DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1

Just to start with, I have a quote of my own:

quote:

---

One of the favorite tactics of evolution deniers and other pseudoscientists is to use numerous quotations to make their case. For many people the use of quote after quote makes a very persuasive argument. However, the antievolutionist use of quotes is invalid and does not in any way provide evidence for creationism or against evolution. The reasons for this fall into several major categories: the use of quotations often is a fallacy of "argument from authority," selective quotation may be occurring, the quotations are often out-of-date, the quoted authorities are often not appropriate authorities, evolution deniers are sometimes not honest in representing who the people they quote are, and many of the quotations are misquotations.

---

-- Talkorigins.orgActually, Talkorigin's "Quote Mine Project" has a specific entry on this quote, which I will link to and quote in part: Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

quote:

---

It should be noted at the outset that the above citation is incorrect. The quote does not appear on page 2 of Professor Gillespie's book (Gillespie, Neal C. 1979. Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.) but, rather, on page 63, in a paragraph carrying over from page 62.

---

(Poor DS can't even get his citations right.)

quote:

---

As the use of this secondary source for a quote by Darwin is telling of creationist tactics, let us first turn to Gillespie's book. Some context as to the subject matter is needed to understand what the creationists are doing. In large part the book deals with the change that was underway in the methodology of science at the time Darwin published Origin of Species. The method of "induction," championed by Francis Bacon, had been the "standard" for scientific reasoning up until that time, although perhaps paid lip service more than strictly followed. Ideally, in induction, facts are gathered until "lower" axioms or propositions can be derived, from which more general axioms can be arrived at by induction. As these more fundamental laws of nature are discovered, they can then, in turn, be used to deduce other lower axioms, which can then be tested by experimentation. (See Klein, Juergen, "Francis Bacon", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).)

​

By the time Darwin published Origin of Species, philosophers of science such as John Herschel, William Whewell, and John Stuart Mill had begun to recognize that science was not limited to strict induction. Darwin (according to Gillespie) operated with a methodology that came to be known as "actualism," whereby the existence of uniform and lawful causes of phenomena in nature are assumed. This assumption, in turn, allowed the use of analogies from those causes known to exist (vera causa) to fill in any gaps in our knowledge, as well as to serve as a basis for future research. Thus, "theorizing" was not strictly limited to being done only after fact gathering but could proceed concurrent with and as a guide for ongoing research.

---

So, when Darwin says "true science", he's not talking about science as it is practiced today, but rather, ideas from Bacon that have fallen by the wayside. Moreover, contemporary philosophers assured him after publication that he was doing real science:

quote:

---

When [it was reported that John Stuart Mill had characterized the Origin of Species] as being "in the most exact accordance with the strict principles of logic (and that) the method of investigation (was) the only one proper to such a subject," Darwin was relieved. ...

---

(The above is from the actual book out of which DS seems to have taken his quote; you can find more of the context at the above link.)But here's the kicker:

quote:

---

Could it be that the quote itself supports the creationists, even if Gillespie's use of it does not? One major problem for that position is that Darwin was not speaking of evolution when he wrote those words to Gray. In fact, Darwin did not reveal the nature of his theory to Gray until July 1857, after the quoted letter of June 18, 1857.

---

quote:

---

This is the issue they have been discussing all along (extinction as a cause of the reduction the range of various species and causing the remnants to be located in widely separated locales), not evolution. It is only on July 20, 1857 that Darwin lets the cat out of the bag to Gray (The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, supra, at 6:431):

---

Talkorigins concludes:

quote:

---

Sadly, if the creationists only bothered to learn rather than merely quote mine, they might have stumbled on the much more interesting issue of the methodology used by Darwin and the questions it raised in the philosophy of science. In the end, however, it would not have been of any more avail to their case. Darwin's method was clearly valid and is still widely used to this day in all the sciences, not just biology. But at least it would have been a real issue, not this pale cardboard imitation of one.

---

So, to sum up, DS's Darwin quote refers neither to science as it is done today nor evolution as it was formulated then, and it's being presented entirely out of context. I doubt very much that DarkStar has even seen the book from which he (incorrectly) cites it.So, the question isn't the question is, why can't Dark Star be bothered to check his facts before he posts?Anyway, DS. Bring on your quotes. I look forward to showing how you've presented each and every one out of context or misrepresented the source in an effort to mislead, especially if it's going to be as easy as this one was.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-09-2004 10:51 AM

I don't understand how. Even if Talkorigins.org was staffed by the most consistent liars imaginable, they do provide considerable bibliographical source material so their claims are easily checked out.So no matter what "Trueorigins" has to say about them, their claims stand, particularly as the Trueorigins page has no specific rebuttal to the exegesis of the Darwin quote Talkorigins has provided. I don't see that DS actually read the Talkorigins article in question; certainly if he had it boggles the mind why he would present an argument that he knew had been refuted without even addressing the rebuttals.At any rate, my post brings the Talkorigins information to the forefront; bringing to light DS's attempts to mislead as well as making the information instantly avaliable for those who don't like to follow links.

Let him keep his avatar. It only makes him look more foolish.Who is it that has Walt Brown's morphed head (emblazoned "666") as an avatar? That one kills me.

Wait a second, DS. We weren't done with the first quote yet.Can we assume by you moving onto the second that you're admitting that your intent with the first was to mislead?If that's the case, why should we assume your intent is any different here?I'll remind you of the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

Misrepresenting Darwin, as you did above, is a clear violation. Moreover, it's intellectually reprehensible and a slur on a great scientist. You should be ashamed of yourself. "Tu quoque" is not a defense. Are you going to own up to your disgusting behavior or not?

No. I'm sorry, but if your argument relies on defining words in any way you choose, you lose, because you've stopped speaking English.A religion is a supernatural belief system. This is how the word is used in English, which we were speaking; this is what the word means. From what primary literature did you find this statement of evolution? I'd like a citation, please. You're talking about the Adolf Hitler, right? The one who thought he was doing the will of God? The one to whom the Catholic Church gave their tacit approval?That doesn't sound like the sort of atheistic behavior you're trying to imply. Sounds to me like Hitler was very much intoxicated on religion, not science. The KKK? You mean the conservative Christians who think they're doing God's work by preventing mixing of the "races"?They're creationists, you know. Maybe you didn't know that. They don't believe in evolution. They believe in creation.

That's the best you have? Calling me Hitler?Not only is that stupid and infantile, it's against the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.

---

I can't think of a greater example of disrespect than calling your opponent "Hitler."

And men from dust? Funny, where did I first hear that?Oh, yeah:

Why don't you start here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentAt "29 evidences for Macroevolution." Keep in mind that the scope of the page is common descent.Moreover this is a thread for DarkStar's quotes, not yours. I'm sure he'd appreciate it if you kept it that way. Your behavior here is quite disrespectful to him.

I know what you meant, it was plain as day. You meant that I'm like Hitler. I'm not, though. "Religion" means "a system of belief about the supernatural." I have no beliefs about the supernatural.Therefore, I'm not religious.

Do you have beliefs about the supernatural? For instance, do you believe in God?Welcome to Religion-town, population you. Well, I wouldn't say I believe in it - I don't have to. It's supported by evidence. It would be accurate whether I believed in it or not.At any rate, evolution is the proposition that "natural processes can account for the history of life on Earth." There's nothing supernatural about that.As I said, I have no belief about the supernatural.

No, Nasa.Religion is a system of belief about the supernatural.It's not just a belief. It's a belief about the supernatural.You don't get to just redefine words as you see fit.

Why would it? Since that's a question of chemistry, and evolution is a theory of biology.That's like asking if the germ theory of disease explains how computers work. Of course not; those are two different fields. The foundations of the theory are observation, hypothesis, and experimentation; these foundations are the rock-solid bed upon which all science and all of science's fruit rest. Natural selection and random mutation. Natural selection and random mutation, two processes that have been proven to increase information.

Message 12, please, DarkStar.

How about, instead of attempting to change the subject, you defend your own assertion that the letter refers to Darwin's theory of evolution and not speculations in regards to the extinction of certain species. Then why did you claim that Darwin was speaking of evolution, when you knew that he was not?

In what way? Where in the quote does it say which "speculations" Darwin is referring to?Why don't you quit changing the subject and prove that Darwin's quote actually says what you said it does?