Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 4:37 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Taq, Theodoric (9 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,752 Year: 6,789/19,786 Month: 1,330/1,581 Week: 152/393 Day: 85/50 Hour: 6/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1067 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 31 of 210 (524275)
09-15-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peepul
09-15-2009 1:16 PM


Re: Apologetics
peepul writes:

This is one of the worst examples I have seen of dishonest quote mining. These folks are supposed to be Christian!

It is horribly dishonest, but I would argue that their Darwin quote mines are worse because of their intent. They are not just trying to show an 'evolutionist' admitting flaws in the theory but trying convince people that even the father of evolutionary biology was skeptical of his own theory.

And unfortunately being Christian doesn't seem to hinder this. I class the 'quote-miners' in different categories. The worst by far are the people who actually pour through the literature and take out the quotes. IMO, there ought to be a special place in hell for someone who deliberately refurbishes a sentence or paragraph to say the opposite of what the author intended.

The other categories are various level of ignorant. Some of these are completely unaware that quote mining is wrong, even when shown the original. They sincerely believe that their source for the quote is honest, and simply can not see where anything is wrong. Others will acknowledge that that example may have been misunderstood but will go to the next, relying on an infinite series of "Maybe that was a bad example but this evolutionist said ...."

I am not sure what the issue is. Part of it, imo, lies in the RWA work of Altemeyer, Winter, and others. Where there is a measurable inability to see contradiction when the conclusion is a presupposition. Another portion might be hiding from the terrible thought that there could be good Christians out there who have been defrauding them. Admitting your source is a fraud is admitting you are a sucker. And that begs the question of what else you might believe that is equally fraudulent.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peepul, posted 09-15-2009 1:16 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1067 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 57 of 210 (524576)
09-17-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Jack
09-17-2009 2:51 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Mr Jack writes:

Still, it's pretty much fallen into disuse; we're taught it as a "this was how it used to be divided - it wasn't found to be useful but you may still see it kicking around" kind of thing.

It is exactly how I see it as well. When I taught "Introduction to Selection Theory" (hint: it is what you call a class on evolution at a Christian college!) we covered the terms in just such a way, older terms that are not really 'meaningless' just not very descriptive with a modern understanding of population genetics and speciation.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 09-17-2009 2:51 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019