In both the LA Times and WSJ, we have a smile-evoking letter published today. It regards the scientific vacuity of ID, which isn't new; the source of the letter and their connection to ID is what is eyebrow-raising. (HT: Ed)
Letters to the EditorSweet.
We Don't Support 'Intelligent Design'
167 words, 5 February 2007
The Wall Street Journal
B6, English
(Copyright (c) 2007, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
In the past, the John Templeton Foundation has 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 this wasn't our intention at the time nor is it today ("Doing Good Leads to Doing Well, Just Ask Mom or Watch Monkeys," Informed Reader, Jan. 22).
The foundation doesn't support the political movement known as "Intelligent Design." This is for three reasons: We don't believe the science underpinning the "Intelligent Design" movement is sound, we don't support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge and the foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements.
Pamela Thompson, Vice President for Communications
John Templeton Foundation, West Conshohocken, Pa
________________
Technorati tags: Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism
