Well, Bill, you got them to respond:

In response to errors and misrepresentations stated in the February 28, 2007 ResearchID.com blog post:

1. The John Templeton Foundation has never made a call-for-proposals to the ID Community.
2. The Henry Schaefer grant was from the Origins of Biological Complexity program. Schaefer is a world�s leading chemist, and his research has nothing whatsoever to do with ID.
3. Bill Dembski�s grant was not for the book �Free Lunch�. Dembski was given funds to write another book on Orthodox Theology, which was not on ID, however he has never written the book.

From our FAQ…

Does the Foundation support I.D.?

No. We do not support the political movement known as “Intelligent Design.” This is for three reasons 1) we do not believe the science underpinning the “Intelligent Design” movement is sound, 2) we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and 3) the Foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.

It is important to note that in the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the Intelligent Design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the Intelligent Design movement, but, as outlined above, this was not our intention at the time nor is it today.

Thompson’s objection was to the writer’s comment regarding Templeton’s “early support of intelligent design”, which may have been a little off track, since the foundation takes no political views, according to her.

http://www.latimes.com/busines.....1293.story

But what the above journal entry is saying primarily, is that there has been funding for ID research in the past, pointing out misstatements in the Times article, and subsequent misconstruances by others regarding ID research.

http://www.latimes.com/busines.....;cset=true

Stance is misconstrued on ‘intelligent design’
February 4, 2007

“Testing the role of trust and values in financial decisions” (Jan. 21) incorrectly describes the John Templeton Foundation as having been an early supporter of the political movement known as “intelligent design.”

We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.

The foundation has provided tens of millions of dollars in support of research academics who are critical of the anti-evolution intelligent-design position.

For almost a decade, the foundation has been a major supporter of a substantial program of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science. One of the program’s chief activities has been to inform the public of the weakness of the intelligent-design position on modern evolutionary biology.

In the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the intelligent-design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the movement, but this was not our intention at the time, nor is it today.

Pamela Thompson

Vice president, communications

John Templeton Foundation

West Conshohocken, Pa.