Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

THE COURT: All right.

DIRECT EXAMINATION ( CONTINUED)

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. All right. Alan, before we left off for lunch, we were approaching the October 18th board meeting. I want to ask you some questions about that meeting and your recollection of events, as soon as I get my outline in order. Do you remember attending that board meeting?

A. October 18th meeting?

Q. Yep.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Well, let's -- tell us what you recall beginning with the public comment portion of that meeting. Do you recall any comments being made?

A. I believe Bert Spahr spoke at that meeting. And Jen Miller spoke at that meeting. I believe there was a few other people that spoke.

Q. Do you remember anything that you heard at that meeting from Bert Spahr?

A. I believe it was still, we were on the same subject of what they had talked about before of, they were afraid they were going to be sued, and I believe she still mentioned the fact of creationism being -- intelligent design being the same as creationism, that type of thing.

Q. Do you remember any other teachers speaking?

A. Jen Miller spoke. And basically, what I can recall is that, she still was on the point that she didn't want to teach intelligent design.

Q. What about other board members? Was there any response from board members to the public during the public comment section that you can recall?

A. Basically that, you know, ID is not creationism, absolutely is not creationism, and that we weren't requiring them to teach it.

Q. Do you remember telling members of the public that during this meeting?

A. I think that's, when they were saying that, at some point, that was said.

Q. What about the activities of board members when the agenda item came up for consideration by the Board? Do you remember what happened at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us what you remember.

A. Basically, there was a whole bunch of amendments that were proposed, I believe, by Noel Weinrich.

Q. Well, with that in mind, let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 64?

A. 64?

Q. Yeah. And direct your attention to the page with the bait stamp number 18 in the lower right-hand corner?

A. 158.

Q. What do you see there, Alan?

A. I see basically a bunch of motions and calls for votes on amendments and calls for questions, call of vote, questions, different things along that line.

Q. Are these the votes on motions made by Mr. Weinrich that you recall?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What was your reaction to Mr. Weinrich's parliamentary maneuvers?

A. I thought it was silly. I mean, he was just -- it was almost like playing a game. And we weren't talking about the real issue, the three things that we had that were that we were going to discuss. And this didn't serve any purpose, I didn't think.

Q. Did you want to discuss any of the amended versions that Mr. Weinrich was proposing that evening?

A. Well, I basically -- I mean -- can you say that again?

Q. Yeah. I'm not asking you to look at the voting record or anything. I'm asking you to give us your recollection concerning when Mr. Weinrich made these motions, did you want to vote on what he was proposing or on the versions that --

A. No. I mean, we had already done all this work on these other proposals. I wanted to get back, and I think, you know, I remember saying, I want to discuss the issue. I mean, this was just parliamentary procedures here going on. I mean, it didn't have to do with the subject at hand. I mean, I didn't think it was. Maybe he did. I don't know.

Q. Okay. I'd ask you to go to Exhibit 187.

A. 187?

Q. Correct. Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is it?

A. That is my own personal memoranda, which I have written on, concerning the biology curriculum and also a draft of the curriculum with my personal -- that I had.

Q. Okay. Let's look at it. Do you remember articulating a position at this October 18th, 2004, board meeting about the various versions and what your goal was for this meeting?

A. Well, I mean, it's written on here, you know, not limited to any one theory, I have written on here. And my goal was to try to bring something that everybody would come together on, everybody could agree on it, if it was possible. I mean, that was my objective to do that.

Q. I'd ask you to turn to the page of Defendants' Exhibit 187 that has the number 3771 in the lower left-hand corner.

A. Okay.

Q. There are notations on that page. Are they your notes?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you read the notes for the record?

A. The whole -- just my notes that I had, handwritten notes?

Q. Yes.

A. I had a big A with a circle around it, and then I had in parentheses underneath the context concepts o, note: The origins of life is not taught.

Q. Did you make that notation on the evening of October 18th?

A. Yes.

Q. And why did you do that?

A. Because what -- what I had tried to do is to get everybody, the teachers, administration, the board members all together, and I thought, by changing the one, taking the one note from the one, and putting it with this, that would take care of it.

Q. Did you make a motion to amend the Board curriculum committee's version to add this note?

A. Yes, I did make a motion to add this to this particular -- this -- this concept here.

Q. Okay. Well, your response points to a need for a question. What were you adding the note to? Whose version? The Board curriculum committee's? The staff administration?

A. It was basically the board curriculum committee's.

Q. And why were you adding your note to that version?

A. Well, I already knew that the board curriculum committee came through with this, and the teachers had problems with teaching, you know, ID. And so this note, I thought, would take care of all those, would take care of that.

Q. And how did you think it would take care of that?

A. Origins of life is not taught, so that should take care of their problem of the origins being taught. It's not taught.

Q. Do you remember how your motion was received by the board on that evening?

A. Yes. I believe it was straight nine, zero vote to include it.

Q. And was the board curriculum committee's version of the curriculum change, as amended, by your motion, approved by the board on the evening of October 18th, 2004?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember the final vote on that version?

A. I believe the final, final version was a six to three vote.

Q. So you worked out the actual final version at the meeting on that evening?

A. Yes, with adding that on.

Q. And again, in doing so, what was your goal in proposing this approach to the matter?

A. The whole goal was to try to bring the people together. I mean, that's -- that was the whole goal. That's what -- you know, I was president. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to lead, you know, everybody together and try to get consensus, if it's possible to do.

Q. Do you remember the Browns resigning on the evening of this meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was your personal reaction to their resignation?

A. Well, I thought it was ridiculous, and I thought it was inconsiderate, especially saying, you know, they resigned without even mentioning the fact that they were going to do this ahead of time.

Q. Well, you know, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions, but one of the most difficult for me to ask certainly personally is this. Did you tell Casey Brown that she was going to hell as a result of her actions on the board or her resignation?

A. No, absolutely not.

Q. Would you ever say something like that to someone?

A. No, I would not.

Q. Is that a very serious, in fact, hateful thing for someone to say, in your judgment?

A. Absolutely, it is.

Q. What happened after the October 18th, 2004, meeting next? Do you recall the next step seen from your perspective as the chairman of the board?

A. Well, I guess we were trying to get together exactly how we were going to do this, implement it.

Q. Well, let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 65?

A. 65.

Q. Do you recognize that document, Alan?

A. Yes, this is a draft of what the teachers were to read in biology class.

Q. Do you recall receiving this document?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there some discussion of making students aware of intelligent design by reading a statement when the board held its meeting on October 18th?

A. Ask that again.

Q. Well, this statement, where did it come from? Had there been some discussion by the board and administration about it?

A. There would have to be something. Once we have this, now it's not being taught, so we have to find a way of how we're going to implement it in the curriculum.

Q. Did you play any role in drafting the specific language of this statement?

A. I don't remember specific language, no.

Q. Do you recall at least seeing --

A. Oh, I saw it, yes. Could I have made suggestions? It's possible. But I just don't remember.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you again. Now we have a contentious meeting here on the 18th with members resigning. Did you read the papers and their coverage of this meeting?

A. I'm sure I did.

Q. Well, did you have an impression at this time now concerning the accuracy of the coverage of the events at this meeting?

A. I think at this point, I think they're still reporting, you know, we're going to teach creationism. Like I said, it went on. And also, we were going to teach, I remember teaching, that was in the news media, through the papers, through the news -- TV. That was on, I think, months after this proposal was passed. I believe it was still being reported that we were teaching it.

Q. Did you speak to any reporters about the reporting on the board's activities relating to this curriculum change adopted on October 18th, 2004?

A. Like I said, I have said things at meetings, in meetings. I've said things to reporters outside of meetings. I mean, it was sort of a constant, a constant that you -- that I would do, because they kept doing things like this. I mean, they kept saying teaching instead of making aware. They would say creationism instead of intelligent design.

I mean, it's -- it's -- but, yes, I did. I remember talking, having a conversation with Joe Maldonado. And it was my understanding through the conversation that he thought the two things were interchangeable, that creationism and intelligent design were.

MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.

MR. GILLEN: All I can say is, he's trying to remedy the situation. He's talking to the reporter. He has an understanding of the reporter's view of the matter, whether they're separate or the same. That's all.

THE COURT: I think it transcended just his impression. I think it got into hearsay. I'll sustain the objection, and I'll strike what appears to be a direct response from the reporter in this case.

MR. GILLEN: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. Alan, let me ask you, you indicated that you spoke with Joe Maldonado about his reporting specifically as it relates to the use of the term creationism to describe intelligent design?

A. Yes.

Q. As a result of that conversation, did you come away with an impression or understanding of how he viewed them, whether the same or different?

A. My impression is --

MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Wait, sir. Hang on.

MR. HARVEY: This again is hearsay, and if he's testifying just as to his understanding, I don't see any relevance as to what his understanding of Mr. Maldonado's impression is, at least as of this date.

MR. GILLEN: It is highly relevant because, from the standpoint of the board, they believed that their position has been mischaracterized. They've been asked -- all the witnesses have been asked numerous times, did you ever complain, did you ever ask for corrections, and so on.

Mr. Bonsell has testified that he has, and now what he's, understanding from this request is, it won't be observed because of the reporter's view of the matter.

THE COURT: Well, very frankly, he answered the question. He answered the question previously, and I said that it would be stricken --

MR. GILLEN: Right.

THE COURT: -- that it was his understanding that Mr. Maldonado viewed the two terms as interchangeable. I said that answer was hearsay and sustained the objection and struck it. You've asked almost the same question again, and I'm going to sustain the objection again because all we're coming back to is, I think, what amounts to, and I understand that you have to try, but I think it's either side door or back door hearsay, and I'll sustain the objection on that basis. It's a bench trial. I heard the testimony. There's no point to double back at this point. Let's move on.

MR. GILLEN: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. Did you take it upon yourself personally to do anything else to address the press coverage as you saw?

A. Well, like I said all along, I've talked to numerous, numerous editors of the papers. I have talked to the reporters. I know it got so bad that our superintendent wouldn't even return calls anymore.

Q. Let me ask you this. Did you direct Dr. Nilsen to do anything as a result of this problem you perceived?

A. Yes. One of the things I said is that, I think it's necessary to get some sort of press release out to tell the people what we're actually doing, so they know what we're really doing.

Q. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 83.

A. 83.

Q. Do you recognize that document, Alan?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. It's a document that I sent to Dr. Nilsen concerning something that maybe we could, you know, put on, if it's possible, to put on the website, the Dover website, so -- just to let -- give the people of Dover a little bit of an update of what's going on.

Q. This document is dated November 12th, 2004. Let me ask you, on the evening that the curriculum change was adopted by the board, was there ever any discussion of doing a press release?

A. No, none.

Q. Did you have any intention of doing a press release when you voted for the curriculum change?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. So why are you providing this document to Dr. Nilsen on November 12th, 2004?

A. There again, because the inaccuracies that was put out to the public in our local media.

Q. Did you draft the press release or did you direct Rich Nilsen to do so?

A. Well, this one I had sent to him, but they were coming up with another press release. This was just sort of a stop gap thing until we got an actual press release.

Q. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 103. Do you recognize that document, Alan?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. That's the biology curriculum press release from the board of directors.

Q. Was that prepared by Dr. Nilsen at your request?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall the press release eliciting a response from the faculty?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. With that in mind, I would ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 106. Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember seeing that?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you understand its thrust to be?

A. I guess, basically they're writing a letter to Dr. Nilsen objecting on some of the things that are being put out there about the most recent press release.

Q. And what was your reaction to this document?

A. Well, I couldn't believe it, because they've been involved all along in the process.

Q. Did you speak to Rich Nilsen about this document?

A. I believe so. And -- because I wanted to know, I wanted to see, okay, sort of get a glimpse of how many times or what -- to show that the teachers had been involved, that -- because, I believe, at the time I was saying, you know, the teachers have been involved in it.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 184.

A. 184?

Q. Yeah. Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What is this?

A. This is a history of biology statement, teacher edits, and some other information that I personally wrote down on the bottom that were additions to this.

Q. Okay. Those handwritten notations are yours?

A. At the bottom of the paper, yes.

Q. But just to be clear, were these put on the document November 19th or later?

A. This would have been later.

Q. Let me ask you, do you recall the teachers or its union putting out a press release?

A. I believe they did put out a press release, yes.

Q. If you would, look at Defendants' Exhibit 105. Do you recognize that document, Alan?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. It's a press release from basically the teachers union or the BAEAEA.

Q. What was your reaction to that document?

A. Well, it sort of went back to the other letter. I mean, they're saying, has developed, exaggerated it, which really, they did help to develop it.

Q. Did you agree with the teachers' position, as articulated in that press release?

A. No, no.

Q. Did you ask anyone to take any action as a result of that press release?

A. To take any action?

Q. Yeah. Look again at 184. Was there anything that the board or you or the administration did in response to that difference of opinion reflected in these two press releases?

A. Well, that's why we put this together, to show, you know, what we were saying was true, that they were involved in this process.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at Defendants' Exhibit 119. Do you have that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize this?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. It is a press release from the Discovery Institute.

Q. And what was your reaction to that document?

A. Well, again, they must have been reading our local media because it says in here about teaching intelligent design, and we're not teaching it.

Q. There's a few steps remaining in this story as it's been outlined so far, and I want to ask you about them. Do you understand that Rich Nilsen placed the Of Pandas book in the library?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that his decision to do so was consistent with the board's curriculum change adopted on October 18th?

A. Sure. They're reference books.

Q. Has any member of the school board called for a movement of those texts from the library?

A. No.

Q. Did there come a time when you understood that the teachers had not read the statement that had been drafted as a result of the curriculum change?

A. Can you say that again?

Q. Did there come a time when you came to understand that the teachers had not read the statement we looked at already?

A. Yes, basically that they wouldn't read the statement.

Q. And what was your reaction to that?

A. Well, personally, I thought it was clear insubordination.

Q. Did you call for any action?

A. No, I didn't, because I figured, at this point, it's, you know, it will be settled here.

Q. Did you later come to know who read the statement to the students?

A. The administration did.

Q. When you voted for the curriculum change on October 18th, 2004, was there any discussion by board members of having the administrators read the statement?

A. Was there any discussion that we wanted them to read that?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Did any board member direct -- let me ask you, did you direct the administration to read the statement?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, did any board member direct the administrators to read the statement?

A. No.

Q. Did there come a point at which you directed Dr. Nilsen to at least prepare or help prepare a newsletter for the district on this issue?

A. Yes, after we did -- we thought it would be a good idea to, because the press release basically went out to the press and onto the website, and we wanted to get out something to all of the people in Dover, so they're the ones, it's their school, they need to know. I thought that because of, you know, the problems of communications with the media, that they needed to have this press release so they could see exactly what we were doing.

Q. Whose idea was the newsletter?

A. I believe I came up with the idea of the newsletter, and I believe the board concurred, and the newsletter was put out.

Q. When the board voted to approve the curriculum change on October 18th, 2004, was there any discussion of preparing a newsletter about the curriculum change?

A. No, none at all.

Q. When you voted for the curriculum change on October 18th, did you intend to issue a newsletter about the curriculum change?

A. No.

Q. So what was your purpose in doing that now?

A. Again, like I said, to get the actual truth out to the people of Dover.

Q. Now at some point, did you become aware of a donation of books to Dover that was also linked in some way to the biology curriculum?

A. Yes.

Q. And about when was that?

A. I believe that was the spring of this year.

Q. How did the books --

A. Somewhere in that area.

Q. How did the books come to your attention?

A. They were -- I guess they were sent to the school district, and probably the administration let us know.

Q. Did you ask who donated the books?

A. Not really. I mean, they told me it came from a group, but I didn't ask who.

Q. Did you review the books?

A. I looked at the books.

Q. Why did you do that?

A. Just to make sure they weren't, I mean, pornographic or something that wouldn't be something that should be put in the library or used.

Q. Well, I mean, you've referenced some concerns about the books. Did it strike you as a little odd at the time the way they were donated, the way they arrived?

A. Yeah, they just sort of came on our door step.

Q. Did the board approve adding the books to the library collection?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. As you sit here today, do you know where those books have been placed in the library collection?

A. That would be the librarian's job.

Q. Did there come a time after the donation of the books where you became aware that Rich Nilsen had changed the statement read to students in light of that donation?

A. Yes.

Q. When you learned of that, did you think his change to the statement was consistent with the purpose of the board's curriculum change adopted on October 18th?

A. Yes.

Q. And why is that?

A. I have no -- I mean -- wait a minute. Ask the question again, please.

Q. Well, why? If you thought it was acceptable for him to do that, why?

A. Acceptable for him to change?

Q. Change the statement. Why? What was your point? Why did you see that as consistent?

A. Because we had more books and more things on the subject, more literature, more books on the subject. And he changed it. And I didn't see a problem with that. More references. More material.

Q. All right. As we're wrapping up here, I know you're engaged in this litigation, but do you feel that your service on the board has been a service in which you've tried to promote and have enjoyed some success in promoting the interest of the Dover community?

A. Yes. Yes, I do believe that.

Q. And can you just explain briefly why you have enjoyed some success?

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, objection, relevance.

MR. GILLEN: I'm trying to demonstrate that he has, throughout his tenure, acted as a board member to serve the best interest of the community he serves by his --

THE COURT: I'll allow some latitude. It goes to weight. It's a bench trial. I'm going to hear the answer because we got to keep moving here. So I'll overrule the objection.

BY MR. GILLEN:

Q. Just briefly, Alan, as the judge said?

A. Just quickly. Some of the things that we've done over the last four years. I mean, we tried to work together as a team, and we have been successful in doing a lot of things. Some of the things, our test scores are up. You know, we've instituted full-day kindergarten, the only school district in York County that has that.

We went back to do remediation so that we try to get all the kids at the same place, I believe, by like third place, because we don't want any of our children to be left behind. As far as taxes, we're the only school district this year that doesn't have a tax increase.

So we looked at everything. Our 8th grade, our 8th grade test scores. Five years ago in the year 2000, we were 13th out of 15 schools. And this year, we're number 1 in the county with our test scores. So we -- I think, I believe, not for a pat on the back or anything like that, but I believe that's what we came here for, to make Dover the best it can be.

And this isn't -- I mean, there's a lot of other things that Dover can be proud of.

Q. Did you see your participation in the board's distributions on this curriculum change as part of that same goal?

A. Yes.

Q. As a board member, ever since you sat on the board, have you ever taken any step that you thought would lead to the teaching of creationism in the high school at Dover?

A. None whatsoever.

Q. Have you ever tried to take any step to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory?

A. None.

Q. In this 2004 period, when the science text, more specifically the biology text, proposed by the teachers were up for purchase, did you ever try and obstruct the purchase of the text they recommended?

A. No.

Q. You mentioned your daughter earlier. Is she a student at Dover High School now?

A. Yes, she's in 9th grade.

Q. Is she taking biology?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you have an understanding concerning whether she'll be taught evolutionary theory in biology?

A. Yes.

Q. What's your understanding?

A. My understanding is, she'll be taught evolutionary theory, the micro evolution theory, in class.

Q. Are you going to tell your daughter to opt out of this section dealing with evolution?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Do you have any objection to her learning about evolutionary theory in biology?

A. No, none whatsoever.

MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Gillen. Thank you. Cross-examine, Mr. Harvey.

MR. HARVEY: Just one minute, Your Honor, while I get some materials.

THE COURT: Take the time you need.

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, may I approach the witness and hand him some documents?

THE COURT: You may. What book are you in, Mr. Harvey?

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I'm not in a book. That's a special notebook we made up.

