RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P019

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct of Fred Callahan

Section 1 MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, Plaintiffs call for their next witness, Mr. Fred Callahan. THE COURT: All right. Whereupon, FREDERICK B. CALLAHAN 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. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mr. Callahan, are you a Plaintiff in this case? A. Yes. Q. Where do you live? A. (Address in Dover PA supplied, redacted by RationalWiki)	Section 1 notes
Section 2 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, Child1? (Note: the names of all minors have been redacted by RationalWiki) 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.	Section 2 notes
Section 3 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.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 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.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 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.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 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 --	Section 6 notes
Section 7 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.	Section 7 notes
Section 8 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.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 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.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 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.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 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.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 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.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 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. BY MR. HARVEY: 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.	Section 13 notes
Section 14 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?	Section 14 notes
Section 15 BY 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.	Section 15 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Cross of Fred Callahan

Section 16 THE COURT: Cross-examine, Mr. Muise. CROSS EXAMINATION BY 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.	Section 16 notes
Section 17 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.	Section 17 notes
Section 18 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.	Section 18 notes
Section 19 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.	Section 19 notes
Section 20 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.	Section 20 notes
Section 21 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.	Section 21 notes
Section 22 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.	Section 22 notes
Section 23 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.	Section 23 notes
Section 24 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.	Section 24 notes
Section 25 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.	Section 25 notes
Section 26 BY MR. MUISE: 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.	Section 26 notes
Section 27 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.	Section 27 notes
Section 28 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.	Section 28 notes
Section 29 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.	Section 29 notes
Section 30 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.	Section 30 notes
Section 31 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?	Section 31 notes
Section 32 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.	Section 32 notes
Section 33 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.	Section 33 notes
Section 34 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.	Section 34 notes

Exhibits

Exhibits section THE COURT: 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.)

Exhibits section notes

← Previous page

Next page →