I recently had the pleasure of dealing with a very polite young woman who wanted to give me a flyer about a presentation by Eric Hovind, son of the more (in)famous Kent Hovind. A snippet of our conversation went something like this:
Me: Has this been experimentally demonstrated? Her: Oh, yes. Me: Can you give me the publication history where I can find this information? Her: Actually, the atheist organizations don’t want us to publish it.
As may be divined through careful astrology, the conversation went downhill from there. It did give me some ideas, though, that struck me as interesting enough to research further. Presuming she meant that the atheist organizations were preventing them from publishing their information in an academic journal, a resource disparity between creation scientists and atheist organizations should be pretty apparent and easy to identify, and it should favor the atheist organizations. Specifically in the case of non-profit agencies, GuideStar.org should be able to easily find the 990 forms and give us the revenues of the more significant players (revenue in this case being used as a measure of public support and/or interest).
In many ways the Discovery Institute’s often-found publicity of intelligent design has secured it as the foremost organization interested in doing so. Their GuideStar page can be found here, though a free registration is required to view the 990 form. For expediency’s sake, the 2007 990 form (line 12) says that the Discovery Institute took in a total of $4,256,588. (We’re using 2007 because GuideStar as of yet does not have their 2008 form.)
A clear difference is at work here, but it is precisely the opposite of the lady’s claims. On a purely financial level, intelligent design has Dawkins outfinanced by an astounding $3,948,042. However this comparison isn’t quite fair – one would hypothetically donate to the Discovery Institute if they liked intelligent design as a concept, while the RDFRS would receive funds from those who specifically support Richard Dawkins’s drive to promote, well, reason and science through this foundation. Is there some other, more general, evolutionary foundation that might be better able to match the Discovery Institute’s general mandate?
In fact there is. The Evolution Society, chaired by Charles Fenster, a biologist at the University of Maryland, seems to have a general enough mandate — the “STUDY AND PROMOTION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES.” According to GuideStar, in 2007 it took in $416,980. The Discovery Institute thus has them out-financed by $3,839,608.
The financial situation really can’t get much clearer. Atheists are being outspent quite well, or at least those groups are. It’s also worth noting that the Discovery Institute spent over $3 million on “program services” in 2007, more than either of the two atheist organizations made during that same period.
It strikes me, though, that this comment about atheist organizations blocking intelligent design publishing attempts is actually sort of a reverse compliment. If the Pew Foundation’s breakdown of American religious affiliations is correct, 1.6% of Americans self-identify as atheists while 78.4% identify as Christian. The Census Bureau estimates that the 2009 US population was 307,006,550 people.
Presuming the Pew Foundation’s percentages hold true for 2009, there were roughly 240,693,135.2 people who would identify themselves as Christian in 2009 in the United States, and 4,912,104.8 people identifying themselves as atheist. Presuming this woman’s logic to be correct, one atheist is therefore capable of stopping 49 Christians from publishing things about intelligent design.
I thought somebody was gonna start vetting these articles. Or at least proofreading for clarity.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -8
What are you trying to hide? written by Damned Skeptic,
March 06, 2010
I suspect that you are part of the cabal. Why else would you be trying to divert attention from all the money, much of it laundered, that the atheists are raising and spreading around to keep their plot hidden. The whole Obama is a Muslim idea was started by atheists to keep people from finding out that he is in fact an atheist.
49, eh? Makes me feel like a superhero. Seriously, though, since when have facts ever gotten in the way of a true believer? TGM http://thegodlessmonster.com/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
Has this particular item struck a chord? written by Skeptigirl,
March 07, 2010
I thought this was an excellent point to be making. If atheist and secular groups are of such concern to theists, it should be apparent if you follow the money why theist groups should have such concerns. We all know where the money trail really goes. It's nice someone thought to point it out.
So why are there multiple posts in the comments to the contrary? Hint: The posts in question make no substantive argument against the Swift article.
written by pxatkins:
I Discover therefore I'm ID. Wow. That article falls foul of just about every fallacy there is. Dude, we're skeptics ... did you think we wouldn't notice?
written by Mick Houlahan:
I thought somebody was gonna start vetting these articles. Or at least proofreading for clarity.
written by lambofgod99:
the end of the jref [url=http://www.clubconspiracy.com/...10933.html
]http://www.clubconspiracy.com/...10933.html
My guess is someone from the DI or some other theist group decided to weigh in with their opinions. Please correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to elaborate on the rationale for your comments, (hopefully without bearing false witness about who you really are).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
... written by Skeptigirl,
March 07, 2010
Forgive the typo above. I thought I had proofed my comments but I see I missed the ending when I edited the quote codes.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Atheist vs Scientist written by William,
March 08, 2010
I DO take objection to the common use of the term "atheist" as the counterpoint to the "creation scientist". (I also have objection to using "creation" and "scientist" together, but...)
Just because an organization promotes real science does not necessarily imply atheist. Also, just because one is Christian, does not necessarily imply creationist.
I am but 1 Christian with VERY strong opinions about putting ID and creationism (2 different beliefs, by the way) in a science classroom.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Given the fundamentalist taste... written by Griz,
March 09, 2010
...for big houses and expensive cars, I bet the amount of money all three mentioned foundations actually spend on their respective mission is about equal.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@ skeptigirl written by pxatkins,
March 09, 2010
I have no connection with the other commentors, and I think lambofgodd99 is not only not a skeptic but a bona fide nutter. My objection to the article is that it is makes an assumption that the Discovery Channel is a tool of ID, then zips right along to claim all finances associated with DC are spent in the anti-skeptic 'cause' ... etc. etc.
The final sentence (sarcasm ... cool.) says much: "Presuming this woman’s logic to be correct, one atheist is therefore capable of stopping 49 Christians from publishing things about intelligent design.
But as an atheist publisher, I can (and do) prevent every IDer in the universe from being published, all by myself. I'll let the derogarory slight on women slide as accidental.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
wow written by Ravenclaw60,
March 09, 2010
I followed that link from lamofgod and seriously is he for real. He is either nuts or a skeptic trying to make the religious look more foolish than they already do or both.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by JT,
March 09, 2010
@pxatkins
Wow, where to start?
First off, calling foul on calling the Discovery Institute a tool of ID is like calling foul on calling the pope a Catholic.
Secondly you called that sentence you quoted a derogatory slight on women. Why? The only thing I see even related to gender is the specification that the speaker was a woman. If you see that as in any way implying inferiority, then it is YOU who is sexist, not Mr. Chesser.
P.S. Rereading your post, I noticed you called the DI the Discovery Channel. That was just a slip, right? Or are you honestly not aware that those are two COMPLETELY different organizations?
Re: Discovery "Channel". You say there's no such reference, and yet you call it that AGAIN. The Discovery Channel is a cable channel devoted to science programming. We could discuss it's faults and merits, but that's completely beside the point. The Discovery "Institute" (not Channel, Institute), is an organization set up to push Intelligent Design into public schools. That is not "opinion" that is verified fact, as stated in their own documents, most notably the Wedge Document.
Re: Sexism. Look up ad hominem some time. I didn't say you were sexist because you're ugly and your mom dresses you funny. I said you're sexist because you took the mere mention of someone being female and assumed it was a derogatory statement. In the absence of any previous sexist statements of the author (which I don't see), such an assumption requires that the reader presuppose that women are inferior at logical thinking, otherwise the statement can in no way be construed as derogatory. Such a presupposition would make the reader a sexist by definition.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
... written by metzomagic,
March 09, 2010
@pxatkins
You're not very good at this, are you? First you said:
My objection to the article is that it is makes an assumption that the Discovery Channel is a tool of ID...
Dude, as another reader has already pointed out, the Discovery Institute and the Discovery Channel are two different entities. Google it in your spare time. OK, we could forgive one slip, but then you continue along blithely in the same vein. JT said:
First off, calling foul on calling the Discovery Institute a tool of ID is like calling foul on calling the pope a Catholic.
To which you replied:
That the Discovery Channel is a tool if ID is just an opinion; that the Pope is Catholic is a fact.
Now you've conflated the two organisations AGAIN. And finally, JT said:
P.S. Rereading your post, I noticed you called the DI the Discovery Channel. That was just a slip, right? Or are you honestly not aware that those are two COMPLETELY different organizations?
To which you, astoundingly, replied:
Yeah, you need to re-re-read it then ... there no such reference.
Sorry, but if you want to play with the grown up skeptics around here, you will soon DISCOVER that basic reading and comprehension skills are a prerequisite to intelligent discourse. Idiot. Pro tip: in an internet forum, people can actually read what you previously wrote.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by metzomagic,
March 09, 2010
Oops. My previous post wasn't a 'me too'. JT and I were composing our posts at the same time, and he just pipped me.
Anyway, I suppose you can't slag major league idiots off enough. 'Atheist publisher' my arse from Dalkey!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Wow written by DrMatt,
March 10, 2010
Amazing. The World-controlling Atheist Cabal (TINC) has now displaced The World-controlling Jewish Cabal (TINC) in the nutter mind.
Oh, and lambofgod99 is posting the same stuff Dennis Markuze posts on web sites everywhere. TWCAC hasn't displaced TWCJC in his mind yet, but he imagines himself to have personally "defeated" both straw men.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Bugger me ... written by pxatkins,
March 10, 2010
Well, colour me foolish. I did indeed miss the difference between the two organisations. My apologies.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
... written by metzomagic,
March 10, 2010
@pxatkins
Apology accepted. 'Idiot' label retracted.
But man, did it take us some effort to get that across to you
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Willy K,
March 10, 2010
Reading some of the nutso comments on this topic is why I no longer will "label" myself or let anyone else "label" me as an atheist.
There are just too many hyper-ignorant folks who will make up their own definition of what an atheist is.
When asked about my views, I simply assert "There are NO supernatural beings and there are NO supernatural events." I then invite the questioner to direct me to someplace where I can witness a miracle 24/7 such as a mountain floating in the sky or a place where amputees spontaneously sprout new limbs.
One nut case thought he could "win" by claiming "maybe there are invisible miracles happening on the sub-atomic scale all the time." I just laughed and he never brought up the subject again.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by pxatkins,
March 11, 2010
@pxatkins
Apology accepted. 'Idiot' label retracted.
But man, did it take us some effort to get that across to you
Thanks. Not sure how much effort you consider 'some' but I only posted once after being 'put straight.' I believe the whole purpose of the JREF is to encourage critical thinking and the scientific method. Once I realised my mistake, I reviewed my stance and corrected it, based on new (to me anyway) evidence. Don't give up too easily, especially when the errant is one of your own.
I have learned from this experience several things: that my prowess as an editor (shamefully yes, I AM a publisher and editor) is fallible; that I get things wrong and sometimes can't see it even if it is openly revealed; that, after being on the sharp end of a lashing, my sympathies with 'the other team' have become, if no more in line with their views, then more sensitive to the way we engage them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
... written by BJB,
March 11, 2010
It saddens me to say this, but I bet the Discovery Channel really would actually produce a documentary promoting Hovind's beliefs as actual established fact. Yes, I know I said Discovery *Channel* and I meant it!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please
register if you do not have an account yet.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
And hey, stopping religious people is hard work! They have illogic on their side!