Question: "Isn't it unethical for creationists, in order to support
their arguments, to quote evolutionists out of context?"
Answer: [...]With only rare exceptions, however, creationists always
are meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context.
Evolutionists have apparently searched creationist writings looking
for such exceptions and, out of hundreds or thousands of quotes
which have been used, have been able to find only two or three which
they have been able to interpret as misleading. Even these, if
carefully studied, in full light of their own contexts, will be
found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation of the
situation under discussion. On the other hand, evolutionists
frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. [...]In
any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly
quote creationists out of context than creationists do evolutionists.
In one of my [...]'s, Morris/Parker handwave a couple of examples of
the "types" of misquotes that supposedly appear "frequently" in anti-
creationist writings - but give no specific citations.
Ironically, there are more than "two or three" serious misquotes in
the same book as the above quote - but I don't recall ever having a
specific discussion of any single "flagrant" misquote by an anti-
creationist writer.
So...does anyone know of any? Have any creationists made a point of
documenting these "frequent" and "flagrant" misquotes and out-of-
context quotes?
Are there really so many "flagrant" misquotes from the evolutionary
analogs of Morris and Parker and Gish, et al. You know: Dawkins?
Gould? Eldridge? Futuyama? Ruse? People who make it a point to write
books about evolution and/or against creationism; people who are
recognized leaders or experts among mainstream science folks?
Hello everyone - the name's Jim, although I respond to "Zhimbo" just fine. The recent discussion on misquoting touches upon a particular question I've asked in...
Group On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:09:20 -0000, zhimbo@... wrote: JN>Hello everyone - the name's Jim, although I respond to "Zhimbo" just ... Welcome to Jim....
... There's certainly a lot to commend this point of view - quotations of other people's opinions is not the best way to argue the validity of a scientific...
Your Amazon link showed much more vitriol and innuendo in the reactions from the anti-Creationists posting than from those sympathetic, an example of Morris'...
... reactions ... like "Science ... they ... even ... about "The ... there were ... echoing ... Again, I'm teased but disappointed. More assurances that, yes, ...
Let us be clear about the use by Creationists of the Eldridge-Gould claim for "support" in the fossil record for their punctuated equilibrium. All the...
Just one P.S. on the "quoting" and "context" thing, on Darwin's eye, a reader is assumed to have gotten past third grade, generally, and needs no help to...
... eye, a ... needs ... and ... But the most advanced reader in the world isn't psychic. M&P blatantly mischaracterize Darwin's opinion, and stop quoting ...
... it ... text ... This is ... because in ... record ... leading back ... against ... Without talking about a specific example of misquoting, it's hard to ...
... his ... to non- ... *is* "out ... of these ... I can do that, but I am still interested in what creationists believe are examples of evolutionist...
... Just to be clear...I know these aren't "examples" per se...they're abstract criteria. I don't want to deal with specific examples unless there's prior...
... PK: You would think that evolutionists, who claim their theory is solidly grounded in evidence, would want to do just that. Instead they seem intent on ...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email