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 4 (September 29), PM Session, Part 2


THE COURT: As a matter of housekeeping, before Mr. Harvey commences again his direct examination, we'll note that we may not need to go to 5 today, but we'll go no later than 5 today, depending on the witnesses presented by the Plaintiff. Tomorrow, we will start our session at 12:30 p.m., by agreement with counsel, and it is not anticipated, for everybody's benefit, I will say, it is not anticipated that that will be a long session. It will be a rather abbreviated session tomorrow afternoon. Likely, it will not last more than several hours. Counsel, is that a fair statement, at best? It may be shorter than that.

MR. GILLEN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Then we'll be in recess Monday and Tuesday of next week, and we'll reconvene on Wednesday of next week. So with that, Mr. Harvey, you may continue.



Q. Do you recall an executive session of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors prior to its meeting on October the 18th of 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall what Mr. Buckingham said during that executive session?

A. I recall at least some of the things he said. Immediately before we adjourned to go to our regular meeting, just prior to that, Dr. Nilsen had handed out two alternate -- our executive session was called for a non-related matter, but while we were in there, he handed out an appended version from the teachers -- the teachers had learned about three and a half hours prior to our meeting that we were to vote on this curriculum change that night.

And they had, the science department had put together a motion that they felt they could live with, a compromise resolution, if you want to call it that. The administration had also put together a compromise resolution on their own. He handed us copies of both those.

Now we had in our board packets a compromise resolution from the administration that had been composed the week before. So we had two compromised resolutions from the administration, one from the science department at the high school, and, of course, then we had the motion that Mr. Buckingham read.

And as Dr. Nilsen -- Dr. Nilsen handed these to us. And we were starting out the door, and Mr. Buckingham said, let's get this thing done. We know what we've got to do. This is taking too long already. Words to that effect. I'm not absolutely certain of the wording. But that was the gist of it.

And I looked at him. I said, well, see you on the other side, Bill, and we went out the door.

Q. Now at the board meeting, do you recall there being a public comment section, portion of the meeting?

A. Prior to the meeting? There always was. I don't recall it.

Q. I'm talking about at the October 18th board meeting, do you recall the public comments section?

A. Well, okay, we have on the agenda a section listed for public comment. I don't recall what occurred during that. I had also known that during discussion on agenda items, the public is allowed to join in the discussion. That, I remember very vividly. But I don't recall the public comment section at the beginning. I know we had one. We always did. But I don't recall it.

Q. So you recall members of the public speaking up?

A. Yes, during the discussion on the intelligent design motion, yes.

Q. Approximately how many members of the public spoke up?

A. I couldn't tell you. I know for a fact that Bertha Spahr and Jennifer Miller both spoke several times.

Q. Were they science teachers at the high school?

A. Yes, yes, they were science teachers at the high school.

Q. Of the people that spoke up, were -- could you say most were in favor or against or could you approximate?

A. The ones I recall were against. I can't say -- I really haven't given this a -- this part of it a great he'll deal of thought. I remember the science teachers very vividly because they were making points that I felt needed to be made. I'm not going to say that no one from the public didn't come up and -- I can't remember.

Q. Now did any of the board members who supported the proposed change to the biology curriculum explain their reasons for supporting the proposed change at that meeting on October 18th?

A. Not to my recollection, no.

Q. Do you know if any of the members who supported the proposed change explained their reasons for supporting it at any other meetings?

A. Absolutely not. Of that, I'm absolutely certain.

Q. Who made the motion to introduce to change the biology curriculum?

A. Mr. Buckingham.

Q. And tell us happened to that motion?

A. He made the motion. It was seconded. And Mr. Weinrich immediately proposed to amend the motion. And under parliamentary procedure, the most recent motion must always be voted on first. So we immediately went to voting on Mr. Weinrich's proposal, which was to table Mr. Buckingham's motion for further study.

And during that discussion period, I proposed that we form a committee of teachers, administrators, members of the public, and I volunteered to be on the committee, you know, to look into this, because I viewed this as a radical change with long-term ramifications, and I felt we were being way too hasty. We had, in fact, violated about every policy we had on this issue.

Q. Tell us happened to that motion to table?

A. It was voted down, 6 to 3.

Q. Were there any other motions other than the motion that had been made by Mr. Buckingham?

A. There were at least a dozen, possibly more than that. Mr. Weinrich proposed one amendment to the motion after another. He began by introducing -- I believe the first he introduced was the teachers' compromise resolution. That was voted down, 6-3.

He brought in both the administrations. They were both voted down, 6-3. He proposed motions of his own. But all of his motions, while they essentially said, everything that was in Mr. -- the motion that Mr. Buckingham had read, the critical difference was, and this was true of all the compromises, none of them mentioned the words intelligent design.

And Mr. Weinrich, I could tell what he was doing. He was essentially composing their resolution as word-for-word as he could without using those two words. And they were all voted down 6 to 3.

Q. Did any of the motions introduced that evening ultimately pass?

A. Two of them.

Q. Explain that.

A. I introduced -- at one point, the teachers were arguing -- Mrs. Shaberlig or Mrs. Miller, I can't remember which, were arguing that, by placing mention of intelligent design in the instructional curriculum, which is what they were doing, they felt -- past precedent was, anything in the instructional curriculum, it was reserved strictly for subjects that are to be taught.

And their objection to these words was, you're putting it in the instructional curriculum. We feel that this obligates us to teach it. And Mrs. Geesey and, I believe, Mr. Buckingham also both said, that's not what we -- we're not asking you to teach it. But they would not take it out of the instructional curriculum either.

So I lifted a phrase from the teachers' resolution, the last -- I forget the rest of the resolution. But the last words were, note: Origins of life will not be taught. And I proposed a motion that these words be lifted from the teachers' and drafted onto Mr. Buckingham's, and that passed.

Q. And can you tell us who voted in favor of that and who voted against?

A. No, I can't. I only know that it passed. It may very well have been unanimous. I don't know. But it certainly passed.

Q. But, I mean, the ultimate resolution to approve Mr. Buckingham's motion?

A. The only other resolution that passed was the amended -- it was Mr. Buckingham's resolution plus the note: Origins of life will not be taught. And Mr. Bonsell, Mr. Buckingham, Mrs. Cleaver, Mrs. Geesey, Mrs. Yingling, and Mrs. Harkins all voted for it. And Mr. Weinrich, Mrs. Brown, and myself, voted against it.

Q. Now you're referring to the ultimate motion?

A. The ultimate motion, yeah. That's the other motion that passed that night.

Q. Your wife resigned at that meeting?

A. That was the very next order of business. She asked for the permission to speak from the chair, and she read her letter of resignation.

Q. Did you resign as well?

A. The moment she was finished, I also asked for permission to speak from the chair, and I resigned as well.

Q. And can you tell us why you resigned?

A. Yes. I felt that the board had vastly overstepped any promises it had ever made to the voters of the district. They had never run on this issue. This had never been a campaign issue.

I felt that they had violated their own precedent. We had never ever passed anything without going over the possible financial costs in great and excruciating detail on that board. And I'm talking about things as small as selling the right to hang signs on our high school football field. That occasioned about a two and a half hour -- no, it wasn't that long. It seemed like it -- a very long debate over what was a couple hundred dollars.

This board watched every nickel like a hawk. And on this one occasion, they did not want to hear any talk about possible costs, because I brought up the possibility, I said, if we are sued, and if we lose, we will have to pay the other side's legal costs. Have you thought about that?

And Mr. Buckingham looked at me and said, it's a good thing you weren't around during the American Revolution, Mr. Brown, or we'd still have a queen. And --

Q. And that was said at the meeting on October the 18th?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Following the meeting on October the 18th, did you have a conversation with Mr. Bonsell, this is after the meeting on October 18th, about the curriculum change that actually had been passed?

A. Yes. It was, I believe, in November.

Q. Where did it take place?

A. At one of the -- at one of their meetings.

Q. Can you tell us what he said to you on that occasion?

A. We got to discussing what had happened, why I had resigned. And he was not very happy with me. And I accepted that. I wasn't real happy either. And he stated to me that, you know, I know -- how did he put that? I know part of this by heart, and then that leads into it -- I know Bill made a lot of stupid statements, he said, but I thought you were on board with us.

MR. HARVEY: No further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Cross examination, Mr. Gillen.

MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.



Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Brown.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Mr. Brown, Pat Gillen. I took your deposition. I'm an attorney for the Defendants. I'm going to ask you a few questions about your testimony here today, if I can get organized?

A. Do I have to wait? I guess I do.

THE COURT: Sadly for you, you do.


Q. I believe at the beginning of your testimony, you recounted a conversation that you had with Mr. -- or you had with Mr. Bonsell when he was running with your wife for office, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your recollection is that this conversation took place, and he expressed an interest in getting the Bible in school and teaching creationism, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your wife ran with them nonetheless, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Your wife has testified to an October or November 2003 board meeting which had to do with the pledge. Do you recall that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. I don't want to be unfair to you here, but there was -- the issue at hand that produced -- there was an issue at hand that produced some public controversy, correct?

A. Are you talking about the pledge? Yes, a great deal of public controversy.

Q. That issue was whether or not the board should pass the resolution in favor of keeping the phrase under God in the pledge, correct?

A. I wouldn't use the word resolution. What they wanted to pass -- they wanted to draft a letter of support to send to the Supreme Court, which was at that time considering hearing a challenge to it. I don't know if I'd call it a resolution or not. But that was the gist of it.

They were going to draft a letter of support for leaving the pledge as it is now and send it to the Supreme Court.

Q. Now you took a position in public against that, however you'd like to phrase it, resolution or --

A. You can call it a resolution. That's fine with me. I don't care.

Q. Let's do that, because I believe it was a resolution to send the letter?

A. You're the lawyer, not me. I'm not going to argue with you.

Q. And you voted against that, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did. To be technically, I abstained. I did not vote against it. I abstained.

Q. The reason you abstained is, as you testified in your deposition, because you felt you had a message from on high that you shouldn't support that resolution, correct?

A. Yes, that's the way I would put it, yes.

Q. So in that particular occasion, you took a position on a matter that the board was addressing because you thought you had a message from on high?

A. I woke up the Sunday before that vote with the phrase, one nation under Allah, in my head and I couldn't get rid of it. I could not get rid of it. And I had to teach a Sunday School lesson that day, which is not the best way to go into teaching a Sunday school lesson.

And it was that afternoon I came to the conclusion that, you know, because I always told my Sunday School class, when in doubt, go with the Golden Rule. I was like, oh, one nation under Allah. I would not want to have to stand up there and say, one nation under Allah.

So maybe somebody else does not want to have to stand up there and say, one nation under God. And under the Golden Rule, I felt compelled to say, I can't support this. I'm opting out.

Q. And as you understand the Golden Rule, that's a religious teaching of Jesus Christ, correct?

A. It is, yes.

Q. Now on that resolution, Sheila Harkins also abstained with you, correct?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. There's been some testimony about the input from the public, and I think that you've testified in your deposition that you found Barrie Callahan irritating, is that correct?

A. I did make that statement, yes.

Q. And you said that, at times in her appearance to the board, she was politically motivated?

A. That was my opinion, yes.

Q. There's been testimony today about some comments made by an individual named Max Pell at a board meeting touching on the selection of the Biology text. Did you testify on that today?

A. Testify? You mean comment?

Q. Concerning that exchange?

A. At the very end of the conversation, I felt that Max Pell had been kind of ganged up on. As I said, Noel Weinrich, Alan Bonsell, and Bill Buckingham were literally taking turns arguing with him. And what I stated -- at the end of the discussion, I leaned into the mic and said, of course, the full board will take a vote on this Biology textbook.

And I just -- I felt sorry for the guy. But also, I was stating a fact, you know. Mr. Buckingham would not make the decision himself whether we bought the book or not. It would be the full board that would do it. So I stated that as sort of -- because I felt sorry for Mr. Pell, that's why.

Q. And what you were trying to convey to Mr. Pell is that the committee chairman might recommend a course of action, but it's the board that has to approve the final course of action, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified that you suggested intelligent design at one point, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And at the time you did that, you thought you were on safe legal ground, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You've also testified that you believe Alan Bonsell was skeptical about some of the claims made for evolutionary theory?

A. Skeptical, yeah, that's a good word.

Q. But you said that you saw his objections as reasonable objections concerning things such as gaps in the fossil record, etc.?

A. Yes. From the reasonable, from the standpoint, they did not cross the line into endorsing the -- the truth of the matter is, I had forgotten, when I gave my deposition, I had forgotten some of the statements that Alan made. I better get -- I'm going to have to clear that up now.

After my deposition -- well, as you know from -- you conducted that deposition. There were a number of subjects where I was very vague and very fuzzy, and that has continued -- I'll tell you, my greatest fear is, I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning, assuming we get done today, and realize I forgot something else important. And I'm not kidding.

I've been feeling that way for weeks. I had literally forgotten Alan's endorsement of creationism when I gave my deposition. It was not until I saw that document the other week, the one that was referred to earlier. And I was like, and my initial reaction was, would Alan say that? And then I started to think. It was like, wait a minute. And then I remembered that, you know, the 50/50, the half and half, creationism, evolution, and it came back to me.

So I would have to stand here and tell you, yes, my deposition that I gave you was partial. It was not complete. It was not full. I did not recall that when I gave that to you.

Q. And that's fair enough, Mr. Brown. I took your deposition on May 17th, 2005, correct?

A. I'm taking your word for the date.

Q. And let me -- I can represent that to you. If you want, I'll --

A. That's quite all right. I'm willing to take your word for it.

Q. Okay. And at that time, you didn't remember those comments on the part of Mr. Bonsell, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. In fact, in your deposition, you testified that you had no reason to believe that Mr. Bonsell's support for intelligent design theory was based on anything other than the fact that he saw it as two scientific theories, correct? Do you recall that?

A. No, I don't recall saying. I'm not going to say, I didn't, but I don't recall it.

Q. Well, as you sit here today, do you believe that Mr. Bonsell's support for intelligent design theory was because he basically believed they were two scientific theories? I mean, you supported intelligent design?

A. Well, until I learned a little bit more about it, I did, yes. I can't -- I cannot state for a fact one way or the other. I will say this. I know Alan did not believe in evolution. What his opinions on intelligent design are, I do not know. I don't. I have no idea why he supports intelligent design. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Now we have had testimony about the purchase of Of Pandas and People, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified to the manner in which Mr. Buckingham tried to tie together the purchase of the Biology text recommended by the science faculty, Miller and Levine Biology, with the purchase of Of Pandas and People, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But Mr. Bonsell was against that use of taxpayers' money, is that correct?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. And on August 2nd, 2004, when Bill Buckingham tried to link purchase of the Biology text to purchase of the text Of Pandas, Mr. Bonsell did not capitulate to Mr. Buckingham's demand, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you testified that, although Alan Bonsell might have had some interest in creationism, he wouldn't violate the law. He's not a bomb thrower. Is that correct?

A. I testified that that was my opinion of Mr. Bonsell. And I would certainly hope that I am correct in my opinion.

Q. You remember, you said that Sheila Harkins discussed the book Of Pandas and People with you?

A. Yes.

Q. And she expressed the notion that it would be good to teach another theory of evolution to you?

A. I don't remember testifying to that. She may have said that. I'm not sure. I know she -- I remember her saying, read the book, read the book, and we should buy the book. But I'm not positive that she said it -- she may have. I don't remember at this point in time.

Q. I understand.

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What page do you want me to look on?


Q. I'll get you there.

A. I have a feeling I'm about to make a liar of myself.

Q. That's not true. You said you weren't quite sure. Page 123.

A. Okay, 123. She wants to buy a book we don't need. She has been fighting --

Q. Hold on there, Mr. Brown, if you would, please.

A. You're going to read it for me. Good. Go ahead.

THE COURT: Mr. Brown, hang on. He'll get a question on the floor.


THE COURT: Better not to anticipate what Mr. Gillen is going to do. He'll guide you through this.


Q. First thing I'd ask you to do, Mr. Brown, is look at line 22 there. There's a question on line 20. That will give you some context.

A. But doggone it. What was the thing she wanted to do that caused me to tell her we will get sued? Okay. That's not very helpful. What was the thing she wanted to do that caused me to tell -- can we go to the next page?

Q. You can indeed. My question to you is, Mrs. Harkins told you that she thought the book of Pandas was useful because it presented another theory of evolution, is that correct, Mr. Brown?

A. I -- okay. Reading this, I do remember that she said she wanted to purchase it as a supplemental text. That has come back to me, yes. My memory is not the world's best.

Q. If you look at page 123, line 7?

A. You're going to do this to me again. Line 7. Okay. Apparently, I remembered it then. She said it presented another theory of evolution. Fine. There it is. I said it. I must have remembered it then. And again, this is how memories work. Sometimes they need jogging. I'm sorry.

Q. Understood. But your testimony that day was truthful and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes. It is today, too. It may not seem that way, but it is.

Q. And during this conversation, you told Mrs. Harkins that you believed that Mr. Buckingham's comments had poisoned the well, so to speak, is that correct?

A. Yes, I did use the phrase poisoned.

Q. Mrs. Harkins told you, Bill isn't the whole board?

A. Yes, she did say that.

Q. In that way, she echoed the same sentiments you expressed to Mr. Pell in 2004 when the Biology text was discussed, is that correct?

A. I guess you could put it that way, yes.

Q. Now subsequently, Dr. Nilsen told the board that the teachers had agreed to use the -- to have the book placed in the classroom as a reference text, is that correct, Mr. Brown?

A. Yes, that was -- in fact, it was carried in the local papers when they made that statement.

Q. And at the time, it was regarded as a reasonable resolution of --

A. We got accolades from both papers for having reached a compromise acceptable to all sides, yes.

Q. Now there's been testimony concerning the October 18th, 2004, board meeting at which the board adopted the curriculum at issue in this litigation. And I want to ask you, do you recall, as you sit here today, Mr. Bonsell calling you prior to that meeting?

A. Okay. Mr. Bonsell -- all right. I don't recall Mr. Bonsell calling. I remember my wife telling me that Mr. Bonsell had called and wanted me to call him back. And I remember thinking -- well, I asked her why. And one of the things she brought up was, well, Alan asked whether you supported voting for Sheila Harkins for president or voting for him for a second consecutive term as president.

I was like, I do not want to get into this. And also, I had been over to his house not too long ago -- not too long prior to that to look at an electrical job that he had coming up, and that was also an issue. There were a couple of issues. Nothing was, you know, I don't recall that there was anything in there that would really be pertinent to this issue, but then I didn't recall Sheila saying that it presented another theory of evolution, did I?

So I don't know how good my memory is. But these are the things I'm remembering as I say this. I remember it was about the upcoming election for board president when I did not want to get into it. It was about an electrical job. And at this point, Casey and I were both seriously considering resigning the board, and I thought, if I'm quitting the board, I do not want to be in Alan's house. That would just be too creepy for me. I couldn't deal with it. At any rate, I did not call him back, no.

Q. You didn't call him back, correct?

A. I did not call him back.

Q. So you don't really know why he called you, do you?

A. Other than what my wife told me, no.

Q. Now you said that during the discussion at the October 18th, 2004, board meeting, the teachers took the position that they did not teach origins of life, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've testified that there was a question posed by the teachers concerning whether the change to the curriculum would require them to teach origins of life, correct?

A. They didn't pose it as a question. They flat out stated that it was their opinion that, by placing it in the instructional curriculum, they were -- I believe they used the word compelled -- compelled to teach it.

Q. And Mr. Bonsell said, we are not going to require you to teach it, correct?

A. I don't remember -- I can't say he didn't. I remember Heather Geesey definitely, and I believe Mr. Buckingham. I don't recall Alan saying it, but he may have. I don't remember.

Q. You remember Mr. Buckingham saying, we're not going to require you to teach it, correct?

A. I'm pretty certain he did, yes. I'm absolutely certain of Mrs. Geesey. She said it more than once.

Q. And your testimony here today is that you moved the note onto the board curriculum version for the purpose of ensuring that the teachers would not be required to teach origins of life?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you did that, it was your understanding that intelligent design addressess the origins of life?

A. I would have to say that intelligent design doesn't really address much but the origins of life. That's my understanding of it.

Q. And so your purpose was, by appending the note, as you recall, to the curriculum, your goal was to ensure that, on the one hand, it was referenced in the curriculum, and on the other hand, teachers would not be required to teach it, is that correct?

A. I wasn't absolutely certain it would -- the truth of the matter is, the board can always change their motion. But my intention at the time was to put that up as a firewall in case it ever came up in the future, that you would have that safeguard, because quite frankly, I didn't -- by that point in time, I did not take Mr. Buckingham's word for anything anymore.

Q. So in so doing, Mr. Brown, the net result was to ensure that students would be made aware of intelligent design, but it would not be taught, is that correct? That was your goal?

A. No, that was not my goal. My goal was that we drop the subject completely. This was what I viewed at the time as at least something to prevent it being taught. I would not say my goal was to make them aware of it. At that point, I didn't want anything to do with it. My goal would have been for the -- to convince a couple of board members, or even one to be exact, to vote against the motion altogether. That would have been my real goal.

Q. One of the objections you had is that you thought the curriculum change would complicate contract negotiations with the teachers?

A. Yes. As a school board member, I viewed the teachers' contract as vastly more important than what we said in biology class. All politics is local.

Q. I wanted to take an opportunity to show you something, Mr. Brown. Just if you would -- may I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. I misspoke, Mr. Brown. 64, please.

A. I was going to say, this is after I was off the board. This isn't going to be much help.

Q. It's not going to be that easy. I'm sorry, Your Honor, this is not more high tech, but this is Defendant's Exhibit 65 -- 64.

A. Okay. This would be the agenda for that night. What specifically, because this is basically what came in our board packet that night?

Q. Good question, Mr. Brown. If you page through Exhibit 64, you'll see in the lower right-hand corner, page stamp numbers. I'd ask you to turn to the page of Exhibit 64 that has the number 159 stamped in the lower right-hand corner.

A. My goodness. Either I remembered -- okay. I stand corrected. I thought I had made that motion. I had suggested it. And I honestly thought that I had, you know, that I had made the motion. It says here, Mr. Bonsell offered the amendment. I seconded it.

Q. That's what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Brown. Not taking anything away from you.

A. I remember making -- suggesting that we could do that, and it just followed in my mind that I had actually made the motion. I'm sorry. I'm trying to take it away from Alan here. Sorry.

Q. For the record, we're referring to that portion of Exhibit 64, page stamped 159, with the number 6, correct, Mr. Brown?

A. Yes.

Q. It's the heading 6, and it says, Mr. Bonsell offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Brown to add the note from Exhibit X1C as follows, the origin of life is not taught to Exhibit X1A planned instruction curriculum guide, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you look down that page, Mr. Brown, I believe it will indicate that that motion passed unanimously?

A. Okay. Yeah.

Q. Do you see that?

A. Yeah.

Q. Am I correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. I am sorry. I've been hogging credit for introducing that motion. I honestly thought I had because I had proposed that we do that when they kept saying, we don't want to talk -- but the actual motion, no, it wasn't mine.

Q. So on the actual night of the curriculum change when it was being contemplated by the board, you suggested a change that was designed to ensure the teachers' concerns were laid and the attendum to the curriculum would ensure that they didn't have to change origins of life?

A. Right.

Q. Intelligent design, correct?

A. I did not state this. This is only what I was thinking when I proposed it. I'm not going to say Alan was thinking the same way I was. I have no idea. But Alan did indeed propose it, and I seconded it, and there it is. And that is my mistake. I am sorry.

Q. That's quite all right. There's nothing to be sorry for. No further questions, Your Honor.

MR. HARVEY: Just a couple questions, Your Honor.



Q. Mr. Brown, please take a moment to look at what is in your notebook and marked as P-21?

A. This same book?

MR. HARVEY: Can I help him, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may. You may approach.

THE WITNESS: Oh, please. I need all I can get. All right. This book? I got more material up here -- yes. All right.


Q. Is this the document that you looked at that refreshed your recollection --

A. Yes.

Q. -- about what Mr. Bonsell said at the board retreat on January the 9th of 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you see this document that's been marked as P-21 at your deposition that Mr. Gillen took in this case?

A. No. No, I did not.

Q. Were you aware that it had not even been produced by the Defendants in this case at that time?

A. No, I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.

Q. Please turn to the next document in here, P-25.

A. Yes.

Q. Is this the document that you looked at that refreshed your recollection about what Mr. Bonsell said on March the 26th of 2003, at the board retreat?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you -- did you see this document at your deposition that Mr. Gillen conducted in May of this year?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware that it wasn't even produced by the Defendants as of that date?

A. Well, I'm aware that it wasn't -- well, it certainly wasn't produced to me.

Q. And one final question. I forgot to ask you, what you do for a living? You made a reference to doing an electrical job. So is it safe to conclude you're an electrician?

A. I like to think so. I haven't burned any houses down yet.

MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you sure?

MR. GILLEN: Mr. Brown, I find a very interesting character, but I will not question him further today.

THE COURT: Mr. Brown, contrary to your worst fears, that ends your testimony, and you may step down. There is an end. We have for Mr. Brown one exhibit that was referred to that I'm aware of. That would be by Mr. Gillen on cross examination. That is D-64, which would be the school board minutes of October 18, '04, and specifically, page 159 within D-64.

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I move the admission of the entire document. I believe we stipulated to it, didn't we, Eric?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I believe that's right.

THE COURT: D-64 then is admitted in its entirely. And we will take the Plaintiffs' next witness.

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, Plaintiffs call for their next witness, Mr. Fred Callahan.

THE COURT: All right.



having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

THE WITNESS: Frederick B. Callahan. F-R-E-D-E-R-I-C-K. B. C-A-L-L-A-H-A-N.

THE COURT: You may proceed.



Q. Mr. Callahan, are you a Plaintiff in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Where do you live?

A. 2830 Skytop Trail, Dover.

Q. Are you married to Aralene Barrie Callahan?

A. I am.

Q. How long have you lived in Dover?

A. 29 years.

Q. And we learned about your children when your wife testified. You were in the courtroom at that point?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of your children is now in the 11th grade at Dover High School, isn't that correct?

A. She is.

Q. That's your daughter, Katie?

A. Yes.

Q. Please just tell us briefly what your education is?

A. I graduated from West York High School in 1966 and Ursinus College in 1970.

Q. And could you please tell us what you do for a living?

A. I work for Colony Papers, Incorporated, in York.

Q. And what do you do?

A. I'm the president of it.

Q. And do you recall attending a board meeting of the Dover Area School District on June the 14th of 2004?

A. I do.

Q. Why did you attend that meeting?

A. My wife told me to attend it.

Q. Had you previously attended meetings of the Dover Area School District board of directors?

A. I had intermittently. I wasn't a regular attender, but I would go periodically.

Q. Do you remember the -- whether that meeting had a lot or -- how many people were at that meeting?

A. It was quite crowded. Many meetings that I attended were very sparsely attended where you might have 20 people. But the room was really fairly crowded. I'm not much of a very skilled, I don't think, at estimating crowds, but I would say there were at least 100 people there, maybe 150.

Q. Do you remember Charlotte Buckingham speaking at that meeting?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Was that toward the beginning of the meeting or end of the meeting?

A. I think she was the first speaker under public comment.

Q. Do you remember what she said?

A. It was a -- well, as it was testified to earlier, it was a real religious polemic. It went on for -- I would have guessed, for 15, 20 minutes. It was tantamount to a religious sermon, I would say.

Q. Now do you remember Mr. Buckingham making something akin to an apology at that meeting?

A. My memory is that he did that just prior to her speaking. There had been a meeting June 7th, and I guess he said some things at that meeting that he felt compelled to address. And he made, I guess what you would say was, an apology. He did not retract anything he said, but he essentially apologized if he hurt anyone's feelings, as I recall.

Q. Do you remember Mr. Buckingham saying anything in that meeting about somebody dying 2000 years ago?

A. I do. And my memory was that it was in the context of that apology. But I think I testified in my deposition, and I'll stand by the testimony in my deposition, that it would have been in response to something that was said after his wife spoke by someone else. It was, but, yeah, that was sort of a wake-up call.

Q. Do you remember -- can you tell us the words or approximate words he said?

A. Well, as testified to earlier, and I couldn't swear to the exact wording, but it was, 2000 years ago, a man died on a cross. Shouldn't we stand up for him now? Or something very close to that.

Q. Do you remember -- do you know who Bertha Spahr is?

A. Yes.

Q. Who's Bertha Spahr?

A. She is head of the science department, I believe.

Q. Do you remember her speaking at that meeting?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. She spoke in support of the Biology book which had been proposed. She gave it the endorsement of, I guess, the science department. I remember there was a committee or something that she was speaking for. It wasn't just her endorsement.

And she said that the committee felt that it handled evolution in a very sensitive way, that it was used widely in the country. I think her words were that it was the most single most widely used book in the country. She made some reference to the minimal number of pages that were devoted to evolution.

And then she also made some parting comment about just suggesting to the board that there were certain requirements that she hoped the board wouldn't -- would remember the legal requirements that they had to address as far as the state standards and something of that sort.

Q. Did she talk to -- did she say anything about it being illegal to teach creationism?

A. Well, again, I don't remember -- I don't recall her exact words, but she gave a cautionary note to the board, which was clearly directed in that vein. And again, I don't remember her exact words, but --

Q. Do you remember if Mr. Buckingham said anything in response?

A. He did. It was very -- it was, where did you get your law degree? It was a very short, pointed barb, and it was, as I recall, it was -- and you have to -- she said this with much defense to the board. You know, this was not a -- her comments were done in a very respectful manner.

And I thought his rejoinder to her was just a -- I'd have to categorize it as being a very gratuitous slap in the face. As I recall, there was an audible gasp from the crowd. It was just totally uncalled for, I think.

Q. Do you remember somebody from Americans United for Separation of Church and State speaking at that meeting?

A. Yes. I couldn't tell you the gentleman's name. I don't think I'd recognize him if he was in the courtroom. I remember he was dressed very casually. I can remember sitting there when he worked his way to the microphone. Quite candidly, I was expecting him to -- this is a terrible thing to admit -- but I was expecting him to give an endorsement to the board's actions. I don't know. He just -- his demeanor.

Q. Do you remember what he said, not exact words, but approximately what he said?

A. He was pretty straight forward. He said he represented the group that you cited, and suggested to the board that the direction they were going as far as pursuing creationism, that his organization, he felt certain, would be seeing them in court if they continued down that path.

Q. Now do you remember a Reverend Warren Eshbach speaking?

A. I do.

Q. Who is Reverend Eshbach?

A. He is a -- I understand he's a retired minister, I believe, of the United Church of the Brethren, I believe it is. His son, I came to find, was a teacher in the biology department. I'd have to say, from people that I do know that know him, he's a very well respected member of the community.

Q. Do you remember what he said at that meeting?

A. He really struck a very conciliatory tone and, I think, coming from a minister, his position was one that, I think, was very interesting and revealing. He felt that the course that the board was following was misguided, that science and faith are two different matters, that science was for the science classroom, and that faith was for church and family, and that there was a difference between the two.

And he felt that the board should be mindful of the divide that it was creating in the community, the upset that it was causing, and, you know, the board should remember that it was to serve the entire community. It was a very conciliatory, reaching out sort of message, I thought.

Q. Let's turn to a different subject. And that is, let's go forward in time a little bit to October the 18th of 2004. Did you attend a board meeting on that date?

A. I did.

Q. Did you stay for the whole meeting?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Tell us, were there people who spoke during that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And?

A. Well, I spoke fairly early on, and then I left. So, yeah.

Q. How many people spoke before you?

A. I think one or two. And quite honestly, I can't -- they may have been -- I know, I'm certain Reverend Eshbach was either following me in line or he spoke before me. But it was some of the same people, I think, that spoke the night of the 14th.

Q. Can you tell us what you said to the board on October the 18th?

A. What did I say? There are a couple of points, I guess, I wanted to make. I had been doing some reading in the interim trying to familiarize myself a little bit more with the issues. And I suggested to them that my view, intelligent design clearly strayed into the area of religion, that it was a thinly veiled, very thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into the science classroom, that it met none of the standard criteria for science, you know, that scientific method of discovery, and that it might prove to be a very slippery slope.

I can recall suggesting to them that, asking how they were going to handle that discussion. And at this point, I don't think the policy hadn't been written yet where there would be no discussion. But I suggested to them that any discussion outside of the normal religious bounds positing an intelligent designer, the discussion could very easily get to the nature of that intelligent designer, probably make a pretty strong case, that if there is an intelligent designer, the intelligent designer might not be a force for good, it might be a force for evil.

There's a tremendous amount of ill that happens in this world. And, you know, were they prepared to get into that kind of discussion in a biology classroom about the nature of this intelligent designer? And I suggested to them, I guess, I don't know if I used these words, but I thought that they were crossing a bright line that should be reserved for science.

I also then, I guess, got into the whole issue with the liability potential. I made note of the fact that they had stopped having their solicitor attend meetings. And as Mr. Brown testified to, they were doing all sorts of things that -- to trim the budget. One of the things they had done sometime within the past preceding 24 months is, they stopped having the solicitor come to their board meetings.

One of the things I suggested to them was, I thought they were being a penny wise and a pound foolish, that here they were traveling a route that quite potentially was fraught with peril, and they were cutting out field trips to save a few thousand dollars a year.

And I just couldn't see the logic in this. And I can recall asking them if they had gotten an opinion from their solicitor. I believe I was told that they had, but they didn't produce any information as far as what that was.

And then finally, I had asked Mr. Buckingham, as I recall, because there had been some reports that he had contacted some organization outside of the state and gotten some guarantees of legal support, and I can recall -- how did this go? I said something to the effect, and he wasn't forthcoming at that point, willing to admit that he had contacted anyone.

And I made mention of, you know, this California organization that's going to support your -- the school in this legal endeavor. And he jumped in and said, no, they're from Michigan, which I thought was kind of revealing. He wasn't willing to admit it, just, you know, but -- but I asked him if they had anything in writing, if the board had any contractual written document from this organization underwriting the costs. He indicated that they didn't.

And at that point, I believe I suggested that, I didn't think the board was fulfilling its fiduciary duties and was violating its oath. And I think at that time, I was told that I was out of order, and there were gavels banging. And I decided that would be a good time to leave. So I did.

Q. So you didn't hear anything that happened at the meeting after that?

A. No, other than what I read in the paper.

MR. HARVEY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. Matt, could you put up P-127? Mr. Callahan, I hand you what has been marked as P-127. It's the newsletter that was sent out by the Dover Area School District on or about February the 5th. Have you seen this before?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive this at your home?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall your reaction to this document?

A. Well, again, I thought it was -- there was obviously some cost involved in this. I went to the extent of, between my wife and myself, asking some questions and trying to determine how much the school district spent on sending this out.

I think the figure that was reported was $10,000.00. In light of some of the other things I said, I thought this was kind of revealing that the school could come up with a fairly significant amount of money to send this out.

The statement itself, I guess, the text of what they were going to, or are reading to the students, I thought was very revealing. It seems to me that they've -- my understanding of Darwin's theory, and I've done some reading. You know, I'm not a scientist.

But I guess one of the things that has impelled me to become a Plaintiff is that, Darwin's theory, from what I can determine, is -- well, it's been described to me as not one of the leading theories of science --

MR. MUISE: I object. I believe this is answered in the narrative. I think the question was regarding the newsletter.

THE COURT: I think we are getting into a narrative answer. I'll sustain the objection. Why don't you get a question on the floor, Mr. Harvey?


Q. Let's go to our final line of questions. Mr. Callahan, do you feel that, as a Plaintiff in this case, you've been harmed by the actions of the Dover Area School District and its Board of Directors?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell us how you've been harmed?

A. I think it goes to the heart of the complaint. It's a constitutional issue. I'm a tax payer in Dover. I'm a citizen of Dover. I'm a citizen of this country. I think the heart of my complaint, my wife's complaint, is that, this is just thinly veiled religion. There's no question about that in our minds.

If you were to substitute where it says, intelligent design, the word, creationism, which, in my mind, it is, there would be no question that this would be a violation of the First Amendment. I've come to accept the fact that we're in the minority view on this.

You know, I've read the polls. I think, you know, a lot of people feel that this should be, that this should be in, that it doesn't cross the line. There are a lot of people that don't care. But I do care. It crosses my line.

And, you know, I've been -- there have been letters written about the Plaintiffs. We've been called atheists, which we're not. I don't think that matters to the Court, but we're not. We're said to be intolerant of other views.

Well, what am I supposed to tolerate? A small encroachment on my First Amendment rights? Well, I'm not going to. I think this is clear what these people have done. And it outrages me.

MR. HARVEY: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Cross-examine, Mr. Muise.



Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Callahan.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. I believe you testified that you have a child that's in the 11th grade?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that your youngest child?

A. Yes, she is.

Q. And you have a -- other children as well, correct?

A. Yes, a son and daughter.

Q. And they have moved beyond the Dover Area School District?

A. Yes.

Q. Now your child that's in the 11th grade was never in the 9th grade biology class when this curriculum was -- since this curriculum has been adopted, is that correct?

A. No, she wasn't.

Q. So you have children past the point where they will have that statement read to them in the biology class, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, sir, you're a Plaintiff in this case because your wife wanted you to be, correct?

A. Well, that's probably overstretching, but family harmony is always important. She certainly didn't have to twist my arm. When this came about, and I was aware of the issues and followed it, and given the opportunity, I said, absolutely, let's do it.

Q. I believe, in your deposition, you testified it was her initiative that brought you in as a Plaintiff in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. I believe you testified, your role, as you stated in your deposition, was to say, quote, yes, okay, honey?

A. Well, that was -- I thought that that was relating to going to the meeting on June 14th, but I may be mistaken about that.

Q. You said you went to that June 14th meeting at the strong suggestion of your wife, correct?

A. Yes, she was out of town and couldn't be there.

Q. Now I want to get your -- strike that. You were in court today for the testimony that occurred, correct? In court today, you heard some of the testimony that was given?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was a lot of testimony about discussions at meetings and various accusations that were made regarding the issues that are essential in this case regarding the policy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I want to get your understanding of what though is actually going to be taking place in the 9th grade biology class at Dover High School, okay? Is it your understanding, sir, that Darwin's theory of evolution will be taught pursuant to the state academics standards in the 9th grade biology course at Dover High School?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is regardless of what was passed on the October 18th resolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any objection to the way they're going to teach Darwin's theory of evolution, as you understand it?

A. No.

Q. Sir, is it your understanding that the school district is a standards driven district, so they have to follow the Pennsylvania State Academic Standards for their curriculum?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your understanding that the Pennsylvania State Academic Standards require students to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your understanding that the class will focus its time on preparing students for a student based assessment in order to pass those standardized tests?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your understanding that that student based assessment does not include material on intelligent design?

A. Yes.

Q. So the students will not be tested on any aspect or component of intelligent design, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now this June 14th meeting that you went to at the urging of your wife, you discussed some of the controversy that was taking place, the statements and so forth, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And that was in the context of the adoption of the Biology textbook for this 9th grade biology class?

A. It was in the context of the statements that had been made on the 7th, that much of the discussion was related to the possibility that had been raised of including creationism in the curriculum.

Q. And that came in the context of adopting a new biology textbook, correct?

A. Right.

Q. The biology textbook that was being discussed at the June 14th meeting that you were at was the 2002 version of the Miller and Levine Biology book, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you which edition it was.

Q. Now isn't it true, your wife told you that the biology book that the teachers had recommended was one that was one of the most widely used biology textbooks in the country?

A. No, that information was from Bert Spahr. She delivered that in her message to the board that night.

Q. But it was your understanding though that this biology textbook was one that was widely used?

A. Yeah, well, she said that, I think, in her address to the board.

Q. Do you have any reason to doubt her?

A. No.

Q. It was your understanding that the biology department felt that this was a very appropriate book and would be beneficial for the school to purchase?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, this book is what created all this controversy and those statements that you had testified to on direct, correct?

A. Well -- repeat that question. I'm not sure.

Q. I'm sorry for not being so precise. One of the questions I had asked you about the controversy centering on the adoption of a biology text, and I believe you concurred that that was an accurate assessment?

A. Well, I think the -- I just want to clarify this and make sure that I'm understood here. I don't think the controversy was on the Miller book. Perhaps from Buckingham's standpoint. The controversy really arose from the standpoint of why the book wasn't being approved, that creationism was being considered. I mean, I think that was the controversy.

I don't think there was a tremendous amount of controversy at all really on the part of the public as far as the Miller book itself, the Miller and Levine book. I don't think that's where the controversy really resided.

Q. But the connection that you make, and the reason for the controversy, is that it's connected to what was contained in that Miller book?

A. No, I don't think the controversy -- well, I guess we're -- maybe we're saying the same thing. I think the controversy was in Buckingham's comments regarding the book and what he wanted to see in the book. There was no controversy that I could detect on the part of the general public on the book itself; maybe that it hadn't been approved, but not relating to the book itself.

Q. Is it fair to say that the controversy was related to Mr. Buckingham's objections to that book?

A. Yes.

Q. Now is it your understanding that the book that was actually adopted and purchased by the school district was the later version of that same book that Mr. Buckingham objected to?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. So this controversy, which was related to Mr. Buckingham's statements of this book, the result was, that extra book was the one that the school board voted for and spent public money and purchased, correct?

A. Right.

Q. Sir, is it your understanding that that book, the Biology book covers the theory of evolution consistent with its status in the scientific community?

A. No. Actually, I think the message that I gleaned from Bert Spahr's comments was that it was a relatively mild treatment of evolution. And I -- I don't know. You know, if Darwin's theory is the overarching critical theory that it is, you know, maybe we're making -- what I got from it is, we were making an accommodation to people's religious beliefs by the very selection of that book.

Q. If Dr. Ken Miller, the author of that book, said that that book represented a theory of evolution consistent with the standing in the scientific community, would you have any reason to doubt that?

A. No. He'd certainly know better than I would. But he's selling books in Texas, too.

Q. Now the textbook, Of Pandas and People, is it your understanding that that book was actually placed in the library at Dover High School?

A. Yes.

Q. It was never made a required text for the students?

A. Not as it ended up, no.

Q. And it was put in the library so that students could look at it if the student chose to do so?

A. That was the understanding that I got, yes.

Q. Now this statement which was created in conjunction with this policy resolution and adopted on October 18th of 2004, is it your understanding that there was a statement in January, but then it was modified in June? Are you aware of that?

A. I had heard some comment about that.

Q. Is it your understanding that the statement was modified in June to reflect the fact that Of Pandas and People was put in the library along with other resources addressing intelligent design?

A. I believe I heard some commentary about that.

Q. Is it your understanding that some of these other resources include books that are highly critical of intelligent design?

A. I am not aware of what those books are.

Q. Now your wife was a board member at one time, correct?

A. She was.

Q. And she lost her election in November of 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. Now when you went to this June 14th, 2004, meeting that you testified about, that was the first time that you heard that term intelligent design, is that correct?

A. Possibly. I'm in some doubt as to the first board meeting that I heard that term at. I know it wasn't in common useage at that June 14th meeting. That may have been the first time I heard it. I -- I very well could have heard it at that meeting. It was not a subject -- it wasn't as well understood and hadn't been disseminated to the public at that point as it was by the October 18th meeting.

Q. Sir, you testified in your deposition that the first time you were introduced to that term was at that meeting. Would you have any reason to doubt?

A. No.

Q. At this meeting, Mr. Buckingham didn't speak to the teaching of creationism?

A. Pardon me?

Q. At this meeting, the June 14th meeting, Mr. Buckingham didn't speak to the teaching of creationism?

A. I don't think he did from the standpoint -- well, he may have. I don't recall, because what he said in his opening comments was directed back to what he said on June 7th. And I wasn't at the June 7th meeting, but it was reported, I believe, that he had spoke to it then. I will say that he didn't retract anything.

I remember specifically that he did not make any comment in his opening remarks denying what was printed in the paper or negating, you know, any of the information that was published in the media.

MR. MUISE: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.


Q. Sir, I'm handing you a copy of your deposition that was given on March 30th of 2005. And I'd ask you, please, to turn to page 23, starting on line 22, and read through line 25, the question, then your answer.

A. You want me to read the question?

Q. Yes, please?

A. How about creationism? Did Buckingham speak to the teaching of creationism or the legality of teaching creationism? I can't say that he did at that meeting.

Q. Is that a truthful answer you gave on March 30th, 2005?

A. Well, again, I think what I just said doesn't conflict with that. My understanding was that he was -- and having read the papers, and I can't pretend I didn't, I was pretty vigilant about reading the papers. He didn't deny anything that was reported that he had said at the previous meeting.

And I think at the previous meeting, it was reported that he did speak about creationism. So did he specifically say that? No, I can't say that he did. But he apologized for hurting people's feelings basically on the 14th.

Q. So he didn't speak to the teaching of creationism or the legality of teaching creationism at the meeting you attended?

A. I can't recall that he did. I'm not saying that he didn't. I just can't recall.

Q. That's something you don't remember?

A. No.

Q. Sir, we've heard throughout testimony today, and I believe yesterday as well, about a young man by the name of Max Pell who gave some speech at the June 7th meeting, I believe?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Now Max Pell, he's a friend of your son, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, you were at a meeting in which, at a board meeting in which Mr. Alan Bonsell corrected one of the other board members who used the term creationism in one of their discussions, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And he interrupted that board member and corrected him and said, we're talking about intelligent design not creationism, correct?

A. My memory is, he didn't interrupt him. They had made some brief comment regarding the importance of creationism, and finished their comment, and he said, it's intelligent design. And, you know --

Q. Sir, now the -- your understanding is that the Pandas book was donated to the school, correct?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. It was announced at a board meeting by Dr. Rich Nilsen?

A. I'm not sure I was at the board meeting when he announced that, but I read that in the paper, yes.

Q. It was your understanding, sir, that the board was wrestling with what to do with this book, trying to research some sort of a middle ground, is that correct?

A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. Yes. I'm sorry.

Q. Now the biology department didn't want to use it as a textbook for the class, correct?

A. That was my understanding, yes.

Q. And the school board and the school ultimately decided just to put the book in the library for students to access it if they wanted to, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, apart from those comments that we just discussed with Mr. Bonsell correcting one of the board members who used the term creationism that we just discussed, you've also heard Mr. Bonsell make claims in support of intelligent design as being a scientific theory, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When the issue came up regarding intelligent design in the curriculum, Mr. Bonsell was talking about intelligent design as a scientific theory?

A. I should say that I, to my recollection, and looking at news articles and adgends, I don't think I attended a meeting between June 14th and October 18th, so much of that discussion, I got through the newspapers. I wasn't there firsthand.

Q. But you heard Mr. Bonsell making comments regarding intelligent design as a scientific theory?

A. Well, there's a time that I just cited that -- well, actually, he didn't make a comment. I mean, he just corrected the speaker. I don't recall what his comment was or whether he, in fact, made any comment about it at the time.

Q. Sir, if you would turn to your deposition, page 40, please?

A. Okay.

Q. If you will read starting from line 24 on page 40 and continuing onto page 41 down to line 6?

A. I'm sorry. What line do you want me to start?

Q. I'm sorry, page 40, line 24?

A. Okay. I see what you are inferring there. What about Alan Bonsell? When that issue came up about incorporating intelligent design into the curriculum, did he speak to that specifically? His purpose? What was he after?

Q. Then your answer?

A. I think Alan was much more in message as far as staying on the intelligent design and alternate scientific theory. I think he was much more disciplined in his remarks.

Q. Was that a truthful answer you gave, sir?

A. Yes, but I don't -- I did answer truthfully, as far as I recall, but I don't -- I do remember that meeting where -- and that was my point, I think, that I was making, was that he was -- he struck me as that one incident where he just, you know, wanted to make clear he was talking about intelligent design.

Q. Now, sir, your objections to intelligent design are based on your impression that intelligent design is religion, that it's talking about God, is that correct?

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. And I think you indicated that it's sort of a euphemism for God, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is your opinion based on your impression that intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?

A. Yes, very much.

Q. Sir, if you were shown that intelligent design does not require the action of a supernatural creator and that it was based on empirical observable facts about biology, would you be willing to change your opinion?

A. Yes, if it followed the normal methodology that has been established for every other scientific theory, the rigors that they have to follow to be accepted by the scientific community, you know, I see no reason why not to accept it. But --

Q. In your judgment, would that be relying on empirical observable facts about biology to support your theory?

A. I am not a scientist. If, if there are issues that intelligent design puts forth that follow all the established dictates of the scientific and biology communities and are accepted by the scholars, if you will, in the field, why wouldn't they be accepted?

Q. Now, sir, I believe you said it was the June 14th meeting when a member from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State had threatened legal action against the school board?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said you spoke to the school board about liability issues, about the potential for getting sued?

A. Well, I didn't speak at that meeting.

Q. There was at least one meeting that you addressed the school board?

A. That was the October 18th meeting.

Q. So now you're a Plaintiff in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Sort of self-fulfilling prophecy?

A. If you will, I guess it is.

Q. Sir, you testified about the newsletter that you received from the school district explaining the actions that they had taken regarding the curriculum change, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in that newsletter, it also had an article from Senator Santorum indicating his support for the what the school district had done?

A. Right.

Q. Now isn't it true that the school district sends out four newsletters a year as far as their routine business?

A. I have no idea. They may do that. I get a lot of mail at home, and I don't look at every piece.

Q. I believe, when you were testifying about harm, there was some letters that had been written, I guess, derogatory towards the Plaintiffs, in your perception?

A. There have been many letters, columns.

Q. Any of those letters by board members?

A. I think so. I couldn't tell you specifically. There have been a tremendous number of letters in the York press, letters about the issue.

Q. Letters about the issue?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. Yes.

Q. These meetings that you were testifying to, I believe you indicated, there were large crowds?

A. Yeah. The 14th was more. I think it was actually more crowded than the 18th of October. But, yeah.

Q. Is it fair to say, the crowd interaction created sort of a frenzy atmosphere at these meetings?

A. Well, I don't know if frenzy -- well, you know, that's a subjective term. I guess, to some, it would be possibly frenzy. At times, it was, you know, ooh's and aah's. And, you know, it was certainly a meeting that would not put you to sleep.

Q. And at the June 14th meeting, I believe you testified on direct, that Mr. Buckingham read a statement?

A. It was -- it's my memory that he read it. It was a short statement. And my recollection is that he -- it pretty much opened the meeting before public comment.

Q. It's your understanding this was an effort on his part to try to make some peace?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MUISE: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. HARVEY: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Callahan, we thank you. You may step down. That takes us, I think, comfortably to the end of our planned trial day. Counsel, do you have anything else before we adjourn?

MR. HARVEY: No, Your Honor. P-137 is in evidence.

MR. GILLEN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. I'll remind everyone, we will start our day at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow and have what, I think, promises to be a somewhat abbreviated afternoon session at that time. With that, we will wish you all a pleasant good evening, and we'll be in recess until 12:30 tomorrow. Thank you all.

(Whereupon, the proceeding adjourned at 4:58 p.m.)


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