Stop quote mining people @Edgar or we are done with this thread. You are welcome to engage any actual evidence, but all you have done for many posts is quote mine over and over again.
It appears you’ve copied a wall of text from this site:
6 Likes
Yes a direct copy from 1990 to the end. And @Edgar didn’t even bother to provide his source. But then again with Goggle that isn’t too much of a problem. Interesting to note that the blank lines in Edgar’s cut and paste correspond to the years on the web site.
3 Likes
@pevaquark, maybe you can clarify for us and it will be clearer. Quote mining is taking out of context to give a different meaning than the author intended, right? so–maybe the copying of the last post by Edgar wasn’t really quote mining–it was copying someone else’s quotes (some of which were mines). I think Edgar would really enjoy reading a full book of Gould’s (I did).
It seems that the impression we get from the vast complexity of science is that if we know something, we have a good idea what it all is about–thus in medicine, an ICU person thinks they know what a rash is, and the family doc tells a patient that there’s no need for surgery (not quoting any specific instances here, but it’s easy to do).
Dr Lamoureux pointed out that to really be an expert in evolution, you should have an evolution degree, not just medicine. As a family doc, I fully agree with that–medical school is more like engineering–it’s applied in a specific area, but doesn’t deal as much with theory and etiology.
Here’s a definition I found: define quote mining - Search
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as “contextomy” and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
There’s so much on the Web that we can copy accidentally and quote mine without meaning to! I appreciate your help in keeping us honest!
4 Likes
That’s too bad, Edgar. I thought you might be just a little bit curious about how science really works. What you are doing instead is citing a scientist’s definition of a problem without bothering to consider the scientist’s solution.
Do you expect that your claims about Gould will be accepted when you profess that you have no clue about his stochastic model for evolutionary rate of change?
It’s kind of like saying, “A scientist has pointed out that human arms cannot be used as wings. Therefore, human-powered flight must be impossible, and I won’t believe what anyone says to the contrary.”
As this picture of the Gossamer Albatross shows, it is only ignorance about an alternative approach that would lead someone to conclude that the inability to fly by flapping arms implies that man cannot power flight. Likewise, my friend Edgar, your ignorance about the stochastic model alternative does not mean it is not a good scientific explanation of the fossil evidence.
I recognize that this analogy does not prove anything about which side of this debate is closer to the truth. What I do hope to accomplish, Edgar, is to get you to actually think about what the scientific community is saying–really explore the terrain, really find out what stochastic models are about, and why they make sense for the study of paleontology–rather than just dismissing stochastic models with a wave of the hand as worthless…even though you acknowledge not understanding them.
Would it help if I remind you that Einstein won his Nobel in physics not for the theories of relativity, but for the application of stochastic models to physics?
I also hope, Edgar, you will also think about the fact that you have never put any effort into explaining how “progressive creation” could be used to make predictions about new evidence. If you think that is not worth your effort, then I submit you really do not understand how science works.
Yet here you are, lecturing everyone about what science. What’s up with that?
I hope you will give some deep reflection to what your behavior manifests about your attitude towards Christian biologists, geologists, and paleontologists for whom Christ died, and about their work for Christ as they devote themselves to understanding God’s creation.
Finally, I hope you will consider other classes of evidence such as “fossil DNA” such as pseudo-genes and endogenous retroviruses. These show that common ancestry is overwhelmingly the best scientific explanation for the biological world around us. But with a wave of the hand you have dismissed this evidence. As for me, I cannot in good conscience wave such evidence away.
Thankfully, this scientific explanation for life does not interfere with the theological truths of God’s creation or His continuing providence.
Blessings,
Chris
4 Likes
It’s not a contradiction. The rarity is at the species level, and the abundance is at higher levels like genus and class.
Do you understand how there is a difference between species and higher taxa, Edgar?
Instead of seeking to understand how there might be a good scientific explanation of Gould’s two statements, you instead chose to assume the worst about him. You ascribed dishonorable motives to him, not realizing how the supposed contradiction might actually be the result of a misunderstanding on your part.
Given the difference between species and higher taxa and the role the difference played in Gould’s analysis, was your ad hominem attack on Gould’s motives the right road to take, Edgar?
