…and this is a 
Julie Haberle, the born-again who splattered Minnesota billboards with creationist apologetics, has revamped her website. It's prettier and twice as stupid now; it still has the very clumsy bulletin board that was utterly ruled by evolution supporters poking holes in her bad arguments. What the site primarily has, though, are the quote mines — this place is a gold mine of quote mines. For instance, right up front and center they have this:
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
--Henry Gee
Ardent Evolutionist, Dr. Henry Gee, Senior Editor, Biological Sciences for the journal Nature as written in his book, In Search of Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, page 126-127.
I thought this was hilarious and so typical. I actually spent some time talking to Henry Gee at SciFoo, and this very subject came up. He gets quoted all the time by creationists, and he also gets whined at by scientists who say he has to be more careful to avoid this kind of misrepresentation (he is, of course, a strong supporter of science and evolution who thinks creationists are lunatics). Caution does not get the important ideas said, though, and we can't sit here policing our words, afraid that some idiot will scavenge them and use them to lie. Haberle's whole site is a testimonial to the willingness of creationists to distort scientific statements wholesale. She has a series of issues where she tries to call into question basic evolutionary ideas by doing little more than quoting out of context little snippets from books she hasn't read.
The Henry Gee book is a beautiful example. She hasn't read it, she certainly couldn't explain what it's about (it's an excellent summary of the principles and philosophy of cladistics), and most amusingly, she got the title wrong. It's In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll).
Comments
Posted by: Dan | August 14, 2007 11:53 AM
Perhaps the most telling aspect of that horrendous website is the obvious typo (look at the parenthetical comment in the second quote on the main page).
What is it about fundies that completely removes any sense of proper English or grammar? Did I miss something, or is spell-check now a tool or Satan?
Posted by: Dan | August 14, 2007 11:54 AM
Ok...Ok....
"a tool of Satan."
At least I correct my mistakes.
Posted by: SteveM | August 14, 2007 12:00 PM
"...or is spell-check now a tool or Satan?"
No, I think this is the correct question to ask :-)
Spell check is a good tool when used properly, but is more like Satan when used instead of proof-reading.
Posted by: Stanton | August 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Dan, I think it's because they take Martin Luther's speech about Reason being the whore of Satan to heart, and take it to mean that Grammar is one of Reason's children.
Posted by: Dahan | August 14, 2007 12:11 PM
Ghaaa!!
What is wrong with these people? On her website, under the section marked "fossil record", she states as a reason to disbelieve evolution that:
"Fossils are always found fully formed, having no partially formed features."
What is she expecting to find in the fossil record for her to believe evolution to be true? A completely useless half a femur because it hadn't fully evolved yet? Then I suppose a completely useless 5/8ths of a femur, etc. I just don't get the it.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 14, 2007 12:11 PM
Or perhaps it's just random ejaculations of speaking in tongues.
Posted by: Ric | August 14, 2007 12:17 PM
Here's a comment about the site itself:
What resolution exactly is it designed for? On my 1024 screen I have to horizontally scroll just slightly. Whaaaa?
That's some crappy design if I ever saw it.
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 14, 2007 12:21 PM
Oh my god! I made the mistake of looking at the genetic drift page. The first paragraph is, well...
*whimper*
Posted by: Andrew Wade | August 14, 2007 12:30 PM
Caution against malicious misrepresentation does not get the important ideas said. There are, of course, other reasons to be careful in writing.
Posted by: John Marley | August 14, 2007 12:38 PM
What's with the monkey fixation?
Posted by: John Marley | August 14, 2007 12:43 PM
Re: Quote mines
Have you seen this page?
Posted by: Onymous | August 14, 2007 12:43 PM
I was just looking at this yesterday. I drove past a half a dozen of these billboards while going up I-5 on vacation.
Thought it was funny that the chimp looks entirely more dignified than the human.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2007 12:48 PM
It appeals to the god botherers to claim that Evolution claims we've descended from modern monkeys. It gets them on the creationist' side. "My great-grand-daddy ain't no monkey!"
Posted by: Arneson | August 14, 2007 1:06 PM
Thanks for mentioning the humble efforts of some of us. The Gee quote has been a particular thorn in my side for some time. I have personally corrected her several times. She has continued to use it, thinking somehow it supports her position.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 14, 2007 1:07 PM
Dahan, even that wouldn't be enough--some modern whales have femurs of about 4 cm long, and that fact doesn't seem to change her delusion any. So it's not really about the partial structures at all; if you produced those fossils she specifies, she'd just move the goalposts again.
Posted by: R. Paul Wiegand | August 14, 2007 1:15 PM
Regarding caution in writing ... I agree.
Threading that careful needle of scientific writing, where one must make clear the importance and meaning of what is being contributed without overstating or overgeneralizing one's results, is challenging enough. Having the additional constraint of not just guarding my language, but actually having to anticipate how someone will misquote me seems an unreasonable request.
Those intent on manipulating your words will do so, however careful you are. Besides, much of scientific writing involves contrasting things, and it is difficult to do that properly when you are worried about someone lifting one side and not the other. Guarding against quote mining endangers useful dialectic, I think.
Posted by: bugaboo | August 14, 2007 1:20 PM
Or, as my friend's grandmother, b. 1905 as a strident Catholic who thought Vatican II was one of the greatest tragedies of our day, said, "We don't know how those bones got there. I could pull them out and put them together anyway I wanted and declare it science."
She also was a firm believer in geocentricism and never believed that we actually set foot on the moon, believing instead that it was all done on a Hollywood movie set so that money could be funneled to favored government contractors of the Democrats.
Posted by: gg | August 14, 2007 1:22 PM
"The crazy billboard lady is back again"
Now, wait, is she a 'lady with crazy billboards' or a 'crazy lady with billboards' or 'a crazy lady with crazy billboards'? I only ask because I was once referred to as 'crazy yo-yo guy.'
Posted by: Stanton | August 14, 2007 1:26 PM
Hey, someone posted a video about Julie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzG091Wm1WM
Did you know she used to be a medical doctor and a lawyer?
Posted by: richCares | August 14, 2007 1:30 PM
"My great-grand-daddy ain't no monkey!"
of course not, the monkeys's much smarter!
Posted by: Carlie | August 14, 2007 1:37 PM
gg - yes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2007 1:39 PM
I'm surprised she wasn't an engineer....
Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Posted by: PalMD | August 14, 2007 1:52 PM
Deep time scares creationists--a lot. She wouldn't know deep time if it bit her fossilzed ass a few million years from now.
Posted by: Glenn | August 14, 2007 1:54 PM
R. Paul Wiegand wrote (#16)
Amen to that. It's pretty tough to fend off the slings and arrows of square brackets and ellipses.Posted by: Calladus | August 14, 2007 2:04 PM
I've also noticed that the religious evolution deniers get skittish about deep time. Many of them preach (and I use that word deliberately) against an Earth that is "millions of years old".
I find it both sad, and amusing that they can't even talk about an Earth that is almost 5 billion years old, or about evolving life with a history of billions of years. Instead they have to cut down the history of our planet to a few mere millions of years and then argue against that.
And as for you, Rev. BigDumbChip - I'll have you know that many engineers, myself included, are perfectly rational, skeptical and logical thinkers. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an afternoon AD&D game to play, and I need to pick up my cloak from the dry cleaners.
Posted by: Brian F | August 14, 2007 2:05 PM
The sexual connotation of the phrase "Who's your daddy" makes it impossible for me to take this site seriously.
Posted by: Fastlane | August 14, 2007 2:16 PM
She's got nuthin on AFdave (for those of you who hang out at Dawkins' forums or IIDB, you know of whom I speak).
But I don't think dave got around to paying for billboards yet....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2007 2:19 PM
I have no room to talk. I'm in I.T.
Computer "scientists" have as poor a track record as engineers as creationists.
Posted by: Stanton | August 14, 2007 2:28 PM
What did you expect with a woman who takes prescription Reese's Pieces as a substitute for psychoactive medication? St Augustine of Hippopotamus? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA6-3txfwJEPosted by: R. Paul Wiegand | August 14, 2007 2:38 PM
Ee gads, I dared to post on it! I couldn't help myself ... I tried to resist ...
I blame PZ for this!
Her site takes "straw man" to a whole new level ... "cotton-fiber man". Why do we engage her arguments at all? I'm in the "put up, or shut up" camp: Give me a better explanation and I'll go away happy, until then ... *yawn*.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 14, 2007 3:29 PM
Did anyone else notice THIS little gem from her site, dissing SEED Magazine?
