Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Subduction Zone]

I meant Dawkins 'has an unreasonable and contemptuous way', but i wanted to be subtle...

Dawkins is really quite reasonable. Though when he talks to people that have earned contempt he does sometimes give them what they asked for.

 

[USincognito]

The extreme rarity [i.e. absence] of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists ... we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study
(SJ Gould, Harvard "Natural History" vol. 86)

This is a particularly dishonest quote mine. The ellipses cuts out two paragraphs and two more sentences worth of it.

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

Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]​

 

[florida2]

This one, for example, is simply a lie.

“ Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. ”
This supposed quote is used in an attempt to demonstrate that Sir Arthur Keith simply dismisses creationist viewpoints outright due to a presumed antitheistic bias.[14] However, in attempting to research this statement, one finds that it usually appears without primary source documentation.[15] In those instances where seemingly original documentation is provided, it is stated to be a Forward for a centennial edition or “100th edition” of Origin of Species.[16] However, several facts show that the attribution of these words to Arthur Keith is erroneous.

Keith died in 1955, some four years before the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s work, so that he was clearly not available to write an introduction for the centennial edition (this was actually done by William Robin Thompson).[17] Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction to earlier printings of Origin of Species, in use from 1928 to 1958, the words given above do not appear in that introduction.[18] Finally, the last “edition” of Origin of Species is the sixth edition published 1879.[19] It is for this reason that all later publications of Origin of Species are actually reprints of this or earlier editions so that there is simply no “100th edition” of Darwin’s work. In light of the fact that the documentation provided by Creationist publications is specious, one is still left with trying to explain the source of this citation. It is enough to say, however, that since this “quote” lacks valid documentation, it should not be regarded as one that originates with Arthur Keith himself until it can be properly documented.[20]​

Nice bit of research.

If only those who are so eager post quote-mines would take 5 minutes to check whether what they're posting is actually anywhere near reality.

I knew creationists use a lost of dishonest quote-mines, but to include quotes which appear to be simply fabricated is just bare-faced lying. Odd behaviour for Christians, or anybody who wants to be honest.

 

[Cimorene]

It is a dismissal, because creationism / ID is at least as rational as believing in dead unconscious things performing miracles for no purpose.
I think creationism / ID is actually much more rational.
But i used to believe naturalist theories too.
It's our default education and it has a huge platform and many 'wise men'.
I believed man descended from apes at a young age already.About the same answer as above.
In hindsight, it is not the best example, i have to agree the context is absent, too hacked up.
I think i'll remove it.
Sorry i didn't acknowledge this earlier.

The 1st quote sounds like a dismissal of ID as irrational. It doesn't imply that it's at least as rational as evolution at all. That's a really wacky interpretation!

You were taught man descended from apes? Are you sure that's what was taught & you didn't just misunderstand it?

Where did you get these quotes anyway? Did you just c&p them from a site or go around picking them out yourself?

 

[Hoghead1]

It is a dismissal, because creationism / ID is at least as rational as believing in dead unconscious things performing miracles for no purpose.
I think creationism / ID is actually much more rational.
But i used to believe naturalist theories too.
It's our default education and it has a huge platform and many 'wise men'.
I believed man descended from apes at a young age already.About the same answer as above.
In hindsight, it is not the best example, i have to agree the context is absent, too hacked up.
I think i'll remove it.
Sorry i didn't acknowledge this earlier.

Whenever I hear all this anti-evolution hype, it goes in one ear and out the other, on my end of it. I simply view it as a sign of the times, mass hysteria. People today are very cynical, distrustful and paranoid. Nobody trusts anyone. After all, we all know the moon l landing was a big fake. The "in" thing to do is to see a conspiracy everywhere and anywhere. So why not get on the band wagon, cash in, and promote evolution as a conspiracy , a fake on the parts of science? Creation-science is a propaganda mill run by individuals who make a dishonest living by playing into the fears of the public.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not one on one as was the appointment.

Maybe this is why:

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")

I don't know.

Yes, but if you do profess a belief in evolution, fundamentalist Christianity, the Bible Bile, will immediately write you off as possessed by the Devil, wicked, insane, you name it. As I have said, all this anti-evolutionary hype goes in one ear and out teh other, on my end of it. I view it as a sign of teh times. People today are very cynical, mistrustful, paranoid. The "in" thing to do is to see a conspiracy everywhere and anywhere. Don't we all know better now that the moon landing was a big fake? So why not get on the b and wagon, cash in, and say evolution is a fake, a big conspiracy on teh part of godless science? Creation-science is simply a propaganda mill run by individuals earning a dishonest living by playing into the public's fears.

 

[lasthero]

I meant Dawkins 'has an unreasonable and contemptuous way', but i wanted to be subtle...

I repeat - so does William Lane Craig.

 

[SteveB28]

Denial doesn't change anything.

P

That was not denial, that was a correction of your error. If you want to claim that naturalism is a "belief system" the burden of proof is upon you.

