The Templeton Prize is going to be awarded soon, and they've found a venue for it: the National Academy of Sciences. Please note that last word, science — the Templeton Prize has no connection to that subject. Previous winners include Mother Theresa, Chuck Colson, and Billy Graham — professional frauds. Richard Dawkins has an excellent piece on the subject.
The US National Academy of Sciences has brought ignominy on itself by agreeing to host the announcement of the 2010 Templeton Prize (see below). This is exactly the kind of thing Templeton is ceaselessly angling for - recognition among real scientists - and they use their money shamelessly to satisfy their doomed craving for scientific respectability. They tried it on with the Royal Society of London, and they seem to have found a compliant Quisling in the current President, Martin Rees, who, though not religious himself, is a fervent 'believer in belief'. Fortunately, enough Fellows made a stink about it to ensure that the Royal will not flirt with Templeton in future. Now Templeton are apparently trying the same trick with the US National Academy. If you know any officers, or elected members, of the Academy, please write in protest.
That's not my favorite part, though. The Templeton Foundation has invited people to guess who's going to win.
Well, let's all guess away to our heart's content. Which leading scientist has done the most to betray science in favour of his imaginary friend? You can rule out the people they'd privately like to honor (such as Intelligent Design "theorists") because that would go against the official policy of courting respectability among scientists. Nowadays they target genuinely good scientists (like Freeman Dyson, winner of the 2000 Templeton Prize), whose subversion provides more bang for the (mega)buck than primarily religious figures who happen also to be scientists. In the early days they didn't even make a pretence of finding a scientist at all: the 1982 winner was the notorious creationist Billy Graham!
"Which leading scientist has done the most to betray science in favour of his imaginary friend?" is exactly the criterion they'll use. In that case, the shoo-in would have to be Francis Collins. I wouldn't be surprised if Ken Miller is solidly in the running, though, and if he doesn't get it now, he probably will in the next few years.
I bet Michael Ruse lusts after that prize, but his drooling is just a little too obvious.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
So, when Collins gets awarded the Templeton Prize at the NAS, what are the odds there will be any critical reactions from the media?
I don't know why I bothered asking. I do foresee a new blogwar with Mooney calling either you or Coyne fundamentalists, though, when you protest Collins' receipt of the award.
Oh, and Mooney still isn't being open about his Templeton associations. It's still conspicuously missing from his bio.
We need a term to describe the people who are blatantly fishing for a Templeton Prize. Perhaps we should have a "faitheist" style competition to choose a name.
My suggestion: Templewhore
Oh, I won't protest Collins receiving a Templeton award -- he deserves it. It's a perfect match.
On the plus side for Collins (to win, I mean), he did create that whole BioLogos cotton-candy fluffy-wuffy make-nice-to-God site.
And on the minus side for Miller, there's that whole testimony at Dover. Defending scientific epistemology? That's a little too divisive, I think.
But that was some years ago. Water under the bridge, I suspect, if Miller makes enough nice-nice about apophatic theodicy.
I should perhaps have emphasized the "at the NAS" part, which is the part I find offensive at least. It would also be offensive accepting an award (with lots of fucking money as part of it) from an ideologically religious organization when one is the head of a government organization that is supposed to purely deal with the science and not pander to religious sentiments.
I'm still hoping for Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church to win the Templeton. Woowoo is woowoo.
I agree; Miller is too sciency, even with his quantum-mechanical affectation. He needs more of a dash of Deepak, and he is maybe just too barmy even for Templeton. A pity, what a laugh that would be.
Sorry but whatever Templeton says it all sounds like this to me:
"Come on scientist, come on, make vague (or not so vague) platitudes about religion. I has luvverly moneys for you. Money, mmmmmmm.
I love you scientist baby, just make one vague platitude. Just one. I promise I won't hit you like my friends did when they burnt that Bruno bloke at the stake. Come on baby, just one platitude, lovely money and no hitting. Hey baby, maybe you'll go with my friend islam after you're done with my buddy christianity? He pays too you know."
Louis
Templetoady?
Templackey?
In honour of Chris Mooney, how about Mooning ?
The Templeton of Mammon
To steal from the Deepak Chopra thread --
Chris "Radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup"-ey
OK, that was mean, and perhaps even unfair (to Mooney, I mean)...
But I do think that using a Chopraistic quantum-woo burble for the Templeton would be amusing.
Just a silly question. If Ken Miller were awarded a Templeton award, would he actually accept it?
I rather like Jerry Coyne's suggestion that someone should apply to rent the NAS rooms for screening adult films. Would certainly make me consider visiting.
Shameless prats!
OTish, but . . .
Canucks get it right!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ott…
Could anyone clear up for me where NAS gets it's funding from? Are they a government sponsored organization or a private non-profit? I couldn't quite sort it out looking at their website.
And Francis Collins is . . .
THE TEMPLETON CALL-GIRL OF THE YEAR ?
?
Arseholes. I sent a polite but strongly worded email to worldwidewebfeedback@nas.edu
What next? The Vatican hosting the Global Atheist Convention?
I'm surprised to see Dawkins call Billy Graham a "notorious creationist". I don't think that's the case... I mean, I don't think he's a creationist at all, but he's certainly not notorious for it.
Here's one quote I found at several sites:
This would make him a creationist like Ken Miller is a creationist (which I know PZ has said), but not what we usually think of by that term -- he'd be a theistic evolutionist. Or perhaps he's just trying to leave it open.
Collins does seem the obvious choice. Perhaps we could take this opportunity to reduce the effect of this award.
A well-publicised article on the Templeton Award, and all its possible influences, before the awarding, could turn the award into bad PR for them.
Just an idea.
@nemo
Read that closer, please. Billy Graham doesn't say "I believe evolution occured". He says "it doesn't matter whether or not evolution occurred, it doesn't matter because God created man". At least Ken Miller will actively vouch for evolution. Billy Graham was just playing Pascal's Wager. He even explicitly says "I accept the Creation story", which most definitely did not involve evolution.
I'd say I'm surprised you didn't bother actually reading the quote you provided, but I'm really not.
I wonder what if anything PZ or Dawkins would suggest the average skeptic do about this situation. I don't know any officers or elected members of the NAS, but I can search their database of members for scientists in my area, like members from the University of Arizona. I can even find the one emeritus from the U of A. But is it worth contacting them? I have my doubts.
If only I could think of somebody who is a personal and Facebook friend of Miller's--perhaps an alumnus of the prestigious and celebrated University where Ken teaches--who might be willing to tell the rest of us what he thinks is on Ken's mind...
Best not forget Bob Wright. I don't really expect him to win it, as he's not nearly as high profile as Miller or Collins, but he's been awful nasty to the “New Atheists” lately and happens to have a wee bit of atheist “street cred”. I suspect that may count for a lot.
Sven, I have no idea who you are talking about.
But that is only because I am actively working at keeping that memory suppressed. Damn, I would rather spend time with Robert Johnson at the crossroad than to cross the intersection.
The Templetonians like to waffle around between using science to show that religious belief can have beneficial effects; using science to show that religions have secular components that are true; using science to show that some scientists are religious; using science to show that religious beliefs are not completely ruled out by the findings of modern science; and using science to suggest that reality has a supernatural component. They love to blur the distinctions between these very different areas and claims, for the same reason proponents of "alternative medicine" like to include herbs, massage, and yoga in along with reiki and homeopathy, as part of their turf. If they're casual enough, people will not notice the distinctions. Heck, they, themselves, won't particularly notice.
It's ironic that the same people who are fuming over Richard Dawkins taking off the glvoes and treating God as if it were a scientific hypothesis, are also pushing and celebrating a connection between science and religion. They ought to make up their minds.
@Paul: I did read the quote, which is why I added "Or perhaps he's just trying to leave it open." And what's with the snark?
The point is, I'd never heard of Graham being a creationist, and when I googled it, this is what I found (mostly at creationist sites attacking him, BTW). He may or may not be a creationist -- it sounds like not, to me -- but I can't see how the label "notorious creationist" can be justified. I suspect that Dawkins was confusing him with someone else (like Billy's own right-wing son Franklin Graham, perhaps). And if I'm wrong, please point me to evidence of Billy Graham's notorious creationism, because I haven't been able to find it.
I'm asking, sincerely. I don't care a bit about what Graham believes, personally, but accuracy is important.
I'm starting to think the whole "I'm an atheist, but I believe in belief" thing is just a tad bit condescending. The upshot appears to be: yes, I'm intelligent, educated, and ethical enough to not need a supernatural god, but you poor idiots, you clearly need help.
Really, mostly confused, Elin?
@ Nemo #22
Someone who says,"I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man." - you would not call that person a creationist? Maybe you should define what you mean by creationist.
Heard of Arthur Koestler?
For what it's worth:
-Prof. Michael Heller, 2008 Templeton Prize winner
I hope I don't need to point out that the Creation story had God creating man in his image, not as an evolved by-product. Seriously, it's like you're not even trying. Graham says he's a Creationist in the quote you're using to demonstrate that he's not, simply because he adds a waffle:
This does not say that he finds evolution likely, possible, or even plausible. It says that it doesn't matter, because either way God created man. This is a completely different park than the one Miller plays around in. Graham simply adds in a non-denial of evolution hoping that people won't make fun of him for being a Creationist.
Call-boy, please.
Off topic:
Not long ago a school cancelled the prom b/c a lesbian student was going to take her girlfriend.
Well, the court has ruled that the school violated her rights:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/23/mississippi.lesbians.prom/index.ht…
http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/prom-opinion.pdf
@Elin:
If you mean that the atheists who believe in belief are condescending toward theists (by treating theists as if they don't have the intelligence or wherewithal to "get over" faith), then I agree. Is that what you meant?
I am astonished to learn that Collins doesn't already have a Templeton Prize!
@Josh. Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't think it was confusing.
You're right, it wasn't confusing:) I was just reading too fast.
Thought that was PAGE boy, but that is only as far as the GOP is concerned?
Off fucking topic!
jcmartz, you are not a newbie here. You know there is an open thread for any topic. Also, most of us are aware of this. PZ had a thread about this topic. Also, in the open thread, I linked to an updated account of this.
The Templetonians have not even upheld their own goal of awarding the prize for "progress in science and religion". What on earth does Mother Teresa have to do with science? And what on earth does Freeman Dyson have to do with religion? Sure, he has some scattered essays about science and religion with which I mostly disagree, but the point is that these don't really constitute any significant part of his body of writing.
The Templetonians basically seem to award the prize to a random person who strikes their fancy that year.
"Quisling" strikes me as... a bit... extreme.
It would be helpful if this somebody had gone to a famous high school in a large city and studied under a renowned essayist. It would be even better if such a somebody was given to using the phrase "mendacious intellectual pornographers" in reviews of books he had never read. Too bad none of us know of such a somebody.
Michael Ruse has no hope of winning since he's neither respectable nor a scientist - he's more like a destitute Billy Graham. I've often wondered if Chris Mooney wasn't the one deciding who wins the Templeton prize since he and the Templetons make identical claims about the compatibility of science and religion.
I really don't think Mother Teresa deserves to be called a fraud along with Chuck Colson and Billy Graham. Unlike the other two, she spent her life actually helping the poor and living a very humble existence.
I know she was not without fault. She took donations from questionable sources and sent most of the money back to the Vatican coffers. She focused on spiritual needs of the poor instead of addressing their real issues. I also think her belief in Christian mythology was misguided. However, I see her as having a net positive influence in the world and non-hypocritical life. Despite her failing, I would still count her amongst the good guys.
Here's what Christopher Hitchens had to say about "Mother" Teresa: link. Sounds like she was worse than a fraud, and certainly not one of the good guys or gals.
Link didn't work. It's at http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/.
Teresa was not in New Delhi to alleviate the suffering of the dying poor nor to reduce the poverty found in the city. Focusing on the 'spiritual' needs is a waste of time and resources. I feed sorry for the people who died in agony, having Teresa's people refuse them medication and being informed that what they fely were the kisses of Jesus.
She was not one of the good people, she preyed on the helpless.
Madscientist @48
Billy Graham won the Templeton Prize in '82.
Causality fail. It's obvious Mooney has been angling for the Templeton Prize, although so far all he's won is a $15k plus travel/lodging for a few weeks as part of a Templeton Fellowship (that is applied for, not just granted randomly).
I do hope that wasn't satire. But if it was, it's still worth pointing out to the peanut gallery.
So you also approve of the Scientologists doing 'assists' in Haiti?
They may be misguided, but they're only trying to help, after all.
Leaves little doubt as to viewpoint though!
It is spelled with a lower case 'q' in this context btw.
quis·ling (kwzlng) n.
A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.
Thing is that it's not their stated goal:
If anything I translate this into "progress in the advancement of religion".
Oh, and being a scientist is evidently not a prerequisite, even recently : Charles Taylor won the prize in 2007.
The profanity in this thread sickens me. Just because civility week is over doesn't mean you all have to use the M-word so fucking much!
@Paul: Just in case you missed the news, the Templetons have been looking for genuine scientists lately rather than the likes of Billy Graham - do you really believe Ruse has a chance of winning?
As for Mooney, you entirely miss the point. Mooney and the Templetons have identical views of the compatibility of science and religion, though you can safely bet that Mooney would deny it.
See 56.
He didn't always share that view. So far it is not clear what changed his mind. He's attributed it to "reading history and philosophy", but at least as plausible is he realized there was more money pandering to the majority, and Templeton is one of the big givers (he already has a taste, even). I didn't miss the point, I simply tentatively apply ulterior motives to Mooney's convenient flip-flop that you do not.
Owlmirror:
Why not The Templeton Quantum Soup Prize then?
darth_borehd:
The hell she did. She was a predatory hypocrite who took pleasure in making other people suffer. She withheld pain medication and basic comforts from the dying; she told them it made them closer to god. Yet, when that nasty fucking excuse for a human being had heart problems? She was airlifted out, put in a first class hospital, had the very best doctors and surgeons, had a private fucking room, and every comfort and medication available. Please, the only thing she ever helped the poor to do was suffer even more. I wouldn't bother to spit on her.
Nemo @30, just catching up on this thread, and I note you wrote:
A 5-second Googling produced this:
You can't get much plainer than that. He's a creationist, all right.
So far it is not clear what changed his mind.
two things:
Matt Nisbet made himself a career out of it.
Sheril Kirshenbaum thought he wasn't playing nice enough with the other kids.
seriously, if correlation means smoke, I'd bet if we could get an honest answer, there would be the same causative fire underneath.
In Sheril's own words: "Scienceblogs used to not be so combative before I started posting there."
speaking of mythology
How does the NAS justify this? I have asked a question of this nature before. How can we stop it? Whose house do we need to go to for a sitdown so we can discuss what a bunch of fuck heads the 'Temps' are?
Seriously though who do we contact? Who have you contacted and voiced your personal concern to, PZ?
Tony Schwartz
t_schwartz317@sbcglobal.net
Although I sometimes try I do not always remember to check for replies on the blog. Feel free to email or stop by if you are in Indianapolis. Thanks.
Y'all aren't going to believe this. The Guardian just wrote a piece noting that the President of the National Academy of Sciences personally nominated the winner for the Templeton prize. Yeah. Oh, I can't wait to hear what PZ has to say.
Here's Jerry Coyne's take on it:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/guardian-article-on-…
Darth_borehd: Janine, Caine, and sparganium5 have all touched on aspects of Mother Teresa's questionable behaviours. I'll add a few more to the pile: She advocated "natural" birth control (ie...timing it) and stood hardline with the official church policy which forbade contraception and abortion. She called contraception "selfish" and yet told women they should still submit to their husband's sexual needs. She had to know that this was contributing to the overall poverty of the area, as well as bringing down the quality of life for women and their families and yet she still railed against it.
[OT / Meta]
Tony @65, robots trawl the net looking for email IDs to add to spam lists.
For anyone who's considering publishing an e-mail address in a public site, I strongly recommend obfuscation. There are many methods for this, but the best ones (IMO) state the UID in one part of your comment, and the domain in a separate part.
(e.g. I use the UID yorickoid, and the domain name is hotmail.com)
Perhaps PZ can do Tony @65 the courtesy of editing out his unwary posting of a real email address.
NAS has certainly put their foot in it.
I like Sastra's comment @ #29, but I don't think it goes quite far enough. The contest between superstition and cognition is a zero sum game. For every incremental improvement in the effect of the Templeton agenda there is an incremental erosion of the edificial trust of science. This trend is manifest on many levels but is of course most important with respect to the actual work of science. Scientists are only humans. They can be corrupted.
This has always been true and will remain true into the future, however, if the checks and balances are sufficiently distorted and blurred such that authoratarian pronouncements carry the same weight as good scientific work, then we are embarking on the end of the enlightenment, and probably headed for a reversal.
Science does not exist outside society. In our current situation a small percentage of the population has control of some 80% of economic activity. The Templeton scam is part of that small percentage in control. Anyone who buys into it is a fool.
A fun game: the Templeton Prize and the Templeton Foundation are on Twitter. Perhaps you'd like to tell them exactly what you think, either by replying to their tweets or by adding them to an appropriately-named list...
Perhaps someone needs to come up with an appropriate hashtag for Templeton-related tweets, such as #templetonwoo.
-but rather the quest for progress in humanity’s efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine.
If that's case, then it makes no sense at all to award it to a bona fide scientist like Dyson. In any case, much of that description sounds like amorphous, hand-waving woo to me anyway.
@John Morales, 62
The quote you found with 5 seconds of google is actually the quote that nemo provided to claim Billy Graham wasn't a creationist. It's absurd, which is why I was borderline rude in my response.
@Icthyic, 63
Mooney isn't big on Nisbet anymore, so that can't be the whole story. As for Kirshenbaum, that had crossed my mind as well. Especially with her identifying as an "agnostic Jew".
Sigh...it looks like the winner is Francisco Ayala. Not a whole lot we can say on this one...his scientific contributions in evolution genetics (and specifically parasitology) are profound, and he has also been an ruthless critic of the IDiots and creationists.
Biologist Francisco Ayala, new Templeton prize, said to me a yer ago that "Evolution makes God unnecessary to explain the world" and many other things about religion, as you can red in http://bit.ly/cptPHy (Spanish).
Biologist Francisco Ayala, new Templeton prize, said to me a year ago in Bilbao, during the Darwin Day celebration, that "Evolution makes God unnecessary to explain the world".
It was a very long interview about evolution, intelligent design and religion, that you can read in Spanish in Magonia: http://bit.ly/cptPHy