Quote-mining

[Nooj]

I'm participating in a debate with a creationist. He pulls out all the old PRATTs and misconceptions. Particularly interesting is his copy-and-paste from this creationist website, which claims to have 12 quotes from leading evolutionists that proves evolution wrong. There are some fairly common ones, like Stephen Jay Gould and punk eek, but there are others which I couldn't find in the Quote Mine Project.

For instance, this one:

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

I could not find the article for Compass in which it was written. So I searched around a bit, found Mr West's email and emailed him about this quote. He was a professor of palaeobiology, so I was highly suspicious about any anti-evolution quotes attributed to him. I got a response back yesterday:

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your message. The article it which you refer was
originally written as an essay for a course in the Philosophy of
Science and subsequently published in The Compass. The quote in
question has been, as you suggest, taken out of context and I have
responded to numerous requests such as yours over the years. Attached
is ALL of page 216 of that article and I think you will readily see the
intent of the sentences in question.

The essential points are:

1) Scientific theories CANNOT be tested (supported) using historical
events.

2) The fossil record records historical events.

3) Therefore the fossil records does not support evolution.

One might interpret the fossil record, or any historical event, in any
number of ways. Consider the different explanations as to the demise
of previous civilizations. Even with written records there is
interpretation. As I said in the article, there are several ways
(ideas, theories) that can be used to explain (interpret) the fossil
record. The only scientifically valid one is evolution because it can
be, and is being, tested in the present and to date these tests have
failed to falsify evolution. An excellent example of such a test is
the need to get a flu shot every year. Why? Because the flu virus
changes; it evolves. The fact that it evolves is a test of the theory
in the present.

I trust that you now have a better understanding of the quoted
sentences.

Sincerely,

*blanked out*

The format the article is in doesn't allow me to post what it says, but if anyone is interested, I'll send the document to you. Ronald West is talking about uniformitarianism and evolution:

It[Darwin's theory of evolution] was not based on any historical events, but constructed on nonhistorical events. In fact, theories are always formed and tested in terms of the present...evolutionary theory deals with biology in the present, and uniformitarianism permits the use of present processes to explain past events. The concept of uniformitarianism does not enter the picture until the attempt is made to use evolutionary theory (biological present) to explain the fossil record (paleobiological past). Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory...This should be its main purpose, to allow us to reconstruct the past on the basis of a theory or theories founded on nonhistoric events

Mr West is hardly an anti-evolutionist. I don't agree with him when he says the fossil record can't support evolution, but he's not railing against evolution at all. He has problems with using historical events (fossils) to test scientific theories.

I'll be sending an email to the creationist website asking them to take that quote down.

 

[corvus_corax]

Quote mining from scientists.
One of the refuges of those who are anti-science

Of course, quote mining is a form of lying, and Christians (including Hovind, Behe, and the many forumites here) should avoid it, according to their own beliefs.
AngryNotice aside, lying for Jesus (or lying, period) is usually considered a sin (by Christian standards)
Not "bad form"
Not "unworthy in a debate"
Not "hedging around the issue"
Not "fallible human weakness" (lying is intentional)

No...

A sin.
And it's commited over and over and over again here and elsewhere.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

There is a limited validity to the statement, A theory cannot be said to predict the data that it was based on and as such, the fossil record as it existed at the time of Darwin was not predicted by the Theory of Evolution. that would be a circular argument. However, it can be said that future finds and especially ones such as Tiktallik and Ganus Yumanensus are predicted by the theory, since what and where it would be found are specified by the theory.
.
It also appears from what you have posted that you may need to concede that at least Dr.West is of the opinion that events not observed unlike the flu in the present are not absolute evidence. That Dr. West is not in keeping with any understanding of forensic evidence should not be hard to demonstrate however.

The other thing that comes to mind and you should speak to Baggins or someone else is whether the circular reference is to absolute dating. In 1968, I suspect most fossils were still dated by relative layer with minimal radiometric backup and so to say that a fossil was x age at that time based on other fossils may have been somewhat circular, this is not true now however.

Concede the prior knowledge part and argue the forensic part and an old understanding and you should be fine.

It is not like there is really a problem here is there?

Reading it a third time, Dr, West is now of the opinion that if he can't see it happen now, it didn't happen for sure. Not a valid argument but it is his opinion, go with the first argument and move on. This aint science, this is an old man.

The above is my opinion only... for what it aint worth.

 

[tocis]

...AngryNotice aside, lying for Jesus (or lying, period) is usually considered a sin (by Christian standards)...
And it's commited over and over and over again here and elsewhere.

Like I recently said elsewhere on this site - it is things like quote-mining and other typical creationist (or, for other topics, common fundamentalist) modi operandi that make more and more people think that christianity=hypocrisy.

Inasmuch as this hits back only the creationists/fundamentalists themselves, it's okay... but I trust the moderate/liberal christians (let alone those of other religions) don't exactly appreciate their reputations being ruined by some overzealous fanatics out there. I know I don't appreciate people thinking that I'm a moron just because I'm religious, and I'm definitely not even a christian, let alone a fundie/creationist...