To : ALL Subj: Biele pegged again From an InterNet talk.origins post by Chris Nedin: Origi

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: LARRY SITES Posted: 9 Oct 94 08:53 To : ALL Subj: Biele pegged again From an InterNet talk.origins post by Chris Nedin: Originally_From: cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au Observe my pitiful example of the creationist art of the "out of context quote" WARNING: *Do not try this at home* This practice is dangerous as it has a well documented, deleterious affect on intellectual honesty. The U of E accepts no liability for any loss of intellectual honesty experienced due to use of this practice. This is how it works: Palaeontologist: The current theory of evolution suggests that, whilst a few organisms evolved via phyletic gradualism, the vast majority of organisms evolve over shorter time frames interspersed with periods of stasis. The idea of phyletic gradualism as the basis for evolution can be shown to be invalid by . . . Creationist (or their dupes): The current theory of evolution suggests that organisms evolved via phyletic gradualism. However phyletic gradualism is false, even palaeontologists say so, "The idea of phyletic gradualism as the basis for evolution can be shown to be invalid by . . ." (A. Palaeontologist, 1994, Internet) Simple isn't it? Now a real example: Arthur Beile wrote: [about the absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record] >AB> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of >AB> phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." >AB> Steven Stanley, `Macroevolution: Pattern and Process' p. 39, W.M. >AB> Freeman and Company, 1979. This is a classic example of the standard literalist creationist ploy of 'quoting out of context'. Sounds pretty damning right? Well it is suppost to. The one thing you are not supposed to do is actually look up the reference (creationists say "well look, we provided the reference", but how many good ol' boys and girls would rush down to their local library to check?). If you do, however, you will see that the quote is not the damning statement it appears to be. Mr. Beile, whether willfully or through ignorance is misleading you. Let's take a look at this quote. Firstly you may think 'what is Stanley up to?' A palaeontologist, writing a book called "Macroevolution - Pattern and Process" and claiming that there is no support for evolution in the fossil record! However a glance at the actual book will show the basic dishonesty that is literal creationism. The quote comes from the introduction to chapter 3 "Diverse Lines of Evidence" - hmm, strange title, perhaps it should have read "Diverse Lines of Non-evidence"? Well, not really. Lets put the quote back into context. The begining of the paragraph starts: "Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) . . . (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (p39) Now, compare (5) above with Mr. Beile's quote. Notice the full stop after "morphologic transition" and notice that there is no full stop in the actual quote. Here Mr. Beile is being dishonest, since there is no full stop in tha actual quote and there are 11 words missing. Whether Mr. Beile is being willfully dishonest or wether it is through ignorance (i.e. plaigerizing the quote from a secondary source) I do not know. However, the dishonesty goes beyond that, since it is now clear that the passage is not the stinging inditement of the fossil record that Mr. Beile would have you believe. The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach to evolution is invalid. As Stanley says (and Mr. Beile must have somehow missed), "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon." And, "Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuational model)." What makes it even easier in this case is that palaeontologists, when writing about evolution, will clearly state the problems with the old idea of phyletic gradualism and why it was discarded in favour of an improved model. Literalist creationists leap on the statements outlining the problems of phyletic gradualism, ignore the context, and use them as if the palaeontologist was refuting evolution. Chris Stanley, S.L. (1979) Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. Freeman & Co. p. 39 --------------------------------------------------------------- cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au "How can Nedin be trusted" Dept. of Geology & Geophysics C Wieland (1991). Director, University of Adelaide Creation Research Foundation, South Australia 5005 Queensland. Australia.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank