Re: Why assume a lie? - composite reply 2/2 (was Why lie?)
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:17:09 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
>SJ>What happens in a "laboratory" does not necessarily happen in the
>>wild. It is to easy for scientists whose careers and grants are
>>affected by documenting "evolution" in action to construe the data
>>in the most favourable light. They don't have to be dishonest to do
>>that. Eldredge admits how for years paleontology only produced
>>results which supported Darwinist expectations:
>>
>>"...we [paleontologists] have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the
>>story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became
>>even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have
>>said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while
>really
>>knowing that it does not. (Eldredge N., "Time Frames", 1985, p144)
SB>and here we go again. Eldredge is talking about *gradualism* not evolution.
>He's talking about the rate at which evolution proceeds.
Susan contradicts herself again. If Eldredge is talking about "the rate at
which evolution proceeds" then he is *by definition* talking about
"evolution".
SB>He's not saying that evolution doesn't happen.
Of course he is "not saying that evolution doesn't happen"-he is an
evolutionist! What he is saying is that paleontologists were under pressure
by Neo-Darwinists to misreport the facts.
But he does say elsewhere that "evolution...seems never to happen":
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It
seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags,
minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change-
over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the
prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do
see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a
bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve
elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's
how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to
learn something about evolution." (Eldredge N., "Reinventing Darwin",
1996, p95)
SB>AND YOU KNOW THAT if you have actually read
>the book you are quoting from--or even the table of contents.
I have not read much of that particular book at all, although I do own it.
But I assume that evolutionists are not schizophrenics and what they say in
one part of the book that I have read does not contradict what they say in
the rest of the book. If Susan has read the whole book and knows of other
places in it where Eldredge adds to or takes away from what he said above,
then she can post it and win that point in the debate.
>>BV>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>>>they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>>>such depths.
>SJ>This is an important point. The Darwinists can get away with these
>>ad hominem tactics in relatively closed forums like these. But they
>>are increasingly being drawn into public debates where these sort of
>>tactics won't cut any ice with the general public.
SB>science rests on evidence, not popular vote.
It's interesting how evolutionists like Susan and Chris rely more on
"popular vote" (ie. trying to personally discredit their creationist
opponents), than they do on "evidence"!
>SJ>Well these days the boot is on the other foot! It is the Darwinists
>>who are the ideological oppressors and who are trying every trick in
>>the book, including personal denigration, to avoid the truth coming
>>out.
SB>I caught you in a lie. That's not ad hominem. That's not even personal
>attack. I presented what you said and then presented what the actual quote
>said. Everyone can decide for themselves.
And "the actual quote" did not support Susan's allegation. If "Everyone can
decide for themselves" then it is just a subjective judgment by Susan that I
have been "caught ... in a lie", not an objective fact.
>SJ>It is good to see new members to the List like Berthajane, who by
>>not being committed to either the Creation or Evolution side
>>represent the general public, being disgusted, as I was, with the
>>depths to which Darwinists (including the Christian variety) will sink
>>to protect their sacred doctrine.
>SJ>Gosh, you'd have thought he caught ME in a lie!
Hmmm!
>>SB>I've often thought I should make a collection of out-of-context creationist
>>>quotes.
>SJ>According to Susan that would be *all* "creationist quotes"!
SB>no, I"m talking about quoting creaitonists out of context (I wish you'd read
>what I actually wrote)
I did!
>>SB>Something that proves conclusively that Behe and Johnson are
>>>atheists and rabid evolutionists. Now *there* would be some quotes that
>>>were interesting!!!.
>SJ>The problem with Susan is she is still focusing on the personal, ad hominem
>>level.
>>SB>oh, you mean Behe and Johnson AREN'T atheists? and it might be dishonest to
>portray them as such?
There is no parallel. I don't "portray" evolutionists as creationists.
[...]
>>Hx>You mean, to the same depths that creationists of all stripes start out at?
