Scholar, 607 and Evolutionary Change (page 2)

lawrence

Alan-
Great! And "...if Moloch worship can give you that emotional charge quicker, better, and cheaper ...go for it!" Has "unscholar" gone silent? Or, is he memorizing his new Org. book?

scholar

Alan F

Let me reply by stating that in reality you do really believe in all of the things Mommy has taught you since you were a little boy which include 607 and Creation.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

hillary_step

Scholar,

My mother toilet trained me for which I am forever thankful.

Your 'mother' treated me like the toilet, for which I am forever unthankful.

HS

The point of this thread -- obviously -- was to show how one can quote a source reference exactly, and yet completely misrepresent an author. This kind of misrepresentation has long characterized Watchtower publications. On the few occasions I know of when Watchtower authors have been challenged on this dishonest practice, their responses have been along the lines of, "Were the words quoted exactly? Yes? Then there is no problem." But the quotations that I made directly from Watchtower publications were exact quotations, yet it's obvious, without a reader's even having to look at the sources, that I misrepresented the Society's words. No suprise -- the Society's claim about its quotation practices is transparently self-serving and dishonest.

I titled this post as I did to prove to the poster who calls himself "scholar" that a claim to have quoted a source exactly does not mean that the source was quoted fairly or honestly. "Scholar" defends the Society's practice of misrepresenting authors in this way, and also has been caught many times committing the same kind of misrepresentation.

Now I want to show exactly how the Society commits this kind of misrepresentation, with two illustrations from its 1985 book Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? This book is a study in misrepresention of source references. I've documented more than a hundred misrepresentations in my essay "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution", which can be viewed here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce01.htm .

In the first of these blatant misrepresentations, an eminent evolutionist is claimed to actually support creationist ideas. In paragraph 5, on page 143, Creation cites an article in Scientific American ("Adaptation", p. 213, September 1978) by zoologist Richard Lewontin, a noted evolutionary theorist. He is supposed to have "said that organisms ?appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.? He views them as ?the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.? "

The question at the bottom of the page further emphasizes Lewontin?s purported view: "What recognition does a zoologist give to design and to its originator?" Now, picture the answer a typical reader at a bookstudy would give to the question: "Well, as the paragraph shows, Richard Lewontin views the design of organisms as evidence for their being created."

A check of the Scientific American article shows that Lewontin said something very different from what Creation claims. In saying the above things he is alluding, not to his own viewpoint, but to the general viewpoint that scientists in the 19th century had about nature. After describing what had been the general view of how the great variety of life forms came about, and stating that Darwin had tried to account for both its "diversity and fitness," Lewontin said:

Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.

Lewontin?s point was that organisms only appear or seem to have been carefully designed. Clearly referring to the 19th century view, he said:

It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. [italics added]

The rest of the article shows that Lewontin considers the viewpoint highlighted in the above quotation as erroneous, and that it has been corrected by the work of Darwin and his successors in the 20th century. In fact, the article is devoted entirely to demonstrating how the adaptation of an organism to its environment can be explained by natural, not supernatural, mechanisms. The abstract for the article is quite clear: "The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."

In the second of these blatant misrepresentations, a young-earth creationist is quoted, but the quotation is made to appear to be from the editors of a "scientific journal". On page 96, Creation says:

Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."

These statements are extremely misleading on several counts.

First, the reference is to Popular Science magazine, which is by no stretch of the imagination a "scientific journal." One might just as well refer to The National Enquirer as a news journal. Referring to Popular Science in this way is an attempt to lend "scientific authority" to a publication that has none.

Second, the Popular Science article is mostly about the success of various dating methods, and only in the last few paragraphs is space given to the views of a single physicist, Robert Gentry, who dissents from the usual view.

Third, the fact that the dissenter is a young-earth creationist who believes the universe was created in six literal days is not made clear. Gentry even admits that he got his physics degree in order to have a measure of scientific standing to better support his creationist views. Statements from six-literal-day creationists regarding the accuracy of radioactive dating ought to be viewed like comments from Richard Nixon that politicians never lie.

Fourth, the article's statement that man "may have been around for only a few thousand years" is merely a conclusion the article points out can be drawn from the views of Robert Gentry. It is not a conclusion the magazine itself, using its editorial voice, is making -- but Creation makes it appear it is.

Fifth, The reader gets the impression the article presents much scientific evidence showing that radioactive dating is on shaky ground. But simply reading the Popular Science article shows that quite the opposite is true.

Here are some excerpts from the article. Judge for yourself whether Creation gives a correct view to its readers. Better yet, read the article yourself (Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?," Popular Science, p. 81, November, 1979).

