Media Misreports Intelligent Design Research and the John Templeton Foundation

From ResearchID.org, a nexus for researching Intelligent Design

February 27, 2007

Joseph C. Campana
ResearchID.org Contributor

In the past few years, the media has created confusion about the scholarly track record of the intelligent design (ID) research community, as related to funding from the John Templeton Foundation (JTF). The JTF is a philanthropic organization that funds research exploring science, philosophy, spirituality, theology, and their interplay. Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president of the JTF, was a central figure in this media drama, as he was falsely reported in the New York Times as claiming that ID scholars failed to respond to requests for grant proposals from the JTF. This false claim has been circulated around the internet, and even cited on Wikipedia,[1] to promote a myth that members of the ID research community do not do research. The facts reveal that the media has badly misreported the alleged unresponsiveness of the ID research community and that ID scholars have indeed received funding from the JTF for scientific research, including research that is explicitly related to intelligent design.

Contents

The “Media Narrative Manufacture” of the New York Times

The main article that has attracted the attention of ID-critics is a New York Times article titled “Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker” by Laurie Goodstein, published in the midst of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in December of 2005.[2] The title alone shows a bias on the part of the New York Times against ID. Problems with this article, as well as the bias of the New York Times against ID, have been documented elsewhere.[3] Nonetheless, critics have cited the article in an attempt to publicly discredit the work of the ID research community.[4] Goodstein’s article asserts:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

Being focused on the research of the ID community, ResearchID.org was naturally curious about insinuations of Harper and the New York Times that the JTF does not fund ID research. Our investigator asked Charles Harper about these claims in the New York Times article, particularly where the article makes ID researchers look unresponsive to JTF requests for research proposals.

In response to an inquiry about whether the JTF put out a call to ID scholars for grant requests, Harper specifically stated that, “No such request [for proposals] was made. There never was a call-for-proposals to the ID community. All I said [to the reporter] is that, like anybody else, ID people could apply and proposals submitted would be reviewed on their merits. No blackballing.”[5] Harper also stated, “The incorrect narrative that was implied (and that percolates through the cybersphere) was that: (a) Templeton used to be pro-ID and wanted proposals to support ID research; and (b) that later these desired research proposals never arrived; and (c) that therefore the JTF became disenchanted with ID. This is completely false. It is a creation of media narrative manufacture.”[6] In short, Charles Harper explicitly denies that there ever was any call for research proposals made to ID scholars and disavows the accuracy of the entire New York Times’ narrative describing the JTF’s disillusion with ID. As documented below, Harper opposes ID, so clearly he has no motive to protect intelligent design. In light of Harper’s entirely different account, the veracity of the New York Times’ article on the ID research community’s interaction with the JTF is called into grave doubt.

Templeton Funding for ID Research

In Harper’s official response to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Harper stated, "The facts will show that in nearly every case, Templeton Foundation money has supported critics rather than proponents of the anti-evolution ID position. The John Templeton Foundation invites any responsible and honest scholar or journalistic reporter to check this assertion."[7] While checking this assertion on our own, ResearchID.org discovered that the JTF is also officially critical of intelligent design, and has funded many articles and projects explicitly opposing ID.[8]

ResearchID.org decided to accept Dr. Harper’s offer to investigate this matter further, and so asked him whether the JTF has funded ID research. After all, the New York Times insinuated that ID does no research whatsoever and receives no funding from the JTF. Do the facts bear out this claim?

The JTF often funds research for specific topics by way of independent research institutes and organizations.[9] As Harper stated during our interview, “We at the JTF are typically not involved in judging the RFP [request for proposals] competitions we fund, so submissions to such programs are not on our radar screen.”[10] Proposals are requested on particular topics and evaluated through the independent organizations by qualified professionals. The best proposals addressing the topic of the research initiative receive JTF funding. Therefore, according to Harper, he and other officials at the JTF are typically not directly involved in deciding which researchers receive funding. Through this external review process, ID research has been funded by the JTF.

