Board member to resume testimony in 'intelligent design' trial

Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre, PA) ^ | 02 November 2005 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[PatrickHenry]

A school board member who was questioned by a federal judge about discrepancies in his testimony on the purchase of "intelligent design" textbooks was expected to return to the witness stand Wednesday.

Dover Area School Board member Alan Bonsell was to undergo redirect questioning by an attorney representing the board in a landmark trial over whether intelligent design can be introduced in high school science classes.

Bonsell testified Monday that he had received an $850 check from fellow board member William Buckingham. The check was made out to Bonsell's father, who volunteered to donate copies of "Of Pandas and People" to the district.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III asked Bonsell why he never shared that information in a January deposition when he was repeatedly asked under oath about who was involved in making the donation. Bonsell, who served as the board's president in 2004, said he misspoke. [Note to school board lawyers: When the judge asks your client why he's lying, it's usually not a good sign.]

Buckingham testified Thursday he collected $850 in donations to help purchase the books during a Sunday service at his church.

The board is defending its October 2004 decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to the textbook for more information.

Eight families are suing to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum because they believe the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation, and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Intelligent design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to conclude on Friday.

[cornelis]

You forgot mankind as a form of causality.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It was either an Earworm or a Gravid Earwig.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

"Even if I agreed with the questionable premise that legislation can be invalidated under the Establishment Clause on the basis of its motivation alone, without regard to its effects, I would still find no justification for today's decision. The Louisiana legislators... each of whom had sworn to support the Constitution, were well aware of the potential Establishment Clause problems and considered that aspect of the legislation with great care. After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve. Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that purpose (the only issue pertinent to this case), the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of "its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators,"...that the members of the Louisiana Legislature knowingly violated their oaths and then lied about it. ....the question of its constitutionality cannot rightly be disposed of on the gallop, by impugning the motives of its supporters." - Justice Scalia

Same crap going on in this case. Liberals and communists running amok in the courts trying Christians for thought crimes and devising (un)extra-constitutional tests.

[dread78645]

Where is it I should send my tithes to the Church of the Grand Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Your local Olive Garden?

[King Prout]

whichever - it was a nasty thing to do to me, you meanie.

[King Prout]

essentially: "ID favors Genesis Literalists and "special" Creationists over, say, Catholic and mainstream Protestant acceptance of natural evolution as God's chosen mechanism. It is thus *definitely* unconstitutional, no matter how one slices the 1st Amendment."?

interesting angle. thanks.

[js1138]

I think Of Pandas and People might be ruled an unacceptable text for science classes on the basis that both the plaintiff's and the defense's expert witnesses found it to be full of errors.

We can hope.

[USConstitutionBuff]

Because Madison based the 1st Amendment on Jefferson's writings of the bill of rights for the State of Virginia. Don't you know this?

[Gumlegs]

Based on post 79 to this thread, I'm starting to think Rightwing Conspiratr1 is really a master satirist, skillfully lampooning some of the more zany aspects of our creationist friends' postings.

Looked at in that way, he's actually pretty funny.

Keep those posts coming, Rightwing Conspiratr1!

[js1138]

isn't this trial over yet placemarker?

[js1138]

New thread???

http://www.pennlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1131013552327600.xml&coll=1

[js1138]

New MIKE ARGENTO ping

http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92856/printer/

[narby]

[The Muslims in particular, since their demographics are growing,]

We can put a stop to that with some sensible immigration reform.

You're going to solve a high birth rate with immigration reform? Ok.

[RightWingNilla]

She looked at "Of Pandas and People," one of intelligent design's holy texts. She didn't actually read it. She looked at it and concluded it was science, apparently because it has a picture of a panda on the cover and we all know that all your best science books have pandas on the cover.

LOL!

[js1138]

Is everybody working today?

[RightWingNilla]

Is everybody working today?

It does seem kinda slow...

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

You are partially correct, you just have everything backwards.

[ml1954]

Just got home, sat down, and read this. I'm still laughing. Thanks.

[curiosity]

Because Madison based the 1st Amendment on Jefferson's writings of the bill of rights for the State of Virginia.

That's streching it. Madison got the idea for a Bill of Rights from the fact that Virginia had a Bill of Rights, yes. And yes, Jefferson helped write Virginia's Bill. But that's as far as ot goes. Virginia's bill is not the same as the Federal Bill, and Jefferson had zero input in either the drafting or the ratification of the Federal Bill.

As such, I don't see how his opinion on any part of the 1st Amendment carries any weight whatsoever, especially since his opinion is at odds with the rest of the founders.

[PatrickHenry]

200