Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 8 (October 12), PM Session, Part 2
THE COURT: We'll take our next witness.
MR. WALCZAK: The plaintiffs call Cindy Sneath.
CYNTHIA SNEATH, called as a witness, having been duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: State your name and spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Cynthia Sneath, C-y-n-t-h-i-a, S-n-e-a-t-h.
Q. Good morning.
A. Hi.
Q. Please state your name.
A. Cynthia Sneath.
Q. And are you a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you live in Dover?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. Since 1999.
Q. And are you married?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Do you have children?
A. Two.
Q. How old are your children?
A. Seven and four.
Q. Boys or girls?
A. Boys.
Q. Are either of them enrolled in the Dover Area School District?
A. Yeah. My oldest goes to Weiglestown Elementary.
Q. What grade is he in?
A. Second.
Q. And do you have any plans to leave the Dover Area School District?
A. No.
Q. Could you briefly tell us your educational background?
A. Graduated high school, diploma, life lessons, hopefully a dose of common sense.
Q. And are you employed outside the home?
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you do?
A. My husband and I own a small business. I'm vice president.
Q. What kind of business is that?
A. Appliance repair and installations.
Q. And do you have any particular background in science?
A. No.
Q. Do you have a personal interest in science?
A. Not personally, no. You know, I have an interest for my son, who actually shows a great interest in science.
Q. And which child is that?
A. My second-grader, my seven-year-old.
Q. And why do you say he shows a great interest?
A. Many reasons. You know, don't get him started on talking about the NASA space shuttle program. I mean, just everything he does is very science-oriented. It's just something he obviously enjoys.
Q. Prior to October of 2004, had you attended any Dover Area school board meetings?
A. No.
Q. Prior to October, 2004, did you learn that there was discussion about changes to the school district's biology curriculum?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, if you didn't attend school board meetings, how did you learn that?
A. Through the newspaper. I get it delivered daily, the evening paper.
Q. And which paper is that?
A. That's the York Dispatch.
Q. And do you regularly read the newspaper?
A. Yeah, pretty regularly.
Q. And do you recall about when it was that you first realized that there was some controversy over the biology curriculum?
A. Looking back, you know, I'm thinking it was probably over the summer when it really first appeared on my radar screen. But it really didn't become a reality until October and when the policy was passed.
Q. When did you attend your first board meeting?
A. It would have been the very next board meeting.
Q. Very next meaning the one --
A. November. I'm thinking November would have been the next month. You know, they have two meetings a month, so that first one in November.
Q. So you didn't attend the October 18th board meeting?
A. Correct.
Q. It would have been two weeks after?
A. Right.
Q. So the only source of information you had prior to November about what the school district was doing or planning on doing was from news reports?
A. Correct.
Q. And can you tell us what it is that you understood was going on at these school board meetings?
MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Just for the record preserving my hearsay objection on any information that she has no personal knowledge about but is relying on hearsay statements in the newspaper.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, I'm asking her about her state of mind and what it is that she knew or what it is that she understood from whatever source she may have gotten it.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question to be precise as to the source. And you may have been precise, but I didn't hear it exactly that way. So I'll sustain the objection to the extent that you can be more precise. But consistent with my prior rulings, we may permit reference to the newspaper articles to refresh recollection, et cetera. So be a little bit more precise.
Q. So you had not personally attended any school board meetings?
A. Correct.
Q. Had you framed some understanding, did you have some understanding, whether right or wrong, about what was going on in the Dover School District prior to October?
A. Yes. I mean, you know, what I had been reading and some of the things I've read were outlining the controversy and basically stating that there's a science class and, you know, talk of creationism and religious ideas.
There were science people coming forward. I know the guy from York College had made a statement about it not being science. There was a guy from Kansas that had made a comment about this not being science. There was the word "creationism" being used.
And so, you know, it just seemed to be, you know, the science versus religious thing culminating. And that would have been my perception.
Q. At some point did you --
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I know that we've got a standing objection, and I don't want to vex the questioner or the witness, but, I mean, she has no personal knowledge, so what she's basically testifying to is hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, it doesn't go to the truth, does it?
MR. GILLEN: Well, I agree that if they're not offering it for the truth of the matter and just why she's attending board meetings, that's fine, but to the extent that --
THE COURT: Well, that wasn't the question. The question wasn't why she attended board meetings, the question was what she had heard or knew about with the understanding she hadn't been to a board meeting. And now she's testified, as I understand it, sort of broadly about what she read in the newspaper, although I'm not sure of all the sources. The answer was perhaps a little bit broader than that. That doesn't go to the truth. It does go to the effect prong regardless of truth, doesn't it?
MR. GILLEN: Well, I would say no. As you know, that's an issue that we're going to revisit in connection with the reporters, but, I mean, to say that she's acting based on information she received in the newspapers saying, in effect, that information was true.
THE COURT: Well, we didn't get to that point yet.
MR. GILLEN: Right.
THE COURT: If we get to that point, that's a separate argument.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
THE COURT: But right now, if you have a hearsay objection based upon the testimony that she just gave --
MR. GILLEN: Which is based on hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, it's not hearsay if it doesn't go to the truth, and it didn't go to the truth yet.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
THE COURT: Now -- go ahead.
MR. GILLEN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. With that understanding that it's not evidence admissible for the purpose of the truth of the matter she's testifying to, that, you know, if it's what she thought, I can't object to that. I agree. But if it's offered for the truth, then I object based on hearsay.
MR. WALCZAK: It is offered purely to establish her state of mind and what her understanding was based on the sources that were available to her at the time. So this is not offered for the truth of what's in those articles.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
THE COURT: And we may have a disagreement that we'll endure as to the effect prong under Lemon because I don't think it requires, in every case, that the recipients -- that the information received by the recipient, in this case her, that it be true, does it?
MR. GILLEN: I would think that the effects can only be established by admissible evidence, and that is evidence that is admissible for substantive purposes.
Judge, I mean, I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but, you know, Chicken Little could have said the sky was falling, you know, Foxy-Woxy could have reported it, and Henny-Penny could have read it, thought it was true, but as the story goes, the King knew better.
And you can't convict someone based on hearsay. You can't demonstrate effects except through admissible evidence, and that admissible evidence is non-hearsay. And by any other measure, effects have to be proven by admissible evidence.
THE COURT: But the effect is subjective, isn't it?
MR. GILLEN: No, it's objective, and it's based on admissible evidence. It has to be in a court proceeding, Your Honor. You can't use the effects prong to let in a ton of hearsay. If that was the case, you could prove the whole case through newspaper clippings.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, first of all, you know, I think if you look at Doe versus Santa Fe, certainly if you look at McCreary, I'm pretty sure in Selman -- and Mr. Katskee unfortunately left for the holidays, and he's our real expert on this, but I think in all of those cases, and in Wallace versus Jaffrey, the Court looked at newspaper articles to help gauge the effect on the community.
And this is not offered -- you know, this is not there for hearsay purposes. This is not for the truth of the matter asserted. It is for what the reasonable, average person in the community is seeing or believing. And, you know, as long as I don't have to answer with a countering rhyme, let me just -- which I was duly impressed by that, but this is --
MR. GILLEN: I've got young kids.
MR. WALCZAK: I do, too, but they're older.
MR. GILLEN: And it fits.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, it is the fact that this is out there, right or wrong. And some people are forming an impression about that, again, right or wrong. But the impression here in the community is, based on reading everything that's being published, that this is a religious dispute.
THE COURT: How else do you get effect?
MR. GILLEN: By bringing in evidence of what actually happened and measuring it on the part of witnesses who were actually there.
THE COURT: But the witness who was there, once it hits that witness, it becomes a subjective exercise, whether they're there or whether they read it in the paper.
In other words, you have a dispute about what was said at these school board meetings. You have school board members who deny, as I understand it, that they said certain things that have been attributed to them. So if a witness says that he or she heard something and that's already in dispute, what am I to do with that?
MR. GILLEN: But, Your Honor, from my perspective, that's the point. I mean, the effect of a newspaper article is the effect of a newspaper article. And that newspaper article, if it could be established without speculation, for one thing -- I mean, just look at what you're being asked to do here. Ten thousand people could have read the paper. One could have said, oh, my heavens, this is nonsense. Another could have said, you know, they're at it again. Who knows. Number one, it's pure speculation.
Number two, the effect is the effect of what the reporter said. Look at these things. They look at what one person has said, arguably, in a board meeting and leave out what ten have said. How could the board be responsible for that? It's hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, I think you make it too fine a point. In the milieu and in the array of information available to this average person, and I think the cases are somewhat in -- they're not in conflict, but are we -- who is the recipient?
I think some of them set up a sort of reasonably intelligent person, but I think you're placing too fine a point on it. I think within the broad array of informational sources for measuring the effect prong, in some cases, not all of them, would be a newspaper.
MR. GILLEN: But, Your Honor, to --
THE COURT: And just to finish before you argue.
MR. GILLEN: Sure.
THE COURT: What you're saying is for a newspaper to be that, the veracity of the newspaper article has to be tested. And once it goes through that gate and it passes, then it's all right for the effect prong, if I hear you correctly.
MR. GILLEN: What I'm saying is, if it's not hearsay, then it is evidence and then it's admissible for the purpose of proving liability, but if it's hearsay, it is not. And by any other measure to say that paper clippings are the proof of effect is to say that they're proof of true effect.
THE COURT: So you're saying that if the reporters testify and if I establish that the articles are -- I know you don't want this, but if we get to that point and I say that having tested the veracity of the articles based on the reporters' testimony that the articles are accurate and represent a true account of what they saw and heard at the school board meetings and if I admit that over your objection, understandably, that that -- we're over that hurdle.
MR. GILLEN: I'm saying that you can admit them if you find they are an exception to the hearsay rule. Our position is still that it's not proof of effects because the newspaper article itself is the act of a newspaper reporter and not the board.
And if my clients are believed, what the newspaper reporter chose to do is to create a totally false and misleading impression about the actual board deliberations, and therefore, no, they would not be -- I acknowledge, you are the gatekeeper on evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of the effects because it's the proof of what a newspaper reporter wrote.
THE COURT: Well, I'll close the loop by saying this. I'm going to overrule the objection on that basis. I think what you're left with is not necessarily a technical argument on what is hearsay and what's not. I don't see that. I don't think that the hearsay objection can operate to prevent this type of effect testimony.
However, I don't think that you're then estopped from arguing that the information was so unreliable that it ought not be considered for the effect prong. I would rather err on the side of letting it in at this point. You can argue from a qualitative standpoint that it's just so unreliable that a reasonable person should not have received that for the effect that it's -- as it's being attributed.
MR. GILLEN: As you know, Your Honor, I'll make the arguments you let me make, and I'll deal with the rulings that you make.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GILLEN: That's all I can say.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, let me just make one last point. In McCreary, which is the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on the Lemon test, the Court there -- there was a long discussion, and they set up the reasonably informed observer. It's not the reasonably informed observer who attended those McCreary County board meetings.
THE COURT: I understand that.
MR. WALCZAK: It's the reasonably informed observer, period. And they don't specify whether, you know, it has to be established as accurate or inaccurate information. And, you know, I mean, Ms. Sneath, to some extent, is a person -- or to every extent is a person who lives in this district, whose information she got, like other people got, through the newspaper, and what she knew as of October 18th came from the newspaper, and she formed an understanding.
THE COURT: Well, I will grant that all of us should go back and look at the cases again, as if we haven't already. We certainly have. But I think you'll agree -- I think you'll agree that the cases are not consistent in terms of McCreary does say -- and that's where the word "reasonable" popped into my head -- sets up a particular test. But the cases are somewhat inconsistent, and I think there's been some confusion judicially with respect to who the recipient is for the effect prong. And I've got to negotiate that at some point.
But for the purpose of this witness, I'm going to err on the side of caution and let it in subject to, as I said, an argument by the defense that, for example, consistent with McCreary, that that reasonable observer should not have accepted that on the effect prong.
I frankly think that's your better argument to make than to stand so clinically on hearsay, because I don't read the cases as saying that you had to make a threshold hearsay determination on the effect prong. So with that --
MR. GILLEN: I'll bear that in mind, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With that extended, complicated academic argument behind us, we'll proceed. Was there a question on the floor?
MR. WALCZAK: Let me ask another question. I'm not sure if there was.
Q. So was there some point in time where your interest really became focused on what was going on at the school board meetings?
A. Do you mean, like, prior to the October 8th or just anytime?
Q. At any point. As I understand it, you were kind of generally following what was going on through the news media?
A. Yeah. And it was very general. And that would have started probably sometime in the summer, I would think.
Q. But at some point your interest became acute?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. The closer it got to October 18th. And then that meeting, you know, that next day in the paper they had passed the curriculum change, and reality set in, you know, this has happened.
Q. And was it about that time that you decided that you wanted to find out more about this topic of intelligent design?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you do to educate yourself about intelligent design?
A. Well, I had never heard the terminology, so, you know, my inclination is typically to go to the Internet, and that's where I started my research. And there was a lot of information available.
Q. So let me just ask you, obviously you're on the Internet, you're Internet savvy, how did you go about researching intelligent design? Did you go to Google or --
A. Yeah. Oh, yes, I always use Google.
Q. And what did you do?
A. Just type in intelligent design, and you get a lot of hits. There's a lot of information to weed through. There's a lot of just news lists, people discussing it, but then there were more specific places that, you know, gave you more specific information.
Q. And how long did you spend looking at intelligent design?
A. I researched it quite a bit. You know, there was a lot of material to read. A lot of times -- you know, you have small kids, you get interrupted, you have to make dinner, whatever. You know what I mean? But I'd go back in spare time that I had to kind of look into it, because the further you looked into it, the more I realized that this was not just a local Dover issue. I became very aware that this is an issue that is, you know, widespread.
Q. Do you remember some of the Web sites that popped up when you did a search for intelligent design?
A. Panda's Thumb, which led me to the NCSE Web site, which was like a wealth of information. That was really the big one that told me that, you know, this was not just a small little issue here. I mean, there were Web sites that people had done that had been active in what was going on, and they kind of did their own little pages with information that they knew, specifically addressing how -- the method of getting this done by going and appealing to a school board and getting a few sympathetic members, just outlining different things like that. So it was, you know, just a wide variety.
Q. Did you find information in your Internet search about the Wedge?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Did you find information through your Internet search about the Wedge?
A. Yes, yes. And I don't remember specifically what site it was. There was a link to it. And then, yeah, I read the Wedge document, which was kind of a real eye-opener for me.
Q. And based on your own personal Internet research, did you form some opinion as to what intelligent design was?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what was that opinion?
A. It's basically equated to creationism. It's, you know, all the same, you know, ideas with a new name, is really what it appeared to me to be.
Q. Now, you started going to board meetings, I believe it was the first meeting in November?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was because of your concern that you thought they were now teaching creationism?
A. Yeah. What is going on? I mean, it was time to get a firsthand account.
Q. And at some board meeting -- and have you been a regular attendee since November?
A. I went to every board meeting until, I think, over the summer. I just -- you know, you kind of need a break after a while. But up until that point, yeah, every meeting.
Q. And this was purely because of your concern over this issue?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And at one of the November board meetings, do you recall a board member Angie Yingling making some comments?
A. Yeah. She wasn't making comments while she was sitting -- you know, it wasn't during the meeting. I think it was prior to an executive meeting. And she was making comments to a reporter and --
Q. And were you present for these comments?
A. Yeah. I mean, it's a small room. And when the meeting is done, everybody is kind of milling around. You know what I mean? You're all kind of right there. And we happened to be standing there, and she was making the comment that she had regretted her decision and that she had been called an atheist, she had been called un-Christian.
And I felt bad because she had also talked about, at that board meeting, about giving her resignation. Now, she didn't do it at that meeting. It was a long time until she ended up actually -- I think officially stepping down. But that was like the first time she talked about it. And so with her saying that and then making these comments, it kind of like made me feel bad.
And I interjected and I said to her, don't quit. Why should you quit? You know, if you feel strongly about the issue, you've changed your mind, just keep revisiting the issue. And that was really the extent of the conversation.
Q. But you overheard her make comments that other board members had called her an atheist?
A. That's what she was saying as I was standing there. And then, you know, as soon as she was done saying that, I, like, intervened and encouraged her not to quit.
Q. And do you remember the words that she used? Did she use the word "atheist"?
A. Yes. She used the word "atheist," and she used the word "un-Christian."
Q. Now, did you have an opportunity to speak to Ms. Yingling again after that meeting?
A. She -- I can't remember exactly which board meeting, but there was a particular board meeting she had handed me her business card, and she was like, call me, you know, and so I did. And I think I called her -- it had to have been sometime in January. I don't know, you know, exactly when.
Q. And this is January, 2005?
A. Correct. To see what she wanted. And she actually wanted to know if I wanted to run for school board with her, because at that time I think, you know, that she was trying to make future plans. And, you know, I really wasn't interested in doing that. But, you know, the conversation kind of went from there.
And I think it was an emotional time for her. She was very emotional. She was very upset. She felt she had been treated very badly. And I remember her stating that she was working on her resignation speech. So I know it was before she actually, you know, resigned.
And, again, she kind of reiterated that same thing to me, that, you know, if you're not their kind of Christian or something to that effect and -- you know, she was emotional.
Q. But do you remember those words, "their kind of Christian," being said by her?
A. Yeah.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. WALCZAK: Matt, could you put up P127, please.
Q. Do you recognize what's been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 127?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is it?
A. That I received in the mail. It was a piece pretty much advocating what they had -- the curriculum update that they had -- or the curriculum change that they had passed.
Q. When did you receive this?
A. It's dated February, so I'm assuming, because dates aren't always real good with me.
Q. And how did you receive this?
A. Through the mail.
Q. Through the U.S. mail?
A. Yeah. And I know other people that had gotten it, as well. I, you know, had talked to different people, and it was kind of the buzz of the news going around that everybody had gotten this.
Q. Now, you just characterized this as advocating intelligent design. I mean, why do you say that?
A. Well, that was my perception. Two days after I received this, I got a regular newsletter in the mail. And, you know, this wasn't just telling people this is what we've done, this is, look what we've done, and Senator Rick Santorum agrees in the No Child Left Behind, and, you know, all the -- what I consider propaganda to go behind it.
Q. So you felt like they were trying to convince you that intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution?
A. Not just me, the community. That was my perception.
Q. Now, you indicated that two days later you got a newsletter in the mail. Who did you get a newsletter from?
A. That's the regular Dover newsletter that comes out.
Q. And how often does that newsletter come?
A. That I don't -- four times a year? I'm not sure. But it's like -- it always looks the same. You know, you can tell it's the regular Dover newsletter.
Q. So there is a newsletter that comes during a regular schedule?
A. Yes, periodically.
Q. So is it clear to you that this biology curriculum update was not a regular newsletter?
A. Well, I -- you know, in my mind, again, if you just want to notify people about what you've done or what a school board has done, I think it would have just been reasonable to put it in a regular newsletter. I mean, obviously this was an extra expense to taxpayers. And as a taxpayer, you're concerned about that.
Q. So this is not how you would want your tax dollars spent?
A. No.
Q. Now, you said you have a seven and a four-year-old. Can your four-year-old read this newsletter?
A. No.
Q. Could your -- it sounds like you have a quite inquiring seven-year-old. Could he read this newsletter?
A. He could read a lot of it. A couple words we might have to help him out, but he's a pretty good reader.
Q. Is it your perception that this was geared towards your children?
A. No, no, I would say this is geared towards parents, taxpayers, constituents.
Q. Do you believe you've been harmed by what the Dover Area School District has done in promoting intelligent design?
A. Yeah, I do.
Q. And how have you been harmed?
A. Well, you know, as a parent, you want to be proactive in your child's education. I mean, obviously I'm not an educator. I have no big degrees. I want to be proactive, but I depend on the school district to provide the fundamentals. And I consider evolution to be a fundamental of science.
And I'm quite concerned about a cautionary statement. I am quite concerned about this intelligent design idea. I do think it's confusing. I don't think it adds to his education.
And at the end of the day, I mean, in my mind, intelligent designer, I mean, the word "designer" is a synonym for Creator, and, you know, that takes a leap of faith for me, you know. And I think it's my privilege to guide them in matters of faith, not a science teacher, not an administrator, and not the Dover Area School Board.
MR. WALCZAK: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Walczak. Mr. Gillen, cross-examine.
Q. Mrs. Sneath.
A. Hello, Mr. Gillen.
Q. Good afternoon. I met you at your deposition and will ask you a few questions today about your trial testimony. I just want to again make clear now, you didn't attend board meetings until November, 2004. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you didn't speak with any board members prior to November, 2004. Correct?
A. That would be correct.
Q. And you didn't speak with any of the science faculty at the high school prior to that time. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. In fact, you've never spoken to the science faculty. Correct?
A. Yeah. No reason.
Q. You say that you -- you've done some personal reading in connection with this dispute about science?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've looked at material on the Internet. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've looked at material by Discovery Institute. Correct?
A. I did go to the Discovery Institute Web site, but I can't say that there was a whole lot of information there. It's not like they critique their own, you know, ideas, and so, you know, it wasn't that great of a Web site, actually.
Q. Sure. But you did learn that approximately 300 scientists agree with the idea that they were promoting? Well, let me ask you this.
A. I have heard that somewhere, but I don't know if I actually obtained that through their Web site.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you.
Q. Mrs. Sneath, I'd ask you to look at your deposition, which I have just handed you, Page 9.
A. Page 9.
Q. Looking at that, it references that you've heard that 300 scientists agree with this idea?
A. Yeah, I heard it somewhere. I just wasn't -- I thought you might have been asking did I read that from their Web site, and that I did not remember doing. But I have heard that comment that 300 scientists have supported it.
Q. And you've read, you said, somewhere on the Internet about the Wedge strategy?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever read a document called, Wedge Strategy, So What?
A. No.
Q. Now, there was a time in which you believed the board was going to require the teaching of intelligent design with equal time in the classroom. Correct?
A. I think it was my understanding that it could be taught if the teacher wanted to, not necessarily the equal time.
Q. Okay. And that understanding was based on what you read in the paper?
A. Yes, that would have been.
Q. But the board didn't do that. Correct?
A. No, not as it stands now. Is that what you're asking?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay.
Q. Likewise, you had a belief that the text of Pandas was going to be used in the classroom. Correct?
A. Originally, yes, my understanding was that it was to be placed in the science classroom.
Q. But they did not use it in the classroom. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. It's in the library. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you don't have an objection to that?
A. I don't have an objection to them being in the library. I probably have an objection to, you know, 20 copies being in the library just for the fact that, I mean, libraries don't have much space, and, I mean, 20 books of any one book is kind of a waste of space.
Q. Have you been to the library, Mrs. Sneath?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many books are on the shelf right now?
A. 24, I believe.
Q. So your objection is based on the space?
A. Yeah. A library just has a limited amount of space, and I don't remember seeing 20 of any other book being there. I mean, to me, put a couple out and let's leave some room for some others, perhaps.
Q. You understand it's a reference text. Correct?
A. I understand they call it a reference text, correct.
Q. And you don't?
A. No. I don't really consider it a reference text.
Q. You don't have any science education, do you, Mrs. Sneath?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you've said that you recall Angie Yingling saying something about being called an atheist or un-Christian?
A. That's correct.
Q. You know that Angie Yingling voted for the curriculum change. Correct?
A. Originally she did, that's correct.
Q. But it's also true that you can't necessarily make the connection between her statements and her vote on the curriculum. Is that correct?
A. No, I wouldn't say that I could. I mean, really what I was saying is that she had regretted making that decision to vote for it and made the comments in relationship to that.
Q. But you can't necessarily make a connection between those comments and her vote on the curriculum change, can you?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Now, I understand you believe that intelligent design is not science based on what you've read on the Internet. Correct?
A. Yes, that is my belief.
Q. And based on your reading, also, your personal reading, you have the opinion that intelligent design is creationism. Correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. I want to ask you about the newsletter. Is it your position that the district shouldn't have put out a newsletter addressing this controversy?
A. No, that's not my position. I think the district could have easily advised its constituents in the regular newsletter instead of paying extra money for this newsletter. And to me this was not simply a newsletter, this is what we've done. I mean, this was more than that. This was what we've done, and this is who stands behind it, and this is, you know, what makes it a great thing.
Q. So it's information about intelligent design. Correct?
A. Yes, it's advocating intelligent design.
Q. And it's information about the curriculum change. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that would be additional information you received in addition to your personal reading on the Internet and so on. Correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. Your children are what ages, Mrs. Sneath?
A. Seven and four.
Q. So none of them have had the statement read to them. Correct?
A. No.
Q. You understand that evolutionary theory is the theory that's being taught in classrooms at Dover?
A. That is my understanding.
THE COURT: That's a trick we do to try and limit cross-examination.
MR. GILLEN: Judge, I have been a model of brevity.
THE COURT: Just keep your voice up and stay away from the mic.
MR. GILLEN: I'll try and do that.
Q. You understand that the biology text that was recommended by the science faculty was, in fact, purchased?
A. Yes, I do understand.
Q. That's the text that's assigned to students. Correct?
A. Yes.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You didn't have to take it that seriously. All right. Any redirect by Mr. Walczak?
MR. WALCZAK: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We could take another witness and at least get started if you want to, if you have one.
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why don't we do that.
MR. HARVEY: The plaintiffs call to the stand Plaintiff Steve Stough.
THE COURT: And I noted no exhibits. I'll stand corrected if --
MR. WALCZAK: It's just the newsletter which is already in evidence.
THE COURT: It's already in. All right.
STEVEN STOUGH, called as a witness, having been duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: State your name and spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Steve Stough, S-t-e-v-e-n, S-t-o-u-g-h.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Stough. Could you please tell us where you live.
A. Yes. I reside at 4407 Belmont Road, Dover, Pennsylvania, 17315.
Q. And how long have you lived there?
A. I've lived at that address for 12 years. I've lived in Dover Township for 20.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. Yes. I have a son who is 21 and a daughter who is 14.
Q. Could you please tell us the first name of your daughter?
A. Sure. My daughter's first name is Ashley.
Q. And where does Ashley attend school?
A. She attends school at the Dover Area High School.
Q. What grade is she in?
A. She's in the ninth grade.
Q. Is she taking biology right now?
A. Yes, she is. She's in Jen Miller's honors class.
Q. Can you tell us what you do for a living?
A. Yes. I teach life science at Southern Middle School in Southern York County School District.
Q. What is life science?
A. It's a seventh-grade life science curriculum. About a third of the year includes work with inquiries, scientific method. Then two-thirds of the year would be a very basic life science class, characteristics of living things, chemistry of living things, cell theory, germ theory, at a very basic level.
Q. You're a science teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been a science teacher?
A. I've been a science teacher -- I've been a teacher for 29 years.
Q. Have you been teaching science that whole time?
A. No, I have not. I've been teaching science for about 15 years.
Q. Do you have any other jobs other than your job as a science teacher?
A. Sure. At Southern York County School District, Susquehannock is the high school. I'm the head boys and girls track and field coach, and I'm also the head cross-country coach for boys and girls.
Additionally, I serve on the strategic planning committee and am part of the staff utilization subcommittee and the technology subcommittee.
Q. Please tell us just briefly your educational background.
A. Okay. I graduated from West York in 1973. In 1977, I graduated from Penn State with a degree in bachelor's of elementary education. I continued my education at Millersville and Wilkes and received my master's equivalency from the Department of Education. And as a result of the No Child Left Behind, I had to take a practice test to get additional certification so that I could teach science in the middle school.
Q. And how old are you?
A. I'm 50 years old.
Q. Do you read a newspaper?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Tell us what newspapers you read on a regular basis.
A. I read the York Dispatch and the York Daily Record.
Q. How often do you read them?
A. I read them every day.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, just for the record, a standing objection to the hearsay from the newspaper.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is noted for the same reason as interposed with the last witness. The objection is overruled.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you.
Q. Did you say you read them on a daily basis?
A. I read them every day, yes.
Q. How long have you been reading them on a daily basis?
A. For a long time, many years.
Q. What about when you're on vacation, do you read them when you're on vacation?
A. This is my sickness. I'll take my computer along, and we have dial-up service, and I will read them online every day.
Q. Did you attend any meetings of the Dover Area School Board in 2004?
A. In 2004, I attended the December 1st meeting, the December 4th meeting, and the December 20th meeting.
Q. So you didn't attend any meetings in 2004 before December?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And did there come a time when you learned that the Dover School Board was considering approval of a biology textbook?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when that was?
A. That would have been in early June of 2004.
Q. Tell us, please, the source of your information.
A. That would be the newspapers, both papers.
Q. And I'd like to know, do you remember learning about specific meetings in June of 2004?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Tell me what specific meetings you recall learning about.
A. Well, I can't tell you the exact dates, but there were two meetings in June, I think early June, and I read about both of them in the paper.
Q. Was one on June 7th and one on June 14th?
A. That sounds right.
Q. Now, tell us, if you can, what you can remember learning from what you read in the newspaper about the June 7th school board meeting.
A. The June 7th school board meeting, what I can remember reading is that a former school board member, Barrie Callahan, had approached the board questioning why the students still did not have an adopted biology text for the ninth-grade biology course. Apparently there had been money allocated for that in a previous budget, and at this point there still had been no textbook approved. It seemed as if there was a textbook that was -- the teachers wanted approved, the dragonfly book. She was questioning why they didn't have a textbook at that point.
Also, from that then my understanding is that Board Member Buckingham said that he was seeking -- well, that the book was laced with Darwinism, that he wanted to see some equal treatment of creationism along with evolution. Board Member Bonsell said that there were only two theories, and one was evolution, one was creationism.
Board Member Buckingham said that the separation of church and state was a myth. And I also believe that that was the meeting that Max Pell spoke, a student, and he addressed the board just saying that, you know, evolution is the only thing that they should be teaching, that teaching creationism could cause them problems.
Q. I've handed you a notebook of materials. Please open it to what's been marked as P44 and tell us if you've ever seen it before.
