DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Tom]

I've detected verbal resemblances between Daniel Peterson's blog post titled "Notes on 'simple' life" and passages in Dean Overman's A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization. Although I cannot say whether Overman's book influenced Peterson's post, I can say that Peterson's post does not cite Overman (see below for Peterson's cited sources). I've highlighted identical or near-identical language in blue. I have not highlighted quotations from other authors found in both sources.

1.

A few more notes, maybe appropriate — in their capacity to induce wonder — for a Thanksgiving Day:

Living matter, unlike non-living matter, processes energy, stores information, and replicates or reproduces itself. In this regard, whales and roses and snakes and hawks and redwoods are dramatically different from the inanimate nature around them. The performance of these common biological functions requires a certain level—indeed, a remarkably high degree—of complexity.

Living matter processes energy, stores information and replicates. To be alive a system must achieve a certain level of complexity to perform these functions.

A Case Against Accident, p. 33.

2.

“Molecular biology,” writes Michael Denton,

has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world. [1]

Denton speaks of a “recently revealed world of molecular machinery, of coding systems, of informational molecules, of catalytic devices and feedback control.”[2]

Recent discoveries in molecular biology portray the enormous complexity in the smallest living cell. A single-celled bacterium contains millions of atoms and an enormous number of informational instructions. Michael Denton describes this complexity:

Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world . . . The recently revealed world of molecular machinery, of coding systems, of informational molecules, of catalytic devices and feedback control, is in its design and complexity quite unique to living systems and without parallel in the non-living world.

A Case Against Accident, pp. 33-34.

3.

Harvard palaeontologist George Gaylord Simpson:

A fully living system must be capable of energy conversion in such a way as to accumulate negentropy, that is, it must produce a less probable, less random organization of matter and must cause the increase of available energy in the local system rather than the decrease demanded in closed systems by the second law of thermodynamics. It must also be capable of storing and replicating information, and the replicated information must eventually enter into the development of a new individual system like that from which it came. The living system must further be enclosed in such a way as to prevent dispersal of the interacting molecular structures and to permit negentropy accumulation. At the same time selective transfer of materials and energy in both directions between organism and environment must be possible. Systems evolving toward life must become cellular individuals bounded by membranes.[3]

George Gaylord Simpson, the highly regarded professor of paleontology at Harvard University, gave the following definition of a living system:

A fully living system must be capable of energy conversion in such a way as to accumulate negentropy, that is, it must produce a less probable, less random organization of matter and must cause the increase of available energy in the local system rather than the decrease demanded in closed systems by the second law of thermodynamics. It must also be capable of storing and replicating information, and the replicated information must eventually enter into the development of a new individual system like that from which it came. The living system must further be enclosed in such a way as to prevent dispersal of the interacting molecular structures and to permit negentropy accumulation. At the same time selective transfer of materials and energy in both directions between organism and environment must be possible. Systems evolving toward life must become cellular individuals bounded by membranes.

A Case Against Accident, p. 32.

4.

For my purposes, I intend to adopt as the definition of the term life one that highlights the extraordinarily sophisticated nature of the information that’s contained in the genetic code, the genome, of living forms of matter. The essential distinction between living and non-living matter, on this view, is the richness of the information content that’s peculiarly characteristic of life forms, in contrast to the relative poverty of information that characterizes inanimate objects. This information richness allows living organisms to interact with their environment in complex ways that go far beyond those available to, say, rocks and dirt clods.

[1] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 1985), 250.

[2] Denton, Evolution, 271.

[3] George Gaylord Simpson, “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids,” Science 143 (1964): 771.

The definition of life in this book emphasizes the sophisticated information content found in living forms of matter in the genetic code. The essential distinction between living and non-living matter is this information content which is the minimum number of instructions necessary to specify the structure under examination.

A Case Against Accident, p. 23.

[_Lemmie]

I've detected verbal resemblances between Daniel Peterson's blog post titled "Notes on 'simple' life" and passages in Dean Overman's A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization. Although I cannot say whether Overman's book influenced Peterson's post, I can say that Peterson's post does not cite Overman (see below for Peterson's cited sources). I've highlighted identical or near-identical language in blue. I have not highlighted quotations from other authors found in both sources.

That seems to be his pattern, Tom. He quotes who another author quotes, uses that author's words, ideas and phrases before and after the quotes, but doesn't acknowledge the author he is plagiarizing from, only the passages they quote. It is dishonest and it is plagiarism.

