JW literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the JW viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless. Sometimes indeed quotes in JW literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e. Carl Sagan’s quote, “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer” is indeed a flat out misquote).
Most quotes though are not this blatant and are from authors who criticize some aspect of mainstream scientific thought on a matter. For example, JW publications will quote Gould or Eldredge who say that the idea of gradualism is not consistent with what is found in the fossil record. The JW literature then uses such quotes to attack evolution itself. The problem here is that the Gould and Eldredge are not saying evolution never happened, they are not saying phyletic gradualism (which is what they are contesting) is synonymous with Darwinism. The JW writers on the other hand use these quotes to cast doubt on the fossil record supporting the idea of evolution in general (or even specifically Darwinism). I would think that doing this, even while noting that Gould or Eldredge believe in evolution (even acknowledging they believe in an alternative to gradualism, punctuated equilibrium) is not sufficient background information to the average reader for him to see that the position the JW writers are making is a straw-man or red herring (becuase those two paleontologists are not contesting evolution in general, are not trying to debunk Darwinism even, just against the rate of evolution being strictly gradual).
To me this smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps, though it’s not on purpose. Maybe the writers aren’t even cognizant they are making a logic fallacy (straw-man fallacies are surprisingly common and easy to make; people often miss the point of another’s argument when they are reasoning their own). However, these mistakes are prolific in JW literature about evolution, not merely isolated mistakes. I can only think of two possibilities to explain this, 1) the writers simply don’t know much about evolution to recognize when they are replacing one proposition with a superficially similar yet un-equivalent proposition (perhaps further complicated if they obtain most of their quotes from other creationist and Intellectual Design literature without doing the research and homework to vet out the veracity of the quote and argument that goes with it), or 2) they are aware, but think that the average scientific lay person (myself included) won’t be able to know the wiser, and thus the ends (casting doubt on evolution) justifies the means (misleading quotations and arguments).
Nonetheless, I’ve come across a reply by other authors who have been accused of using misleading quotations. The following quote is not from a JW publication, and I’ll hold off crediting it for the moment (as I don’t want the source to affect anyone’s opinion), but it provides perhaps a third possibility of why/how people can feel that quoting out of context is either not 1) quoting out of context, or 2) even a problem per se:
The second basic criticism of these reviewers is the charge that we supported our position by quotations taken out of context, and that these quotations are consequently misleading. To this we would only suggest that skeptical readers look up the references for themselves. We have been careful to give full documentation for every reference, for just this reason. We flatly reject the innuendo that we have tried to give the impression that the authorities cited agree with our basic position or even with the particular argument we are attempting to illustrate by each quotation. We are of course trying to show in each case that the actual scientific data can be interpreted just as well or better [with some other explanation]. Since it would be unrealistic to expect most readers to accept our description of the particular phenomenon under discussion simply on our own authority, we use instead the works of recognized [scientists] of the orthodox school. No implication is needed, unless explicitly so stated, concerning the beliefs of the particular writer quoted. We believe the quotation in each case speaks for itself concerning the issue at hand. This, of course, is standard procedure in scientific dialogue and argumentation. The latter would be quite impossible were writers expected to limit their citations to recognized authorities who already agreed with their position.
I wonder if a similar rationale is what the JW writers might be using for the practice of quoting out of context (after all why provide a proper bibliography, if one is purposely trying to mislead). However, when it comes to this third possibility, is it really that much different than the first, assuming in good faith the authors are trying to be honest. Wouldn’t the arguments still amount to a straw-man or red herring? Ultimately, while not knowingly lying or misleading, the authors would still be presenting nonfactual and irrational arguments that miss the point. In any case, a recent yearbook talked about how well vetted and researched JW publications are to make sure everything presented is as factual as possible. I don’t understand how this can be the case when mistakes abound in material pertaining to evolution, as again, these mistakes are not the exception, but rather the rule.
On the other hand, am I seeing this wrong perhaps? Are there situations where this third possibility holds true, that it would be rational, factual, and contextually sound to quote someone who does not agree with the point one is making? I’m trying, so far in vain, to think of situations (I'm trying to be objective as possible here). Nonetheless the quote I just shared has at least made me try to think about this question. I realize that discussing this subject matter here just opens me up to confirmation bias, but I think this question (and subject) deserves some consideration.