Sleazy PZ falsely accuses Casey Luskin of quote-mining

Sleazy PZ Myers posted an article charging that the following statement from an op-ed by the Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin contains quote mines from a U.S. National Academy of Sciences booklet titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism:

In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that "[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution," because neo-Darwinism is "so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter" it.

Casey's two above quotes came from pages 52 and 16 of the booklet. Sleazy PZ charged that Casey's above statement misrepresents the NAS's position.

Here is the full context of the 2nd quote, from a comment by John Pieret on the Panda's Thumb blog:
.

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. (emphasis added)

If the word 'it" at the end of Luskin's statement is changed to "them" so that the reference is to "basic facts of evolution" rather than "neo-Darwinism" (possibly including the details of evolution as well as the basic facts of evolution), then Luskin's statement is essentially the same as the second bolded statement above:

In January, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences weighed in on this debate, declaring that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution,“ because neo-Darwinism is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter” [them].

So it appears that Luskin is at worst just guilty of a poor word choice. IMO any misrepresentation of the NAS's position was too subtle to have been deliberate.

In contrast to Luskin's innocent poor choice of a word, Judge Jones did some real quote-mining. Jones said in his Dickinson College commencement speech,

. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." * At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, "to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state." * (quote mines are shown in bold)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Quotations from The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (Princeton University Press, 2003).

The book that Jones quote-mined says,

How did the Puritan Fathers erecting their "City upon a Hill" transform into the Founding Fathers drawing a distinct line between church and state? The answer lies in the changing meaning of freedom in the concept of freedom of religion. To the Puritans who fled persecution, Massachusetts Bay represented the freedom to practice without interference the one true faith, which they based solely on the Bible, correctly interpreted. Thus religious freedom in the "City upon a Hill" meant freedom from error, with church and state, though separate, working together to support and protect the one true faith. Those who believed differently were free to go elsewhere and sometimes compelled to do so. The Founding Fathers had a radically different conception of religious freedom. Influenced by the Enlightenment, they had great confidence in the individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason. To them, true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in the Bible but rather was to be found through free rational inquiry. Drawing on radical Whig ideology, a body of thought whose principal concern was expanded liberties, the framers sought to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. (Quote mines are again shown in bold. Sorry for the long quote, but I wanted to give the quote mines some more context)

By failing to mention the "radical Whig ideology" that was mentioned in the book, Jones gave this alleged "true religion" of the Founders more credit for the establishment clause than the book gave -- the "radical Whig ideology" may have even been essential for the creation of the establishment clause. Even the book gave this "true religion" too much credit -- in establishment clause histories given in two Supreme Court decisions, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Engel v. Vitale (1962), this "true religion" is not even given honorable mention as a contributing factor (so much for Jones' emphasis on the importance of judicial precedent). In contrast to Casey Luskin, Judge Jones obviously deliberately misrepresented his source. Furthermore, Jones did not credit his source when he gave his speech. And most importantly of all, Judge Jones was supposed to show neutrality towards organized religion and he did not.
.