Yours,
Chris
1 Like
(a) Thank you, but there was no need to provide the full quote - I have the book (The Panda’s Thumb, pp 181-182) from which it was taken, sitting on my bookshelf.
(b) The gaps in the fossil record that Gould describes haven’t disappeared simply because he offers has an explanation for them.
@Edgar So you don’t agree with his explanation? If you don’t believe his explanation why do you believe his description of the gaps? You obviously have no idea where the gaps are located as all you have done is provide quote mines. Or do you just believe the parts that support your theory and don’t believe the parts that don’t?
1 Like
No good - that would amount to quote-mining.
Quote-mining is the practice of deliberately distorting someone’s statements by leaving out important context.
Are you saying that you do not have the ability to quote Gould in an ethical manner?
Regards,
Chris
2 Likes
If the scientific explanation is mathematically sound, comports with the fossil evidence, and is supported by other classes of evidence such as ecology, geology, and fossil DNA, then the gaps are irrelevant.
Your claims about gaps are much like those of climate science deniers who say “It’s a cold winter in Cheyenne, this global warming theory must be a hoax.” Such a denial ignores the vast amount of other important data, such as the temperatures at other points on the planet, the temperature of the oceans, the known properties of CO2, etc. Such a denial also ignores the stochastic nature of weather observations.
Just as you are not paying attention to the stochastic nature of fossil observations. And the other classes of evidence.
Look, if you want to say that you don’t think natural history is important because it has not yet cured cancer, that’s your prerogative. But if you don’t think it’s important, why have you spent countless hours making dozens of posts?
I am trying with all my might to help you understand the science. It would be quite gratifying if you were to respond in a manner indicating that you were actually thinking carefully about the science. Are my hopes unrealistic?
Enjoy God’s grace, brother.
Chris
4 Likes
Hi Edgar,
First off, I want to thank you for continuing to come back for this conversation. It keeps our Forum discussion from stagnating into an echo chamber.
It’s especially laudable that you’ve continued to come back even when you probably feel you’ve been piled onto, which is a very unpleasant feeling. Just a bit of empathy here.
As I thought about this thread, it occurred to me that being accused of quote mining is a bit like being accused of racism. Nobody likes such accusations, and when someone is so accused, it shuts off productive conversation, as the accused automatically shifts into defensive mode. Furthermore, as with racism, there is actually such a thing as quote mining, and it is altogether possible to vehemently deny engaging in it while also quite evidently engaging in it.
I realize that it’s not pleasant to backtrack at this point. Nevertheless, would it be possible just to recognize that there could possibly be something to what everyone is saying? I think such a humble move would gain everybody here’s immense respect.
What’s odd is that in principle you and we have so very little to argue over, since you’ve already said you don’t have a problem with nonhuman evolution.
So what say you, friend?
3 Likes
@Edgar There is compelling reason to think that the main reason for gaps in the record is due to the extremely rare process of fossilization. I mentioned this above but never heard your response.
Have you learned about the conditions required for fossilization? The vast majority of deceased organisms (probably over 99%) leave behind no evidence of their existence in the fossil record. For organisms to leave fossils, they must be buried quickly after death in sediment to be protected from scavenging and environmental erosion, and then preserved in low oxygen conditions for protection against decomposition from saprotrophs and oxidative damage. This is just for starters.
It’s a common and erroneous assumption that the fossil record must show some high percentage of organisms that have ever existed. Rather than parroting about gaps in the fossil record, you would do well to investigate the vast comparative genomic data which demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
I was also a progressive creationist until I came to terms with the genomic evidences for common ancestry. I understand the skepticism you are experiencing if you primarily look at the fossil record.
1 Like
I know it won’t necessarily impress you, but @Swamidass and I have to address these distinctions frequently at PeacefulScience.Org.
And our points usually go like this:
When we speak of God-Guided or Theistic Evolution, we are speaking THEOLOGICALLY about science.
When we speak of Evolution, or the Modern Thesis, we are speaking SCIENTIFICALLY about Evolution, which may or may not have theologically implications.
The advantage of these distinctions is, for one, the distinctions are valid.
Secondly, they are almost ALWAYS needed to discuss the business of BioLogos.Org and the business of PeacefulScience.Org!
