Jeanson Accuses Duff of Misconduct...Again

So, this comment in reference to me is totally false:

This is an error Dr Jeanson, and I would like you to correct it. Would you please do so? I suggest this text instead:

At least one theistic evolutionist, clarified that the focus is not on the student’s blog, but the student is sufficiently qualified to critique Jeanson’s work and raises important points for him to address.

Now that it has been clarified to you this error, please make this correction. You really did misunderstand my comment:

@evograd’s blog series is a great starting point for the public to understand the problem’s in Jeanson’s work and I would like to see response from Jeanson to @evograd’s many excellent points.

(Note, I have not accused Nathaniel of misconduct, but it seems that his misrepresentation of me would be considered misconduct by his standards).

8 Likes

I’d say it’s more egregious, if anything. Citing secondary sources without checking the primary source is a problem all in itself, and if they’re quote-mined already, that makes it much worse. Citing secondary sources at all is questionable.

2 Likes

Perhaps egregious for a different reason. Creationism operates on a faux-academic level that prioritizes authoritarianism. Copypasta of quote-mines without checking the primary source is practically made an art form. Still egregious, but it is a different egregious than the act of creating the quote-mine in the first place.

1 Like

48 posts were split to a new topic: Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

I’m closing this thread to keep it from wandering off topic. Please continue conversation on new threads or the comment thread: Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again.

1 Like