Creationist finances: Center for Scientific Creation
Posted by Lippard at 1/07/2007 04:24:00 PM 2 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, Arizona, creationism, finance, Institute for Creation Research, religion
Posted by Lippard at 1/07/2007 03:30:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, creationism, Discovery Institute, finance, intelligent design, religion
Posted by Lippard at 1/07/2007 02:59:00 PM 2 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, creationism, finance, religion
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
The Creation Research Society has published a peer-reviewed journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly, since 1964, and a bimonthly newsletter for a more popular audience, Creation Matters, since 1996. Voting membership in CRS requires at least a master's degree in some scientific field; there are non-voting memberships for other interested people, but all must agree with the above statement of belief. CRS also operates the Van Andel Creation Research Center just north of Chino Valley, Arizona, which was named after Jay Van Andel (b. 1924, d. 2004), one of the two co-founders (with Rich DeVos) of Amway (both of whom are financial supporters of creationism). As usual, the baseline financial information (1997 in this case) is from John R. Cole's "Money Floods Anti-Evolutionists' Coffers" in Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(1-2, 2000):64-65: 1997: Revenue: $263,391 Expenses: ? (not given in Cole's article) And the last three years available through GuideStar.org: 2003: Revenue: $245,867 ($153,356 donations, $44,590 in dues, $27,225 from goods sold) Expenses: $300,589 Net assets at end of year: $1,109,742 Salary: John Meyer, lab director: $38,042 2004: Revenue: $324,942 ($236,244 in donations, $5,732 in program service revenue, $38,387 in dues, $13,981 from goods sold) Expenses: $330,803 Net assets at end of year: $1,102,797 Salary: Kevin Anderson, director: $39,598 In 2005, the CRS switched to a July-June fiscal year, so their 2005 Form 990 is for six months only (and is on a 2004 form). 2005 (January-June only): Revenue: $110,967 ($49,347 in donations, $2,663 in program service revenue, $28,348 in dues, $13,983 from goods sold) Expenses: $153,841 Net assets at end of year: $1,052,000 Salary: Kevin Anderson, director: $23,175 2005 numbers doubled for an estimate of full-year (which doesn't account for seasonal variation): Revenue: $221,934 ($98,694 in donations, $5,326 in program service revenue, $56,696 in dues, $27,996 from goods sold) Expenses: $307,682 Would would leave net assets of: $1,009,126 Salary: Kevin Anderson, director: $46,350 CRS has had more expenses than revenues over the last three years reported at GuideStar.org. Unless their revenue is large in the second half of the year, it looks like 2005 shows a dip in revenue; it appears that they likely receive most membership dues in the first half of the year (unless they saw substantial growth in 2005 after a decline from 2003 to 2004). CRS has a little over half a million dollars worth of investments to draw upon to cover these annual deficits. You can find CRS's 2003 Form 990 here, 2004 Form 990 here, and their 2005 Form 990 here.
Posted by Lippard at 1/07/2007 01:00:00 PM 5 comments
Labels: Amway, Answers in Genesis, Arizona, creationism, finance, religion, science
Posted by Lippard at 1/04/2007 04:28:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, creationism, finance, religion
Posted by Lippard at 1/03/2007 07:55:00 PM 2 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, creationism, finance, Kent Hovind, religion
Posted by Lippard at 12/30/2006 09:27:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, creationism, Discovery Institute, finance, intelligent design, philosophy, religion, science
Posted by Lippard at 12/30/2006 09:45:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, creationism, finance, Institute for Creation Research, religion
Posted by Lippard at 12/29/2006 01:22:00 PM 5 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, Answers in Genesis schism, Creation Ministries International, creationism, finance, religion
Posted by Lippard at 12/27/2006 10:59:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: economics, finance, housing bubble
Washington Post, Sunday, December 24, 2006; B06
The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity's total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.
If this announcement related to a private company, the news would have been on the front page of major newspapers. Unfortunately, such was not the case -- even though the entity is the U.S. government.
To put the figures in perspective, $50 trillion is $440,000 per American household and is more than nine times as much as the median household income.
The only way elected officials will be able to make the tough choices necessary to put our nation on a more prudent and sustainable long-term fiscal path is if opinion leaders state the facts and speak the truth to the American people.
The Government Accountability Office is working with the Concord Coalition, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation and others to help educate the public about the facts in a professional, nonpartisan way. We hope the media and other opinion leaders do their part to save the future for our children and grandchildren.
DAVID M. WALKER
Comptroller General of the United States
Government Accountability Office
Washington
(Hat tip to Sheldon Richman.)Posted by Lippard at 12/24/2006 01:40:00 PM 0 comments
On pp. 33-35, the author looks at success factors, and compares to the role of luck on pp. 82-85, which he downplays in favor of discipline. While he touches on the importance of having the right connections (and the genetic contributions to intelligence), on p. 85 he asks "what does luck have to do with graduating from medical school? What does luck have to do with successfully running a medical practice? Very little, according to these physicians." But what does luck have to do with being born into a family and in a country where one has a chance to reach adulthood, let alone be able to attend a medical school? Quite a bit.
Unlike its predecessor, which looked at prodigious accumulators of wealth (PAWs) vs. under-accumulators of wealth (UAWs), this book focuses on millionaires (PAWs) and decamillionaires (a tiny subset of PAWs, those with net worth $10M or greater). The lack of comparison to the general public serves to limit the book's value.
A misleading comparison between businessmen and stockbrokers on pp. 76ff makes the point. Stanley states that the former is an occupation more likely to have higher net worth. But this comparison is misleading because he's only looking at the millionaire-plus sample; he is excluding more of the total business owner population from his sample than stockbrokers. The average and median income and net worth for business owners are likely lower than for stockbrokers. If he made the same comparison with actors or musicians to stockbrokers, for example, the problem is more obvious--by excluding all those who aren't worth $1M or more up front, you exclude the vast majority, and pull up the average. With stockbrokers, on the other hand, a higher percentage of them are in the top income earners and wealthy.
On p. 110, after having pages about the importance of ethics and advising "Never lie. Never tell one lie." (p. 55), he passes right over his example, Mr. Warren, lying about being a college graduate in order to get a job, without comment, and without noticing the hypocrisy.
On pp. 173-174, the author wants to make the point that prayer is important for millionaires dealing with stress, despite the fact that the majority of his surveyed population do not regularly pray. (He repeats this again on p. 370, saying "nearly one-half of the millionaires (47 percent) engaged in prayer. ... for a significant percentage of millionaires, their religious faith is a major force in their lives.")
In trying to emphasize the point (p. 174), he splits his sample into "religious millionaires" (RM) and "other millionaires" (OM), observes that 75% of RM engage in prayer while only 8% of OM do, and points out that this is "a ratio of more than nine to one." This is a meaningless comparison, however--RM make up only 37% of his total population of millionaires, so his "more than nine to one" ratio is really nothing more than saying, of those millionaires who are religious, three-fourths hold religious practices which involve regular prayer (and 8% of those who do not consider themselves religious pray anyway). Since the OM population is much larger than the RM population, in absolute numbers that's not a nine-to-one ratio--his numbers show that about 28% of his total sample are RM who pray, while 5% of his total sample are OM who pray--closer to a six-to-one ratio.
But more importantly, the author glosses over the fact that not only are the majority of millionaires not religious, even a quarter of those who are don't engage in regular prayer! Given that the U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world, the fact that such a low percentage of millionaires are religious is quite interesting and worthy of further exploration as to the cause, but for Stanley, religion and prayer are an important foundation of the "millionaire mind," and he completely misses the opportunity to find an explanation for why millionaires are so much less religious than the general population.
In a later table in the book on p. 366, he shows activities engaged in by a sample of 733 millionaires during the preceding 30 days. The table includes 52% attending religious services, 47% praying, 37% attending religious events, 22% Bible/devotional reading. These numbers don't quite match up with the RM/OM data from pp. 173-174, which seem to show even lower levels of religious activity, but these are still lower than they are for the nonmillionaire population--and weekly church attendance is notoriously over-reported in surveys. Work by Mark Chaves, C. Kirk Hardaway, and P.L. Marler in the 1990s found the actual percentage of attendance about half of what surveys show. This actually could mean that millionaires attend more often, if Stanley's survey results don't have similar over-reporting.
The author's religious bias further leads him to recommend to a student going through a divorce that she, despite not being a church attendee, search for a mate by joining a church group (p. 268) because she "believed in marriage and the traditional family concept." He writes that "I believe that one is likely to find better prospects in a church setting than in singles bars. Of course, there are no guarantees, but people with a religious orientation are more prone to respect the principles espoused in the Good Book." But why is he just guessing on this? Hasn't he asked his population of millionaires--the ones who are 63% non-religious--how they met their mates? He did this, very usefully, regarding how millionaires purchase their homes (pp. 315-326)--yet isn't picking a partner even more important?
This book has some interesting data, and is at its best when giving comparative results between populations (e.g., the house-purchasing characteristics of economically productive millionaires vs. non-economically productive millionaires in chapter 7). But it doesn't stand up well in comparison to The Millionaire Next Door, which is a much better book.
Posted by Lippard at 7/02/2006 05:53:00 PM 2 comments
Posted by Lippard at 3/03/2006 09:50:00 PM 25 comments
Labels: Answers in Genesis, Answers in Genesis schism, Creation Ministries International, creationism, ethics, finance, Institute for Creation Research, Kent Hovind
Posted by Lippard at 3/02/2006 09:07:00 PM 0 comments
Posted by Lippard at 2/17/2006 09:27:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: finance, security, technology
Posted by Lippard at 2/01/2006 09:29:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: finance, The Simple Dollar
Posted by Lippard at 1/10/2006 07:36:00 AM 1 comments