Posted on 11/02/2005 3:35:41 AM PST by 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.
Goes to show that boneheaded Supreme Court decisions are nothing new. Unless you think the Men in Black are infallible?
That's just a Christian version of judicial activism. If the Founders wanted a Christian nation, they would have referenced Christ once in the documents that established this country. They didn't - were they trying to sneak Christianity in?
Since when does the Supreme Court of Maryland dictate the Constitution for the nation?
I defy you to produce any evidence showing that the scientifically literate are prone to prostrating themselves before monkeys.
See my previous post - it wasn't even a federal case, in which case, who cares?
Never underestimate the tenacity of a terrier.
I marvel at the collection of loonies that shows up on these threads, really.
Sorry, didn't read your earlier post. Good catch.
I've got cats three times that size and twice as handsome!
By the way, there are three sizes of dog:
Hey, that picture you've posted is nothing but an overgrown rat. But there's something about the medulla (Islamic similarities noted) of a terrier that turns a genteel lap dog into a big toothed terror. And flying monkeys are no match.
That one's mine. When he dies, I'll stuff him and mount him on the sofa just like that.
That's more like it!
In 1807, the chairman of the committee on education for the District of Columbia schools decreed that the Christian Bible and Watts Hymnal must be taught in the D.C. public schools. That man was Thomas Jefferson, who was also the President of the United States. The LAW has not changed. FDR's Communists rewrote the LAW in 1947 in a fit of judicial activism.
How do I post a scanned image?
Anybody
Good luck - this case has shown us that creationists think nothing of lying to advance their political agenda.
I would like to ask all creationists to decry the tactics used by the school board in this case, or risk confirming that the entire movement is bereft of any integrity whatsoever.
The history of the 14th is that immediately after the civil war, some southern states were claiming that rights given in the Constitution did not apply in the states, specifically about blacks. That was a stupid argument, in as much as if those rights didn't apply in the states, then where would they have applied? In the Federal City and territories? Nevertheless the 14th was passed to tell those southern states that when the Constitution gave us a right, it meant it.
The problem is that the First, as you claim, was specifically directed at limiting what the Congress could do. As such, it can be construed not as granting rights (and thus covered under the 14th), but at limiting Congress. Indeed, several states that ratified the First had official religions up till around 1820, thus the wording "Congress shall make no law", because several states already had such laws and intended to keep them.
Perhaps the First should be amended to remove the "Congress shall make no law" clause. Certainly the presstitutes would like such a thing since the First also covers freedom of the press.
But your problem is if the First were interpreted as originally intended, there will be religion taught in schools. And certainly every parent with a student will insist that their religion be taught with the same validity as Christianity. The Muslims in particular, since their demographics are growing, will demand such a thing. I'm sure the Indians in Northern Arizona will insist on teaching their religious stories as hard fact too.
I can think of nothing more damaging to the faith of young people than teaching several diametrically opposed faiths as fact, side by side. I rejected my Christian faith in large part because I realized that there were many different human faiths, and that none of them had any more reason to claim validity than any other.
Perhaps now is a good time for a Coyoteman creation myth.
Be careful of what you wish for. You may get it.
Which one was it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.