Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VadeRetro
Let us look at the Templeton Foundation's statement in its entirety, with my comments in brackets:
The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge. [Thus, ID is out.] In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools. [Again, ID is out.] However, it is not the policy of the John Templeton Foundation to “black list” organizations or individual scholars or to proscribe the outcome of well-designed research projects. In addition, the Foundation does not itself hold, or require that its grantees accept, any specific position on scholarly questions that remain open to further study. (The Foundation’s motto is “How little we know; how eager to learn.”) Thus while it is our judgment that the general process of biological evolution is well attested by many lines of research, it is not clear to what extent the process of evolution or the study of the history of life on earth may reveal hints of broader cosmic, perhaps even divine, purpose and intention.

It is therefore possible that, from time to time, the Foundation will support well-designed projects or research that some others may label as “intelligent design.” But the Foundation does not support the movement known as Intelligent Design as such, as an intellectual position or as a movement. [Clear enough?] The Foundation is a non-partisan philanthropic organization and makes funding decisions based on a process of peer review as is standard practice in scientific research funding and publication. Our expectation is that the products of Templeton-funded research will appear in high-quality and peer-reviewed journals. [Thus ID is out.] If your project takes an anti-evolutionist position scientifically, or seeks to engage in political advocacy concerning evolution or anti-evolution, it is unlikely to pass through the initial filters and external expert review process of the John Templeton Foundation. [So ID is out.] In contrast, some advocates of the ID position have received grants from the Foundation on the basis of successful participation in intellectually-rigorous, openlyjudged and peer-reviewed grant competitions. [Obviously, the grants didn't fund ID, even though the grant recipients may have been advocates of ID.]

While the Foundation does not generally support theologically-motivated critiques of evolutionary science, [thus ID is out] we do fund open and rigorous debate concerning the “ID” position. [Debates aren't scientific research into ID.] We believe that open debate and competition among positions is the best long-term method for choosing a wise course of action. This is particularly important in this instance because debate about the philosophical interpretations of evolutionary science (as distinct from wholesale rejection of the scientific findings relevant to evolution) is much needed.


420 posted on 12/05/2005 5:37:16 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
Astutely commented. I'm going to pass up troll-rolling for the delights of Monday Night Football, methinks.
422 posted on 12/05/2005 5:39:58 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you PatrickHenry.

Perhaps Vade can read it in blue.

427 posted on 12/05/2005 5:47:30 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry; Fester Chugabrew

"I maintain that science is in and of itself a supernatural occurence." (Fester Chugabrew, post 428)


Your Brain on Creationism worthy?


430 posted on 12/05/2005 5:50:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools. [Again, ID is out.]

Your bracketed comment contradicts what the sentence says. It seems to me the author is stating antipathy toward supporting "one way or the other." That means nothing is ruled in or out, other than supporting political agendas.

432 posted on 12/05/2005 5:52:57 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson