I don't get to edit his stuff, so I don't know about that last bit. *G* It apparently snuck by somebody with less sharp eyes than you or I. My guess is his point is supposed to be "they pick and choose how much credence they want to give science based on their desires and goals?" (I've seen this happen elsewhere, BTW - such as, corn growers who yell at the EPA for not approving higher blends of ethanol for all engines, citing scientific studies as showing it's safe, who say the EPA's decision should be science-based. Yet, a lot of those same farmers are diehard anti-choicers who disavow the science of fetal development to talk about "the miracle of life" and rights of a fully-formed human at conception onward.)