Replies

In real life, the full context of each of these quotes is basically irrelevant despite the rest of the page in most cases giving reasons why the author remains an evolutionist.

It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..."

I like the analogy and agree with it. To me, a problem creationists have is not explaining the context of quotes and giving the impression the quotee does not support evolution or has serious problems with it. I see creationists using the quote to show there is a problem with a certain area of evolution. But evolutionists see it as an attack on the entire theory. In summary, creationists need to better document the quote and evolutionists need thicker skin.

I don't think you give sufficient attention to the deliberate dishonesty factor. Gould, for instance, believes that there are lots of transitional fossils between larger taxa, but not at the species-to-species level (where there are nevertheless a few). Then you have Darwin, asking rhetorically how an eye could possibly form, with his immediate and extensive answer left out in the creationist quotes. You have Duane Gish in 1994 quoting Colbert in the mid-1950s about whales appearing from nowhere in the fossil record. (That was close to the case until the late 80s.)

Between the dishonesty and the extreme selectivity, you have what amounts to a lie. The overall picture is that evolutionists think that evolution is the answer to the diversity of life and that they have evidence for it. Creationist quote salads are an exercise in making photo-micrographs of specks on a whitewashed wall and then claiming that the wall is black.

. In summary, creationists need to better document the quote and evolutionists need thicker skin.

I disagree. Creationists need to come up with tests of their theory. What sort of observation of living creatures, fossils, DNA or whatever could in principle disprove the creationist guess?

No creationist or ID-er has really discussed vestigial organs, for example whale hips and the occasional leg. eg, from a google search, or the fact that humans and great apes share a mutation that makes us vitamin-C dependent. The burden of proof is on the creationism side: Account for the DNA that is responsible for these vestiges, and do so in a better manner than the scientists have.

I see creationists using the quote to show there is a problem with a certain area of evolution.

It would be far more effective for Creationists to formulate an argument, consisting of hypotheses and evidence, with predictions. Perhaps that would take them out of websites, forums, school board meetings and politics, and into the research labs and journals. Until there is a real THEORY (in the scientific sense of the word) of ID or Creationism, with all the attributes that entails, the quotes are worthless because there is no science behind the argument. At most, the quotes might show that we are not omniscient. But omniscience is not a pre-requisite for education or science.

Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." The quote alone is not an argument against quantum mechanics, and despite Einstein's brilliance and recognized expertise in physics, he was still wrong. Quoting him over and over would not make him right. But this is the error medved makes everytime he posts his list.