so, why didn't science correct this bill?
Because they didn't really care about correcting a 30 year old article that was neither peer-reviewed nor very important. It's akin to Popular Science refusing to correct an editorial mistake made in a 1978 article discussing the TRS-80 computer. You would have to go to great lengths to decide that therefore the TRS-80 didn't exist. (Which you might, if you had a desperate need to believe that it didn't for some reason.)
Here's a good summary of your approach to this issue:
=======================================================
The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
Introduction
by the
talk.origins newsgroup Edited by
John Pieret
Copyright © 2003-2006
ne frequent creationist poster to the
talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed
"Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" . It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called
"Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called
"Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published.
For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure , the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored" .
In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of the authors' intent. As noted by Dana Tweedy, one of the responders:
Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to change the meaning. The "evolutionist(s)" in those quotations [were] not admitting that "a portion of evolution" was "fraudulent". That is the whole point of a "lie of omission", to omit the part of the person's words that explains and clarifies the person's position. Those quotes you stole are classic lies of omission. They are false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood . . .
Another responder, John Wilkins, continued in the same vein:
It is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the context] I could not find there is [any] way these could have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.
Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation.
Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. (Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error", i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names they are appropriating.
In addition, some of the "quotes" were outright fabrications; others were actually taken from creationist authors or other people who doubted, rather than supported, evolution (making their designation as "evolutionists" itself disingenuous); several were expressions of opinion by people with no expertise in fields related to evolution and many were so old as to be of no use at all in understanding present day evolutionary theory. The few quotes that can be said to be both in context and from knowledgeable proponents of evolution invariably discuss limited technical subjects which may appear, to those unfamiliar with the details of
modern biology, to contradict evolutionary theory but, in fact, do not.
Of course, even if each and every one of these quotes was accurate and truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not matter a bit. If all eighty-six were from different scientists and all eighty-six thought evolution wrong, that would not begin to tip the consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to be the only current scientific theory that explains all the myriad facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.
Naturally enough, the question arises: 'If the quotes don't mean anything, why should we care enough to go to such great lengths to show these quotes for what they are?' The best answer came from John Wilkins:
The first issue is whether or not they have been correctly quoted. You know as well as I do that the only reason these quotes have been put up on the web and dittoed by the dittoheads like [the poster] is that they imply that these people do not think that evolution is true for some reason, and that the clever folk at AiG or wherever have "caught them in a slipup" that reveals their "true" beliefs. It is all a rhetorical trick.
They have not been correctly quoted (except, perhaps, for the creationists in that list who are been falsely touted as evolutionists). This is the first dishonesty. Because every single one of the quotes so far checked do intend to say that evolution is correct, and that what we see is consistent with it. All of them. You can dance around this issue all you like, but it is still a lie, and an egregious one. Doing this in a first year undergraduate essay would earn an instant failure. It is the very worst of scholarship.
The second issue is whether or not they are correct in their statements. Most of them are comments made about the punctuated equilibrium theory/model/pattern that was, at the time of most of these publications, a hot issue in evolutionary biology. There was considerable debate on the matter. The consensus that resulted, and which is in place today, is that evolution will show these sorts of patterns, both for the reasons Gould and Eldredge supposed (allopatric speciation) and for other reasons (nonlinear dynamics in populations). Hence, it is dishonest to imply, the way the quote miner does, that this is an unresolved issue in modern evolutionary biology.
The third act of dishonesty is that the quote miner is "cherry picking". This is the term for when you go looking through the literature to find cites that back up your own personal hobbyhorse. Of course in this case the hobbyhorse is that "evolutionists are themselves questioning Darwinism", but still it is a bad thing to do, morally and academically.
In short, these quote-mined lists come with their own context which makes them important to address. The site this list was "appropriated" from, for example, prefaces it with the following:
Before any serious dialogue of deity can be entertained, the subjects of spontaneous generation and evolution must first be addressed.
This is one of the more inflammatory topics of discussion, especially coming from a creation point of view. In order to gain as much credibility as possible and so you can understand why I feel the way I do, I will use words spoken by evolutionists.
Clearly this list is intended to provide support both for a particular religious view and for a denial of the scientific nature of evolutionary theory. The first is an egregious abuse of the views of most of the people quoted and the second is a blatant distortion (whether through ignorance or dishonesty) of the words themselves. In any event, to remain silent in the face of this tactic would be to be to fail the avowed purpose of Talk.Origins and, worse, to be complicit in the lie.
===========================
