I don't know the best way to put this, and it's probably been covered before, but I think we need to cover why Creationists and IDists think quote mining is acceptable.
Not just the "words taken out of context" type, but the "outdated knowledge" type and the "argument from authority" type.
I'll give an example that Arphy came up with:
Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds, said this about Archaeopteryx:
quote:
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
On the surface, that looks like a damning retort to evolutionists - but the simple fact is that Feduccia is one scientists amongst many, and scientists often disagree and by definition there must be some on the "fringe".
Feduccia is one of these - he is of the opinion that Archaeopteryx is a bird when the majority think otherwise. This isn't a problem in science.
The facts are that Archaeopteryx has:
* a long bony tail
* teeth
* claws
and other non-avian traits.
the fact that it was covered in feathers and flew isn't enough reason, in the minds of the overwhelming majority of scientists, to call it a bird (is a bat a bird? It flies!)
It is accepted for what it is, a transitional fossil.
So, why do IDists and creationists quote Dr Feduccia?
I am of the opinion that it is because he believes in a viewpoint that, whilst they
do not agree with him is useful to them as ammunition - namely that with this single
argument from authority (which is a poor argument to make) they hope to relegate archaeopteryx to "bird" status, and thus say "look, scientists think it's a bird, therefore it's a bird, therefore evolution doesn't happen".
Dr Alan Feduccia, and this is the kicker, is an authority on birds, and whilst he holds a very, very minority view with respect to that
one fossil, believes wholeheartedly in evolution.
Why should Feduccia be right about Archaeopteryx, but incorrect about evolution? If his view is so powerful and persuasive, is he not also an authority on evolution itself otherwise?
The point isn't what he said that one time, it's that Feduccia said it once, and THAT is the quote they use.
Why not use this one from the very same man?
quote:
...The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....
I'm not ragging on Arphy, I feel he is quoting information given to him which he took in good faith, I am ragging on the mindset - why should single quotes be taken at anything more than face value?
They are the opinion of one person, easily taken out of context, easily recanted, easily twisted deliberately, and most assuredly not the sum of all that one person's knowledge, let alone the scientific body as a whole.
They are useful as a tool, but why do creationists and IDists feel that using quotes like this are
accurate, let alone
fair?
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2