Posted on 01/02/2006 4:14:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The mechanisms driving the process of evolution have always been subject to rigorous scientific debate. Growing in intensity and scope, this debate currently spans a broad range of disciplines including archaeology, biochemistry, computer modeling, genetics & development and philosophy.
A recent $2.8 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation to the Cambridge Templeton Consortium [link] is providing the resources for further investigation into this complex and fascinating area. The funds will support 18 new grant awards to scientists, social scientists and philosophers examining how complexity has emerged in biological systems.
Attracting 150 applications, the grant process has generated much interest from a wide range of disciplines. Unique in the interdisciplinary nature of their applicants, the Cambridge Consortium grants will encourage and enable high quality research that approaches the issue from many angles, and will also sponsor collaborative work by people from different academic specialties. All of the work will study how biological systems (molecular, cellular, social etc) become more complex as they evolve.
"This is clearly an emerging area of science, and we are pleased that these grants are specifically aimed at encouraging work that would not easily fall under the parameters of any other grant-awarding body," says Consortium Chairman, Professor Derek Burke.
Questions to be addressed by the projects include:
* Why are biologists so afraid of asking 'why' questions, when physicists do it all the time?Among the institutions receiving grants from the Cambridge Templeton Consortium are Duke University, Harvard University Medical School, University of California, San Francisco, University of Cambridge, UK, and Australian National University.* Can experiments using a digital evolutionary model answer why intelligence evolved, but artificial intelligence has been so hard to build?
* What lessons can rock art and material remains teach us about the development of human self-awareness?
* Can the geometric ordering of specific sheets of cells throw light on the questions currently being raised about design in nature?
* What principles allow individuals to develop social and colonial organizations?
The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science through a rigorous, open-minded and empirically focused methodology, drawing together talented representatives from a wide spectrum of fields of expertise. Founded in 1987, the Foundation annually provides more than $60 million in funding on behalf of work in human sciences and character development, science and theology research, as well as free enterprise programs and awards worldwide. For more information about the Templeton Foundation, go to www.templeton.org [link.].
[Omitted some contact info, available at the original article.]
You should have more compassion. Such people are truly struggling. It's not nice to laugh. The only time to pay attention is when they spill out of their trailer parks and try to force their tragic misunderstandings on others.
"Templeton isn't falling for it, and neither did a conservative Republican Federal judge appointed by Bush, who just pounded a wooden stake through the heart of the ID movement."
"ID is truly on the ropes. Another indicator: Dumbski has shut down his 'blog '.
I've been saying ever since I read the Dover decision in its entirety, that this trial was ID's "Waterloo": it's all down hill from here for the ID movemvent." Oh absolutely. If there is any thing which decides questions of science for me, or any thinking person, it is the opinion of some black robed, political appointee. Hmmm, wonder why I get the impression that you guys "doth protest too much", so to speak.
We were discussing ID. That is not a 'question of science'.
You're not off on this. I know many physicists that think this way (mostly on the 'theorist' end of the spectrum). In my opinion, three factors contribute to this:
1) Physics theory requires a very high level of mathematical knowledge that other sciences don't require; many (wrongly) translate this expertise into a sort of 'superiority'.
2) Many experts in physics theory simply aren't aware of the level of rigorous statistical analysis that does go into biology analysis. I'm fortunate enough to have some very good friends who do biology research; from what I pick up in conversation, their use of statistics is as rigorous and ubiquitous as that in most physics research.
3) A lot of skilled physicists and mathematicians simply aren't that good at talking to people ('nerd' stereotypes persist for a reason) and inadvertently come across as condescending.
I do, however, think that this sort of condescension is a minority view in the profession; and one that is diminishing as biology (esp. genetic research) becomes a more omnipresent influence in cutting edge science. (Yeah, we gave the world the A-bomb 50 years ago, and that's pretty 'cool', but here comes genetic engineering to put us 'in our place'.)
Pretty much all I need to know.
The Templeton bio info is found at:
http://www.templeton.org/sir_john_templeton/index.asp
Trivia question: who performed the music for the sound track?
Ping to #46
Sigh... looks like 2 Timothy 3 to me. Thank you so much for the ping!
"We were discussing ID. That is not a 'question of science'."
Coulda fooled me: "Templeton isn't falling for it, and neither did a conservative Republican Federal judge appointed by Bush, who just pounded a wooden stake through the heart of the ID movement.
Consider this for a tagline:
"The breathtaking inanity of the [Dover] Board's decision ..." -- Judge Jone E. Jones III"
So perceptive, my sister.
Thank you, my brother! Maranatha, Jesus!
And urban. Mayor-for-life Marion Barry started his political career by getting elected to the DC School Board.
But he's not scientifically illiterate. I bet he knows what happens when 1 gm of cocaine is boiled in a solution of sodium bicarbonate.
Happy new year!
"I suggest you learn some elementary html tags. I have no idea what, if anything, you're trying to say here, and what you're trying to quote." Yes, I suppose, though I fail to see who I am quoting makes much difference in the "what" that began this little exchange. On the other hand, your bringing up the issue of how things are posted does make it possible for you to avoid the point I originally raised on this thread, doesn't it?
No one avoided anything. I see incompetence isn't your only fault.
Yes it was. We could tell by your "Astronomers have longer focal length" T-shirt.
I could have sworn RA was the one wearing the "Radio Astronomers do it with longer wavelengths" T-shirt.....
They haven't figured out a good angle yet. Imagine their frustration. The John Templeton Foundation gives out nearly $60 million per year "to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science" (according to their website), and none of it is going to the clowns who push ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.