Group

In his first post to CED, Jim wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/12594
From: zhimbo@...
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:09 am
Subject: Evolutionary misquoting [...]
I don't recall ever having a specific discussion of any single "flagrant"
misquote by an anticreationist writer. So...does anyone know of any? Have
any creationists made a point of documenting these "frequent" and
"flagrant" misquotes and out-ofcontext 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? [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an example of one of the evolutionists Jim mentioned, namely
Richard Dawkins, telling multiple falsehoods about a creationist
interviewer, Ms. Gillian Brown. Dawkins presumably thought he could get
away with these falsehoods because he asked the camera to be turned off
and it was. However, unbeknown to Dawkins, a second camera was
inadvertently left on and it kept recording the interview!

To make it easier to follow, I have just listed below those statements that
Dawkins makes that Ms Brown says are not true, followed by Ms Brown's
evidence to that effect, with my comments in square brackets. Dawkins'
words are prefaced by "RD:" and Gillian Brown's by "GB:" Please refer to
my web page linked below (which in turn has links to the original pages)
for the full text:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/ceqevmsq.html#flshds
Stephen E. Jones
Creation/Evolution Quotes: Evolutionist misquotes [...]
2. Falsehoods
1. About creationists
1. Richard Dawkins about Gillian Brown [...]

RD: On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of
Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house... GB: I was
accompanied by a former geologist, Philip Hohnen, not Geoffrey Smith.
[While this is technically a falsehood, it may just be a sincere lapse of
memory, so I am not claiming this to be a deliberate falsehood by
Dawkins.] [...]

RD: ... I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process
which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question
that nobody except a creationist would ask... GB: That question actually
came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked
several general questions on the origin of new information. These
questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or
transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions.
Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed
that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that
nobody ever such questions. I responded that the question of information
was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.
[Dawkins makes it sound like the question, "Professor Dawkins, can you
give an example of a genetic mutation, or an evolutionary process, which
can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" was the first one
he was asked about "the origin of new information". I will score this as
falsehood #1.] [...]

RD: The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and
asked them to leave my house. GB: This is untrue. At no time did Dr
Dawkins ask us to leave his house. A second camera, (newly purchased,
which we were testing), was inadvertently not switched off until later, so it
recorded most of the ensuing conversation. This remains on record to
expose such false statements and clarify supposed "lapses of memory".
[An outright untruth by Dawkins , so falsehood #2.] [...]

RD: Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way
from Australia especially to interview me. GB: Actually that was a
comment made by Philip. [This could be another genuine lapse of memory
by Dawkins, so again I won't count it as a deliberate falsehood.] [...]

RD: She assured me that they were not creationists... GB: We were not
asked if we were creationists. I made no assertion or denial regarding our
personal views. [But this is another falsehood (#3) by Dawkins.] [...]

RD: I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her,
when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to
be extra polite and friendly. GB: This is untrue. There was certainly no
"acrimonious argument", the conversation was at all times courteous. [It is
simply *unbelievable* that Dawkins would have "quite an acrimonious
argument" with interviewers in his own house. Falsehood #4.] [...]

RD: As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an
entire chapter (`The Genetic Book of the Dead') devoted to a much more
interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information
from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the
interview, the book was almost finished . That chapter would have been in
the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest
that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and
amphibians. GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off,
Dawkins asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be
used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a statement,
but refused to take more questions from Philip. We resumed recording,
then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in
which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information
on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed
my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think,
which I did. After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on
again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the
video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my
question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape),
it could not be used in the finished production, that is why the presenter
was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it. .... No, the
pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact
question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have
preferred not to even discuss. "Ludicrous" perhaps, but the question was
indeed evaded. ... [Falsehood #5 by Dawkins. The question, "Professor
Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation, or an
evolutionary process, which can be seen to increase the information in the
genome?":*was* evaded by Dawkins. That segment of the tape is online at
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html and anyone can see it for
themselves.] [...]

RD: If I'd wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I
had to do was talk about `The Genetic Book of the Dead'. It is a chapter I
am particularly pleased with. I'd have welcomed the opportunity to
expound it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I
have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about
something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?" GB:
Whatever he may have been thinking about I don't know, but it is clear that
he did not answer the question." [I won't score this as a falsehood, because
it may well be true (looking at the tape) that Dawkins was "thinking about
something quite different while struggling to keep [his]temper". But why
then didn't he simply answer the question? The answer that he said he
would have given, "that natural selection gathers up information from the
environment, and builds it into the genome" or "that natural selection
increases the information content of the genome *all the time* - that is
precisely what natural selection *means*", is *not* an answer to the
question which was "can you give *an example* of a genetic mutation, or
an evolutionary process, which can be *seen* to increase the information
in the genome?" So there are actually *five* (5) deliberate falsehoods by
Dawkins in this account.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case anyone doubts whether this is so (and I must admit I haven't personally
seen the video), here is what theistic evolutionist Glenn Morton (who as
anyone who knows him would agree is not exactly a friend of creationists!)
says (see tagline), "I wrote Dawkings [sic] and asked him about this. He
denied having any recollection of this event" .:Gillian sent a copy the original
audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a freind of mine. .... I have just
heard it tonight. I will state categorically that the audio tape of the
interview
100% supports Gillian Brown's contention that Dawkins couldn't answer the
question ... I find it disappointing that Dawkins wouldn't respond to my later
e-mails trying to get his response to Ms. Brown's claims and indeed his lack
of response says a lot to me about this incident. I also found it disappointing
that Dawkins wouldn't admit that that the incident had occurred. I owe Ms.
Brown an apology for my initial skepticism and I offer it here. ... After
listening to the audio tape, her video, I firmly believe records an accurate
account of the Dawkings [sic] incident."

