PART 1 OF 5 DAVID WOLFE / NATURE'S FIRST LAW PLAGIARIZATION OF PHILLIP JOHNSON'S "DARWIN ON TRIAL" Synopsis: This is a long post, in 5 parts of from 300 to 500 lines each. Those who invest the time to read through this series, however, will find clear and detailed evidence demonstrating that the recent 2-part post on the Raw-Food listgroup of 9/28/97 titled "Science or science?"--which David Wolfe/NFL has claimed authorship of--was in actuality extensively plagiarized from creationist Phillip E. Johnson's 1993 book "Darwin on Trial." The many side-by-side comparisons of passages that are examined here document the plagiarization unmistakably, and also show the alterations Wolfe/NFL made for his/their own purposes. In addition, some of the instances provide an inside look at a few of the practices Wolfe/NFL use in distorting information from original sources. Overall, this post should provide--for those not yet aware of it--clear documentation of the claims that those of us who are dismayed at NFL's deceptive practices have sometimes made: that the promotion of their views through dishonesty and abuse of information is conscious and intentional. ---------- BACKGROUND Recently David Wolfe of the group Nature's First Law (hereafter simply "NFL") posted a response here on the Raw-Food listgroup titled "Science or science?" on 9/28/97 challenging me to a debate on evolution. This post was a response to earlier comments of mine that listhost Peter Brandt had posted to Raw-Food for me on 9/15/97 addressing David's "On Form & Actuality" posting, which appeared on a few internet lists earlier this summer claiming there is no such thing as evolution. For reasons that will become very clear shortly, devoting time to a debate with David or NFL simply does not interest me. There are a couple of reasons for this, but most specifically it has to do with the unscrupulousness, deceit, and dishonesty involved in much of the "scientific" information NFL and David post. Not least of all, as it turns out, David's recent "Science or science?" posting, which I discovered has proven to be an extensive cut-and-splice plagiarization job, presented as if it were mostly the words of David Wolfe, but was in fact mostly a plagiarization directly from creationist and lawyer Phillip E. Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial." [For those interested in the book, here is the publishing info: Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial (2nd edition). InterVarsity Press: Downer's Grove, Illinois. Paperback, 220 pp. including index.] Due to such demonstrated disregard for honest representation of facts and their sources (and this is not the first time David and/or NFL has seriously misrepresented information in one way or another), there are a number of us who feel strongly that NFL and its members are not worth taking seriously or to be trusted. I for one do not want to take too much time anymore (as I did for awhile last year) legitimizing them by taking much time on any kind of ongoing basis to address their postings. However, I have decided due to the circumstances here, and the hard proof almost handed to me on a silver platter, that it is worth making a response demonstrating in unmistakable terms just how deceitful NFL can be (in this case, David Wolfe specifically, though I am not sure how involved or not the other two members, Stephen Arlin and Fouad Dini, may have been), so that others can perhaps see why there are those of us who feel it's a waste of time paying them much attention. I've also decided to come out of lurk mode temporarily and make this post (or series of posts, actually, since it will have to be done in multiple parts) directly to the listgroup myself. In recent months even though I have been subscribed to the Raw-Food list and lurking, I've let others repost to the list (at their request, not mine) occasional comments of mine that had first been made via private email to individual acquaintances. This has been because in recent months I haven't had much interest getting actively involved in the ongoing internet diet debates anymore, other than lurking and observing, because my interests have been turning elsewhere these days. I simply don't have the time, sustained level of interest, or desire anymore to get directly involved in extended debates given new areas of focus demanding my attention. This particular response, though, is something I want to post to the list myself so others will know how strongly I feel about the NFL/David Wolfe issue. (I do not want this to be interpreted as a signal, however, that I intend to get dragged back into the dietary discussions here on an ongoing basis. While I continue to lurk, and like to observe, I don't have much time to respond.) I ought to mention in this connection another compelling reason why I simply won't take much time with NFL anymore: It is exasperating and takes far too much time tracking down and pointing out the deceit in their writings in order to get to the real issues of substance that might be worth debating. It may be deceit that is obvious to those of us familiar enough with the evidence to be aware of it, but to point it out and prove it with documentation so it is also unmistakably apparent to others takes large amounts of time. The time it took after first realizing the "Science or science?" post was heavily plagiarized to actually track down all the plagiarisms and write them up here was considerable enough that I don't want to do anything like this again soon. The last time I did something similar--in refuting NFL's many distortions about the dietary habits, longevity figures, etc., of chimpanzees (see my post of 12/7/96 on Raw-Food titled "Re: Chimps and meat" rebutting a post of theirs from the preceding few days) and referenced the actual facts to scientific journals and sources--it took me well over two hours just to make one