Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Trial transcript: Day 19 (November 2), PM Session, Part 2


THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rothschild, we'll pick up where we left off.


Q. Mr. Baksa, in the fall of 2003, you discussed Mr. Bonsell's concerns about the teaching of evolution with the teachers. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that's at least the second time that they have heard from you that a specific board member has some pretty serious concerns about how they teach evolution. Correct?

A. The fall of 2003, that's -- we met with Mr. Bonsell.

Q. Before that you told them about his concerns. Correct?

A. Yes, before that.

Q. And so that's at least the second time that you communicated to them that there is an issue with their teaching of evolution. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At least the second time, may have been more?

A. Yes.

Q. And you communicated to them, for example, that Mr. Bonsell had concerns about their teaching the origins of life. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understand that term to mean, as Mr. Bonsell was using it, the teaching of changes from species to species. Correct?

A. And probably how life began, initiated.

Q. Macroevolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Common ancestry?

A. I don't remember Mr. Bonsell talking about common ancestry.

Q. But he did have a concern with the teaching of macroevolution. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Speciation? He had a concern about teaching speciation?

A. Yes.

Q. And you do understand that macroevolution, speciation, are elements of the theory of evolution. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you arranged a meeting with Mr. Bonsell and the teachers. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in that meeting, Mrs. Miller explained how she taught evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the things she communicated was that she does not teach origins of life. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood that to mean that she was not teaching macroevolution and speciation. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Including that modern man, homo sapiens, descended from lower creatures. Correct?

A. I'm sorry, again?

Q. You understood that included within that was that she was not teaching that modern man, homo sapiens, had evolved from lower creatures. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt that information seemed to satisfy Mr. Bonsell?

A. Yes.

Q. You left that meeting feeling that there had been some meeting of the minds?

A. Very much so.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you call up Defendants' Exhibit 286. May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. Mr. Baksa, this is a document that Mr. Gillen asked you about during your direct testimony. Do you recognize that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this is the draft curriculum change which says that students will be able to demonstrate awareness of other theories of the origin of life, including, but not limited to, creationism. Matt, if you could blow up that left-hand corner. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it says students will be able to demonstrate awareness of creationism, so that would indicate some form of assessment. Correct?

A. That language would indicate that somehow the teacher would be able to know that the students have an awareness.

Q. And it indicates that there will be a textbook for this unit of the biology curriculum. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this is something that you didn't produce until -- I think it was September of this year?

A. To counsel?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And when you found it, you turned it over to him as soon as you saw it. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified, I think it was Friday of this trial, the first day of your testimony here, that this is a document from, you think, the fall of 2003, and you think that because of the other documents you found it with. Correct?

A. Well, I found this document with documents that were dated in August of that year, so summer, fall.

Q. And you're confident that this is something that you created?

A. Well, as I explained to you prior, when I found the document, I didn't remember creating the document, was surprised to see it. I do remember initially Dr. Nilsen giving me language that had origins of life in it, to look at possibly including language in a curriculum draft to address any concerns Mr. Bonsell might have. So I don't remember creating this document, but I believe I'm the only one who could create this document physically.

Q. And sitting here today, you do remember getting some kind of curriculum language from Dr. Nilsen or Mr. Bonsell?

A. Not from Mr. Bonsell, from Dr. Nilsen, yes.

Q. In fact, you remember him giving you a document in this form with some handwritten notes on it. Correct?

A. Right.

Q. And that may well have been the basis for what you created here. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Because you did not, on your own initiative, decide to add a unit to the biology curriculum that included creationism. Correct?

A. Well, can I explain the document?

Q. Please.

A. Okay. I may have included the word "creationism" in this document. The document, as you know, was never distributed.

Q. I don't know that, but if that's your testimony.

A. I believe it was not because there were copies that were attached to it yet. And literally what I did, without reviewing this -- what I believe happened, without reviewing this with anybody, is, I simply took the language that normally you would use in writing curriculum and demonstrate -- you want to use language that results in some student activity, took that language, the state standards there, lecture would simply repeat, textbook would be just repeated without having a textbook that had creationism to do this.

My thinking, even with this, which is -- from the start is that maybe, to answer some of the concerns of Mr. Bonsell or other board members, we would have to mention something, say something, prior to beginning the unit on evolution. So this would be consistent with my drafting some language to answer the concerns of some board members.

Q. So it wasn't your own initiative to -- it wasn't something you thought up on your own to add this creationism language, you were anticipating the board's position?

A. Well, up to this point, I can only -- you know, not remembering doing that, but up to this point, I mean, Messiah talked about, you know, mentioning other theories, creationism, that that would make for a rich discussion, not teach it, but mention it. I knew the teachers were mentioning that already prior to their teaching the theory of evolution.

So it was just -- and I knew Mrs. Spahr thought this is what Alan was talking about or Alan wanted in the curriculum. So if language like -- you know, it's very possible that if language like this then would be all that was necessary to answer Mr. Bonsell's concerns, it's likely that I could draft language like this.

Q. You weren't doing this for Mrs. Spahr's benefit?

A. No.

Q. You didn't put creationism in because Mrs. Spahr was thinking that Alan Bonsell wanted creationism?

A. No, I'm only saying that Mrs. Spahr is thinking that what we're talking about is creationism.

Q. But Mrs. Spahr didn't create this, and you weren't doing this for her. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were doing it for another reason which you can't remember right now?

A. Well, I can tell you very clearly I'd be doing this to address the concerns of a board member.

Q. Concerns of Mr. Bonsell?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Moving forward to 2004, the issue of teaching evolution arose again around the selection of the biology textbook. Correct?

A. Yes.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you pull up Plaintiffs' Exhibit 817. May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. Mr. Baksa, what we've marked as P817 is your notes of a meeting with Mr. Buckingham about the biology textbook?

A. Correct.

Q. And this is where you're listening to him describe his sort of page-by-page problems with the book. Correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And what he's complaining about is that the textbook addresses things that he considers to be origins of life. Correct? That's one of the main things he's communicating to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. He has a problem with, for example, the mention of common ancestors which you see on Item 7 and 8?

A. Yes.

Q. And, for example, 8 says, Common descent and species descend into species?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Buckingham thinks that's problematic. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And, again, you do understand that common ancestry and this descent from one species to another, that is part of the theory of evolution. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And I think if we look at Item 9, it indicates, Page 393, he says, It points students to research the theory of evolution, paren., more, close paren. That's right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was something else that Mr. Buckingham was pointing out as a problem in the book?

A. Yeah. I'm not really sure what that one is, though.

Q. But you're writing down things he has a problem with. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the things he has a problem with is that students might research the theory of evolution more. Correct?

A. That's what -- yeah.

Q. And from Mr. Buckingham's standpoint, that's a bad thing?

A. I just know what I -- I knew that -- you know, my understanding that these are items that he found, and I tried to capture his objection. So all I really have to go on are my notes, for the most part.

Q. Fair enough. You can put that aside. Now, you attended the two meetings in June where the biology textbook was discussed, the two board meetings?

A. The board meetings, yes.

Q. And you remember that there were a number of news articles about those meetings?

A. Yes.

Q. And you read those articles around the time they were published?

A. I probably did.

Q. And they reported about statements made by board members on the subject of the biology textbook. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the things the papers report is that Mr. Buckingham talked about creationism at the June meetings. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember that. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It was said in the context of discussing the selection of the biology textbook. Correct?

A. I'm pretty sure it was -- I remember Mrs. Callahan questioning why we weren't moving on the biology books, and I remember a back-and-forth exchange with Mr. Buckingham. And I believe somewhere in there creation, I don't remember the exact context, but I remember Mr. Buckingham saying creationism.

Q. He talked about creationism?

A. Yes.

Q. So if anyone that attended the June meeting says that Mr. Buckingham didn't talk about creationism, you know that's not correct?

A. Well, I remember him saying that.

Q. Just like the papers reported?

A. Correct.

Q. They also report that Mr. Buckingham stated that the biology textbook recommended by the teachers was laced with Darwinism. And you remember him saying that, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And they report that Mr. Buckingham stated that 2,000 years ago a man died on a Cross, can't we take a stand for Him now, and you know that he said that, as well. Correct?

A. Yep, but what I don't remember is, I don't remember if that's in the June board meeting.

Q. You were at --

A. I remember him saying that.

Q. You were at the board meeting when Mr. Buckingham said those words. Correct? You were present when he said that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it could have been at one of the June meetings as has been reported by the newspapers. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as many witnesses have testified at this trial?

A. Yes.

Q. You have no reason to dispute that the statement was made at one of the June meetings?

A. Well, I don't remember it. I remember hearing it, but I can't place it at the June meeting myself from my memory.

Q. You have no reason to place it at the November meetings, either, do you, on the pledge?

A. Well, I don't remember --

Q. You have no memory?

A. Yeah, I don't remember when it was said.

Q. Now, another thing that the papers reported is that Mr. Buckingham said, This country was founded on -- was not founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution, this country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such. And you remember him saying something to that effect, as well, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And, again, you have no reason to dispute the newspapers that said this was said in June when the biology book was being discussed. Right?

A. Actually, I forget what I say in my dep, but --

Q. You're testifying, Mr. Baksa. We go to the dep afterwards.

A. I actually thought he said that not in June, but that would have been when the under the pledge was being discussed, I guess that November period.

Q. So your memory today is that Muslim beliefs and evolution was being discussed not when evolution was being discussed but in a controversy over the pledge?

A. No, I don't remember evolution and Muslim beliefs being tied together. I remember him talking about -- yeah, I surrendered a document to counsel that is a phone call from an Afghanistan native of Dover. And I believe -- I don't think it's dated, but I believe his concerns about Mr. Buckingham's remark, what you just said, was during that earlier period. And I don't remember -- I mean, you have the notes, but I don't remember in my notes writing anything about evolution.

Q. Okay. Why don't we turn to Page 79 of your March deposition.

A. Okay.

Q. Actually, if you look at Page 78, you'll see that I'm asking you questions about a June 9, 2004 article from the York Daily Record. Do you see that?

A. I'm reading.

Q. Do you see that on Page 78?

A. Can I read it?

Q. Yeah, sure.

A. Okay.

Q. I'm asking you about a June 9th article. Right?

A. Yep.

Q. And then if you go down to Page 79, Line 14, I ask you, Then the next paragraph he's quoted as saying -- the "he" being Mr. Buckingham -- This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution, this country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such. Do you remember him saying that? You answered: Yes. I asked, What were the circumstances in which he said that? And you answered: I don't remember when he said that or the circumstances. I just remember him saying that and hearing that.

So as of your deposition on March 9th, you had no memory of when he said that?

A. Right, that's correct.

Q. The papers also reported that Mr. Buckingham stated that liberals in black robes were taking away the rights of Christians in this country.

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember him saying that, too?

A. Yeah, I think I said I remembered that, yeah.

Q. Now, after these meetings, two meetings in June, you had a meeting of the curriculum committee with the science teachers?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was a meeting that was initiated so Bill Buckingham could articulate his concerns about the textbook and how evolution was being taught. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So the teachers were meeting for the second time in this school year with a board member on the subject of how they taught evolution?

A. With the whole board curriculum committee.

Q. And this was right after the two meetings in June where the biology textbook was discussed. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Where you remember Mr. Buckingham talking about creationism?

A. Yes.

Q. And when he may have said his 2,000 years ago statement. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you can't remember any other academic subject where Dover School Board members have so directly confronted teachers on an area of curriculum, can you?

A. Well, just the two that I testified to before, the family consumer science was a concern of Mrs. Brown and also the fundamentals of success.

Q. But they weren't meeting with teachers to discuss the content of how the teachers taught the subject. Correct? I mean, that wasn't what happened with those topics. Right?

A. Those topics primarily were whether the course was -- whether it warranted or not us having the course.

Q. But there was never any other instance at Dover where teachers were being questioned so much about how they taught a specific unit of the subject?

A. I don't remember it.

Q. I mean, in your fairly long career as a teacher and administrator, you've never seen anything quite like this, have you, where board members are directly questioning teachers on multiple occasions about how they teach a specific area of the curriculum?

A. I've seen a lot of things, so -- nothing that -- I know that very typically the matter -- matters like sex education, matters like evolution, typically that those are sensitive subjects for parents and students, and in any district typically you might have to address concerns in the teaching of that. That is typical.

Q. But here you've got board members already twice sitting down with the teachers complaining about how they teach a specific area of the curriculum. Correct?

A. Well, the complaint isn't what they're -- the board members were actually fine with what they were teaching. The concern was -- Mr. Buckingham's concern, for the most part, was the presentation of Darwin in the book and what the book was saying. Mr. Bonsell's concern actually was answered by the teachers when he found out origins of life wasn't taught.

The first meeting included family consumer science teachers, and, for the most part, teachers presented their justifications for the books and the board curriculum committee listened. The second meeting we now had very specific concerns from Mr. Buckingham on the biology text and his concerns with the presentation of evolution there.

So that was a little bit -- and we just had -- the second meeting included just the science teachers. The family consumer science teachers were not in that meeting.

Q. And I'm not talking about what I think is an April or May curriculum meeting, I'm really talking about Mr. Bonsell sitting down with the teachers in September and then Mr. Buckingham and the rest of the curriculum committee sitting down with the teachers in June and really getting into the details of how evolution was taught or how evolution is presented in the textbook.

A. Correct.

Q. You would agree this puts quite a bit of pressure on the teachers to have to justify how they're teaching evolution, how they're presenting evolution to board members in this fashion?

A. Well, it's not unusual, if board members have questions about a unit of study, to meet with teachers and have them explain exactly what they do. I mean, I -- with the family consumer science and the fundamentals, I mean, I did prepare -- have the teachers prepare unit outlines and justifications for that and had the books available for Mrs. Brown to review.

So, you know, it's not unusual to ask the teachers to do some things so that we can get a clear explanation of what's going on in the classroom and to answer board concerns. That's actually a good thing because that's how you clear things up.

Q. You would agree what happened here with the subject of evolution put quite a bit of pressure on the teachers, wouldn't you?

A. Well, the teachers were frustrated in this aspect, that, you know, they sat down with Mr. Bonsell, thought they had everything settled, didn't think there was going to be another concern, and Mr. Buckingham seemed to bring up the same issues, and they had to go through all this justification again.

Mrs. Spahr, I believe I have an e-mail from her where, you know, she's frustrated and venting her frustration to me having to do this all over again. In that sense, it was stressful for them that they continued to have to -- in their minds, continued to have to explain what they were teaching in classrooms and why the Miller and Levine book that they want is a good book for them.

Q. Mr. Baksa, you would agree that there was a lot of pressure on these teachers, yes or no?

A. Pressure to do what, though?

Q. Pressure about their teaching. The board was in their face on this particular subject. You would agree there was a lot of pressure on them, wouldn't you?

A. No, because teaching -- Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Bonsell were okay with what the teachers were teaching. So the --

Q. Is your answer no, Mr. Baksa?

A. The pressure was to justify Miller and Levine. I think if they were going to have any pressure, they wanted to get this book passed, and we were not able to convince Mr. Buckingham to throw his support for the book. But what was going on in the classroom, even Mr. Buckingham at the June meeting agreed that, you know, he had no problems with them teaching change over time within a species.

Q. Everybody was happy with that as long as they weren't teaching macroevolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Weren't teaching speciation?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mrs. Miller did talk about how she teaches the evolution of Darwin's finches. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You understand that those are multiple species of finches?

A. Well --

Q. Yes or no?

A. I mean, yeah, I guess.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. Mr. Baksa, what I've shown you are Defendants' Exhibits 19 and 20, which you looked at in your direct testimony, as well. And am I correct in understanding that these are notes of the curriculum committee meeting in the middle of June, 2004?

A. That's correct.

Q. And on Defendants' Exhibit 19, in addition to your notes, we have the survey of biology books used in area schools. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's something that -- a document you prepared? This is a document you prepared?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was based on research or investigation that you and your staff did. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this survey of these schools is something that Dr. Nilsen asked you to do. Correct?

A. That's what I remember, yes.

Q. And you don't know why. Correct?

A. Dr. Nilsen did not explain why.

Q. And Mr. Gillen asked you why the survey only includes parochial schools, and you answered that the teachers had already seen all the books offered by mainstream publishers, which is what all the local public schools were using. Does that accurately capture your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. And, of course, you understand that the public schools are the schools that are required to abide by the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

A. Yes.

Q. And so you and the teachers already knew what all the alternatives were from the mainstream publishers that were used by the schools bound by the First Amendment. Correct? Right?

A. Yes.

Q. So this was really only a search for books that did not fall within that universe. Correct?

A. Well, in my mind -- and I think I have testified to this, and I thought about this a little bit more since both depositions -- Dr. Nilsen didn't tell me why he wanted me to just research these schools. I did do that. I also researched our home-schoolers, what books they might use.

But this would have come after our teachers -- and I'm thinking about it now and answering you. We have Mr. Buckingham's concern with the Miller and Levine book. We've already, at the May meeting, presented the justification why we need the books. And we've already reviewed -- teachers already did the review of all those mainstream books or books typically in the public schools.

So in my mind, we're looking for -- Mr. Buckingham wants us to look at other books. We're looking for other books that may address his concerns with the treatment of Darwinism in the teaching of evolution. These are the only sources that you would go to. That's me talking. That's not Dr. Nilsen making that explanation.

Q. And that's exactly right, you already know all the books used by the public schools. Right?

A. Yeah, our teachers would have gotten them from the mainstream publishers.

Q. All the books used by the schools bound by the First Amendment. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is a search of parochial schools. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Which are not bound by the First Amendment. Correct?

