before the classic Cambrian representatives of the phyla, like trilobites?NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
“Gish gallop” is both an accusation of lying and a gratuitous insult to a man not present to defend himself. Taken together, they tell us all we need to know about your want of basic good manners.
No, it's an accusation of throwing out a whole bunch of claims on disparate topics in rapid-fire succession, each of which would take paragraphs to discuss sensibly, therefore avoiding whatever the actual topic was supposed to be.NickMatzke_UD
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
NM: "Gish gallop" is both an accusation of lying and a gratuitous insult to a man not present to defend himself. Taken together, they tell us all we need to know about your want of basic good manners. On the basic issue, FYI, I am staying on the precise line of what I posted earlier, by highlighting that in fact the understanding of Darwin that is evident from BA's citation of Eldreedge is consistent with a reasonable understanding of Darwin's writings and 150 years of searching for and headlining then often having to withdraw so-called missing links. All in a context where had the Darwinist mechanisms dominated the origin of life forms, such transitionals would dominate the fossil record. Your resort to false accusation of lying on my part and insult to a man not present to defend himself, speaks volumes and none of it to your advantage. If you wish to have a discussion -- which on track record and present behaviour I must doubt, kindly refrain from such false accusations in future. Finally, I do insist that OOL is the root of the first of all icons of evolution [it is the only diagram in original edition, Origin], and stands as the biggest single gap in the whole evolutionary materialist picture of origins. It also happens to be decisive on the reason why design is a serious alternative on origins, as of right not sufferance and scorn. KFkairosfocus
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
A few points. The term "quote mining" is often a red herring. I cannot imagine anyone critical of the Darwinian paradigm, not paying homage to the naturalistic evolution of species. They will not embrace ID or anything close to it. So caveats are to be expected. Thus, when one finds a criticism of Darwinian processes, there will always be the dutiful comment that they believe in some naturalistic process. But the fact that they criticize the main process is open season for use of their writings. They are just not going to embrace ID or anything close to it. In the journal that Mr. Matzke pointed to on transitions in a previous post, Eldredge wrote the opening essay and in it he seems to try to make the point that Darwin did not believe in a gradualist approach but that his early beliefs were consistent with punctuated equilibrium. Search for
A Question of Individuality: Charles Darwin, George Gaylord Simpson and Transitional Fossils
and you should be able to find the pdf file. Just what is Eldredge saying. Hard to tell some times. And we have a statement by Nick that he is not an atheist from his post at the skeptical zone.jerry
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Matzke endorses goodusername’s post and goes on to say “so I think Eldredge was wrong in saying that Darwin expected a constant change affecting all lineages through time, and didn’t anticipate anatomical conservatism.”
On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though this appearance is often false, to have come in suddenly on the successive geological stages? Although we now know that organic beings appeared on this globe, at a period incalculably remote, long before the lowest bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? For on the theory, such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs of the world's history. I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. - Darwin, Origin Of Species,1879, p.407/408 [my emphasis]
Box
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Very interesting! Meyer quotes Peter Ward:
Although many paleontologists initially showed interest in the possibility that the Cambrian animal forms might have evolved from the Ediacaran organisms, paleontologist Peter Ward explains that “later study cast doubt on the affinity between these ancient remains preserved in sandstones [the Australian Ediacaran] and living creatures of today” (that is, animals representing phyla that first arose in the Cambrian). – Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 181
So, contrary to the allegedly damning quote for Dembski, Ward here states that affinity is now in doubt. And what’s interesting is that this quote is from the same book: Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail, p.36. So page 36(!), that is one page after the page containing the quote that allegedly discredits Dembski. Unfortunately I don’t have Ward’s book. I’m curious to find out what Ward is trying to say here. From here it seems like a bunch of mixed messages.Box
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke links to http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/04/down-in-quotemine.html. On this page the following quote which supposedly discredits Dembski:
Until almost 1950 the absence of metazoan fossils older than Cambrian age continued to puzzle evolutionists and earth historians alike. Other than the remains of single-celled creatures and the mat like stromatolites, it did indeed look as if larger creatures had arisen with a swiftness that made a mockery of Darwin’s theory of evolution. This notion was finally put to rest, however, by the discovery of the Ediacarian and Vendian fossil faunas of the latest Precambrian age. - ‘On Methuselah's Trail’, Ward, p. 35.
