447
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 228:
Line 228: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 02:22, April 25, 2007
, 02:22, April 25, 2007no edit summary
: How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that ''fossils'' do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about ''other'' evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about ''fossil'' evidence, at least by my quick reading.
: How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that ''fossils'' do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about ''other'' evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about ''fossil'' evidence, at least by my quick reading.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Quote Mining==
In regard to E.J.H. Corner's quote, here is the rest of it:
"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.
Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?" (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from 'Evolution', p. 97, in "Contemporary Botanical Thought", Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh).
Please remove the quote from the article or add it in its entirety.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]