A. Yes, I've seen this.
Q. When have you seen it before?
A. I would have seen this probably the day that it was -- well, yeah, the day that it was printed.
Q. And have you read it more recently?
A. I went over many of these articles recently, yes.
Q. So is this -- P44, this is an article from the York Dispatch that was published on June the 8th of 2004. Isn't that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it concerns a meeting of the school board?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you read it at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'd like to ask you to please take a look at what's been marked as P45, and I'm going to ask you the same question.
A. Okay.
Q. And have you had a chance to look at that article?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And had you read that before just now?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read it at the time?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. And have you read it in preparation for your testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And it's an article from the York Dispatch on June 9th of 2004 that also deals with this board meeting that was held on June the 7th of 2004. Isn't that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, I'd like you to please take a look at what's been marked as P46. And I'm going to ask you the same questions with respect to that article. Have you had a chance to look at it?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you read it at or around the time that it came out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was at or around June the 9th of 2004?
A. Yes.
Q. And this P46, this is, in fact, an article that you read at the time from the York Daily Record. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And just for the record, this one is by Mr. Joseph Maldonado?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And let's just go back and give credit where credit is due. On P44, that was an article from Heidi Bernhard-Bubb?
A. That's correct.
Q. And P45 was also an article by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then finally please take a look at what's been marked as P47, and I'm going to ask you the same questions. Have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's an article dated June the 10th of 2004 from the York Daily Record?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the author is Joseph Maldonado?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this an article that you read at or around the date of it, June the 10th of 2004?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you've reviewed it more recently?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, let's turn now to the June 14th meeting of the school board. You remember, as you stated before, reading in the paper about this meeting. Correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Tell us what you can remember learning from what you read in the newspaper about the meeting of the school board held on June the 14th, 2004.
A. What I remember reading is that Board Member Buckingham began -- or at the beginning of the meeting apologized to the community, to the people at the board meeting for his actions prior to that.
But then, again, I think the issues became the textbook adoption laced with Darwinism. Again I think he repeated the claim that separation was a myth. And I think that was the meeting where he said that someone died on a Cross for us 2000 years ago, can't we do something for Him.
Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been marked as Exhibit 53 in your notebook. Have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That is an article dated June the 15th of 2004 from the York Daily Record written by Joseph Maldonado, isn't it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you read that at or around that date?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you read it more recently in preparation for your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. And it deals with the June 14th meeting of the school board?
A. Yes.
Q. And now, please, if you would, take a look at what's been marked as P54.
A. Okay.
Q. That's an article from the York Dispatch dated June the 15th, 2004, written by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it also deals with the subject of the June 14th school board meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read that article at or around that date?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you read it again more recently to help you prepare today?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, there was a meeting -- do you remember reading about a meeting in July of 2004?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you remember reading about that?
A. The only thing I remember about that meeting -- this gave me the impression that things were going well with the textbook adoption -- was that they had found a new edition of the dragonfly book, that they were looking at a 2002 edition, they had found a 2004 edition, and they were going to review that further.
Q. And, again, you learned this from reading this in the newspaper?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you would, please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P64 in your notebook.
A. Okay.
Q. Have you had a chance to review that?
A. Yes.
Q. That's an article dated July the 13th of 2004 from the York Dispatch written by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, isn't it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's reporting on a July meeting of the Dover School Board?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read that at the time?
A. Yes, I did, yes.
Q. Now, did you learn about a meeting in August of 2004?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And tell us what you can remember -- and again, you learned -- what you learned you learned from the local newspapers?
A. That's correct.
Q. Tell us what you learned about this meeting in August, 2004.
A. I believe that that meeting occurred early in August, around August 4th, and at that time the textbook was eventually approved. At first it was a four-four vote. As I understand it, that's not enough to have the book adopted. Board Member Angie Yingling asked for a reconsideration vote and the re-vote was five to three.
There was also some information there regarding Board Member Buckingham saying that he wouldn't allow -- or he didn't -- if he didn't get what he wanted as far as the curriculum or a book was concerned, that he didn't want to see this textbook being adopted. I think they even used the word "blackmail."
Q. And please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P682. Have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And that's an article from the York Daily Record dated August the 4th of 2004 written by Joseph Maldonado. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you read that at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that deals with this meeting of the Dover School Board in early August?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And if you would please turn to what's been marked as P683. Take a moment to look at it. That's a -- have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's an article dated August the 3rd, 2004 from the York Dispatch written by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that also deals with this early August, 2004 meeting of the school board. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, you read -- this is another article that you read at the time?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. Now, did you learn about a board meeting in early September?
A. Yes, there were two board meetings in September.
Q. What do you remember reading about the first school board --
A. This would have been the first time that it came to my attention that they were considering bringing in a supplemental textbook, the Pandas textbook. And it seemed to me that that was their answer to the dragonfly book, getting their equal balance.
I think the problem was, number one, using taxpayer money, they would have to go through the adoption process. They were trying to figure a way of getting the book in and also a way of getting it into the curriculum.
Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P679. Have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's an article dated September the 8th of 2004 from the York Daily Record by Lauri Lebo. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that concerns a school board meeting that was held just prior to that date?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read that at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And then if you would, please, look at what's been marked as P684.
A. Okay.
Q. Have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Sure.
Q. And that's an article dated September the 8th, 2004, from the York Dispatch written by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb dealing with that same school board meeting in early September, 2004?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you read that at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, do you remember learning about a second meeting in September of 2004?
A. There was a second meeting in September. There wasn't a whole heck of a lot reported on that. Now, I did go on the board's site, and it looks like it was just a meeting, probably a business meeting that lasted 45 minutes. And I really didn't learn anything regarding this controversy.
Q. Did you read about any board meetings in October of 2004?
A. There were two board meetings in October. I think October 4th might have been the first one.
Q. What do you recall learning from reading the newspaper about the October 4th, 2004 board meeting?
A. That was when it was announced that there had been an anonymous donation of 60 copies of Pandas and People and that that book would be used as a supplemental text within the classroom. Because it was not -- didn't go through the formal adoption process, it did not require board approval. They just were basically going to put it in the classroom.
The other thing that I remember there is I think that at that point Dr. Nilsen was questioned as to whether or not the teachers would be teaching intelligent design or instructed to teach intelligent design, and I think his answer was that they weren't going to be instructed to teach intelligent design, but that if they did, that would be okay. I'm not sure exactly how the phrase went.
Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P685.
THE COURT: While he's doing that, Mr. Harvey, by no means do I want to hurry you through this. If you think that you can finish your direct by going a little past 4:30, we can do that. Otherwise, wherever you want to -- if you've got measurably more, I would say anytime you want to find an appropriate break point, we can do that and pick up with this witness on Friday. Your call.
MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Let me just confer with them.
My co-counsel reminds me that we're going to have an expert testifying on Friday morning and that we want to make sure that we have plenty of time for his cross-examination so that he can leave that day, so we'd like to press on as long as the Court would permit us to press. If we could go to quarter of 5:00 --
THE COURT: I don't have a problem with that. Defense counsel have any problem?
MR. GILLEN: We'll hang in there, Your Honor. The cross, I imagine, would be very short anyway.
THE COURT: Well, let's do the best we can. We'll go until 4:45, in any event. We'll see how far we get.
Q. Have you had a chance to look at what's been marked as P685?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And that is an article that was in the York Daily Record Sunday News on October the 5th of 2004 written by Joseph Maldonado, isn't it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you read it at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was the source of your information for the meeting on October the 4th?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you said that there were two meetings in October. Do you recall the meeting -- that there was a meeting on October the 18th?
A. Yes, October the 18th was where the board adopted the curriculum change to the ninth-grade biology in the area -- well, the gaps and problems and added intelligent design to their curriculum.
Q. And, again, this is something you learned just from reading the paper?
A. Yes.
Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P678.
A. Okay.
Q. You've had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And P678 is an article that was written by Joseph Maldonado in the York Daily Record Sunday News on October the 19th of 2004, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read that at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was the source for your information about the -- what happened at the October 18th meeting?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if you would also please look at P686.
A. Okay.
Q. That's another article by Mr. Maldonado, except this one is dated October the 20th, 2004, and this one also says it's from the York Daily Record Sunday News. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's a different article reporting on the same meeting?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you read that at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, do you remember -- I don't want you to look at the article. You can close your book for a second. Do you remember reading about or learning about comments that Board Member Heather Geesey made at that meeting on October the 18th?
A. I'm not sure if it was the October the 18th meeting, but I know that there was a question regarding whether or not -- I actually thought it was the next meeting, but whether, if the teachers sought to have legal counsel, Stock and Leader, the school board's lawyers, would they, in case the teachers got sued for teaching this, would they defend them. And Heather Geesey at that point said if they would ask for that, if they'd ask for help from Stock and Leader, they should be fired.
Q. "They" you mean the teachers?
A. Teachers.
Q. And, again, this is just what you read in the paper?
A. Yes. That one, being a teacher, stood out.
Q. Now, did you learn about a board meeting in early November?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us what you can remember learning about that meeting.
A. Well, what I remember there is that Noel Weinrich, who was -- I believe at that point in time he had resigned from the board and his resignation was effective. He was upset. He was concerned about who was going to -- if the school district got sued, who is going to cover his bills, you know, legal bills if he had any. And also he was, I think, upset because I think he had been -- he felt he had been assured by Dr. Nilsen that we were not going to be teaching -- that the district was not going to be teaching intelligent design.
Q. And do you remember learning anything about tapes that had been made of the board meeting?
A. Okay, the tapes. Apparently the board tapes their meetings for use when they go back and try to put their minutes together. And there were people requesting the minutes from the October 18th meeting. Those tapes were denied to them.
There was some question about what the whole policy was regarding these tapes. I believe that Board Member Bonsell said that once the minutes had been typed and approved at the next board meeting, that these tapes were destroyed.
And I believe that they also said under the advice of their solicitor that -- because they were -- there was the chance that they would be sued in the future because of what had happened at the October 18th meeting, that they were told that they should be destroyed, or at least not turn them over to the public.
Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P669.
A. Okay.
Q. Have you had a chance to look at that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's another article by the ever-present Mr. Joseph Maldonado, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's dated November the 2nd, 2004, and it's for the York Daily Record Sunday News. Is that right?
A. If we're looking at -- which number, 669?
Q. Yes.
A. 669 is dated November 2nd, 2004. I thought you said November 4th.
Q. I'm sorry if I misspoke.
A. Okay.
Q. So it's an article dated November the 2nd of 2004 for the York Daily Record Sunday News by Mr. Maldonado?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's reporting on the school board meeting that was held actually on November the 1st?
A. Right.
Q. And you read this at the time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And if you would also please look at what's been marked as P687. And that's another article you read at the time?
A. Yes, I definitely did.
Q. And that's by Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, and it's dated November the 2nd, 2004, from the York Dispatch. Isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's also reporting on the November 1st meeting?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, in addition to reading all these newspaper articles that we've just looked at, did you review material on the Dover School Board Web site?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been marked as P104. What is P104?
A. P104 was the -- they call it the board press release. My question all along had been, now we have this curriculum, how are they going to implement it. And I believe this is their policy that they're telling the public how they're going to implement this. They're going to read a statement. This appeared on the Web site on Friday, November 19th.
Q. And did you read it on or around that date?
A. That day.
Q. And what was your reaction to it?
A. All along I thought this would just go away. I don't know how -- that's the only thing I can say. And, you know, as a teacher, there are things in the curriculum, you try to cover them. The question is how they're going to be implemented. This showed me how this curriculum was going to -- that it was going to be implemented, how it was going to be implemented. And this, I would have to say, was the thing that put me over the edge.
Q. And did you do anything after reading this?
A. I called the ACLU the following Monday.
Q. Did you contact Paula Knudsen from the ACLU?
A. Well, what I did is, I really -- you know, I had heard the ACLU being bantered around in the newspapers at that point in time. I called -- I believe they have a hotline in Philadelphia. And I called that, and I just basically said I'm a parent who has a student in Dover School District, and I feel right now that possibly some of my rights and my daughter's rights might be being violated. I was looking for somewhere to turn. And that was basically -- you know, with contact information, that was what I did that day.
Q. Now, after reading these articles and reading this -- what was posted on the Web site, did you begin to attend school board meetings?
A. I did not -- well, yes, because the next school board meeting would have been December 1st. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was your first school board meeting?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And it was because of these issues that you attended that meeting?
A. Yes. I felt it was time to get involved.
Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been marked as P127. We've looked at this in court several times. Do you recognize it as the newsletter that was published in February of 2005 by the school board?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And were you ever at a school board meeting where this was discussed prior to it being published?
A. I wouldn't say it was discussed.
Q. Tell us what you can remember being mentioned about it.
A. Much to my wife's chagrin, I went to the school board meeting on February 14th, Valentine's Day. And it was not on the agenda. You're able to pull up the agenda to the school board meetings on their Web site, and it was not on that agenda. Additionally, they also publish agendas and have those there for you to pick up at the meeting. There was nothing on there regarding the approval of this newsletter.
There's a section in -- when they work through their agenda, and I'm not sure exactly what it's called, but it's president's message or president's communications. And at that time Board Member Eric Riedel made a motion to send out a district newsletter in addition to the one they were already sending out regarding the biology curriculum update. It was seconded by Board Member Buckingham, and it passed seven-zero. There are nine members on the school board. Two were absent.
Q. Was there any discussion among the board about it?
A. No. This went quick.
Q. Now, after that, did you receive this -- as a result of that, did you receive this newsletter?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell us whether -- did you read it at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'd like you to tell us, what was your reaction as a schoolteacher -- and I'm going to take you through parts of it. There are some frequently asked questions, and I'd like you to look at the first frequently asked question and tell us what was your reaction as a schoolteacher to that statement.
A. A small minority of parents. I don't care if it's one parent objecting to this, but the group of folks that I'm involved with are plaintiffs. We were being put into this small group that was making problems and trouble for the school district.
Q. And take a look at the second frequently asked question. Did you have a reaction to that statement there?
A. I would completely disagree with this. In my opinion, intelligent design is religion in disguise. I use the word "camouflage."
Q. And that was your reaction at the time?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Now, take a look at -- it says that it involves science versus science. Did you have a reaction to that at the time?
A. Well, it's not science. I mean, intelligent design is not science. We've heard the experts here. It's not science. It doesn't reach the level of science.
Q. Please take a look at the next frequently asked question when it asks about what is the theory of evolution, and I'd like to know if you had a reaction to that at the time.
A. I sure did. Am I allowed to read this?
Q. Sure.
A. (Reading:) The word "evolution" has several meanings, and those supporting Darwin's theory of evolution use that confusion in definition to their advantage. So we're going to put evolution over on people, we're going to employ double-talk. We say one thing, we say another thing. That's not what scientists do.
Q. So you understood the school board to say that science teachers engage in double-talk when they talk about evolution?
A. Yes.
Q. Please take a moment to look at the next frequently asked question, the one that says, What is the theory of intelligent design?
A. Right, right, I was just looking it over. My problem is, again, it recognizes an intelligent designer, an intelligent cause. Again, it doesn't reach the level of science.
Q. And that was your reaction at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. And please take a look at the next frequently asked question. Well, actually, within that, what we were just looking at, it says, In simple terms, on a molecular level, scientists have discovered a purposeful arrangement of parts which cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Did you have a reaction to that statement at the time?
A. Well, the word "purposeful." Again, I think we're going back to the whole concept of design and then someone had a purpose and that would be God.
Q. The next frequently asked question says, Are Dover students taught the theory of intelligent design? And there's a response there. Do you see that?
A. This is the great one-minute statement. We're making a one-minute statement, but we're not teaching. I've been teaching for 29 years. Everything that I say in that classroom is teaching. I carry a fair amount of authority and credibility within that.
If I say that one NFL football -- and I'm trying to avoid sports analogies here. But if I say one NFL football team is better than another, I'm going to tell you that 80 percent of my kids are going to go back to their parents and say, this is what Mr. Stough said, and this is how it is. I don't care if it's a minute, I don't care if it's ten seconds, it's teaching.
Q. And then there's another frequently asked question that said, Are there religious implications to the theory of ID? And there's a response. Can you tell us if you had a reaction to that question and response at the time?
A. No more so than religious implications of Darwin's theory. There are no religious implications of the theory of evolution. They like to characterize evolution as being dogmatic, as being a religion. It's not. And so, again, they're just saying this is -- you know, evolution is a religion, too. It's not.
Q. And then, finally, under the right-hand corner there's something that says, quotables, and then there's a quotation from somebody named Anthony Flew, and it refers to him as a world-famous atheist. Do you recall having a reaction to that quotation from Mr. Flew at the time?
A. Sure.
Q. Please tell us what was your reaction.
A. Well, what they're doing -- from what I understand the story with Anthony Flew is, he was an atheist, and they equate that point in time of his life with his, you know, adhering to or accepting the theory of evolution.
Then he moved towards the intelligent design concept and at the same time was finding religion, was no longer an atheist. There are a lot of messages there. Atheism is bad. Religion is good. And, you know, I had to laugh at how many people want to be world-famous atheists.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, that's all the questions I have on that exhibit, but I do have a few other exhibits, and we're surely not going to get it done in the next few minutes.
THE COURT: So you want to continue your direct?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And certainly we're not going to get cross in today, so we'll adjourn for the day. We'll be in recess until Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. Now, you have an expert who is going to follow this witness. Is that correct?
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you think that's going to take the rest of the day on Friday?
MR. HARVEY: I believe so.
THE COURT: Do we need to start a little earlier on Friday to get that in?
MR. HARVEY: Happy to do so.
THE COURT: If you don't think we do --
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I think it's a good idea to be safe.
THE COURT: Why don't we start at 8:45 just to be safe and give you a little extra time. And certainly I'd give the defendants the same courtesy during your case-in-chief. I just want to keep this moving. That will give us a little bit of a cushion at the outset so we don't get lost on this witness on Friday morning.
So we will reconvene at 8:45. That will be our starting time on Friday morning, and we'll go as long as we have to. I would rather not go beyond 4:30, actually, on Friday. We have a full week. I think we're in session every day or parts of every day next week, so we'll try to wrap it up at least by 4:30. But that will give us a cushion if we start at 8:45. So we'll recess until 8:45 on Friday. Wish you all a pleasant good evening. We'll see you then.
MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
