Science Literature

The journal Nature drew attention to concerns about the Templeton Foundation's activities on the occasion of the death of John Templeton in 2008. At that time, the editors indicated that "human moral impulses" have a natural, rather than a spiritual explanation and that their stance is to "turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works". That editorial elicited a blog from me, pointing out that many funding bodies have agendas that can raise suspicions of advocacy rather than following the evidence wherever it leads.

"This publication [i.e. Nature] would turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works, and believes that science is likely to go further in explaining human moral impulses than some religious people will welcome. Thus it shares a degree of suspicion with many in the scientific community at any attempt by religiously driven organizations to fund science. A chief concern is that the influential Templeton Foundation might be seeking to inject religion into the scientific world."

Templeton priorities: then and now (Source here)

Now, Nature has revisited the topic in a news feature authored by Mitchell Waldrop, one of their US editors. The Templeton Foundation logo has the phrase "Supporting science - Investing in the Big Questions". This claim to be the friend of science is not accepted in some quarters - which is why Waldrop asks: "So why does it make so many researchers uneasy?" First witness is Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist, who calls the foundation "sneakier than the creationists". Through its grants to researchers, Coyne alleges, the foundation is trying to insinuate religious values into science. "It claims to be on the side of science, but wants to make faith a virtue," he says. This is countered by the testimony of Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic and recipient of a Templeton grant: "The Templeton Foundation has never in my experience pressured, suggested or hinted at any kind of ideological slant".

Apparently, starting before and continuing since the death of its founder, the Foundation has been "radically reframing its research programme". According to Waldrop, "it is reducing its emphasis on religion to make its programmes more palatable to the broader scientific community." As evidence of this, look at the way the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion has been used. When first introduced in 1973, the award winners were not scientists. The first time a scientist received this award was in 1985. Now, it is normal to award it to a scientist. The critical witness for this is Harold Kroto:

"The prize has come in for some academic scorn. "There's a distinct feeling in the research community that Templeton just gives the award to the most senior scientist they can find who's willing to say something nice about religion," says Harold Kroto, a chemist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, who was co-recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and describes himself as a devout atheist."

The change of emphasis came because of the perception that the word "religion" was alienating too many senior scientists. These people were suspicious and whatever the Foundation did, failed to ease the suspicions. Vocabulary was changed and the Foundation presented itself as supporting science and sponsoring research into the Big Questions of life. (See the word clouds above - larger image here). Waldrop summarises the change in this way:

"This prompted a rethink of the foundation's research programme - a change most clearly seen in the organization's new website, launched last June. Gone were old programme names such as 'science and religion' - or almost any mention of religion at all. Instead, the foundation has embraced the theme of 'science and the big questions' - an open-ended list that includes topics such as 'Does the Universe have a purpose?'"

The Templeton Foundation is interested in meaning and purpose in the Cosmos, but definitely not in intelligent design. Although some ID advocates have received Templeton money in the past, this has proved so embarrassing to the Foundation that the door is now firmly closed. In the FAQ section of the Templeton website, the question is asked: Does the Foundation support "intelligent design"? The answer given is as follows:

"No. We do not support the political movement known as "intelligent design," which denies large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge in evolutionary biology. As a matter of policy and in keeping with our legal status, we do not support or endorse political movements of any kind."

This description is way off the mark. ID scholars are not waging a political battle, but are engaged in these issues as scientists, philosophers or educators. Those who oppose what they are saying do not interact with their arguments but invent strategies to discount them without acknowledging there are issues needing discussion. Unfortunately, the Templeton Foundation has imbibed the falsehoods of ID opponents and have closed down avenues of enquiry "as a matter of policy" instead of being open to the evidence wherever it leads.

The Foundation still faces the wrath of those who oppose ID. Here is Jerry Coyne again:

"Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning," says Coyne, echoing an argument made by many others. "In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice." The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to break down that wall, he says - to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy.

The Templeton Foundation is deluded if it thinks it can win over these scientists by taking a stand against ID. The key to the problem is readily found in the writings of ID scholars: science has been hi-jacked by "devout atheists" like Coyne and Kroto. They base their arguments on obsolete positivist views of science that are blind to the metaphysical presuppositions that scientists bring to their work. The secularisation of science has become dominant amongst the leaders of science organisations and journals. Dissent about this issue is not tolerated. Only purely material explanations of the universe are allowed: talk of spirituality, consciousness and morality are acceptable as long as it is understood these characteristics are all products of material forces. One more witness:

"Yet, even scientists who give the foundation high marks for openness often find it hard to shake their unease. Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is willing to participate in Templeton-funded events - but worries about the foundation's emphasis on research into 'spiritual' matters. "The act of doing science means that you accept a purely material explanation of the Universe, that no spiritual dimension is required," he says."

Unless the Templeton Foundation grapples with the secularism that threatens the scientific enterprise, it will slowly retreat from the real issues and end up, as Waldrop notes, as a funding agency with "a certain New Age quality". That will be sad.

Faith in science
M. Mitchell Waldrop
Nature 470, 323-325 (16 February 2011) | doi:10.1038/470323a

First para: At the headquarters of the John Templeton Foundation, a dozen kilometres outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the late billionaire seems to watch over everything. John Templeton's larger-than-life bust stands at one end of the main conference room. His life-sized portrait smiles down from a side wall. His face peers out of framed snapshots propped on bookshelves throughout the many offices.