>Although I do not particularly enjoy being called a liar, I am pleased that it
>shows the evolutionists are having to resort to such ad hominem tactics
It would certainly help if you did not do dishonest things. It actually does
please me that anti-evolutionists do that. It's easy to expose and it proves
that "lying for Jesus" is not something they stick at. If ID theory or any
other form of supernatural intervention in the history of life had any
scientific basis there would be no time or reason to edit the words of
opponents to make them seem to agree with you. We'd only be discussing the
evidence. You have no evidence, so you do what you can do to make your point.
>>>conservative Christians (the ones most likely to be creationists) would be
>>>the ones most careful about scrupulous truthfulness. This has proved not
>>>to be true.
>
>I have answered these points more fully in my previous post. Here
>is a brief summary:
>
>1) I never have claimed to read *from cover to cover* all the books
>from which I quote. But I do claim to have read *at least the page*
>of the book from which I quote;
which means, even though I gave you an out--you could always say you had
been betrayed by someone you trusted--you are actually admitting to editing
that quote yourself, in order to give the false impression that Gould agrees
with you.
>photocopies of library journals. I am only aware of one web quote
>site at UCSB. I would be interested in the addresses of these other
>sites!
there's another one linked off your website: ARN
>3) I take great care not to take quotes out of context and in 4-5
>years on this Reflector, out of thousands of quotes, I have rarely
>been accused of quoting out of context;
people don't want to bother to track down most of them. Even I didn't really
set out to expose you, but happened to re-read an essay you quoted.
>4) I don't lie. And I would be interested in the details and references
>to Susan's research above about "conservative Christians" being
>the least truthful. I would be particularly interested in the definition
>of "conservative" and the criteria for "truthfulness".
I didn't say that conservative Christians are the least truthful. You are
even editing *me*! I have visited the ARN site frequently and debated with
with people who use those false quotes. I was quite shocked when I first ran
across an obviously deliberate out of context quote. I really did expect
scrupulous honesty and an *honest* belief that the Bible was science.
(Parenthetically the drawings on that site are also dishonest. They portray
a tiny slice of the history of life and claim that they are showing the
whole thing.)
>>SB>In the Gould quote above there are two sets of elipses indicating that
>>>material has been trimmed... The
>>>second set of elipses hides something very interesting though.
>
>If I wanted to hide something I wouldn't insert ellipses. I would
>have just cut out the text and joined it without ellipses, like Glenn
>often does.
"he does it too!!" is not a defense.
>>>As you can see the portion left out was brief, but it refutes what Stephen
>>>was saying. The missing verbage changes the meaning of the paragraph and
>>>reveals that Gould does *not* agree that variation and selection are
>>>controversial.
>
>As pointed out previously, the words I left out: ", and the principle of
>natural selection does not require it--selection can operate rapidly"
>says *nothing* about "variation" and Chris' words which I was
>addressing say nothing about "selection". Susan is clutching at
>straws.
ROFL!! yes, the deleted material makes it very clear that Gould was in an
entirely different conversation, talking about an entirely different
subject. By leaving that material out, you made it seem that he was talking
about what YOU were talking about--and agreeing with you, no less.
>>SB>I think the point is obvious. ID is propaganda, just as the quotes Stephen
>>>picks up here and there (I *don't* believe he's read all those books) are
>>>propaganda. Truth-value is secondary as long as doubt seems to be cast on
>>>evolution and Christian mythology seems to be science.
>
>See my previous post. I don't claim that I have from cover to cover
>"read all those books". But I do claim I have read at least the page,
>and adjacent pages, on which the quote occurs.
how do you find the quotes you want without reading the book? Open the book
at random? or is there a bibliography that you are working from? How do you
know which books to buy? did you read an anti-evolutionary journal that says
"Ernst Mayr says lots of useful of anti-evolutionary stuff on p. ___ and p.