[_Lemmie]

Jessie, since you asked about the situation, I thought I would copy over a couple of posts I made in another thread where I again document his recent plagiarism. For some reason, the thread where I posted these was moved out of Terrestrial and into Spirit Paradise, so you may not have seen the discussion. This is the more appropriate thread for them anyway, as they add to the list of his plagiarized blog entries. Anyway, just FYI:

This is the second blog post in which this blogger of no significance has taken his full set of ideas from Dembski's book, in this case Nancy Pearcey in her essay: "Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears." It's been published in several locations, one is as chapter 4 of:

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism UnconvincingBy William Dembski.

Every single footnote our insignificant blogger uses is from that essay, except of course for the ones where he quotes Pearcey herself. Note that he doesn't give a full reference for the Pearcey essay, but he does give page numbers, which correspond exactly to the pages of pearson's chapter in Dembski's book.

Here's how Pearcey starts her idea that our blogger lifted:

Not only is evolutionary psychology an incoherent patchwork, it is also ultimately self-refuting. Consider: If ideas are products of evolution, then that includes the idea of evolutionary psychology. Like all other ideas, it is not true but only useful for survival. Proponents Of the theory are eager to use it to debunk traditional theism, but fail to see that it debunks itself.

She continues; here is another example of how our blogger simply lifts her ideas and footnotes directly:

Dennett's trademark metaphor is that Darwinism is a "universal acid, ' that "eats through just about every traditional concept" of religion or morality or social order. And yet, it is the height of wishful thinking for Dennett to presume that the acid will dissolve only other people's views and not his own. As philosopher Mary Midgely .....

Not only is our blogger not an original thinker, he's not even an original bad thinker.

And my second post, documenting further:

And a plagiarist, once again. I reviewed Pearcey's chapter, Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears, and once again, virtually every single sentence DCP posts is straight out of Pearcey's work. This time, Peterson can't hide behind forgetfulness, or accidental error, because he said this in the comments:

Curious, too, that they both read as if I had quoted nobody OTHER than Pearcey in support of my doubts -- whereas I actually cited the distinguished philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Mary Midgley . . . as well as Mr. Charles Darwin himself....
Finally, IS Nancy Pearcey a young-Earth creationist who believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? It's certainly possible; I know little about her

DCP quotes all of those people because he plagiarizes Pearcey as she quotes all of those people as well. For example:

Daniel Dennett’s trademark slogan is that Darwinism is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept” in religion and morality, and puts our views of the social order in an entirely different light

which he took straight from Pearcey:

Dennett's trademark metaphor is that Darwinism is "universal acid, ' that "eats through just about every traditional concept" of religion or morality or social order.

Changing "metaphor" to "slogan" doesn't hide the plagiarism, Dan.

Another example:

As Mary Midgley points out, if we accept the concept of memes as Dawkins and his co-believers seek to propagate it, we must conclude that the only reason they “campaign so ardently for neo-Darwinism must be that a neo-Darwinist meme . . . has infested their brains, forcing them to act in this way.” After all, she says, “if you propose the method seriously you must apply it consistently.”

Which is virtually identical to Pearcey:

As Midgely argues, accept the idea of memes, and you must conclude that the only reason Dawkins and others “campaign so ardently for neo-Darwinism must be that a neo-Darwinist meme … has infested their brains, forcing them to act in this way.” After all, “if you propose the method seriously you must apply it consistently”

Again, DCP does things like trade "concept" for "idea," and "we must" for "you must," etc. Does he really think that hides the plagiarism?

DCP's title theme isn't even original:

He was right to be concerned. Consistent materialism seems to saw off the branch upon which the materialist sits while thinking.

and now Pearson:

But of course, Darwin’s own theory was itself a “conviction of man’s mind,” so he was cutting off the branch he himself was sitting on. In short, Darwinian naturalism is self-refuting.

This is getting disgusting. I can't even imagine the editorial nightmare DCP's book will be, once the editors start to realize just how much of his manuscript is unoriginal.

Both posts are from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=47974

[_I have a question]

Just for reference...

Intentional plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft that violates recognized principles of academic integrity as well as the Honor Code. Such plagiarism may subject the student to appropriate disciplinary action administered through the university Honor Code Office, in addition to academic sanctions that may be applied by an instructor.

Inadvertent plagiarism, whereas not in violation of the Honor Code, is nevertheless a form of intellectual carelessness that is unacceptable in the academic community. Plagiarism of any kind is completely contrary to the established practices of higher education, where all members of the university are expected to acknowledge the original intellectual work of others when it is included in one's own work. In some cases, plagiarism may also involve violations of copyright law.

Intentional Plagiarism. Intentional plagiarism is the deliberate act of representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one's own without providing proper attribution to the author through quotation, reference, or footnote.

Inadvertent Plagiarism. Inadvertent plagiarism involves the inappropriate, but nondeliberate, use of another's words, ideas, or data without proper attribution. Inadvertent plagiarism usually results from an ignorant failure to follow established rules for documenting sources or from simply being insufficiently careful in research and writing. Although not a violation of the Honor Code, inadvertent plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct for which an instructor can impose appropriate academic sanctions. Students who are in doubt as to whether they are providing proper attribution have the responsibility to consult with their instructor and obtain guidance. Examples of plagiarism include:

The verbatim copying of an original source without acknowledging the source.
Paraphrased Plagiarism: The paraphrasing, without acknowledgment, of ideas from another that the reader might mistake for your own.
Plagiarism Mosaic: The borrowing of words, ideas, or data from an original source and blending this original material with one's own without acknowledging the source.
Insufficient Acknowledgment: The partial or incomplete attribution of words, ideas, or data from an original source.
Plagiarism may occur with respect to unpublished as well as published material. Acts of copying another student's work and submitting it as one's own individual work without proper attribution is a serious form of plagiarism.

https://facultycenter.BYU.edu/honor-cod ... Plagiarism

[_Lemmie]

A commenter on Faith-Promoting Rumor suggested this reference when trying to determine what constitutes plagiarism:

Booth et al., The Craft of Research (Chicago, 2008 third edition), pp. 191-197. ...

"Don't paraphrase too closely .... [R]eaders will think that you plagiarize if they can match your words and phrasing with those of your source .... To avoid seeming to plagiarize... check whether you can run your finger along your sentence and find synonyms for the same ideas in the same order as your source. If you can, try again ...."
https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base ... 7c7b2d6a12

JP thinks Peterson's plagiarism continues, over and over and over, to be unintentional, so I thought I would test out the above recommendation.

Here is another section from Peterson's same blog entry that I argue plagiarizes Pearcey:

This argument has been spelled out in greater detail by philosopher Alvin Plantinga: “What evolution guarantees is (at most) that we behave in certain ways—in such ways as to promote survival.” But “it does not guarantee mostly true or verisimilitudinous beliefs.” In other words, natural selection preserves behavior that promotes survival; whether that behavior is based on true beliefs is irrelevant.62

compare this to Peterson:

“What evolution guarantees,” comments the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, “is (at most) that we behave in certain ways—in such ways as to promote survival.”  However, “it does not guarantee mostly true or verisimilitudinous beliefs.”  To put it another way, while natural selection favors actions that promote survival and replication, the question of whether those actions are based upon accurate beliefs is, in terms of evolution, largely if not entirely irrelevant.[1]

The two phrases are virtually identical, with Peterson directly using Pearcey's intellectual work.

In addition to using the exact same portion of Plantinga's quote, Peterson replaces Pearcey's "but" with "however," he changes "in other words" into "to put it another way," he extends "survival" into "survival and replication," he changes "true beliefs" into "accurate beliefs," and he extends "irrelevant" into "entirely irrelevant."

Every single phrase in Peterson's blog entry is done in the exact same manner, all taken directly from Pearcey's chapter "Darwin Meets the Berenstain Bears."

Every single quote he uses is exactly the same part of a quote that Pearcey uses. 6 of his footnotes match her footnotes 29, 30, 33, 60, 61, and 62. His 7th footnote is the one time he acknowledges quoting a section from Pearcey herself, but he only acknowledges a single passage with that footnote, not the rest of her work he uses.

here is a comment from Peterson:

Who is being "coy"? Yes, I quoted a passage from Nancy Pearcy. And I also quoted something from Mary Midgley. And I also quoted something from Richard Rorty. And I also quoted something from Alvin Plantinga. And I also quoted something from Mary Midgley. And I also quoted something from Charles Darwin.

I quoted nothing from Nancy Pearcey about Young-Earth Creationism. I quoted nothing from Nancy Pearcey about human/dinosaur socializing.

Why the fixation on Nancy Pearcey?

notice he is careful to say he didn't quote Pearcey about YEC or dinosaurs, when what he did is plagiarize Pearcey on another topic. In my opinion, this comment from him indicates he knows exactly what he did. it is disingenuous in the extreme.

There is no way that his blog entry represents an accidental copying with that many adjustments, and there is no way that the careful replacement of all of those terms with synonyms is unintentional. Peterson spent considerable effort trying to hide his plagiarism. His efforts are almost comically bad, however, and completely obvious once you know the source.

