To Andrew McDiarmid’s excellent post I would only add the reminder that folks especially in some business aren’t necessarily motivated at all times by business considerations. It reminds me of the point Michael Medved makes in his book Hollywood vs. America that the movie industry could turn a superior profit by offering more family-friendly products, but they don’t because the prestige of creating “adult” entertainment is preferable. That is, prestige in the eyes of peers.
The same analysis probably applies here. As a question of marketing, B&N would undoubtedly be smarter to shelf Darwin’s Doubt under Science where it belongs, rather than under “Christian Life,” where customers will have a devil of a time finding it.
Remember, nothing about the book suggests religious content, including the publisher’s own recommended categorizations, which all have to do with science. So where did they get the idea of sticking it under religion? Andrew charitably suggests several possible explanations, including simple error or oversight.
I can only assume that someone on the corporate team found it more attractive, piquant, to stick a finger in the eye of people they don’t like (the phantom menace, “creationists”!), including customers, even at the expense of sales, even at a time when chain bookstores face near-extinction.
This could be the definitive proof that Karl Marx was wrong that capital shapes consciousness. The other way around, it looks like, at least in this case.