Yes, quote mining is not the correct term. Rather, there is a distortion of the meaning of the statement (an accredited biologist can dissent from so-called Darwinism while still taking biological evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth). Furthermore, there is a conscious effort on the part of the Discovery Institute to inflate the apparent credentials of those listed. I highly recommend this article at Wikipedia:
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
Here are some relevant passages from the article:
Quote:The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized,[12][13] with many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology.[39]
In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999.[40] Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times.[13] Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[22] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[41]
The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.[11][13]
(Ordinarily, i remove footnote numbers from such a text, but i have left them in here because the article has carefully cited the sources.)
Quote:Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice.[12]
For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.[12]
This last passage was from the section under the rubric: Affiliations and credentials. I highly recommend a close reading of this section.
In the final analysis, it is a dishonest appeal to authority, from people whose authority is suspect in many cases. And, of course, even if all 700+ were credentialed in biological sciences (they are not), it would still represent a significant minority of the tens of thousands of scientists who do work in the relevant field. Lastly, rejecting "Darwinism" doesn't mean that "intelligent design" (Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . . that name cracks me up) is correct. This is part and parcel of holy roller rhetoric which runs that if someone can't explain something to their satisfaction, they get to substitute their imaginary friend.
As Roswell said, horseshit like this has been debunked again and again online for literally decades. Don't think you're being clever by bringing it up yet again.
