Working in a Quote Mine
(Revised)
Today, I want to prompt you to use some rational thought, and I'm going to use hyperbole do to it. Is that all right with you? If not, get over it, I have points to make.
There is an increasingly popular expression called "quote mining", where your opponent's words are used against him. The problem is, people get to crying that quotes are taken out of context or otherwise misused. Leftists fuss about alleged "quote mining" when their words are used against them, but they run their mouths and spew so much hate, it is not difficult to find something that they said and use it against them (check Joe Biden, for example). When evolutionists are faced with quotes they do not like, they dismiss quotes with a wave of their magic wand and pretend they disappeared.
When you fire off some anti-evolution statements by evolutionists, they put their lab coats over their heads, picket your home and burn models of the DNA molecule in your yard. That is to say, they get really cranky.
I want you to think about a couple of things. First, let me ask you this: Are people stupid enough to think that all of these remarks are taken out of context or made up? There are many quotes available, you see. In addition, the evolutionist community is not quite as unified as their press indicates. Think!
Second, they attack creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. I will focus on creation science this trip around. I'm going to ask you: Do they really think that creationist scientists who serve a holy and just God (who has told us that lying is a violation of the Ninth Commandment) are going to lie to get you to believe in God? Not only are they insulting God-fearing scientists, but they are insulting the public's intelligence. Well, except for the hateful and gullible ones that want to believe such things against their opponents.
Now, let's think the other way. Just who are the ones usually screaming about faked quotes? The evolutionary establishment and its cheerleaders. Evolutionists and atheists do not have a track record of either accuracy or honesty. Your evolutionary ancestors are not exactly constructed from an abundance of complete skeletons. Look in the museums: Fragments, creative imagery and lots of synthetic materials comprise those critters that are supposed to be in your lineage. And many of those "ancestors" were misclassified or outright fakes.
The geologic column, showing simple forms in older layers of the earth and more complex forms in more recent layers only exists in textbooks, not in reality. They fooled, you, Freddie! And these pillars of integrity point their shaky, bony prosthetic fingers at creationists and accuse them of lying because the creationists brought facts to light that you are not supposed to hear about. Someone pulled the sacred cow of evolution's tail and she moooooooed!
The geologic column, showing simple forms in older layers of the earth and more complex forms in more recent layers only exists in textbooks, not in reality. They fooled, you, Freddie! And these pillars of integrity point their shaky, bony prosthetic fingers at creationists and accuse them of lying because the creationists brought facts to light that you are not supposed to hear about. Someone pulled the sacred cow of evolution's tail and she moooooooed!
True scientific investigation will consider alternative evidence and models. If evolution is true, then evolutionists can have intelligent, civil debates with creationists — then bury them with the evidence and wipe creationism off the map. Think! Why doesn't this happen? Because creationists do have something to say. We do not need to take statements out of context.
Atheists love to say that Christians are liars. Especially when we say things that they do not want to hear. This includes catching them in their own failures of logic and in their own lies. Naturally, they say that Christians are stupid or uninformed as well. Ray Comfort's posts get hammered by vicious atheists on a regular basis.
Then, they cry that they want respect! News flash, Poindexter: If you want respect, act respectable-like. Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you make with the personal attacks right out of the age. (I had one guy here recently start out with the sneering and sarcasm, and I gave him sarcasm back. Then he was civil, so he got civil — and detailed — responses.) As I have said repeatedly, people motivated by hate have their judgment clouded.
Christians should know why atheists hate us, why evolutionists lie and fake evidence for their insipid "theory", and why some God haters are simply out of their minds: 1 Cor. 1.18, John 8.44, 2 Cor. 2.15-16, Matt. 5.11 . They hate us because of Christ. It's a spiritual problem, and has nothing to do with the intellect. Otherwise, they would behave rationally, having meaningful dialog instead of sneering, slander, false accusations of "quote mining", and hate.
Comments
True scientific investigation will consider all the evidence and theories. If evolution is true, then evolutionists can have intelligent, civil debates with Creationists — then bury them with the evidence and wipe Creationism off the map. Think! Why doesn't this happen? Because Creationists do have something to say.
Sure, civil conversation is possible; perhaps you could say it's even lamentably rare.
However, please read your above paragraph, and then consider the notion of the conspiracy theorist. I'm not talking about the guy who might actually be one of the few to really understand that something nefarious is happening. I'm talking about the guy who rejects any possibility that the moon landing actually took place (for example).
I've seen two television segments where the hoaxers (ie. the people who thought the landing was faked) were given time to state their cases and show their evidence. I wish I could name the shows, because they're perfect examples of what I'm trying to show. These guys brought out their best material, asked their best questions, and challenged the interviewers with show-stopping evidence that absolutely calls the landing into question.
The problem is that these guys raised plausible objections. "If X happened, why do we see Y in the footage?". It takes time and energy to answer questions like this, something the shows' producers provided. In nearly every example, the show could not produce absolute irrefutable proof that the hoaxers were wrong. To be sure, the weight of the evidence was clearly against most of the hoaxers' objections, but there was enough wiggle room for them to conclude that the questions were still valid.
This is what (I believe) we have happening with the Creationists. It's not so much that they make good arguments for the validity of Creationism, because really, they don't. Their best argument is "The Bible says God did it". No amount of evidence has the authority to call the Biblical account into question - and that's why the debate continues.
Creationists are often (not always) like the hoaxers. They continually raise objections, and to be truthful, as someone who's not well-versed in geology or evolutionary theory, some of those objections make me curious about whether they might be valid. However, what I've found is that no amount of answering of those questions is sufficient to put them to rest.
