Posted on 09/30/2005 8:31:26 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
HARRISBURG — When he painted a mural depicting the ascent of man, Zach Strausbaugh had no idea that evolution was a controversial topic.
"At the time, I really didn't give it a second thought," he said. "I believe in fact, and there are so many facts that support evolution."
For his graduation requirement at Dover Area High School, the then-senior spent almost a semester working on the detailed 4-foot-by-16-foot painting of man evolving from his apelike ancestors. In 1998, he donated the work to his science department.
But Strausbaugh was more of an art student than a science major. So when the now 25-year-old design engineer learned that Larry Reeser, the high school janitor at the time, burned his artwork two years ago because it offended him, well, he was a little disappointed.
"I think it's kind of ignorant," said Strausbaugh, who lives in Dover. "Even if he didn't believe in it, it wasn't nice to destroy someone else's work."
But in testimony Thursday in the fourth day of the Dover school district's federal trial over intelligent design, board members Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell were said to have defended the burning of Strausbaugh's painting. The testimony came in U.S. Middle District Court as the plaintiffs' attorneys were trying to show that board members had religious motivation when they approved intelligent design as a "balance" to the theory of evolution in the biology curriculum.
Former school board member Carol "Casey" Brown said Reeser destroyed the work because he thought it was full of lies, it offended his faith and he didn't want his granddaughter exposed to the graphic nature of the painting, something he considered to be "an obscenity."
Brown said Buckingham later told her that what Reeser did was right and the district should not be accepting such donations of artwork.
Brown's husband, Jeff, also a former board member, recalled that in 2003, Bonsell also said he was offended by the mural.
"I remember him snorting through his nostrils," Jeff Brown testified Thursday. "And saying something about kids shouldn't be exposed to this sort of thing."
Reeser said Thursday night he agreed with Casey Brown's characterization of why he burned the mural.
"Did you see the monkey's genitals hanging out?" Reeser asked. "How would you like your granddaughter to sit next to that?"
Casey Brown said she had been told Reeser had been reprimanded "and subsequently retired," but the 67-year-old said he had not been punished in any way.
The Browns were the day's primary witnesses. The husband and wife served on the school board together but quit in protest after a majority of the board voted in October to change the biology curriculum to include intelligent design.
After Casey Brown submitted her resignation, she testified that both Bonsell and Buckingham questioned her belief in God. She said Buckingham called her an atheist that night and accused her and her husband of destroying the school board.
Months later, board member Alan Bonsell also questioned her faith, Casey Brown testified. "He told me I would be going to hell," Brown said.
Bonsell denied making that remark. "That's an outright lie," he said. "I never said anything like that — anything like that."
While the Browns both testified that board members consistently ignored established district policies to push through the revised biology curriculum, they also admitted that at times they played a role in the changes.
Jeff Brown said he was the first one to actually use the phrase "intelligent design" at a June meeting in an effort to steer the debate from creationism.
However, in January depositions, Bill Buckingham said he first heard it mentioned by Bonsell in 2003.
Brown also testified he was the one who proposed a motion at an Oct. 18 meeting to add "Note: Origins of Life will not be taught" to the biology curriculum change that includes intelligent design. But upon cross-examination, one of Dover's attorneys, Patrick Gillen, showed that it was actually Bonsell who proposed the addendum.
Additionally, when curriculum committee members issued a proposal to change the biology curriculum to point to "problems" of evolutionary theory, Casey Brown suggested changing the word "problems" to "gaps."
Biologist Ken Miller testified this week that the use of the word "gaps" is misleading to students.
Dover's lead attorney, Richard Thompson, said the Browns' participation shows that the board did follow a democratic process. He said the fact that Bonsell, who the defense has been presenting as the chief architect of the curriculum revision, was willing to propose the motion showed a willingness to compromise with teachers and other board members.
Plaintiffs will continue making their case today in a trial that is expected to continue for another five weeks.
Despite the daily headlines and television coverage, Strausbaugh has not been following the case closely. And even though he doesn't think intelligent design belongs in science class, he thinks the issue has been blown out of proportion.
"I can't believe our little town of Dover's making national news for something like this," he said.
I'm a little fuzzy on court procedure, but I thought if one side takes exception to the "relevance" of a line of questioning, they make an OBJECTION, and the judge rules for, or against the objection. Since when do lawyers challenged the relevance of the opposing side's questions with more questions DURING CROSS-X?
After the debacle the other day where they unsuccessfully objected to a witness reading the letter they personally wrote to the newspaper, because it was "hearsay," I'm beginning to wonder about the competence of the Dover School Board's legal counsel.
I think you'd really need to be there to know what's going on. These press reports aren't entirely reliable. However, assuming it really happened as the story says, I could guess that he did object, originally, and it was overruled. Now he's still trying to show that his earlier objection was well-founded, in the hope that he could then argue to the judge -- who is the sole trier of facts -- that he should disregard the irrelevant testimony. But if that's what's going on, it seems like he's beating a dead horse. I can't tell; it's hard to know from these press accounts.
"I think it's kind of ignorant."Well said.The artist deserves an appology.BTW,this type of behavior makes Christians look bad.The msm just loves stuff like this:(
Why cant we just say god made the big bang and leave it at that??
You know what keeps me up at night? The thought that morons like this janitor and the ignoramuses that believe that Genesis is a history book have already come to define what "conservative" means -- ignorance, anti-science, anti-intellectuallism, and a medieval mindset of the kind that the Ayatollahs, Bin Ladens and Taliban of this world possess. If that be the case, they can keep the label, I want nothing to do with their kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.