Pois é, uma das táticas CriaDItas favoritas é o que em inglês se chama Quote Minning:
O uso de uma passagem (geralmente curta), tirada do trabalho de alguém que é uma autoridade em algum campo, “que parece de modo superficial dar suporte à uma posição, mas (da qual) se omite o contexto significativo e evidência contrária é convenientemente ignorada”
Isto é, garimpar citações de cientistas, preferêncialmente evolucionistas, tira-las de contexto e apresenta-las como sendo declarações contrárias à Evolução e/ou à Teoria da Evolução. Com grande frequência essas citações garimpadas estão tão fora de contexto, que chegam a distorcer completamente o seu significado, afirmando o contrário do que seus autores originais queriam dizer. É um procedimento tão recorrente, que há listas de citações e mesmo livros inteiros. Parece ser isso o que os CriaDItas entendem por “pesquisa científica”.
Portanto não se trata de um acidente, ou de um engano inocente, mas de uma prática deliberada, de desonestidade intelectual.
Um dos alvos preferenciais como não poderia deixar de ser é o nosso bicentenário Charles Darwin, e como leal seguidor das hostes CriaDItas, o pós-darwinista(sic) Enézio Eugênio é useiro e veseiro nessa prática. Como fica claro aqui, onde ele pretende mostrar que o “malvado” do Darwin confessaria suas motivações “ideológicas”. Vista no contexto original contudo a coisa é um pouquiiiiiiiiiiiiinho diferente:
[em destaque as partes que o Enézio Eugênio omitiu]
Thus a large yet undefined extension may safely be given to the direct and indirect results of natural selection; but I now admit, after reading the essay by Nägeli on plants, and the remarks by various authors with respect to animals, more especially those recently made by Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my ‘Origin of Species’ I perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the ‘Origin’ so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure; but I am convinced, from the light gained during even the last few years, that very many structures which now appear to us useless, will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will therefore come within the range of natural selection. Nevertheless, I did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of structures, which, as far as we can at present judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work. I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.
It is, as I can now see, probable that all organic beings, including man, possess peculiarities of structure, which neither are now, nor were formerly of any service to them, and which, therefore, are of no physiological importance. We know not what produces the numberless slight differences between the individuals of each species, for reversion only carries the problem a few steps backwards, but each peculiarity must have had its efficient cause. If these causes, whatever they may be, were to act more uniformly and energetically during a lengthened period (and against this no reason can be assigned), the result would probably be not a mere slight individual difference, but a well-marked and constant modification, though one of no physiological importance. Changed structures, which are in no way beneficial, cannot be kept uniform through natural selection, though the injurious will be thus eliminated. Uniformity of character would, however, naturally follow from the assumed uniformity of the exciting causes, and likewise from the free intercrossing of many individuals. During successive periods, the same organism might in this manner acquire successive modifications, which would be transmitted in a nearly uniform state as long as the exciting causes remained the same and there was free intercrossing. With respect to the exciting causes we can only say, as when speaking of so-called spontaneous variations, that they relate much more closely to the constitution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the conditions to which it has been subjected.
Esses 2 parágrafos são de fato do final do 2º Capítulo de “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex”(1882), intitulado: “ON THE MANNER OF DEVELOPMENT OF MAN FROM SOME LOWER FORM”, onde o autor aborda o seguinte:
Variability of body and mind in man—Inheritance—Causes of variability—Laws of variation the same in man as in the lower animals—Direct action of the conditions of life—Effects of the increased use and disuse of parts—Arrested development—Reversion—Correlated variation—Rate of increase—Checks to increase—Natural selection—Man the most dominant animal in the world—Importance of his corporeal structure—The causes which have led to his becoming erect—Consequent changes of structure—Decrease in size of the canine teeth—Increased size and altered shape of the skull—Nakedness—Absence of a tail—Defenceless condition of man
Talvez não seja tão desnecessário dizer que a compreensão da Evolução Humana já avançou muito desde Darwin, confirmando muitas de suas previsões, mas também superando-o, como não poderia deixar de ser. E que, diferente do que era no final do século XIX, hoje ninguém rejeita a Seleção Natural. Exceto os CriaDItas é claro.