yet more liars for jesus

[acroyear]

Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine:

On January 22nd, 2009, the Texas State Board of Education met to consider a draft of their new science standards. At that meeting, the Board’s Chairman, Dr. Donald McLeroy, proposed a new student expectation for the Biology standards regarding evolution.

The standard concerned the fossil evidence of evolution and would require students to:

Analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.

In support of this proposal, Dr. McLeroy read a long list of quotes into the public record. These quotes were from various scientific books and articles that Dr. McLeroy claimed to have read in preparation for his remarks.

Based on his comments, Dr. McLeroy clearly believed that this list of quotes presented a compelling case for the existence of a scientific controversy concerning evolution. Apparently, a majority of his fellow Board members agreed, and the new student expectation was added to the current draft of the Biology standards, pending a final vote in March.

The scientists at the meeting, on the other hand, did not agree. They say that Dr. McLeroy's amendment is a hopelessly muddled mess that will only serve to confuse students about the evidence of evolution in the fossil record. The sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record is due to the fact that species evolve at different rates - sometimes rapidly, sometimes gradually, and sometimes barely at all. Common ancestry is the result of the various processes that have led to the formation of new species over time, but the rate at which these processes occur has nothing to do with whether existing species share common ancestors.

In other words, the new student expectation would require students to learn that common ancestry may be insufficient to explain something that common ancestry is not used explain.

The page then goes into a nicely presented detailed list of each of the quotes and shows the original context more completely to demonstrate why it doesn't imply what the creationists think it means (or want it to mean).

Generally, they're all rhetorical comments and questions, items used to lead into a discussion by presenting what the reader might be thinking at that time. The very next sentence is the great "However" that starts of the real discussion of the work, and totally contradicts the comment that was excerpted by the creationists.

The page is willing to call is sloppy reading. I won't. It is lying, plain and simple.

Comments

[uncle-possum.livejournal.com]

Well, not plain and simple. These folks, as a group, are used to the idea of "proof texts" from the Bible--where as long as you can find a verse to quote, your statement must be true. Considering context often shoots down this approach, for obvious reasons. But, lacking any trust in reason, one can get completely caught up in poor logic and lousy rhetoric. And, tend to become professionally and congenitally ignorant--a bad combination for running schools.

Which state was it some time ago that passed a law stating Pi was 3.1 or some such thing?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Indiana - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

This really goes to show that these people don't actually read their bible, either, much as they claim they've read "every word" or read it "every day". Most bible reading programs skip around a lot and hit only those highlight quotes to start with.

It also shows their willingness to concede to an "authority" rather than to understand that the science is right not because of the authority, but because of the process and how it is defended in the publication.

The case where it is lying is that some of the people have been told, over and over again, why these quotes are wrong (just like Barton and his Christian America revisionism) and then STILL GO ON USING THEM. There are PLENTY of instances of these. The Darwin eye quote has been used over and over and over again for the last 90 years in spite of being corrected a million times.