His track record in honouring that burden is not very impressive, I have found.

 

[SteveB28]

I think people post for a variety of reasons, some of them you include above.

For me, I always find it entertaining, to see how folks who deny well evidenced reality, try to support their position.

Agreed. I think also that these interactions are object lessons for those on the 'sidelines'. They are able to see that, when bald claims are made, the claimant has a responsibility to provide support for those claims. The alternatitive is to appear ignorant and foolish, as we see in the creationist position.

 

[SteveB28]

Watch what happens when you quote selectively....

Obviously i post this on a CHRISTIAN FORUM......
It is not based on evidence.........

Thank you for making that so clear for us!

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed. I think also that these interactions are object lessons for those on the 'sidelines'. They are able to see that, when bald claims are made, the claimant has a responsibility to provide support for those claims. The alternatitive is to appear ignorant and foolish, as we see in the creationist position.

Well, when young people are asked the question why they have left religion or the church, it is thinking that has been displayed on this thread, that is one of the primary reasons.

You see, education is the kryptonite for fundy types of beliefs. When people get educated, they typically get driven away, when denial of well evidenced reality, is asked of them.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...ns-young-christians-leave-church#.VxQdvkc8OFo

 

[SteveB28]

"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
"may be", he doesn't say it is or isn't.
But the same would apply to evolution theories regarding the distant past.
However, it is also strange that potential truth is not science.
Science means knowledge, and it is the human endeavour to investigate reality in order to find the truth.

"This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test."
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

Ahem......

Although Patterson did not support creationism, his work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[6][7] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:

"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[8]"

My bold.

 

[SteveB28]

Well, when young people are asked the question why they have left religion or the church, it is thinking that has been displayed on this thread, that is one of the primary reasons.

You see, education is the kryptonite for fundy types of beliefs. When people get educated, they typically get driven away, when denial of well evidenced reality, is asked of them.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...ns-young-christians-leave-church#.VxQdvkc8OFo

Yes. One hopes Mr Bosch reads your comment here. Hieronymus, this is how honest, educated arguments are put. You present your case and then you support it with evidence, as bhsmte has done.

Heed and learn!

 

[Gene2memE]

This thread has started me wondering:

Perhaps those that understand evolution and accept it as the best current explanation for the diversity of life could do some quote mining of their own.

I propose a 'Reverse Quote Mine Project'.

We could take all that screed from creationists, old and young, and selectively omit, insert or make up quotations so we can show their overwhelming support for materialism, methodological naturalism, deep time and evolutionary biology.

Think of it as recycling - taking garbage and making something useful of it via transformation.

 

[Hoghead1]

This thread has started me wondering:

Perhaps those that understand evolution and accept it as the best current explanation for the diversity of life could do some quote mining of their own.

I propose a 'Reverse Quote Mine Project'.

We could take all that screed from creationists, old and young, and selectively omit, insert or make up quotations so we can show their overwhelming support for materialism, methodological naturalism, deep time and evolutionary biology.

Think of it as recycling - taking garbage and making something useful of it via transformation.

Look, there have already been enough fabricated rumors from the creation-science propaganda mill paraded here. We don't need any more made-up or misquoted stuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread has started me wondering:

Perhaps those that understand evolution and accept it as the best current explanation for the diversity of life could do some quote mining of their own.

I propose a 'Reverse Quote Mine Project'.

We could take all that screed from creationists, old and young, and selectively omit, insert or make up quotations so we can show their overwhelming support for materialism, methodological naturalism, deep time and evolutionary biology.

Think of it as recycling - taking garbage and making something useful of it via transformation.

Not a bad idea. I have been quote mining the Bible to show him the error of his ways. Sadly he can't see how he is supporting the idea that the Bible says "there is no God" since one can quotemine it 12 times saying that.

 

[SteveB28]

"I believe that all the land animals were made...with...evolution."
Ken Ham

"Christianity...is of no importance."
C.S.Lewis

"Christianity...is a false religion."
Henry M. Morris

"We believe evolution theory...can't be questioned."
Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute.

 

[Hieronymus]

This one, for example, is simply a lie.

I'm afraid you're right.
My source was wrong here.
Thank you for pointing it out.
I will delete it from the OP.

Keith was a typical 'enlightenment thinker' though, complete with 'racist ideas'.
I think that's why it has been assumed to be a genuine quote, and rather blindly cited as such.
And that's a shame.

 

[Hieronymus]

You mean the quotes from non scientists and dishonest quote mines?

It seems a couple of them turn out to be rather ambiguous.
That's a shame and i should have checked out more myself before posting.

 

[Jimmy D]

It seems a couple of them turn out to be rather ambiguous.
That's a shame and i should have checked out more myself before posting.

Maybe they aren't the only examples of dishonesty to be found in Creationist propaganda? Blindly accepting what anyone says is not a good idea, even it seems agreeable to your ideas.... It's been demonstrated here and it was demonstrated with your Lucy hoax claims.