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
[...] 2005 02:26 am Censorship at PT? I Don’t Think So. Over on Bill Dembski’s weblog, a couple of people banned for bad behavior from the Panda’s Thumb weblog were [...]The Austringer » Censorship at PT? I Don’t Think So.
May 5, 2005
May
05
May
5
05
2005
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy: "6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management. Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself." "Evolving Apeman" writes: "My comments and IP address were censored at Panda’s Thumb without good reason (and without explanation). If the “premier” pro-neo-Darwinism site is unwilling to allow dissenting viewpoints, why should this site either?" This is incorrect. There are two comments that explain why "Evolving Apeman" was banned. In between posting as "Andrew Rule, MD" and "Evolving Apeman", "Evolving Apeman" had a go at posting as "Great White Wonder", which is an alias used by another PT commenter. I can't speak to the prevalence of deletions of comments, since each contributor at PT manages their own threads, but I can say that "Evolving Apeman" was quite prolific for someone who claims to have been censored, and quite a lot of his material remains online there. "DaveScot" wrote: "Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names." This is incorrect. "DaveScot" was not banned for simply using multiple names; he was banned for making threats against PT and also posting under another person's name. "Scott Page" is not a pseudonym, but rather an actual person who posts at PT from time to time. Was "Scott Page" "randomly selected" as a posting alias? Apply your EF/DI, Bill, and use a local probability bound. Here's the data showing that "DaveScot" was well aware of the use of the name "Scott Page": 1, 2, 3, and 4. The "DaveScot" corpus of material posted at PT is available for review. PT doesn't ask much of commenters, not even that they agree with us, given some (very) small modicum of decorum. But there are some behaviors that shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, and both "Evolving Apeman" and "DaveScot" violated a clearly stated rule at PT.Wesley R. Elsberry
May 5, 2005
May
05
May
5
05
2005
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Quote miner, quote miner, pants on fire ... I was quite relieved that Jason Rosenhouse wrote his piece on William Dembski’s recent bloviations about quote-mining.  Specifically, Dembski was challenging a portion of something written by Dave Mullenix and myself about a year ago publish...The Panda's Thumb
May 3, 2005
May
05
May
3
03
2005
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda's Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names. Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison, University of Vermont, has suffered the same treatment at Panda's Thumb except they still allow him to post comments on "The Bathroom Wall" like he's not qualified to comment elsewhere. Professor Davison has been a practicing doctor in biology for nearly 50 years. Their treatment of him is outrageous. They call him every derogatory name you can think of and accuse him of senility. I correspond with him a lot. He's got more wits about him now at 76 years of age than any of those cretins ever had at any time in their miserable lives. I've also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years. I found that the editor, John Rennie, has a blog at http://sciam-editor.typepad.com Rennie is a flaming blind believer in the Darwinian narrative. I began posting my thoughts on evolution on his blog some weeks ago and he also summarily deleted all my comments and banned me. Some way to treat a subscriber of many decades. I'm a retired computer scientist and accomplished inventor in the field. I know a design when I see one and can easily point out some of the myriad things about the machinery of life, in common personal computer parlance, that make it as obviously intelligently designed as the computer y'all are using to read this. I guess they can't take that. I'm not any kind of a conspiracy theorist, nor am I religious (I follow the evidence, wherever it leads) but it sure looks to me like there's a concerted effort by the mainstream science establishment to censor criticism of the Darwinian narrative. The only thing holding up the monumental atheist fraud is the judicial system and the tortured latter 20th century interpretation of the establishment clause. It's really turns my stomach to see what these Darwin worshippers are doing to science. This is doing great damage to science in the eyes of the public. The Darwinian narrative is going to fall. It's just a matter of time. The longer and more doggedly the atheist scientific establishment dishonestly clings to their fantasy the worse they look when the cookie finally crumbles. Man, I'm sure glad I call myself an engineer instead of a scientist. Science is spelled "reverse-engineering" in our world. We resort to it when necessary instead of making a career out of it. Sorry to rant. DaveScot
May 2, 2005
May
05
May
2
02
2005
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
A New Low For William Dembski? Neo-Creationist William Dembski seems to have sunk to a new low. After being taken to task for quoting Peter Ward out of context Dembski puts the blame for his intellectual dishonesty on...Peter Ward. Word of advice: if you are an evolutionist and don’...Deinonychus antirrhopus
May 1, 2005
May
05
May
1
01
2005
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
@decorabilia My comments and IP address were censored at Panda's Thumb without good reason (and without explanation). If the "premier" pro-neo-Darwinism site is unwilling to allow dissenting viewpoints, why should this site either?Evolving Apeman
April 27, 2005
April
04
Apr
27
27
2005
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
disingenuity by design Deleting comments without good reason (and without explanation) is pernicious, and is exactly why I will now refer to Mr. Dembski as "intellectually dishonest." He cannot waffle or weave, so he gags his opponents.decorabilia
April 27, 2005
April
04
Apr
27
27
2005
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
ThoughtsfromKansas claims WmAD is dishonest for 3 reasons: 1) Ward states that Pre-Cambrian metazoa have been found 2) Ward states that the Cambrian explosion really just documents the origin of skeletonized hard parts 3) Dembski left these facts out. Here's why Dembski was justified in leaving out these facts: 1) The statutus of Pre-Cambrian metazoa (such as the Vendian and Ediacaran fauna) are of highly questionable relevance to Cambrian fauna. Consider these authorities have stated as such: "Although the stratigraphic distribution of Ediacaran fossils is clear enough, their biological interpretation remains controversial, providing what amounts to a paleontological Rorschach test. Several distinct body plans are represented. Most radially symmetric fossils plausibly represent polypoid organisms or the inflated holdfasts of colonial, diploblastic animals-mostly unrepresented in the modern fauna. More complex fossils include a range of forms built of repeated, tube-like units. In a stimulating, if controversial proposal, Seilacher grouped such fossils into a clade that he christened the Vendobionta and viewed as an extinct experiment in multicellular organization. Others have questioned this interpretation, assigning various forms to colonial diploblasts or to stem members of several bilaterian clades. It is genuinely difficult to map the characters of Ediacaran fossils onto the body plans of living invertebrates. Long viewed as the principal problem of interpreting Ediacaran assemblages, this difficulty increasingly appears to be their central point. Much opinion supports the broad view that both extinct diploblastic-grade animals and bilaterian stem groups [for example, the mollusk-like Kimberella ] are represented. Trace fossils record a modest diversity of (mostly) simple bilaterians. Crown group protostomes or deuterostomes may also lurk in Ediacaran-aged rocks but at present, evidence of such animals remains equivocal." (Knoll & Carroll, Science 284:212902136, 1999) "The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. To be sure, there are fossils in older strata, but they are either very small (such as bacteria and algae), or their relationships to the living fauna are highly contentious, as is the case with the famous soft-bodied fossils from the late Precambrian Pound Quartzite, Ediacara, South Australia." (The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?, by Richard Fortey, Science, 293, 20 Jul 2001, pp. 438-439). 2) Many soft-bodied fossils are common throughout the Pre-Cambrian record (including, in fact, the Vendian and Ediacaran fauna), and thus if there was soft-bodied diversification of the phyla leading up to the Cambrian explosion (where hard parts supposedly suddenly evolved all at once in many different phyla), then where is that soft-bodied documentation? Fortey addresses this point: "So just how explosive was the Cambrian evolutionary "explosion"? Support for a phylogenetic fuse is provided by the discovery of a true crustacean in early Cambrian strata from Shropshire, England, reported by Siveter et al. on page 479 of this issue (3). This fossil phosphatocopid "ostracod" is preserved extraordinarily well, with all its delicate limbs cast in calcium phosphate, allowing it to be assigned to the crustaceans with confidence. Very few fossils of this great antiquity reveal so much detail or can be interpreted with such certainty. Crustacea are one of the great groups of living arthropods, embracing crabs, shrimps, lobsters, and slaters (4). Hitherto, the oldest undoubted crustaceans came from the late Cambrian "orsten" of southern Sweden (5) (the alleged crustacean Canadaspis, from the mid-Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia, has proved controversial). This allowed some 40 million years from the base of the Cambrian to generate an ancestral crustacean from some primitive arthropod--time enough, indeed. But if crustaceans were already present in the early Cambrian, this pushes back in time the necessary steps in the evolutionary tree of arthropods that led to the crustacean design. It then becomes perfectly plausible that this early radiation happened in the late Precambrian. This squares with previous critiques, which noted that in the early Cambrian, some arthropods--especially the ubiquitous trilobites--had already differentiated into different kinds with separate geographical distributions. This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record (6). Furthermore, cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree (see the figure). Trilobite-like trace fossils extend to the base of the Cambrian in Newfoundland, and it would be easy to conclude that appropriate trace makers must have appeared still earlier, in the late Precambrian. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking." (Fortey, 2001) Of course Fortey is an evolutionist who believes that some invisible arthropod radiation actually took place. We should have hard parts going back much further than the Cambrian but we don't. And we also have soft-bodied fossils going way far back, so why is it that most of the major living phyla all appear at the same time? This is a question worth asking, and one that Darwinists dodge through their usual tactic of unjustifed intellectual namecalling. Dembski wasn't wrong for leaving out Ward's comments--Dembski was perfectly clear that Ward is an evolutionist, and if Ward is making other arguments that don't withstand scrutiny, why bother listing them? The Cambrian explosion is not just an artifact of hard-part fossilization, nor do the Vendian/Ediacaran fauna do anything to solve the problem. |-Art-| Art
April 27, 2005
April
04
Apr
27
27
2005
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Some links The weblog Proverbs Daily is coming to an end. He realized something important about his time spent working on his weblog:: I tried all 3 methods with varying degrees of success but the end result was always the same...something...A Physicist's Perspective
April 27, 2005
April
04
Apr
27
27
2005
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
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 When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. As time passes, people forget that Darwinists never adequately met the criticism. But Darwinism is still ruling the roost. Since the criticism failed to dislodge Darwinism, the criticism itself must have been discredited or refuted somewhere. Thereafter the criticism becomes known as "that discredited criticism that was refuted a long time ago." And, after that, even to raise the criticism betrays an outdated conception of evolutionary theory. In this way, the criticism, though entirely valid, simply vanishes into oblivion. ~ William Dembski 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 bevets
April 27, 2005
April
04
Apr
27
27
2005
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Down in the Quotemine Bill Dembski is intellectually dishonest. I don't level claims like that lightly, and as something of an intellectual, that's one of the harsher insults in my quiver. At his blog, he discusses, and exemplifies creationist problems in Quoting, Misquot... [In fact, "intellectual dishonesty" is one of the milder criticisms by your side. Let me suggest you read some more Dawkins. --WmAD]Thoughts from Kansas
April 26, 2005
April
04
Apr
26
26
2005
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
"nothing in biology makes sense apart form evolution" Is it fair to say that macroevoution has become the "anti-theory of the gaps" to replace what Darwinist's refer to as the "god of the gaps" mentalityEvolving Apeman
April 26, 2005
April
04
Apr
26
26
2005
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply