…and this is a 
Get your own research, creationists!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: June 22, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
One of those annoying habits creationists organizations have is the appropriation of legitimate scientific research to 'support' their claims. They almost never do, actually—the creationists have to misrepresent the science, and often they even offer interpretations flatly contradicted by the contents of the paper. For an excellent example, here's the author of a paper on ERVs complaining that Reason To Believe's use of her work was unjustified.
I eventually decided to reclaim my research from the people who have consistently tried to distort the science to support their own agenda. I checked a few months ago and found my paper in the RTB archives. I emailed the website's creators, explained that they had misunderstood the meaning of my paper, that it actually provided evidence in support of evolution, and politely asked if they could please remove it from their site. I repeated my request a couple of times. I never received more than a bland message in reply saying that they would look into it.
She has also posted a summary of her work that shows she was testing evolutionary predictions, and that the evidence fit the predictions of evolutionary biology, not the ones Reason To Believe (an old-earth creationist group) wanted.
You know, I've seen a fair number of creationists misrepresenting scientist's work to fit their conclusions, but I've never seen the reverse, where a scientist grabs some creationist's hard-earned data and claims it supports evolution. I wonder why?
Oh … I forgot. It's because the creationists don't have any data! Silly me.
Comments
I'm reminded of the classic Trix commercial... It might have been the turn of phrase, or maybe it was the whole "ideas only suitable for children" part.
You brighten my day :)
Posted by: globalizati | June 22, 2007 1:50 AM
If she (or anyone who's work has been hijacked by creationists) can show that her reputation could be harmed by her work being associated with creationists...at what point might it be actionable as libel? Maybe that would make them think twice about misquoting someone.
Posted by: Cat's Staff | June 22, 2007 1:50 AM
You say "almost never do"...when DID a scientific paper support creationism???? They found a fossil of god's poo?
Posted by: Cyrock | June 22, 2007 3:04 AM
It's not just the data creationists appropriate, it's the scientists' analyses as well. All they do is apply the "can I make this fit into my creationist world-view filter" to a science paper's conclusions and either:
a) Hail the paper as a triumphant confirmation of a young Earth, or
b) Whine about the scientist getting their conclusions messed up, and then slapping on their own.
And isn't it uncanny how IDists use *exactly* the same "process"?
Armchair critics, the lot of them, in the worst possible way.
Posted by: tacitus | June 22, 2007 3:13 AM
It's like Ham says, same data, different conclusions. Note who's actually doing the heavy lifting though...
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 22, 2007 3:32 AM
Posted by: llewelly | June 22, 2007 3:34 AM
My God, man, the data, the irrefutable evidence stands before you, in all of creation itself.
Tongue. In. Cheek.
Posted by: degustibus | June 22, 2007 7:43 AM
Browsing the RTB site I see a number of friends and colleagues (myself included) who have had their precious research hijacked/terrorIDised! CAD has had a great idea. Maybe it's time to strike back.
Posted by: Paul | June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
Thanks for the link PZ! I'll set up links to anyone who writes their own similar blog post, and I'd be more than happy to post anyone else's experiences on my blog.
If only it was possible to hurt these people by bringing a libel case... however, seeing as no-one in the scientific community believes a word they say, I can safely say that my career hasn't suffered at all as a result of their quote mining. All they've managed to do is piss me off.
Posted by: VWXYNot? | June 22, 2007 9:38 AM
"You know, I've seen a fair number of creationists misrepresenting scientist's work to fit their conclusions, but I've never seen the reverse, where a scientist grabs some creationist's hard-earned data and claims it supports evolution. I wonder why?"
That's not strictly true. There's Behe & Snoke 2004, for instance. Of course, Behe himself had to admit under oath that it supported evolution. There's also that paper about point mutations and loss of function, but I can't remember who wrote that.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | June 22, 2007 10:52 AM
Not that I think it's something worth pursuing, but just for the sake of discussion... I don't think you need to show that anyone believed anything they wrote for it to be libel (it probably helps). It's about the potential harm. or as this site puts it...
With slander, on the other hand, you usually need to prove actual loss.
There is some precedent for misquotes being considered libel...Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.
If you could show actual damage (especially actual or likely financial loss) then it might be considered malicious falsehood
I am not an attorney, the legal information in this blog comment is not intended to be a substitute for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Further, I do not intend to create a non-attorney-client relationship with any reader.
Posted by: Cat's Staff | June 22, 2007 11:59 AM
Sounds Axe-ish.
Posted by: MartinM | June 22, 2007 12:16 PM
but I've never seen the reverse, where a scientist grabs some creationist's hard-earned data and claims it supports evolution.
However, they sure provide mountains of hard earned faulty reasoning that we (not only grab, they try to force it on everyone) happily claim supports the 'unsophisticated irrationality of creationists'.
I mean, they work hard on that stuff. Give them some credit. Thanks!
Posted by: mikmik | June 22, 2007 1:01 PM
That's creationist stalking !
CAD should go to court and get a restraining order :)
Posted by: Fifi | June 22, 2007 5:46 PM
Or perhaps the creationist scientists can't find any data that suports the notion that unguided forces have the ability to create the irreducible complex systems present in the biosphere. Maybe that is why darwinists can't (mis)use creationist data to suport unguided evolutionism.
Posted by: Mats | June 22, 2007 7:43 PM
Behe certainly did (see #10). For that matter, so did Darwin, and most of the first generation of evolutionary biologists.
But most modern creationist scientists have a heck of a time finding data, period.
Posted by: Anton Mates | June 22, 2007 8:18 PM
It's funny how no one agrees with you. Look Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, and they didn't have science back then. But of course you don't belive in Moses or even the bible. I suppose you don't belive in alot of things, according to you global warming doesn't exist. You must read a lot of nonsense.
Posted by: cap | June 24, 2007 2:00 AM
It worked! My paper has now been taken down:
http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/07/spot-difference.html
Thanks to everyone who helped...
Posted by: VWXYNot? | July 1, 2007 7:05 PM