Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What “Quote-Mining” Means To Darwinists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I used to make a joke here that quote mining, to a Darwinist, was any time an IDist or Creationist quoted a mainstream evolutionary biologist.  A recent thread at TSZ  has sadly revealed that my joke wasn’t a joke. That’s what they actually think.

After looking over the site petrushka (the author of the thread) referred to, I realized that the people at that site presented no evidence for quote-mining, and one of the site authors attempting to characterize why a quote was “quote-mined” said this:

So we see that Gould et al. don’t reject evolution, but claim that phyletic evolution takes a second seat to speciation.

Did anyone actually try to paint Gould as “rejecting evolution”? That hardly seems reasonable. It seems that simply using the Gould’s quote to establish agreement on both sides about the fact of “few transitional fossils” in a pro-creationist argument is the same as trying to paint him as “rejecting evolution”. I found this baffling and made what I thought was a rather sarcastic comment on the thread:

It seems that anti-ID/creationists think that if one quotes a Darwinist to make an anti-Darwinism point, it must be quote-mining simply because the Darwinist rejects creationism/ID.

Sadly, my comment turned out not to be sarcastic at all. Petrushka actually responded:

Well, yes, it’s true that quoting a mainstream biologist to support a creationist argument is quote mining.

You might think that the “intellectually honest” members of TSZ would have corrected him immediately. I mean, seriously, surely not even those at TSZ would try to defend such an ignorant, erroneous, laughable idea. Well, then again, you might not.

Flint agreed with petrushka with this bit of nonsense:

Yes, absolutely this is quote mining. Those who reject creationism DO NOT make statements supporting creationist arguments.

Faded_Glory chimes in:

Say there is a quote from a known and knowledgeable anti-creationist. How can such a quote, when seen in context, ever support creationism?

Amazed at the how far they would go to defend a blatant error and attack the person who pointed it out, I re-posted petrushkas statement and asked:

Anyone willing to agree that Petrushka is simply flat-out wrong about this? If not, you’re just as wrong as he is.

Only GlenDavidson came forth with a rather timid response:

Yeah, I don’t agree with that, and it seems not out of context (I’ll check).

But later, GlenDavidson said (and others agreed) that the list of quotes at the Idea Center was itself a case of “quote-mining” – even though it has a disclaimer at the top that not all the quotes had been verified and that the quotes were intended as a resource for research. They were not contextualized in any way on the site, nor was the original meaning of the quotes characterized (much less mis-characterized).

Glen Davidson said:

Here is an interesting example of a collection of creationist quotemines on the fossil record.

Robin agreed:

Actually it is a source of quote-mines William.

Surely someone at that site realizes that petrushka et al are utterly, laughably wrong about what constitutes a quote-mine, but as of yet none have chosen not to correct them. Which makes one wonder, if they can’t even bring themselves to go against one of their own making such a blatant, laughable error about something that isn’t really even all that important to serious debates, how can anyone find them remotely credible when defending their compatriots views on actual, meaty matters in the ID/Darwinism debate?

UPDATE: Glen Davidson won’t even call petrushka wrong, and offers a long apologetic argument that Gould probably, in most cases, is not “properly” quoted by creationists, noting near the end:

So while I do think that it’s possible for IDists/creationists to use Gould quotes appropriately, I can’t think of any instance where I could say that they have.

 

UPDATE: GlenDavidson has stated that him “differing” from petrushka is, in fact, him disagreeing with petrushka. Also, Reciprocating Bill has agreed that petrushka is wrong. I appreciate them coming forth to correct this misapprehension about what “quote-mining” means.

 

