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
Well, I stand rebuked and chagrined. PZ Myers defends himself on his website well, I look to the original blog to see the author's response and see nothing as of yet. I wonder though, given the quoted text from pp30-31 if Myers, rather than lying, is just guilty of miscontextualizing the standout graphic. If the quote box from pp.35 is meant to highlight what was already presented on pp.30-31, then Myers is wrong that Wells lied and McGraw is wrong that Myers lied. He simply missed that the quote was reviewing material covered a few pages earlier.todd
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Patrick, I posted it for discussion, I want the readers to decide and argue amonst themselves and provide data and links or whatever. What is at issue is not what Ballard said, but Myers quotaion of Wells. Salscordova
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Sal, you should have double-checked Tim McGrew: OopsPatrick
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:14 AM
8
08
14
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, and that Myers's original statements were, in fact, exactly as he represented them. Why is it so difficult to admit this?Allen_MacNeill
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Sal, why was the comment linking to Myers's response deleted? It seems the best way to get to the truth of the matter would be to get all the information. If links to foul-mouthed christian haters are not allowed no matter what the situation, I think it would at least be appropriate to note that the accusation that Myers "changed Wells's wording" isn't exactly accurate.HodorH
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Smidlee, they pull it out of their ... see #6todd
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
This says a lot of Wells' book where the opposition has to make stuff up in order to attack his book.Smidlee
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
I'm kind of fond of "The Panda's Dung"...todd
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Doug
Good point. But, it’s frustrating to see the minions at Phar & PT that back everything PZ says; and will defend with tooth and nail his honor and credibility. Then they have the nerve to call anyone, even in slight dissent, irrational.
You have to understand the rules of the game, Doug. Rule #1 among Darwinists, especially those at PT, is: never, ever concede a point, no matter how valid, to someone deemed a 'creationist'(whatever the definition du jour of that term might be). Thus, PZ or any of the others can misquote, misrepresent to their hearts content knowing full well that none of their own will ever call them on it. But let a Darwin doubter even commit a typo and their all over it like a pack of jackals, whooping and hollerin' "see what dishonest liars these creationists or IDers are!! See, we told ya, we told ya!!" 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. The Panda's Thumb should be re-named "The Straw Man", (or maybe "The Straw Panda?") because, in the end, that is mostly what it is.DonaldM
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
"Is it really a surprise ? I wonder if PZ actually thinks what he is doing is reasonable ? " Good point. But, it's frustrating to see the minions at Phar & PT that back everything PZ says; and will defend with tooth and nail his honor and credibility. Then they have the nerve to call anyone, even in slight dissent, irrational.Doug
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Even evolved liars are still liars.Joseph
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
If I were forced to live on a desert island with either P.Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins, I would choose Dawkins in a heartbeat. Everything I’ve seen or read by P.Z. has been suspect at best, and at worst vulgar, mean spirited, bigoted, and outright contemptuous - certainly not the type of character that befits a scientist in the public arena. I would expect him to be lying.shaner74
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Gosh, that can't help anybody. I'd hate to admit, but I do like reading and listening to the opposition, b/c it strengthens and challenges own beliefs. But if they are using mere fabrications, no good, no good.jpark320
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
Is it really a surprise ? I wonder if PZ actually thinks what he is doing is reasonable ?jwrennie
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply