5 Responses to “14 to Zero”

• #1

  Screechy Monkey

  August 17, 2018 at 6:19 pm

  I think the fact that it’s Templeton is noteworthy in a couple of ways:

  1) Aside from the sexism, we’re getting a glimpse into the bias and dishonesty of the organization. As one of the organizers wrote:

  The distinctive feature of our program (as opposed many others in this space) is that it focused on paradoxes in models for the origin of life, facts and theories that, individually or in combination, would seem to force the conclusion that the undirected origin of life (one lacking an “intelligent designer”) was “impossible.”

  Now, it’s neither illegal nor immoral for an organization like Templeton to have a “point of view” on scientific or other questions. But Templeton likes to pretend that it doesn’t; that it is just interested in asking “the Big Questions” and isn’t gunning for particular answers. That has always been pretty obvious bullshit, but this statement is further confirmation that Templeton is interested in funding scientists or journalists who say that there is a (cough cough) “intelligent designer” (scare quotes theirs). Anyone being offered Templeton money in the future ought to pay heed.

  2) Templeton’s excuse for the all-male panels was that gosh, there just don’t seem to be any women in this area who do our kind of work (hint: the goddy kind), and the 50 women Dr. Glass mentioned don’t count because they aren’t goddy enough. Now, the “we couldn’t find any women” excuse gets used so often in so many different fields where it has been proven to be bullshit that I doubt it applies here either, but I suppose it’s possible that it’s particularly hard to find religiously-focused women scientists because women with those kinds of agendas are even more likely to be deterred from scientific careers than even the average woman does.
• #2

  iknklast

  August 17, 2018 at 7:21 pm

  I suppose that it is hard to find women in a field if you only look at the men…
• #3

  Acolyte of Sagan

  August 18, 2018 at 7:15 am

  I would like to think that Templeton approached women but found they were unwilling to compromise their professional and personal ethics for the sake of a Templeton cheque. Sadly, this is Templeton, so we can be sure that women simply weren’t even considered, much less invited.
• #4

  Nan

  August 18, 2018 at 9:24 am

  @AofS, If Templeton had approached women who declined the invitation we would have known, because the women’s names would have been listed as attending anyway.

  I wonder if Templeton will be asserting that women don’t really care about bias in research…they don’t even show up for their panels.
• #5

  tiggerthewing

  August 19, 2018 at 4:05 am

  It seems to be all of a parcel – women aren’t real people, so…

  (a) there can’t be any women doing any serious work in any relevant field, so why would anyone want them at a conference; and

  (b) if we do want some women, they don’t need to be invited – they can be appointed. It’s not as if women have anything better to do.