So here is another outright falsehood (as well as a particularly nasty
personal insult of Ms Brown) by Dawkins:

"`I do not believe you have specifically denied that your next
comments on the tape -- which answer another question -- did
indeed follow the pause.' I most emphatically do deny that it
followed the pause. That particular edit, at the end of the pause (the
cut is obvious) was the single most ineptly deceptive act of fraud in
the production of this disreputable film. Incidentally, the man
whom you see allegedly putting the question to me on the film was
not even PRESENT, and I have never met him! -- he was filmed
later, presumably in Australia. This disagreeable episode, when I
was fraudulently stitched up by a fat, stupid and dishonest
Australian woman who weaseled her way into my home under
false pretences and then deliberately faked the appearance of my
eplies, is the main reason why I decline to answer questions from
reationists, whether on tape or through an e-mail such as yours."
Dawkins R., "Re: A Question," Email to Ross Olson, November
2, 2001. http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html)

Remember that Glenn Morton's comments below (see tagline) were of the
*original* (i.e. the *uncut*) tape and also that Dawkins originally denied
to Morton that he even remembered the interview! So Dawkins seems to
be one of those people who can almost convince themselves that
something they don't *want* to have happened, *didn't* happen. So it is
not a case of "Creationist Deception Exposed" but "*Evolutionist*
Deception Exposed"! That and his irrational anger against creationists
indicates that Dawkins has a God-problem (to put it mildly).

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199807/0117.html
Dawkins Video
Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@...)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:01:51 -0500
Last month (June 1998) on the evolution reflector, there was a bit of a
discussion concerning the Video From a Frog to a Prince which is put out
by Keziah Production which is headed by Gillian Brown. The tape showed
a narrator asking Dawkings the question: "Professor Dawkins, can you
give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which
can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" Dawkins is shown
starring at the ceiling for 11 seconds which includes a sharp in take of air.
and then he resumes with the unresponsive : "There is a popular
misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish turned into reptiles and
reptiles turned into mammals and and so somehow we ought to be able to
look around the world today and look at our ancestors." I had originally
questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because
of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator
were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room
appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkings and asked him about this. He
denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet
job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my
suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as
Dawkings. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question
but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins
was shown exactly has he performed at the filming. Gillian sent a copy the
original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a freind of mine. He
sent the tape to me. I have just heard it tonight. I will state categorically
that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown's
contention that Dawkins couldn't answer the question. Here is the relevant
transcript: **begin *** Gillian Brown: Can you give an example of a
genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase
the information in the genome? [19 seconds of silence which includes a
sharp intake of air which is seen on the video and heard on the audio tape-
grm] Dawkins: "Can you just stop there I think ...[tape then has a second
or two of silence-grm]" {When the taping starts again the audio tape
demonstrates that the unresponive response was what was there==grm]
Gillian: "I'm recording." Dawkins: "OK" "There is a popular
misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish turned into reptiles and
reptiles turned into mammals and and so somehow we ought to be able to
look around the world today and look at our ancestors. We ought to be
able to see the intermediates between fish and reptiles and ..." ***end**
The only alteration to the question posed by Gillian originally to Dawkins
is the narrator's addition of the words "Professor Dawkins," in front of the
question. That is such a minor change that it does not alter the substance of
Gillian's claim. I find it disappointing that Dawkins wouldn't respond to
my later e-mails trying to get his response to Ms. Brown's claims and
indeed his lack of response says a lot to me about this incident. I also
found it disappointing that Dawkins wouldn't admit that that the incident
had occurred. I owe Ms. Brown an apology for my initial skepticism and I
offer it here. I was unequivocally wrong in my suspicion of her. While we
have in general been on civil terms, I do want her to know that not all
evolutionists disregard truth as many creationists believe. After listening to
the audio tape, her video, I firmly believe records an accurate account of
the Dawkings incident. I might add that I think Ms. Brown did Dawkins a
favor. While Dawkins is shown staring at the ceiling for 11 seconds on the
video, the actual time on the audio is 19 seconds. She spared Dawkins 8
seconds of embarrassment. I am sending a copy of this to both Dawkins
and to Ms. Brown. glenn
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
& http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProblemsOfEvolution/ Book: "Problems
of Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
& http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------