Are these misquotes or not?

[npetreley]

Okay, "scientists" and "evolutionists," after you're done with your love-fest with talkorigins, please explain how THESE quotes that were posted HERE are actually misquotes.

The purpose of the following quote is to demonstrate that scientists DO have an a-priori commitment to materialism to the point of tolerating unsubstantiated just-so stories, counterintuitive material explanations of things, and a deliberate effort to exclude the possibility of God having a hand in things. In addition, he admits that it is NOT THE METHODOLOGY OR INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE that require material explanations, but the a-priori commitment to materialism.

If anyone believes this is a misquote, the burden is upon you to demonstrate from the larger context that Lewontin is saying that there really is no a-priori commitment to materialism, nobody in the scientific community tolerates unsubstantiated just-so stories, there are no counterintiutive material explanations of things, and that nobody is interested in keeping God out of the picture. You must also demonstrate that he meant to say that the search for material causes comes from the scientific method and scientific institutions, NOT from an a-priori commitment to materialism.

Have at it.

Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us 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 to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.... To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.

The purpose of the following two quotes is to demonstrate that even staunch evolutionists admit that the fossil record remains problematic for evolution.

You'll need to demonstrate that in the larger context these people were actually saying that the fossil record is not a problem for evolution in order to prove these are misquotes.

Have at it.

Stephen Jay Gould Evolution's Eratic Pace. Natural History 1997

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at their tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, Reinventing Darwin. Wiley Press, 1995

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. [...] When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn palaeontologist looking to learn something about evolution.

I can go on if you like, but I think this will generate enough noise as it is.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

If you have read the original works can you provide us with the context of these quotes. Otherwise, can you give us a link to the webpage that is your source.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Nick,

If you have read the original works can you provide us with the context of these quotes. Otherwise, can you give us a link to the webpage that is your source.

Do you have any math homework you want me to do for you, too? How about I come mow your lawn, do your dishes and pick up your toys? What part of "the burden is upon you" is not clear?

I gave you clear references, and not everything is available on the web. If you're keen to say I've misquoted anyone, go do the footwork to prove it. I'm not asking you to do anything I wouldn't do. If you misquote the Bible, I promise to look up the verses all by my widdle self in order to refute your assertions. Fair enough?

 

[seebs]

Nick, those aren't exactly misquotes, but the context does change the meaning. You're welcome to quote the surrounding context to show how it supports your interpretation.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley

Do you have any math homework you want me to do for you, too? How about I come mow your lawn, do your dishes and pick up your toys? What part of "the burden is upon you" is not clear?

I gave you clear references, and not everything is available on the web. If you're keen to say I've misquoted anyone, go do the footwork to prove it. I'm not asking you to do anything I wouldn't do. If you misquote the Bible, I promise to look up the verses all by my widdle self in order to refute your assertions. Fair enough?

Do you stand by your honor and integrety that you have read the original sources and they are not taken out of context or are being misrepresented here?

Are you quoting directly or are you copying the quotes of someone else?

If these are misquotes, then I will hold you personally responsible for being the false witness, unless you haven't read the original materials and are just plagarizing another person's work. As such I will just consider you to have been deceived by the real false witness.

P.S. I'll check the context tomorrow when I go by the library.

 

[Jerry Smith]

If you read the originals then you already know whether they are misquotes are not. Did you read the originals?

If you didn't read the originals, then yes - they are misquotes, because you referenced the originals only, as though that is where you quoted from. If you quoted from a secondary source, you should include the secondary source.

If you didn't read the originals, then you don't know if they are misquotes because of context, etc --- you are just taking on the responsibility for any dishonesty, errors, or omissions that your source made.

 

[Morat]

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at their tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

Gould also writes:

Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."

and

Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

and

From S.J. Gould, "Evolution as fact and theory", in Science And Creationism, Ed.: A. Montagu, 1984.
"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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

In context, as any reasonable reader familiar with Gould, would gather that his discussion of paleontology was focused on his own personal theory, that of PE. Gould is not discussing the fossil record for evolution, but the fossil record for gradualism. He's making a case for PE.

BTW, the quote originally appeared in "The Panda's Thumb".

However, it is nice to see that you posted the quote correctly, and not mangled as is often the case.

 

[npetreley]

I find it interesting that you pulled a quote from 1994 where Gould seems to have more confidence in the fossil record than he did when he wrote the quote from 1997 that I used.

Regardless, I'm sympathetic toward poor Gould for the frustration he felt about the way creationists use his quotes. But that's the risk you take when you're (at least partially) honest about what the evidence actually shows. And he's got a lot more to worry about right now.

Originally posted by Morat

In context, as any reasonable reader familiar with Gould, would gather that his discussion of paleontology was focused on his own personal theory, that of PE. Gould is not discussing the fossil record for evolution, but the fossil record for gradualism. He's making a case for PE.

Yes, you're correct that his so-called "motivation" is to resolve the problems of gradualism. But that's only because he's an evolutionist! Surely he's not posing this problem in order to suggest creation as the solution, otherwise I wouldn't have quoted him as an evolutionist who recognizes that there is a problem with the fossil evidence!

As such, he still recognizes that the fossil evidence suggests that there were stages of sudden explosions of new forms. He also recognizes that this evidence is problematic to evolution as it is traditionally viewed (gradualism). Since he is at a loss to explain this from a gradualist perspective, he comes up with "punk eek" as an imaginative way to retrofit evolution to the evidence. IMO, he fails miserably, but that's a 'nother thread.

Anyway, my point is that I did not in any way misquote Gould. My solution and his solution differ. He says the evidence suggests punk eek. I say it suggests creation. But the problem in the evidence is still the same.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
I find it interesting that you pulled a quote from 1994 where Gould seems to have more confidence in the fossil record than he did when he wrote the quote from 1997 that I used.

Or maybe you are misconstruing his meaning because you lack the full context of the 1997 quote, and he still had equal or better confidence in the fossil record then as when he wrote his earlier words in 1994....

Naw... that'd be too easy!!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
If you read the originals then you already know whether they are misquotes are not. Did you read the originals?

Look, I understand perfectly the game you want to play, and I'm not going to play it. This thread is about whether or not these are misquotes. Obviously I claim they are NOT misquotes or I wouldn't use them. If I am the type who would knowingly misrepresent the validity of these quotes, what difference would it make to you if I said I memorized every Gould book ever written?

If the problem is that YOU can't prove that these are misquotes because YOU haven't read the materials, then stop your hypocritical whining about people misquoting your heros and either put up or shut up. Do your homework, demonstrate that your complaints have merit and show us all why these people meant the opposite of what I claim they meant, or stop whining.

 

[Morat]

As such, he still recognizes that the fossil evidence suggests that there were stages of sudden explosions of new forms. He also recognizes that this evidence is problematic to evolution as it is traditionally viewed (gradualism). Since he is at a loss to explain this from a gradualist perspective, he comes up with "punk eek" as an imaginative way to retrofit evolution to the evidence. IMO, he fails miserably, but that's a 'nother thread.

This is a strawman of PE. One frequently repeated by Creationists.

PE is characterized by reproductive isolation. As such, the "jumps" you would see would all be lower level. Rapid (10 to 15 thousand years) speciation.

Gould's work on PE was rather rigourous in that he had to find places where the fossil record's general graininess could be discounted, to show the pattern of isolation and sudden appearance he was proposing. Certain snails, as it turned out.

Hence the whole purpose of this quote:

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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

Which you abuse in exactly the method he was describing.

Nor does PE replace gradualism. I would suggest you avail yourself of Talk.Origins's Punctuated Equilibria FAQ so that at the very least you understand what you're talking about.

The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:

1) Paleontology should be informed by neontology.
2) Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis.
3) Most speciation occurs via peripatric speciation.
4) Large, widespread species usually change slowly, if at all, during their time of residence.
5) Daughter species usually develop in a geographically limited region.
6) Daughter species usually develop in a stratigraphically limited extent, which is small in relation to total residence time of the species.
7) Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.
8) Adaptive change in lineages occurs mostly during periods of speciation.
9) Trends in adaptation occur mostly through the mechanism of species selection.

The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.

Further, the graudalism Gould so frequently mentions seems to be far more a creation of his own, than descriptive of evolution. Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker discusses this.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Which specific complaints are you talking about?

Maybe you have a beef with something someone else said about your quotes here - - if it was me, what are you talking about? I haven't complained about these quotes of yours, except after you asked for a critique... My critique was valid as far as I can tell ... did you read the originals? If not, why are you citing them as though you did?

If you are talking about someone else, I will let them address you here. I thought you wanted opinions on these quotes you posted here.... My beefs are more with the kinds of flagrant misquoting on the part of other creationists that we have already discussed in other threads.

I also have plenty of problems with your continual accusations and implications of stupidity and ineptitude through your straw-man characterizations of the science you don't give any evidence of understanding, and through your constant use of phrases and words like "imaginary", "making up evidence," "fantasy", etc... But I don't expect you to ever back up your allegations.. why do you expect whoever said something about your quoting habits to back up there's?

 

[Jerry Smith]

This tidbit from Lewontin's quote:

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.... To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.

seems to be more or less right on the money. Maybe this should be for another thread, but if there were constant attacks by religiously motivated people trying to discredit other disciplines - say solid state physics, for instance - attempting to discredit the legitimate advances they have made in order to replace it with a supernaturalist explanation of semiconductors & such - would there not be a need for a doorkeeper in that discipline as well? Would one not expect solid-state physicists to become hostile even to mystical speculation?

There is less evidence for General relativity than there is for common descent: general relativity gained acceptance, iirc, after one prediction having to do with the lensing effect of massive bodies was tested in a solar eclipse. It is not attacked constantly merely because there is no perceived threat to any particular theological system... lets pretend it threatens my literal reading of my religion's Bible... Let's pretend that I come strutting up arrogantly, tossing out bone-headed comments like "sure you can IMAGINE relativity, but you don't have any EVIDENCE, you can't OBSERVE relativity, you can only imagine 'hey, that light looks a little bent! Must be relativity!', blah blah, ad nauseum...'" and when people ask me what the _____ I'm talking about, I throw out this quote from Einstein to prove that he is biased and that all of his theory is merely bunk:

A student asked him what he would have done had the prediction turned out wrong.

"Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord," Einstein replied. "The theory is correct."

Then, with nothing better than this "quote" to back me up, I go back to spewing rhetoric about scientist's stupidity --- all the while wearing my digital watch & not seeing the irony.

 

[randman]

The reason they are not misquotes in any context, in all likelihood, is simple. They are for the most part true, though from an evolutionist perspective. I quoted these exact same quotes over at Infidels and the place went wild like throwing fresh meat to a pack of hyenas. The sad part is they actually believe we are taking these quotes out of context, and basically focus on semantics, though even wrong on that count, but I guess admitting to the actual data is kind of scary for some of them.

Jerry, I appreciate your admissions here and there on the data, and I respect your perspective in the sense that I am not slamming you for being an evolutionist, but be honest. Did LFOD, or Seebs, or anyone else just flat out admit say, on the Fill-in-theBlanks thread, that it basically could not be done, without adding a lot of BS charges about my motivation for posting, ot worse in LFOD's case, just deny and claim that it could be done.
Does anyone else admit to the basic facts in the evolutionist camp? They are batting less than 10% in the places I debate this issue.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Did LFOD, or Seebs, or anyone else just flat out admit say, on the Fill-in-theBlanks thread, that it basically could not be done, without adding a lot of BS charges about my motivation for posting, ot worse in LFOD's case, just deny and claim that it could be done.

Ok... here we go:

seebs:

The question is, in fact, based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of the science involved as to be meaningless.

It's like saying "Can someone explain why God's first five messiahs didn't work." You can't even *begin* to answer the question; it's just misunderstood.

I think an "admission" that the question cannot be answered is a defacto admission that the person saying so cannot answer it. So put a check next to seeb's name.

Moreover, you appear to agree.. in the next post, you say:

Um, I guess that is a fancy way of admitting you can't do it, eh?

Kind of proves my point about the fossil record quite well.

Rufus makes a similar admission:

So what? Any inability to do that, doesn't negate the statis of archaeopteryx as a transitional. This sounds a lot like Gish's rule of missing links: "every found link produces two more missing ones."

Rufus again:

Furthermore, Archy is not considered the ancestor of all modern birds, but a creature more than likely closly related to the a common ancestor of all birds and showing feature we would expect on such a creature.

LFOD never condescends to make an outright "admission" of something so irrelevant... he does so by implication though, in this:

Hey randman, can you name all of your ancestors between Adam and you? Can't do it eh? I guess that means they didn't exist.

LewisWildermuth doesn't "admit" he can't do it, but he "admits" that it is too hard:

Why Archy? Is that because Archy is one of the hardest?

 

[randman]

"Ok... here we go:

seebs:
quote:
The question is, in fact, based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of the science involved as to be meaningless.

It's like saying "Can someone explain why God's first five messiahs didn't work." You can't even *begin* to answer the question; it's just misunderstood.


I think an "admission" that the question cannot be answered is a defacto admission that the person saying so cannot answer it. So put a check next to seeb's name."

That's not an admission of the sort I am speaking of. It is obvious that he can't simply admit to the facts without trying to cloud the issue. This is exactly what I am talking about.

"The question is, in fact, based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of the science involved as to be meaningless."

That is not an admission but a claim the question has no relevance.

Go back and read the thread. They balked and complained and accussed and did everything they could to cloud the issue.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think they did everything they could to UNCLOUD the issue. The question its self gave every appearance of being specifically desgined to cloud the issue. I did go back and read the thread. How do you respond to a question like that?

I think they were more interested in pointing out why it was a question that didn't deserve an answer than they were in humbly admitting that they couldn't answer it - why not... ask them something that does deserve an answer that they don't have one for & see how they respond...

 

[seebs]

I'd like to point out that the claim that the charges about randman's motivation were "BS" has not been substantiated. No plausible motivation consistent with genuine interest in the issues has been offered which would explain asking such a stupid question.

I stand by my comparison with the question about the "first five Messiahs". The question is so irrelevant to the theory as to be sort of surprising, even from someone who obviously doesn't understand the theory.

 

[randman]

"How do you respond to a question like that?

I think they were more interested in pointing out why it was a question that didn't deserve an answer than they were in humbly admitting that they couldn't answer it - why not... ask them something that does deserve an answer that they don't have one for & see how they respond..."

You admit humbly that we can't do this, and may never be able to do this, and admit we don't have that kind of evidence, and then go on to make the case with the evidence you do have. Anything else shows that you have a problem admitting to the real evidence, and thereofore are not genuinely try to educate others about science and the nature of the evidence, but to win them over to your cause.

The kind of response most of you gave is exactly why I don't consider evolution to be science, at least not the way it is practiced. Ruse agrees by the way.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Okay, "scientists" and "evolutionists," after you're done with your love-fest with talkorigins, please explain how THESE quotes that were posted HERE are actually misquotes.

The purpose of the following quote is to demonstrate that scientists DO have an a-priori commitment to materialism to the point of tolerating unsubstantiated just-so stories, counterintuitive material explanations of things, and a deliberate effort to exclude the possibility of God having a hand in things. In addition, he admits that it is NOT THE METHODOLOGY OR INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE that require material explanations, but the a-priori commitment to materialism.

If anyone believes this is a misquote, the burden is upon you to demonstrate from the larger context that Lewontin is saying that there really is no a-priori commitment to materialism, nobody in the scientific community tolerates unsubstantiated just-so stories, there are no counterintiutive material explanations of things, and that nobody is interested in keeping God out of the picture. You must also demonstrate that he meant to say that the search for material causes comes from the scientific method and scientific institutions, NOT from an a-priori commitment to materialism.

I would say this is not a misquote. Lewontin has it largely correct. Maybe you should ask yourself why it is that science has that committment to material causes and explanations. The answer, of course, is that material causes and explanations are the only ones that we can investigate and test. (And also the only ones that are actually useful for something).

The purpose of the following two quotes is to demonstrate that even staunch evolutionists admit that the fossil record remains problematic for evolution.

I think that the quotes are valid if they are used to support the claim that the fossil record can at times appear problematic for evolution. Obviously if it really was Gould and Eldredge would not have been evolutionists. Unless they were stupid or liars, that is.