Alliance for Science asked students to write an essay on, "Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution." Not only does this indoctrinate children, it also urges children to question parental decisions.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/308_alliance_for_science_evolution_2_21_2007.asp
All of the winners (including a 9th grade student) receive an annual subscription of SEED Magazine, which is known for its obsession with sex and homosexuality. SEED is NOT considered a 'scientific' magazine and it's puzzling that this type of publication would be selected (unless Alliance for Science has an agenda?).
Posted by: Skeptic8 | August 14, 2007 3:34 PM
I think that the "committee" suspicion is correct for the site. Maybe this is a trap for rational posters which will allow them to devise more real-appearing strawmen.
The Creos are adroit at concealing their underlying assumption of the 6000 YO planet and producing consistent-seeming arguments from that basis. The objective planetary age for evolution assessment doesn't hinder science. For the Creos the fossil evidence is merely a proof of the Flood. Thus age, superposition & dynamics are disregarded. Physics & time are mutable and dismiss radio-dating
Posted by: Jonathan | August 14, 2007 3:34 PM
I can do you one better: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/dinoexpedition.html
Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2007 3:52 PM
That's got to be a satire site...
they even say they want to shut down landover.
Too funny.
I mean look at those geeks on the bios page. Did the carnies come to town?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 14, 2007 4:01 PM
ObjectiveMinistries is a parody site.
Adventure Safaris is the real thing. You've missed your chance to go on a dinosaur dig with creationists, and it unfortunately looks like they've given up on hunting for a Canadian plesiosaur.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 14, 2007 4:10 PM
"which is known for its obsession with sex and homosexuality"
Huh. They've only been publishing for 11 issues, it's my hope that they'd be known, period. Have there really been that many Dr. Tatianna-style sidebars on insect orgies? I've only got the last two issues.
PZ: "unfortunately looks like they've given up on hunting for a Canadian plesiosaur."
Seems fortunate to me. I mean, on one hand, it's good to have more hands out there digging, but I'm sure if they found anything, they'd announce that they discovered a dragon, send it to the Flintsone Museum and keep it under lock and key.
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 14, 2007 4:28 PM
Do you really want an answer to that one? "May the Gods fulfill your wishes" (Ancient Greek curse).
Due to a peculiar conspiracy of English grammar and English orthography, she is obviously and unambiguously a crazy lady with billboards. If she were a lady with crazy billboards, she'd be a crazy-billboard lady.
Except that most native speakers, it appears, don't know where to put hyphens...
Posted by: Brownian | August 14, 2007 4:32 PM
From the Adventure Safaris website on the Canadian Plesiosaur:
How quaint. They're going to talk to the Indians for confirmation of their creationist contemporary dinosaur theory. How very open-minded of them.
I wonder what they'll do if the elders don't stop at telling stories of dinosaurs living in Lake Winnipeg, but go on to recount how Wisakedjak survived the Great Flood with only an otter, a beaver, and a muskrat for companions and went on to recreate the earth, trees and animals and all people from there.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | August 14, 2007 5:17 PM
Hmm, has the password prompt on their forum been there for a while, or is it new? If it's new, does it have anything to do with my posting with "whoisyourcreator" as my user name? If so, my apologies to everyone for spoiling the fun.
Posted by: Eisnel | August 14, 2007 5:23 PM
Someone just made a post to the forum using the same name as the site's creator. It said that the entire site is a hoax intended to demonstrate how ludicrous creationist claims are (and it suggested that those who agreed with the site's message should avoid breeding). That post was quickly removed, and now all forum posting requires a password.
Posted by: Elizabeth | August 14, 2007 5:31 PM
Skeptic that I am, I am wondering if crazy Julie is laughing all the way to the bank. She is a "business consultant" who has set up a 501C3 nonprofit, so her website claims, and is soliciting tax deductible donations for her cause. You know how the faithful are inclined to drop money into any "Christian" basket passed under their noses!
Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2007 5:42 PM
hehe. thanks PZ that was getting surreal.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 14, 2007 6:32 PM
is this a new canadian Loch Ness monster story... it's good for tourism
Posted by: Stanton | August 14, 2007 6:45 PM
No, Negentropyeater, Manipogo has been around for a long while, as long as its more famous cousin, Ogopogo.
Posted by: Craig | August 14, 2007 6:57 PM
But true Christians don't NEED to read things and get the names right.
I remember back in the 80's when I was doing ad work at a paper... the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" was out and causing a furor, and a local group ran an ad condemning it and telling people not go go because it was blasphemous. Only they called it "The Temptation of Jesus."
After a few moments of consideration we decided to run the ad without correction.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2007 7:06 PM
Snotty nosed college edumicated heathens.
Don't you know you should respect your elders and forefather and... ummm.
Jesus rules! Yeah!
(Parody concluded)
Posted by: tony | August 14, 2007 7:16 PM
Except that most native speakers, it appears, don't know where to put hyphens...
Posted by: David Marjanović
Yes,they do!
right between the two last names!
Posted by: Monado | August 14, 2007 8:26 PM
PZ, how do you know that Objective Ministries is a parody? If so, they caught me, because a couple of years ago I posted disparagingly about their search for a live dinosaur.
Posted by: jose | August 14, 2007 9:37 PM
Henry Gee may not be a young earth creationist, but his is a creationist in the sense that he is a Christian and thinks that God ultimately made everything.
Posted by: Skeptic8 | August 14, 2007 10:30 PM
Thank you Jonathan,
For posting the OBJECTIVE link! The writer caught the flavour of the 1920s travelogues in this excellent exercise of imagination. Perhaps he could be encouraged to regale us with tales of his 'expeditions' at a suitable micro-brew pub with a snarfty IPA.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 14, 2007 10:37 PM
I think Henry Gee is going to be very surprised to learn that he is a Christian.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | August 14, 2007 11:03 PM
"WhoIsYourCreator was featured on http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ today and we've received thousands of hits from it. Unfortunately, a few evolutionists are doing bogus postings under our name, as well as some really stupid 'inappropriate' postings, so we'll let them cool down for a couple of hours and restart the forum later.
From our past experience on the previous forum (http://www.123forum.com/777), blocking them doesn't do any good as they get new IPs as fast as we can block them."
STRONG! I killed the forum! Fear the bored teacher on summer break!
Posted by: jose | August 14, 2007 11:04 PM
On Henry Gee, God, and Dawkins:
http://psom.blogspot.com/2006/10/delusions-of-faith-as-science-henry.html
I also thought that I read somewhere that he belongs to the Church of England (does that make him Anglican? - I get confused).
Still a good science writer though.
Jose
Posted by: jose | August 14, 2007 11:47 PM
Also PZ -
Henry Gee quote from http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp:
I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 14, 2007 11:59 PM
Yes, I know. I argued with Henry for a while a few weekends ago. What I find really unscientific is that anyone would decide that ideas held on faith should not be examined scientifically.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 15, 2007 1:02 AM
I found a morsel on the site, regarding mutations. This isn't a quote mine, it is within context:
So, I was curious about where she got the "quantitated" link and discovered that the original came from a "guest lecture" by this guy:
Texas State Schoolbook Panel. For biology.
I leave it at that; sleep well.
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | August 15, 2007 1:41 AM
Shame on you for spoiling the fun, TD! I was just about to post to Joe W. over there.
The interesting thing about this one post by Joe over there is that he actually hits on the truth:
Well, yes, really.
Evolution is pretty much use it, lose it, or rearrange it.
A lot of the rest of his arguments in other messages make the teleological error. Experiment: start from squirrels, end up at bats... go!. Much like the fact that dealing you a particular set of five cards in poker is astronomical (about 1 in 312 million), yet your odds of having received those cards is suddenly 100% after the fact, statistics that make teleological assumptions are artificially high.
Considering how fairly distantly bats are related to anything else (when your nearest out-groups includes wolves and rhinos!)
Considering how separate digits are formed via apoptosis (if I remember rightly, Carroll's Endless Forms book has a wonderful shot of the expression of a protein where the webbing will die), webbing can evolve from "bad" mutations in this regard.
Going from squirrels to flying squirrels and seeing what changes actually occurred that differ between the two very closely-related lineages would be more instructive.
Yep... not much in the way of Lamarckism going on.
I would submit that, in general, it does, and that curiosity is the default state from childhood until it dies or is quashed by an environment which will brook no questions. As always, I find Copernicus and Galileo very interesting examples to bring up :)
(P.S. Flying squirrels are so gosh-darned CUTE)
Posted by: hyperdeath | August 15, 2007 7:39 AM
What is the true context of the Henry Gee quote?
Is he criticising the notion of evolution being a line in which each transitional organism is merely a precursor to the organism that follows it, thus forming a path leading up to a "fully evolved" organism.
Posted by: Rev.Enki | August 15, 2007 2:46 PM
Does she have anything to do with the insane number of anti-choice billboards set up between Duluth and the Twin Cities?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 15, 2007 5:38 PM
No, that's MCCL. Different group, just as insane.
Posted by: Lysa | August 15, 2007 11:34 PM
This lady is insane. Under her "Indoctrination" link, she makes reference to the "Peppered Moth Myth". One of the most amazing examples of microevolution in a modern, observable setting, and she's dismissing it as myth. Hilarious.
Posted by: JDP | August 16, 2007 12:46 AM
Posted by: Traffic Demon | August 17, 2007 1:18 PM
Board's down again... not that I would know anything about it. ::evilgrin::
Posted by: Henry Gee | September 12, 2007 12:02 PM
Yes, it's me, God, talking. Just to correct some misperceptions.
* I am not a Christian. I am a Jew (Liberal Tendency). For some interesting examples of Jewish belief in the modern age, try this:
http://www.worldjewishdigest.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=D2AE62185F784067BFE766F4440C8813
* I'd say that I am a believer, but my belief tends so closely to agnosticism as probably makes no significant difference.
* I would defend the theory of evolution by natural selection to my last breath.
* Creationism is rubbish. End of.
* As PZ says, I also get fed up of scientists telling me not to debate the niceties of evolution with other evolutionary biologists for fear of creationist quote-miners. We had a nice lunch at SciFoo, PZ and I, with Eugenie Scott, who was concerned that I liked to air evolutionary biology's internal squabbles in public, as in my book In Search of Deep Time. However, creationists are that desperate they'll quote-mine anything, and as I said to Eugenie, creationism is an unfortunate affliction that'll always be with us, like herpes. To which Eugenie's response was along the lines that we should always try to practice safe sex. What nonsense. Live dangerously.
* Now, hold tight, it's time for me to switch off your space-time continuum for essential maintenance.
Posted by: Henry Gee | September 12, 2007 12:04 PM
Yes, it's me, God, talking. Just to correct some misperceptions.
I am not a Christian. I am a Jew (Liberal Tendency).
I would defend the theory of evolution by natural selection to my last breath.
Creationism is rubbish. End of.
As PZ says, I also get fed up of scientists telling me not to debate the niceties of evolution with other evolutionary biologists for fear of creationist quote-miners. We had a nice lunch at SciFoo, PZ and I, with Eugenie Scott, who was concerned that I liked to air evolutionary biology's internal squabbles in public, as in my book In Search of Deep Time.
However, creationists are that desperate they'll quote-mine anything, and as I said to Eugenie, creationism is an unfortunate affliction that'll always be with us, like herpes. To which Eugenie's response was along the lines that we should always try to practice safe sex. What nonsense. Live dangerously.
Now, hold tight, it's time for me to switch off your space-time continuum for essential maintenance.
Posted by: Henry Gee | September 12, 2007 12:06 PM
Yes, it's me, God, talking. Just to correct some misperceptions.
I am not a Christian. I am a Jew (Liberal Tendency).
I would defend the theory of evolution by natural selection to my last breath.
Creationism is rubbish. End of.
As PZ says, I also get fed up of scientists telling me not to debate the niceties of evolution with other evolutionary biologists for fear of creationist quote-miners. We had a nice lunch at SciFoo, PZ and I, with Eugenie Scott, who was concerned that I liked to air evolutionary biology's internal squabbles in public, as in my book In Search of Deep Time.
However, creationists are that desperate they'll quote-mine anything, and as I said to Eugenie, creationism is an unfortunate affliction that'll always be with us, like herpes. To which Eugenie's response was along the lines that we should always try to practice safe sex. What nonsense. Live dangerously.
Now, hold tight, it's time for me to switch off your space-time continuum for essential maintenance.
Posted by: genesgalore | June 13, 2009 5:32 PM
ok Henry Gee, how many times do i have to tell you to stop impersonating me??? just remember this, ok?? energy will flow wherever it can, whenever it can.