Related articles and links |  1 of 24

• Related articles and links

Anti-ID decision probably won't be appealed, but board members still might end up in court
There are countless discussion questions prompted by yesterday's court decision barring a Pennsylvania school district from requiring its schools to mention Intelligent Design and describe Darwin's theory of evolution as "a theory … not a fact."

We could discuss whether it's best to have a solitary judge rule on whether science requires methodological naturalism. We could discuss the propriety of a judge issuing a ruling that religion, and specifically with Christianity, are compatible with evolution. We could discuss William Saletan's interesting argument that Judge John Jones falls prey to the same "contrived dualism" that he condemns. We could talk about Jones's statement "no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area" when Jones himself admits that the supposed supporters of Intelligent Design in this case "had utterly no grasp of ID" (one board member "consistently referred to ID as 'intelligence design' throughout her testimony.") And surely we could talk about the future of Intelligent Design as an academic pursuit in the wake of this ruling.

But first, before we talk about any of those things, let's talk about one of the major issues in Jones's ruling: honesty among the board members supporting Intelligent Design.

"Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."

Jones was particularly grieved that board members denied using the term "creationism" before switching the term to "Intelligent Design," and that some board members claimed not to know how copies of the book Of Pandas and People were donated to the school when Buckingham personally raised funds for the books at his church. If you're interested in the details, the York Daily Record has enough to choke a panda.

In Jones's conclusion (the entire 139-page decision is Scalia-like both in its readability and causticity, if not in its legal perspective), Jones twists the knife: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

"Yes, ironic—at the very least. But also sinful according to the 9th Commandment. And perhaps also criminal," said an editorial in the York Daily Record. "We can only hope that the appropriate authorities are investigating possible perjury charges in this case. … The unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed. They've damaged and divided this community, and there should be repercussions—a perjury investigation—beyond a lost election."

Bearing false witness?
Are these calls for perjury charges short-lived responses from a community angry at being "made a national laughingstock," as the editorial puts it? Or are Bonsell, Buckingham, and perhaps others at real risk of criminal charges?

It may be that the board members are safe, for the same reason that this case won't go higher in the court system: Eight of the nine school board members behind the ID policy were voted out in a recent election and replaced with members staunchly opposed to the policy.

next page... |  1 of 24

share this page

December (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49