So, today, everything -- human artifacts, animal remains, ancient rocks -- can be dated fairly accurately. The dates may be off a little, but that's mainly a matter of impurities in the sample or need to refine techniques, say the scientists involved.
Yet major mysteries and curious anomalies remain -- the odd speculations advanced by Columbia Union College's Robert Gentry, for instance.
Physicist Gentry believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.
His theory revolves around "halos," tiny, ringlike discolorations found within coalified wood (wood on its way to becoming coal) and mica, often in the proximity of radioactive uranium or thorium. Some halos can be explained in terms of conventional radioactive decay. Others, known as giant halos, cannot. They're simply too big to be caused by alpha particles thrown off by known isotopes, and they don't fit into any accepted theory. If the theory of radioactive decay is weak in one spot, says Gentry, doubt is cast on whatever answers isotopes give you.
Further, when Gentry studies halos in coalified wood, he finds that the uranium/lead ratios are often not at all what they should be. "Since the coalified wood was obtained from deposits supposedly at least tens of millions of years old," he says, "the ratio between uranium-238 and lead-206 should be low." They're not. They're so high, in fact, that "presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of thousands." And man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand. "The possibility of reducing the 4.5-billion-year history of earth by a factor of a thousand," he says with some ire, "has not yet been seriously considered."
Most scientists simply dismiss the idea. As one physicist told me, "You can believe it or not; I don't."
"I realize it's difficult to believe," counters Gentry. "It would invalidate the whole underlying principle of radioactive dating: that the rates of decay are forever unvarying -- an untestable assumption."

Some research on Robert Gentry turned up the following (David B. Wilson, Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It?, p. 216, The Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa, 1983):

Mr. Gentry's findings were published almost ten years ago and have been the subject of some discussion in the scientific community. The discoveries have not, however, led to the formulation of any scientific hypothesis or theory which would explain a relatively recent inception of the earth or a worldwide flood. Gentry's discovery has been treated as a minor mystery which will eventually be explained. It may deserve further investigation, but the National Science Foundation has not deemed it to be of sufficient import to support further funding.

It should be evident by now that the Popular Science article's reference to "the odd speculations advanced by . . . Robert Gentry" means precisely that. The Creation book's quotation misrepresents the article.

To round out the discussion on Robert Gentry, Gentry wrote a book in 1986 entitled Creation's Tiny Mystery, in which he discussed his work on polonium halos. In it he repeated his theory that the granite "basement rocks" of the earth are "the primordial Genesis rocks," from Precambrian times, and were created instantaneously about six thousand years ago, "by divine fiat." This is consistent with his religious view as a 7th-Day Adventist, which religion teaches that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. A review of this book (Creation/Evolution, vol. 22, Winter 1987-1988, pp. 13-33, National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California) showed Gentry's gross misunderstanding of geology in general. He misidentified calcite rocks as granites and claimed that metamorphism had not occurred in rock samples that were clearly metamorphic. He claimed that granite intrusions cutting across already existing metamorphic rock, which was originally sedimentary rock that had been itself intruded by gabbro rock, were primordial. The Precambrian Canadian Shield is a complex geological area that has been shown by over one hundred years of geological field work to consist of a very large number of diverse kinds of rock, igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary, most of which has undergone subsequent metamorphism. Some of the sedimentary rock even contained stromatolites -- ancient algal mats that are very rare today. Gentry claimed that the entire mass was created in one day, and God created it to have only the appearance of age, thereby fooling thousands of geologists. Gentry makes it extremely clear that he wrote his book for religious reasons, not scientific ones.

It is clear that Gentry will interpret scientific data in whatever way lends support to his preconceived notion of six-literal-day creation. This is precisely what the Watchtower Society does with all data to support its preconceived ideas on science, religion, and pretty much every topic it touches.

Playing loose with truth via dishonest quoting practices, as the Creation book perfectly illustrates, opens the door to ridicule, as the following opinion by author Alan Rogerson shows (Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 116, Constable, London, 1969):

A long acquaintance with the literature of the Witnesses leads one to the conclusion that they live in the intellectual 'twilight zone.' That is, most of their members, even their leaders, are not well educated and not very intelligent. Whenever their literature strays onto the fields of philosophy, academic theology, science or any severe mental discipline their ideas at best mirror popular misconceptions, at worst they are completely nonsensical.

On a computer news network some years ago, one person, replying to a Jehovah's Witness who tried to explain that Creation did not mislead people, said:

The JWs and I simply have different notions of Christian responsibility toward truth. A Creationist who writes a book and quotes scientists has the responsibility to ensure that he does not misrepresent the quoted people. Some of the excerpts offered in this group have included strong protests from the quoted scientists, who were angered at the suggestion that they endorse the creationist ideas of the JWs.
I believe that Christianity includes a duty to insist on careful attention to all details, to ensure that all quotes and citations of authorities are accurate and in keeping with the intent of the authors -- in sum, to ensure that everything reasonable is done to prevent misleading people. It is clear to me from both official Watchtower publications and statements by JWs on the net that the JW religion has no such devotion to truth; instead of taking responsibility for misleading people, everybody denies that those quotes are misleading. Instead of offering people a chance to review intended quotes before publication, Watchtower writers chop quotes out of context and select only certain phrases.
No group of people will ever be 100% perfect in what they publish; but the reaction to some of the more glaring errors mentioned during the last few weeks speaks volumes. In some cases, it is claimed that there isn't really an error at all. In others, no response is given at all -- nothing.
I believe the actions of the Watchtower, and the reactions we've seen here (both refusing to accept blame for some problems, and complete silence on others) are not appropriate for Christians; this is one of my basic philosophical disagreements with the JWs. As it seems unlikely we can resolve our differing opinions about Christian responsibility, further discussion is probably worthless.

When even members of that horrible organization the Society calls "Christendom" recognize the Watchtower Society's scholastic dishonesty, that says something fundamental about the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses: its leaders are dishonest to the core.

AlanF

scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:

: Let me reply by stating that in reality you do really believe in all of the things Mommy has taught you since you were a little boy which include 607 and Creation.

I think this response well illustrates the infantile mind of this mentula flaccidus.

AlanF

confusedjw

The point of this thread -- obviously -- was to show how one can quote a source reference exactly, and yet completely misrepresent an author. This kind of misrepresentation has long characterized Watchtower publications. On the few occasions I know of when Watchtower authors have been challenged on this dishonest practice, their responses have been along the lines of, "Were the words quoted exactly? Yes? Then there is no problem."

One of the best ways to make a point I've seen on this site or anywhere for that matter. Brilliant!

scholar

Alan F

Your accusation that the Society misleads readers by its improper use of souces is childish or infantile. The Society quotes exaxtly what these references or sources say and the use of such sources does not imply that those sources are in agreement with the context. It is simply the fact that in writing about an idea, argument or concept it is quite appropriate to use another quote or source if that partiular quotaion cam be used in support of your idea or argument. The author of the original idea may be an atheist or evolutionist but may make honest admissions about certain weaknesses or a lack of evidence so another writer who believes quite an opposite view is at liberty to appropriate that particular idea. Intellectual or academic honesty demands that the quote be maded accurately and that the source is correctly attributed.

To illustrate: Edwin Thiele a prominent SDA scholar and perhaps the greatest chronologist of the twentieth century in Christendom was a staunch advocate of Ptolemy' Canon. He used the Canon and the Assryrian king-lists as the two primary sources along with many secondary sources for his MNHK, in three editions. He was passionate about Ptolemy and his Canon but in an Appendix he made a simple brief note that made certain admissions about the Canon. Some years later,the writer of the Aid book article on Chronology said to have been Raymond Franz wrote in a section on Ptolemy's Canon which took a position against the Canon and used the Thiele's quoted Note in support of the fact that the Canon was not primarily an historical document and that Ptolemy was no historian.

This quotation was exactly made and correctly sourced but Thiele was most upset and felt that the Society had misrepresented him. Too bad! The Society does not need Thiele's permission or approval in quoting him nor should Thiele expect that his readers must be in agreement with his thesis. The reader is entitled to read his research and make a judgement and has the intellectual liberty to use it that information or part thereof as the reader sees fit this methodology creates knowledge and new research. The scholar simply builds on the work of others or stands on the shoulders of predecessors otherwise knowledge stagnates and putrefies.

So, Thiele's honest admission alerts the reader to certain facts about the Canon and whether the reader can use it fully, ignore it or use it selectively. So it is with all forms of written knowledge: The reader alone is the final arbiter as to how that source is relative to a former context and a new context, all that he demands is that the quote be accurate and properly referenced. The reader can make his own mind whether any misrepresentaion is justified.

When I read all of the editions of Thiele before going to bed with my cup of Milo I rejoice and exclaim:What bliss! It is truly blissful to know that Ptolemy's Canon must be treated with caution.

scholar emeritus

BA MA Studies in Religion

AlmostAtheist

Your accusation that the Society misleads readers by its improper use of souces is childish or infantile. The Society quotes exaxtly what these references or sources say and the use of such sources does not imply that those sources are in agreement with the context.

Do you think it would be ok if we go ahead and quote the Watchtower as having said the following? (All direct quotes)

"affiliation with a religious group or denomination is not a prerequisite for belief in God."
-- "Should You Belong to a Church?" (http://watchtower.org/library/w/2004/6/1/article_01.htm)

"God did [...] abdicate his sovereignty, [...] abandon his purpose."
-- "Your Will Be Done on Earth - When?" (http://watchtower.org/library/w/2004/4/15/article_02.htm)

"Use ... such emblems of hate as the swastika". http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/article_01.htm "being no part of the world [...] Jehovah's Witnesses do nothing when calamity strikes"
-- "Christianity In Action Amid Turmoil" (http://watchtower.org/library/w/1998/1/15/article_01.htm) "...illicit sex is very great...," - What's So Wrong With Telephone Sex? http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/2/22b/article_01.htm "we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking"
--"Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!" (http://watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/article_03.htm) Is what's good for the goose also good for the gander? Or would the Society perhaps sue me if I published these? Dave

Scholar, 607 and Evolutionary Change

barry

DanTheMan

lawrence

scholar

hillary_step

AlanF

AlanF

confusedjw

scholar

AlmostAtheist

Share this