Thursday, June 28, 2007
Quote Mine Contest: We Don't Need No Stinking Ellipses
I'm afraid that most Red State Rabble readers just don't have what it takes to be a creation "scientist" or intelligent design "theorist." Nearly all the entries we've received so far use ellipses to indicate the omission of quoted material.
That may be how real scientists and academics do it, but in the world of creationism using ellipses is, well, like wearing a plaid shirt with striped pants. It's just not done.
Here's how it is done. Here's the original:
There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. None of these concerns provide a scintilla of hope for creationists, as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place, but it may be some time before we see whether a truly novel perspective develops or these tensions are accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis.
Here's the quote mined version:
The world of Darwinism was rocked yesterday by a New York Times article that calls into question everything you've ever read about evolution. There's "no consensus among evolutionary biologists, writes Douglas H. Erwin, a senior scientist at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution, "on how evolution operates, and how we should study it."
"These concerns provide hope for creationists," Erwin goes on to say, "as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place."
That's how it's done. Now get busy.
That may be how real scientists and academics do it, but in the world of creationism using ellipses is, well, like wearing a plaid shirt with striped pants. It's just not done.
Here's how it is done. Here's the original:
There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. None of these concerns provide a scintilla of hope for creationists, as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place, but it may be some time before we see whether a truly novel perspective develops or these tensions are accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis.
Here's the quote mined version:
The world of Darwinism was rocked yesterday by a New York Times article that calls into question everything you've ever read about evolution. There's "no consensus among evolutionary biologists, writes Douglas H. Erwin, a senior scientist at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution, "on how evolution operates, and how we should study it."
"These concerns provide hope for creationists," Erwin goes on to say, "as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place."
That's how it's done. Now get busy.
