Evolutionists and Atheists Love to Pick Cherries
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Whenever a writer or lecturer wants to make a point, he or she will ride herd on the citations, supporting links, and so on to make a point. It's the way things have been done for a mighty long time. What is not acceptable is to "quote mine" and "cherry pick" material to support your thesis. Creationists are often falsely accused of doing these things.
When evangelist Ray Comfort made his poor "the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare" claim, he was soundly criticized by atheists. Atheistic pope Clinton Richard Dawkins called him "the banana man" and an "ignorant fool". Nice, huh? (Dawkins is persistently strident, and then wonders why people don't like him.) When Comfort was educated that the banana was intelligently designed by humans, he apologized and admitted his blunder. (He supposedly said, though I can find no original source material, "I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified through hybridization".) Was Ray guilty of cherry picking? No. Lack of research? Definitely.
Atheopaths have consistently attacked him for this, even though he admitted his error. Do a search, and you'll find all sorts of vile, irrational remarks from the "I (heart) Science and Reason" crowd belittling him. Most normal people would let it go. But no, they continue the attacks, not only on that topic (such as this from the the misnamed "Friendly Atheist"), but also on his Evolution vs God video. There are claims that he edited out (that is, cherry-picked away) material that would have supported evolution. The accusations could have been easily supported if the scientists interviewed in the film actually produced evidence at some point. Instead, atheists and evolutionists cherry-picked information and misrepresented (even libeled) Ray Comfort. That's typical, since it seems that whenever creationists present evidence against evolution, especially in documentaries, they get falsely accused of various crimes against humanity and science.
In an older video called "The Genesis Debate — Skeptic vs Creationist", Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland were the participants. Willis is an atheist, and to back up his worldview, he disgraced himself and his co-workers by indulging in massive cherry-picking, as well as blatant misrepresentation of Wieland and creation science itself. He also had many fallacies, including hasty generalization, making a possible exception into a rule, misrepresentation, veiled ad hominem attacks, and blatant poisoning of the well at the end. If I was his supervisor, I would have sacked that tinhorn Willis for his terrible handling of both science and logic, as well as his unprofessional demeanor. Wieland conducted himself the way a scientist Christian debater should.
Misotheists will seek out alleged contradictions in the Bible, or find things that they just don't like, then call the Bible "evil". Although the owlhoot in the above image does know that the Bible is an "old book", many of his kind fail to do their homework. The Bible needs to be examined in full context when claiming "evil", such as historical, cultural, religious, linguistic, immediate context, and more. Do they do this? Not hardly! Instead, they quote mine and cherry-pick items for their straw man and well-poisoning ridicule, then call those of us who understand it "stupid". Wrong (Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7).
Cherry-picking to misrepresent Christians and creationists is not limited to the Bible and high-profile people. I've had my own material blatantly misrepresented, quotes taken out of context (including the use of parts of quotes, and in the case of comments, the material to which I was responding), straw man arguments, appeal to motive fallacies, and more. I've been called a "liar" without evidence (unless you count repeatedly asserting it, which is a fallacy in itself). These blatant misrepresentations... I get a mite irked being called a liar by liars. My experiences are typical, as I have seen this happen to many others as well. That's one reason that I encourage Christians to learn about logical fallacies, so they don't have to be intimidated by atheopaths and anti-creationists.
Do Christians quote mine and cherry pick? Unfortunately, some of us have done so. Taking part of a sentence out of context or leaving out key words to make Dr. Evo look like he's renounced evolution is wrong. It is not wrong to use accurate quotes from evolutionists who admit flaws in their evidence. However, evolutionists (not just Internet trolls) are prone to cherry-pick data to get us to accept propaganda they falsely present.
Whenever a writer or lecturer wants to make a point, he or she will ride herd on the citations, supporting links, and so on to make a point. It's the way things have been done for a mighty long time. What is not acceptable is to "quote mine" and "cherry pick" material to support your thesis. Creationists are often falsely accused of doing these things.
 |
| Pixabay / Hans |
Atheopaths have consistently attacked him for this, even though he admitted his error. Do a search, and you'll find all sorts of vile, irrational remarks from the "I (heart) Science and Reason" crowd belittling him. Most normal people would let it go. But no, they continue the attacks, not only on that topic (such as this from the the misnamed "Friendly Atheist"), but also on his Evolution vs God video. There are claims that he edited out (that is, cherry-picked away) material that would have supported evolution. The accusations could have been easily supported if the scientists interviewed in the film actually produced evidence at some point. Instead, atheists and evolutionists cherry-picked information and misrepresented (even libeled) Ray Comfort. That's typical, since it seems that whenever creationists present evidence against evolution, especially in documentaries, they get falsely accused of various crimes against humanity and science.
In an older video called "The Genesis Debate — Skeptic vs Creationist", Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland were the participants. Willis is an atheist, and to back up his worldview, he disgraced himself and his co-workers by indulging in massive cherry-picking, as well as blatant misrepresentation of Wieland and creation science itself. He also had many fallacies, including hasty generalization, making a possible exception into a rule, misrepresentation, veiled ad hominem attacks, and blatant poisoning of the well at the end. If I was his supervisor, I would have sacked that tinhorn Willis for his terrible handling of both science and logic, as well as his unprofessional demeanor. Wieland conducted himself the way a scientist Christian debater should.
 |
| He justifies his bigotry and fallacies with more bigotry and fallacies. |
Cherry-picking to misrepresent Christians and creationists is not limited to the Bible and high-profile people. I've had my own material blatantly misrepresented, quotes taken out of context (including the use of parts of quotes, and in the case of comments, the material to which I was responding), straw man arguments, appeal to motive fallacies, and more. I've been called a "liar" without evidence (unless you count repeatedly asserting it, which is a fallacy in itself). These blatant misrepresentations... I get a mite irked being called a liar by liars. My experiences are typical, as I have seen this happen to many others as well. That's one reason that I encourage Christians to learn about logical fallacies, so they don't have to be intimidated by atheopaths and anti-creationists.
Do Christians quote mine and cherry pick? Unfortunately, some of us have done so. Taking part of a sentence out of context or leaving out key words to make Dr. Evo look like he's renounced evolution is wrong. It is not wrong to use accurate quotes from evolutionists who admit flaws in their evidence. However, evolutionists (not just Internet trolls) are prone to cherry-pick data to get us to accept propaganda they falsely present.
Picking cherries sounds like good, clean fun, but it isn’t always a good thing. In origins science the practice of “cherry picking” refers to an analytical fallacy—using a few selected illustrations to demonstrate a point, as if those examples fairly exemplify a generalized trend when they actually don’t.To read the illustrations and the rest of the article, click on "Cherry Picking Data Is the Pits".
Illustrations can’t prove universals. So, are all illustrations misleading? No. Illustrative examples by themselves are not misleading—unless and until those examples are suggested as representing “all” or “most” or “generally” when those qualifiers don’t fit the facts.
Two illustrations follow that exemplify this fallacy. One quotes a federal court decision, the other involves comparing the genomes of humans and chimpanzees.