[PatrickHenry]

Shocking that the Discovery Institute wasn't able to get in on the goodies. But then, The Templeton Foundation is the real thing, and the DI isn't. The Templeton Foundation explains its position on Intelligent Design here: Does the John Templeton Foundation support intelligent design? Excerpt from the Foundation's website:

The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge. 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. ... [T]he Foundation does not support the movement known as Intelligent Design as such, as an intellectual position or as a movement.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 330 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[peyton randolph]

Attracting 150 applications, the grant process has generated much interest from a wide range of disciplines.

Care to guess how many successful applications rely upon the book of Genesis? ;-)

[longshadow]

Let's ping a few of the physics mavens of FR to comment on THIS quote from the announcement:

Questions to be addressed by the projects include:

* Why are biologists so afraid of asking 'why' questions, when physicists do it all the time?

I suspect their comments will be enlightening....

[RightWhale]

Wolfram has shown, in finely printed plate after plate, that apparently stultifyingly simple rules give rise to hugely complex patterns time after time. The debate is over, although some seem to have not got the word.

[Right Wing Professor]

ID is truly on the ropes. Another indicator: Dumbski has shut down his 'blog '.

[self_evident]

Why are biologists so afraid of asking 'why' questions, when physicists do it all the time?

Why are they interested in why biologists are 'afraid' of asking why questions?

[RightWingAtheist]

* Can experiments using a digital evolutionary model answer why intelligence evolved, but artificial intelligence has been so hard to build?

Natural intelligence is so hard to duplicate precisely because it IS evolved and NOT designed.

[Aquinasfan]

The Templeton Foundation seems to be one of the few that matter.

[paulat]

The Templeton Foundation is the real thing, and the DI isn't

Why do you say that?

[Doc Savage]

The usual Darwinist dreck crock-of-crap from PH. Can you just imagine the 24/7 this guys lives???? Evo-nut alert!

[connectthedots]

Kind of interesting that the Templeton Foundation is funding research into evolution in that haven't evolutionists been claiming that evolution is a fact. if it was a fact, why does it need further research?

Oh, that's right; evolutionists admit that evolution isn't a fact. The $2.8 million will not lead to any evidence proving evolution.

[beaver fever]

Questions to be addressed by the projects include:

* Why are biologists so afraid of asking 'why' questions, when physicists do it all the time?

* 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?

Scientific research questions??

These questions would be debunked in the first week of a first year Philosophy course.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The funds will support 18 new grant awards to scientists, social scientists and philosophers examining how complexity has emerged in biological systems.

Uh oh!