A. I'm taking your word for that. I mean, I don't think public -- public schools can present material -- or that private schools could present, in my mind could present material that public schools could not.

Q. Correct. And similarly, home schools or home-schoolers are not bound by the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Right?

A. Right.

Q. And you looked for books that they used, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Including, you found out, a book that was published by the Bob Jones University Press. Correct?

A. Right.

Q. Which you also understand to be a religious school. Right?

A. Yeah.

Q. So these were the places you went to look for a book that would satisfy Mr. Buckingham. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Exhibit 19 refers to Icons of Evolution, and it looks like Cold Water Media?

A. Yes.

Q. That's one of the videos that Mr. Buckingham got from the Discovery Institute. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So we know that this meeting happened after Mr. Buckingham's communications with the Discovery Institute. Correct?

A. Right.

Q. And below that you write, Topic 1, we will review tape and offer flaws if found around our content. Correct?

A. Right.

Q. So what you're indicating here is that the teaching of evolution in Dover High School would be revised to include information from this tape. Correct?

A. The teachers -- and I'm not sure -- I think they did review it prior to this already. And what we're trying to do at this meeting is come to some agreement to get the textbook, Miller and Levine. And the conditions that we worked out and the compromises that we worked out, this was one of those compromises, that the teachers would go back, look at the tape, if there's anything that fit their -- the standards or their specific content, then they would look at possibly using that information from the tape.

Q. They would offer the flaws that were found, that were presented on this tape. Right?

A. Around their specific content.

Q. Right.

THE COURT: Mr. Rothschild, what's that exhibit number again?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's Defendants' Exhibit 19.

THE COURT: Thank you.


Q. So what they were saying is they would look at the tape and offer the flaws presented in that tape around the material on evolution that they already had from their textbook or their curriculum. Right?

A. Yeah. But there is another piece of information we have. The teachers have already reviewed the tape. And I remember talking to them, and I think one of the things that they told me about is that Icons dealt with the origins of life and it didn't deal with the content that they presented in their class, so we can make that offer to Mr. Buckingham, but I think the teachers already know there's no match. So when you say that it would be used in the curriculum, I think the teachers already made a determination that it would not be appropriate and there's no match to use.

Q. They didn't say that to Mr. Buckingham at this meeting?

A. No. They agreed to review the tape and --

Q. In order to get Mr. Buckingham to approve the standard biology textbook, they're agreeing to take this material from the Discovery Institute's videotape and add it to their curriculum. Right?

A. Yes. They were willing to review it to see if they could do that, right.

Q. Now, at this time did you know anything about the Discovery Institute?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Buckingham apparently did?

A. Well, I mean, I got the materials from them and I heard they're from the Discovery Institute, but I don't think I had any more information than that.

Q. Really, the only person there who had information about the Discovery Institute was Mr. Buckingham?

A. I believe so.

Q. And, for example, did you know about the Discovery Institute's Wedge document?

A. No. I've already testified that I think the first time I saw that was in the complaint.

Q. Fair enough. So at the time that the administration and the teachers were indicating their willingness to Mr. Buckingham to incorporate content from this tape, nobody but Mr. Buckingham knew anything about the Discovery Institute except for Mr. Buckingham?

A. Yeah, I don't believe the teachers or I were given information.

Q. But they were agreeing to do this because that's what Bill Buckingham wanted?

A. I'd agree with that.

Q. But at the same time neither Mr. Buckingham nor yourself nor anybody else was actually -- had actually gone to any of the mainstream scientific organizations to find out whether the materials, the content of Icons, had any scientific or academic merit. Correct?

A. No, although the teachers felt that it was accurate in that it pointed -- while it didn't offer an explanation for some of the gaps, that it did fairly portray those areas of Darwin's theory that were less supported.

Q. They thought Icons was accurate science?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Now, the next note down says, Intelligent design instead of creationism. Right?

A. Right.

Q. So here we're bringing intelligent design into this discussion of the curriculum committee. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you don't remember who initiated the subject of intelligent design at this meeting, do you?

A. No. And I think I -- I'm not sure what I testified to about that. But I think what my note is -- as we were working through, you know, the components of this compromise, one of the components is going to be some curriculum language. And thinking about it now, you have Mr. Buckingham mentioning creationism in June, and I think what we're saying is it's not creationism that we're going to put into language, it's going to be intelligent design.

Q. Okay. But you don't know who initiated that idea. Right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, at that meeting you didn't even know what intelligent design was?

A. This is June. We didn't get the Panda books until July, I believe. I mean, it was mentioned at Messiah, but I don't think there was a full explanation of it.

Q. I mean, at this meeting, so far as you can tell, nobody knows what it is?

A. I'm trying to think. I don't think we received any materials on intelligent design prior to this meeting. I can't remember any.

Q. So the answer is yes, at this meeting, nobody knows what intelligent design is?

A. Well, I can't -- I know I haven't received the materials to understand what intelligent design is, but --

Q. Nobody else has explained it. Right?

A. No, no, remember Mrs. Spahr does have -- remember when she got those legal opinions for teaching creationism, within that there was some discussion in there about intelligent design.

Q. So Mrs. Spahr thinks it's creationism?

A. Yes. But I don't remember in those -- I mean, if you're asking me what intelligent design is, I don't recall -- know that if in those documents there was an explanation to allow Mrs. Spahr to make a judgment about that, that's all.

Q. Fair enough. At this June curriculum meeting, you don't know what intelligent design is and you don't know that anybody else knows what it is. Right?

A. That's right, I don't know that.

Q. So far as you can tell, it's just two words replacing the one word "creationism" that Bill Buckingham brought up in June. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this mention of intelligent design instead of creationism is occurring after Mr. Buckingham has had discussions with the Discovery Institute. Correct?

A. I think so.

Q. Now, if we could go to Exhibit 20, which are additional notes from this meeting. The middle of the page you have a note that Bill would like both taught, he wants intelligent design taught. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also have right above that as a to-do item, Opinion on intelligent design. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what you mean by that is a legal opinion. Right?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And you eventually did receive an e-mail with a legal opinion from the school solicitor. Correct?

A. Well, the e-mail that we've already presented here deals with Of Pandas. I did send the solicitor the curriculum language that included intelligent design, and I don't think I got -- I remember talking to him about it.

Q. We have to be careful here.

MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Eric.


THE COURT: You don't want to get into what you were told by counsel, and that's not what Mr. Rothschild's question was. And it's perfectly all right for you not to get into an area that's privileged. And I'll listen for an objection, but with that clarification, why don't you rephrase or get another question on the floor.


Q. We'll talk about the e-mail memo later, but let me just move on.

A. Okay.

Q. Another thing you have here right below what we just looked at is, To do, is Descent of Man in library? Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Decent of Man is one of the books written by Charles Darwin. Is that your understanding?

A. Yes.

Q. And it deals with exactly what it sounds like, right, the descent of man from other creatures?

A. I haven't read it, but I guess.

Q. That's your understanding?

A. Yes.

Q. I haven't read it, either, but that's my understanding. Now, that was something brought up by Mr. Buckingham, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And he asked that because that book deals with the origins of life as he understands it. Correct?

A. What I remember is, I think he looked at this or portions of it. He was doing a lot of research on the Internet. My recollection is that he had problems and concerns with the book Descent of Man, and his question was -- you know, he wanted to know if that is in our library, if our students would have access to that book.

Q. He wanted you to find that out?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood he wanted you to find that out because he didn't think it should be in the library. Correct?

A. Well, he didn't say that. I mean, he just wanted to know if it was in the library. I know he had concerns he didn't think it was a good book.

Q. He certainly wasn't asking you to find out if it was in the library so it could be moved over to the science classroom. Correct?

A. You could say that.

Q. Now, moving forward into July, the 2004 version of Miller and Levine came on the scene. Correct?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Moving into July, the 2004 version of Miller and Levine came onto the scene. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you and the teachers reviewed it very carefully on the subject of evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Because that was the subject that the board was concerned about?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said that the teachers were happy with the 2004 version because -- and tell me if I'm characterizing your testimony correctly -- it discussed gaps in evolution more than the 2002 version?

A. Yeah. When we went through both editions, we found a number of areas that we felt addressed Mr. Buckingham's concerns and thought that he would be happy with the changes that were in the new edition.

Q. Including that it was more forthcoming about gaps in evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. So from the standpoint of faculty and administration, the board no longer had a reason to worry that gaps in the theory of evolution weren't being taught. Is that fair?

A. Could you ask that again?

Q. After reviewing this new version of Miller and Levine, from the administration and the faculty's perspective, there was no longer a reason to worry that gaps in evolution weren't being taught. Is that fair?

A. From the position of the teachers and administrators?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I don't know that I came to that conclusion. I mean, for the most part, I'm looking at trying to get the book approved and trying to answer the concerns of the board and have the teachers address their concerns.

What the effect of those changes were, you know, both for the teachers and for administration, I mean, I don't know that I know that. I mean, we thought it was good that that was in there because that wasn't in there before, and that's something very specific that board members had talked about.

Q. Now, none of the other science books used by Dover students or actually any other aspect of the Miller and Levine biology textbook has ever been examined, to the best of your knowledge, to see if it reports the relevant gaps in scientific knowledge in other areas. Right?

A. None of the other science classes?

Q. Nobody has examined the chemistry book or physics book to see if they accurately report gaps in scientific knowledge relevant to those areas of study, have they?

A. Not while I've been there. I mean, I don't know.

Q. And, in fact, nobody looked at the biology book, any version of the biology book, to see if it correctly reported gaps in other aspects of biology besides evolution. Correct?

A. Yeah, I don't remember the board having concerns in other sections of the biology book other than that one section.

Q. Now, eventually Pandas came on the scene. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you agree with what Dr. Nilsen testified, that the teachers complained about the book having faulty science, being dated, and having readability issues beyond grade level. Right?

A. Right. Mrs. Spahr said she found something that was inaccurate scientifically. I know Jen had done a readability study on it. And it was an old copyright for the book.

Q. And these are three problems that the teachers communicated, faulty science, dated, readability. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you had a district specialist, reading specialist, Dr. Butterfield, do a readability study, and she concluded that the book's readability was grade 12 or higher. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the teachers also communicated that they thought the content was creationist or close to it. Correct?

A. Of Pandas?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't remember them saying that of Pandas. I remember Mrs. Spahr taking the position -- and I believe the department shared this with her -- that intelligent design was creationism.

Q. But you don't have a separate specific memory about them considering Pandas to be a creationist book?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, you did get a legal opinion about Pandas. Correct?

A. Yes.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. What we've marked as P70, Mr. Baksa, that is an e-mail you received from the school district solicitor, Stephen Russell, or that Dr. Nilsen received?

A. Right, Dr. Nilsen received it.

Q. And at the curriculum committee meeting at the end of August, this document was circulated to a number of people, including teachers and curriculum committee members. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is something you had seen?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, one of the things that is -- that Mr. Russell says here is that the Thomas More Law Center refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Right?

MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor, again, just to any characterization of the document. That's Mr. Russell's description of our position, not our own.

THE COURT: What's the objection?

MR. GILLEN: I just want to make it clear for the record that this is Mr. Russell's description of our position, not anything we told him. Objection, hearsay, is, I guess, it.

THE COURT: On your first objection, you're making an argument instead of an objection, and that's not appropriate. You know that.

MR. GILLEN: That's correct.

THE COURT: You can save that. So that's overruled. Now what's your -- so you default to what?

MR. GILLEN: I default to this, that statement by Mr. Russell is hearsay in that he's purporting to characterize whatever he heard from whomever he spoke with at our organization. That's hearsay, and I object to it.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And I want to be -- first of all, we're introducing it for what the board members, teachers, and administrators heard, received from Mr. Russell. I agree that there's hearsay, and I want to be just careful here because Mr. Gillen is going a little bit beyond hearsay and I would suggest testifying here that this is not what they said. And I don't want to make him a witness, and I think there needs to be a remedy of that being stricken, because we don't know that, either.

MR. GILLEN: Well, that's what I'm saying. This is his -- basically it's hearsay. I don't know who he spoke to, but he is purporting to repeat something that he heard. I have no knowledge of that, and I don't want that hearsay admitted.

THE COURT: Well, you're saying you didn't say it, and now you're saying you didn't have knowledge of it. And what Mr. Rothschild's articulated fear is, is that you're opening the door and potentially waiving a privilege that exists. I don't think you got to that point, but we want to be careful.

Now, on the hearsay objection, it appears to me that Mr. Rothschild is introducing this not for the truth but for the impact on the viewer, in this case, Mr. Baksa. I don't take it as fact.


THE COURT: And I don't see that it's being introduced for that purpose. So on the second basis, I'll overrule the objection, and you may proceed.


Q. So in this e-mail, Mr. Russell reports that the Thomas More Law Center, Mr. Thompson, refers to the creationism issue as intelligent design. Right? That's what he wrote?

A. Yes.

Q. The first paragraph?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's something you were aware of around the time of this e-mail. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. August 26th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there is discussion of a textbook here, and you understand that to be Pandas. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what Mr. Russell reports from Thomas More is that there's been discussions about possible litigation, nothing has come about, this suggests to me that no one is adopting the textbook. And then he says, Because if they were, one can safely assume there would have been a legal challenge by someone somewhere. Correct?

A. Yeah. Can you show --

Q. This is all in the first paragraph.

A. Okay.

Q. If you need to take a minute, I don't mean to rush you through the document. I'm just trying to rush us through the trial.

THE COURT: Why rush now?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: You know, I talked about pressure, there's a little from home.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I agree.


Q. And certainly Mr. Russell, from his own standpoint, is nowhere suggesting that using Pandas in a public school classroom would be legal or constitutional. Correct?

A. You're asking me whether he thinks it would be legal?

Q. I'm just asking you to look at what he said here, and nowhere there is he conveying to the readers of this e-mail that using Pandas is legal or constitutional. Correct?

A. I don't see where he's clearly saying that it's illegal.

Q. I agree with you, he's not saying it's illegal. Right?

A. Right.

Q. But he's also not saying it's legal or constitutional. Correct?

A. I don't think you'd ever get a lawyer to go out on a limb like that, and I think that's why Mr. Russell clearly explains, you know, what legal challenges there might be to the book and for us to consider the use of the book and how the book might be challenged. He's not giving it a -- you know, a totally green light, but he's cautiously advising the board to consider these matters in consideration of use of the book.

Q. There's certainly nothing in here that the board or the district could rely upon and take comfort that using the book is constitutional. Correct?

A. Well, this was provided to the board for them to be able to make a decision about the use of the book, and their interpretation and comfort level with the language that Mr. Russell provided, I'm not aware of that.

Q. Okay. But from your own standpoint, you don't see anything in this document that someone choosing to add the book to the curriculum could rely upon and take comfort that what they're doing is legal. Correct?

A. Well, again, I don't think it clearly says it's illegal. It says to consider these matters if you were to use the book, you know, that he hasn't found any litigation with the book or its use.

Q. There's nothing positive in here, is there, Mr. Baksa? There's nothing that a reader could say, we're going to be okay if we use this book? I agree with you it's not saying it's illegal, but there's nothing positive saying, you know, you'll be fine or we think you'll be fine or anything anywhere close to that. Correct?

A. I would characterize this as Mr. Russell advising caution in using the book.

Q. And, in fact, if you go down to the bottom of the document, he's expressing concerns over a lawsuit that the Dover School District might face. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the reason he's concerned is, as he says in the last sentence of the last large paragraph is, that the last several years there has been a lot of discussion, news print, et cetera, for putting religion back in the schools. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew what he was talking about, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Because, for example, you heard Mr. Buckingham talk about creationism. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. You heard him talk about it's not a Muslim nation, it's one founded on Christian values. Right?

A. Right.

Q. And you heard him say at one meeting or another, 2,000 years ago a man died on a Cross, can't someone take a stand for Him now? Right?

A. Right.

Q. Now, Mr. Gillen went through a number of documents with you that he described as your research on Pandas. Correct? You had some notes and some other documents?

A. Yes.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Matt, could you put up D35, please.


Q. Mr. Baksa, what I've shown you is Defendants' Exhibit 35. That was one of the documents that Mr. Gillen showed you on your direct. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is an order form from the Institute for Creation Research online store. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's an order form for Pandas. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is something you did. Right? You went on the Institute for Creation Research online store and pulled up Pandas. Correct?

A. Not me personally.

Q. Who did that, Mr. Baksa?

A. Either my secretary or Marsha Hake. I know from my notes Marsha Hake did a lot of the research for finding this -- I think it was Marsha Hake. And at one point we wanted to get prices for the book, not order the book, but get pricing information and publishing information where we might -- where the book might be purchased. And then I believe she produced this document for the -- to get us to the Web site.

Q. Who is Marsha Hake?

A. She's secretary for the language arts supervisor and the district people personnel director.

Q. And this was done on your instruction?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the bottom corner of the document, it has a slash 2004 on it. Do you see that, the bottom right-hand corner?

A. Yes.

Q. And we asked your counsel to look at the original to see if that had been redacted, and he couldn't find anything. Do you know what the complete date of this document is?

A. I'd guess July. I remember when we first received a copy of Pandas, I gave it to Jen Miller, and I know that we then ordered additional books for board members and other teachers to look at. So I'm guessing July, August.

Q. And what it says here, if you look at the text, below the picture of Pandas, it says, Beautifully illustrated, thoroughly researched textbook designed for public schools without biblical content, contains interpretations of classic evidences in harmony with the creation model. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that was information you were aware of as you researched Pandas. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in the order information it says, Quantity in basket, 50. Right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, you didn't get 50 copies for the board to read, did you?

