- "to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out"
- A fair result can be obtained only by ... balancing the facts and arguments on both side
- "to draw the attention of the ... public to the disagreements about evolution"
- "to quote a creationist ... does not carry any clout"
- ".... it removes any chance of my
misrepresenting their views, and ... the reader might suspect me of embellishment if I paraphrased them"
"...to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out." (Lewontin R.C., "Billions and Billions of Demons," Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, p.28. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm).
[top]"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.18).
[top]"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." (Thompson W.R.*, "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, p.xxii).
[top]"Morris and Gish use many quotations from evolutionist sources in their presentations. In fact, they never quote anyone but evolutionists. They always inform their audiences that the person being quoted is an evolutionist. They always give the source or reference for the quotation so that a person may check it out for himself. They go to great lengths to state that the person would not agree with the creationist position. Their reason for quoting only evolutionists is .... In a court of law, if a witness for the prosecution testifies of some fact which aids the defendant, that person's testimony is especially important -and may even be decisive. The fact that the witness is not in sympathy with the defendant would remove any possibility of prejudice or partiality toward him. It would also remove the possibility of perjury and establish instead a high probability of truthfulness as to the facts of the case Thus, lawyers try very hard to get an opposition witness to testify to something that will aid their case. This type of testimony is considered to be of the very highest quality." (Lubenow M.L.*, "From Fish To Gish: The Exciting Drama of a Decade of Creation-Evolution Debates," CLP Publishers: San Diego CA, 1983, p.62).
[top]"I have included many quotations from the creationists in the text. The reason for this is twofold: first, it removes any chance of my misrepresenting their views, and, second, many of the things creationists say are so incredible that the reader might suspect me of embellishment if I paraphrased them." (McGowan C., "In The Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong," Macmillan: Toronto, Canada, 1983, p.xii.-xiii).
[top]- Creationist books contain quotations from evolutionists about evolution
- "What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists?"
- Evolutionists quoted still believe in evolution
- "But that is precisely the point"
- "Scientists ... quoted statements are not intended as endorsements of ... creation"
"Coyne complains the book is `heavily larded' with quotations from evolutionists. This leads into his being upset with being quoted himself, as discussed above. That aside, however. I don't know what to make of this statement. What is a book concerning evolution supposed to contain if not quotes from evolutionists? Quotes from accountants?" (Behe M.J.*, "Reply to my critics," Boston Review, November 1996. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brrespbr.htm.
[top]"Evolutionists have often protested `unfair' to quoting an evolutionist as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution." (Snelling A.*, "The Revised Quote Book," [1984], Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane QLD, 1990, inside cover).
[top]"Scientists cited in this book, unless otherwise indicated, are not proponents of, and their quoted statements are not intended as endorsements of, either the theory of abrupt appearance or the theory of creation. However, their quoted statements are acknowledging data that some non- evolutionist scientists interpret as supporting the theory of abrupt appearance better than the theory of evolution or as undermining the theory of evolution or significant aspects." (Bird W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, p.1).
[top]