There’s really no way to avoid it.
Whenever I hear someone throw down a glove and say, JUST SAY EVOLUTION - - doesn’t that always mean he doesn’t want to talk about God’s involvement?
So when I find “helpful atheists” arguing with Creationists about Evolution-Without-God, it is almost Always a Lose-Lose discussion. The Creationist comes away thinking all pro-Evolutionists give no ground for God… and all the “Just-Evolution-Please” people get are frustrated… and muddy the waters for Christians-who-Support-Evolution, who are generally more clear about Science vs. Theology.
The irony here, of course (and it has been noted by many over the past 2 years or more) is that BioLogos and the Design people frequently speak in agreement (and/or should) about God having a role.
So I am constantly reminding the folks at PeacefulScience that the dispute is NOT about design really.
The dispute is whether Science will ever have the scope to detect or prove God and/or his influences.
Obviously, here, we reject this idea. And Joshua continues to reject that idea. And the Design folks continue to arrive to argue about Design… and we try to say:
“Hey you win… God designs! But about this messed up definition of Science you have…”
1 Like
You need to explained why we shouldn’t see gaps in the fossil record if evolution is true. We keep finding new fossil species all of the time which shouldn’t be happening according to your claims.
2 Likes
Yes! And it bears noting that any gaps Gould wrote about are decades old and possibly filled in, no?
Okay, thanks. That’s interesting.
Very well … but I hope you realize that you ruined my fascinating back-flip story. I thought I was on to something there.
Please stop exposing the shallowness of my knowledge and the subsequent weaknesses in my argument!
1 Like
Thank you for your thoughts, Chrissy; you make some valid points.
I’ve been thinking about everything I been told by the good folks here at Biologos, and it seems to me there are compelling reasons to conclude that the history of life is one of biological evolution. In this regard, I’ve been reading a bit about the views of the late French biologist, Pierre-Paul Grasse (a Christian), who concluded from the fossil record that the history of life on earth is one of biological evolution. But he seemed to think that science is incapable of explaining the mechanism by which that evolution happened. This point of view appeals to me, as it leaves room for the possibility of divine intervention in the evolutionary process - an important consideration as far as I’m concerned, as I often find purely natural explanations of evolutionary change to be far-fetched and unconvincing.
But my hangup with evolution is this - I don’t think I will ever be able to accept human evolution … which has me leaning back towards some kind of progressive creation model.
… speaking of which, I recently read about a very interesting progressive creation model which makes more scientific sense than my simplistic model:
We know from Genesis 2 that God used existing matter to create man and the first forms of life. So, having created the first life-forms from existing matter, God repeated that process - He took matter from these first life-forms to create other life-forms … and so on, all the way down the line of the history of life on earth. The genetic data that suggests evolutionary common descent could be evidence of a different form of common descent - that of separate, but genetically-related creations.
So according to this model, the DNA of humans is truly, physically related to “remote ancestors” (so to speak), because God created each new stage of life using the physical genetic matter of the preceding stage.
Another thought along these lines is the description of Eve being created from Adam’s “rib” - this could be a symbolic description of God creating Eve from Adam’s genetic matter.
2 Likes
I’m glad you’ve got something out of all the discussions. It is often a long journey figuring stuff out and finding a place to land that answers your questions but honors your convictions as well.
Science has unanswered questions and things they still cannot explain, that’s true. It’s something I think every scientist around here would affirm. As I understand it, there are good explanations for several important natural mechanisms that drive evolution. Do they explain the whole story? Maybe not, and that is why curious people keep looking for refined and more in depth explanations. But there is a difference between acknowledging where the current models don’t explain everything and the Creationist argument that they can’t explain anything.
You would be in good company. Some people really delve into the idea of an eternal soul or the image of God and focus on God’s special creation of humanity in a spiritual/theological sense. In other words they believe that the human species evolved like other animals in terms of biology, but at some point in history God specially created in them their “humanity.” Others believe that Adam and Eve were specially created at some point in time and their children intermarried with people who were on earth as a result of common descent, but the image of God spread through their relationship to these specially created humans. There are people trying to reconcile science and more traditional biblical views about humans.
2 Likes