You are here

Misquoting

Are critics of evolution misquoting or quoting out-of-context

Summary of problems:

Scores of scientists have publicly denounced the Discovery Institute for misrepresenting their views by selectively quoting snippets out of context. The Discovery Institute goes farther than quoting scientists out of context; they manipulate quotes in such a way to make the words of these scientists seem to support creationism, much to the chagrin of the cited scientists.

Full discussion:

Another problem arises, when dissenting scientists quote the work of their colleagues, many of whom question certain aspects of neo-Darwinism, or parts of the case for it, while still happily calling themselves "evolutionary biologists" or :neo-Darwinists" … Often, in such cases, dissenters are accused of "misquotation" or "misrepresentation." But is this really true?
Explore Evolution, p. 142-143

Apparently so. Explore Evolution misrepresents Malcolm Gordon's view of the tree of life by claiming that he "would disagree with Universal Common Descent." As discussed earlier, Malcolm Gordon's argument is not with universal common descent, but whether all life descended from a single common ancestor. Explore Evolution achieved the misrepresentation by misquotation, omitting a key sentence, shown in bold below, that explained Gordon’s view.

At the macro-scale life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root, but was instead a network of inextricably intertwined multiple branches deriving from many, perhaps 100 or more, genetic sources (Pennisi 1998b).
M. Gordon et al., (1999) "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay," Biology and Philosophy, p. 335