A. No.

Q. And in July, Mr. Buckingham was still talking about ordering 220 copies of Pandas. Correct?

A. Right.

Q. So 50, that's pretty close to what actually got ordered. Isn't that right?

A. I believe 60 were ordered.

Q. But 50 is pretty close?

A. Yeah.

Q. Mr. Baksa, were you pursuing this information to order the books on the instruction from somebody on the board?

A. To order the books?

Q. Yes.

A. No. The original thought of the books was when we got the books, we first thought we would have those as a resource for the teachers. Then in my research of the book and how it was used, I told Dr. Nilsen, talk to Dr. Gillen. He told me he had 50 copies donated and used them as references in his classroom.

Q. Who is this?

A. Dr. Gillen, who taught at Tomball in Texas. So I had that information. I think 50 is the first number. And then I remember Dr. Nilsen talking about 50 as the number of books that we might look as -- when it moved from teacher resources to classroom resources, 50 was the number we were talking about. That number wasn't changed until I met with the board curriculum committee to finalize the curriculum language for XI- A.

And at that point it was decided we had three classrooms, there would be 20 put in each classroom, so the number was then 60. I think what we were doing and I really wasn't -- I wasn't involved with -- Dr. Nilsen pretty much handled the book and getting information out. I was involved initially in buying, you know, sample copies that the teachers reviewed.

And I don't even remember -- I can't tell you, I mean, I don't think we bought the books through the district. I'm pretty sure we didn't. But I think we were getting information for someone to do that, though.

Q. But you were the ones researching for the anonymous donors, where they could get the book and how much it would cost?

A. Well, we were researching this to give to our board members to give to whoever was going to buy these books, yeah.

Q. And you were doing that on the instruction of the board, doing this research?

A. Well, Dr. Nilsen told me to do it.

Q. So Dr. Nilsen told you, find out how much 50 copies --

A. Right, right.

Q. So that the donor will know how much it will cost?

A. Right.

THE COURT: Mr. Rothschild, we can stay with this from my standpoint. I don't know if you have any shot at getting finished today, but I'm willing to --

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I don't, Your Honor. This would be a perfectly good --

THE COURT: Well, no, I think we ought to go a little longer. Why don't we go to quarter of and use the time. I think we should.


THE COURT: And even if you don't get finished today, let's call it quits at 4:45.



Q. Now, we talked about all the problems that the teachers had with Pandas, faulty science, outdated, not appropriate grade level. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you and Dr. Nilsen knew about that. Right?

A. I don't know if I -- I knew about that. I don't know if I shared that information with him or not.

Q. And the board members on the curriculum committee, they were aware of that, as well, that that was the teachers' position?

A. I believe we talked about that at the August meeting when we were looking at how they use the book.

Q. And despite all these misgivings by the teachers, Dr. Nilsen sought to have it accepted as a reference text as a way of compromising with Mr. Buckingham. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the teachers acquiesced to that?

A. Yes.

Q. They certainly weren't advocates, were they?

A. Their first preference would be, right, not to have the book.

Q. So if anyone suggests that Pandas was a good addition to the science curriculum because the teachers accepted it, that wouldn't be a fair representation of the teachers' position, would it?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. If anyone were to suggest that they felt Pandas was a good addition to the science curriculum because the teachers accepted it, that's not really a fair representation of the teachers' position. Would you agree?

A. I'd agree that the teachers, in looking at getting Miller and Levine, the teachers agreed to have Pandas placed in the curriculum as a -- placed in the classroom at this point we're talking, we're not doing the curriculum yet, at least placed in the classroom as a set of reference texts. Their preference would be not to have to do that, but they would do that so that they could get Miller and Levine.

Q. There's absolutely no way you could construe the teachers as having supported Pandas in any way. Correct?

A. I think that's correct, yeah.

Q. Let's move forward to the development of curriculum change. Alan Bonsell wanted something put in the curriculum that would require teachers to teach that there are holes in Darwin's theory, wanted the teachers to show the flaws?

A. Yeah, gaps and problems specifically.

Q. And, again, Mr. Bonsell never paid any attention to any other aspect of the science curriculum in that way, correct, identifying gaps and problems?

A. No, I don't remember anything else.

Q. Now, as we've looked at, you wrote the first draft of the change to the biology curriculum. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you showed it to the teachers?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the version that didn't have intelligent design or Pandas in it. Correct?

A. The teachers, what they returned to me?

Q. Why don't we get the exhibit.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. I'm showing you what's been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit P73, and you probably looked at a similar document with a defendants' exhibit number on it. Now, this has a memo that says, Here's the recommended change for biology, the changes were reviewed by the science department. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you wrote the first draft of this document. Correct?

A. Right. Coming out of the August meeting, I was directed to work with the teachers to develop curriculum language. So to get the ball rolling, I wrote a first draft and sent it to them, and they returned this to me.

Q. Now, when you say "they returned this," are you talking about the next page which has the Bates stamp 29?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I'm a little confused because I understood from your testimony earlier that you were the only person who created this format of document.

A. Right.

Q. So the teachers didn't actually go into the system and create this physical document. Right?

A. No, they would have given me this language and I would have put it into the curriculum.

Q. And your suggestion that we haven't seen your initial draft, there's something different about this draft, which says, Students will be made aware of gaps in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution? Is there something different between this language and the language you proposed?

A. Yeah, that's what I don't know. There's only one -- the curriculum is kept in my secretary's computer. And there's only one version of that, because you don't want to keep multiple edits of the curriculum where you don't know which one is the proper one.

So whenever I would give her language to change it, she would write over the existing document, and unless there was a hard copy produced of what was prior, I wouldn't have a record of that.

Q. So you don't know whether there was any difference between what we see on the Bates stamped 29 and the language you initially proposed?

