Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 9:44 PM
150 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Meddle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 146 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 1 of 70 (109385)
05-20-2004 3:25 AM


I have searched the forums long searching for this specific topic, but haven't been able to find it (the search function is great, but no time to search every case of the keywords!). I would like to discuss, and hear rebuttals on the use of citations in both posted comments and in YEC lietrature.

I think everyone agrees that selectively quoting a scientist to make it look like they have serious doubts about the existence of evolution is wrong. What I have seen is that most of these quotes are not independantly derived but have been repeated over and over again. The dishonesty of this transcends many levels. First, it is wrong to cite as evidence something that says nothing of the sort. Second, and perhaps the most important from a scientific viewpoint, it is wrong to cite as a source a reference that you have not personally read. To do so looks impressive, looks like you have done research, but in reality you are doing nothing more than lying to perpetuate a lie.

As a scientist I know how tempting this can be. I want to mention that there are x number of caridean shrimp described. Do I want to search all of the literature, cross-reference species lists, etc.? Or is it easier to find another paper that makes this claim? And when I cite this paper do I cite it as the reference or do I cite the reference that they used that I have not seen and would take me weeks to ILL from the U of Moscow? While the latter is most impressive it simply cannot be done. I hope I am not the only scientist who has had this temptation. What is important is that it is wrong, it is intellectually dishonest, and it opens you up for attack (what if the ref you are citing is also wrongly citing the other ref?). Your reviewer may have that reference handy. The point is that you don't cite a ref you haven't seen period.

So... my point is that even if there is some book coauthored by Gould and Mayr called "150 reasons evolution is false and Genesis is the true account" it is wrong to cite that refence, extract quotes from that reference, etc. unless you personally have it in your lap. Cutting and pasting a cite from AiG is NOT literature review and to claim otherwise is fraudulent.

The purpose of this personal beef is that I see so many 'authorative' YEC's who talk as if they personally were reading Origin of Species, or had attended the Patterson symposium. I might believe them if they all didn't take the exact same quote, including (sometimes) the exact old Morris rewording, and present it as evidence they personally ran across. I think that if they want to be called "Creation Scientists" they should be forced to uphold the same intellectual standard as all scientists. I will even concede that they can still be scientists but do no primary research, there is a valuable need for scientists willing to study and hypothesize through metanalysis. So I propose that we stop filling in the gaps for them. When they cite a reference, even a Creationist source, we should instead reply "what about the statement Gould makes in the second paragraph from the end? What do you think of that?" Even do it with YEC pubs, I am sure half of these people don't cross-reference their literature (if that is an incorrect and insulting statement, I apologize to those that do but have personally argued with people who are unfamiliar with any YEC literature outside of a Chick tract). This would force the person to either discuss the source or admit they havn't read it.

-Aaron

This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 05-20-2004 02:29 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 05-20-2004 3:50 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 63 by custard, posted 05-26-2004 8:09 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 70 (109387)
05-20-2004 3:49 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 70 (109388)
05-20-2004 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
05-20-2004 3:25 AM


You could kick this off with a couple of examples.

I'm afraid that you won't get a lot of discussion. The creationists are most likely going to ignore it.

All you can probably do with this is offer up examples and then tear them down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-20-2004 3:25 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 4 of 70 (109424)
05-20-2004 10:02 AM


this sites don't care if they have a lie on the site or not... I have corrected many sites with correct information (with reference and full qoutes) but they ignore me..


My site The Atheist Bible

My New Debate Fourms!


    
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 70 (109853)
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


I think its a great way in a certain situation/topic to state what evolutionary scientific men speak on Evolution in such a way. Because it shows serious flaws in the theory. The fact is alot of evolutionists see the problems and speak on them. Therefore they must be used to show how weak the theory really is. And hopeless. The truth is for evolutionists is that there is no truth. It will always be an uncertain theory and assumption. Ive never seen Ken Ham and his other scientists doubt, only stand proud for the word of God. Never doubting because the evidence is consistent and we can trust in God to give us the true account of origins. BTW Here are a few of my faves.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it" - H.S Lipson

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants" - Professor Whitten

"With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what after long effort could not be proved to place today, had in truth, taken place in the premeval past" - Loren Eiseley

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" - Prof Louis Bounoure

"I have said for years that speculations about the origins of life lead to no purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot explained away by such naive thoughts" - Ernst Chain

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" Stephen Jay Ghould

This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-22-2004 06:48 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2004 8:01 AM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 05-22-2004 11:41 AM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 8 by jar, posted 05-22-2004 12:02 PM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 05-22-2004 12:02 PM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2004 12:27 PM almeyda has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-22-2004 6:47 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 70 (109858)
05-22-2004 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


I think its a great way in a certain situation/topic to state what evolutionary scientific men speak on Evolution in such a way.

But when you take their statements out of context to make them look like they're saying something they're not, that's lying.

Is your support for creationism so weak you have to resort to lying to defend it? Disgusting. Do you think that's what Jesus wants you to do? Lie?

The fact is alot of evolutionists see the problems and speak on them.

Don't you think you're going to go to hell for lying, Almeyda? Just because you're lying for Christ doesn't make it right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 7 of 70 (109886)
05-22-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


Almeyda, please give the sources where those quotes can be found.


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 70 (109887)
05-22-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


almeyda

Have you read any of Stephen Jay Gould's numerous works, or only comments like

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" Stephen Jay Ghould

that are taken out of context and totally missrepresent what he says?

If you haven't, you might want to start with some of the sources on line.

The online Stephen Jay Gould Library is a great first start. I think you will find a far better selection of material showing what he really believes there then from some site that pulls quotes out of thin air and tries to make then fit into the Creationist belief system.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 9 of 70 (109888)
05-22-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


I will comment on a couple of those that caught my eye.

Almeyda, "quote mining" is a form of lying. The people who selected thos quotes (obviously it wasn't you; you haven't read the sources) purposefully chose them to not accurately reflect the views of the speaker. You are lying by not telling us where you really got those quotes, and you are propagating lies by posting those quotes.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" - Prof Louis Bounoure

This is actualy a pastiche of sentences from two people; the first is a distorted version of a quote from Jean Rostand, and the second and third from Bouonoure.

Rostand actually wrote "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." but he also wrote "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution."

Bounoure was actually arguing against excessive discussion of the mechanics of evolution, not evolution itself.

See Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: More Out of Context Quotations of French Scientists

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" Stephen Jay Ghould

A classic mined quote. Gould is a major proponent of evolution by puncuated equilibrium, and this sentence is just part of his discussion of puncutaed equilibrium versus gradualism. See Quote 50.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 70 (109893)
05-22-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


So?
So what do each of these statments mean, almeyda?

Would you take each one and tell me what the individual making it believes and what they are saying, using your own words, in the specific quote?

What I'm very sure of is that you didn't read any one of these form the original sources and, in fact, haven't stopped to think of what they mean at all. You've just copied them from a quote miner and think that they prove something.

Once we understand why you think they are significant and have the real sources for them we can discuss them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 11 of 70 (109913)
05-22-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by almeyda
05-22-2004 7:46 AM


Almeyda,
Thank you for demonstrating my point! I was going to post a series of misquotes and lies cut and pasted from a YEC publication myself but you saved me the trouble. I have to ask though, do you read the topics prior to posting? This topic was about how wrong it is to cite sources that you haven't read. So you disprove me by doing the same?

As an aside, I think it would be fun to start a webpage with YEC quotes taken out of context to show that Creationism is false.

Bill Sardi on Sahelanthropus: "it is remarkably old, about 6 to 7 million years......and that makes it fill a 5 million year gap in time that has remained empty till now" (note selective removal of key words)

"When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein's general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location" -Bruce Malone, Search for Truth

(this is just terrible, but I have seen this done -taking half a sentence) "...evolution has actually occurred and the theory is true" - Kent Hovind


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by almeyda, posted 05-22-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 05-22-2004 8:29 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 12 of 70 (109923)
05-22-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Lithodid-Man
05-22-2004 6:47 PM


I think it would be fun to start a webpage with YEC quotes taken out of context to show that Creationism is false.

Been done. {changed in edit} CREATIONIST QUOTES.

This message has been edited by JonF, 05-22-2004 07:35 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-22-2004 6:47 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-22-2004 8:49 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1004 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 13 of 70 (109924)
05-22-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by JonF
05-22-2004 8:29 PM


Thanks!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 05-22-2004 8:29 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 4302 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 14 of 70 (109950)
05-23-2004 3:01 AM


By some quick googling I found what should be references to the remaining of Almeyda's quotes.
I kind of had to laugh when seeing one quote attributed to "Professor Whitten", as if there's only one Professor Whitten... (clue, there's not)

I took out the silly explanations of who the people are that went like "World famous, incredibly important person in biology!! OMG"

Ernst Chain, as quoted by R. W. Clark, in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, p. 148.

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (anthropology), "The secret of life" in "The Immense Journey", Random House, New York, 1957, p. 199.

Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.

Lipson, H.S. (or H.J.?) "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg. 138

Incidentally while googling for the Lipson quote I found this quote (at the TalkOrigins.org "Quote Mine Project" no less):

Several people have given clear indications that they do not understand Darwin's theory. The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.

- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.

A quote in which he(she?) clearly says that evolution is obvious from the fossil record.


  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 70 (109951)
05-23-2004 3:11 AM


NOSYNED -

1st quote - This quote i think just shows how evolution is a religion for so many scientist. They have faith in their theory and no matter what evidence appears the world has evolved on its own. Fossil record does not prove evolution so therefore it must have been puntuated equilibrium etc. Puntuated equilbrium is not based on evidence but accepted for it appears to resolve a dilemna. It rests on shaky ground. But of course this is just another one of evolutions problems.

2nd - A scientist cannot prove evolution by making life from non life as this is just showing that intelligence is needed. So therefore how can it be tested?. Waving around the magic wond of billions of yrs anything can happen will not make the impossible possible, the possible probable and the probable certain. (Maybe if i leave my computer on for a few billion yrs through time and chance maybe my computer might do the intelligent calculations and ratios i need and maybe even answer some of your questions and arguments against me and evolution. Anything can happen right.

3rd - This quote shows that a naturalist world has just as much belief and faith needed than any other religion. And weve gone through a big topic on this but i dont think anyone has accepted it yet.

4th - What dramatic advancement has evolution achieved since its inception?. I cant think of one. I can certainly think of times were evolution hindered scientific progress. Left over/useless organs, junk dna. Once again great science from the evolutionists!.

5th - Yes its true the simplest living system is far too complex to arise on its own. Let alone give rise to higher and more complex life forms.

This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-23-2004 02:20 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2004 5:22 AM almeyda has responded
 Message 17 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-23-2004 5:40 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019