single post. Not something you want to repeat often. It doesn't take long doing that before you realize it's a thankless task, since NFL's style is generally to pump out the deceits at a rapid pace without bothering to supply easily traceable reference data so that others can verify their statements with a minimum of scutwork. If when debating or responding to them, one is to convincingly point out for others such deceit or distortion on their part, it requires of the respondent painstaking research that is very time-consuming. It is of course regrettable that when responding to a post by NFL, one is forced to check for intentional distortions and deceits in doing so, but they have brought it on themselves, and this more than anything else makes it unlikely I or anyone else with scientific interests is going to be interested in responding seriously to someone who can't be honest in the first place. With that preface then, I trust people will understand why I hope this will be my final posting on NFL for hopefully a long time, after which I intend to retire back to lurking if possible. Until such time as they demonstrate they can be consistently honest and above-board and build a new track record based on those qualities, I would hope others will also not bother further taking them too seriously. With all this as preface out of the way, I'll now turn to... A BRIEF INTRO ON DAVID WOLFE'S PLAGIARIZATION OF "DARWIN ON TRIAL" When I first skimmed David's "Science or science?" posting, I at first thought perhaps David, or maybe NFL in general, was at last realizing there might be an advantage in toning down their habitual demogoguery and in-yer-face, ad-hominem-attack posting style so as not to appear so rabid, if they were to get some respect for their representations of "scientific" information. And perhaps they are in fact beginning to realize this to some small degree. They are, after all, toning down that kind of rhetoric a bit when forwarding their money-making speaking schedule dates to the listgroup (for which you have to sound nicer if you want people to come and hear you). But when I slowed down and read the "Science or science?" posting thoroughly at a normal rate of speed, it became obvious--to me, at least--that the sentence construction, the rhythm and flow, the syntax, the use of vocabulary, etc., were far different than David's or anyone in NFL's usual fare. He was just faking it. This was actually handed to me on something of a silver platter--because not only was David brazen enough to plagiarize, as it turns out, he was even more brazen in listing the source of the plagiarization as one of his references, one of which was Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." And when I checked my own copy of Johnson's book, I discovered that much more than just being a reference source, it was instead heavily plagiarized, the proportion amounting to roughly two-thirds of the main "essay" sections of the post. (This is not counting the quotations actually identified as such, which when accounted for, take the actual amount of original material in the essay portion itself down to about one-fifth.) In the separate section of the post addressed to me, it turned out that about one-quarter of these passages in which David was supposedly responding *personally* were also plagiarized. That is not scholarship or merely using a reference source in any kind of honest way--it is out-and-out plagiarism. Now lest I be accused of going too far here in my charges of plagiarism, it is certainly true that *some* of the passages in the 2-part "Science or science?" post--the ones that were actually surrounded by quotation marks as they should have been (which I will note in due course when dissecting which parts of the book the post came from) *were* quoted and attributed to Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." But I think you will all be able to see--as the numerous examples to be given here will demonstrate--that whatever few passages were clearly quoted, that in no way absolves the lack of attribution for the many other, and considerably more numerous, passages that were blatantly plagiarized and presented as words and writing coming straight from David Wolfe and/or NFL themselves. Furthermore, the cut-and-splice nature of the plagiarization (which will become quite evident as we get into the actual examples) shows just how conscious and intentional it was. And just in case David or NFL protest that they didn't know any better (which in itself ought to be laughable), ignorance constitutes no excuse for plagiarism. In fact, even if one were to grant that the plagiarism was done in ignorance of the ethics regarding it, it would just go to show how inbred and automatic NFL's tendencies to deceive actually are, so that perhaps the deception didn't even register with them. (This, however, I seriously doubt.) Any self-respecting author, or authors, of a book (the NFL trio have a book out on the market) would not show such blatant disregard for ripping off the words of another and then presenting them as completely their own. What especially takes this clearly over the top and into the realm of deceit--you have to marvel at NFL's gall here--is that not only did David infringe on Johnson's copyright, but he then turned right around and *specifically* copyrighted the plagiarization *as his/NFL's very own* with a copyright notice on the post containing all the plagiarisms. For a long time, I had not known for sure whether some of the apparent disregard for getting scientific evidence straight that has been displayed by NFL in the past was simple negligence due to their shoot-from-the-hip style--resulting from what many of us view as their extremism and fanaticism (I was willing at one time to concede basically good, if negligent and overenthusiastic, intentions on their part)--or whether it was due to dishonesty. But with the comparisons of the passages in David's posting with those from Johnson's book you'll be seeing, I think it's now clear that the deceit and dishonesty, at least at times, though in a different form this time (plagiarism and not simply distortion or lack of credible attribution for evidence or "facts") is very conscious and deliberate here. Another note I should make before getting into detailing all of the plagiarizations here: The passages of Phillip Johnson's that were plagiarized might be worth addressing under different circumstances. Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial" does make some good philosophical points. I have the book myself, and have found it instructive in this area. Johnson is at his best and most instructive when discussing the inherent philosophical assumptions contained within science and the program of scientific naturalism. Of course, all approaches of inquiry into knowledge must contain some assumptions or the other on which the rest of the discipline is based; otherwise you have no foundation for inquiry. Johnson himself has assumptions (religious, theistic, Christian ones), but he of course has to withhold examination of those if he is to cast the kind of intense doubt he intends on evolution. Because if one were to compare whatever flaws he may believe to exist in the scientific account of evolution with his own Christian theistic philosophical predispositions, it would of course reveal that the position of Christian theism in regard to evolution is empirically untestable and unscientific *in its very principle.* (You simply can't design a falsifiable empirical test intended to test or reveal the influence of a supernatural God on a physical creation or the sequence of evolution as Johnson would like to see.) At any rate, it's possible after detailing NFL's plagiarizations that I may include a final posting in this series summarizing the critiques others have made of Johnson's book, but if so it will of necessity be something of a summary one, given my limited time and interest in the internet debates these days. I would assume those who are interested can follow up any such leads for themselves. WHAT PLAGIARISM IS Prior to getting into the plagiarisms themselves, it would be a good idea to briefly make clear just what kinds of things constitute plagiarization, so there is no mistaking, denying, or wriggling out of it. A very nicely done and concise web page summarizing the subject is the "Bates College Statement on Plagiarism," available at http://sneezy.bates.edu/pubs/Plagiarism/plagiarism.html. (According to info on the website, Bates College is located in Lewiston, Maine 04240.) This site has the best summary overview defining just what plagiarism is that I was able to find on the net without putting in too much time, how to avoid it, etc. Important among the definitions of plagiarism listed on the site (which I summarize here) used in analyzing David's/NFL's plagiarism here (frankly, these really ought be common knowledge, based as they are on common sense) are that: (1) Merely listing a source as a reference in no way absolves plagiarizing from it. (I.e., the fact that David/NFL listed "Darwin on Trial" as a source is no excuse for his/their wholesale plagiarization of it.) (2) Paraphrases of another's words without acknowledgment constitutes plagiarism just as much as word-for-word copying does. Copying of the author's sentence structure or sequence of logic and syntax while merely substituting somewhat different words or rearranging some of the phraseology is still plagiarization. (Most of NFL's plagiarizations contain a high level of direct word-for-word copying, but many of the plagiarizations are also composed of a mixture of such copying combined with close paraphrasing.) (3) Quotations from an author's work for which one does not have access to the original source, but which have been gotten from other sources that one *does* have access to, should always be acknowledged as having come from those secondary sources. Normally, the accepted form is something like: "Quoted-author, quoted in: name-and-references-for-secondary-source." (To do otherwise is to promote deception by making it appear as if one has researched more widely or has more breadth of knowledge than they actually have. This is another practice Wolfe engaged in when quoting Stephen Jay Gould, David Raup, Colin Patterson, and other individuals whose words from other works were reproduced in "Darwin on Trial" that leads the reader into assuming he had read more widely than he had.) For the record, and to avoid any confusion for those interested in verifying the page and paragraph numbers furnished here in detailing the plagiarisms from "Darwin on Trial," they have been referenced to the 1993 paperback printing (2nd edition) of Johnson's book, which was originally published in hardback in 1991. This detail is important since the 2nd edition contains an epilogue that was added to the 1st edition, and the epilogue was a source for some of David's/NFL's plagiarizations that you would not know about if you only had a copy of the 1st edition. Also, the 2nd edition of the book has two extra pages of material inserted beginning on page 71, which--along with the epilogue inserted prior to the "Research Notes" section at the end--alters the page numbering compared to the 1st edition of the book. (To be as clear as possible, in citing a paragraph number, I am counting as the first paragraph on a page any initial paragraph, including fractional ones that are the last part of a paragraph beginning on the preceding page.) END PART 1 Part 2 will begin taking a look in detail at how David Wolfe and/or NFL plagiarized and stitched together the "Science or science?" posting from Phillip Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial." --Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>