My view is very similar (though not exactly the same) as Larry Moran. Ignore the anti-Templeton posturing and read this:
I don’t object to work on those subjects. My beef is with the idea that they pose a problem for our current understanding of evolutionary theory. More importantly, my main complaint is that the biologists who will spend all this money missed the real revolution that took place 50 years ago.
And…
But my real beef is with the outdated view of evolution held by EES proponents. To a large extent they are fighting a strawman version of evolution. They think that the “Modern Synthesis” or “Neo-Darwinism” is the current view of evolutionary theory. They are attacking the old-fashioned view of evolutionary theory that was common in the 1960s but was greatly modified by the incorporation of Neutral Theory and increased emphasis on random genetic drift. The EES proponents all seem to have been asleep when the real revolution occurred.
When you listen to them, you get the distinct impression they have never read The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. I have no confidence in biologists who want to overthrow a view of evolutionary theory that’s already been dead for half a century. I have no confidence in biologists who aren’t at ease talking about non-adaptive evolution. This is the 21st century.
That is exactly my complaint with both them, and the Dissent from Darwinism (https://dissentfromdarwin.org/). No informed scientist is a scientific Darwinist any more. That is a long falsified theory. Any time the term “Darwinism” is being thrown around in reference to our current understanding of evolution, you know it’s someone uninformed or with an agenda (usually for atheism or against evolution).