A. That's correct.

Q. Or maybe they changed -- added a period to --

A. I don't know -- I'm not sure what I would have given them.

Q. And certainly it is the case that you started the process? They didn't say, here's something we want in the curriculum, you said, here's a curriculum change, and then they reviewed it. Right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's true of every aspect of this change to the teaching of evolution, none of this was initiated by the teachers, they were reacting to it?

A. Well, I created the draft language for the teachers to review, but when it comes to the statement, that was something they requested that they have created for them.

Q. We'll get to that.

A. Okay.

Q. But in terms of these curriculum changes, you were the one who started the ball rolling by coming up with a curriculum change?

A. Right. They're not initiating these changes.

Q. Thank you. And you were initiating them because you were doing what you understood was your assignment from the board. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then we have this meeting on October 7th, right, the meeting of the curriculum committee on October 7th? Right?

A. Okay.

Q. You know what we're talking about there?

A. With just the board curriculum committee?

Q. Correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And the teachers were not invited to that meeting. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, in your experience at Dover, usually it's the teachers who develop curriculum. Isn't that right?

A. Well, they did. And the purpose of that meeting was, I had the teachers' recommendation, I had the language they wanted. What I had prior to October 7th is, I had Mr. Buckingham suggesting some language, Mrs. Brown suggesting some language, and Mr. Bonsell suggesting some language. And what I needed to get was a consensus from them to agree on the language that they wanted so that I could then take that back to the teachers for the teachers to review.

Q. And you used the phrase "what the teachers wanted." It wasn't really what the teachers wanted, it's what the teachers had agreed to. Isn't that fair? When we're talking about the teachers' version here, it's not what the teachers wanted, it's what they agreed to in response to the proposal you had initiated?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there was a discussion of the various proposals from the administration and teachers and the various board members, correct, at this October 7th meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And ultimately the result from the board curriculum committee married the language of Mr. Bonsell, which had gaps and problems, with the language of Mr. Buckingham, which had intelligent design. Correct?

A. Right.

Q. And this was all decided in a matter of minutes. Correct?

A. It was decided fairly quickly.

Q. I think in your deposition you said a matter of minutes.

A. I don't remember if I did, but I know it didn't take long to come to an agreement on what the language was.

Q. Now, fast-forwarding to October 18th, as you said, Mrs. Spahr got up at the meeting to speak up against the change recommended by the board curriculum committee. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And she gave a somewhat lengthy speech?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't stand up and disagree with what she had said?

A. Right.

Q. And neither did Dr. Nilsen?

A. Yeah, that's correct.

Q. And, in fact, you supported the teachers' position at that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. You understand that they're the science education experts in the district?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also recognized, as you testified earlier, that they were acting in the best interests of the students. Isn't that fair?

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt the board should have approved one of the compromised resolutions that the teachers agreed to?

A. Yes.

Q. And not the change that included intelligent design?

A. Correct.

Q. You still feel that way, don't you, Mr. Baksa?

A. Yes.

Q. At the board meeting there was -- no outside speakers were brought in to discuss the relative merits of intelligent design. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Nobody on the board explained to other members what intelligent design is or why they should support it?

A. I don't remember hearing that.

Q. Or why it would improve science education?

A. I don't remember hearing that.

Q. Nobody explained what intelligent design's status was in the scientific community. Correct?

A. Which board meeting?

Q. October 18th.

A. In October? After Mrs. Spahr and Mrs. Miller talked, pretty much the discussion just dealt with amending the original language. I don't remember --

Q. So nobody except for, perhaps, the science teachers who opposed intelligent design explained what intelligent design's status was in the scientific community?

A. Right, I don't remember any talk of that.

Q. And other than Pandas, you're not aware of any materials that were distributed that would aid the board in their decision. Correct?

A. Yeah, I know we made Of Pandas available to them. I'm not sure if the DVDs from Discovery were available or not.

Q. And that's all you can think of?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the only change that did get made to the curriculum committee recommendation was the statement, Origins of life is not taught. Correct?

A. Could you ask again?

Q. The only change that was made before the final vote to the board curriculum recommendation was the note, Origins of life is not taught?

A. Right, that was added from C to A.

Q. And, again, by "origins of life," you understand that to mean that the teachers don't teach macroevolution or speciation. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's your understanding of how the board understands that term. Correct?

A. I think so, yeah.

Q. You can't teach them, for example, that men have common ancestors with other nonhuman creatures. Correct?

A. I don't remember Mr. Bonsell using that specific language. I do have language like that from my notes from Mr. -- meeting with Mr. Buckingham. That's one of his concerns.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, this would be a good time. I won't be able to finish this afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. I had hoped we would finish with Mr. Baksa today. I'm sure that was his fondest hope, as well. And we did not. So I think there's going to have to be some discussion, given the time constraints that we've imposed on ourselves -- and I would urge you to discuss that as we get into tomorrow. I think that the end point, in any case, for testimony has got to be right around the noon hour on Friday. So carve it up as you wish, but I want everybody to have a fair exchange. So we don't want an imbalance between direct and cross-examination. Give that some thought, because we have two additional witnesses, as I understand, Mr. Gillen. Is that correct?

MR. GILLEN: You are correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I don't know how much longer we have, but there's obviously the potential for redirect with -- and some recross, I guess, with Mr. Baksa. So we'll try to finish him up. Now, I do have one matter I have to attend to tomorrow, so we're going to start at 9:15 tomorrow, and that further takes some time out, but we can probably capture that at the back end or have a shortened lunch, if we need to, tomorrow.

And I assume that we're going to start with Mr. Baksa tomorrow and not call him out of order, which I'm sure, besides being illogical, probably violates some convention against torture in making him come back again. Anything further for today?


THE COURT: All right. We'll be in recess until 9:15 tomorrow morning, and we'll reconvene with Mr. Baksa's continued testimony at that time.

(Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned.)


Home Browse Search Feedback Other Links The FAQ Must-Read Files Index Evolution Creationism Age of the Earth Flood Geology Catastrophism Debates
Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates