1,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − "'''''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.''' <ref>http://www.saintsalive.com/general/wonderfully.htm</ref> 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.''"<ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228</ref> -- [[Charles Darwin]], from ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 1859.+ + + +
Using a less tendentious example, and one in which the accused miner responds
An example of a mined quotation (bold), from the full quote (in italics) which shows the author's intended impression:
An example of a mined quotation (bold), from the full quote (in italics) which shows the author's intended impression:
<blockquote>“'''The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.''' ''Until almost 1950 the absence of metazoan fossils older than Cambrian age continued to puzzle evolutionists and earth historians alike. Other than the remains of single-celled creatures and the matlike stromatolites, it did indeed look as if larger creatures had arisen with a swiftness that made a mockery of Darwin’s theory of evolution. This notion was finally put to rest, however, by the discovery of the Ediacarian and Vendian fossil faunas of the latest Precambrian age.'' ”<ref>http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/dembskis_five_q.html</ref> -- [[Peter Ward]], from ''[[On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions]]'', 1992.</blockquote>
This quote was used in a post by [[Intelligent design]] proponent [[William Dembski]].<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20040622075401/http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/webonly/a0031659.cfm</ref> Critics later picked up on it and accused Dembski of using underhanded quote mining. <ref>http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/dembskis_five_q.html</ref> Dembski, however, responded that the quote as legitimate, that he proved the source and the context was clear. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/quoting-misquoting-quote-mining/</ref> Dembski said the real problem was that supporters of Evolution would never admit to questioning the theory:
<blockquote>Word of advice: if you are an evolutionist and don’t want to be quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution, resist the urge — don’t criticize it. If tempted, even if the reality of evolution’s gaping holes is staring you in the face, close your eyes and repeat the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution.”</blockquote><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/quoting-misquoting-quote-mining/</ref>
==References==
==References==