Comments
kairosfocus: The longterm stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies Species-level as stated above. Darwin attributed the granularity in the fossil record to the incompleteness of the fossil record, as well as to speciation occurring in small populations on the periphery of the parent population which then overtaking the parent population. Gould & Etheridge reinvigorated and extended this observation with their theory of punctuated equilibrium. Meanwhile, quote-mines of Gould were propagated in the ID culture as supporting the general lack of transitional fossils, which Gould emphatically and explicitly denied.Zachriel
January 21, 2016
January
01
Jan
21
21
2016
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
F/N: Also, let me cite from Gould's last book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002), on his thoughts after all was said and done (and when he knew he was beyond retaliation):
The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read. The longterm stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists, as the previous story of Hugh Falconer [c. 1862] testifies. This fact, as discussed on the next page, established a basis for biostratigraphic practice [ --> cf. http://www.stratigraphy.org/upload/bak/bio.htm ], the primary professional role for paleontology during most of its history. But another reason, beyond tacitly shared knowledge, soon arose to drive stasis more actively into textual silence. Darwinian evolution became the great intellectual novelty of the later 19th century, and paleontology held the archives of life’s history. Darwin proclaimed insensibly gradual transition as the canonical expectation for evolution’s expression in the fossil record. He knew, of course, that the detailed histories of species rarely show such a pattern, so he explained the literal appearance of stasis and abrupt replacement as an artifact of a woefully imperfect fossil record. Thus, paleontologists could be good Darwinians and still acknowledge the primary fact of their profession — but only at the price of sheepishness or embarrassment. No one can take great comfort when the primary observation of their discipline becomes an artifact of limited evidence rather than an expression of nature’s ways. Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution — with an evident implication that the fossil record’s dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty — paleontologists became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum . . .
That is the context for his comment in the same book:
long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists.
Where of course. species stasis and sudden appearance is the context of and grounds for stasis and suddenness of appearance at higher levels of taxonomy. All specimens are members of species. So, without a demonstrated body plan feature mechanism established through a solid body of observation on accumulation of incremental chance variation and differential reproductive success, we face an assumption that dominates the theorising. Not a fact as well grounded on observation as the gravitational force law that grounds the orbiting of the planets around Sol. What we have, rather were as if the nebular hypothesis were deemed fact and imposed as a control on accounts of solar system models without clear, consistent notice on limitations and weaknesses as well as strengths. Eppur si muove. KFkairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Cf herekairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: the matter is simple. It is! The matter didn't concern the existence of gaps, but whether Gould's views were properly represented by the purported quote-mine. You didn't answer the question @32.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Z, the matter is simple. If there were a properly empirically grounded chance and necessity account of origin of life from chemicals in a pond etc, crossing gap no 1, it would be trumpeted to the highest heavens. Gap no1 is not crossed. Second, were there a similarly empirically well warranted account of branching tree evolution by blind chance and mechanical necessity, sufficient to account for origin of main body plans, that too would be trumpeted. It is not, there are attempts to blunt the reality known since Darwin, on the Cambrian life forms, and there are stories to try to get rid of the body plans first pattern. Gap no 2 is unbridged, and on the issue of accounting for needed functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, there are no good answers for the mechanisms for FSCO/I on a naturalistic perspective. That is gap no 3. Going on further, the origin of many major innovations such as organ systems etc is subject to gaps 2 and 3. Thus, the pattern of sudden appearance, stasis of key forms, etc. Gap no 4. No mechanism, no detailed incremental evidence for origin of main body plans and key features. Next, molecular reconstructions have ended up in mutual inconsistency, providing further gaps. Further yet, in AA sequence space, there are many, many structurally isolated small protein fold domains, leading to an island of function pattern that is sufficient that species viewed as neighbouring will tend to have such molecular gaps. Gap no 5. Going back, the origin of codes, algorithms, co-ordinated execution machinery etc provides gap no 6. KF PS: The timeline is clear, including when carried out to his legacy book released two months before death. Gould tried to damage control once controversies erupted. Popper did much the same on the want of falsifiability of the grand evolutionary narrative. So sorry you cannot push the cat back in the bag.kairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: but after the cat has already spilled out of it, it is too late to try to put the cat back in the bag and sell it as a piglet. Either you are misrepresenting misunderstanding Gould, or Gould is misunderstanding misrepresenting his own work. Are you saying that Gould doesn't understand his own theory? Or are you saying he is lying about his own work?Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Z, pardon but after the cat has already spilled out of it, it is too late to try to put the cat back in the bag and sell it as a piglet. KFkairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: Backtracking for rhetorical damage control does not compare to the points made to his fellow thinkers in trying to found a new school of thought relative to the evidence they hold in common. If Gould's own words won't convince you, then it's doubtful any other argument will. kairosfocus: PS: Lewontin Hodor.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