THE COURT: Are you going to put them up on the --

MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That's fine.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARVEY:

Q. Mr. Bonsell, I've just handed you a notebook of various exhibits we may refer to your testimony today, and I've given you a copy of your deposition transcript that was taken on January the 3rd, 2005, and a copy of your deposition transcript that was taken on April the 13th, 2005. Do you have those in front of you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You recall being deposed on those dates, January the 3rd of 2005 and April the 13th of 2005?

A. Yes.

Q. You were here for Mr. Buckingham's testimony last week, weren't you?

A. Not all of it, no.

Q. I thought I saw you in the room. And I think you were in the room when he testified about the donation, donations that were given to him at his church in the amount of $850.00. Were you here during that part?

A. Yes, I did hear that.

Q. And he testified about a check. And I'd like to show you the check. It's number P-80 in your notebook. And Matt will bring it up on the screen.

A. P-80?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Okay.

Q. And today, you told us in your direct examination that Mr. Buckingham had given you a check, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a matter of fact, that is the check right there for $850.00 that's been marked P-80, correct?

A. That, I couldn't tell you. I don't know.

Q. Okay. But he definitely gave you a check, right?

A. Oh, yes, uh-huh.

Q. And he told you that these were donations that he had received? That's what you told us in your direct exam, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you that these donations came from people at his church?

A. No.

Q. He didn't tell you that, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you remember former board member Larry Snook asking about the source of the donation of Pandas at a board meeting in November 2004?

A. I believe I do remember that.

Q. And Mr. Snook specifically asked the board to say who gave the Pandas to the school district, correct?

A. I believe that's what he said.

Q. And nobody from the board provided him with any information, either that time or any other time, isn't that right?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. You didn't provide him with any information, did you? You certainly know that?

A. No.

Q. And you recall, and we just discussed, your deposition was taken on January the 3rd. Did you know that it was taken that day so that the Plaintiffs -- it was taken pursuant to court order -- so that the Plaintiffs could decide whether or not to move for a temporary retraining order. Did you know that at the time?

A. I knew they were taking depositions for a particular reason.

Q. Did you know it was for that particular reason?

A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

Q. So the Plaintiffs could decide whether to seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the board from implementing its policy in January of 2005?

A. I believe so.

Q. And when Mr. Rothschild at that deposition asked you about the donation of the books to the school district, you didn't tell him that you had received any check from Mr. Buckingham, did you?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. And you didn't tell him that you had a conversation with Mr. Buckingham on that subject, did you?

A. That I had a conversation with him?

Q. Yes, that you spoke -- that you spoke to Mr. Buckingham about the donation of this check?

A. I don't -- I don't believe so.

Q. Well, let's just take a moment to look at your deposition.

A. Okay.

Q. Let's go to your January 3rd deposition.

A. January 3rd, all right.

Q. Yes, sir. Page 13, beginning on line 6. And it covers a few pages, and so we're going to go through it. I apologize if it's lengthy, but I think it's important.

A. All right.

Q. Mr. Rothschild asked you the following questions and you gave the following answers: Question, Are you aware that 60 copies of this book were donated to the school district? Answer, Yes. Question, Who donated those books to the school district? Answer, I don't know. Question, You don't know? Answer, No, I don't. The question again?

Question, Who donated those books? Answer, Who donated the books? They wanted to remain anonymous. Question, Do you know who donated them? Answer, Do I know the people that donated them? Question, Yes. Answer, I don't know -- I don't know all the people that donated them, no.

Question, Do you know any of the people who donated them? Answer, One. Question, Who was that? Answer, Donald Bonsell. Question, Who is that? Answer, He is my father. Question, Do you know the names of anybody else who donated these books? Answer, No. Question, How did you become aware that these individuals, including your father, intended to donate the books? Answer, Repeat that again.

Question, How did you become aware that your father, as well as other individuals, intended to donate the Pandas book to the district? Answer, I believe the offer was made after there was complaints of using school district money. Question, Using school district money for what? Answer, To buy the books, I believe. Question, Who was the offer made to? Answer, I'm not sure.

Question, When was the first time you became aware of the offer to donate the books? Answer, After the complaint, the complaint from -- I believe it was from Barrie Callahan. Question, How did you become aware of the offer? Answer, I'm not sure of the exact way I became aware of it. Question, Did your father say anything to you? Then there's an objection, and the question was restated.

Question, Did your father say anything to you about his intention to donate books or his offer to donate books to the school district? Answer, I'm sure there was something said.

Question, This morning I took the deposition of School Superintendent Nilsen. He testified that you communicated him to the fact -- to him the fact of this offer to donate the Pandas books. Is that accurate? Answer, That I was going to donate the books? Question, That you communicated to Mr. Nilsen that the offer was being made. Answer, That is what I am saying. I don't remember exactly how it came about. That's what I am saying.

Question, Did you communicate to Mr. Nilsen that an offer was being made to donate Pandas to the district? Answer, I'm not sure. Question, Do you know where the Pandas book were purchased from? Answer, No. I mean, no. Question, Did you contribute any money to the purchase of the Pandas books that were donated to the school district? Answer, No.

Question, Did you suggest to your father that he donate the books? Answer, No. Question, did you request that he donate the books? Answer, No. Question, Was the first time you heard anything about a donation when your father told you he intended to do it? Answer, Repeat that again.

Question, Was the first time you became aware of any possible donation when you father told you he intended to do it? Answer, Well, he wasn't -- I mean, as far as I know, he wasn't the only person. Question, You don't know who the other people are? Answer, I don't know who the other people are.

Question, You have never spoken to anybody else who was involved with the donation? Answer, I don't know the other people. Question, The only person you could have spoken to about the books was your father, correct? Answer, 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.

Question, They offered to whom? How was the offer communicated? Answer, That is what I am saying. I am trying to think about exactly how it was done. I don't remember exactly how it was said or done.

Was that your testimony on January the 3rd, 2005, Mr. Bonsell?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you didn't mention anything to Mr. Rothschild about getting a donation, a check from Mr. Buckingham for $850.00, did you?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And you understood that he was seeking that specific information, not that specific information, but that he asked you questions that should have called for that information, isn't that correct?

A. No, I don't agree with that.

Q. Mr. Bonsell, he asked you, Question, The only person you could have spoken to about the books was your father, correct? Answer, 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. Question, They offered to whom? How was the offer communicated? Answer, That is what I'm saying. I'm trying to think of exactly how it was done. I don't remember exactly how it was said or done.

And you didn't provide -- that was the question and answer. And you did not provide Mr. Rothschild with any information or tell him in any way that you had received a check from Mr. Buckingham, correct?

A. I didn't receive -- that I didn't receive a check from Mr. Buckingham? No, I already said, I haven't -- I did not tell him about me receiving a check from Mr. Buckingham. But I still, you know, don't believe I misspoke.

Q. Well, Mr. Bonsell --

A. I mean, in my opinion.

Q. Today, you told us that you recall Mrs. Buckingham speaking at a board meeting in June of 2004, correct? Do you remember that?

A. In June 2004?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. And you said that she went on for a great length, and you felt uncomfortable gaveling her down because she was the wife of a board member, correct?

A. Oh, Mrs. Buckingham, okay.

Q. Yes, Mrs. Buckingham.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And you said that she probably mentioned creationism, isn't that right?

A. It's very possible.

Q. And you testified today that her comments were very religious in nature, isn't that correct?

A. What I can remember now, yes.

Q. Now Mr. Rothschild asked you about this at your deposition on January 3rd, 2005, and you didn't mention this either, did you?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you remember Mr. Rothschild asking you about that?

A. I don't remember it, no, but --

Q. Go to your January 3rd deposition at page 50, please.

A. Page 50. Okay.

Q. And line 20. And he's referring to a news article, which we're going to look at in a minute. Question, After that, there are remarks attributed to Mr. Buckingham's wife, Charlotte, on the subject of creationism. Do you remember her saying what is attributed to her in the article? Answer, I remember Mrs. Buckingham coming up and talking at public comment, but I don't remember what she said. Wasn't that your testimony on January the 3rd?

A. On January the 3rd, it was.

Q. And your testimony is something different today, isn't it?

A. Only to the extent that I remember more of what she said then versus now. I mean, I did say that she did -- I remember her coming up and talking.

Q. Well, let's take a look at what has been marked as P-54.

A. P-54.

Q. That is a June 15th article, June 15th, 2004, article from the York Dispatch written by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you actually were provided that article and asked to look at the second page, the seventh full paragraph, the one that says -- Matt, could you highlight it, the one that begins, his remarks. The one that says, His remarks were echoed by his wife, Charlotte Buckingham, who said that teaching evolution was in direct opposition to God's teaching, and that the people of Dover could not in good conscience allow the district to teach anything about creationism, close quote. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. That's the specific statement that you were asked to look at your deposition by Mr. Rothschild before you gave the testimony we just discussed, isn't that correct?

A. That, I don't know.

Q. Well, take a look again at the deposition. And, if you begin, and I'm not going to -- if you begin on page 45?

A. Page 45?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

Q. You see on line 8, he's asking you to turn to the June 15th article in the York Dispatch by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And P-54 is a June 15th article in the York Dispatch by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb. In fact, it's that same article, isn't that correct?

A. It looks like it is.

Q. And then if you look on page 50, that's what he was referring to when he says, on line 20, after that, there are remarks attributed to Mr. Buckingham's wife, Charlotte, on the subject of creationism. Do you see that?

A. Okay. Which line is that again?

Q. That is on page 50, line 20.

A. Page 50?

Q. Yes, page 50, line 20.

A. Page 50, line 20. Okay.

Q. That's the exact same article, P-54, that you were asked to look at your deposition when you gave that testimony that you didn't recall Mrs. Buckingham saying anything to that effect or you didn't remember what she said, correct?

A. Yes. In January, that's what I said, yes.

Q. But the question is, you looked at P-54, that exact same article, and you read the language that I read to you from P-54 about what Mrs. Buckingham said at the June meeting, and that's what you were looking at, and you read just before you gave that testimony at your deposition, isn't that correct?

A. So you're saying, page 50, you asked me to look at this page?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. And where does that -- I don't see that on page 50. I see the question, what we already went over a minute or two ago, but you're saying I was looking at this page when --

Q. Yes, yes, if you look again. Let's go through this. If you go to page 45 --

A. Oh, back to 45. Okay. Continues on through there?

Q. That's right.

A. Oh, okay.

Q. He's asking you a whole series of questions about this article.

A. Okay.

Q. Then if you go to page 50, he says, now this is on line 15, after that, there is a statement attributed to Mr. Buckingham that the liberal agenda was chipping away at the rights of Christians in this country. Do you know if he made that statement? Answer, I'm not sure if he said that or not. That was your testimony, right? Correct, that was your testimony on that date?

A. I'm not sure if he said them or not. Okay. That's on 19?

Q. Right. That was your testimony, right, on page 50.

A. All right.

Q. Then the very next thing he says is that, after that, there were remarks attributed to Mr. Buckingham's wife on the subject of creationism. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now if you go back to P-54, and you look at the seventh full paragraph, where it's talking about the statements by Charlotte Buckingham, all right, do you see that?

A. Okay.

Q. If you see the statement, just before that in the article is about a liberal agenda chipping away at the rights of Christians in this country?

A. Okay. I see that.

Q. Okay. Now what I'm asking you is, P-54 and specifically that statement, seventh full paragraph on the second page, that's the statement that you looked at your deposition just before you told Mr. Rothschild that you couldn't remember anything that Mrs. Buckingham said at the meeting, isn't that right, Mr. Bonsell?

A. That's what I said in January, yes.

Q. And that was P-54, you were looking at that time in that specific statement?

A. That's what it appears to be, from what you're saying. I guess there is no other articles on that date, so I would imagine that's it.

Q. Mr. Bonsell, you testified this morning about when you ran for the school board in 2001. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your testimony that you didn't bring up creationism or school prayer at any time during the course of running for that office?

A. That was nothing that we -- that was nothing that we ran on, no.

Q. And my question is, you didn't bring it up at any time during the course of running for office, is that correct?

A. In the course of running for office? I don't believe. No. Say that question again.

Q. I'd like to know whether at any time when you ran for school board in 2001, you brought up the subject of creationism or school prayer?

A. In my running for school board, I don't believe I did. Not that I recall.

Q. We looked at this morning a document. Matt, would you bring it up, P-21, and highlight the first and second items under Mr. Bonsell's name there.

A. I'm sorry. Which number is this?

Q. P-21.

A. Oh, okay. So just look on the screen here. All right.

Q. If you would like, you can look on the screen or you can look at the exhibit.

A. All right.

Q. You talked about this morning, this same document with a different number on it from your counsel. And is it your testimony that you did not say or bring up the subject of creationism at that school board retreat on January the 9th of 2002?

A. Did I say I didn't bring it up?

Q. I'm asking you now. Did you mention creationism at that school board retreat?

A. As my testimony earlier, I must have. I must have brought it up at the board retreat.

Q. Do you remember bringing it up?

A. I don't remember. There again, I don't remember what I wish I did, but I don't remember what I said about it, no.

Q. I'm just asking not whether you remember what you said about it. Do you remember bringing it up at all at that school board retreat?

