Someone once pointed out that when a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, it's not committing an act of vandalism. It's just being a dog. It's possible to use that analogy to excuse a creationist who takes a quote wildly out of context, I suppose, but I don't think it's really appropriate. [Creationists might indulge](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html) in [quote mining](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining) with the same casual disregard for public decency as a male dog telling his neighbors that he's still around, but, unlike dogs, the creationists are presumably capable of self-control. We've simply grown blase about their propensity for twisting other people's words because they do it so often.
Still, I expected more from [Michael Egnor](/archives/2007/03/egnorance-combo-arrogance.html). He's not some [diploma mill hack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind), who really might not know any better. The man is [a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at SUNY Stony Brook](http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/neurosurgery/doc.htm), and is actually the vice chairman of neurosurgery. He's been in academia for some time, and presumably has some understanding of the importance of intellectual integrity. When he picks and chooses which words to quote to make it appear that someone has said something very different from what they meant, he has very clearly chosen to tell a lie. And that's just what he did [when he quoted from one of my posts](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/mr_dunfords_concession_antibio.html).
Here's what he wrote:
Zoology graduate student and Darwinist Mike Dunford at Panda’s Thumb has replied to recent posts in which Dr. Jonathan Wells and I pointed out that Darwin’s theory is irrelevant to medical research on antibiotic resistance, and that antibiotic resistance itself is irrelevant to the debate about intelligent design and Darwinism. Remarkably, Mr. Dunford, referring to a recent advance in research on antibiotic resistance, concedes both points. He writes:
The scientists worked in a lab. They artificially replicated a set of conditions (an antibiotic-rich environment) that occur in nature. Finally, they placed the bacteria into this environment - something that happens spontaneously outside the lab…We’ll pretend that anything that happens in a lab must be artificial selection, and that it is totally and completely wrong to use the phrase “natural selection” when referring to these experiments.
Mr. Dunford is right. Selection that happens by design in a lab is artificial selection, not natural selection. This distinction is of fundamental importance in this debate. Why? Consider Mr. Dunford’s next observation:
Now, here's what I actually wrote. The portions that Egnor skipped over are highlighted in boldface:
[Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left.](http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/03/two_things_that_dont_go_togeth.php)