PPS: Philip Johnson's reply:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And if the latter is twisted into a caricature god of the gaps strawman, then locked out, huge questions are being oh so conveniently begged.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
--> fixing the captcha headachekairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
PS: Lewontin, and note the link that addresses oh you quote mine -- that one is taking on the colours of a stock false accusation that disqualifies those who use it, right next to the slanderous Gish gallop. Clip:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Z, with all due respect, you are ducking and dodging, Gould is clearly speaking to very high level characteristic features of body plans, and is pointing out that the transitions are CHARACTERISTICALLY missing, which still obtains. Backtracking for rhetorical damage control does not compare to the points made to his fellow thinkers in trying to found a new school of thought relative to the evidence they hold in common. As for your reptile to mammal jaw sequence this is far less solid than it seems when looked at within the a priori evolutionary materialist cave. Ditto on origin of wings and more; what I find is the ideological a priori pointed out by Lewontin long since, shapes the hall of mirrors in which the evidence is evaluated so that things that would not look very convincing on a level playing field, look oh so convincing in the locked in evolutionary materialist scientism cave with its shadow shows, and too often smoke and mirrors frankly. Lit allusions to the in the cave zone or lit bluffs that do not really show what was wanted or claimed, do not count -- and to date there is simply no good empirical warrant for the mechanism claimed to originate body plans and associated algorithms and processing, communicating and control or regulatory systems on blind chance and mechanical necessity -- you are talking writing coded algorithms in data structures processed in molecular nanomachines here. The point is, were gradualism really so, we should be seeing it as dominant all over the place, not as an if maybe here is a case never mind the collapse of the last ones, after 250 k species observed and billions of fossils in situ. With of course the Cambrian explosion of body plans as case in point no 1 despite all the attempts to side track and deflect or dismiss it. Worse, the molecular patterns are all over the place with mutually inconsistent patterns. Then, go back to the root of the matter, Darwin's pond or the like and the challenge to bridge to life from chemistry and physics including statistical thermodynamics. The notion that code -- language, algorithms, and execution machinery involving comms systems and control systems replete with purposeful meaning and co-ordinated complex and functionally specific often key-lock fitting structures -- came about by happy chance and necessity without intelligence can only have taken hold because of a dominant ideology in a materialist cave that took over the shadow shows game of our civilisation. Intelligently directed configuration, as of epistemic and inductive right, sits at the table from the root of the TOL on. Let us step into the sunshine, getting out of the cave of shadow shows and intoxicating smoke and mirrors. KFkairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: I trust that we can see and acknowledge that Gould definitely means much more than neighbouring species.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1984 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
kairosfocus: Half jaws and half wings go very high in the taxonomy of life forms. The transition from reptiles to mammals (half jaws) is very well documented in the fossil record; while the transition from flightless to flight (half wings) finds many intermediate forms in extant organisms.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
F/N: Since Gould has become a focus, I cross-post a comment from the derivative thread: ++++++++++++++++++ Gould on gaps and stasis etc, here on -- including a live case of accusation, where to this day while there was an error of "the" major groups, I cannot understand why the objector would latch on to that in the teeth of the following corrected cite: "transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt". Where in context, we can see:
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it—selection can operate rapidly . . . . All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt . . . . Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, [--> notice his underscoring of the "characteristically abrupt" just above] can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms—that is, viable, functioning organisms—between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? [--> surely this points well above species level] . . . [[Stephen Jay Gould 'The Return of Hopeful Monsters.' Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, pp. 22 - 30 & elsewhere.]
I point out that characteristic implies a dominant, defining pattern that distinguishes from other things that may be held similar. Cf. Dictionaries, e.g.:
char•ac•ter•is•tic (?kær ?k t??r?s t?k) adj. 1. indicating the character or distinctive quality of a person or thing; typical. n. 2. a distinguishing feature or quality. 3. a. the integral part of a common logarithm. b. the exponent of 10 in a number expressed in scientific notation. [1655–65; Greek] char`ac•ter•is?ti•cal•ly, adv. syn: See feature. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