Presenting the Ediacaran or Vendian fauna as the solution of the Cambrian enigma, as Ward apparently does, is simply wrong. The notion that these fossils bridge the gap to trilobites and such is even rejected by Nick Matzke. It follows that the following text quoted by Dembski remains very relevant:
The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it. - p.29
Box
December 23, 2013
December
12
Dec
23
23
2013
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
NickMatzke_UD @20:
And, the Peter Ward quote turns out to be an excellent case of a quote mine. For the original context, where Peter Ward talks about how subsequent earlier fossil discoveries have confirmed that the Cambrian phyla didn’t evolve all-at-once, see the post originally linked from comment #2: http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/.....emine.html
The way I see it, Peter Ward did in fact acknowledge that it was a problem for Darwinian evolution that required a solution. Why mention it otherwise? He went on to explain why, in his view, it was not really a problem for Darwin. Here's a quote from the link you provided quoting a section of the same chapter in Peter Ward's book. This was given as evidence that Bill Dembski was quote-mining (emphasis mine):
The long accepted theory of the sudden appearance of skeletal metazoans at the base of the Cambrian was incorrect: the basal Cambrian boundary marked only the first appearance of relatively large skeleton-bearing forms, such as the trilobites and brachiopods, rather than the first appearance of skeletonized metazoans. Darwin would have been satisfied. The fossil record bore out his conviction that the trilobites and brachiopods appeared only after a long period of evolution of ancestral forms. (pp. 36-37)
First off, I don't see why this proves that Dembski was quote-mining. Second, this does not satisfy Darwin's requirement of a gradual evolution, in my opinion. How much bigger and complex were the trilobites and brachiopods compared to the much simpler and smallish skeletal metazoans of the pre-Cambrian? One would expect a long gradual succession of skeletal fossils similar in size and complexity to those trilobites and brachiopods, right? My understanding is that they are nowhere to be found. The big trilobites appeared suddenly, no? Am I wrong?Mapou
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Nice changing the topic + Gish gallop, kairosfocus!NickMatzke_UD
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Jerry, I last noticed him active at Watts up With That. KFkairosfocus
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
NM: It seems that when the shoe is on the other foot, you shift to strawman tactics. We have a good many examples of case (a). You and your ilk are bound and determined to portray them as case b(ii) especially. That suffices to show what is going on. KF PS: And, Oh yes NM, I have read Darwin in Ch 10 of Origin and Ch 6 of Descent of Man. He patently HOPED events would bear him out, but was busily explaining why the record was only poorly investigated and only regionally investigated. In Ch 6, he went on to the point of coolly predicting extinctions of lesser races without halting to address the major moral hazard in his theory -- so hasty was he to try to fend off the obvious problem of gaps in the fossils. Likewise, the glee with which Archaeopteryx in was it 1861 and various proposed missing links have been triumphantly headlined in Darwin's lifetime and since inadvertently shows the true underlying issue. Do I need to talk of the circumstances of Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and more, much more? The predicted whales in sketches of the 1990's that were ever so far off? The famous warning on how fossil reconstructions can be highly misleading as anything from a Chimp's features to a philosopher's face can be moulded -- then in clay, now digitally? Nat Geog's dino bird blunders of the late 90's? And so forth? The pattern of desperately sought links that should dominate the record but are still missing, has been a long running saga that has been acknowledged time and again in candid moments, but dare not any questioner or doubter of the evo mat mythos and magisterium suggest such or quote . . . he is a low down creationist quote miner! Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked! But in fact, the fossils are the only actual record of life and from the Cambrian revolution on, the bottom-up branching tree pattern of incremental transitions as expected and/or hoped for dominant feature of the fossil record simply has not been so. And after over 150 years of scouring fossil beds, over 1/4 million listed fossil species, millions of collected specimens and billions more fossils seen in the ground, the gaps at all levels of classification are still there. Not least, the biggest gap of all: origin of life, for that is the very root.kairosfocus
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
And, as a corrective to kairosfocus's innocent faith in Barry Arrington's version of events concerning the recent quote-mining of Eldredge, here is my long post explaining Barry Arrington's quote-mining and subsequent failures to deal with criticisms of it: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3612&cpage=1#comment-35015 Barry banned this post from UD. Looks like the ID movement hasn't advanced in scholarly behavior much in the last 8 years.NickMatzke_UD
