Darwin Scares Away Corporate Sponsors

The Darwin exhibition frightening off corporate sponsors

An exhibition celebrating the life of Charles Darwin has failed to find a corporate sponsor because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution.

While the Darwin exhibition has been unable to find a business backer - unlike previous exhibitions at the museum - the Creationist Museum near Cincinatti, Ohio, which takes literally the Bible's account of creation, has recently raised $7 million in donations.

I did find this little jewel of an article very interesting. Despite the drum-beat of evolution being the tried and true solution to why we are here. Few (if any) companies seem to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. Meanwhile Creationism is raking in the bucks when needed. So why is it that the laughable notion of Creationism can gather money while Evolution dies off in the funding phase like a weaker species?

Originally posted by dbates

I did find this little jewel of an article very interesting. Despite the drum-beat of evolution being the tried and true solution to why we are here. Few (if any) companies seem to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. Meanwhile Creationism is raking in the bucks when needed. So why is it that the laughable notion of Creationism can gather money while Evolution dies off in the funding phase like a weaker species?

Its simple and sad really. They are in it for the money and by staying out of the controversy they don't have to fear a backlash from the growing evangelical fundamentalists. They also have to fear alieanating their shareholders and potential shareholders.

As for the groups like the creationist museum, look at how much Pat Robertson rakes in from suckers that are willing to pay. The worst thing is that some of these places raking in the money try and use false evidence, have no clue about the evidence from other scientific fields, making stuff up to disprove evolution.

Like silentlonewolf said the people behind the money for the pursue of creationist exhibitions are very well known in the Christian coalition groups and many other pro-family advocates groups.

Occurs they don't need sponsors because they are the sponsors.

Now exhibitions like biographies and life history are not particularly attractive to corporate or otherwise donors because is no money to be make and they are not for the advertisement of their goods.

But the Christian coalition group has plenty of souls to give their money for Jesus and God cause.

Another thing I'd like to point out because i think it has some relevance to this article is a post and is rather intriquing.

First I'd like to point out a podcast by howmuchisthedoggy. It is on media slant and the use of media stories to influence polls, which are then used to push an agenda.

Then we have this little poll referenced in the telegraph article provided by dbates.

Creationism is increasingly widely backed in America. A CBS News poll last month found that 51 per cent of Americans reject the theory of evolution, believing instead that God created humans in their present form. Another poll in August found that 38 per cent of Americans think that creationism should be taught in schools, instead of evolution.

Now I'm not saing that CBS is pushing creationism over evolution. They did have an agenda, but how much it was really over evolution is debateable. Just look at how they broke down the poll here. (Also of note, the poll ran from Nov. 18-21 of 2004.) They use kerry vs bush as a basis. I'd also like to point out that some would look at this poll and expect numbers slanted on the basis of conservative vs liberal thinking.

Now, looking back at the stories that brought on this poll, you you will see it is another one about the constitutionality of teaching creationism and it being taken to court.

Georgia story Nov 8 2004

Georgia battle lumped with story of court battle of marriage concepts in health textbooks This one is also from Nov 8, 2004.

The final story related to this from CBS came 2 days after the poll ended.
If you read through it's more content related to "red" vs "blue" "liberal" vs "conservative".

final georgia story
A judge's ruling on the sticker could come at any time in this evolution of a familiar collision between biology and theology.

Funny thing is, this story is almost a year old and they never write anything on the decision from the courts.

Here's the Judges decision from MSNBC but I don't see it anywhere else. IMO the poll was concluded, they didn't need the story anymore.
Judges decision in georgia court case

To sum things up:

The media slant affected a poll on evolution. However, it is brought on by a story that makes people supporting evolution out to be atheists radicals, much in the same light as those fighting to remove the word god from everything governmental or holiday decorations from schools. This in turned skewed the results. Those same results are now affecting the Darwin museum exhibit's ability of gaining corporate sponsors. These sponsors are scared of the fact that they may be alieanating a large chuck of their consumer base by investing in the exhibit.

Originally posted by dbates
Despite the drum-beat of evolution being the tried and true solution to why we are here.

Its not a drumbeat, its simply a rational consideration of the evidence.

Few (if any) companies seem to be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

What companies have been strutting around saying darwin was right? How many companies are sponsoring jesus these days anyway?

So why is it that the laughable notion of Creationism can gather money while Evolution dies off in the funding phase like a weaker species?

The mob is uneducated and likes to throw away their money. *shrugs* Same reason people will stockpile tamiflu but then not wash their hands after leaving the bathroom. Same reason most creationists will say evolution doesn't happen but then have no problem using new drugs that fight bacteria that have evolved drug resistance.

Originally posted by dbates
Meanwhile Creationism is raking in the bucks when needed. So why is it that the laughable notion of Creationism can gather money while Evolution dies off in the funding phase like a weaker species?

Normal mainstream people don't boycott, write letters or chain themselves to office furniture. That's what the lunatic fringe does, like it's their job.

Few (if any) companies seem to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. Meanwhile Creationism is raking in the bucks when needed. So why is it that the laughable notion of Creationism can gather money while Evolution dies off in the funding phase like a weaker species?

What is this really a measure of? Whether or not evolution or creationism has corporate funding is really not relevant to the validity of the theory. Whether or not the general public accepts the TOE vs creationism is really not relevant either.

And while Evolutionary based studies are certainly seeing a reduction in their available funding, this is pretty much the case for ALL of science right now. Unfortunately, all the major funding institutions NIH, NSF, NIAID, etc. are seeing major reductions in their available funding.

Rest assured though... when it really counts, ie: funding for research programs, etc.... the evolution crowd has the creationists beat... hands down.

dbates is certainly right tho, this really shows how contestable the Theory of Evolution is in America.

Its hard to imagine a scientific theory being so riotous that people won't sponsor an exhibit about it. At the AMNH nonetheless! I mean, what are they saying, that the AMNH are liars?

And for that matter, they'll sponsor a display and hall that talks about evolution, but not this one? Ironic no? The whole museum was recently (well a few years ago) reorganized so as to have a walk through a hall be done in an evolutionary sequence (like paths marked that form an evolutionary tree), and that didn't have a problem getting sponsorship.

And these companies that sponsor other halls probably are all too ready to let people know that they are 'Supporters of the American Museum of Natural History', because of the respectability and authority that the place has gotten, trying to dab some of that respect on themselves. Not really dissimilar to some groups of creationists trying to cloak themselves in a pseudo-scientific mantle, trying to co-op science because science and evolution have been so successful and powerful.

Originally posted by Nygdan
dbates is certainly right tho, this really shows how contestable the Theory of Evolution is in America.

Is this a big secret though? The theory does seem to be in the spotlight now, and this is probably just a corporate response to an unpredictable financial scenario.

Its hard to imagine a scientific theory being so riotous that people won't sponsor an exhibit about it. At the AMNH nonetheless! I mean, what are they saying, that the AMNH are liars?

Well... I don't disagree with you per se. But I don't think they're saying the AMNH are liars. They're exercising their ability to do what they want with their money. Corporations are under no obligation to sponsor science exhibits. It's nice when they do; I can appreciate it, and I wouldn't discourage it, but it's not like they should feel obligated to sponsor any kind of exhibit. Hey, it's their money, if they don't want to sponsor it, tough... look somewhere else.

And for that matter, they'll sponsor a display and hall that talks about evolution, but not this one? Ironic no? The whole museum was recently (well a few years ago) reorganized so as to have a walk through a hall be done in an evolutionary sequence (like paths marked that form an evolutionary tree), and that didn't have a problem getting sponsorship.

Ironic... I don't know... maybe unexpected, but again it's not like corporations are obligated to sponsor stuff.

Besides this could be the ANMH's fault. Did you read the article? Eldridge stated very clearly that the purpose of this exhibit was to counter the growing creationist movement. The AMNH took a political stance and now they're paying the price. If Eldridge didn't make that statement, it might be a different story. It's their own fault really; the AMNH didn't have to turn it into a political issue, but they did. The AMNH in fact is guilty of playing politics with science. Too bad for them.

Well I agree that most corporate groups would back with their money what it fit them best, but will exhibits on creationism that are just for the misleading of the public will be in their agenda also?

Or would they just stay away from sponsoring theories that are obviously misleading.

Well, a museum that is supposed to open in 2007 in which they are to show how dinosaurs coexisted with humans 6 thousand years ago.

This multimillion museum indeed is going to need a lot of donations; I wonder how many corporations will give their money for it.

www.cincinnati.com...

Taking in consideration that the museum is mostly made possible with donations and volunteers it probably will take a long time to be finished.

But like many said, they are to prove that dinosaurs cohabited with humans and that they were in earth right there with Adam and Eve they are set to free the dinosaurs and put them in the rightful place with humanity.

If dinosaurs can talk.

Animated young T. rexes in the lobby: “Of course we lived at the same time as humans! God made dinosaurs on the same day as Adam. And later we drank from the same waters as Adam’s children.”

In the next room, guests will discover more truths. This time, they hear from a fossilized dinosaur raptor, still half-buried in a dig site.

Dinosaur raptor fossil in a dig site: “I lived about 4,500 years ago.

How do I know? Well, fossils don’t come with birth certificates, but we can read an eyewitness account from someone who was there—the Creator Himself. In God’s Word, the History Book of the Universe, we read about a global Flood that buried all the living things on Earth.”

answersingenesis.org...

Yes I wonder how many corporations will gladly give money away to mislead people in the name of a myth.

No doubt that is always going to be people willing to give money away for such a worthy cause.

Museum donations to date total $18 million. Monthly giving must average $413,000 for a 2007 opening. Actual museum donations for the last year averaged $352,000 per month.

Sponsoring for research and sciences are still mainly supported by donors, the corporate groups may not donate for an exhibit if they don't want too, usualy individual wealthy donors do that to have their names attach to the exhibit, but they do plenty of sponsoring for grants to pay for sciences anyway.

Scientific reaserch depend in mostly on donors, and that is where it counts.

Originally posted by marg6043
Scientific reaserch depend in mostly on donors, and that is where it counts.

Scientific research depends pre-dominantly on GOVERNMENT funding. Occassionally, corporations and 'angel' investors donate money to basic research, but the vast majority of funding for basic research comes from the gov't... not private donors.

Yes for basic research and universities research but when scientist goes on private research outside they often depend on private donations and private funded grants.

Most of the government funding is for approved research in certain cathegories.

The basic premise is that "which ever side gets the most money, is correct" - the same argument, really, as the polling data "whichever side the majority of the people believe shall be considered true".

So, let's just have a national referendum and settle this once and for all in the good old, time-honored tradition of voting and let the people decide! Right?

This is all baloney! Scientific fact is not based on public opinion. Funding is, though, in a great many instances. Very sad, really. Private donations are entirely based on the opinion of the giver and those donors are never asked to explain whether they truly understand any issue. Government funding is decided upon by elected officials and elected officials are absolutely determined by popular opinion - that's the definition of how they got elected in the first place.

If 99.999% of the people on the planet believe in Creationism, Biblical Infallibility, Intelligent Design, etc. then funding for science may go away but it won't change the true nature of science or the facts. In fact, western civilization went through this same kind of thing about 5 or 6 centuries ago. How did that work out for us?

Originally posted by Al Davison
The basic premise is that "which ever side gets the most money, is correct" - the same argument, really, as the polling data "whichever side the majority of the people believe shall be considered true".

So, let's just have a national referendum and settle this once and for all in the good old, time-honored tradition of voting and let the people decide! Right?

I don't know where you're pulling this from. No one in this thread said has stated what's popular is what's true.

This is all baloney! Scientific fact is not based on public opinion. Funding is, though, in a great many instances. Very sad, really. Private donations are entirely based on the opinion of the giver and those donors are never asked to explain whether they truly understand any issue. Government funding is decided upon by elected officials and elected officials are absolutely determined by popular opinion - that's the definition of how they got elected in the first place.

Ummmm... no one here is disputing what scientific fact is based on. Obviously science should not be influenced by public opinion... no one here is disputing this. The point of this thread was "Darwin Scares Away Corporate Sponsorship."

It is my contention that Darwin doesn't scare away sponsorship, BUT turning science into politics does.

No one in this thread believes public opinion shapes science... or at least no one has outwardly said so.

With respect to private donations: You don't like what people do with their money: Too Bad. Make your own fortune, and support the causes you're interested in. People can do what they want with their money.

Government funding is not decided upon by elected officials... actually the amounts ARE decided by elected officials, but the elected officials have nothing to do with the disbursements. Disbursement of gov't funding is decided via a process of peer-review by experts from within the field. Your elected officials absolutely do NOT decide which projects get funded and which don't.

If 99.999% of the people on the planet believe in Creationism, Biblical Infallibility, Intelligent Design, etc. then funding for science may go away but it won't change the true nature of science or the facts. In fact, western civilization went through this same kind of thing about 5 or 6 centuries ago. How did that work out for us?

Who's trying to change the 'facts' of science? Who wants funding for science to disappear?

Not sure what you're referring to that happened 'about 5 or 6 centuries ago...' but whatever it was it didn't have anything to do with politicizing Darwin.


[edit on 28-11-2005 by mattison0922]

Hehehe...sometimes I write from experiences outside what others have said in a particular thread; sometimes I go so far as to bring in experiences and examples from the actual real world. I'm a madman, I know!

OK, that may have all been too abstract. So, the main points were that popular opinion can censor important factual information. Money is one way that people support or censor (censure? that, too) certain information. I'm not saying that I think this is always wrong but, it can be. Maybe the AMNH caused their own problems, here. I can accept that as a strong possibility.

Congress must approve the budgets for all these agencies - they hold the ultimate purse strings. Of course Congress does not dole out the money on a project-by-project basis. But, if you think that government funding cannot or has not been influenced by public opinion expressed through their members of Congress, you should ask the NEA about that. Congress didn't vote on whether to fund Maplethorpe but, NEA's budget got whacked when the Maplethorpe flap hit the fan. You think Congress couldn't get enough pressure to begin to "de-fund" agencies participating in projects that threaten the Evangelical Christian's march to bury Darwin? And that's just the federal funding side of it - the states also fund research (mostly through public university systems). So, I think I can rather easily defend that idea.

My statements about what happened "5 or 6 centuries ago" (I was probably off a couple of hundred years) were a reference to a time in our history during which the RCC deemed certain scientific endeavors as heresy and suppressed all that knowledge and research on religious grounds. Maybe if they had burned a lot more witches at the stake, the Black Plague would have ended much sooner...just kidding!

it is way to political for companies to get involved in such sponsoring.
Shareholders come from many different horizons and as a company you just can't start messing around with your shareholders belief, in these times of growing eventhough (and i'm not talking about minor shareholders) these people seem to be quite on the same wavelength when it comes to destroying "gods creation" by any means possible as long as the cash flows in , never read about anything the like in the bible quite the opposite in fact.