A. I don't remember bringing it up. Like I said, Dr. Nilsen wrote it down, so I must have said it.

Q. If you could take a moment to look at what has been marked as P-25. Matt, would you please bring that up? Focus on the third item under Mr. Bonsell's name.

Now, Mr. Bonsell, do you see that, the third item under your name, under what's been marked as P-25, is creationism again?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember bringing that up at the school board retreat in March of 2003?

A. Again, I don't really remember any of this or, from my previous testimony, I believe I said, I don't remember this or any of the other subjects from this or other board retreats.

Q. Do you remember that you had an interest in creationism when you were a member of the school board in 2002 and 2003?

A. Did I have an interest in it? It might have been a question about it. But I don't know -- maybe you need to be more specific.

Q. Sure. Matt, would you please bring up Mr. Gillen's opening statement at page 19? The -- no, the last full paragraph on page 18 and the first full paragraph on 19, please. I'm sorry. 18 and 19. That's it. You were here for the opening statement in this case, weren't you?

A. I believe so, yes. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Gillen said the following words: Alan Bonsell is a perfect example. He came to the board without any background in education of the law, just a sincere desire to serve his fellow citizens.

By virtue of his personal reading, he was aware of intelligent design theory, and that 300 or so scientists had signed a statement indicating that biologists were exaggerating claims for the theory. He had read about the famous Piltdown man hoax. He had an interest in creationism. He wondered whether it could be discussed in the classroom. Do you see those words?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now is it true that you had an interest in creationism, as your counsel said in his opening statement?

A. Well, I have said it twice at two board retreats, so it must be. That's why I said, it could be as a question in that, as just like I have testified about prayer.

Q. Well, let's just put aside what was said at the board retreats and focus on what you remember about your own self during that time period. Do you remember that you had an interest in creationism with respect to the Dover public schools in 2002 and 2003?

A. Did I have an interest in creationism in the public schools? I mean, what do you mean by that?

Q. I mean, did you think to yourself, gosh, I'd like to have creationism in the schools or I wonder if I could have creationism in the school or what would it be like if we had creationism in the schools or any thoughts whatsoever, Mr. Bonsell?

A. I don't think in that respect. I think more in the respect of, you know, is it taught? Is it not? Is it even mentioned? In what -- it's sort of like, you know, in what way does Dover look at this, if they do? I mean, I could see something like that.

Q. I'm not asking you if you could see something like that. I'm asking you if you have a memory of wanting to know how the Dover schools dealt with creationism?

A. That could be.

Q. That could be or that is? Either you remember or you don't, Mr. Bonsell.

A. Did I ever have an -- could you ask that one more time? I'm trying to get an understanding of where you're coming from with the question. Did I ever have an interest at all in creationism?

Q. Yes, sir. And the question is more specific. Actually, it's in 2002 and 2003, whether you had any interest in creationism that related to the Dover schools?

A. Probably.

Q. That you can recall?

A. Probably.

Q. Whether it was said or not, whether it was just in your head and never said?

A. Probably.

Q. Now I'd like you to take a look at what has been marked as P-26. And we'll bring that up on the board. This document is a memo from Trudy Peterman to Mr. Baksa, Mr. Reading, and Mrs. Spahr, isn't that correct?

A. Do you have a number I can look at? It's awful small.

Q. It's P-26 in your notebook. That might be easier for you to look at. Do you have that in front of you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. That's dated April the 1st, 2003?

A. April 1st, 2003, yes.

Q. Now if you'd look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. Matt, would you highlight that, please? That says, Mr. Baksa further stated to Mrs. Spahr on March 31, 2003, that this board member wanted 50 percent of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of creationism. Do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. And the memo doesn't identify who the board member is, who wanted it, correct?

A. Not in that sentence, no.

Q. It doesn't actually anywhere in that whole paragraph or the letter, isn't that correct?

A. I didn't -- do you want me to read it?

Q. Well, look at the first paragraph.

A. Okay.

Q. All right. That doesn't identify who the board member was who wanted this?

A. No. No, it doesn't.

Q. Right. Now Mr. Rothschild asked you about this at your deposition on April 13, and he showed you P-26, which we just looked at, which is one of the documents that says creationism next to your name. Excuse me. He didn't -- not -- it's P-26 in this document. I'm sorry. He showed you this document at your deposition, and he asked if you recalled advocating the teaching of something 50/50 with evolution in or around this time, April 1, 2003. Do you recall that?

A. Can you show it to me, please?

Q. Sure. Go to the second -- your second deposition on April the 13th.

A. April 13th one.

Q. Beginning on page 45.

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Beginning on page 45, line 20.

A. Line 20.

Q. He asked you, and I'll -- did he not -- and my question to you is, Did you ever, did you personally ever express that to Mr. Baksa, that you wanted 50 percent of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of creationism? Answer, No.

Question, Did you ever express to Mr. Baksa or in Mr. Baksa's presence that you wanted 50 percent of something else to be taught along with the topic of evolution? Answer, No, I don't believe so.

Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. That was your testimony on that date, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Bonsell, that was your testimony on that date?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Now that was before the Defendants produced either P-21 or P-25, the documents that we just looked at that have creationism next to your name. They came -- they were produced later in the course of the litigation, you know that, right?

A. P-21?

Q. And P-25?

A. Oh, the ones you just -- oh, okay, the retreat, yes.

Q. Yes, they were produced after your deposition on April the 13th, so we couldn't show them to you on that date, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And your deposition also occurred -- your deposition was on, excuse me, the board retreat in March of 2003 was actually on March the 26th, right? We can see that by looking at P-25?

A. March 26th?

Q. Right.

A. Yes.

Q. And that was less than a week before the date of the Trudy Peterman memo, which was April 1, right?

A. Okay.

Q. Isn't that correct?

A. April 1st, that would be correct.

Q. And your deposition was taken before Mrs. Callahan located what has been marked as P-641. Can you bring that up, Matt?

A. P-641?

Q. Right.

A. Okay.

Q. All right. Now you actually looked at a copy of that document earlier in your direct examination without the handwriting on it, isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now the handwriting, if you look on the right-hand side, are two-thirds of the way up or maybe just a little more than two-thirds of the way up, it has handwritten, Alan. Am history. Founding fathers. 50/50 evolution versus creationism. And then there's an arrow that says, does not believe in evolution. Would you agree that's what that handwriting says?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. So I've asked you to look at these various documents, because we didn't have them when we took your deposition on April the 13th. Now looking at these documents, can you tell us, were you the board member who wanted to teach evolution, 50/50 evolution, creationism, in or around March of 2003?

A. No, I don't believe I am.

Q. In fact, to the best of your recollection, you've never talked about creationism at any school board meeting, isn't that correct?

A. Any school board meeting? I don't recall it being discussed. You're talking -- and you're saying, never said the word in a board meeting or --

Q. Yes.

A. I just don't recall it in a board meeting.

Q. When we asked you about this at your deposition, you said you never talked about creationism at any school board meeting. Do you remember that?

A. Okay.

Q. Is that correct?

A. That sounds correct.

Q. That's what you told us when we asked you this at your deposition. You never said creationism at any school board meeting?

A. Okay.

Q. Now if these two documents that we've looked at, the board retreat documents showing the word creationism next to your name in 2002 and 2003, if they hadn't turned up, we would never have learned from you that you had brought up creationism, isn't that correct?

A. That is -- I guess that would be true. The thing is about that, you're asking me about my recollection. I believe, number 1, is, we brought these papers forward. And that basically, you know, you're asking me about my recollection. Mrs. Callahan didn't have a recollection of it. Mrs. Brown, Mr. Brown, the administrators. The same thing. So --

Q. Well, you didn't bring those documents forward personally, did you? You didn't find those?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Nilsen found those, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. He gave them to your counsel, who turned them over to us?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now let's talk for just a few minutes about creationism. Creationism is your personal belief, right?

A. Yes -- well, you want to give me a definition before I say yes?

Q. Well, we asked you this at your deposition, and you said that your creationism was your personal belief, isn't that correct? We'll talk about what it means in a minute.

A. Well, that's what I said. I mean, again, I believe I've also said that everybody's definition of creationism could be different.

Q. Well, we're interested in your definition of creationism. You believe in creationism, don't you?

A. My faith?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. And that actually is based on the Bible, on Holy Scripture, isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And one aspect of creationism is that species exist -- excuse me -- is that species were formed as they now exist, isn't that right?

A. I believe so.

Q. And that species, including man, do not share common ancestors? That's one aspect of creationism, as you understand it?

A. As I understand it. It is my belief.

Q. And that means that birds were formed with their feathers, beaks, and wings, correct?

A. Well, that's not in the first parts of Genesis, but, okay.

Q. Well, I recognize that's not in the first parts of Genesis, but that is part of what you understand to be creationism, correct?

A. That the animals were formed, yes.

Q. Well, including specifically birds with their feathers, beaks, and wings, that they were formed that way, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's your personal religious belief?

A. Yes.

Q. And that fish were formed with their fins and scales?

A. That would probably be true.

Q. Again, that is your personal religious belief?

A. Yes.

Q. And that humans -- and it's also your personal religious belief that humans -- I would say man, but that's not politically correct anymore -- that humans were formed, were created in their present form, right? That's part of your definition of creationism?

A. Yes.

Q. Again, that's, with all respect, your personal religious belief?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. I'm sorry. You need to say yes or no.

A. Yes. I'm sorry.

Q. And as part of that, it's part of your personal religious belief that humans did not evolve from any other species, correct?

A. My religious belief, yes.

Q. Now -- and all of those things that we just discussed are aspects of creationism, correct?

A. Okay, yes.

Q. Now some people who believe in creationism think that the Earth is not billions of years old, but only thousands of years old. Are you familiar with that?

A. There are some people that believe that, yes.

Q. And then other people who believe in creationism believe that the Earth is possibly billions of years old, right?

A. I guess there's all sorts of beliefs, yes.

Q. Well, specifically, we're talking about beliefs in creationism. I'd like to know, what's your personal religious belief on that subject?

A. I don't believe that the Earth is billions of years old. As far as exact time, I can't really say.

Q. Do you believe that it's only thousands of years old?

A. I would say, thousands and not billions.

Q. Just to be clear, that's your personal religious belief?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Now the theory of evolution teaches, among other things, that humans evolved from another species, a lower form of life, and that humans and other species share a common ancestor. You understand that, that is one of the things that the theory of evolution teaches?

A. I believe, in macro evolution, yes.

Q. And that specific aspect of the theory of evolution is offensive to your personal religious beliefs, isn't it, Mr. Bonsell?

A. Offensive? I don't believe it -- I have my beliefs.

Q. Well, it's inconsistent with your personal religious beliefs?

A. It's inconsistent.

Q. Now, Mr. Bonsell, do you believe that evolution is atheistic?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, take a moment to look at what has been marked as P-127. Matt, would you please bring that up, second page?

A. 127?

Q. Correct.

A. I don't think that's in my book.

Q. You know, gosh, it didn't make it into the book. I can get you a copy of it or you can look on the screen.

A. I'm trying to look. He blew it up a little bit here. I should be able to read it.

Q. Yes. Actually, I want to look at the -- P-127, this document that we're looking at, this is the February newsletter that the school board sent out?

A. Okay.

Q. You put together some frequently asked questions?

A. Okay.

Q. Isn't that right? Do you remember that?

A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. You had assistance from the people from the Thomas More Law Center in putting this together?

A. Yes.

Q. Now if you go to what we're just looking at, that one particular frequently asked question, quotes, Are there religious implications to the theory of ID, end quotes. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And ID is intelligent design?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And it says, and I'd like to read it to you, Not any more so than the religious implications of Darwinism. Some have said that, before Darwin, we thought a benevolent God has created us. Biology took away our status as made in the image of God or man is the result of a purposeless process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. Or Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled aethiest. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now are you trying to convey, that P-127, that passage I just read, trying to convey that evolution has anti-religious implications?

A. Not necessarily. We were basically responding to what we were hearing out in the public and trying to respond to different things along that line. We were saying it was religious implications of ID. That was one of the main thrusts of the whole thing.

Q. I guess what I'd like to know is this. This is -- not I guess what I'd like to know, I know this is what I'd like to know. Do you agree with me that the theory of evolution is religiously neutral, it doesn't have any implications for the existence of God or any other deity? It doesn't suggest the non-existence of God or any other deity. It is religiously neutral. Do you agree?

A. No.

Q. You don't agree that evolution is religiously neutral? You think it has religious implications?

A. You could have religious implications with Darwin.

Q. Sure. Well, somebody could draw implications from anything, but I'm asking you, is standing alone, is it your understanding that the theory of evolution has no religious or anti-religious implications one way or another? Do you agree with me on that?

A. No, it doesn't have anymore religious implications than ID.

Q. We're not talking about ID right now. We can talk about that later perhaps. We're talking about evolution. I just want to know if you agree that evolution has no religious implications?

A. No, I don't agree with that.

Q. So you think evolution does have religion implications?

A. It could have religious implications. I mean, scientists that I've heard here are saying that there's religious implications in every theory. So, no, I don't agree that it's neutral.

Q. Now, before you said that at some level you had an interest in creationism in the Dover public schools, isn't -- do you remember that testimony?

A. I'm sorry. Repeat that.

Q. Before, we were asking about, talking about your, the statement, your counsel's opening statement about your interests in creationism, and you, I believe, agreed with me that, at some level, in your mind, perhaps not expressed, you had an interest in creationism in the Dover public schools. Do you remember that?

A. In my mind? I guess I could say yes to that.

Q. Did you want to do something to present or teach or somehow address or involve creationism in the Dover public schools?

A. I have never brought anything forward to put creationism into the school district in any way, shape, or form.

Q. I'm asking you, not what you did, but I'm asking you what you thought because --

A. What I thought?

Q. Yes. Did you ever think that?

A. I don't know. Did I ever think about it? Did I ever think about it? I think about a lot of things. Did I ever think about it?

Q. Let me ask you the question again, Mr. Bonsell. We've seen two documents that have your name and the word creationism next to them, and you agree that you are sure you said them?

A. In that with respect, I guess I would say, yes.

Q. But you don't remember saying it, and so you -- obviously, it was there, you obviously said it, but you can't remember anything, but what you said about it, and I'm asking you now if you remember that you wanted to, you have no recollection of expressing it, but that you wanted to somehow bring creationism or address creationism in the Dover public schools?

A. No, not in that respect, no. I mean, obviously, I said it at two board -- said the word at two board retreats so, obviously, I must have had the word in my head when I said it, as far as that goes. But I never brought anything forward about it at all.

Q. And again, I'm just, you don't even have any recollection of a thought process about doing something within the Dover schools, correct?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. You testified before in your direct that, in your view, intelligent design is not creationism?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And Pandas, the book Of Pandas and People is the reference source for information about intelligent design for students in the Dover High School, at least according to the board's resolution?

A. It's a reference book.

Q. It's the reference book on intelligent design, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's for the students in the Dover High School?

A. If they want to look at it.

Q. Right. And I'd like to show you -- Matt, if you could please bring up P-11. And Mr. -- I want to ask you a couple questions about Pandas. Let me get you a copy of it. Mr. Bonsell, I've just given you a copy of the book Of Pandas and People, and it's been marked as P-11.

And I'd like you to go to pages 99 and 100 of this textbook, which you've been in court for much of the trial, haven't you?

A. A lot of it, yes.

Q. Matt, could you bring up -- and actually, we've highlighted the language that I want you to look at on page 99 and 100. And it's highlighted on your screen. It says that, quote, Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Do you see that?

A. I see that, yes.

Q. Now would you agree with me that, that's the same or at least very similar to what you said was one aspect of creationism?

A. It's very similar, but I also have an understanding from Dr. Behe that he didn't think that was -- that should have been in there.

Q. Now I'd like you to look at the same document, P -- page 156. Matt, could you please bring that up? It's on the left column in the middle. It's the paragraph that begins, This is precisely why a book that questions -- Mr. Bonsell, I'd like you -- do you have that page in front of you?

A. I have it on the screen there, yes.

Q. I'd like to read this paragraph to you. It says, quote, This is precisely why a book that questions the Darwinian notion of common descent is so necessary. By presenting a reasonable alternative to evolution in the second sense; i.e., common ancestry, Pandas helps students learn to work with multiple perspectives to distinguish those perspectives from facts and to guard themselves against the illusion of knowledge. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And that's consistent with your personal religious belief that doesn't believe in common ancestry as taught in the theory of evolution, isn't that correct?

A. It really didn't go into what the alternative is here in this sentence though. They're saying, by presenting a reasonable alternative to evolution in the second sense; i.e., common ancestry. Is that what you're talking about? Or can you give me exactly what, you know, what it is that I'm supposed to be agreeing to here?

Q. Sure. I'm asking you, Pandas questions the notion of common descent, isn't that correct? That's one of the things that Pandas does?

A. Well, again, my understanding from listening to Dr. Behe, that there's, you know, he doesn't have a problem with common descent, from what I understood. So I think this could be -- maybe there's some that do and some that don't.

Q. I understand that. But I'm asking you if it's your understanding that the book, Pandas and People, the reference source on intelligent design that's provided to students in the Dover High School, questions the notion of common descent?

A. Well, that, I'm not sure of, because I don't really see that in that sentence saying that -- it says there's a reasonable alternative, but it doesn't say what that is, so I don't know if it's something that could be part of that or not part of it or what. So I can't really answer yes or no to that.

Q. Well, actually, I'm looking at the first sentence, the words that say, A book that questions the Darwinian notion of common descent. Do you see that?

A. Questions the notion, okay.

Q. Right. That's clearly referring to the book in question, to Pandas, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. My question is simply, you agree that the book Pandas, not Dr. Behe, but the book Pandas questions the notion of common descent?

A. That's what it says there.

Q. Again, that's consistent with your religious personal beliefs?

A. Questions the notion of common descent? Yes.

Q. Now I'd like to ask you to look at page 92 of Pandas, the last paragraph in the right column?

A. 92.

Q. Tell me when you've got that. It's also on the screen.

A. That's even bigger, so it's good.

Q. It says, An additional issue concerns the matter of the Earth's age. While design proponents are in agreement on the significant observations about the fossil record, they are divided on the issue of the Earth's age. Some take the view that the Earth's history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old-earth chronology. In this chapter, we will examine the three features outlined above. Do you see that?

A. I see that, yes.

Q. I didn't need to read the last sentence. But I guess what I'm asking you is that, Pandas, to your knowledge, takes no position on the age of the Earth, correct?

A. I didn't read it cover to cover, but if that's what you're telling me, yeah, I'll agree with you.

Q. I'm asking you if that's your understanding, that the book Of Pandas and People doesn't take any issue with the age of the Earth? It doesn't address it one way or the other?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. But in any event, the -- this paragraph that we're looking at right here says that proponents of intelligent design have different views on the age of the Earth, as I just read, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's consistent with your personal religious beliefs as well?

A. Well, I believe that what it says is that, some might agree with what I'm saying or what I believe and some don't that are in that design proponent. So I don't think that's -- I would then have to say, no, that isn't correct.

Q. Well, you would agree that it's not inconsistent with your personal religious beliefs?

A. Well, yes, it would be, because there is -- they're divided on the issue. So, yes, I would say that is an inconsistency.

Q. So to the extent that Of Pandas and People teaches that the Earth is really billions of years old and not thousands of years old, that's inconsistent with your personal religious beliefs?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Harvey, wherever you see a logical break point, we can take a break.

MR. HARVEY: I just concluded a section, Your Honor, so this will be perfect right now.

THE COURT: That's what I thought. We'll take a 20 minute recess, and then we'll return with your cross examination at that point after the recess.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 2:53 p.m. and proceedings reconvened at 3:15 p.m.)