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Interesting -- reviving an 8-year old, particularly cocky post by William Dembski, from right around the time when he skipped out on his scheduled sworn deposition in the Kitzmiller case. Haven't seen much material like this from him lately, have we? And, the Peter Ward quote turns out to be an excellent case of a quote mine. For the original context, where Peter Ward talks about how subsequent earlier fossil discoveries have confirmed that the Cambrian phyla didn't evolve all-at-once, see the post originally linked from comment #2: http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/04/down-in-quotemine.htmlNickMatzke_UD
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Just out of curiosity, where is DaveScot these days?jerry
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
[...] normal constraints of logic or evidence. For example, as the recent discussions around claims of quote mining show (see here also), one can quote  exact swords with the exact meaning deceitfully if the net [...]What quote mining really means to today’s followers of Darwin | Uncommon Descent
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Atheists have created such a climate of fear in biology that no biologist can criticize the failings of Darwinian evolution with impunity, no matter how valid the criticism turns out to be. The cross-pollination of ideas are forbidden and biologists are forced to work with the same memes over and over. Evolutionary biology is thus an incestuous science, one that is guaranteed to spawn one monstrosity after another. Note that intellectual incest is not a problem that is unique to biology. I have seen the same thing happen in the physics community. The monstrous ideas coming out of the physics community would be funny if they weren't so hideous.Mapou
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
F/N: It is probably helpful to clip here the new weak argument corrective no 40 in the collection of such correctives: _______________ >> 40] Why are you Intelligent Design Creationists always so busy quote-mining what scientists have to say about Evolution? The first problem here, is a problem of mischaracterization: as the Creationists themselves acknowledge (and as no. 5 above explains) Design thought and Creationism are quite distinct. [--> notice, in 2005 this was happening and it continues to today, this therefore speaks to character . . . ] Unfortunately, that same problem of mischaracterization also extends to too much of what is meant when the accusatory phrase “quote mining” is used against design thinkers and even Creationists. The issue is, that there is a very significant difference between:
case a: a damaging but accurately reported admission against interest made by a party to a dispute – one of the most powerful (and most likely to be true) forms of verbal evidence, and case b: a misleading, distorted quotation (or even misquotation) that has been taken out of context and used to create a caricatured argument that may either
(i) set up a strawman target to be knocked over, or else (ii) create a false sense of an authority legitimizing an argument s/he disagrees with.
Spotting a strawman caricature set up to be knocked over – case b (i) – is relatively easy. The real problem is that case a is too often portrayed by those wishing to brush aside a damaging, legitimately cited admission against interest as if it were case b (ii), misuse of the words of an authority. The Legal Dictionary section of thefreedictionary.com helps us to clarify the point:
admission against interest n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously would do that person harm, be embarrassing, or be against his/her personal or business interests. A third party can quote in court an admission against interest even though it is only hearsay. (See: hearsay, admission) [Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. ]
Obviously, such an admission, if available, will be very powerful. So on one hand there is a temptation to create such where it does not exist. On the other, the temptation is to try to dismiss such an admission as though it were illegitimate. When the latter happens, someone legitimately making use of an admission against interest may then be unfairly brushed aside as either willfully deceptive or an ignoramus who does not understand what s/he is reading. This obviously also deeply poisons the tone of the discussion and can be used as a red herring distractor that hijacks the issue and triggers a quarrel if the falsely accused party tries to defend himself. Not good. But, the objector will retort: we know for a fact that quote mining by Intelligent Design activists and Creationists happens all the time. It may indeed occasionally happen, but an incident highlighted by UD President Barry Arrington shows what in our experience here at UD is the far more usual situation:
ARRINGTON: To review, in a previous post I argued that the fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it would. Of course, I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on Darwin’s views, and there is no reason for anyone to care particularly what I say about that topic. So I quoted Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall:
Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.
Note that I am not arguing here that Darwinian evolution did not occur (though I have views on that). Nor am I arguing that there are no fossils demonstrating transitions between major groups as opposed to sister species (though I have views on that as well). I am asserting a VERY narrow point: The fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it would. And I am quoting Eldredge to support that point. Matzke came onto these pages and accused me of “quote mining,” which is the deceptive use of an out-of-context quote to make it appear that the author agrees with the proposition one is advancing when they really did not. It is a form of lying and is morally reprehensible.
So, a fairly acrimonious exchange unfortunately developed. The upshot? UD’s President sums up:
. . . in order for Matzke’s charge to be true, Eldredge and Tattersall would have had to, in context, mean something other than the proposition for which I quoted them, i.e., that the fossil record did not turn out as Darwin expected. But that is exactly what they meant. Therefore, the quote mining charge is false. I pointed this out to Matzke and asked him to retract/apologize. He has steadfastly refused . . . . He writes:
[MATZKE:] As long as you keep refusing to admit the context of the Eldredge quote, you will be guilty of quote-mining when you use it to argue that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution. (emphasis mine)
If I had argued that the fossil record does not support evolution this statement might have some force. I made no such argument (As I said above, I have views on that matter, but that is beside the point.) I argued something completely different. I argued that the fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it to.
And, finally, Arrington observes:
. . . it turns out that Nick thinks Eldredge was wrong:
[MATZKE:] we’ve already been over what Darwin said he expected from the fossil record, and Eldredge got that bit wrong.
Now we get to the bottom of it. It is not that I misquoted Eldredge. My quote was perfectly accurate. Nick just disagrees with Eldredge on the point for which I quoted him, and under his personal definition of the term that makes me guilty of quote mining.
Of course, this brings out another complexity: the phrase “quote mining” is informal, usually polemical and as a rule does not appear in standard dictionaries and works on logic. It does seem to have a generally intended meaning as at case b (i) and/or case b (ii) above, but one has to be quite careful with such informal terms. And in any case even if Eldredge was in fact wrong (and Eldredge is indeed a leading expert), Arrington’s citation was plainly accurate to what Eldredge meant to say. So, it was plainly inappropriate to characterize it as “quote mining.” In summary, Eldredge (and other leading Paleontologists) have admitted that that Darwin’s hopes about the fossil record – after a quarter million fossil species, millions of collected specimens and billions more seen in the ground all around the world – simply have not been realized. That is, the circumstances of 1859 no longer obtain, but the strong pattern of gaps and so-called missing links still does. Which, is exactly how UD’s President cited Eldredge. This case plainly shows how easily the toxic accusation “quote mining” can be abused. >> ________________ So, the more things change the more they remain the same, sadly. More than eight years later. It is high time that the sort of tactics we have had to correct over these eight years were put on the ash-heap, and were apologised for as inappropriate to a context -- science -- where presumably the intent is to seek the empirically grounded truth about our world. And so long as such tactics are major features of darwisnist tactics, they underscore that Darwinism has become an ideology clung to in the teeth of the truth and the right, for ideological and/or power advantage reasons. Eight years late to the party . . . KFkairosfocus
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
On the subject of quote mining, I'd like to quote from a relevant exchange between H. S. Shelton and Douglas Dewar, who debated the topic of evolution in the book, Is Evolution Proved? (edited by Arnold Lunn; Hollis and Carter, 1947). On page 167, Shelton complained:
You also say 1 'admit' that all phyla were in existence in the Ordovician. Why admit ? I believe I asserted it. That is good evolutionary evidence. Phyla do not come into existence in an erratic and unaccountable way, as might well happen if they were specially created. Why should the vertebrates succeed in 'throwing off new classes ?' Surely it is obvious that the change from life in the sea to the full conquest of the land implies fundamental morphological changes. Classes are not 'thrown off'; they take hundreds of millions of years to evolve. You mention again the surface incredibility of the process, but I need not add anything to what I said in the first chapter on that aspect. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
On page 170, Dewar replied:
I had very good reasons for saying that you 'admit' that all the phyla were in existence in the Ordovician. We are arguing a case and your statement or assertion to the above effect, being very damaging to your case, is in legal parlance an admission. There is another reason; you asked my authority for saying the vertebrates existed in the Cambrian, implying that you did not admit this. In consequence, instead of basing my argument against evolution on the existence of all the phyla in the Cambrian, which you might have been inclined to contest, I used your admission by basing my argument on the existence of all the phyla in the Ordovician. Clearly some of my statements are too subtle for you. Many thanks for your statement that Classes take 'hundreds of millions of years to evolve.' If the evolution of a Class involves hundreds of millions of years, that of a phylum involves as many thousands of millions. Now, according to Holmes (whose figures we are accepting as a basis in our discussion), 'all the evidence is in harmony with the conclusion that the earth is between 1,600 and 2,000 million years old.' [Remember, this was 1947 - VJT.] But certainly all the phyla (except possibly the vertebrates) were in existence in the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago, i.e., from 1,100 to 1,500 million years after the beginning of the earth ; but during a considerable portion of this period the earth was not fit to sustain life. Hence the millions of years required for the evolution of the phyla are not available. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
I came across this book in 1981, while I was completing my Bachelor of Science degree at the Australian National University. I must say that the exchange of views between Shelton and Dewar was much more polite and less polemical than is generally the case today.vjtorley
December 22, 2013
December
12
Dec
22
22
2013
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
Kansas @ 2 (this is awesome):
I don’t level claims like that lightly, and as something of an intellectual, that’s one of the harsher insults in my quiver.
Either he is the person that Sheldon Cooper was modeled after or he's a writer for the show.Piltdown2
December 21, 2013
December
12
Dec
21
21
2013
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Thanks for reposting this. Exquisitely hilarious. That's the way to do it. Keep rubbing their collective Darwinian nose in their own feces. :-)Mapou
December 21, 2013
December
12
Dec
21
21
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Notice that the specious and deceptive Wesley Elsberry does not refute that I did nothing wrong until I was subjected to arbitrary deletion and disemvowelment of my comments at Panda's Thumb. I figured if the management at Panda's Thumb is not following their own comment integrity rules why on earth should I follow them? And there is no poster on PT that goes by Scott Page. There's one that goes by "slpage" that posts there very rarely. THAT Page, whose first name happens to be Scott, is a flaming Darwin apologist of quite some repute that has been banned over and over again on other forums where he's changed his name and snuck back in. What goes around comes around. On the other hand there's a computer engineer in Austin employed by a major computer manufacuter named Scott Page (conincidently I'm a computer engineer in Austin formerly employed by a major computer manufacturer) that can be found here http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vin/students/page.shtml That Scott Page is D. Scott Page. Does it take a rocket scientist to make the connection between DaveScot and D.Scott Page? Probably not. I'm not saying I'm THAT person but did Elsberry even bother to check if there any other possibilities? Nope. But what do you expect from the Church of Darwin. They're all congentially blind to other possibilities. He had a mission to ban me and after censoring me through disemvowelment and deletion and eventually he found his reason. You're a hypocrite, Elsberry. So there. DaveScot
May 5, 2005
May
05
May
5
05
2005
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply