When someone -- no matter what kinds of degrees, qualifications, prestige, or honors he has -- is quoted to support a proposition, it does not imply that the proposition is true.
To imply otherwise is a common fallacy called the "argument from authority." What should matter is not who agrees with one of your points but rather what evidence you can provide that supports it.
"This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution.
Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered.
Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists.
A scientific argument is not like an elementary school book that says "authoritatively" that Albany is the capital of New York, nor is it a high school or college textbook that functions to summarize current theory and practice of a field.
The works of antievolutionists are not merely trying to summarize existing mainstream scientific knowledge, but are rather trying to argue that large parts of it are completely wrong.
If a writer argues by hand-picking only the experts convenient to him, then that writer has committed the "argument from authority" fallacy. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
This is especially the case when the quoted authority is in the minority among his fellow experts.