Posted on 10/28/2005 7:08:15 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
HARRISBURG — It was surely one of the most anticipated moments in the history of federal jurisprudence, the appearance, finally, of former Dover Area School Board member Bill Buckingham at the Dover Panda Trial. And it did not disappoint. It was, in the truest sense of the word, unbelievable.
Really.
Unbelievable.
At the onset of his stay on the witness stand, Buckingham raised his right hand and swore, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then, for the record, he stated his name.
"William Buckingham."
By the time he left the stand, six hours later, I almost expected the judge to ask him for a photo ID to make sure he was indeed William Buckingham.
A telling moment came when he was asked about how the Dover Area High School had acquired 60 copies of the book "Of Pandas and People," a brilliantly dumb book that promotes the idea of intelligent design.
In a deposition given in January, he said he didn't know how the district got the books. He said he didn't know who donated the books. He said he didn't ask because he didn't want to know. He said he didn't know who donated the money to buy the books.
So, during his testimony Thursday, Steve Harvey, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, asked Buckingham about the books and how the money was raised to buy them. He specifically asked Buckingham whether he raised the money at his church.
He said he hadn't.
Then, he said he had.
Then, he said he hadn't.
He said he stood before the congregation one Sunday morning and said "there was a need" for money to buy "Of Pandas and People" and if anyone wanted to give, they could.
"But I didn't ask anyone for money," he said.
Harvey asked him whether he took up a collection at his church, Harmony Grove Community Church.
"Not as such," Buckingham said.
So the lawyer asked him whether he got in front of the congregation and asked for donations.
"I didn't," Buckingham said.
He paused.
"I'm sorry, I did say that, but there was more to it," he said.
Anyway, he collected the money — wherever it came from — and then he wrote a check for $850 to Donald Bonsell, father of then-school board President Alan Bonsell.
But previously, when asked by the lawyer about who donated the books, he said he didn't know.
"Mr. Buckingham, you lied to me at your deposition ... isn't that true?" Harvey asked.
"How so?" Buckingham responded.
It went on for a while before Judge John E. Jones III told Harvey to move on.
"You made your point very effectively," the judge said.
Earlier, Harvey had made an even more effective point.
Buckingham said he never read about his adventures on the school board in the newspapers and never talked to anyone about them. He also said he never mentioned creationism at school board meetings or in the press or anywhere, for that matter.
So at the time the board was talking about creationism, Buckingham granted an interview to a Fox 43 news reporter. I guess he forgot about that new-fangled invention, videotape.
On the tape, which you can see at http://www.ydr.com/mmedia/multi/528, Buckingham, wearing the same lapel pin he wore in court Thursday, said he wanted to balance evolution in the classroom with something else, "such as creationism."
Oops.
He said that the reporter "ambushed" him and that he was "like a deer in the headlights of a car" and that the newspapers were all reporting that he and the board were talking about creationism and that he thought to himself, "Don't say creationism."
Double oops.
It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he opens his yap and says "creationism."
D'oh!
And to compound the prevarication, he said he was thinking about something the newspapers reported — something he didn't read or talk to anybody about.
It went on like that all day. He'd say he voted for buying a new biology book. Then, he said he voted against it. He said he thought intelligent design was a scientific theory. But he said he didn't know what intelligent design was. He said he wasn't the force behind the board adopting intelligent design and then, confronted with what he said, under oath, previously, he'd say maybe he was.
He said a lot of things, and then he'd say a lot of things that weren't exactly what he had said to begin with.
And then, he attributed his spotty, selective and just plain weird memory to his OxyContin addiction.
Unbelievable.
Of course. Pretty much everything that goes wrong or can be perceived to have gone wrong can ultimately be attributed to the 'left', evilutionists, scientists or the educated elite.
What their perception is is quite obvious. Someone forgot to tell them that rationalization isn't really rational.
I noticed that too. Eerie, isn't it? They're usually in by post #5.
Unless ID were determined to be inherently religious, which I believe it is.
Unless ID were determined to be inherently religious, which I believe it is.
I think this case will be decided on the motivations of the DASD, not on the merits of ID. However, it was nice to see Behe play his hand.
Pretty good.
Even "creationists" isn't a flawless term, although it might be the best of a not-so-good set of choices.
Too often people who believe in both God and science get offended by some posts making statements about "creationists", because they think we're talking about anyone who believes in God, since belief in God comes with the belief that God created the universe, and this makes them "creationists" in the broad (and most literal) sense of the word. They think we're bashing all Christians or all religious people of any denomination.
We're not, of course. Many of the "evolutionists" on these threads are themselves also religious.
When we use the word "creationist", we mean it in the more narrow sense of the word, as exemplified by Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Henry and John Morris, et al. Even "fundamentalist creationist" isn't right, because there are many varieties of fundamentalist creationists -- not all out to lunch on this topic -- plus there are fringe creationists who aren't specifically fundamentalists.
The best phrase I've thought of so far (and it's still less than perfect) is "anti-evolution creationist" (or "AECreationist" for short), since the key thing the "wacko creationists" have in common is a rabid opposition to evolution and other fields of science which they feel are "opposed to" their brand of creationism.
But if anyone can think of a better word, especially one less unwieldy, I'd be glad to adopt it.
The best phrase I've thought of so far (and it's still less than perfect) is "anti-evolution creationist"
I have a friend I see a few times a year who is a staunch conservative. He has pictures of Buckley and Goldwater hung in his den. He has a math/physics education and is currently teaching calculus and statistics courses at a local community college.
I've played golf with him at least a few times a year the past 20 years. We've never discussed this issue. I made the mistake of bringing it up the last time I played with him last week, thinking we would be of like mind as we usually are.
I got bombarded, passionately, with Behe's and Dembski's arguments.
I was shocked and had to end the discussion on the third hole, just to be able to play golf. Based on this, I'm very concerned that ID may become very political. He's always been very rational up until now.
I find that, generally speaking, "anti-Evo/anti-science" covers them pretty well, since if they have problems with Evolution, the only way to support that position ultimately requires them to deny most other fields of science, like geology, Radiometric dating techniques, cosmology, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc. You know how it goes: "in for dime, in for a dollar....".
You see the same thing here. If you visit the normal conservative political threads many of the really hard-headed creationists sound quite rational and one can easily agree with them.
I think the problem is that evolution interferes with the unique and special relationship creationists think man has with God and they cannot accept that they are just a "piece of the big picture". They will do anything to avoid that, including bringing down the entire structure of science and progress.
"This thread's quiet. Too quiet." bump
I still half think he was pulling my leg.
Taqqiya generally fails in a courtroom situation. (Even in Islamic countries.)
But without the pumpkin. Halloween isn't here yet.
Ooooo; you're good! Very good!
It is amazing, however, to note the similarity in this former Dover School Board Official's hypertechnical defense that he didn't know who paid for the books because he didn't know the individual names of the donors from his church, and Hiss's hypertechnical defense for testifying that he did NOT know Whittacker Chambers because he knew him by a different name. Both played "word games" under oath with intent to deceive, and both got caught.
The only variation on the common theme is Hiss blamed mystery men using his typwriter, while this dufus in Dover blames his medication. In the end it is a distinction without a difference. Both lied under oath with intent.
I guess you could say that makes Buckingham a "fellow traveler" of Hiss.
;-)
He's obviously not a conservative.
I'd have to specifically say anti-science is the more fitting term. As we always point out, the biological theory of evolution is definitely not the only theory in science the crowd in question demonizes - that is something we should never forget. As far as YEC's go, their geology is even more abhorrently wrong than their biology. Let's not forget the twisting of nuclear physics (radiometric dating), astronomy (stellar evolution, cosmology), biochemistry, and the complete perversion of sound physics principles like the laws of thermodynamics and the observed constancy of the speed of light. Even mathematics isn't immune, given the blatant abuse of statistics employed by Behe and others of his ilk. The list goes on and permeates almost every branch of scientific knowledge.
I think anti-science is an accurate term.
You miss my point. I was hoping that this case would establish, in the eyes of the court, that any teaching intelligent design constitutes an injection of religion into public education. The court can punt on that issue, here: ID was merely one tool in a cultist brainwashing program.
Yup. It also eliminates any religious connotaton, so we certainly aren't "religion bashing" when we employ it.
Nice summary of the various branches of science they inevitably have to deny, BTW.
It would be a shame if this thread didn't reach the first prime number.
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.