"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
................ yet always fail to quote what came next..............
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. "
2007-07-18 09:19:50 · 28 answers · asked by irishumanist 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There seem to be a lot of "if"s in there. Sounds like he wasn't so sure himself.
2007-07-18 09:34:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's not all of them of course, but "Bert" has just provided another prize example, desperately wrenching S J Gould out of context.
(But a quick search shows many creationist websites displaying it like a valuable captive. Few if any would care for his whole argument: “The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism." - See The Panda's Thumb.)
It may, in part, be a carry-over from the tendency to "proof text" from the bible, rather than tackle the harder skill of understanding a whole piece of writing, secular or sacred, in its literary, historical and cultural context.
If it's naivety and a propensity to accept statements and soundbites from authority without weighing and checking them, there is a chance that some may grow out of it, when they realise what silliness they are spouting in some instances.
I consider myself sceptical, but I've had to remove a number of myths from my brain, that I'd acquired quite happily in earlier days.
A simple one... I was taught that the cavalry were the good guys and the Indians (sic) were the bad guys. Hmm.
2007-07-18 16:43:10 · answer #2 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many have encountered only the first part (which is the whole idea of quoting it alone).
The rest are disingenuous -- to use a nice word for it.
I mean come ON. They can't promote their view using reason; they HAVE to lie.
2007-07-18 20:52:32 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don`t really know how to research anything out of a book not sanctioned by the Church.
If they find a quote ,questionable data or facts ,they will mold it into something that works for them .They will not touch an actual science book , It burns their hands .,or so they were told ...
2007-07-18 19:02:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They assume that everyone is like them and won't investigate the truth. There are Creationist websites filled with out-of-context, altered and fabricated quotes from which people mindlessly cut to paste here.
The Darwin attacks are popular because of faulty reasoning. They proceed on the assumption that if you were to discredit Newton with lies, gravity would cease to exist.
ADDENDUM:
I see the author above me had to prove the cut and paste deceit by use of an typical out-of-context quote: taking the posing of the problem and leaving off the answer.
2007-07-18 16:29:01 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
There is another quote that they often quote Darwin where the latter part would instantly reject the purpose they suppsoed he was trying to get through.
And what bothers me further is, why bother attacking Darwin? It's not like we worship the man....even if he denounced it himself without proof because "oh, I just found God," doesnt make his idea less true. It's the evidence that supports it, not the person that came up with the theory.
2007-07-18 16:25:43 · answer #6 · answered by leikevy 5 · 7⤊ 2⤋
All it really takes is one person to make the lie and put the partial quote in another piece of writing.
The rest is just heresay. And misplaced trust of authority.
2007-07-18 16:26:58 · answer #7 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Because a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
2007-07-18 16:33:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
thay will try anything to make there fairy tale come true evan try and change time and space to do it the eye is evolution
2007-07-18 17:54:23 · answer #9 · answered by andrew w 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is proof positive that they do not want to honestly present their "evidence".
In essence, it is proof positive that they are liars. Yet this is not enough to convince people that they are being misled by these people.
Is that not terrifying to consider? It scares the crap out of me that there are people around me every day that are that f-ing crazy...
2007-07-18 16:25:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
Because although they accuse atheists of taking things out of context in the bible. They seem to have no problems doing this themselves.
Maybe that is why they accuse us of it, because they know they do it, so they assume we immoral atheists must do that as well.
2007-07-18 16:30:30 · answer #11 · answered by Sapere Aude 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