++++++++++++++ I trust that we can see and acknowledge that Gould definitely means much more than neighbouring species. That is the line of talking points Z is trying so assiduously to build and pass off collapses. Half jaws and half wings go very high in the taxonomy of life forms. KFkairosfocus
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
The gaps to which Gould referred are only at the species level LoL. Where they are most to be expected!Mung
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
TSErik: It certainly isn’t out of context if one is speaking towards a lack of transitional fossils in certain areas of the fossil record. Except that qualification wasn't included in the original quote-mine, the result being to misrepresent Gould's position on transitional fossils. As Gould points out, there are abundant transitionals between larger groups, including the reptile to mammals and the hominin transitions. Jack Jones: No it is not, Gould later went back on earlier words during a time there was the debate about having creationism taught in schools. That is incorrect. The gaps to which Gould referred are only at the species level, which is clear when you understand the proposed theory. According to the theory, species transitions occur in small, isolated populations, hence are much less likely to leave fossils of the transition. Darwin noted this effect in Origin of Species, but it was largely left unexamined until Gould and Eldredge.Zachriel
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
"The quote-mine leaves the impression that Gould is saying there is a lack of transitional fossils generally. But that’s a false impression of Gould’s position." "The quote-mine" A meaningless empty hand waving phrase used by empty headed evolutionists like zach. As for "there is a lack of transitional fossils generally. But that’s a false impression of Gould’s position." No it is not, Gould later went back on earlier words during a time there was the debate about having creationism taught in schools. But we are not interested about Gould whining for political reasons, he let the cat out of the bag and should have had the integrity to stick by his words. "That’s the whole point. The claim concerning lack of transitionals is out of context" No, to quote out of context would be to remove something from what he said, him trying to back track because his opponents were using him as a hostile witness is not using words out of context. Just because Gould didn't like it being used later on from people opposed to his faith, that does not equate to out of context. The phrase "quote mine" is a phrase used by emotionally stunted evolutionists who cannot handle any criticism of their faith. If a phrase is out of context then you only need to say "out of context" and show it, when you have to rely on or add the retarded phrase "quote mine" then it shows your surrender and that you cannot deal with the quotes that have been posted. You failed to show out of context, you are stuck with your 0 substance "quote mine" phrase because you have no content, only rhetoric. Try again.Jack Jones
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
It certainly isn't out of context if one is speaking towards a lack of transitional fossils in certain areas of the fossil record. Unless, are you saying Gould didn't really mean there is a general lack of transitional fossils at the species level in the quote you yourself presented? As far as leaving the impression of Gould stating there is a complete lack of any kind of transitional fossils, I certainly didn't get that from WJM's examples. The example puts forth the idea that there exists some portions of the fossil record that are quite lacking. Gould was quoted as affirming that indeed, there are portions of the fossil record where transitional fossils are "rare". Those two statements are in perfect agreement with one another. It is a straw man, plain and simple, to then argue WJM is saying Gould rejects evolution (as was suggested by petrushka), or is suggesting Gould affirms there are absolutely no transitional fossils. I don't deny that there have been some instances out there of people improperly using Gould's words. The example in this post, however, is not one of those instances.TSErik
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
TSErik: This doesn’t erase the previous claim, unless he is marching back his statement entirely. That's the whole point. The claim concerning lack of transitionals is out of context. TSErik: As such, if one is quoting Gould to illustrate a portion of the fossil record is lacking, it is entirely accurate. The quote-mine leaves the impression that Gould is saying there is a lack of transitional fossils generally. But that's a false impression of Gould's position.Zachriel
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Not quite. In your quote it is affirmed that, at the species level, there is a lack of transitional fossils. Gould equivocates his statement by saying, "...but they are abundant between larger groups." This doesn't erase the previous claim, unless he is marching back his statement entirely. As such, if one is quoting Gould to illustrate a portion of the fossil record is lacking, it is entirely accurate. It is a straw man to state such a claim is establishing Gould as saying there are no transitional records, or, as this post says, that Gould rejects evolution as a whole. I suppose you could try and complain there is ambiguity as "transitional fossils" is a broad term and requires specification. But in Gould's original quote even he didn't specify which transitional fossils were "rare". This premise can be accepted and Gould's conclusion rejected.TSErik
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
TSErik: It would be if WJM was insisting that Gould was supporting ID or Creation, but he is not. No. The reason it is a quote-mine is not because it leaves a false impression of Gould's views on evolution, but because, by leaving out the context, it gives a false impression of Gould's views on transitional fossils.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. — Stephen Jay Gould
Zachriel
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Are you serious? One cannot be that foolish. It certainly is not a quite-mine. It would be if WJM was insisting that Gould was supporting ID or Creation, but he is not. He is agreeing to the data or premise Gould establishes, but disagrees with Gould's conclusion! That isn't "quote mining"! Until WJM argues that Gould is arguing FOR ID or Creationism based on the quote, it isn't quote mining. Accepting the premise of an argument, or a set of data, does not require one to accept the conclusion. There are countless examples of this in science. How can you not understand this?TSErik
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
The term "quote mine" is empty rhetoric relied upon by empty heads.Jack Jones
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
William J Murray: It seems that simply using the Gould’s quote to establish agreement on both sides about the fact of “few transitional fossils” in a pro-creationist argument That's a quote-mine!Zachriel
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Quote-mining? Pfft. I have learned tat asking evolutionists to support their claims is erecting a strawman. Seriously- go to TSZ and ask how to test the claim that any functional multi-protein complexed evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction and you will be accused of erecting a strawman. But that is nothing compared to the whining you will get by telling them how to falsify ID.Virgil Cain
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Couple of updates to the post; Reciprocating Bill agrees that petrushka is wrong, and GlenDavidson has stated that he does in fact also disagree. Credit where credit is due.William J Murray
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
Mr Murray, Evolutionists that use that phrase are pathetic. This sophomoric phrase appears to trace back to talk origins. When evolutionists can't refute a quote then they hand wave quotes away with this phrase. It shows you just how shaky their position is and how emotional their position is when they use this rhetorical phrase instead of pondering problems brought up by hostile witnesses to their position.Jack Jones
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
HeKS: Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/heks-on-the-you-idists-are-quote-mining-heads-i-win-issue/ "HeKS on the “you IDists are quote-mining”/ “heads I win . . .” issue" KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
HeKS, well said -- sadly. One hopes there will be a wake-up. KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
WJM, Yes, no matter how many times I come across it (very many times) it never ceases to amaze me how Darwinists misuse this accusation. They don't seem to understand that people are capable of, for example, making 'statements against interest', or simply acknowledging facts and data that generally are inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, or with the popular notions of evolutionary theory, or with popular misconceptions regarding the evidence supporting the theory (or theories). Instead, they think - quite ridiculously - that it is inappropriate to quote anyone in support of a premise used in an anti-evolutionary argument unless the person being quoted agrees with a conclusion along the lines of "evolutionary theory is nonsense". This creates a 'heads we win, tails you lose' scenario, because if an ID proponent quotes an evolutionary biologist (or any other person in any field) who 'believes in evolution', then it is quote-mining, but if they quote someone else who also accepts ID, then the quote is to be understood as worthless, because the person they are quoting is already biased in their favor. In my experience, it is very often the Darwinists themselves who are quote-mining ID proponents by misrepresenting the purpose for which the ID proponents are using quotes.
You might think that the “intellectually honest” members of TSZ would have corrected him immediately. I mean, seriously, surely not even those at TSZ would try to defend such an ignorant, erroneous, laughable idea. Well, then again, you might not.
I'm going to have to go with the 'not' here. Not at all, in fact. I discovered early last year that TSZ is a den of intellectual iniquity when I saw how willing they were to stand by and watch KeithS scale new heights of intellectual dishonesty through his constant misrepresentations and attempts at grandstanding, even in some cases praising his deceitful foolishness. When literally everyone in the room is too concerned with upholding their 'zero concessions' policy (including supposedly respectable members) to call out one of their fellow travellers for blatant dishonesty then it's a good indication that you're in a place that simply isn't worth your time.HeKS
January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
The quote mining accusation has always shown me a desperation of evolutionists. Everyone misquotes, some on purpose but probably not creationists, but to profile ID/YEC with this is just strange weird wrong. My heart tells me that can't stand using their own words against them. There must be some sincerity they are taken out of context too much but come on. One could find more from their side. Possibly it shows they really do spend more time DISCREDITING creationists then in other contentions of mankind. They really don't make a good case and so must more discredit ID/YEC case and presentation. Also its about using SCIENTISTS own work against their own conclusions. just everyone keep quoting them if its suits your case. you can do it in court because one can do it. They can do it too.Robert Byers
January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply