For creationists: Why resort to quote mining?

Question

Quote mining is the most despicable form of quoting someone out-of-context to make it sound like the person is saying precisely the *opposite* to everything they stand for.

For example, almost every time you see a creationist quoting Darwin, they quote from Chapter 6 of 'Origin of Species'. This is the chapter in which Darwin anticipates objections by posing questions one-by-one, and then answering them ... posing a problem, and then solving it. But creationists just quote the questions, not the answers! This is to build the impression that Darwin did not have answers to these questions ... that he was "confessing" doubt or defeat. But this is precisely the *opposite* of the truth, which is that Darwin *did* have answers to every one of these questions.

Why do creationists do this? It shows incredible weakness in your own argument if you have to resort to glaring dishonesty that is *easily* shown to be false ... in this case, just by giving the full quote.

Another common target is Stephen Jay Gould. For example, creationists will post the following quote:

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change".

... and they cut off Gould in mid-sentence. The full sentence is:

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly."
- Natural History 86:22, 1977

I.e. implying that Gould is saying that the fossil evidence does not support (evolution), when he is talking specifically about *gradual* change, vs. rapid change ... where "gradual" and "rapid" are measured in *geological* timescales hundreds of thousands to millions of years). Anybody who has actually *read* Gould knows he considered the fossil evidence for evolution to be overwhelming ... but it's not enough for creationists to try to disprove him ... they must also paint the false image of Gould as unsure. Why?

There are two reasons quote mining is so despicable:

First, tries to exploit the ignorance of the reader. It counts on the reader never having *read* the author in question. This is why it's so effective by creationists when writing to other creationists. But it fails utterly with someone who has actually *read* the author in question.

Second, it is the desperate act of a small mind, trying to exploit the name of a well-known thinker. It is not enough to refute Darwin. One has to create the illusion that the argument is coming from Darwin himself. It is the height of dishonesty.

It comes from the same source of dishonesty as the completely *fabricated* story that Darwin recanted his on theory on his deathbed." At least with Galileo, the church had the good manners to force him to recant on threat of torture and excommunication. Darwin isn't given the choice ... they make him "recant" after he is dead using people slimy enough to invent the last words of a dying man.

Eric S. has a point. My apologies if I give the impression that *all* creationists do this. I don't believe they do.

But I assure you my question is genuine and I will read all answers. Yes it is partly to bring it to the attention of people who frequent creationist sites and may not be aware that quote mining is rampant (and how to spot it).

But I am also genuinely curious to hear from creationists who do not do this, as to why fellow creationists do quote mining. It is foreign to me. I have *never* seen a scientist do this. Ever. And I have never seen a pro-evolution site do this (that I know of). If there are counter-examples, please feel free to link them.

CHOCOBEAR: Good points. It's quite possible that an unscrupulous evolutionist would also resort to quote mining ... but I have honestly never seen it. Not once. (Do you have an example?) Meanwhile it is commonplace in the creationist literature, web sites, and in answers here on YA.

Example: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsQVf6UY4si4iHPMld9fR1Xsy6IX?qid=20070308082104AAbXA8k&show=7#profile-info-2006b8954c1947b9429c00b39378e779aa

I also know that D. did not claim to have all the answers. Many of his answers were speculative, some quite wrong. E.g. he did not have knowlege of the mechanisms of inheritance (genetics). Other evolutionary scientists corrected his answers with more up-to-date information.

But my point is that it is dishonest to quote one of his questions, and then not complete the quote to show his answer (correct or not), as if D. was expressing doubt of his theory, or that the question had no answer at all, by Darwin or anybody.

luvdalz68 Thank you for illustrating my point, not only by watching it go soaring over your head ...

... but by misquoting another evolutionary scientist in precisely the method I described!!

Here is an article on the quote mining of Colin Patterson of the British Museum.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Thanks!

Answer 1

I agree with you that when Creationists take things out of context it make it look like we're grasping at straws. I don't agree with this practice, because if someone did it to us or to the Bible, we would take issue with it. "Do unto others"
We should take issues head on and debate with honesty, thereby thwarting counter arguments that will undoubtedly arise if we do not.

Answer 2

I am neither a creationist nor an evolutionist. I have noted quote mining among both creationists and evolutionists. Most of it I do not think to be intentional. Both creationists and evolutionists are seeking to prove their respective positions. When they read material, they almost do not notice the arguments against them. It is a matter of tunnel vision. For example, you cite the quotations from chapter 6 of the Origin of the Species. As a scientist, Darwin did not claim to have all the answers. Some of the questions raised were answered, some he merely posed a possible answer that could not yet be proven.

Answer 3

I've always tried to keep abreast of the arguments against evolution, but until now I'd never heard the full quote by Gould-- just the snippet. How frightening it is that important words can be recontextualized so completely, and not just for the ignorant and uninterested.

I usually condemn questions that are simply opinions with a question mark, but in my eyes, this was warranted by the quality of your information. Thanks.

Answer 4

It was actually this dishonesty that began my quest to learn about evolution. I was a young Christian at 16/17 and had bought an anti-evolution book (because Christian "creation science books" are really anti-evolution books) when I found a lot of misquoting. What did I do? I automatically threw the book into the garbage can and bought an evolution book. I continued to buy books on "both sides" of the issue, and I found the anti-evolution books to do the same over and over. It was dissapointing, but it triggered me to get a real education on the topic.

Answer 5

So, Gould was saying, to paraphrase, that since he has no evidence for evolution, that it must have happened quickly?
Even the curator of the British Museum of Natural History says that in his collection of millions of fossils, there is not a single transitional fossil, how can Gould come along and say that the evidence is "overwhelming"? Where is this "mountain" of evidence? It doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of Gould and every other hopeful evolutionist.

Answer 6

Because their other arguments are so weak; they are grasping at straws. But the boat has already left the dock; evolution is a proven fact and the debate is over.

Answer 7

The very wording of this "question" makes it blatantly obvious that you are not at all interested in the answer. You post a broad stereotyping question, then proceed to make comments about your own question.

Answer 8

They are not interested in being educated. Their only goal is to defend their faith so they can have a reason to remain ignorant. Ignorance is easier.

Answer 9

there's no reason religion and science cant support each other.you study the universe and find that the only explination must be god. the head of astrophysics at oxford said...'Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?'

Answer 10

Selective truth is a Christian favorite past time.They select what they want to believe and ignore everything else.