The book, Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography[1] by David Williams and Malte Ebach provides a thoughtful history of the origins of this point of view.
[5] Colin Patterson later wrote similarly: "We must remember the distinction between the cart--the explanation--and the horse--the data.
A frequent (but false) accusation against pattern cladistics is that its proponents claim that systematics should be "theory free."
In this view, whatever the characters imply as the preferred hypothesis of relationships becomes, de facto, "genealogical" when we explain it as a result of evolution.
[13] As noted, transformed cladistics does not deny common ancestry, rather it argues a logical precedence: theories regarding processes should only be formulated after patterns are discovered.
In November, 1981, Patterson delivered a seminar to the Systematics Discussion Group in the American Museum of Natural History.
"A creationist in the audience taped segments of Patterson's talk to imply he was "agnostic" on the subject of evolution.
(Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982)"Unfortunately, and unknown to me, there was a creationist in my audience with a hidden tape recorder.
"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists.
I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.