Readers know well that I’m a frequent critic of the John Templeton Foundation (JTF) and BioLogos, both of which are accommodationist groups that try to harmonize science and religion. I’m not alone in my criticism, at least of the JTF: others in my camp include physicist Sean Carroll, philosopher Dan Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. Here’s a paragraph on the JTF from Dawkins’s upcoming book, Brief Candle in the Dark, (UK Amazon site here), the second volume of his autobiography (out in September):
In its early years the Templeton Prize, pegged by its naively benevolent founder to exceed the Nobel in monetary (though of course no other) value, was awarded to frankly religious figures such as Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. A little later, the black spot moved on to scientists of no great distinction but who happened to be openly devout. As an exact reversal, yet more recent prizewinners have included scientists of genuine and enormous distinction, not really religious at all but willing to utter the occasional ‘spiritual’ deepity and therefore sprinkle on religion some of the gold dust of true science. Freeman Dyson and Martin Rees are the prime examples. What is the next Faustian progression: notorious atheists prepared to stage a Damascene conversion? Dan Dennett, begetter of the excellent ‘deepity’ coinage itself, might seem to be a prime candidate; or, as he himself said to me, ‘Richard, if ever you fall on hard times…’
I discovered, thanks to an alert reader, that the links between BioLogos and the JTF are persistent and strong, at least as far as funding is concerned. If you read the new 2014 BioLogos Annual Report, you’ll see that they’re getting less and less scientific and more and more religious. I predicted this because their mission—to convert evangelical Christians who are creationists into people who accept evolution—is largely futile. Instead, BioLogos seems to spend much of its time “dialoguing” with creationist organizations and promoting what they now call “evolutionary creationism”. That term is clearly not scientific at all, but is a bastard hybrid between science and religion, privileging both.
Who’s supporting BioLogos? You won’t be surprised at this: a dialogue between the organization and two creationist organizations was sponsored by our old friend, the John Templeton Foundation, which is still pretending to be science-friendly. From the BioLogos report:
Do you seriously think that anybody from Reasons to Believe or the Southern Baptist groups became ardent advocates of evolution? I doubt it: this money was totally wasted if that was the aim.
The sponsor of this ludicrous conclave:
Here’s another and much larger grant given to BioLogos by Templeton for their “Evolution and Christian Faith” project:
That’s nearly five million dollars gone to osculate the rump of religion.
Finally, here is BioLogos’s Board of Directors, which includes not only the chair of the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Zoology, but also Jennifer Wiseman, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s “Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion” (DoSER) project, another unconscionable infusion of science (in this case, the nation’s most prominent organization of scientists) with religion.
I’m sorry, but I find it shameful, embarrassing, and contradictory for a reputable scientist to spend his or her time harmonizing the hard facts of science with the fanciful and false speculations of superstition.
h/t: Douglas
sub
sub
What a waste and a fools errand…
Imagine what all that money could if it was dedicated to promoting and defending religious freedom as a human rights issue. Instead it’s being wasted on paying scientists to bark politely up the wrong tree.
Love the shirt, want.
Ditto!
Beat me to it!
Well, that is what deepity pockets get for you. Thank Mammon, and hail a lucre.
Is it irony that Jennifer Wiseman is the Director of the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion.
So we should only converse with people who agree with us? This may be possible in Cambridge or Hyde Park, but highly impractical elsewhere.
“Converse” is being used in different contexts. Religion has nothing even in principle to offer to further science; in that sense, there’s nothing to talk about. But, of course, we should be eager to further science education, and that requires conversation — including shutting up from time to time and letting superstitious people have their say.
The “conversation” that Templeton and BioLogos have in mind, however, is that scientists should stop jeopardizing the take from the collection plate by saying things that scare away the flock. Or, the flip side of the same coin, that scientists should tell the flock how wonderful the priests are and how we’re all bestest friends and so they should be just as happy to give money to the priests as they already are spending it on the fruits of science.
b&
Surely it’s a holy alliance? “Unholy” is a good thing!
/@
Having attended one of the recent dialogues between BioLogos and Reasons To Believe, the audience did get a good dose of evolutionary theory which is pretty rare among a gathering of (mostly) the faithful. The groups have differing interpretations of the scientific data (both consider most contemporary scientific research as valid, old age of earth/universe, etc) but share that common religious core.
Accommodationists labour under the misconception that religions have anything worth saving, and that’s the core problem. They could do this stuff for free, and it would still be worthless because the only valid points would be in the science half. Even secular philosophy, which still has huge amounts of garbage in it, would be a better bet.
Accomodationists remind me of a funny quote:
“If one group of Wikipedia editors said that the Earth was flat and another said that the Earth was round, it would do Wikipedia no good to compromise and say that the Earth is shaped like a calzone”
Compromise is never about finding truth. It’s about social lubricant.
Sen. Orrin Hatch met John Templeton, used to use his account of the meeting in speeches. The message was, American democracy is in danger. In the years before 1984, that idea got some urgency, if not traction, on the campaign trails.
Hatch is Mormon. Mormon’s aren’t theologically anti-evolution, though of course, they are pro-belief.
I wonder if Hatch ever refers to his meeting with Templeton any more?