Textbook Threatiness: Final Chapter
by MikeGeneIt's time to bring about a sense of closure regarding the Textbook Controversy of 2006. If you will recall, the faculty at VCU were questioned because they chose Sylvia Mader's new introductory biology textbook that was accused of harboring a creationist bias.
We covered this here, here, and here.
Now, Keith Pennock at the Discovery Institute has tracked down the actual text that contains the "˜creationist bias.' Here it is:
No wonder most scientists in our country are dismayed when state legislatures or school boards rule that teachers must put forward a variety or "theories" on the origin of life, including one that runs contrary to the mass of data that supports the theory of evolution. An organization in California called the Institute for Creation Research advocates that students be taught an "intelligent-design theory," which says that DNA could never have arisen without the involvement of an "intelligent agent," and that gaps in the fossil record mean that species arose fully developed with no antecedents.
Since no purely religious ideas can be taught in the schools, the advocates for an intelligent-design theory are careful not to mention the Bible or any strictly religious ideas. Still, teachers who have a solid scientific background are not comfortable teaching intelligent-design theory because it does not meet the test of a scientific theory. Science is based on hypotheses that have been tested by observation and/or experimentation. A scientific theory has stood the test of time"”that is, no hypotheses have been supported by observation and/or experimentation that run contrary to the theory. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is supported by data collected in such wide-ranging fields as development, anatomy, geology, and biochemistry.
Obviously, there is no creationist bias here. But ponder what happened. One scientist publicly accused a text book of having a creationist bias and this became news. The consequences:
According to this article , "some of Sparks' colleagues sided with him, relaying support in e-mails to Sparks and to Style." The text books "were rounded up" and further reviewed. Also, these accusations "brought about a lengthy missive to the dean of VCU's school of arts and sciences, Robert D. Holsworth, from a vice president of McGraw-Hill, publishers of the book." In this article, the NCSE fans the flames while another VCU professor publicly questions the credentials of Sylvia Mader.
All it took was for someone to point their finger and shout "Creationist."
Welcome to the post-wedge world.
July 23rd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
You know how they tell women to yell "FIRE!" instead of "RAPE!" if they are being raped? Maybe they should yell "CREATIONIST!" instead.
Comment by macht — July 23, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
But of course. It's not enough for a scientific theory to be questioned only if there have been observations and/or experimentation that "run contrary to the theory" - no, what is needed is a "competing" HYPOTHESIS that is "supported by observation and/or experimentation that run contrary to the theory". There is a significant difference between the two "requirements", and the latter allows "theories" which have been effectively falsified by "observations and/or experimentation" to remain "intact" and accepted. A nice trick.
Comment by Douglas — July 23, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
"…and the latter allows "theories" which have been effectively falsified by observations and/or experimentation" to remain "intact" and accepted."
Douglas,
For those of us not sufficiently up to date with the scientific literature, could you please specify which published observations and/or experimentations have falsified evolutionary theory? These would truly be groundbreaking achievements and those of us in science would therefore be obligated to become acquainted with them.
Thanks,
ape
Comment by great_ape — July 23, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Hi guys,
I appreciate the desire to have a debate about the merits of Mader's claims. In fact, if you want, I can start up a blog that simply quotes Mader and allows people to react. But this blog is not about evolution. The only "on-topic" point related to Mader's claim in this thread is whether or not you think the excerpt constitutes a creationist bias.
Comment by MikeGene — July 23, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I hate to interrupt your latest morality tale about the irrational dogmatism of the academy, but: Somehow, your "Final Chapter" completely missed the only material event that occurred in all this, which was that the instructor, Jim Sparks — who started this whole media mini-ruckus in the first place, about a reasonable (if imperfect) passage in the Mader textbook — was let go afterwards:
VCU professor will not return
He alleged book had creationist leanings; dean denies fallout
As far as I know, the creationist biology instructor at VCU is still employed. We'll see if this set of results ever gets mentioned the next time the IDists decry the dogmatism of the academy.
FWIW, I corresponded briefly with some other biology faculty at VCU about the news stories — after Jim Sparks included me, and them, and a bunch of other people on long paranoid email — and I am confident that they teach evolution like everyone else.
Although I was not in on the interview that produced the quote from Eugenie Scott that you reference — which happened long before Jim Sparks emailed me — it is worth keeping in mind that when a reporter calls you out of the blue and represents local facts a certain way, you tend to comment on that representation, rather than what you would say if you were omniscient about the situation.
Comment by nickmatzke — July 23, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 3:08 pm
[made correction in previous post, since TT handily allows edits now]
Comment by nickmatzke — July 23, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Well, I'm not sure we're living in the "post-wedge" world, as I don't really think the DI's agenda has changed, Kitzmiller or no Kitzmiller.
Suggesting that this textbook has a Creationist bias is a bit of overstatement, though I question the wisdom of mentioning it at all in an college-level, "introductory" biology textbook. On the other hand, I don't doubt that textbooks end up getting "dumbed down" to in order to avoid problems having to do with controversial topics"”when it's a matter of money over substance, money seems to win every time.
Now, since Sparks has apparently been sacked by VCU, I suppose this will be counted as some sort of victory by the DI.
Comment by takuan — July 23, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I have a short comment posted, but it only appears when I am logged in — it says "awaiting moderation." I posted a short clarification just after the first which probably triggered the spam detector.
PS: On Mike Gene's "Design Matrix" page, the RSS feeds are broken I think:
http://www.thedesignmatrix.com...
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 23, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Mike,
Oh. Sorry. But my point was still a doozy, wasn't it? However, in a way, my point does indicate that the excerpt "constitutes a creationist bias", since most anti-IDists see ID as being equivalent to Creationism, and the excerpt has a clear ID bias in its "definition" or description of what would constitute an effective falsification of a scientific theory.
Comment by Douglas — July 23, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Hi Nick,
"Jim Sparks - who started this whole media mini-ruckus in the first place, about a reasonable (if imperfect) passage in the Mader textbook - was let go afterwards:
VCU professor will not return
He alleged book had creationist leanings; dean denies fallout"
From the report:
Are you saying that Sparks was let go because of the "media mini-ruckus" that he caused? If not, what's your point?
"As far as I know, the creationist biology instructor at VCU is still employed."
Which "creationist biology instructor" All we have is Sparks' claim that an unnamed colleague had "strong creationist ties".
Considering that Sparks also thought that a textbook statement that read like a press release from the NCSE displayed creationist bias, let me just say that I lack the sufficient amount of faith.
Comment by Krauze — July 23, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Krauze,
I did a little Googling, and discovered that Dr. Sharon Bullock, a member of the VCU biology faculty (and member of the textbook selection committee, apparently), was, until recently, among the creation scientists listed at the ICR.
http://www.zoominfo.com/direct...
Comment by takuan — July 23, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Hi takuan,
Thank you for the information. It seems like I should have had more faith.
So, the question is whether there is any reason why the university should have fired Dr. Bullock and/or renewed Sparks' employment. Does Nick think Bullock should have been fired simply for being a creationist?
Comment by Krauze — July 23, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:02 pm
I hate to interrupt your latest attempt to misrepresent me, but my blog has nothing to do with "the irrational dogmatism of the academy." Instead, what we see is how one professor can make a baseless, public accusation of "creationist bias" against a mainstream biology text book and note the consequences:
* "Some of Sparks' colleagues sided with him, relaying support in e-mails to Sparks and to Style."
*The text books "were rounded up" and further reviewed.
*These accusations "brought about a lengthy missive to the dean of VCU's school of arts and sciences, Robert D. Holsworth, from a vice president of McGraw-Hill, publishers of the book."
*The NCSE criticizes the VCU faculty for choosing this book and proceeds to criticize their curriculum.
*A VCU professor publicly questions the credentials of Sylvia Mader.
All it took was for one adjunct professor to make the accusation of "Creationist!"
Krauze already covered this and provided the very same article you linked to. I linked to Krauze's article in my blog. Rather than cover the old news, the "Final Chapter" closes the book on the two accusations at the heart of the story. First, there is the conspiratorial notion that the Mader book "skimps" on evolution. I already skewered that one. That left us with the final accusation "“ the "mention" as an example of creationist bias. The folks on the DI found the whole excerpt in context and as we can now see, there is no creationist bias.
So what do we have? A mainstream textbook that does not unfairly skimp on evolution and had no creationist bias. Yet for some reason, there was "a lengthy missive to the dean of VCU's school of arts and sciences, Robert D. Holsworth, from a vice president of McGraw-Hill, publishers of the book.."
Well, I didn't know there was a creationist biology instructor at VCU. But don't worry "“ you brought it up and someone did some of that infamous internet detective work to identify this thought criminal for you.
Comment by MikeGene — July 23, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:26 pm
I sent her an e-mail 2 years ago as an IDEA representative warning her she was a target of certain individuals seeking to get her fired.
I had totally forgotten about the incident until it was just mentioned.
I thought she was at MCV (Medical College of Virginia) not VCU.
#(%^#*!
Infidels had been plotting a way to get her fired.
I think my biology professor is anti-evolution…
I learned of the plot here Another career in jeopardy?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 23, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Such unprovoked hostility!
Mike and Krauze, re-read my comment. I did not advocate the firing of Sharon Bullock even though she is hooked up with the ICR. As long as she is doing her job well she should keep it in my opinion.
All I was noting is that it is odd to proclaim that there is an anti-creationism witch-hunt on, which is clearly what you are implying, when:
(a) The one person involved who looks like he might have been attempting to conduct an irrational witch-hunt — Jim Sparks — was in fact the one person let go after the affair.
(b) The creationist in the VCU biology dept., who one might expect to be the hunted, if someone was being hunted, retains her job (as she should, if she is doing a good job).
I should have added:
(c) VCU is continuing to use Mader's textbook, so Sparks's campaign had no material impact beyond confusing people.
These are simple facts that undermine your case. That's why I posted them.
Let's not have another Pianka event on this blog, guys. It looks like what really happened is one guy freaked out, quite inappropriately, about what in his own weird mind was a pro-creationism reference, even though it was an anti-creationism reference. He starts pushing this in the media, and a journalist or two starts calling people and getting the standard "Yes, creationism is dumb, they shouldn't teach it at VCU" replies from them.
In the end, the people making the decisions in the Biology department ignore Sparks's dubious complaints, and he freaks out and starts emailing all sorts of people complaining about his department (if I recall correctly, this included letters to the Governor's office or something). Surprisingly enough, he is not re-hired a month or so later.
To me, this all looks like rational people eventually prevailing over the confusion sown by an obviously confused guy. Which is about the opposite of the story you were telling.
Nick
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 23, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:50 pm
I didn't say that you advocated the firing of Sharon Bullock. I noted that I did not know there was a creationist biology instructor at VCU until you brought it up. I did not know who it was until takaun identified her. And I still don't know why it was relevant to bring her up.
But what I find interesting is that the accusations started to take root early on, as demonstrated by the consequences I have documented above. Yes, cooler heads prevailed. How could they not, given that it was so obvious that the accusations were baseless? It makes you wonder what would have happened if things were a little more ambiguous.
Comment by MikeGene — July 23, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Can anyone imagine something similarly happening had some history professor claimed that a mainstream history textbook was teaching that the Holocaust never happened (remember, according to many ID critics, that's a perfectly rational comparison)? Would other professors have voiced their support for the accusations, leading to an investigation of the textbook? Would any journalist have taken it seriously enough to contact various organizations fighting Holocaust denial, who then denounced the university? I doubt it.
Comment by Krauze — July 23, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:16 pm
"So, the question is whether there is any reason why the university should have fired Dr. Bullock and/or renewed Sparks' employment. Does Nick think Bullock should have been fired simply for being a creationist?"
Not quite sure how that became the question, and I've no idea what Nick thinks about it. I do sort of wonder why Dr. Bullock is no longer listed among the ICR scientists"”I gather her name has only recently disappeared from their list. Coincidence?
Comment by takuan — July 23, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Responses to specific comments:
Krauze writes,
I don't really know, but it is quite a coincidence. All I know is (a) what's in the news stories, and (b) the fact, based on that email exchange, that many people in the VCU Biology department were very unhappy with Sparks's actions, his public campaign in the media, and what eventually become his public, personal attacks on them. Sometimes public blow-ups like this on specific issues are a product of something else — perhaps Sparks was already on his way out, and this was his parting shot with his colleagues — who knows? But I think it is naive to believe there was utterly no connection.
As you've found out, I was correct here. It was fairly well-known with various mentions on the web including the ICR website, which is not where you put your name if you are trying to be secret about it.
MikeGene wrote,
Consequences? Like not getting rehired, you mean?
This point clearly argues for what I said you were arguing for, the "irrational dogmatism of the academy." Again, it is weakened by the facts that the Biology dept. kept the textbook, was mad at Sparks, and that he happened to get let go afterwards.
Another clear attempt to portray irrational dogmatism.
But let's get real: What, do you think they stole all the copies of the Mader the textbooks from the college students who bought them? This is probably impossible! All this means is that the Dept. was deciding which textbooks to buy — eventually the Mader one was chosen, as far as I know.
I think you need to re-read this sentence. It doesn't mean "We're a big textbook company coming down to smash VCU", which is what you imply — which is again, impossible. Textbook companies are trying to sell textbooks, not alienate customers. It means, "We swear, our book isn't a creationist book in any way, shape or form, and we have no idea why this guy Sparks is campaigning against our book in the media, please ignore him and buy our book anyway."
Based on the account a reporter gave to us…
The guy at the root of the confusion, Jim Sparks, who was later not re-hired.
Sparks again.
Which means you've proved that Jim Sparks was being irrational. Congradulations on reaching the same conclusion already reached a month or more ago by NCSE and the VCU Biology faculty.
You have squat. A textbook publisher defending their honor after being publicly attacked in the media is not exactly surprising. You certainly don't have a case of a witch hunt — instead, you have the powers-that-be making rational decisions against the claims of somebody who was pretty clearly taking anti-creationism to an irrational point.
It's called "google", and as this thread proves, other people besides me know about it.
Later, Mike Gene writes,
This assumes everybody involved had the textbook handy, which is far from clear. I'm not sure the original reporter that made a stink over this and trumpeted Jim Sparks's claims, ever bothered to read the actual passage.
The argument that irrationality was squelched here, therefore irrationality might win in the future, is not exactly impressive.
Krauze's last post just repeats MikeGene's original conspiratorial spins which I have already addressed.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 23, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
My apologies for bringing more scrutiny to the issue, but my feeling is the whole textbook threatiness thing may have been part and parcel to get after several creationist professors at the school. Up until now, it had been a quiet "problem":
1. Sharon Bullock
2. Unnamed VCU Medical Professor
3. Tenured faculty
4. Untenured faculty
Thus, your thesis this is a Post Wedge-World issue may hold, but there may be another contributing factor. Who knows, we may see more of this….
Of course, this is all speculation on my part, but I think it a relevant point to consider.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 23, 2006 @ 9:40 pm
July 23rd, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I apologize for departing on a tangent previously.
As for the snippet of text shown from the book, it is worded quite awkwardly towards the end. It effectively says that a scientific theory is defined as X,Y,Z then proceeds to say "on the contrary, evolutionary theory is [...]" The "on the contrary" was intended to contrast evolution with ID theory, but because of the awkwardness of the wording it could have been misinterpreted as contrasting evolutionary theory with the definition presented of scientific theories. The fact that the details of evolution's basis (i.e.it is supported by data from various fields) is somewhat incongruent with the definition of a theory that was *just* stated could make someon looking for a fight all the more likely to misread it. So , in my opinion, it's not entirely crazy for Sparks to have read it has he did. But to stir up a rucus about it without really pausing to reflect or ask others what they thought the author's intentions were… that's another matter entirely.
Comment by great_ape — July 23, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 1:19 am
I'm going on a small vacation, but I'll be back Friday to continue the discussion.
Comment by Krauze — July 24, 2006 @ 1:19 am
July 24th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Nick
Sure. When an adjunct accuses all his colleagues of being part of some conspiracy to implement a book with a creationist bias, and it becomes crystal clear that this is not true, the adjunct is going to be in trouble. As Salvador said in one of the earlier blogs, "I would presume the pro-Darwin (or even neutral) bio faculty didn't appreciate being painted as creationists."
No, this is not some broad bushed argument for "irrational dogmatism of the academy." What we see is empirical evidence that some segment of academia took Sparks' accusations at face value.
Wrong. It just shows how serious the "creationist accusation" can be. To "round up" the books and review it a second time means that someone had to give the order. And for what? Because one adjunct made an accusation. The "creationist" accusation has the power to kick in quite a reflex. .
Since it is summer, I would guess no students had purchased the book yet. I'm not sure what the reporter had in mind when he said the books were "rounded up." Furthermore, reporters have a knack for getting things wrong to sensationalize their stories. But it does look like the book was submitted to a second review, as if someone didn't trust the committee that originally selected the book. And why? Because one adjunct made a public accusation.
I interpreted it exactly as you did. The "˜creationist' accusation is so serious that a VP from the publisher had to visit VCU and swear there is no creationist bias. The reason they probably went to these lengths is not simply because some guy Sparks was campaigning against the book, but because the story was picked up by the media and the NCSE (a national organization) comes across as being in support of Sparks.
And the reporter is just echoing Sparks accusations. Maybe next time you should decline to comment until you can independently verify some facts. You are admitting you publicly attacked a book and faculty based on nothing more than the word of some small time reporter (which is just the word of Sparks). Was it really that easy to believe Sparks from the onset?
No, that was Rodney Dyer, who "also questions why Mader's credentials don't include affiliations with any particular research institution." I suggest you re-read the original article, as the quotes from Scott and Dyer help to make this look like a real controversy.
What we have is an interesting misfire. Sparks makes a public accusation that is taken very seriously and initially leads to various people rushing to his side (confirmation bias?). It quickly becomes clear there is no creationist bias, Sparks is let go, and it's back to normal. No it's not a witch hunt. It looks like a witch hunt in the making that collapsed because is was not possible to maintain the accusation.
Reading the original Style article should have been enough, as the article clearly states "the book clearly states that intelligent-design theory does not meet the test of scientific theory" and the mere mention as "product placement" is a ridiculous argument. The accusation was fishy from the get-go.
The reason irrationality was squelched here is because no reasonable person could defend the idea that Mader's book had a creationist bias (although there are people in this thread flirting with the idea that such a perception is reasonable). We need only imagine a situation that is not quite a clear-cut.
I guess the only true piece of news that has emerged from this thread is that you have told us the NCSE comments on things without checking them out first. Maybe that is what enabled the reporter to write, "Some of his colleagues say he's paranoid and making much ado about nothing. But Sparks may have a point, according to some people following the debate over how evolution is taught nationwide in grade schools and institutions of higher ed" and one reason several people originally invested in Sparks accusations (which, in turn, is a reason the story got published and the publisher's VP had to travel to school to swear the book is not creationist).
Comment by MikeGene — July 24, 2006 @ 8:07 am
July 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Hopefully, organizations like the NCSE will learn from this that being sloppy with labels and facts will get you in trouble. What goes around comes around.
Comment by Guts — July 24, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I sent in a reply awhile ago, it has not showed up yet, but resubmission gives a "duplicate post" message.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 24, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Matzke send it to me nanosoliton AT yahoo.com, i don't see it in the moderation queue.
Comment by Guts — July 24, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Matzke's comment (apologies for the delay, I just found it in my spam box):
Which is why it was so odd that you repeatedly didn't mention this when
you ominously listed "consequences", e.g. in your opening post and in the
comment I was replying to.
Look, if you read the reporter's article carefully, you can see that
mild statements by others were being spun by the reporter into "support" for
Sparks. This could be several things other than actual support for
Sparks — generic anti-creationism statements, a professor glancing at the
book and, not fully realizing that introductory textbooks have to be
introductory (as professors sometimes don't), stating that the book is
not detailed enough, etc.
The fact remains that the news stories say they voted unanimously to
disregard Sparks' issues and adopt the book.
I note that you are still trying to argue that the academy is
irrationally dogmatic right here!
Regarding "rounding up" — Look, we don't actually know that they even
"review[ed] it a second time." All I remember is something like this:
they had a textbook committee, Sparks raised his issues, and the committee
took a look at them and dismissed them. Seems perfectly normal to me
(except that Sparks then took his case to the media).
Then why repeatedly emphasize it in your list of "consequences" Why
not just chalk it up to reporter hyperbole?
Like I said, we don't know this, and we only have bits and pieces of
what happened when.
There is no reason to think that the VP actually physically visited VCU
– where the heck did you get that? A "lengthy missive" probably just
means they sent a one-page email to VCU rebutting Sparks' allegations.
I get the feeling you are riffing off of my "come down to VCU"
hypothetical, and in general I get the feeling that your charges here
are morphing to mirror what I am saying and then attempt to spin that to
support whatever your increasingly unclear point is supposed to be.
Like I said, I was not in on the interview, but it is not even clear to
me that Sparks's name was given to us, or that the specific passage of the
textbook was quoted by the reporter to us. Reporters call various
people looking for various specific things. It sounds to me like this
reporter had heard some generic statements from non-Jim Sparks faculty about the
lack of a specific undergraduate biology course on evolution, and about
the lack of detail in Mader's book, and was already spinning these as
"support" for Sparks, and then called us with that spin on the story to get
comment.
Yes, in an ideal world, we would have figured all of this out — while
on the phone, talking about a situation we'd just heard about for the
first time, to a reporter who is on deadline (they're always on deadline) —
but give me a break. We get hundreds of calls a year. Surprisingly often,
we do correct the misconceptions reporters have. Usually we know a fair
bit about a local controversy, if we've heard about it before. But this
was the first time we had heard about VCU as far as I know.
Ah, I see what you are referring to. Looks to me like the reporter had
already looked up Mader's credentials and asked Dyer a leading question
out of the blue, and got a default response, which is that it would be nice
to have a research scientist authoring the textbook (the reality is that
for introductory textbooks this is rather rare I think; Kenneth Miller is
an exception in that way. Mader is a well-respected science writer as far
as I know).
This is all based on one reporter's spin — keeping in mind that the
reporter had probably never reported on evolution/creationism before.
Um, almost by definition witch hunts proceed despite the
inability to maintain the accusation. Therefore, no witch hunt, unless you
restrict it specifically to the actions of one guy, Jim Sparks.
Good point, the reporter probably did have the language. It is still
not clear that all of the people he interviewed had it. I agree the
accusation was fishy from the reporter's standpoint, but unfortunately he didn't
see it, and it is not at all clear that the accusation should appear fishy
at first glance to people being called up out of the blue about it, who
were not intimately familiar with the textbook in question, and being asked
to comment on the reporter's version of events.
The funny thing about this thread is that it appears that the only
thing that would have made you happy is if no one had bothered to rebut
Sparks's irresponsible public allegations. Instead, the actions of the textbook
publisher, the textbook committee, etc., are being used against them.
In general, you have surrendered your original implications without
admitting that you did so, and are now trying to make the best of a
situation that actually demonstrates the opposite of what you thought
it did. Thus, incoherence results.
You are again dreaming up the "publisher's VP had to travel to school"
bit as far as I know, as you are dreaming up much of the rest of this
thread by relying uncritically on one reporter's sympathetic treatment of Sparks
as if it represented the full and complete opinions of the interviewees.
But, if you want NCSE to do reporters' jobs for them, even more than we
already do, feel free to send us money.
Comment by Guts — August 1, 2006 @ 4:08 pm