One example of a researcher funded by the JTF who later became openly supportive of intelligent design is Guillermo Gonzalez. JTF funds were used by Gonzalez to generate research used in a pro-ID book titled The Privileged Planet, coauthored with Jay Richards.[11] Many researchers and scholars openly supportive of intelligent design have received funds from the JTF, such as Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Henry F. Schaefer, who received JTF funding for biological fine-tuning research.[12] Other scholars and researchers open to intelligent design have been funded by the JTF for classes or lectures, such as Christopher Macosko, Harold Delaney, Michael Kent, David Keller, and Henry F. Schaefer.[13]

There are other times when the JTF has directly funded pro-ID work. For example, the leading ID theorist William Dembski submitted a research book proposal, and among many other competitors won a book award from the JTF. The money was used towards some of his research for his pro-ID book No Free Lunch, and is still being used for another project. Consider this excerpt from the preface of No Free Lunch:

My debts to friends, foes, colleagues, and institutions are many. Let me begin with the Templeton Foundation. In the fall of 1999 I received one of seven book awards from the Templeton Foundation to write a book titled Being as Communion: The Science and Metaphysics of Information. After making the proposal and receiving the award, it became clear to me that the science of information (and specifically the science of complex specified information) required a book of its own. Indeed, before one can take seriously the metaphysics of information one must take seriously the science of information (perhaps this is why editions of Aristotle’s work always list his Physics before his Metaphysics). I therefore decided to divide this project in two, handling the science of information in the present volume and the metaphysics of information in a subsequent volume, to be titled Being as Communion: The Metaphysics of Information.
In addition to generously supporting me in the writing of this and the follow-up volume, the Templeton Foundation has also sponsored various conferences and symposia at which I have participated, notably a conference titled “The Nature of Nature” at Baylor University in April of 2000 and a symposium titled “Complexity, Information, and Design: A Critical Appraisal,” which took place in Santa Fe in October of 1999 and was organized by Paul Davies. The Santa Fe symposium was enormously helpful in taking me to the next stage in my thinking about design inferences. Indeed, the talk I presented there and the feedback I received were the direct impetus for the present volume. Conversations at this symposium with Charles Bennett, Gregory Chaitin, Paul Davies, Niels Gregersen, Stuart Kauffman, Harold Morowitz, and Ian Stewart are etched in my mind and have left their imprint all over this volume. It was a privilege to interact with them.[14]

Comments such as this show that ID does have an active research and scholarship program that has received money directly from the JTF. Any insinuations that the ID community does not do research, or that scholars and researchers open to ID simply ignore the JTF, are utterly false.

Templeton’s Views and Harper’s Perspectives

Despite the fact that the JTF has occasionally funded explicitly pro-ID work, the JTF has officially stated that they are not supportive of ID. Harper made it clear that he is personally biased against intelligent design, stating that ID is “… bad science, bad philosophy, bad theology.”[15] Harper also stated that he has been opposed to ID since he arrived at the JTF in 1996. This demonstrates conclusively that Harper has no motive to protect ID, and lends great credibility to his statement that the New York Times has put words into his mouth and invented the story that he put out an unanswered call for research proposals to ID scholars.

Harper’s opposition to ID could be explained in that he views ID as being “anti-evolution.”[16] But the ID research community has taken issue with such allegations, noting that ID is not opposed to evolution per se, but is instead opposed to the idea that life evolved via completely “blind” or unguided processes like natural selection. While many of those sympathetic to ID often critique neo-Darwinism, intelligent design has great potential to advance evolutionary research. For example, biologists open to ID like John A. Davison[17] and Mike Gene[18] are looking at evolutionary processes as prescribed or teleological, and yielding new insights into the origin, history, and development of the living world.

While Harper and the JTF are officially opposed to ID, Harper did make some positive comments about the issues ID touches upon in our interview. Harper stated that he has “always argued internally at the JTF that the kinds of topics ID thinkers were engaged within did include some quite serious scientific research questions that would be worth seeking real research advances in engagement with, if possible.”[19]

Conclusion

The media has misrepresented the record of the intelligent design research community. According to Charles Harper, the New York Times essentially invented the claim that they put out a call for research proposals to ID scholars, and then the article’s author made up the notion that ID scholars failed to respond to this non-existent request. While the JTF clearly is not enthusiastic about ID, the record shows that the JTF has funded ID research and scholarship, as well as other activities by ID scholars, meaning that the New York Times’ portrayal of the JTF’s funding of ID was highly misleading. Also, the fact that Templeton gives funding to scholars that are using a particular framework does not mean that they "endorse" that view. Charles Harper’s explanation that the New York Times completely invented this story appears even more credible given his lack of enthusiasm about intelligent design, and the fact that he has no motive to defend ID.


References and notes

  1. ↑ See Wikipedia’s entries on John Templeton Foundation and Discovery Institute, last visited on January 23, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Templeton_Foundation&oldid=102179939 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute&oldid=102589206.)
  2. ↑ 1 Laurie Goodstein. "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker", The New York Times, December 4, 2005. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?ex=1291352400&en=feb5138e425b9001&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
  3. ↑ For example:
  4. ↑ For example:
  5. ↑ Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Inquiry about the Templeton Foundation,” personal email communication from Charles L. Harper, Jr. to Joseph C. Campana (November 14, 2006, 2:38pm) (emphasis added).
  6. ↑ Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Inquiry about the Templeton Foundation,” personal email communication from Charles L. Harper, Jr. to Joseph C. Campana (November 14, 2006, 2:38pm) (emphasis added).
  7. ↑ Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Official statement on the false and misleading information published in the Wall Street Journal November 14.” Available from: http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/Intelligent_Design/Official_Statement.html.
  8. ↑ A Templeton-sponsored conference featured various papers slamming intelligent design. See Continuity + Change: Perspectives on Science and Religion, June 3-7, 2006, in Philadelphia, PA, USA, a program of the Metanexus Institute. Available from: http://www.metanexus.net/conference2006/papers.asp
  9. ↑ E.g. Metanexus (http://www.metanexus.net) and Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS, http://www.ctns.org)
  10. ↑ Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Inquiry about the Templeton Foundation,” personal email communication from Charles L. Harper, Jr. to Joseph C. Campana (November 13, 2006, 6:17pm).
  11. ↑ An Iowa State University news release states: "This long-standing assumption is wrong and we believe the Earth is a lot more significant than virtually anyone has realized," says Gonzalez, who received a grant from the Templeton Foundation to help write the book. Available from: http://www.las.iastate.edu/newnews/gonzalez0405.shtml. - Charles Harper stated in his official response to Golden’s article: “Professor Gonzalez was a grant winner in an international academic research grants competition we sponsored in 1999. This competition was named the Cosmology and Research Project (http://www.templeton.org/cftrp/). It was a physics and astrophysics program. It had nothing to do with evolutionary biology. It was run as an independent grants competition by a research physicist based at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Its independent panel of extremely distinguished academic judges included Michael Ruse, arguably the most powerfully insightful US-based critic of the ID position. (http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/people/faculty/mruse.html). Among the winners of this open international grants competition (See: http://www.templeton.org/cftrp/winners.html) were a team at Cambridge University including the current President of the Royal Society of London, Sir Martin Rees, along with several other research scientists well-known as leaders in the field of modern cosmology. Professor Gonzalez submitted a winning proposal on the topic: Fine-Tuning of Local Astronomical Parameters for Habitability and Measurability. His co-investigators were world-renowned researchers in the fields of Astrophysics and Planetary Science based at the University of Washington. His research was well-designed to address an interesting and vital technical debate in astrophysics over the range of planetary “habitability” in the Galaxy.”
  12. ↑ Cambridge-Templeton Consortium: The Emergence of Biological Complexity, Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning, Wesley Allen, Henry F. Schaefer, Quantum Chemistry in Counterfactual Universes. More information available from: http://www.cambridge-templeton-consortium.org/awards_made.php
  13. ↑ Reported in Daniel Golden, “Darwinian Struggle: At Some Colleges, Classes Questioning Evolution Take Hold," Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2005. Available from: http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/teen/teencenter/05nov_intelligentdesign.htm and http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/Intelligent_Design/051114-WSJb.pdf
  14. ↑ William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence, pages xxi-xxii (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002)
  15. ↑ Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Inquiry about the Templeton Foundation,” personal email communication from Charles L. Harper, Jr. to Joseph C. Campana (November 14, 2006, 2:38pm).
  16. ↑ See Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Official statement on the false and misleading information published in the Wall Street Journal November 14.” Available from: http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/Intelligent_Design/Official_Statement.html (stating “John Templeton Foundation has provided tens of millions of dollars in support to research academics who are critical of the anti-evolution ID position.”)
  17. ↑ For more information on John A. Davison’s work, see http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000090.html and Davison JA (2005) “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.” Rivista di Biologia. 2005 Jan-Apr;98(1):155-65, see PubMed abstract at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15889345&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
  18. ↑ For more information on Mike Gene’s work, see http://www.thedesignmatrix.com, and http://www.idthink.net
  19. ↑ Charles L. Harper, Jr., “Inquiry about the Templeton Foundation,” personal email communication from Charles L. Harper, Jr. to Joseph C. Campana (November 14, 2006, 2:38pm).

