Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Thomas More Law Center
Argues for Intelligent Design Instruction

Ann Arbor's own Thomas More Law Center made the news, although not in a manner that reflects positively upon the city.  From the website, Live Science:
District Loosens 'Intelligent Design' Rule
By Martha Raffaele
Associated Press
posted: 07 January 2005
10:13 pm ET
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A school district that required science teachers to read a statement about alternatives to the theory of evolution decided Friday that teachers can choose not to read it, but their classes will still hear it. [...]

Tom Scott, an attorney representing the Pennsylvania State Education Association, said the teachers' union was satisfied with the decision. He said teachers had objected because intelligent design "is not science.''

"Unfortunately, the school board and the superintendent can put anything they want to in front of the students, but we are not going to be their messenger,'' Scott said.

"The Dover faculty have no right to opt out of a legal directive,'' said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which is defending the school district. "Having said that, because there is pending litigation ... we are going to accommodate their request.''
I won't bother to argue the demerits of the Creationist/ID movement here; anyone who wants to know about the issue, can go to Panda's Thumb (link in sidebar) to get an update. 

I mention the topic only as an introduction to a question that has been bugging me for several months: Why is it that Christian groups and not up in arms about this, disavowing any connection to the Intelligent Design proponents?

It seems plainly obvious that the ID proponents are liars (saying it is not about religion, when in fact it is), and that such dishonesty really should not be associated with Christianity.  I mean, if someone went around trying to sell a pack of lies under the name of some ethnic group to which I belonged, it would bother me, and I would disavow any connection to them.  And if the ethnic group to which I belonged was proud -- especially proud -- of their honesty, I would be terribly upset. 

Of course, maybe there are groups making such disavowals, and I have not encountered them.  If so, they need to speak up a little more. 

And as I think about it some more, I realize that it is a bit presumptuous of me to be telling other people what they should be upset about.  Still, it perplexes me that there isn't some kind of protest.  I find it so perplexing, in fact, that I worry that I must be missing something, some key aspect to the whole debate.  If so, I just called a bunch of people liars, some or all of whom might not deserve it, which would be, like, embarrassing.  But part of this blog is supposed to be about spontaneity, and spontaneity necessitates risk, and one of those risks is that a person might embarrass himself.