>>>Going all the way back to 'The Genesis Flood' right on up to 'Darwin on
>>>Trial'?
>SJ>Huxter's prejudice shows here. Not all creationists agree with the Young-
>>Earth/Flood Geology thesis of "The Genesis Flood". I certainly don't.
>>Indeed if he read "The Genesis Flood" he would realise that it contains an
>>attack on Old-Earth/Progressive creationists like the late Bernard Ramm.
SB>I don't agree with Dawkins. So what? He's talking about creationist
>dishonesty.
OK. My misunderstanding. But it might help if Huxter was a bit more
explicit on what he means exactly.
BTW I would appreciate Huxter saying who he is (ie. what is his real
name), etc. If he has posted this previously I must have missed it.
>SJ>And what was all that about me being a liar if now I am supposed to have
>>trusted some other creationist who gave me a dishonestly edited quote?
>SB>if you trusted them, then THEY are the liars. I was trying to give you an
>out. You didn't take it. That's your choice. I'm willing to believe you
>edited the quote yourself.
I don't need an "out". I edited the quote myself.
>SJ>The fact is however that it was my quote which I scanned from Gould's
>>book and it was me who cut the extraneous words out for clarity and
>>brevity and inserted ellipses in their place.
>SB:-) things are just a lot more brief and clear if you cut out that nasty
>stuff you don't agree with!
Actually I agreed with the whole of Gould's quote.
>>>SB>I have been debating creationists and reading evolutionary material for
>>>>many years. I have yet to see a creationist quoted out of context in such a
>>>>way as to make them seem to support evolutionary theory. Why is that? If
>>>>you or any lurker reading this has come across such a thing, *please* post
>>>>it to this list.
>SJ>Susan's argument here only works if the parallel was that by cutting out the
>>words I did made Gould seem to support creationist theory!
SB>yes, and I don't see those quotes I asked for. Do you have them? Quotes
>where creationists are edited so they seem to support Darwinism?
This is Susan's point not mine. I am not claiming that either creationists or
evolutionists edit quotes in order to support their own position. It would be
self-defeating to do so. I assume that people are more likely to be mistaken
than dishonest.
>>>SB>If "intelligent design" or "creation theory" have so much going for them, why
>>>>bother to *ever* quote an evolutionist?
>SJ>Since evolution is a competing theory of origins to "intelligent design" or
>>"creation theory", it is part of their argument to show that evolution has
>>problems and internal inconsistencies.
SB>and naturally, then, ID would make its own claims. Other than "some god did
>it, or maybe space aliens" I haven't seen any scientific ID claims.
I posted some the other day. The reason Susan hasn't "seen" them is
because she doesn't *want* to see them.
>>>SB>If you have a million dollars in the bank, why bounce a check?
>SJ>One could ask Susan the same question. If "problems with evolutionary
>>theory...don't actually exist" then why not have a calm, courteous, rational
>>debate about the claimed problems that creationists raise?
SB>If you lie and I see it and can easily prove it, I'm going to point it out.
>If I don't it makes me a liar too. No thanks.
Susan contradicts herself again. She said earlier that "Everyone can decide
for themselves" whether I lied. Is that her idea of proof?
[...]
Hopefully this is my last post on this "Why lie?" thread. If Susan or anyone
else makes any more allegations that I have lied, I will assume it is just a
tactic to divert attention from the issues and I am going to delete the
allegation with a [...].
Such allegations if allowed to continue would defeat the purpose of this
Reflector and I would hope that the Moderator, Terry Gray, would step in
and make a ruling that such unsubstantiated and subjective allegations are
off-topic.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Was it an accident that Darwin's conclusion meant just what every reader
wanted it to mean? I think not. Darwin used the same ambiguity in his
private letters. Darwinism, therefore, began as a theory that evolution
could be explained by natural selection. It ended as a theory that evolution
could be explained just as you would like it to be explained." (Darlington
C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism", Scientific American, Vol. 201, May
1959, p60)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------