Comments on: Why should scientists shun Templeton Foundation?

By: Alison

Alison — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:26:49 +0000

A scientist taking money from Templeton to equate religious beliefs with science is akin to a teacher taking a grant from NAMBLA to prove that sexual contact with children enhances learning. You might get a nice chunk of change for your “research”, but you’ll probably have to change your career path after you’re published.

By: Stacy Kennedy

Stacy Kennedy — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:41:46 +0000

Karl, peer review is all about skepticism. That’s why scientific articles are published in scientific journals; so that every other scientist in the world can have at them. And they do. If you knew anything about how science is actually done, you’d realize how contentious it is.

By: Karl

Karl — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:21:47 +0000

Ah but there’s the rub, what bothers the “real” scientists of the peer review, academia contolling, we’ll have no skeptcism about what we’ve published, brand of research articles. They would rather snub their noses at the money than have an article in the same journal as a creationist or even an advocate of intelligent design. Most deists would have to have believed in intelligent design in some form or another.

Money means much, but it doesn’t mean that it can be used to persuade a scientist where they will publish their research, that’s still based upon the peers they want selecting, reviewing and editing the material that is under the control of modern university academia.

Perhaps a triffle bit closed minded and protectionary of their turf and the governmental grant money from groups like the National Science Foundation which of course is tax payer dollars.

The Templeton money is not from tax payers so it very well could have an agenda that is harmeful to the general well being of people. Wouldn’t want to see anything in print that connects the dots between worldviews, research money and self fulfilling research studies.

Kind of reminds me of how the global warming hysteria got started. The researchers asked what the “government leaders” wanted them to look for and lo and behold, it was found and then quickly peer reviewed before the next cooling cyle was underway.

BTW we’re in the coolest June on record for many, many decades. Must be just thinking about going green has convinced mother nature that she can ease off on the temperatures.

By: Mindy Carney

Mindy Carney — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:01:44 +0000

See, this is why I adore this blog. I’d never even heard of Templeton (yeah, that’s just how out of it I am), and now, before I even go off to read about them, I’ve learned so much - how good AND not good they might be. I might even visit and make up my own mind!!!

By: Tony Coyle

Tony Coyle — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:44:37 +0000

The Templeton Foundation is intellectually dishonest, insofar as they pretend only to be interested in “the big questions”, but every prize and every major grant (puff pieces like Shermer’s nothwithstanding) require the ascendancy of religion within science.

They spend a lot of money selling themselves as a humanist organization - but their actual record of monetary support does not match that viewpoint. Their money goes towards, in almost every case, studies and ‘research’ seeking to impose a religious perspective on science, in science-ethics, and in science legislation.

The only thing separating them from the creotards is money - and lots more brains. They are definitely the ’smart’ end of the wedge. Doesn’t make them honest, though.

By: Stacy Kennedy

Stacy Kennedy — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:11:41 +0000

Though there’s nothing wrong with a scientist choosing not to participate in Templeton doings, I don’t think there’s any reason for scientists to shun the Templeton Foundation. Yes, their bias is pro-religion, but that shouldn’t matter, as long as they’re willing to examine all sides of the issues they explore, and apparently they are, at least according to Michael Shermer, who edited a booklet for them, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” Shermer wrote:

“Since I am aware of the reputation that the Templeton Foundation has within the skeptical, atheist, and humanist communities for harboring a right-wing Christian agenda, I would like to note that, in fact, they invited me to select the commentators and edit their essays, and insisted that I include skeptics, atheists, and humanists, which you will see that I did. There was never any hint to me that I should edit the commentaries to come out a certain way to match the alleged agenda; to the contrary, they seemed most eager to give everyone a fair shake … to the tune of over a million dollars spent in a national advertising campaign that included advertorials placed in Scientific American, American Scientist, Nature, The New Scientist, The Atlantic Monthly, Commentary, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Economist, The Financial Times, The New Republic, Prospect, and the Sunday edition of The New York Times. Oh, and Skeptic magazine!”

Sounds like they’re an intellectually honest bunch; if so, it wouldn’t be fair to lump them in with the creationist/ID crowd.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-11

(BTW, you can read the essays for the booklet Sherman edited online; you can get there from the eSkeptic site linked above.)