Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
William Grassie, founder of the Metanexus Institute and the man in charge of the grant program for the Templeton Foundation under which Dembski received the grant that ended up being for No Free Lunch, has responded to Dembski's posting of the grant proposal he made to receive the money. And there are several statements in this response that are very interesting. Like this one:
The judges involved in selecting the seven grantees were John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University; Philip Hefner, Zygon Journal; and Lawrence Sullivan, then director of Harvard University Center on World Religions. The Templeton Foundation played no role in the judging and selection process.
Score one for Templeton. Also very interesting:
In 2002, Dembski published No Free Lunch and requested a second installation payment on the Book Grant from the Templeton Foundation (Dembski, 2002). In correspondence with him, he was told by me that this book did not fulfill his obligation to publish a work on metaphysics and theology as detailed in his book proposal entitled Being as Communion. That book has still not been produced.
Grassie does note that 3 of the 7 grantees have not yet completed the book for which the grant was given, so that's not all that big a deal. More interesting, I think, is a statement that indicates what has really happened with regard to Templeton and ID:
This book grant was launched at an early stage in both the evolution of the John Templeton Foundation and also the evolution of the Intelligent Design Movement. There were certainly sympathies towards aspects of the ID arguments and interest in pushing the technical and theological sides of their inquiry, but as the ID Theory became a political movement, the John Templeton Foundation began to slowly--perhaps too slowly--to disassociate itself from the Discovery Institute, William Dembski, and other protagonists in the debate.
That's the most honest statement I've seen yet on the subject. Yes, they had high hopes for ID at the start, but over time it became obvious to them that ID is a PR campaign, not a serious scientific project. And they are right to disassociate from it. And Grassie spells out some of the reasons why:
Why distance oneself from the Intelligent Design Movement? I cannot speak for the John Templeton Foundation,13 but we at Metanexus grew tired of the increasingly politicized debates about Intelligent Design Theory. Proponents were clearly engaged in a political campaign to change public education. While the erudite advocates were proposing what might be called "Intelligently Designed Evolution," the core of the movement were mostly Young Earth Creationists. The genealogy of the movement was clearly motivated not by a technical scientific debate, but by a longstanding religious and ideological concern to overthrow evolution. The logic of the ID movement is essentially that evolution = Darwinism = materialism = atheism = immorality = nihilism. This is not a necessary correlation.The evidence for a long and evolving Earth history has mounted exponentially over the centuries, even as our understanding for how this happens grows more complex.14 Whatever the inadequacies of the Darwinian paradigm, these do not undermine the reality of evolution. Darwinian natural selection alone may or may not be adequate for explaining the florescence, diversity and complexity of life on the planet...
Whatever the deficiencies in Darwinism, whether it is an exclusive or even most important mechanism in the transmutation of species, these scientific debates do not necessarily imply "intelligently designed complexity" as an alternative and certainly not the only alternative.
This is a straw man, of course; if by "Darwinism" they mean the belief that natural selection is the sole and exclusive mechanism of evolution, then there simply is no such thing. Modern evolutionary biology long ago left that idea behind. There are debates about the relative importance of non-adaptive mechanisms, but even the most dogmatic "Darwinist" does not deny that such mechanisms are at work in the history of life.
Comments
"In correspondence with him, he was told by me that this book did not fulfill his obligation to publish a work on metaphysics and theology as detailed in his book proposal entitled Being as Communion."
Dembski is claiming that NFL did fulfill this obligation, right? So does he admit that it's a book on metaphysics and theology, not science? He's painted himself into an amusing corner, hasn't he?
Also, while the repudiation of ID is better than we usually see from "Science and Religion Forward Together" types, it's disconcerting that they focus on YECism. Yes it's important to note that ID is warmed over creationism, but the main problem with it isn't that, it's the fact that ID as propounded by the likes of Dembski is an inherently anti-science enterprise. I wish they'd seen fit to address that issue.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 7, 2007 10:31 AM
Aha! Thanks for the extra digging Ed... too bad I didn't wager a "single-malt bottle of scotch" that Dembksi would be proved wrong...
Posted by: J-Dog | March 7, 2007 11:15 AM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 7, 2007 12:26 PM
When I read the quote,
I didn't read that as a straw man, I thought (based on what I've read at PT and here as a non-biologist) that he was referring to the non-Natural Selection aspects of evolution such as genetic drift, etc.The problem is that we can't know from the text whether Grassie is referring to scientific or unscientific alternatives to "Darwinism". However, since he prefaces that comment with,
I don't really care. Grassie acknowledges that the evidence shows that evolution occurs, and that it is a scientifically valid conclusion. As long as he doesn't want to push a political program for non-scientific alternatives in education (and his statements indicate that), I'll happily agree with him that there are unscientific alternatives.Posted by: Gvlgeologist | March 7, 2007 12:32 PM
I think Grassie is saying that 4 out of 7 grantees didn't finish their books.
Anyway, it's a great essay. It's nice to hear from a well-informed and objective observer.
Posted by: jswise | March 7, 2007 1:00 PM
Let's hope that the Templeton Foundation feels well and truly burned, so that in the future it is careful not to see its money go into these wingnuts' hands.
Posted by: Russell | March 7, 2007 1:07 PM
jswise - Good point. I'm thinking I should write them a letter. I would be willing to not finish a book for them for a lot less that $100,000. I could not finish a book for them for $50,000...
Posted by: J-Dog | March 7, 2007 2:23 PM
It may just be me, but this gives me the odd vibe of a "startup" company with dreams, ideas, money - and more enthusiasm than discretion.
Posted by: DragonScholar | March 7, 2007 2:49 PM
J-Dog,
The real penalty is that first you have to whore yourself out to some cause that the foundation might buy into - ID, efficacy of prayer, Bigfoot, fairies in the garden. The imagination just runs...
The problem is that I don't think you should pick one that bears too close a link with reality because if someone can figure out how you should be doing work, they'll probably expect you to do it.
For me, the price of picking such a distasteful kind of subject and living it long enough to develop a Billy D. or Johnny W. sycophant driven reputation is just too high. If you could go that way, you have a stronger stomach than I do.
Posted by: Rich | March 7, 2007 3:10 PM
testing
Posted by: Tim Murtaugh | March 7, 2007 4:07 PM
Rich - I am thinking maybe, of not finishing a book for Templeton for $50,000 that will be a serious in-depth look at whether or not a ID creationist proponents, YEC's or an atheist would be most likely to welsch on a bet of a single-malt bottle of scotch. So far, we have only one data point (Dembski has so far NOT paid off on a bet he lost) however, I am willing to take on Dr. Dino, Pat Robertson and Falwell and bet that they are total idiots. What's going to hook Templeton, is the linkage between One Data Point and the One True Welscher.
Pretty darned intriging, right?
Posted by: J-Dog | March 7, 2007 4:08 PM
Behe once tried to bet me a six-pack of beer over evolution. I didn't take the bet, and I'm glad I didn't because it seems the IDists have a tendency to make bets over alcohol and not follow through.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | March 7, 2007 4:16 PM
I have to admit, that would be a bit of an interesting topic - the image of lots of Scotch based research comes to mind.
But as I warned you, be careful of too much reality. You might not fit in with their group - I'd hate to see you ostracized or traumatized or circumcised or anything.
Posted by: Rich | March 7, 2007 4:30 PM
As a science enthusiast, it's pretty clear that ID isn't science. As a Christian and theology enthusiast, it's pretty clear that ID isn't theology. I mean, let's face it. A totally literal interpretation of the King James Version of the Bible is hardly study (ology). ID claims to be science, but doesn't deliver. ID claims not to be religion, but looks like Creationism, which is often thought of as religion. But as it isn't theology, it fails as religion, for me, anyway. So, i've been looking for a good label for ID.
ID is a PR campaign
Excellent.
Posted by: Stephen | March 7, 2007 4:49 PM
Once again William Dembski confirms he's the Max Bialystock of pseudoscience.
Posted by: triviality | March 7, 2007 6:57 PM
Triviality, then who would be Leo Bloom? :) And when can we expect Dembski to get shafted and spend some time in prison lol... I wonder if Mel Brooks could do a musical comedy about the ID Movement...
Posted by: uafbum | March 7, 2007 8:36 PM
I'm looking forward to Dembsky's next book: Punk'd: The Ethics of Being a Jackass.
Posted by: Doc Bill | March 7, 2007 10:34 PM
And Anne Coulter as Ulla?
Posted by: KiwiInOz | March 7, 2007 11:19 PM
Well, that fixed this mornings laugh.
I don't respect Templeton Foundation or Metanexus Institute any more than other projects about knowledge which at the core have a foregone conclusion - actually a great deal less considering what we already know about the subject. But it is never the less nice to see them drop some of the most cranky stuff.
And of course it is good to see ID getting Its Due.
Considering that he may be promoting doing things towards children that Dawkins claims should not be done, I assume he can get a miserable treatment, if the rumors about prison is true. ;-)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 8, 2007 4:38 AM
Any word if the Metanexus Institute or the Templeton Foundation will be taking legal action against Dembski for not producing the proposed book? Sure, not all grant winners have published their books yet, but it seems Dembski used the money for something else entirely.
Posted by: Phobos | March 8, 2007 11:23 AM
Like funding ISCID?
Posted by: Kernel Logic | March 8, 2007 12:40 PM
I know a guy who workes across the [hall/lab/way] from Jeff Meldrum, a prof at Idaho state university who is all over Bigfoot. Really believes. Meldrum (my non PhD. status shows here by my refusal to grant the guy Dr. status) The funny thing is, he really is an expert on anatomy. Apparently, he can tell more from a tooth than most of us can from a kiss. But he's getting some money to make ripley's believe it or not style books, articles, documentaries, guest appearances or whatever. The stream ecologists sharing lab and office space with him put up hillarious cartoons totally mocking theguy but it doesn't phase him. His entire office (with the exception of his assistants) mocks him publicly and even laughs AT him when he talks yet he continues on.
I'm starting to see a parallel to dembski. He actually seems to be honestly trying to make the noise go away. He is answering this challenge on his blog. Albeit in a less than forthright way... I am starting to think he is terrified to let down his ego. the shame would kill him.
Posted by: BWE | March 9, 2007 1:35 AM
BWE,
How creationist of you. Instead of addressing Meldrum's claims and evidence, you'd rather attack the man himself. I'll bet Dembski and Behe are proud of your work.
Prof. Meldrum does have one advantage over you, he actually goes out and investigates reported bigfoot sites. When's the last time you were part of a serious bigfoot investigation?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 10, 2007 10:58 PM