SciCre proponents have a fondness for quoting authorities. Almost as strong as this fondness is their fondness for misquoting authorities.
The SciCre fascination with quotations seems to stem from the anti-science mindset of "revelation": testimonial evidence reigns supreme in theology, thus many SciCre-ists may mistake that condition as being the same in science. However, science has pretty much eschewed assigning any intrinsic worth to testimonial evidence. Quotations from some source are taken as being an indication that some condition as stated holds according to the reliability of the speaker, as seen by reviewing the evidence. SciCre-ists "get" the first part, but have real difficulty coming to terms with the second part. If some Expert A says X, then the SciCre-ist expects that no lesser known mortal will dare gainsay Expert A's opinion on X. However, such a situation is routine in science. Anyone presenting Evidence Q that is inconsistent with X then has shown Expert A to be incorrect on X. If the person holding forth shows repeatedly that they can't be trusted to tell us correct information on, say, trilobites, then that just means that we likely don't hold any further talk on trilobites from that source in high regard.
Misquotation comes in many forms (see the t.o. Jargon File for the list). This page is meant to display some of the most egregious misquotations engaged in by SciCre proponents that have been floated in online discussions, and also the quotes that a SciCre-ist is likely to inject into an argument (even if the quote has no bearing).
If you have an example to add to this archive, please email it to me at welsberr@inia.cls.org
The list below will give the name of the person who was quoted or otherwise claimed as an authority on some point, and where possible, a list of topics upon which they were quoted will follow.