Right, but it’s not the DI. Is it impossible for you to occasionally concede that you made a factual error? It would make discussions easier.
I see no constructive reason for speaking in this manner, which is bound to gratuitously offend a number of conversation partners here. This is supposed to be “Peaceful Science”, but such statements are not peaceful; they are gauntlet-throwing.
I didn’t know that Crossway was paid by Templeton. If it’s true, it’s actually refreshing, since for the previous 8 years Templeton has been so incredibly biased against ID and so blatantly prejudiced in favor of TE/EC (not surprising when for a time they had a frequent BioLogos columnist on their Board), that I had long since given up hope they would even attempt to be fair or balanced in their distribution of grants to Christians with differing views on faith and science. If Templeton knowingly funded an anti-BioLogos book, there must be a shift in the dominant view of the Templeton Board members.
No factual errors were made. DI is a political conservative non-profit for the Christian Right in the United States. It’s founders Gilder, Chapman, and Meyer created this right wing conservative organization in 1994 and were the source of the Wedge Document to create controversy in the teaching of evolutionary science. See description below.
Because Templeton did fund the anti-biologos TE book. And Templeton does funds DI. And Templeton Funds is the primary funder of Biologos. Get the picture yet? Templeton funds all of it. Why? To keep it all alive. To create the controversy and keep the controversies alive. The Evangelical Christian right in this country is in power and want to stay in power. This is all part of it.
Yes it does. I told you that months ago. Templeton funds Biologos. Templeton funds DI. DI’s unvieling of its Christianity is another Templeton Orchestration. Templeton’s interest in you as well as DI’s sudden interest in you are all Templeton orchestrated and funded.
Yes, they were. You said or implied that the Crossway book was published by DI. I pointed out that it was not. And instead of immediately accepting correction, you have typed several circuitous replies. You are still refusing to acknowledge the error.
This is a pattern. You made an error in calling TE/EC “creationism” and despite my correction and Joshua’s, you won’t retract that one, either.
It is not unmanly to admit an error. You might well still be right on your major point, while being wrong on small factual matters. It would look better on you if you conceded the small errors, rather than making others drag an admission of error out of you. Then people would be more likely to listen to you on the big issues. But when you never concede anything, you lose credibility as a conversation partner.
Are you the same Patrick that I used to debate with on BioLogos? Who was from the New Jersey area, and described himself as a “social Catholic” because he was brought up Catholic, but no longer adhered to the Catholic religion?
Okay, I’ll go through the 990’s and get the evidence. Unfortunately the IRS give 501c3s until September 30, 2018 to fill their 2017’s 990’s. So the money that Templeton gave you this year won’t be made public until Sept 30, 2019. But a lot can be gleamed from previous reports as the plans are usually multi-year. Also contracts made better certain regular corporations are reported on quarterly so information can be found there. The money follow is amazing to follow. Organizations like Focus on the Family and the Catholic Knights of Columbus are clearinghouse on much of the religious donation money in this country.
What would be really nice if there was an investigation of wrongdoing like in the Catholic Church. Then you can get everything using subpoenas.
For the record, no one has given me any money. We do not even have a non-profit set up yet. My disclaimer still stands: Who Sponsors Peaceful Science? Answer: No one.
Agreed, and that is why I specified a few times, at one points in italics for emphasis, “creationism as the term has generally been understood in popular debates about origins for the past 100 years” – i.e., a position which is anti-evolutionary, based on a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis, etc. I documented this usage, in a debate with Jonathan Burke, on BioLogos, from books and articles by the major players, and from several standard dictionaries, over the course of several decades. Even Christy, who often disagreed with me, acknowledged that my understanding of the term was in fact how it had generally been used in popular debate.
Obviously, if “creationism” merely means “belief in a Creator,” then not only all TE/ECs but all Christians are creationists. For that matter, all Muslims and Jews would also be creationists. And if history had been different, that might now be the standard meaning of the word. But that is not how the term has generally been used in debates over origins. Nor is it how Eugenie Scott and the NCSE use it. The NCSE doesn’t call Ken Miller a creationist. And Miller in his books attacks creationists, obviously distinguishing his position from theirs. Patrick called TE/EC “creationism,” and that simply confuses the discussion.
When a word has an established usage in the public forum, employing a different meaning is not helpful. At the very least, he would need to explain that he is using the word in a special manner. And even then, his statement about the NCSE and creationism would be wrong, because if creationism meant merely “belief in a creator”, then the NCSE has not attacked that view, as he claims.
I don’t intend to go back to the old debates on BioLogos, if that’s what you mean. I was trying to make sense of a debating pattern which reminded me of the earlier Patrick. If he is the same fellow, that explains the similar pattern.
You once told me that you got some Templeton money for something. Can you just elaborate that so that everyone here has fully transparency. This is very important. Also you once mentioned the Templeton approached you recently to offer funding? Please fully disclosure and transparency is best for all.
Not as that term has been generally used for approximately 100 years of American popular debate on evolution, Darwin, the Bible, origins, etc. Eugenie Scott and the NCSE never have called Ken Miller, etc. creationists in that sense, and never have taken an organizational stance against the position held by BioLogos, Ken Miller, Denis Lamoureux, etc., whereas they have explicitly taken an organizational stance against creationism. That proves that the NCSE is not using the term in the sense that you are using it. If you are going to pretend to represent the NCSE position, you should make sure you understand the NCSE position, and the NCSE vocabulary. That’s all I have to say on this one.
Please provide photocopies of the receipts of money transfers, agreements between organizations, etc. that would prove this, or withdraw the assertion.
I’ve applied for JTF funding several times and never gotten it.
I’ve worked with several organizations that have received JTF funding, and also received a $25K grant from one of them to WUSTL (http://peacefulscience.org/inquiry-into-common-ground/), that also funded the ASA workshop I just did. JTF does seem interested in the Genealogical Adam work, but that has merely been some informal conversations, nothing to be excited about.
All of this should be clear from what I’ve put out publicly. Peaceful Science has not received any funding from JTF or any other donor. If that changes, I will make that known with a prominent post, with clear statement about that for which such funding is being used. This may never actually happen. We may just remain an organization-free website funded of my personal account.
Footnote to my previous reply to you, Joshua. For those interested in my historical review of the term “creationism” in popular debate, it can be found at:
My words can be restored, though in light gray, despite the suppression by the BioLogos software.
. You seem to be floating in conspiracy land. Come back to earth.