Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Young Earth Creationism

2010-08-18T13:51:28Z

Stephenp:

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref>
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys's model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref>

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref>

==Criticism==
===Lack of scientific acceptance===
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.

===Creationist methodology===
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}

Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.

YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.

Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists]</ref>

===Theological===
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.

One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.

Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.

Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref>
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’]</ref>

Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref>

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.

== Arguments for a recent creation ==
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]

Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.

Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.

There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C.

Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.

[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of [[sedimentary]] rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.

Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Quote mining

2010-08-18T13:36:20Z

Stephenp:

'''Quote mining''' is the practice of using the words of partisans against them to undermine support for the viewpoint held by the partisans.
Quote mining does not refer simply to taking a [[quote out of context]], as there is already a well-understood phrase for that. Rather, the charge of "quote mining" reflects an objection to quoting someone for criticizing his own belief system, on the theory that if he still believes in the system then it is somehow unfair to quote his criticism of it.

Another objection sometimes made is that it is wrong to ignore evidence which supports a partisan viewpoint when evidence which disproves it is found. This is clearly an anti-scientific notion, as it violates the modern principle of [[falsifiability]]: no amount of evidence in favor of a scientific theory has merit if even a single counterexample can be found (see [[Thomas Kuhn]]).

[[Evolutionists]] are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the [[dogma]]tic nature of their [[faith]], because real scientists always welcome evidence which contradicts mainstream theories (see [[scientific method]]).
While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]]s do not feel their quotes should be used to criticize evolution, and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice.
They have tried to make ''quote mining'' a [[pejorative]] term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries

==Intelligent Design Journalist Denyse O'Leary on False Charges of Quote Mining ==
[[Intelligent design]] journalist [[Denyse O'Leary]] wrote concerning false and spurious charges of quote mining by evolutionists:
{{cquote|Generally, the professional gatekeeper who controls the information members of the public receive is becoming redundant. There are many streams of information, increasingly free.

Here is an example: When ID folk point out that there are many examples in the professional literature of tax-supported Darwinian evolutionist talking honestly about the flaws, defects, or lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) in their professional journals, Darwin lobbyists accuse them of "quote mining."

The Darwin lobby is a splendid illustration of old media thinking. "Quote mining" is just telling the public what the privileged, salaried, tenured elite admit to each other - and always assumed that the public that supports them would never find out.<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/06/quote-mining-classic-old-media-vs-new.html</ref>}}

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining whether the self-contradiction is real or not.

The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.

A common reason why TalkOrigins.org makes claims of quote mining appears to be that they choose make a false claim of quote mining when noted evolutionists have moments of candor and point out the various significant deficiencies of the evolutionary position rather than admit the weakness and/or falsity of the evolutionary position.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref name="ny">The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref name="ny" /> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref name="ny" /> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

==Quote mining and the creation-evolution controversy==
Scientists and their supporters used the term ''quote mining'' as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain [[creationists]].<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project], John Pieret (ed), [[TalkOrigins Archive]]</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part5.html The Revised Quote Book], E.T. Babinski (ed), ''TalkOrigins Archive</ref><ref name=qmproject>According to the [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project] at ''TalkOrigins Archive'', the first record of the term in [[talk.origins]] was a posting by Lenny Flank on March 30, 1997, with a February 2, 1996 reference in another [[Usenet]] group, rec.arts.comics.misc</ref> It is used by members of the scientific community to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments,<ref name="forrest">{{cite book | last = Forrest | first = Barbara | authorlink = Barbara Forrest | coauthors = [[Paul R. Gross]] | title = Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design | url = http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ | accessdate = 2007-03-09 | year = 2004 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | location = Oxford | page = 7| isbn = 0195157427 | quote =In the face of the extraordinary and often highly practical twentieth-century progress of the life sciences under the unifying concepts of evolution, [creationist] "science" consists of quote-mining — minute searching of the biological literature — including outdated literature — for minor slips and inconsistencies and for polemically promising examples of internal arguments. These internal disagreements, fundamental to the working of all natural science, are then presented dramatically to lay audiences as evidence of the fraudulence and impending collapse of "Darwinism." }}</ref><ref name=counter>"The Counter-creationism Handbook",
Mark Isaak, ISBN 0520249267 p 14</ref><ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol22/2089_quotemining_comes_to_ohio_12_30_1899.asp Quote-Mining Comes to Ohio], [[Glenn Branch]]</ref> though it can be and often is used outside of the [[creation-evolution controversy]]. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term: [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" that {{quotation|Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.}}

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR) described the use of "[a]n evolutionist's quote mistakenly used out of context" to "negate the entirety of [an] article and creationist claims regarding the lack of transitional forms" as "a smoke screen".<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/1202/ Does Convincing Evidence For Evolution Exist?]</ref>

Both [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. ''TalkOrigins Archive'' (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris' ''That Their Words May Be Used Against Them'' and ''The Revised Quote Book'' (published by Creation Science Foundation, now AiG, and available from the AiG website)<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/TheWord/downloads/aig_resources.asp The Word Downloads], [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project], John Pieret (ed), ''TalkOrigins Archive''</ref> Both AiG and ICR quote mine [[Stephen Jay Gould]] on intermediate forms.<ref name=gouldmine/>

===Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms===
{{quotation|The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt|[[Stephen Jay Gould]]<ref name=quote42>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189, cited as [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41 Quote 41], ''The Quote Mine Project'', ''TalkOrigins Archive''</ref><ref name=gouldmine>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189 — quoted in:
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/backer_of_theory_never_contradicted_self.html Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows], [[Casey Luskin]], ''Evolution News & View'', [[Discovery Institute]]
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/new_england_journal_of_medicin_1.html New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the ''Kitzmiller'' Decision (Part III)], [[Casey Luskin]], ''Evolution News & View'', Discovery Institute
*[http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm Large Gaps in Creation], Genesis Park
*''The Creation Hypothesis'', [[James Porter Moreland]], p 278
*[http://ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0100.pdf False Assumption 4—Part One], John Ankerberg and John Weldon, p2
*[http://www.icr.org/article/216/ Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale], [[Duane Gish]], [[Institute for Creation Research]]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-vertebrates.asp Vertebrates: animals with backbones], Gary Parker, [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2094 Creationists Fight Back! A Review of ''U.S. News & World Report''], Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press</ref>}}

The context that immediately follows demonstrates that this view is articulated only in order to reject it:
"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question."

Gould was scathing on such misleading quotations:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

==="Absurd in the highest degree"===
Since the mid-1990s, scientists and their supporters have used the term ''quote mining'' to describe versions of this practice as used by certain [[creationists]] in the [[creation-evolution controversy]].<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project], John Pieret (ed), [[TalkOrigins Archive]]</ref> An example found in debates over [[evolution]] is an out-of-context quotation of [[Charles Darwin]] in his [[Origin of Species]]:

"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 degree."

This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase "absurd in the highest degree", is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself perceived his own theory of evolution as absurd.
However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

The quote in context is

"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 degree.

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."

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See Also==
*[[Politics of personal destruction]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Quote mining

2010-08-18T13:30:25Z

Stephenp:

'''Quote mining''' is the practice of using the words of partisans against them to undermine support for the viewpoint held by the partisans.
Quote mining does not refer simply to taking a [[quote out of context]], as there is already a well-understood phrase for that. Rather, the charge of "quote mining" reflects an objection to quoting someone for criticizing his own belief system, on the theory that if he still believes in the system then it is somehow unfair to quote his criticism of it.

Another objection sometimes made is that it is wrong to ignore evidence which supports a partisan viewpoint when evidence which disproves it is found. This is clearly an anti-scientific notion, as it violates the modern principle of [[falsifiability]]: no amount of evidence in favor of a scientific theory has merit if even a single counterexample can be found (see [[Thomas Kuhn]]).

[[Evolutionists]] are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the [[dogma]]tic nature of their [[faith]], because real scientists always welcome evidence which contradicts mainstream theories (see [[scientific method]]).
While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]]s do not feel their quotes should be used to criticize evolution, and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice.
They have tried to make ''quote mining'' a [[pejorative]] term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries

==Intelligent Design Journalist Denyse O'Leary on False Charges of Quote Mining ==
[[Intelligent design]] journalist [[Denyse O'Leary]] wrote concerning false and spurious charges of quote mining by evolutionists:
{{cquote|Generally, the professional gatekeeper who controls the information members of the public receive is becoming redundant. There are many streams of information, increasingly free.

Here is an example: When ID folk point out that there are many examples in the professional literature of tax-supported Darwinian evolutionist talking honestly about the flaws, defects, or lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) in their professional journals, Darwin lobbyists accuse them of "quote mining."

The Darwin lobby is a splendid illustration of old media thinking. "Quote mining" is just telling the public what the privileged, salaried, tenured elite admit to each other - and always assumed that the public that supports them would never find out.<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/06/quote-mining-classic-old-media-vs-new.html</ref>}}

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining whether the self-contradiction is real or not.

The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.