___ in The Growth of Biological Thought." I just don't think I would pick up
a book by Henry Morris and look for passages to quote on this list where he
says "evolution is true and this is why." Yet that is exactly what you say
you are doing. You are picking up books by people who have done huge amounts
of research into evolutionary biology, and who know very well that the
theory of evolution is as well-supported as any other scientific theory, and
looking for passages where these scientists supposedly say "evolution is
hogwash." And do say that if you pick your passages carefully enough and
edit out the "unnecessary" stuff--as you say you have done.
Pardon me, but my credulity is getting a little stretched here.
>I do own an estimated more that 900 Creation/Evolution books and
>I am slowly building up a web page listing them. I also subscribe to
>New Scientist, Discover, and Scientific American.
good! maybe you'll learn something. I would also recommend a couple of books
on logic and critical thinking.
>No actual evidence is presented by Chris because none is needed
>by him. His mind is made up, and he doesn't want to be confused
>by facts! Because Evolution and evolutionists *cannot* be wrong,
>the critic simply *must* be misrepresenting what they say!
I've presented evidence of one lie. I don't believe that Gould, Mayr, etc.
believe that evolution is hogwash and nobody else does either--including
you. That's why the passages are probably edited.
>CC>This is most remarkable, since all the reader
>>has to do is re-read the quoted passage to see that Stephen is simply lying
>>or willfully stupid.
>
>It is instructive to note that the critic of Evolution cannot be simply
>mistaken.
you admitted editing the quote yourself. You deliberatly left out a passage
that changed the meaning of the quote. You said you didn't pick up the quote
second-hand, that you actually opened a copy of "The Panda's Thumb," which
you have read, scanned p. 188, took your cursor and highlighted the passage
"the principle of natural selection does not require it, selection can
operate rapidly" and hit the delete button.
>>SB>The original version reads "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
>>>offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection
>>>does not require it--selection can operate rapidly."
>>>
>>>As you can see the portion left out was brief, but it refutes what Stephen
>>>was saying. The missing verbage changes the meaning of the paragraph and
>>>reveals that Gould does *not* agree that variation and selection are
>>>controversial.
>
>CL>I don't see how the meaning is changed. SJ says "unnecessary" and the
>>quoted text says "does not require".
>
>Gould says *both* "unnecessary" and "does not require". Here is the full
>paragraph:
>"Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macro-
>evolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary
>of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in essay 17, Thomas Henry Huxley
>divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned
>Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might
>undermine his entire system. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
>offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection
>DOES NOT REQUIRE IT - selection can operate rapidly. Yet the
>UNNECESSARY link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the
>synthetic theory." (Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", in
>"The Panda's Thumb", Penguin, 1990, p156. My emphasis)
you not only misunderstand Gould, but the person quoted above who was trying
to defend you. Gould is saying that GRADUALISM (which is not identical with
evolution) is not required by and is unnecessary to natural selection.
>>SB>I think the point is obvious. ID is propaganda, just as the quotes Stephen
>>>picks up here and there (I *don't* believe he's read all those books) are
>>>propaganda. Truth-value is secondary as long as doubt seems to be cast on
>>>evolution and Christian mythology seems to be science.
>
>CL>If truth-value were primary to you, you wouldn't speculate about whether
>>he's reading books or just magically finding the quotes he uses.
>
>Good point! This is a version of the Genetic Fallacy, which is a type
>of ad hominem argument that tries to discredit evidence on the
>basis of its source:
you've already cast a cloud over all your quotes and what they actually mean
when read in context--and you did it with a single lie.
>This is obvious in this very thread which Susan titled "Why lie?",
>and evolutionists like Glenn and Chris all jumped on the
>bandwagon, without even finding out if I hadn't just made a mistake.
you said yourself that you didn't make a mistake. That you don't borrow
quotes, but get them from the original sources yourself. I'm taking you at
your word.
>
>SB>That's Gould saying "unnecessary." He's saying that strict gradualism is
>>not necessary to evolutionary theory. What Stephen said was that increase
>>in variation was controversial and then posted a portion of a discussion of
>>the rate of evolution (an entirely different discussion) as support for his
>>assertion, and quote had been altered to make it seem to support his
>>argument better.
>
>Susan's problem is she misunderstood what I was saying and
>therefore interprets me altering Gould's quote when I cut out words
>which were not relevant to the specific point I was making.
you cut out words which *refuted* the point you were trying to make!!! Gould
does not support your point and you knew it.
>I did not say that "increase in variation was controversial" but that
>Chris's claim that "Complexity increases by variations..." (in the
>Neo-Darwinian sense) was "controversial" with punctuationists like
>Gould who argue that variations (ie. micromutations) do not
>accumulate to give rise to major structural changes, but these
>happen by sudden, large changes (ie. macromutations).
re-read the essay. Gould is saying that small variations can cause large
changes and explains why.
>SB>No magic involved. Lists of creationist out-of-context quotes are all over
>>the web. He has links to some of them from his own website.
>
>This is simply false. I have no links to other "quotes" sites on "the
>web", and in fact I only know of one. That one, which is at UCSB is
>off a links to Access Research Network, which is on my web page.
>The quote page itself if not on my web page and last time I looked
>it was fairly limited and I don't use it. I try to base my quotes on
>hard copy (ie. books or, journals that I own, or from the library). I
>always try to get or at least check the original source), to minimise
>copyists' errors.
how does that refute what I said above? "he has links to some of them from
his own website" and "This is simply false, I only have one link!"
>SB>Do you really think he's read all those books?
>
>See above. I don't claim that I have from cover to cover "read all
>those books". But I do claim I have read at least the page, and
>almost always at least the adjacent pages, on which the quote
>occurs.
I'm still curious how you find the quotes you use without reading them.
>SB>Ready my "Why Lie?" post. I just exposed one of Stephen's falsehoods.
>>(Actually he probably picked up that edited quote from a creationist
>>website, believing as I once did, that creationists would never stoop to
>>lying or dishonesty to make their case.)
>
>Susan contradicts herself. First she claimed I personally cut out the
>words and therefore "lied". Now she claims I "probably picked up
>that edited quote from a creationist website"! This shows it doesn't
>really matter to Susan what happened. To her creationists are all
>liars by definition, because they don't believe in the Truth, ie,
>evolution!
actually at one time, I assumed that creationists would play fair because
they were Christians. I've had that idea beaten out of me by people like you.
>But in fact I own Gould's book "The Panda's Thumb" as well as I
>have a photocopy from a library of Gould's original 1977 Natural
>History article. Here is the same quote from the article which was
>reprinted in The Panda's Thumb:
>
>"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous
>changes to the most profound structural transitions in the history of
>life: by a long series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds
>are linked to reptiles, fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors.
>Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than
>microevolution (flies in bottles) extended. If black moths can
>displace white ones in a century, then reptiles can become birds in
>a few million years by the smooth and sequential summation of
>countless changes. Change of gene frequencies in local
>populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes-or
>so the current orthodoxy states.
>
>Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and
>macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a
>necessary corollary of natural selection. Still, as I argued last
>month. Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural
>selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and
>unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire
>system . The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no
>support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection
>does not require it-selection can operate rapidly. Yet the
>unnecessary link that Darwin forged became central tenet of the
>synthetic theory.
>
>(Gould S.J., "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol.
>86, No. 6, June-July 1977, p23)
>
>It is quite clear that Gould is arguing that microevolution: the
>accumulation by natural selection of small variations (as Darwin
>thought and Neo-Darwinians think) can cause major structural
>transitions (macroevolution). That was the sole point I was making
>to Chris, and the natural selection part I cut out was irrelevant to
>that particular argument I was making to Chris.
The section you cut out refuted you--which is why you cut it out. You didn't
want to be refuted by Gould, you wanted everybody thot think he agreed with
you. Neo-Darwinism, btw, includes Gould's contribution of the varying speed
of evolution. Gould and Eldridge made their case back in the 70s. Few now
believe in strict gradualism. However, your original conversation was not
about gradualism it was about variation.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb