Or a storm of worse substance …
Further to Sal Cordova’s earlier post, “Matzke is a Liar”: If Matzke is what those who know him claim, perhaps Barbara Forrest could usefully thank him and ask him to cease his efforts on her behalf.
The whole affair is an in-house scandal in philosophy, brought about by a journal’s mistaken reliance on Darwin lobby group NCSE that they must have imagined was some sort of institute. The scandal is best dealt with by those professional philosophers who want to maintain some “discipline within the discipline” (one hopes that’s the majority; otherwise, the discipline is toast, never mind Frank Beckwith or Larry Laudan).
Trying to work up Darwinists to believe that the outed “no-homework” prof was the victim of a conspiracy only broadcasts the mess to a wider public, one that can offer no more than shout ins and shout outs. That might be an advantage to Darwin lobbyists if they had a good case, but they don’t.
It seems that the Darwin lobby hoped to find themselves in a situation where they could point the finger at just anyone at all who even thought about Darwinism vs. design in a balanced, rational way. If they had succeeded, they might well have felt free to go after some of the multi-lateral authors in The Nature of Nature , or perhaps Bradley Monton or Jerry Fodor.
My take is that scholars looked at the prospect of giving lobbyists broomstick rights over the entire academy and are advisedly pulling back.