[_Lemmie]

We're up to what? Three pheughk yews now? I feel like JP is handing out f-yous like Oprah hands out cars...

ANYWAY.

Can a brutha get himself sum more of dat plagiarism? It's funner to out Plagiarizin' Peterson than to figure out JP's latest post.

- Doc

You read my mind Doc! I realized that earlier in the thread, i said to Jesse Pinkman that Peterson had plagiarized twice from Pearcey's Chapter, "Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears," but that I hadn't provided documentation for that other Pearcey plagiarization, so here you go:

Peterson posted a log entry on October 23, 2017, entitled:
What difference does Darwinism make?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 3585799864

which is lifted almost in its entirety from Pearcey's chapter 4 in the book Uncommon Dissent:
"Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears."

This blog entry has 6 paragraphs, starting with paragraph 1:

From another of those manuscripts, some notes in a fairly raw state:

He starts off easy in paragraph two, taking Pearcey's ideas but adding some words of his own:

Why does the public care so passionately about a theory of biology? Because people sense intuitively that there’s much more at stake than a scientific theory.

and Peterson's version:

Why does the public care so much about Darwinism and evolution?  Nobody becomes exercised over quantum mechanics, the role of chlorophyll in photosynthesis, or general relativity.  It is because Darwinism is not merely a theory in biology but a world view, with profound implications for our understanding of our own nature and for our sense of our relationship to the universe.  Whether they can articulate this or not, most people grasp it intuitively.  And they are entirely right.

paragraph 3 to the end, however, are directly and completely plagiarized from Pearcey:

John Dewey penned a famous essay called “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” where he announced that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”38

In an essay entitled “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” the famous American philosopher John Dewey declared that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”[1]

As one leader in the Ohio controversy put it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”1

As a participant in the textbook wars relating to evolution has expressed it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”[2] 

In fact, Darwinian naturalism is being targeted to even younger children. A few years ago, I picked up a book for my little boy called The Berenstain Bears’ Nature Guide. In it, the Bear family invites the reader on a nature walk, and after a few pages, we open to a two-page spread, glazed with the light of the rising sun, proclaiming in capital letters: “Nature … is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”23

And the indoctrination has not remained confined to school curricula.  As the 1975 children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide, featuring the Berenstain Bears, informs its young audience, “Nature . . . is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”[3]

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another," the great zoologist Ernst Mayr once
said, "but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces."34

“The Darwinian revolution,” wrote the famous zoologist Ernst Mayr, “was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces.” [4]

When Darwin's theory was accepted in biology, says historian Edward Purcell, its broader implication was understood to be a new theory of knowledge generally. People working in fields outside of science—the soc'al sclences, law, and politics—came to see that Darwinism implied "a wholly naturalistic and empirically orientcd world view." In this worldview, theological dogmas became "at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations." 36

As historian Edward Purcell notes, people working in subject areas far afield from biology soon came to understand that Darwinism implied “a wholly naturalistic and empirically oriented world view” in which theological doctrines were to be viewed as “at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations.”[5]
 

how can this possibly be seen as unintentional plagiarism? This is intentional.

[_Jersey Girl]

how can this possibly be seen as unintentional plagiarism? This is intentional.

It's either intentional or a chronic case of lazy.

[Guest]

In all of the posts here, I read one person who really got it. That was DrW. . Most everyone else was just gleefully seeing how many violations could be piled up.

Jesse,

Your expressed view that I was not piling on DCP with malicious intent, and saying so on this thread, is greatly appreciated. Nonetheless, plagiarism isn't the only reason that DCP has found himself the subject of so much justified criticism.

His work products for the general (LDS) public are severely substandard in several ways. If only his oft described fascination with the wonders of science were underpinned by some modest degree of comprehension and understanding on his part.

His superficial reading of popular science followed by posting comments about what he reads, as interpreted through the lens of unfounded belief, is nothing more than poor apologia, and annoyingly poor apologia at that. He apparently spends more time searching for eye-catching images to go with his posts than he does trying to truly understand what he is talking about.

For example, DCP often uses the poor apologist's gambit of pointing out the well known pioneers of science who were also Christian, as if that proves religion (Christianity in his case) is in some way on par with mainstream science as a means to discover and understand objective reality. And true to form, his apparent aversion to doing his homework sometimes results false or inaccurate information in this regard. (Examples with references will be provided elsewhere.)

The problem here is that DCP apparently fails to understand, or declines to acknowledge, the extent to which the gaps for any supernatural creator have diminished over the last century. The personal religious beliefs, or lack thereof, especially of an 18th or 19th century pioneer in science, are absolutely irrelevant to the issue of science vs. religion today.