External links


Addendum

Item 1 – Response to Pamela Thompson

Pamela Thompson of the John Templeton Foundation (JTF), has posted a response to the above ResearchID.org article. ResearchID.org’s reply to Ms. Thompson is as follows:

(1) Ms. Thompson misstates the name of this website. The name of this website is ResearchID.org, not ResearchID.com. Additionally, ResearchID.org is a wiki, not a blog.

(2) Pamela Thompson actually endorses the central point of this article in her first item, writing “The John Templeton Foundation has never made a call-for-proposals to the ID Community.”[20]

This means the first point on her list is completely superfluous. The presence of the first item on Thompson’s list is an attempt to give the appearance of another error, when in fact there is not one and she agrees with our article’s central point: The New York Times botched the facts by inventing the claim that JTF put out a call for research proposals to the ID community.

(3) Ms. Thompson’s response seems to presume that this article tries to paint JTF as the “bad guy” in this story. Nothing could be further from the truth. A key point in this ResearchID.org article is that it identifies the New York Times as the source of inaccuracy, NOT the JTF. Pamela Thompson is trying to spin this and seeks to “blame the ID guy,” but the fact remains that, according to Charles Harper, the NYT created a “media narrative manufacture.” This article is about how the NYT rewrote and misconstrued the history of the JTF's interaction with ID. The New York Times is to blame here, not the JTF. Readers are encouraged to revisit the title of this ResearchID.org article if that point has been lost: “Media Misreports Intelligent Design Research and the John Templeton Foundation.”

(4) On the second point from Ms. Thompson’s list, she asserts that the research of Henry Schaefer is not with the “Origins of Biological Complexity program.” Dr. Schaefer’s research is with the “Emergence of Biological Complexity” program. See: Cambridge-Templeton-Consortium.org.

(A) Henry Schaefer is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute.
(B) Schaefer’s research is titled “Quantum Chemistry in Counterfactual Universes,” and is listed under the category of “Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning.” Pamela Thompson, and perhaps even Schaefer himself, does not consider this research being related to ID. But if there is scientifically verifiable evidence in nature that there is cosmological, quantum, or biological fine-tuning, this evidence would imply that the universe and/or life is intelligently designed, especially if this tuning is counterfactual. Therefore, it should be acknowledged that Schaeffer’s research falls under the purview of ID.

(5) On the third point from Ms. Thompson’s list, William Dembski’s book is not entitled “Free Lunch” but rather, “No Free Lunch.”

(6) William Dembski's grant proposal dealt explicitly with specified complexity, a fundamental claim of his presentation of intelligent design. Also, note that according to Dembski's expert report for the Dover case, the book that the JTF mentions is in preparation, and even already has a publisher.

William Dembski responded to Pamela Thompson at his blog as follows:

“With regard to my proposal to the Templeton Foundation for which I was awarded a $100,000 book prize, it is quite a stretch to say it was to be a book on 'Orthodox Theology.' The proposal was titled BEING AS COMMUNION: THE SCIENCE AND METAPHYSICS OF INFORMATION. A full half of the proposal was ID-related (in particular, half the proposal was about “specified complexity”). I published that half separately in 2002 with Rowman and Littlefield as NO FREE LUNCH: WHY SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY CANNOT BE PURCHASED WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE. I did this because the project became too unwieldy and required two books. I’m still working on completing the second half of the project. Indeed, I have a contract to write a book with the original title that focuses on that other half.
But don’t take my word for it. Go here for my actual proposal to the Templeton Foundation and read it for yourself. By the way, of the 400-plus applicants for this $100,000 book grant, mine was ranked #1 — not tied but actually ahead of all the rest (as Charles Harper told my boss Bruce Chapman at Discovery Institute while Templeton and Discovery were still on speaking terms circa 1999-2000).”