Think about it. The Bible is right no matter what - right? It can't possibly be wrong - right? If so, then it's the clear the argument will continue on forever and ever, regardless of who's right or wrong.
When I was heavily into studying and teaching Creation Science, guess what? It was on scientific grounds, not on an appeal to the Bible. When discussing the theological implications in a Sunday morning sermon, then I took a different approach. I have never seen "God did it" as an explanation.
Too many people are treating Creationism and Intelligent Design the way (am I really going to use a cartoon here?) Brian Griffin on "Family Guy" (yes, yes I am going to use a cartoon here) referred to Rush Limbaugh. Words to the effect of, "No, I did not actually read what YOU wrote, I read what other people said about you." That is happening regarding Creationists: Joe Disbeliever tells his audience that Creationism is junk science, so his audience believes him instead of checking for themselves. The truth is, Creationists publish technical papers that I cannot pretend to understand because they are written by and to other scientists.
— Stormbringer, dusting off this old ID to see if it still functions
So, if Creationists can be silenced, they should be challenged and put down. But evolutionists often dodge it because they cannot win, so they do not take the challenges often enough to please the debaters!
This started in the garden-- "though shall NOT surely die"--serpent to Eve.
I'll talk about fraud if you want me to, Nicky, as long as you're willing to avoid a double standard. By that I mean "fraud is important when it involves something I'm skeptical of, but it's unimportant when it involves something I believe in".
In any case, SB was talking (in part) about the civility of theCreation/Evolution debate, not the veracity of either.
I like it.
Also, I did discuss some points that you did not bring up and I feel like summarizing. If you do not wish to discuss them, that's fine, but I should have restated them in the article.
1. Nobody is unbiased, it colors our approach to data (discussed in other articles).
2. For people to simply write off the quotes of evolutionists as "quote mining", thereby implying that they are either taken out of context or, worse, completely untrue, defies common sense because of the volume of quotes.
3. Something else that people say that asks me to defy my own reasoning ability is that for the whole of Creation Science is "living a lie" is absurd; Creationists are Christians who serve a holy God that hates lying. (Although ID has non-Christian people in it, I also feel that it is codswallop to dismiss all of them as dishonest.)
4. The study of human origins has a significantly high level of gullibility, credulousness and fraud. I think that it easily leads to the conclusion that people want this theory to work so much, they'll do anything to "prove" it.
With the point you raised, sure, there will be some frauds in the field in any discipline. That's human nature. The Inquisition was performed in the name of Christ by people who were not following his commands, but the Catholic church was the source of power, and some people will say anything ("Yes, I believe") to get power.
"Do you really think that people who serve a holy and just God, who has told us that lying is a violation of the Ninth Commandment, are going to lie to get you to believe in God?"
Yes. All it takes is that perpetrator does not believe that what they are doing is telling a lie.
You know that I moderate comments. Since you are five or so hours ahead of me, I have tedious and annoying things to do and may not be able to publish or respond to your comments until such a time as is less than comfortable for you.
"All it takes is that perpetrator does not believe that what they are doing is telling a lie."
Correct. You have some points, and Whateverman's lead is shrinking.
But game show humour aside, I am emphasizing the whole of Creation Science; writing all of them off as liars stretches common sense beyond its limits. I have no doubt that there are charlatans involved. That would be as silly as me saying that "all pastors that you see on television are not interested in making money". Since I am speaking in generalities, I expect some exceptions.
If you saw Nicky's Weblog, well, he doesn't make claims to being a bastion of saintly behavior, so I think this is kind of a hobby for him. Or something.
I'm at where you were a few months ago. I sorta believe & you make some good points. Liars like atheists & your old friend Pubes piss me off. I call him Pubes because he doesn't have any yet. You should read him again he's really gone insane.
Whatever man,
Didn't think I was out of line, didn't mean to be & I know what it's like to post tiredly.
"I am emphasizing the whole of Creation Science; writing all of them off as liars stretches common sense beyond its limits. I have no doubt that there are charlatans involved. That would be as silly as me saying that "all pastors that you see on television are not interested in making money". Since I am speaking in generalities, I expect some exceptions."
What is the purpose of ID ?
Once you understand that then you'll start to get to grips with why it is so opposed.
It's about changing the teaching of Science in general and Biology in particular.
Why ? Because the way that they are taught now is judged to be in conflict with a particular interpretation of Christian scripture.
This is not good enough.
If ID and Creationist Science can show that the current methodology has failed to reveal an important and applicable discovery that their methodology would not have overlooked then you might have something.
Otherwise ID and CS simply look political.
Instead, ID is actively suppressed, even persecuted. It sounds to me like the evolutionary establishment is afraid of ID. Why? If the evidence supports evolution as well as is claimed, then there is nothing to fear and ID will be left in the dust.
To present only one view of origins and actively suppress any other view is not only bigotry, it is brainwashing.
WEM can get cranky at times, but he's been a decent sort here lately. As long as everyone makes an effort, we're doing fine.
"I do not see politics in CS or ID, except when secular statists want to keep it out of schools."
Consider this then - why is the Centre for Intelligent Design being set up in Scotland and not England ?
Have a read http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-top-scientists-tell-scottish-pupils-the-bible-is-true-1.1060545
--Cowboy Bob, Clan Irvine, sub-group of Clan Forbes
"I got so worked up about that jerk that I missed something earlier that you talk about."
Tune in tomorrow...