Who Sponsors Peaceful Science?


#1

Sponsoring organization? There is a sponsoring organization for this? Who is funding this, I would like to know.

[@moderators: @swamidass answers here: Who Sponsors Peaceful Science?]


DNA and the Virgin Birth
The Line in the Sand
#2

@Patrick:
You know perfectly well what I mean… here, we can refer to “Peaceful Science .Org” as the sponsoring organization.

Are you able to write 2 posts in a row that are not designed to agitate?


#3

I certainly don’t know perfectly well what you mean by “sponsoring organization”. Is this site somehow sponsored by Templeton in some way? I ask again, "Who is funding this effort?


#4

It’s an eminently fair question. To my knowledge, this is a voluntarily run WordPress account that needs very little, if any, funding. I’ve never been approached to help fund it, for example. It’s definitely not sustained with Templeton funds. Joshua speaks and travels around the country, often an invitee of the Veritas Forum programs, and regularly invites students, academics, and others to join us here. Seems as though the result is an eclectic mix with delightfully, at least much of the time, varied Christian and other perspectives. Glad for your presence here, too.


#5

@Patrick,

Please note the URL:

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dna-and-the-virgin-birth/

Please note the URL at BioLogos

https://discourse.biologos.org/t/can-you-be-a-christian-without-believing-in-the-resurrection/

You were booted off biologos.org because you could not hold your tongue about the BioLogos organization… or what it writes.

I see the same problem here at PeacefulScience.Org


#6

Oyyy… @Guy_Coe & @Patrick

The sponsoring organization of these boards is PeacefulScience.Org.

@swamidass created it.

Are you two here to help or to gossip?


#7

It is certainly valid to ask…

Web costs are about $300 per year, and currently I’m the one pays for this, out of my own money. I’m volunteering my time here. So do not take it personally if I do not always respond quickly.

I did get a $25K STEAM grant (http://thesteamproject.org/), housed at WUSTL, not at Peaceful Science, to fund some efforts. http://peacefulscience.org/common-ground-year-1/ I’m woefully behind in publishing another update, and in posting the videos from the first year. That will all happen soon. This 2 year grant funded a nominal 1% of my salary, and covers travel, honorariums, and other related expense over the last two years. STEAM is funded by the Templeton Foundation.

For those that are concerned about Templetons’ “influence” here, keep in mind that Templeton has never funded me directly, and I’m currently somewhat at “odds” with one of their major grantees.

I also am an advisor (unfunded) for another STEAM grant at Concordia seminary on “The Theological History of Science,” which was recently completed too. I’ll probably post videos for this soon too. @J.E.S will probably be excited about this because he is LCMS Lutheran.

I am often invited to speak across the country. In most cases, I’m usually reimbursed for travel, lodging, and get a modest honorarium. Nothing to brag about; this is not lucrative by any measure. One event in January, the atheist club was annoyed that their preferred Atheist champion was unwilling to come for less than $15,000. I, to be clear, was there for much much less.

This, as far as I know, are all my financial entanglements here. If we grow from here, maybe we will need set up a non-profit and solicit donations. I’m hoping that will not be necessary. Though, any one who wants to help chip in on $300, I’d be happy to let you :smile:.


So, we can say that Peaceful Science (for now, that just means Dr. Swamidass) is sponsoring this forum, and has some unrelated funding from the STEAM project of Templeton.


#8

Thank you for being upfront and transparent.


#9

Thanks for the concern @gbrooks9, but it is a fair question, and reasonable guess by @Guy_Coe. In general, a question should not be considered as gossip, especially when it is directed to someone like me. I think they took your reasonable “turn of a phrase” regarding sponsoring organization very literally.

It is reasonable to ask who is funding things, and if there are any conflicts of interest. It is helpful to ask those questions too, as it gives me an opportunity to answer them.

Well, it seems I was booted out of BioLogos’s forum too. So we can be the reject forum. We’ve had some rough spots, but I’ve appreciated @Patrick’s contributions as he has come to appreciate more where we are coming from.


#10

@swamidass, you are a virtuosso of patience.

To be clear: I referred to the name in the URL, and the next thing I know, there are two people asking who is funding the name in the URL. Let’s keep track of how these conversations actually transform themselves in the hands of other people. Your response to their questions was fulsome; I was impressed.


#11

Thank you for being up front. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the Richard Dawkins Society for Reason and Science as well as other science and engineering organizations which are dedicated to improving science and technology education. These include such notables as Coyne, Tyson, Krause, Dennett, and Pinker. We feel that Templeton Foundation funding of organizations like Biologos does more harm than good in the public awareness of science.


#12

And I, for my part, will simply take note of the bug up some folks’ rear ends. I characterized as costing very little, and as a volunteer effort. And that’s how I still see it, even in light of Josh’s full disclosure of how a tiny extra portion of his professional income is raised. There simply is no Templeton bug-a-boo to be ferreted out here, and I’m pretty sure Patrick agrees, in light of Joshua’s answer. 'Nuff said.


#13

I am opposed to the Biologos organization. I don’t see what they are doing is any different than what Answers in Genesis, Reasons To Believe, and Evolution News does - distort public understanding of science in order to promote their religion. YEC, OEC, ID and TE are all various extremes of creationism and are religion. They are in no way compatible with how science is done nor should be understood as viable alternatives to the understanding of science.


#14

@Patrick

I don’t really see you acting differently here. So let me know when you are going to start acting differently, and I’ll pay more attention.


#15

Well, then, it seems like Patrick and I will just have to get along, somehow, without your attention. Please don’t bother replying; you’ll only encourage me further. Oops! There I go, gossiping about myself again.


#16

Very similar to Dawkin’s work[quote=“Patrick, post:13, topic:216”]
I am opposed to the Biologos organization. I don’t see what they are doing is any different than what Answers in Genesis, Reasons To Believe, and Evolution News does - distort public understanding of science in order to promote their religion.
[/quote]

BioLogos is doing its best to explain mainstream science, and they are not anti-evolution. That certainly places them in a different bucket.

If you are going to put BioLogos in that bucket, then also Dawkins, Coyne, et al belong there too. Science is netural on religious matters, not atheistic or theistic. I’m opposed to anyone using science as weapon for religious or non-religious belief.


#17

Biologos does well explaining the science of human origins but is rather weak in most other areas of science. Its core mission is to be a Christian backstop to the more extreme and more embarrassing Christian creationism organizations. Biologos uses the results of mainstream science to oppose other Christians. Biologos is just another form of Christian apologetics funded by Templeton and mainstream Protestants who are seeing the influence of traditional American brand of Protestant Chrisitanity waning especially among Millennial who are becoming Nones in record numbers.

No Dawkins, Coyne etal don’t belong in that bucket as they maintain that science and faith are incompatible. Groups such as Biologos try to force compatibility. As you said, science is neutral on matters of faith/religion. Why not work to keep it that way? As the events in Jerusalem yesterday showed, religion is the cause of much of the unrest in the world. Science and reasoning are the way to understanding the world and solving problems.


#18

@Patrick,

BioLogos’ efforts do not contravene the phrase: “… science is neutral on matters of faith/religion.” That is exactly the point they make to any number of Creationist audiences.

Ironically, you are in the same kind of bucket as Creationists. You don’t want anyone with a religious viewpoint discussing the natural sciences.

There is nothing wrong with a group of Christians defending Evolutionary evidence. You would benefit from analyzing your compulsion to portray negatively even pro-Science Christians in a negative way . . . even Christians who oppose Creationism. You appear to be lashing out at everyone. So what exactly do you think separates Peaceful Science Org. from BioLogos Org?

It amazes me that you think your analysis doesn’t pass judgment on PeacefulScience Org just as much (if not more).

BioLogos attracts science minded Christians.
Peaceful Science attracts science minded Christians.

BioLogos opposes pure Creationism.
Peaceful Science opposes pure Creationism.

If anything, Patrick, Peaceful Science is “worse” than BioLogos: we allow for the possibility for the “special creation of Adam and eve”. Thus:

BioLogos argues against special creation of a literal Adam and Eve.
PeacefulScience Org promotes the possibility that an historical Adam and Eve could have been
special creations of God.

Rhetorically speaking, Patrick, you should have seen the collision of logic as you were writing this post. Instead of paying heed to the collision (with all of its unpleasant ramifications), you went ahead and posted it anyway.

@swamidass, do you have any way of making PeacefulScience Org less offensive to the delicate feelings of @Patrick?


#19

Really, and I suppose that Deb Haarsma recent pronouncement that God creates and guides the multiverse is letting science be neutral on matters of faith/science.

And creating the pseudoscience creationism called Theistic Evolution?

You don’t oppose Creationism, you just oppose the other brands of creationism - YEC, OEC, ID. You favor your brand of creationism - TE.

No need to worry about my feelings. I am not bruised in any way.


#20

@Patrick

The only way Deb Haarsma is different from @swamidass is that Dr. Swamidass is more williing to affirm that God could have also have created Adam and Eve through miraculous special creation.

Now you are starting to be amusing.
Are any of these logically presented premises and presuppositions that I have been outlining making any kind of impression on you?

PostScript:
So, you are good with Dr. Swamidass endorsing special creation of Adam and Eve, right?