Quoting data, or quoting summaries of the data?

[Jerry Smith]

On the other thread, randman says that TalkOrigins has it all wrong in suggesting that it is dishonest for creationists to selectively quote out of context a scientific authority in order to give the appearance that the authority is saying that seems incriminating to evolutionary science. His justification?

His justification is that the creationists are quoting "DATA" not "CONCLUSIONS". This seems a facile excuse: all of the quotes mentioned are not data, but actually summaries of data: specifically, the scientists opinions about what is AND what is not to be found in the fossil record. Data is a record of a fossil find. "The data" being discussed is essentially a large group of fossil finds. The creationist doesn't quote the data - he quotes a scientist's summary of the data.

Now, I ask this: if not for the purpose of misleading the reader, why wouldn't a creationist quote enough of a scientist's statement about the data to give an accurate reflection of that scientist's summary?

On the same thread, randman says that creationists are not making an appeal to authority, merely showing that evolutionists agree with certain of their specific contentions. Is this true? Certainly not, with regards to Feduccia's comments on Archaeopteryx. Certainly not in many cases.

Obviously randman has read the /quotes/ faq. Obviously, he had to find a separate article to find anything he could even reasonably come close to objecting to. Therefore, it is obvious that he is directly aware of the dishonesty and poor scholarship within creationist ranks.

Yet, he believes he has also found some dishonesty and/or poor scholarship among evolutionists and that is why he rejects evolution. Why then, randman, do you not reject creationism the more so?

 

[randman]

Explain one instance where the quotes themselves are actually taken out context in the sense that they are given a meaning tthat isn't true?

You guys have a twisted and warped sense of what it means to take something out of context. It is perfectly acceptable in debate to use something stated by an authority in your opponent's camp without conceding the person is necessarily authoritiative in your view in his overall conclusions. What is actually going on is a nasty attempt by evolutionists to deciece people about the actual data, and so when a creationist quotes an evolutionists statements, whether conclusions, data, or opinion, it does not matter, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL EXISTING DATA, the evolutionists howl.

Why?

Because they don't want people knowing the truth. Name one instance where any of these quotes are used to denote a falsehood. If they are indeed reflecting summaries or opinions on data, is there any beef with those summaries or opinions?

In other words, why a re you upset by someone clarifying things that you supposedly want everyone to know. It's kind of like my "fill-in-the-blanks" example. Why so upset? Why not just admit, yep, the creationist is right. We can't fill in the blanks, and guess what we may never be able to, and here is why.

Instead, the usual response is to evade the question, which tells me the evolutionist party line so to speak is to try and keep people in the dark instead of honestly laying out the facts.

What it also tells me that evolutionists are more concerned with people believing them that they are in understanding, and this is false, and false religion, and not science at all.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Explain one instance where the quotes themselves are actually taken out context in the sense that they are given a meaning tthat isn't true?

From the talk origins page in question:
Jonathan Wells in the "Darwin's Tree of Life" chapter of his Icons of Evolution tells us:

Some biologists have described this [the Cambrian explosion] in terms of "bottom-up" versus "top-down" evolution. Darwinian evolution is "bottom-up," referring to its prediction that lower levels in the biological hierarchy should emerge before higher ones. But the Cambrian explosion shows the opposite. In the words of Valentine and his colleagues, the Cambrian pattern "creates the impression that [animal] evolution has by and large proceeded from the 'top down'." [First bracket is mine and the second is by Wells.]

Since Wells is saying that evolution predicts the exact opposite of what it actually does it might seem puzzling that Wells could find a quote to support his claim. That is until a visit to the library stacks reveals a problem with the context. Notice that Wells is saying that "top-down" means that the higher Linnean hierarchies like phyla and classes appear before lower Linnean hierarchies like orders and families. This is actually something that must be true if evolution is true. But that is not how the term was used by the authors that Wells quoted as is clear if one reads the sentence before the quoted material. Here is what a bit more of what Valentine et al.12 had to say on the Cambrian explosion with what Wells quoted in green :
In general, for those taxonomic levels for which fossil data seems adequate, higher levels reached their peak diversities earlier, and successively lower levels progressively later, in geologic time (Valentine, 1969). This pattern creates the impression that metazoan evolution has by and large proceeded from the "top down," that the body plans of the phyla originated presumably as adaptations that permitted the occupation of major adaptive zones, and then, according to the potentials and constraints provided and imposed by the body plans, they in turn branched to produce the major modifications that are ranked as classes, and so on to the ordinal [order] level and below.... There is a great deal of difference between "emerge" or "appear first" (a phrase Wells used in his next paragraph) and "reached their peak diversity." Quoting someone and not informing the reader that the key term was used in the original in a completely different manner forms a misquotation. For those interested learning about some of the many distortions Dr. Wells is guilty of might look at the Icon of Obfuscation FAQ.
In general, any quote whose impact depends on what the reader does not know is probably out-of-context.

Is that satisfactory?

You guys have a twisted and warped sense of what it means to take something out of context. It is perfectly acceptable in debate to use something stated by an authority in your opponent's camp without conceding the person is necessarily authoritiative in your view in his overall conclusions. What is actually going on is a nasty attempt by evolutionists to deciece people about the actual data, and so when a creationist quotes an evolutionists statements, whether conclusions, data, or opinion, it does not matter, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ACTUAL EXISTING DATA, the evolutionists howl.

If you are quoting evolutionists staements of opinion or their conclusions, or even their discussions of the data (instead of the tables themselves) you have a responsibility to be sure you are accurately reflecting their opinions, conclusions, or their discussion of the data and not leaving out the parts that make your case look bad. This is standard. If you attacked any other science by the same methods, you would get the same objections.

Why?

Because they don't want people knowing the truth. Name one instance where any of these quotes are used to denote a falsehood. If they are indeed reflecting summaries or opinions on data, is there any beef with those summaries or opinions?

No beef with the summaries or opinions, just a beef with how they are quoted, when those quotes are not faithful to the author's summaries or opinions. Less beef when an author's summaries and opinions are just used to obscure an issue, for instance:

There are no transitional fossils [insert quote from Gould saying that transitions are rare at the species level] - See - even the ardent evolutionists will tell you there aren't any transitionals!

In other words, why a re you upset by someone clarifying things that you supposedly want everyone to know. It's kind of like my "fill-in-the-blanks" example. Why so upset? Why not just admit, yep, the creationist is right. We can't fill in the blanks, and guess what we may never be able to, and here is why.

The problem is that the "fill-in-the-blanks" example was used to draw attention away from the real issues.

Instead, the usual response is to evade the question, which tells me the evolutionist party line so to speak is to try and keep people in the dark instead of honestly laying out the facts.

Have you ever asked anyone "hey, do you still beat your wife?" == of course people don't answer your questions.

What it also tells me that evolutionists are more concerned with people believing them that they are in understanding, and this is false, and false religion, and not science at all.

I think this may be what you want to believe & you may be out in search of "data" to support your conclusion.

 

[randman]

First of all, is that a quote i referred to. Please state how the quotes I used ar e out of context.

"The problem is that the "fill-in-the-blanks" example was used to draw attention away from the real issues."

That's your opinion. It is a real issue for me that the actual transitions are not shown. I r eally don't care if you call them transitional, X, Y, or Z, what I am interested in is making sure the actual picture of the real data is clearly presented. I can tell you that most people I talked to one fall on a college campus felt they had been lied to when they learn that "transitional" does not mean the actual transitions are not shown.

Why do they feel lied to? Because they have been. Sites like TalkOrigins are leaving a false impression.

Let's even look at your example of asking "do you beat your wife?" It is offensive, BUT IT IS EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE IF YOU ARE GUILTY, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. The evolutionist can't answer the question because they are guilty. They "do beat their wife" in the analogy you gave, and therefore the question is entirely appropiate.

They do suggest the fossil record well-nigh proves evolution occurred with "thousands of transitional fossils" and leave the impression that these fossils actually show the process of transformation. Getting them to admit to the real nature of "transitional" is near impossible. Note no other evolutionist but you even admitted to it. LFOD lied and made something up in order to further create a false impression.

I can't live here. I gotta work.

If you want an example of evolution being treated like a false religion, just look around.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Let's even look at your example of asking "do you beat your wife?" It is offensive, BUT IT IS EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE IF YOU ARE GUILTY, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. The evolutionist can't answer the question because they are guilty. They "do beat their wife" in the analogy you gave, and therefore the question is entirely appropiate

It has little to do with offensiveness: it has to do with the question. Read it again: it was "do you STILL beat your wife?" Basically its a question with no correct answer for those who never did beat their wife. You ask questions that have no correct answer for people who do not hold or portray the opinions your questions relate to.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That's your opinion. It is a real issue for me that the actual transitions are not shown. I r eally don't care if you call them transitional, X, Y, or Z, what I am interested in is making sure the actual picture of the real data is clearly presented. I can tell you that most people I talked to one fall on a college campus felt they had been lied to when they learn that "transitional" does not mean the actual transitions are not shown.

Ok, randman, what word would you have us substitute for transitional when we are talking about transitional fossils where the transitions aren't shown? You pick the word & I'll see if I can convince all of the scientists to swap over to it because you are afraid that someone will get the wrong impression of what it means and won't hear what the word means from the people who use it in their biology books, papers, and on the internet, because they stop reading when they encounter the word "transitional" and walk off.....

 

[Jerry Smith]

First of all, is that a quote i referred to. Please state how the quotes I used ar e out of context.

Why didn't you refer to that quote? Is it OK for creationists to be dishonest while you look the other way, but you must pounce on every single tiny seeming infraction that an evolutionist makes? I don't think that the example you referred to is particularly egregious. I do think it is an example of using a quote to obscure the issue that is being discussed instead of using the fuller quote, which would have actually shed light on the issue being discussed.

 

[randman]

Jerry, the creationists are not on my radar screen for the most part. They don't teach in my kids schools. They don't dominate public television, and Discover channels. They are not the issue. If they are as bad you state, then I will certainly disagree with them.

But I know what the evolutionists teach, and how they teach, and the propoganda they use, and I for one think they should be held accountable for the trash they pass off as science and scholarship. They aren't educating people. They are indoctrinating them. There is a big difference.

Btw, some of the worst offenders ar e people that claim to have Phds in evolutionary related fields. How some of these people got a Phd is beyond me, but there is a serious problem, and a lot of people are downright angry with evolutionists.

If I beleived in evolution, I would still be angry at the way they approach the material and their critics, and the way they teach and popularize it. Evolutionism is a false religion. Science may in there too, but it is practiced as a religion.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Jerry, the creationists are not on my radar screen for the most part. They don't teach in my kids schools. They don't dominate public television, and Discover channels.

Well, it ain't from lack of trying!!!

Of course, I sorely disagree with your assessment of evolutionists..... I think there is a grain of truth in there, but you must either be judging the lot by a few (vocal) bad apples, or someone has effectively deceived you. The science is there... there are people make a lot of ideological claims based on the science, and some of them even have PhD's, but they are a vocal minority...

Then there are those like me, who aren't scientists but work hard to combat the efforts by creationists to overthrow the science. Then there are people like Rufus who are scientists and have a personal interest of their own for doing the same...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Quote Randman
Let's even look at your example of asking "do you beat your wife?" It is offensive, BUT IT IS EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE IF YOU ARE GUILTY, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. The evolutionist can't answer the question because they are guilty. They "do beat their wife" in the analogy you gave, and therefore the question is entirely appropiate.
End Quote

I love this "randism"!!!!

Now lets see how it holds up?
Next up on CFN, The Christian Fundamentalist Network, where we put the mental back into fundamentalism;

The Great Detective RandMan!

Brought to you by DrDino Cola, where we don't believe that flavoring with plutonium is a bad thing! After all science is just a left wing commie conspiracy! DrDino cola, now in uranium lined cans! The drink that gives you that Holy burning feeling inside and that special glow outside!

In this episode we find RandMan called to help solve a brutal murder of a "lady of the night" in old England.

Local Constable: Great Detective RandMan, glad you could come. We have a hard case in front of us. We have all the suspects here for you to interview and here is the evidence. A scalpel found in the chest of the victim with the letters JDR engraved on the handle, a white handkerchief found in her hand, presumably pulled from the attackers coat with the letters JDR on it and a note stating " HaHa you can't catch me sincerely JDR".

Randmal looked over the evidence and scoffed knowing it was all worthless since it was collected with an a priori commitment that it actually was evidence. Fortunately RandMan had a fool proof way to find out who was guilty and started the interviews.

After the interviews RandMan was puzzled that he was unable to determine the guilty party, since his method had never failed him he was sure that the evidence had simply pointed the stupid detectives working on the case to the wrong people. He was about to give up when a woman walked in, "Ah one last suspect" he thought.

Woman: Hello I'm detective Mary I was working on this case...

RandMan: Silence, I know it was you who committed the murder!

Woman: What!?! Are you mad!?!?! How dare you accuse me!!!

RandMan: See! Your livid denial proves your guilt!

RandMan presses a button and constables rush the room and take the screaming detective Mary away to be hung the next day.

Local Constable: Thank you RandMan, I would have never guessed our own detective would have done this.

Later one of the other suspects thanks RandMan.

Suspect: Thank you again I seem to always get accused of these murders, but your logic sees through to my innocence all the time.

RandMan: No problem Dr. Jack D. Ripper, it's just my job.

The End.

Now RandMan, is denying something with force proof of guilt? If I called you a Satanist and you rebuked me for doing so does that prove you really are a Satanist? Think your logic through sometimes please.

 

[randman]

Lewis is really showing his colors now.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What colors RandMan? You said something that I thought was extreemly funny and I thought I'd run it out in a funny way. But there is a core truth underlying the jokes I made.

You implied denial = guilt did you not? Remember if you deny this it makes you guilty according to your own words.

Can a Christian not joke? If we who are promised salvation cannot have a good time who can?