A common reason why TalkOrigins.org makes claims of quote mining appears to be that they choose make a false claim of quote mining when noted evolutionists have moments of candor and point out the various significant deficiencies of the evolutionary position rather than admit the weakness and/or falsity of the evolutionary position.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref name="ny">The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref name="ny" /> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref name="ny" /> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

==Quote mining and the creation-evolution controversy==
Scientists and their supporters used the term ''quote mining'' as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain [[creationists]].<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project], John Pieret (ed), [[TalkOrigins Archive]]</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part5.html The Revised Quote Book], E.T. Babinski (ed), ''TalkOrigins Archive</ref><ref name=qmproject>According to the [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project] at ''TalkOrigins Archive'', the first record of the term in [[talk.origins]] was a posting by Lenny Flank on March 30, 1997, with a February 2, 1996 reference in another [[Usenet]] group, rec.arts.comics.misc</ref> It is used by members of the [[scientific community]] to describe a method employed by creationists to support their arguments,<ref name="forrest">{{cite book | last = Forrest | first = Barbara | authorlink = Barbara Forrest | coauthors = [[Paul R. Gross]] | title = Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design | url = http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ | accessdate = 2007-03-09 | year = 2004 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | location = Oxford | page = 7| isbn = 0195157427 | quote =In the face of the extraordinary and often highly practical twentieth-century progress of the life sciences under the unifying concepts of evolution, [creationist] "science" consists of quote-mining — minute searching of the biological literature — including outdated literature — for minor slips and inconsistencies and for polemically promising examples of internal arguments. These internal disagreements, fundamental to the working of all natural science, are then presented dramatically to lay audiences as evidence of the fraudulence and impending collapse of "Darwinism." }}</ref><ref name=counter>"The Counter-creationism Handbook",
Mark Isaak, ISBN 0520249267 p 14</ref><ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol22/2089_quotemining_comes_to_ohio_12_30_1899.asp Quote-Mining Comes to Ohio], [[Glenn Branch]]</ref> though it can be and often is used outside of the [[creation-evolution controversy]]. Complaints about the practice predate known use of the term: [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote in his famous 1973 essay "[[Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution]]" that {{quotation|Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.}}

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR) described the use of "[a]n evolutionist's quote mistakenly used out of context" to "negate the entirety of [an] article and creationist claims regarding the lack of transitional forms" as "a smoke screen".<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/1202/ Does Convincing Evidence For Evolution Exist?]</ref>

Both [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and [[Henry M. Morris]] (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. ''[[TalkOrigins Archive]]'' (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist [[Henry M. Morris]]' ''That Their Words May Be Used Against Them'' and ''The Revised Quote Book'' (published by Creation Science Foundation, now AiG, and available from the AiG website)<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/TheWord/downloads/aig_resources.asp The Word Downloads], [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project], John Pieret (ed), ''TalkOrigins Archive''</ref> Both AiG and ICR quote mine [[Stephen Jay Gould]] on intermediate forms.<ref name=gouldmine/>

===Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms===
{{quotation|The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt|[[Stephen Jay Gould]]<ref name=quote42>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189, cited as [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41 Quote 41], ''The Quote Mine Project'', ''TalkOrigins Archive''</ref><ref name=gouldmine>[[Stephen Jay Gould]], The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189 — quoted in:
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/backer_of_theory_never_contradicted_self.html Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows], [[Casey Luskin]], ''Evolution News & View'', [[Discovery Institute]]
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/new_england_journal_of_medicin_1.html New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the ''Kitzmiller'' Decision (Part III)], [[Casey Luskin]], ''Evolution News & View'', Discovery Institute
*[http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm Large Gaps in Creation], Genesis Park
*''The Creation Hypothesis'', [[James Porter Moreland]], p 278
*[http://ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0100.pdf False Assumption 4—Part One], John Ankerberg and John Weldon, p2
*[http://www.icr.org/article/216/ Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale], [[Duane Gish]], [[Institute for Creation Research]]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-vertebrates.asp Vertebrates: animals with backbones], Gary Parker, [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2094 Creationists Fight Back! A Review of ''U.S. News & World Report''], Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press</ref>}}

The context that immediately follows demonstrates that this view is articulated only in order to reject it:
"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question."

Gould was scathing on such misleading quotations:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

==="Absurd in the highest degree"===
Since the mid-1990s, scientists and their supporters have used the term ''quote mining'' to describe versions of this practice as used by certain [[creationists]] in the [[creation-evolution controversy]].<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project], John Pieret (ed), [[TalkOrigins Archive]]</ref> An example found in debates over [[evolution]] is an out-of-context quotation of [[Charles Darwin]] in his [[Origin of Species]]:

"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 degree."

This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase "absurd in the highest degree", is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself perceived his own theory of evolution as absurd.
However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

The quote in context is

"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 degree.

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."

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See Also==
*[[Politics of personal destruction]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]