The words enclosed in quotation marks are accurate. However the quotes are entirely misrepresented and taken out of context.No examples are given. I'd like to see the context, especially since the Discovery Institute replied with
Mindell does not explain how the summary misinterprets his publication or quotes it out of context. This is not surprising, however, as a closer look at the article in question provides additional support for the accuracy of the summary. The summary notes that Mindell et al.’s findings suggest that “mtDNA may be subject to the same kind of historically misleading similarities that affect other types of systematic data”—thus complicating “the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies.”And that is exactly what Mindell himself said. Again, this is hardly surprising, as the summary was simply a precís of the main points of his article. Can convergent similarity affect molecular data (in this case, mitochondrial gene order) and be historically misleading? Yes; here is what Mindell et al. wrote in their “Results and Discussion”:
Our discovery of multiple originations for a particular gene order in birds is analogous to the discovery of parallel inversions in chloroplast DNA (23) and points to the need for greater sampling of taxa in phylogenetic analyses based on gene order. Without such sampling, convergent similarity among gene order characters will be more easily mistaken for similarity because of common descent, thereby confounding phylogenetic analyses. (pp. 10694-10695; emphasis added)We invite Professor Mindell to explain how this differs in any significant way from what the summary said.
David P. Mindell (coauthor of [14]): "The words enclosed in quotation marks are accurate. However, the quotes are entirely misinterpreted and taken out of context. This is just as the scientific community, and at least some of the public, has come to expect from the Discovery Institute."Now recall that Discovery's whole first paragraph containing the disclaimer was added to the copy on their web site after they had learned of NCSE's questionaire. It was not in the representation to the Ohio board. It is also falsified by Meyer's citation of the bibliography as a list of articles "containing challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution."
Mindell is dismayed to find himself, however accurately quoted, wielded by Luddites against science, as he explains in more detail elsewhere. You see, he knows something you don't, the shabby nature of the people trying to exploit him.
Generally, when you attach a bibliography to your presentation, it refers to supporting materials, books and articles upon which your presentation is based. That's not what a Discovery "bibliography" is at all. The Ohio board could be excused if they thought it was a list of pro-ID research and I'm sure that was Discovery's intent. That they added a caveat on their web site's copy after the misrepresentations should fool no one.
This is real funny! Scientists, as a matter of course, write a summary of their conclusions as an introduction to their papers so that people can quickly see if the research in question is relevant to something they are interested in. This guy is calling himself and those he worked with a liar not Meyer and those opposed to evolution! Seems to me this shows quite clearly the desperation of evolutionists in trying to discredit opponents!