Dover, PA Creationism Trial Update: Liar, liar pants on fire

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
chaoschristian
Padawan Learner
Posts: 160
Joined: 2005-06-08 10:08am
Location: Snack Food Capital of the World

Dover, PA Creationism Trial Update: Liar, liar pants on fire

Post by chaoschristian »

Judge grills Dover official
The judge's questioning of Alan Bonsell centered around a check used to buy books.
By LAURI LEBO
Daily Record/Sunday News
Tuesday, November 1, 2005

At bottom: · AT A GLANCE
HARRISBURG — After Alan Bonsell finished his testimony Monday, in which he accused two local newspaper reporters of making up the information that drove the Dover Area School District into a First Amendment lawsuit, Judge John E. Jones III demanded to see a copy of Bonsell's previous sworn statements.
Steve Harvey, the plaintiffs' attorney who had cross-examined the Dover Area school board member, offered to provide a clean copy later in chambers.

"I want it now if you have it," the federal judge said. At the end of the first day of the sixth week of Dover's court battle over intelligent design in U.S. Middle District Court, Jones had some questions.

Bonsell sat quietly on the stand chewing gum and swiveling in his chair as Jones reviewed the man's Jan. 3 deposition in which he denied knowing anyone, besides his father, who had been involved in donating copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" to the Dover school district.

After he finished reading, Jones asked Bonsell when he became aware that his father, Donald, was in possession of an $850 check used to purchase copies of the pro-intelligent design textbook.

Bonsell said he had given the check to his father.

Last week, former board member Bill Buckingham testified he handed the check, dated Oct. 4, 2004, to Alan Bonsell and asked him to forward it to Donald Bonsell. Written in the check's memo line were the words: "for Pandas and People books."

"You tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham was involved," a visibly angry Jones said, staring at Bonsell as he read from his deposition.

Bonsell said he misspoke. And then, "That's my fault, your honor."

Bonsell said he didn't think it mattered because Buckingham had not actually donated any of his money. Rather, the money had been collected from members of his church.

But Jones pointed out that Bonsell had said he had never spoken to anybody else about the donations.

The judge also wanted to know why the money needed to be forwarded to his father, why Buckingham couldn't have purchased the books himself.

Bonsell stammered.

"I still haven't heard an answer from you," Jones said.

"He said he'd take it off the table," Bonsell said.

"You knew you were under oath?" Jones asked at one point.

Later, outside the courthouse, plaintiffs' attorneys had no comment on Jones' questioning, and Dover's attorney Patrick Gillen had little to say.

"I won't speculate" about the judge's actions, Gillen said. "I'm confident that he's seeking the truth in these proceedings."

Jones' exchange with Bonsell was the second time the judge has intervened in testimony and questioned school board members on his own. On Friday, Jones asked Heather Geesey about her newly acquired recollection that board members at June 2004 meetings were publicly discussing intelligent design, rather than creationism as reported in the media.

In her deposition, Geesey had been unable to recall details about board discussions during the meetings.

Much of Bonsell's testimony echoed Buckingham's from last week.

Buckingham testified about donations from his church. But like Bonsell, Buckingham said initially, in his first deposition on Jan. 3, that he didn't know from where the 60 donated copies came.

Before Bonsell was forced to defend his past recollections, he spent much of his time on the stand accusing the local press, in particular two reporters — Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, a freelance writer with The York Dispatch, and Joe Maldonado, a freelance writer with the York Daily Record/Sunday News — of incorrectly reporting that board members had said "creationism" at the June 2004 board meetings rather than "intelligent design."

Bonsell said the media continues to misrepresent the case and the concept of intelligent design — the idea that life's complexity demands a designer.

Harvey wanted to know why he keeps talking to reporters, since he doesn't feel they are correctly reporting the facts.

Bonsell said because he hoped "some of the truth would get out."

Before Bonsell's testimony Monday, former board member Jane Cleaver had also testified that board members had been talking about intelligent design at the June 2004 board meetings, but the local newspapers reported they were saying creationism.

However, under cross-examination, she said she was unsure if intelligent design had been brought up at meetings in June or later at the July board meeting.

Whether board members were talking about creationism then is important to Dover's First Amendment battle. Attorneys for the 11 parents suing the district over the mention of intelligent design in biology class say board members were motivated by religious beliefs, one of the prongs used by the courts to determine whether an action violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state.

At the Jan. 3 depositions, board members Bonsell, Buckingham, Harkins and Supt. Nilsen all said they did not remember other board members talking about creationism at the June 2004 meetings.

Cleaver, like Bonsell, blamed the reporters, particularly Maldonado, for making up their stories.

"Joe doesn't know how to tell the truth," Cleaver said. "Joe only knows how tell a lie."

Last week, both Maldonado and Bernhard-Bubb testified to the accuracy of their articles. They said no board members ever requested a correction from articles about the meetings.


AT A GLANCE
Excerpts from Alan Bonsell's Jan. 3 deposition:


Plaintiffs attorney Eric Rothschild: Was the first time you became aware of any possible donation when you (sic) father told you he intended to do it?

Dover school board member Alan Bonsell: Well, he wasn't — I mean as far as I know, he wasn't the only person.

Rothschild: You don't know who the other people are?

Bonsell: I don't know who the other people are.

Rothschild: You have never spoken to anybody else who was involved with the donation?

Bonsell: I don't know the other people.

Rothschild: The only person you could have spoken to about the books was your father; correct?

Bonsell: Yes. As far as donating the books, I guess they offered to pay for the books. And they got the books and gave them to the School District.
Trial Article

I've been following this trial closely in the news, as I now only live about half an hour away from Dover in PA and am concerned about how the proceedings and outcome of the trial will effect my local school district. In short, the majority of the Dover, PA schoolboard are dumbasses who need to wake up, resign and save the school district there from further embarassment.

This whole scenerio only serves to fuel my growing suspicion that the vast majority of vocal, politically oriented, activist evangelicals are power-tripping head-cases who will ultimately destroy the 'church' they so fervently proclaim to love.

For my part, I plan on actively working against any attempt to institute the 'teaching' of any kind of creationist or ID bull-shit in the local schools in my new town.
Farmer's Market Fresh Since 1971
User avatar
wolveraptor
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4042
Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm

Post by wolveraptor »

They're certainly about the defensive. The issue isn't even ID vs Evolution any more.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."

- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

wolveraptor wrote: The issue isn't even ID vs Evolution any more.
No wonder there. It's been an absolute slaughter of the IDers.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
User avatar
The Spartan
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4406
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:56pm
Location: Houston

Post by The Spartan »

More cross examination goodness(in particular the bolded section):

Slate Linky
human nature
The Brontosaurus
Monty Python's flying creationism.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Oct. 27, 2005, at 8:03 AM ET



"There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life," wrote Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. The elephant was ubiquitous evidence of "intelligent design" in nature. Darwinian evolutionists, Behe argued, were unable to explain life's origins and its emerging complexity because they couldn't see the elephant.

Behe has the same problem, but worse. Last week in a Pennsylvania courtroom, he testified in defense of a school board's requirement that biology teachers mention ID. (For Hanna Rosin's reports from the trial, click here.) Behe offered a number of interesting criticisms of Darwinism. But it's impossible to focus on any of these criticisms, because they were so completely overshadowed by the brontosaurus in the room: ID's sophomoric emptiness.

What makes Behe's non-explanation a brontosaurus rather than an elephant is its resemblance to a famous Monty Python sketch in which a television newsman interviews a theorist.

Q: You say you have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
A: Can I just say here, Chris, for one moment, that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
Q: Exactly. Well, what is it? …
A: Oh, what is my theory?
Q: Yes.
A: Oh, what is my theory, that it is. Well, Chris, you may well ask me what is my theory.
Q: I am asking.
A: Good for you. My word, yes. Well, Chris, what is it that it is—this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is—my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine.
Q: Yes, I know it's yours. What is it?
A: Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it. My theory that belongs to me is as follows. This is how it goes. The next thing I'm going to say is my theory. Ready?
Q: Yes.
A: … This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.

As though that explained anything. Which brings us to last week's cross-examination of Behe by Eric Rothschild, the lawyer opposing the school board in the Pennsylvania case.

Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.


The interrogation goes on like this for pages and pages. Like the theorist in the Monty Python sketch, Behe throws up a blizzard of babble: process, intelligent activity, important facts. What process? What activity? What facts? He never explains. He says the designer "took steps" to create complex biological systems, but ID can't specify the steps. Does ID tell us who designed life? No, he answers. Does it tell us how? No. Does it tell us when? No. How would the designer create a bacterial flagellum? It would "somehow cause the plan to, you know, go into effect," he proposes.

Can ID make testable predictions? Not really. If we posit that a given biological system was designed, Rothschild asks, what can we infer about the designer's abilities? Just "that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration," says Behe. "Beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the evidence." Does Behe not understand that extrapolating beyond initial evidence is exactly the job of a hypothesis? Does he not grasp the meaninglessness of saying a designer designed things that were designed?

Evidently not. "That is exactly the basis for how we detect design—when we perceive the purposeful arrangement of parts," Behe declares. The essence of science—that detection means going beyond perception—escapes his comprehension. It also escapes his interest. He says his belief that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed could be tested, but he's never run the test. Why not? "I'm persuaded by the evidence that I cite in my book that this is a good explanation and that spending a lot of effort in trying to show how random mutation and natural selection could produce complex systems … is not real likely to be fruitful," he says. Who needs science when you've got faith?

So, this is my theory, which belongs to me, and goes as follows. All intelligently designed things are brought about by an intelligent designer through a process of intelligently conducted design. If it's good enough for Monty Python, it's good enough for biology class.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
Image
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
User avatar
dragon
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4151
Joined: 2004-09-23 04:42pm

Post by dragon »

What the hell is this guy smoking he babbles worse than my 8 year old neice. His theory what a crock, I bet the average high school drop out could do better than that. How the hell can he be a professeur he give good professeurs like my wife a bad name.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Behe is also a fan of the Python team I see.
User avatar
Haruko
Jedi Master
Posts: 1114
Joined: 2005-03-12 04:14am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Haruko »

Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
Short version:
Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: It doesn't have one in the context that matters.
If The Infinity Program were not a forum, it would be a pie-in-the-sky project.
Faith is both the prison and the open hand.”— Vienna Teng, "Augustine."
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Post by Molyneux »

Haruko wrote:
Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
Short version:
Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: It doesn't have one in the context that matters.
Perhaps we should add to the question of whether or not ID should be taught in the classroom, the corollary of exactly WHAT ID'ers want to teach about ID? They don't really seem to have a working concept of the thing other than "GOD DID IT"...and that'd be pretty damn hard to flesh out into a science class curriculum.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
Jalinth
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1577
Joined: 2004-01-09 05:51pm
Location: The Wet coast of Canada

Post by Jalinth »

It will be interesting to see how the judge classifies this testimony. If he is pissed enough, he'll spell it out in fairly plain English (deceitful, unreliable - if really annoyed, flat out "he is a liar"). Wish I was a candidate for this twit's position - I'd love to be able to call him a flat-out liar without risk of a lible suit (since I'd be quoting a judge).
Post Reply