In the preface of No Free Lunch, quoted in this article, William Dembski publicly thanked the JTF 5 years ago for supporting his book. If the JTF had a problem with Dembski's preface in No Free Lunch, then they should have raised that issue years ago, not now, in 2007 in response to this article. But to our knowledge, no one at the JTF has ever raised any objections to Dembski’s preface in No Free Lunch. Pamela Thompson now claims that the project for which they funded Dembski was "not on ID", but as is clear to anyone’s eyes who looks, Dembski’s proposal was heavy laden with fundamental ID concepts. Anyone who claims this project had nothing to do with ID is either completely ignorant of the basics of intelligent design or trying to rewrite history. But that is immaterial, because Templeton DID fund a project which investigated core ID-concepts.

(7) Most of the claims of this ResearchID.org article, including the Templeton-funded ID research of Guillermo Gonzalez, stand unchallenged by Ms. Thompson’s reply. Is this intended to relay agreement with the unchallenged points?

(8) As we fully and openly recognize in this article, the JTF has made it clear that they are officially opposed to ID. We stated the following:

 :* “the JTF has officially stated that they are not supportive of ID”
  • “Harper opposes ID”
  • “Harper made it clear that he is personally biased against intelligent design, stating that ID is ‘… bad science, bad philosophy, bad theology.’”
  • “Harper also stated that he has been opposed to ID since he arrived at the JTF in 1996.”
  • “Harper and the JTF are officially opposed to ID”
  • “JTF clearly is not enthusiastic about ID,”

Could we have made their view any more clear? The John Templeton Foundation is entitled to their view, and this article does not distort their view in any way. Additionally, as we pointed out above, “the fact that Templeton gives funding to scholars that are using a particular framework does not mean that they "endorse" that view.” Clearly, the fact that some ID scholars obtain funding from Templeton in no way reflects bad on their review process. On the contrary, it shows their ability to entertain ideas divergent from their own, something ID-critics rarely, if ever, are able to accomplish.

(9) For some reason, Pamela Thompson’s reply is trying desperately to show this article to be incorrect, but she has utterly failed, and shows herself to be a pawn of ID-critics. Outspoken critics of ID think Templeton made a misstep in funding ID scholars past and present,[21] but this shows how critics are trying to use ID in order to impugn the Templeton Foundation. Pamela Thompson’s reply has attempted to obfuscate this point. Intelligent design is often used by its critics as an ‘object of scorn’ against anyone who approaches it with a fair and open view. Anyone caught with the ‘hot potato’ of ID in their hand is looked upon with ridicule by ID-critics.[22] This is the ‘boogey stick’ rhetoric of ID-critics; a talisman presented as an argument. This ‘boogey stick’ rhetoric is shallow and empty pathos, and is an attempt to stigmatize anyone who exercises their freedom to use their mind and think about ID. The ‘boogey stick’ appeal is a petty attempt at censorship, that has been very effective given the amount of media resources and funding at the disposal of ID-critics. Research review with an open and honest perspective, like Templeton’s, allows concepts to compete on their own merits. These honest approaches have resulted in ID scholars being at the top of the list among their competitors. Those who will not allow intelligent design into the arena of academic dialog have great fear of ID’s potential to spawn new research and knowledge. Charles Harper recognizes this potential, as we quoted him saying in the above article. The Templeton Foundation shows the signs of truly high academic standards by using open and honest approaches to externally review potential research. By trying to confuse the reader, she actually gives aid and comfort to the ID-critics. But Pamela’s attempt to aid ID-critics is to no avail, since, like our critics, her response to this article is completely rash, confused, fearful, and motivated by fear of the critic’s ‘boogey stick,’ not dialog. Thompson’s reply instead prefers ambiguity to protect the JTF from empty criticism by those who want to rhetorically abuse the Foundation.

(10) Pamela Thompson’s reply desperately tries to show this article to contain “errors and misrepresentations,” but she has found no reasonable grounds for any such charges. The more interesting question is why would Ms. Thompson attack an article that (1) does not attack the JTF and (2) fully discloses the JTF’s opposition to intelligent design? Is Ms. Thompson developing a knee-jerk opposition to anything coming from the ID community, regardless of how reasonable or innocuous it may be? ResearchID.org’s article remains accurate on every point she identifies as erroneous.

Item 2 – Response to William Grassie

At Metanexus, William Grassie offers a response to this article and blog posts that spawned from its release.[23]

(1) William Grassie stated, “A February 27, 2007 posting on Wikipedia by Joseph C. Campana with ResearchID.org...” To the contrary, this ResearchID.org article was not posted on Wikipedia, because ResearchID.org is NOT Wikipedia and is a completely separate site. Wikipedia is not affiliated with ResearchID.org in any way.

(2) Grassie then stated, “…Campana argues that contrary to recent press statements by Charles Harper, the Templeton Foundation in fact does or at least once [sic] did supported Intelligent Design Theory (ID).”

This ResearchID.org article stated no less than six times and in several ways that the John Templeton Foundation was officially opposed to intelligent design, and that the JTF never endorsed or “sponsored” intelligent design.

Consider the following verbatim quotes from the ResearchID.org article above:

 :* "As documented below, Harper opposes ID, so clearly he has no motive to protect intelligent design."
 :* "Harper stated, 'The facts will show that in nearly every case, Templeton Foundation money has supported critics rather than proponents of the anti-evolution ID position. The John Templeton Foundation invites any responsible and honest scholar or journalistic reporter to check this assertion.' While checking this assertion on our own, ResearchID.org discovered that the JTF is also officially critical of intelligent design, and has funded many articles and projects explicitly opposing ID."
 :* "Despite the fact that the JTF has occasionally funded explicitly pro-ID work, the JTF has officially stated that they are not supportive of ID. Harper made it clear that he is personally biased against intelligent design, stating that ID is '...bad science, bad philosophy, bad theology.' Harper also stated that he has been opposed to ID since he arrived at the JTF in 1996."
 :* "…Harper and the JTF are officially opposed to ID…"
 :* "…the JTF clearly is not enthusiastic about ID…"
Most importantly:
  • "the fact that Templeton gives funding to scholars that are using a particular framework does not mean that they 'endorse' that view. Charles Harper’s explanation that the New York Times completely invented this story appears even more credible given his lack of enthusiasm about intelligent design, and the fact that he has no motive to defend ID."

Despite a strenuous effort made to clearly state the JTF’s opposition to ID at six different points, William Grassie claims the opposite. Could he misrepresent our article any worse? It is important to note that if the JTF gives any group or individual money, this fact does not mean they are "on-board" or are "proponents for a view." The JTF is certainly justified in making this point and this “Media Misreports...” article agrees with the JTF. The article in no way misrepresents the attitude of the JTF towards ID.

(3) William Grassie stated, “While the erudite advocates were proposing what might be called 'Intelligently Designed Evolution,' the core of the movement were mostly Young Earth Creationists.”

Michael Denton, Simon Conway Morris, John A. Davison, Mike Gene, Michael Behe, and Joseph C. Campana have expressed ideas friendly to the teleological concept of front-loaded evolution, what Grassie calls “Intelligently Designed Evolution.” This list is not a trivial group among the ID community, nor is it trivial beyond. William Dembski, a principle leader of the intelligent design community and fellow of the Discovery Institute, has stated that evolution and intelligent design are compatible. At a debate against Michael Shermer, Dembski’s final remarks issued a challenge to reconcile the two ideas because he said they don’t have to be at odds. “It’s not evolution or intelligent design as a choice of one or the other,” he said. “They can work together.”[24] William Dembski has also stated that he holds to an old earth.

As for the claim that the core of the movement were mostly Young Earth Creationists, it should be noted that at a debate between Stephen Meyer and Peter Ward, Meyer said that he holds to an old earth, and that ID is not opposed to evolution per se, only a blind form of it. Stephen Meyer is the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, the principle organization supporting scholars in the intelligent design community.

Grassie asserts that "the core of the movement were mostly Young Earth Creationists." Yet the most prominent and informed critic of ID has directly opposed the view of Grassie. Eugenie Scott, who makes a career of tracking, studying, and opposing ID-proponents, would love it if Grassie’s statement were true. But even Scott does not have the gusto to make such a false claim, as she writes: "Indeed, most ID proponents do not embrace a Young Earth, Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with YEC."[25]

Retrieved from "http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Media_Misreports_Intelligent_Design_Research_and_the_John_Templeton_Foundation"