From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Care in Quoting (Dawkins/_The Selfish Gene_)
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:18:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


I take it there has been some traffic in talk.religion.misc about
misquoting on the part of certain religions.  Here is one more example.

Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu writes:

>I'm sorry, but I expect better from Christians; when they write something that
>misleads people, I expect them to accept a reasonable amount of the blame.

>Then the JWs and I simply have different notions of Christian responsibility
>toward truth.  A Creationist who writes a book and quotes scientists has the
>responsibility to ensure that he does not misrepresent the quoted people.
>Some of the excerpts offered in this group have included strong protests from
>the quoted scientists, who were angered at the suggestion that they endorse
>the creationist ideas of the JWs.

>I believe that Christianity includes a duty to insist on careful attention to
>all details, to ensure that all quotes and citations of authorites are
>accurate and in keeping with the intent of the authors -- in sum, to ensure
>that everything reasonable is done to prevent misleading people.  It is clear
>to me from both official Watchtower publications and statements by JWs on the
>net that the JW religion has no such devotion to truth; instead of taking
>responsibility for misleading people, everybody denies that that quotes are
>misleading.  Instead of offering people a chance to review intended quotes
>before publication, Watchtower writers chop quotes out of context and select
>only certain phrases.

>No group of people will ever be 100% perfect in what they publish; but the
>reaction to some of the more glaring errors mentioned during the last few
>weeks speaks volumes.  In some cases, it is claimed that there isn't really an
>error at all.  In others, no response is given at all -- nothing.

>I believe the actions of the Watchtower, and the reactions we've seen here
>(both refusing to accept blame for some problems, and complete silence on
>others) are not appropriate for Christians; this is one of my basic
>philosophical disagreements with the JWs.  As it seems unlikely we can resolve
>our differing opinions about Christian responsibility, further discussion is
>probably worthless.


An excellent example of this sort of intellectual dishonesty is from the book
_Life-How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?_, published by
The Watchtower Society in 1985.  One section, beginning on p. 96, attempts
to discredit radioactive dating:

"Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed
since the creation of humans.  Why, then, does one often read about far longer
periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?"

"Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive
dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists.  A scientific
journal reported on studies showing that `dates determined by radioactive
decay may be off - not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.'
It said:  `Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years,
may have been around for only a few thousand.' "

These statements are extremely misleading on several counts.  First, the
"scientific journal" quoted turns out to be _Popular Science_ magazine,
by no stretch of the imagination a "scientific journal".  One might just as
well refer to "The National Enquirer" as a news journal.  Referring to _Popular
Science_ in this way is an attempt to lend 'scientific authority' to a
publication that otherwise has none.

Second, the _Popular Science_ article is mostly about the *success* of
various dating methods, and only in the last few paragraphs is space given to
the views of a single physicist, Robert Gentry, who dissents from the usual
view.

Third, the fact that the dissenter is a creationist who believes the universe
was created in six literal days is not made clear.  Statements from
six-literal-day creationists regarding the accuracy of radioactive dating
ought to be viewed like comments from Richard Nixon that politicians never lie.
The Society itself calls the views of six-literal-day creationists "unscriptural."

Fourth, the article's statement that man "may have been around for only a
few thousand years" is merely a conclusion the article points out can be drawn
from the views of Robert Gentry.  It is not a conclusion the magazine itself,
using its editorial voice, is making - but the _Creation_ book makes it appear
it is.  The reader gets the impression the article presents much scientific
evidence showing radioactive dating is on shaky ground.  But reading the
_Popular Science_ article shows that is not what it's about.


The Watchtower Society's _Creation_ book contains more than one hundred
misquotes and misrepresentations just like this, in just the first five
chapters.  Is this form of 'scholarship' appropriate for an organization
that claims to be the "channel of communication" between God and mankind?

Alan Feuerbacher
Tektronix, Inc.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc