The force is strong with this one!
2 Likes
Stephen Matheson, Bill_II,
Yes, I too found the reference to the NYT article, but that wasn’t what I asked. Neither of you have provided a link to the full presentation by Kurt Wise either. I will repeat my question;
I have to ask, what followed from that comment? Did he then go on to show why he rejected it? Do you have a link to the complete presentation so I can review it myself?
One sentence taken out of a presentation might not be indicative of the full content, so I’m still waiting for Edward_T_Babinski to show that it’s not quote mining. Feel free to accept the challenge yourselves.
The way the story was written it appears to be an off the cuff comment. The only way to know the complete context would be to view a video. Personally given this is such a trivial comment I have no problem with taking the word of the reporter that wrote the story. YMMV.
But this isn’t the only time that Dr. Wise has pointed out the existence of transitional fossils. Such as this statement in one of his papers.
Full paper, which includes his explanation for why transitional fossils are not a problem, is available here
@aarceng what is your personal opinion of transitional fossils?
1 Like
What Mr. Babinski wrote is something known to be a fact by those of us who know evolution and creation science: people who understand evolution, like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, know that common descent is an excellent explanation. Both of those people are on the record acknowledging this. That’s what Babinski wrote, and that’s what the NYT piece reports. Todd Wood’s words can be found in his own writings, and interestingly you have ignored those.
If you actually believe either the NY Times or Mr. Babinski to be “quote mining,” then you either don’t know what quote mining is (it’s a form of dishonesty) or you are actually trying to mislead other people.
No one needs to see a transcript of the Cedarville meeting to know that “there are also prominent young-earth creationists who admit that the evidence appears to favor (it looks like) humans and apes share a common ancestry.” Those are Mr. Babinski’s words, the context that you have removed.
ABSTRACT
The recent discovery and identification of Australopithecus ramidus has
provided evolutionists with a ‘stratomorphic intermediate’ between
Paleogene primates and man. However, six universal features that it shares
with other fossil species suggest that A. ramidus may ultimately be better
explained by the creationist model of the fossil record. Crucial to that model
are the geologic processes of the Flood and the nature of the biota at that
one point in time, plus the processes of biological change, geologic processes
and the nature of the biological world in general in the post-Flood
era. (Emphasis added)
As you can see from the abstract Wise is stating the opposition case in order to argue against it.
This is, I believe, also the case with the quote Edward_T_Babinski gave. As such it does match the definition of quote mining. @sfmatheson
Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint
At least you provided the full paper for your reference.
If he is just stating the opposition case he is doing so using some strong words.
This would support the statement he made at the presentation. Is it so hard to admit that Dr. Wise sees transitional fossils as a “problem” that must be addressed? Much of the YEC writing that I have seen appears to be written to address the problems with the idea.
I also said
So I was fully aware of why he said what he did. You seem to have a problem with accepting a simple explanation of why Dr. Wise would say what he said at the conference.
Of course that’s what he’s doing. He’s a creationist. The question isn’t whether Wise accepts evolution. He doesn’t, and you can read his testimony elsewhere about why that is. It’s not because common descent doesn’t explain the data, and that’s the point that Babinski is making. Wise and Wood and a few others acknowledge the explanatory power of common descent. They are creationists, so they don’t accept it, but that’s a different question.
I think you are confused the difference between acknowledging the “opposition case” versus believing it. I hope that’s the problem here, that you are misunderstanding what Babinski and I have written. But I’m not sure, because you are only focused on Wise, and you are ignoring Wood. The impression you are giving me, perhaps unintentionally, is that you are misrepresenting Babinski, and quote mining him, while ignoring the clear evidence that establishes his claim. Do you see how this could look like a cynical attempt to mislead people?
I don’t think there is anything more to say here. What Babinski wrote is well known fact. Wise and Wood (and a few other creationists with actual expertise) know that creationism’s task is to create an explanatory framework that can rival evolution. (The abstract you posted from Wise is attempting EXACTLY that, explicitly, for one data set.) Here’s hoping that you simply accidentally misunderstood what Babinski was trying to say.
2 Likes
Here is and oldy, but a goody:
The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George Romanes, 1882
Yes, that date is right: 1882. If you read chapters 1 and 2 (The Argument from Classification and The Argument from Morphology or Structure, respectively) it pretty much demolishes creationist position using the very same arguments we are using today. I think it is worth a read if people are interested, especially chapters 1 and 2.
2 Likes
Thanks for that link to The Scientific Evidence of Organic Evolution. It is telling how little, if any, advancement there has been in the creationist arguments in 136 years.
That is defiantly a goody. I was surprised to see the same arguments that are still made today.
I guess “intelligent design” meant something a little different back then but makes me wonder when the term came into use.
When I got to the part about whales I thought, “Oh no not whales again!” But the argument is a good one even without the genetic data to back it up. I also liked the discussion of the evolution of the horse. Particularly the mention made of the prediction of fossil horses that were unknown at the time.
Thanks again for the reference.
I thought it best to insert a quote from the article for those who may not want to trudge through it.
“Thus, even if we confine our attention to a single structure, how wonderful are the modifications which it is seen to undergo, although never losing its typical character! How are we to explain this? By design manifested in special creation, or by descent with adaptive modification? If it is said by design manifested in special creation, we must suppose that the Deity formed an archetypal plan of certain structures, and that He determined to adhere to this plan through all the modifications which those structures exhibit. Now the difficulties in the way of this supposition are prodigious, if not quite insurmountable. In the first place, why is it that some structures are selected as typical and not others? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for instance, be tortured into every conceivable variety of modification in order to make it serviceabl for as great a variety of functions; while another structure, such as the eye, is made in differe sub-kingdoms on fundamentally different plans, notwithstanding that it has througought to perform the same function? Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in the case of the skeleton the Deity endeavoured to show His ingenuity by the manifold functions to which He has made the same structure subservient; while in the case of the eye He has endeavoured to show his resources by the manifold structures which He has to subserve the same function? If so, it appears to me a most unfortunate circumstance, that throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the same typical structure to the performance of widely different functions, are cases which come within the limits of the same natural group of plants and animals, and therefore admit of being equally well explained by descent from a common ancestry; while all cases of widely different structures performing the same function are to be found in different groups of plants or animals, and are therefore suggestive of independent variations arising in teh different lines of hereditary descent.”–George Romanes, “The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882 [transcription errors are mine]
That is an argument I have been making for a long time, as have others. It is such an obvious argument that it was used by biologists 130 years ago. It still applies today, and from what I have seen from the DG model it can’t explain why there are typical and lineage specific adaptations as described by Romanes.
4 Likes
Wow, very helpful.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.