On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:47:00 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
[...]
>BH>Secondly, this is probably the most outrageous out of context
>quotation I've ever seen. First, let's look at what immediately
>follows the first section of Denton's quote, just before the
>ellipses: ... Darwin OoS. Penguin Classics p. 231
>SJ>I don't see what is "outrageous" about this. The fact that
>Darwin could envisage a "long series of gradations in complexity"
>did not stop him being "staggered" by it:
>
>"..."The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." (Darwin C.,
>1860, in letter to Asa Gray...Denton, 1985, p326)
>BH>This occurs on page 231 of my copy of OoS (Penguin Classics). I
>encountered some difficulties finding what follows the ellipses in
>Denton's quote since, naturally enough, I was reading *forward* from
>p. 231 whereas what follows the ellipses actually occurs *before*
>page 231, on page 219!
>SJ>If you had Denton's book you would see that he actually gives
>page references to both quotes, namely Darwin's Origin, 1872,
>p192 and p181. Both quotes are about the same thing, from the same
>chapter "VI Difficulties of the Theory". The first is a summary of
>the second. It is fully in context.
BH>Its not even close to being in context.
Yet Brian does not dispute that "Both quotes are about the same
thing, from the same chapter "VI Difficulties of the Theory" and "The
first is a summary of the second".
>BH>...though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be
>surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of
>natural selection to such startling lengths. -- Darwin OoS.
>Penguin Classics pp. 218-219.
>
>Reads a little differently in context, don't you think?
SJ>I fail to see any difference in adding the rest of the quote.
>Darwin says that he himself has "felt the difficulty" of the
>formation of the eye "far too keenly..." That's all that Denton was
>claiming.
>
>BTW, the "Penguin Classics" edition is the *first edition*. In his
>6th and final edition, Darwin changed the words slightly and added a
>lot more in between the above quote.
BH>Yes, I know that. So what?
"So" nothing. It was just a "BTW" - I wondered why Brian was quoting
out of a first edition, when there is a sixth edition.
>BH>What really staggers the imagination is how anyone would, after
>seeing the above, consider Denton as a credible source of
>information.
SJ>There is no problem here with "Denton as a credible source of
>information". If Brian's had actually read Denton's book, he would
>have seen that Denton's quotes of Darwin were correctly referenced
>and in context.
[...]
BH>Steve, you're really amazing. Even more staggering than Denton's
>out of context quotations are your defense of them.
There is nothing "amazing" about it at all. Just because Brian says
something is "out of context" does not make it so. This is especially
when the one making the charge has not even got the author's book to
see where he has carefully referenced it.
BH>First of all, if someone quotes a source it is not up to me to
>read the book and it is not up to me to check the accuracy of the
>quote. If I assume in good faith that the quote is accurate and
>reply under that assumption, its not my fault when it becomes clear
>that the quote was not presented clearly.
Brian seems to be here now accepting that the problem was not Denton,
but Brian's reliance on someone else's quote of Denton?
SJ>Now, you might complain that I did go to the trouble of looking
>up the original quote in OoS.
Why? There was nothing materially different between the quote in
Darwin's 1st and 6th edition.
BH>There is a simple reason for this, I trust Jim Bell, I don't
>trust Denton. BTW, since you can't seem to keep current on
>discussions, you are probably unaware that Jim admitted he botched
>the quote and further that Denton was misleading. Now, I don't hold
>this against Jim. I think the way he quoted Denton quoting Darwin
>was a natural mistake attributable to Denton's botch-up.
I noted that Jim "admitted...that Denton was misleading...". I
disagree with Jim here. There was nothing wrong with Denton's quote.
[...]
BH>Actually it was Jim Bell who gave this quote not Randy. Note
>that the two sections we now understand to come from
>different pages in OoS are run together under a single
>quotation mark and separated by an elipses in mid-line.
>Why would I suspect that what is before and after the elipses
>are from different pages and in the wrong order?
See above. I was defending Denton, not Jim Bell or Randy's quote of
Denton.
BH>Now, Steve, suppose that someone on the reflector made a claim
>about Darwin's self-doubt and that I responded by saying "oh,
>hogwash" and presented following quote from OoS:...You would
>probably complain (rightfully) that I was quoting out of context by
>eliminating the ending...But it's equally bad just to give the
>ending of this quote. There is a horendous distortion of Darwin's
>sentiments.
There may be in the above instance. But ll Denton did was conflate a
summary with the text the summary referred to, and give full page
references. If Brian had the book, rather than rely on a "botched
quote" he would have seen that there was no problem.
BH>The "though" in the above quote reminded me again just how
>horribly confusing Denton's quotes were. Here is my best
>rendering (in ascii)...from page 61 of Denton
[...]
BH>Now, there are several oddities about this manner of quotation.
>First, Denton is not consistent in the placement of the reference
>numbers. The first reference is before the first quote, the second
>reference is at the end of the second quote.
I see no need to defend every aspect of Denton's referencing style.
Brian's original complaint was based without him even reading
Denton's book. But the fault (if there is one) is probab not
Denton's at all. Often (if not always) is the *publisher* who does
this. The author usually gives the publisher a typewritten
manuscript and the publisher sets up the type.
BH>Also, there is only one reference appearing with the indented
>quotation and there is no line separating the two quoatations.
>There is an elipses, but following this there is an indentation
>indicating the start of a new paragraph. This makes it appear that
>Denton is quoting two adjacent paragraphs, the first paragraph not
>being quoted in full. In fact, following the indentation, which
>would normally indicate the beginning of a new paragraph, Denton
>begins quoting from several pages earlier, not just mid-paragraph
>but in the middle of a sentence.
See above. Brian's argument against Denton would only have weight if
he knew that it was Denton who dircected the publisher to set out
the page that way.
As for Denton conflating excerpts from two separate pages, they are
both from the same chapter ("VI Difficulties of the Theory"), both
about the same topic ("the eye"), both acknowledge the difficulty of
imagining its formation, both give the same solution (a long series
of gradations perfected throough natural selection), and one is the
summary of the other.
Here they both are with a bit of surrounding context and with the
words quoted by Denton in uppercase:
"Summary: the law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of
Existence embraced by the Theory of Natural Selection
...
ALTHOUGH THE BELIEF THAT AN ORGAN SO PERFECT AS THE EYE COULD
HAVE
BEEN FORMED BY NATURAL SELECTION, IS ENOUGH TO STAGGER ANYONE;
yet in
the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in
complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing
conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the
acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural
selection." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", 1872, Everyman's
Library, 1967 reprint, pp189-190)
"ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION 169
....
... To arrive, however, at a just conclusion regarding the formation
of the eye, with all its marvellous yet not absolutely perfect
characters, it is indispensable that the reason should conquer the
imagination; BUT I HAVE FELT THE DIFFICULTY FAR TOO KEENLY TO BE
SURPRISED AT OTHERS HESITATING TO EXTEND THE PRINCIPLE OF
NATURAL
SELECTION TO SO STARTLING A LENGTH.
It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope.
We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued
efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that
the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not
this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the
Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must
compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to
take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with
fluid, and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose
every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in
density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and
thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with
the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must
suppose that there is a power, represented by natural selection or
the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight
alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully preserving each
which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any degree, tends
to produce a distinctive image. We must suppose each new state of
the instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved
until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all
destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight
alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely) and
natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement.
Let this process go on for millions of years- and during each year on
millions of individuals of many kinds and may we not believe that a
living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of
glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?
(Darwin, pp169-170)
There is nothing misleading or out of context with the above. The
setting out could have been better, but that is the publisher's
fault, not the author's.
Group
On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:18:47 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
RM>1. God does indeed control everything. In my mind, there is no
>doubt that God "designs" everything. For me, that is not what we
should be discussing in when we talk about Behe's examples,
>intelligent design, and evolution. Paul Arveson, Keith Miller, Jan
>de Koning, Bill Hamilton, Pattle Pun, Terry Gray, and Glenn Morton
>have all expressed--albeit in different ways--that God is in
>control. One could take the various expressions they use and
>conclude they all accept that at bottom God does indeed design the
>world.
>SJ>Russ' assurance that TEs do believe in fact that "at bottom God
>does indeed design the world", should be unnecessary ...
BH>Its never bad to re-state something like this, but, if one were
>to say its not necessary the reason would be that TE's are
>continually pointing this out over and over and over and over.
>Yet you continue to mis-represent what TE's say. Why?
Brian is very good at blanket claims, about what I am suppoed to
have said, but he rarely if ever backs it up with specific examples of
what I actually did say.
In this case, if Brian claims that I "continue to mis-represent what
TE's say" in respect of them denying that "at bottom God does indeed
design the world", then I would ask him to post where I said it.
SJ>... but the fact that Russ has to say it shows it isn't.
BH>This statement is completely irrational.
Brian chops up my argument and then tries to claim that bits of
it are "irrational." One could do this with any argument.
SJ>If TEs do indeed "all accept that at bottom God does indeed
>design the world" (and I believe they must to remain theists),
>then why is it so muted in their posts ...
BH>Wait, don't tell me, let me guess...........
>
>I've got it, you have beans in your ears, right?
I note that Brian does not answer the question.
SJ>and why do they attack what Terry has called "the intelligent
>design crowd"?
BH>Funny to hear this complaint following an attack against TE's
Again, Brian does not answer the question.
[...]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------