[_ Old Earth _] Darwin was a homosexual.

[Evointrinsic]

Quite the title isn't it?

I have noticed quite a few incidences on this forum where members continuously misquote or Quote-mine a specific author or scientist. The dangers of this, of course, are what is actually meant to be represented in the original text, but being currently represented as something completely different. For example, if you look in Charles Darwin's book "On The Origin of Species" He comments on the "selection of the best cocks". Now, this may seem confusing at first glance, but that's because the area being quoted is not accurately representing what the entire sentence or paragraph actually means.

Here's the full quote:

Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted
for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory will depend not on
general vigour, but on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless stag or
spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving offspring. Sexual selection by always allowing
the victor to breed might surely give indomitable courage, length to the spur, and strength to the
wing to strike in the spurred leg, as well as the brutal cock-fighter, who knows well that he can
improve his breed by careful selection of the best cocks.

Now, this may seem utterly ridiculous, and in the example I have shown, it is meant to somewhat depict the ridiculousness, nonetheless the very same thing occurs when applying to roughly the same actions.

In the example I've given, if the entire quote isn't used, it can give the impression of something that isn't there. In this case, Darwin wanted to select the best cocks. Where in all actuality, he is talking about the the act of selective breeding.

Another example is this.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

It would appear, using this part only, that Darwin does not believe that the formation of something, such as the eye, cannot simply have been created. Fortunately I don't see this specific quote occur on this forum (yet)

The quote, however, continues.

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.

To do this is not only dishonest, it is much more worse than that! Now, whoever had intentionally or unintentionally misquoted the original words is also misrepresenting what was fully meant by those words.

We can do this with anything really. Bible included. And I know just how much most people here would rather the Bible say what it says, rather than become misleading.

So with that, This topic is just here as a reminder to do all your research before posting something that may possible not reflect the meaning of the original authors intent.

Also feel free to add any more that you've noticed occur (The Barbarian, I know for a fact you have a long list of what you've seen people do and say ;)). Please share so we can get these sorted out. (take note that because this topic is in this forum, the quote mining examples must be that of scientists or in some relation to science so that we can keep the topic on topic)

 

[Bronzesnake]

Really nice Evo...sigh


John

 

[Evointrinsic]

lol, Might as well bring some comedy out of this section of the forum :D

 

[Barbarian]

That's about right. I once had a really odd conversation with a YE creationist, who claimed that Darwin's book was about whites being superior.

"The subtitle of his book is about races!"

Um, yeah, that's what they called species in his day.