Dishonest Misquotes?

Albert Einstein

Source

Einstein is often quoted by those of faith and it is claimed that he was a person of faith. A recent article speaks of a new book about Einstein and states, “A book chronicling the life history of Albert Einstein is soon to be released and will reveal the deep religiosity of one of history’s greatest minds.” It goes on to say, “In the biography, the author also shows how Einstein did feel compelled by the story of Jesus, seeing him as an integral part of history.” This could lead us to believe that Einstein was a man of faith. The most quoted line from Einstein is, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” It is this line that is most often used to add weight to arguments that revolve around intelligent design and as an attempt to discredit evolutionary biology. Einstein also said many other things that are omitted by writers when they try to use Einstein to lend weight to their faith statements. For example, “I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.” and “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.” To use a quote out of context as a means to support a view that runs contrary to the beliefs of the person who provided the quote seems to be a little dishonest.

Charles Darwin

Source

Darwin is the bane of religious minds. Evolution is by far the subject that gets religious people hot under the collar. From claims that it is just a theory or a belief to the rather more difficult to prove idea that it is a deliberate demonic deception run rife in religious circles. The most often used quote used to discredit Darwin himself is in relation to the evolution of the eye. Darwin is quoted as saying, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” The argument goes that even Darwin, the author of evolutionary processes, could not fully accept his own claims because of the human eye. Now let us continue the quote to the end. “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real”. When taken in context Darwin does appear to accept that evolution is indeed a valid explanation for the existence of the eye without the need to reference a designer or a supreme being. Once again it appears that a certain amount of misquoting is going on and it smacks of dishonesty. Add to this the blatant untruth regarding Darwin’s deathbed conversion and you have what can only be described as a deliberate misquote followed by a lie.