Another annoying and wholly unprofessional aspect of DCP's work products are his frequent quoting of Mormons such as Hugh Nibley to support his indefensible positions. This apparent hero worship of Nibley severely erodes DCP's own credibility as well, especially given the discussion over on the Sgt. Nibley - Paul Dunn thread.

This kind of passive aggressive quoting of LDS "authorities" speaking out against evolution, or even science in general, in defense of Mormonism and religion in general, just makes DCP look silly. The passage below is from a recent post on Sic et Non. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/12/evolution-satanism-straw-men.html

A thought on science and religion from the late Hugh Nibley:

"Science represents a high court from whose judgment there is no appeal, the idea (Freud expresses it in his The Future of Illusion) . . . that all other judgments are outmoded traditions; [that] the judges are free from prejudice and bias, and above petty personal interests, if they let the facts speak for themselves; that they suspend all judgment until all the facts have been gathered; that they proceed cautiously and carefully, step by step, making no mistakes, no guesses, never accepting a proposition until it is proven; that to question such a judge is an affront to his dignity and to his high office; that the judges never guess but always know; that they make no pronouncements until they have proven and verified everything; that they begin their investigations by accumulating facts with completely open minds, neither selecting or eliminating as they go; that their procedures and conclusions are in no way colored by any previous experience.

That they never trust anything to luck and rarely make mistakes; that their accumulated decisions of the past compose a solid and reliable body of tested and proven knowledge called science; that by following the instructions and example of the judges, our civilization can emancipate itself from the darkness of ignorance; that to accept the decision of the judges as definitive is the mark of an intellectual person; that the knowledge of the judges is so deep and specialized that it cannot be put into ordinary language or understood by the layman but [that] science is a necessary domain of highly specialized experts and so forth.
. . .
Well, every one of these propositions is completely false."

Hugh Nibley, “Fact and Fancy in the Interpretation of Ancient Records,” 6-7 .

This kind of extensive quotation by DCP, depending on a pseudoscientific charlatan like Nibley to articulate what DCP apparently believes himself, is just one example of DCP's failure to understand what he is talking about and his resulting passive aggressive engagement with science and with logic and reason itself.

Bottom line: DCP needs to improve his work product in more ways than simply breaking his habit of plagiarizing others.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Adding to Dr. W's thought, if I were a Mormon and had read the book I just read, I wouldn't touch Nibley with a ten-foot pole. The man was a crackpot, liar, and stolen valor garbage human being. The fact that DCP and others have decided to throw all in with Nibley is astonishing, but points to the fact that Nibs created a little fiefdom out there in Provo built on his lies and false reputation, one that he couldn't secure in the real world.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

bumped to get thread back on track:

Jesse,

Where I work, a supposed professional who behaved as DCP continues to, and whose work products were of the general quality of DCP's, would have been terminated by now. The ethics and culture of an organization are judged by the behavior and public image of its senior professionals and long term staff.

I can't imagine any successful professional organization that would tolerate the poor quality work DCP manages to produce on a near daily basis.

We have just finished the long and expensive process of terminating a senior executive in our company because his work products and behavior were negatively affecting the entire organization and alienating the clients and counter parties with who we do business. The reputation of our company was important enough to us and our shareholders that we ended up spending a lot of time and money to get rid of this guy.

Just as this guy's behavior and persona corroded the reputation of our company, DCP's poor professional behavior reflects badly on BYU, on the LDS Church, and on Deseret News - at a minimum. As described by Gerald Bradford in his now famous letter to DCP, there was a reason that DCP was removed from his post at FARMS in 2012.

The time has come for us to take the Review in a different direction. What we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication.

DCP's behavior subsequent to that event demonstrated very clearly why removing him was the right decision for FARMS and the Church.

Back in 2012 the it was ad hominem attacks. Today it's plagiarism.

In my opinion, and clearly in that of others on the board, the public image and reputations of the above named organizations that continue to hire, employ, or financially support DCP, and his public persona, are diminished by association for doing so. While granting that DCP probably retains a following within the rank and file of the Mormondom, the perceptions of the general public at large are what is important to the Church in the long run.

To get the thread back on track, I wanted to come back to this very important observation by DrW.

Gerald Bradford made additional observations at the time, in effect stating that the approach taken in the past was simply not professional and did not reflect well on the University.

I doubt he would brook any possibility that the approach he oversees now would be allowed to be tainted, repeatedly, with documented plagiarism.