Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More antics from PZ Myers?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

You be the judge. I welcome commentary and contrary accounts as the comment by McGrew has not been independently confirmed. Here is what professor Tim McGrew had to say:

Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest.

And not a single commentator on Panda’s Thumb for the past two months could be bothered to check Myers’s quotation against Wells’s actual words to see whether Myers was telling the truth.

This can be found in the comment section of My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Douglas Groothuis.

excerpt:

Let’s start with Myers’s commentary leading up to what he presents as a quotation in which Wells quotes — according to Myers, misleadingly — the developmental biologist William Ballard. Myers’s own words are in italics.

This is the heart of Wells’s strategy: pick comments by developmental biologists referring to different stages, which say very different things about the similarity of embryos, and conflate them. It’s easy to make it sound like scientists are willfully lying about the state of our knowledge when you can pluck out a statement about the diversity at the gastrula stage, omit the word “gastrula”, and pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage.

Literally. He is actually that dishonest.

Now this is a very serious charge. If Wells is deliberately misleading his readers about Ballard’s meaning, then his credibility is definitely severely damaged.

Myers continues:

Here’s how Wells quotes William Ballard (a well known elder developmental biologist, who has done a lot of work on fish and is therefore familiar to me):

Myers then gives the following statement in a quote box, which I will reproduce here in bold:

It is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” by “bending the facts of nature,” that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.” (pp. 35)

Myers goes on, after the box:

Always be suspicious when you see partial phrases quoted and strung together by a creationist. Little alarm bells should be going off like mad in your head.

This is from a paper in which Ballard is advocating greater appreciation of the morphogenetic diversity of the gastrula stage—that is, a very early event, one that is at the base of that hourglass, where developmental biologists have been saying for years that there is a great deal of phylogenetic diversity. Here’s what Ballard actually said:

Now we get another quote box, and again I’ll put the contents in bold:

Before the pharyngula stage we can only say that the embryos of different species within a single taxonomic class are more alike than their parents. Only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that “gastrulas” of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their adults. (Ballard WW (1976))

Myers winds up his complaint:

See what I mean? He has lifted a quote from a famous scientist that applies to the gastrula stage, stripped out the specific referents, and made it sound as if it applies to the pharyngula stage. It’s a simple game, one he repeats over and over in this chapter.

What is much more significant is that Myers has misquoted Wells — not simply selectively quoted him, but out and out misquoted him, attributing to him in direct quotation something that is critically different from what Wells actually said.

Here, for comparison, is what Myers says Wells says, and what Wells actually says:

Attributed to Wells by Myers:

It is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” by “bending the facts of nature,” that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.”

Wells’s actual words:

Dartmouth College biologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” by “bending the facts of nature,” that one can argue that the cleavage and gastrulation stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.”

Wells’s actual wording supplies the very detail — that Ballard is referring to the cleavage and gastrulation stages — that Myers silently edits out of his quotation from Wells. Wells isn’t talking about the pharyngula stage. He never was. That is entirely Myers’s fabrication.

Let me rephrase that: Myers has changed Wells’s wording and then has the temerity to accuse Wells of misleading the reader at the very point where Myers himself has made the change in Wells’s words.

Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest. And not a single commentator on Panda’s Thumb for the past two months could be bothered to check Myers’s quotation against Wells’s actual words to see whether Myers was telling the truth.

This sort of thing just frosts me. John and others who frequent PT and Pharyngula should be warned that they cannot take what they see there at face value.

(HT: DonaldM at teleological.org)
(Update: the words “I welcome commentary and contrary accounts as the comment by McGrew has not been independently confirmed” were added 11/6/06 in deference to objections suggesting this posting was like a newspaper article. To clarify, weblogs are opportunities for competing accounts to be discussed.)

Comments
Allen wrote: Sal, what Myers did was to point out, with page references and quotations, exactly how Wells had distorted Ballard’s quotation.
Allen, I'm not sure that squares with what Wells wrote on pages 30-31. Myers asserts:
It’s easy to make it sound like scientists are willfully lying about the state of our knowledge when you can pluck out a statement about the diversity at the gastrula stage, omit the word “gastrula”, and pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage.
I find the charge hard to accept that Wells pretends a quote is about the pharyngula stage when Wells uses the word "gastrulation" 3 times. In fact, I find it hard to accept Myers claim that Wells omits the word (or really concept tied to) "gastrula", when Wells uses "gastrulation" 3 times. By the way, I am appreciative of your visits here. I welcome your criticisms of whatever I write.scordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
The most powerful lies are those made by true statements. In scriptures, satan often use this type of lying. In the box it also states "When the evidence is againest you, find a Darwinist for a lawyer." But I really don't think this book is suggesting when someone needs a real lawyer then get someone like Myers. The question still remains did Wells' try to deceive by making true statements as well did Myers himself tried the same. Tim Mcgrew did show where Wells honestly point out exactly what William Balled meant which leaves Myers (including Tim)quote misleading. Of course Both Myers and Mcgrew could have incidentally overlook some statements in the book. This is what makes "lying" by making true statement so clever. Like buying a car from a used car salemen where you really don't know if he lying or just doesn't know the car was a lemon.Smidlee
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
The charge by Myers is :
It’s easy to make it sound like scientists are willfully lying about the state of our knowledge when you can pluck out a statement about the diversity at the gastrula stage, omit the word “gastrula”, and pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage.
(bolding mine) That charge is hard to sustain at least for pages 30-31. The word, gastrulation is used at least 3 times, that hardly constitutes an omission. Why then does Myers accuse Wells of omitting the word "gastrula" and then not quote the very pages wells uses the word, gastrula? PZ, if you're reading this, you are invited to explain. Of course "gastrulation" is not exactly the same as the word "gastrula" but it points to the same concept presume.scordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Allen and HodorH, I think DaveScot cleared up some of the confusion regarding the deleted link. I provided it again in one of my posts, but if he chooses to delete it again, I respect his reasons. I was unware of the evolution the very thread I started, and I'm sorry to have added to the confusion. I hope DaveScot's remarks clarify what actually happened. Regarding, page 30-31, in my autographed copy of Well's book:
page 30: According to British embryologist Lewis Wolpert, "it is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly ' the important event in your life'." Yet only after cleavage and gastrulation does a vertebrate embryo reach the stage that Haeckel labeled the "first". If it were true (as Darwin and Haeckel claimed) that vertebrates are most similar in their earliest stages, then the various classes would be most similar during cleavage and gastrulation.... ... Modern embryologists confirm this. Dartmouth College biologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," that one can argue that the cleavage and gastrulation stages of vertebrates "are more alike than adults".
(bolding mne) this seems consistent with McGrew's quote as far as I can see. scordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
steveh Incidentally franky172, can you point out where PZ Myers uses “foul language” in that link? On second reading there isn't much foul language in this post of PZ Meyer's. I was under the impression that the comments at the bottom were fouler than a second reading indicates as well. My real reason for including the "foul language" claim was to prevent people from UD from unsuspectingly running into bad language at another blog. I personally swear like it's going out of style when I'm not on UD, but I thought a pre-emptive warning might be good for the sensibilities of some here.franky172
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Chris Ballard was actually referring to the cleavage and gastrulation stages. Both are early embyro stages so the plural is still correct.DaveScot
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Patrick, I think the quibble is the usage of "an early" vs. "the early."HodorH
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
“The answer, yes it is entirely accurate to refer to gastrulation as an early embyro phase.” I agree, but it is not accurate the refer to gastrulation as ‘’the early embryo stages”.
I just find it funny that argument has now come down to arguing over the usage of "stage" or "phase". Both words are right next to each other in the Thesaurus... :)Patrick
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Hey Allen, Did you bone up on astrobiology yet? Maybe we can have a rational conversation about the definition of living things from an astrobiology POV if you did. Let me know when you catch up with me.DaveScot
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
It seems many on both sides here jumped the gun. How ironic today is Cliche Day!todd
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
You can argue whether or not Wells changing the quote to say early stages is a problem, or whether criticism of the change is fair. But the quoted post claims that Myers deliberately altered a quote from Wells' book, which is false. It doesn't take Myers to task for only quoting page 35 and leaving page 31, it actually says he altered the quote from page 31 to make it look like Wells is lying. "The answer, yes it is entirely accurate to refer to gastrulation as an early embyro phase." I agree, but it is not accurate the refer to gastrulation as ''the early embryo stages". Depending on what you define as early stages, you can argue about the amount of difference, but Ballard is specifically referring to the gastrula stage.Chris Hyland
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
I did also take into consideration Franky's saying the link included foul language. Foul language isn't allowed on this blog and that would include links to foul language. I didn't fisk Myers' post for it but knowing Myers I figured it was probably true.DaveScot
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Apparently there was some question about links or whatever being deleted. I did not realize a link or post had been deleted by another mod. I think DaveScot explained. For the record, I officially accused Myers of nothing. I merely reported on an analysis by a professor and invited readers to decide the accuracy of the analysis. I was curious to see what would transpire. If Myers accuses me of this or that, well, I was just reporting what someone else said. The comment section is to help us discuss and figure out and decide for ourselves the accuracy of the analysis.scordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Patrick, you are right. I apologise.steveh
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Oops, my attempt at nested block quotes did not work. Everything up to "He's referring" is quoted from Sal.steveh
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
It will be interesting to see if anyone can admit the mistake without accompanying snipes at PZ.
I thought I did just that, picture and all...Patrick
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit,
Allen, That is not accurate, I cut and pasted things, links die in the process. Any of the readers and commenters can post links to amend the situation. He's refering to comment 9 by franky172 which has been removed.
9. franky172 // Nov 3rd 2006 at 10:38 am PZ has a different take on the issue. Ignoring his foul language, it does seem he has a valid point… http://sc... (link removed in keeping with daveScot's policy) Comment by franky172 — November 3, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Incidentally franky172, can you point out where PZ Myers uses "foul language" in that link?
Then, when someone painstakingly takes the time to point the obvious errors in their characterization of some IDP’s actual argument, they resort to the usual argumentum ad hominem, and never, ever admit error or misunderstanding, because rule #2 is: only’creationists’ and IDP’s are capable of error and misunderstanding an argument.
It will be interesting to see if anyone can admit the mistake without accompanying snipes at PZ.steveh
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Obviously I didn't know the politics of the Pharyngula/UD link situation - if I had, I wouldn't have posted the link in the first place. Apologies.franky172
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
I pulled the link Franky left to Myers' response, not Sal, and then temporarily banned Franky while I sorted the mess out. Franky's on the moderation list not the banned list and is free to comment here subject to moderator approval. Myers won't let me put links to our blog on his so it's only fair that I snuff his here. I made an exception just to get the page scan from Wells' book and left out all Myers' vile diatribe that went with it.DaveScot
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
I've been deleting snarky comments ever since this page was posted but I don't remember zapping anything by franky172 (I even let in his latest comment; see #18). Sal, I forget, do you even have mod capabilities?Patrick
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
The editor of the book shortened the quote in order to make it fit? That seems to be a fairly weak explanation or the hallmark of a poor editor since it managed to completely distort the meaning of the quote.rrf
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
No, I was referring to a comment by someone named Franky, I think. Perhaps he can verify that he posted a link to Myers's response. Maybe it was a different moderator that deleted his comment.HodorH
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
It appears that Myers was quote mining a quote mining. If this is an accurate scan http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/11/pigdig35.gif of page 35 (and I presume it is) Myers evidently cherry picked this box quote and ignored the text on pp. 30-31 where Wells included the gastrula stage clarification that Myers objects to as being left out. Clearly Wells wasn't trying to hide anything as the gastrula is explicitely mentioned in the text of the book. The box quote uses "early embryo stages of vertebrates" instead of "the cleavage and gastrulation stages of vertebrates" as is used in the text. So now we need to look at whether or not "early embryo stage" is a fair phrase to use in describing cleavage and gastrulation stages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation
Gastrulation is a phase early in the development of animal embryos
The answer: yes it is entirely accurate to refer to gastrulation as an early embyro phase. So now we ask ourselves why the big box quote might use a different phrase. Everyone raise their hand who doesn't have to rush to a biology textbook to have a clue what an "early embryo stage" is. Now everyone raise their hand who immediately knows what "cleavage and gastrulation" is. Wells simply used a fair and more widely understood phrase in a big bold text box to highlight an important point and he put the more obscure but clinically accurate biology language in the text. Myers probably shouldn't be a teacher if doesn't get that. Of course we all knew that already.DaveScot
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Allen, See my corrected post in response to you above. There is no way I deleted myers response, since, well it wasn't even posted until after I made this entry. Or if Hodor was referring to the original PT post, the readers can access it easily by following McGrew's links. What is at issue is page 30-31, not page 35. Myers is omitting the fact he ignored what Wells actually wrote on page 31 as McGrew pointed out. The issue is whether Myers misrepresented the clear intent of what Wells was writing by omitting what Wells wrote on page 31.scordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
I'd like to see screen caps of pp.30-31todd
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Yes, apparently Tim McGrew was focusing on the text contained within page 31 (I don't own the book myself so I'm going on people's word that it's actually there in page 31). I would imagine that the editor of the book "probably" shortened the quotation in order to fit into the highlight box. So in this case Myers is simply "making a mountain out of a molehill".Patrick
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
I was the person that posted the original link to PZ's comments. It now appears as though Im out on the street as far as UD goes. That's unfortunate. I always appreciated the conversations I've had here, and I don't think I was ever out of line. bye.franky172
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Sal, what Myers did was to point out, with page references and quotations, exactly how Wells had distorted Ballard's quotation. Anyone looking at the page from Wells's book (pg. 35) can see that Myers's version of the quote is right there in plain sight. And anyone reading the text can see that Wells's distorted the meaning of Ballard's quote for his own purposes. I think it would be better if, rather than trying to distort the published writings of evolutionary biologists, Wells published the results of his own research. That's where real science happens: in the field and the lab, with real data and statistical analysis that anyone can review and criticize. Distortion of the works of others, no matter who does it, isn't science, it's politics, pure and simple.Allen_MacNeill
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Your link is garbled, sal.todd
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit,
Allen, That is not accurate, my post was at 3am, Myers is at 10am. How the heck can I post a link to something that didn't exist yet? But for what it's worth: PZ Myers is such a LIAR! Salscordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply