The first is a report, written jointly by Nick Spencer of Theos and Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute, which sets out to argue that Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism and that Christianity and Darwinian evolution are compatible. The project seeks to ‘rescue Darwin’ (giving the title to the overall project) by insisting we treat him as a supremely gifted natural scientist and not as theologian or anti-theologian of any stripe.
Dans le genre « ménager la chèvre et le chou », la Templeton Foundation à l’oeuvre pour « sauver Darwin » (« rescue Darwin »). Pauvres cons, va. La seule chose positive là dedans est que ça doit foutre les boules à Jean Staune (qui semble bien tranquille ces temps-ci, se prépare-t-il à se convertir à l’Islam après la conférence de la Doha ?).
Now, Darwinian evolution do not necessitate atheism, or theism or any other ideological, philosophical or religious opinion/take. It just happens. And that piss-off every kind of teleologists 🙂
What is fucking weird, is that soft creationists, such as the Templeton Foundation fellows, need to look Darwinians rather than concentrate to support their beliefs, as much as irrational they can be.
The other day I was listening to Harold Kroto’s speech at Enlightment 2.0. He seems to be as much pissed off as I am. Good thing, certainly his actions will reach a much wider public then mine. people must be aware of how Templeton Foundation try to blur the Science and Religion domains, pure scienligious activity there. Big Money to buy scientists spend.
Why somebody would like to ‘rescue Darwin’, and what would be that is dangerous for the fellow? What is really dangerous is « Darwin’s idea » for christian fellows, they should rename there lame project ‘rescue Jesus’, or be more ecumenical and go for ‘rescue religions’.
Coffee and Sci(ence) 
#1 par nunatak le août 19, 2008 - 3:43
While I don’t personally think Darwin needs rescuing, in our wider society he most certainly does. As poster-boy for evolution, he has been the victim of an outrageous smear campaign and this has both hurt religion (by forcing people to choose between it and science and thus driving lots away) and, more importantly I believe, hurt our society (by dramatically increasing that part of the electorate that is apathetic, mistrustful or downright hostile towards science).
This is a project in which the enlightened religious (I won’t go into whether I think that’s really possible) are trying to help their own be more informed, less reflexively anti-evolution and therefore anti-science, and I for one support that, because I think the result will be that science and reason overall will benefit.
#2 par Oldcola le août 19, 2008 - 4:17
Hi Nunatak,
I think that if a choice between Science and Religion is to be made on the basis that evolutions isn’t purposeful I would like the issue to remain clear.
For christians (Ken Miller style, Templeton Foundation minion), the issue remain blurred between rational acceptation of evolution and irrational belief at a deity that set thing up and Tempelton tries to keep it as much blurred as possible. That’s at least immoral by my standards.
I don’t give a dime about what Darwin or Einstein thought about religion, I repeat that here to be sure it’s in english. From scientists I like to hear about Science. All I needed to become atheist was read scriptures and I suppose that any rational reading of scripture lead to atheism.
I keep the two domains separated as far as religious options don’t interfere with Science issues.
Templeton Foundation is trying to sugarcoat their religious beliefs as being compatible with Science. The very same
financed part of the Darwin Correspondence Project.
Which part? A ‘Darwin and Religion’ section of the web site. Bottom line?
Check Kroto’s video and you will see how JTF manipulates data.
Check the Big Questions episode and you will understand why I can’t trust those guys.
After that I would like to have a fresh opinion about the enlightened religious, if you please.