You responded to the other posts in which I was making the point that those at Darwin Central would not agree with Templeton and Giberson as a whole relative to their practice of "science" and their complete attitude toward ID and IDers.
That is not a lie.
Would you, or others, agree with Templeton when he states that there is "strong hints" for purpose and design?
Will you , and/or Darwin Central, advocate spending "scientific dollars" researching heaven, prayer, religion, love and etc.?
Would you, and/or Darwin Central fund or support ID, IDers and/or the ID debate in any manner?
No lie...It is clear from PatrickHenry's link that Templeton does support and will fund ID, IDers and/or the ID debate as they deem appropriate.
It is also clear from the link that they do not support the ID movement and the wedge political/lobbying/legal activities that are associated with ID (I also posted that previously on this thread).
Get all the information before you make incorrect hasty generalizations.
(A Darwin Central apology card would be nice though.)
They also don't fund it. You said they did. They were interested once and called for papers. None came. Now they aren't much interested, as their guidelines for submissions make crystal clear.
I'll ignore the rest of your brazen nonsense. Grow some integrity.