The ruling in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District was a pretty cut-and-dried text, as must judicial rulings are. So it was a bit surprising when, near the end of the opinion, Judge Jones bluntly referred to the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover school board’s adoption of the ID policy. But as bracing as such a bold statement was to see in a judicial ruling, the trial record shows that it was entirely justified. The behavior of the ID advocates on the school board ranged from negligent to ignorant to outright lying on the witness stand.
I’ve already documented the lies of board members Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, whose dishonesty regarding who had donated the money to buy the 60 copies of Of Pandas and People. I’ve also documented the ignorance displayed by Buckingham and Bonsell in regard to what they knew about intelligent design; while aggressively pushing a policy to put ID into Dover science classrooms, their testimony clearly showed that they didn’t understand even the most basic things about the idea they wanted in (and they knew even less about evolutionary biology).
Today I’d like to focus on board member Heather Geesey. Geesey is the only one of the pro-ID board members who remains on the school board today; all the rest were voted out in November 2005, but Geesey’s seat was not up for reelection so she remains on the board. But as her testimony makes clear, she knew next to nothing about intelligent design, yet she voted to put it in to science classrooms in Dover. Here’s part of her testimony:
Q Now, you said you voted for the October 18 curriculum change because you liked it.
A Yes.
Q You supported the change.
A Yes.
Q It — because it gave a balanced view of evolution.
A Yes, I mean . . .
Q It presented an alternative theory?
A Yes.
Q And the policy talks about gaps and problems with evolution?
A Yes.
Q Yes. You don’t know what those gaps and problems refer to, do you?
A No.
Q But it’s good to teach about those gaps and problems?
A That — yes, that’s our mission statement, yes.
Q But you have no idea what they are?
A It’s not my job, no.
Q Is it fair to say that you didn’t know much about intelligent design in October of 2004?
A Yes.
Q And you didn’t know much about the book Of Pandas and People either, did you?
A Correct.
Q So you had never participated in any discussions of the book?
A No.
Q And you made no effort independently to find out about the book?
A No.
Q And the administration had made copies of the book available to board members.
A Yes.
Q But you never read the book.
A No.
Q And no one ever explained to you what intelligent design was about.
A No.
Q And you never got any instructional materials or tapes about intelligent design.
A No.
Q And you never viewed any or read any books about intelligent design.
A No.
Q And you didn’t study it independently.
A No.
Q You didn’t go on the Internet and look it up.
A No.
Q So you didn’t really think too much about intelligent design.
A No.
Q You just knew it was something else that the kids were going to learn?
A Yes.
Warms the heart, doesn’t it? School board members voting things in that they made no effort to learn anything about. This isn’t just the blind leading the blind, it’s the willfully ignorant leading the kids we are educating for the purpose of overcoming ignorance. Worse yet, she admitted that she just accepted Buckingham’s opinion, while ignoring the informed opinions of all of the Dover science teachers:
Q But you chose to listen to Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Bonsell?
A Correct.
Q Now, I know you said you don’t have any background in science, correct?
A Correct.
Q And do you know whether Mr. Buckingham has a background in science?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know that in fact he doesn’t have a background in science?
A I don’t know. He’s law enforcement, so I would assume he had to take something along the way.
Q Did he ever tell you he knew something about biology?
A No.
Q How about Mr. Bonsell, do you know what his background is?
A No.
Q Do you know what he does for a living?
A He’s a business owner, I believe.
Q He’s not a scientist, to your knowledge?
A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q He’s not a science teacher?
A No.
Q Now, there are people employed by the school district who do know a little something about science, correct?
A Correct.
Q And that would be the teachers.
A Yes.
Q And you know Ms. Bertha Spahr?
A Yes.
Q And she’s been with the school district a long time.
A Yes.
Q And she’s head of the science department.
A Yes.
Q And you know Ms. Miller.
A Yes.
Q And you know Mr. Eshbach.
A Yes.
Q And you know Mr. Lanker?
A I don’t — I wouldn’t be able to place him, but I know the name, I know he’s a teacher.
Q And he’s a science teacher?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that the science teachers were all opposed to introducing intelligent design?
A Correct.
This is absolute negligence. If you have control over a school’s science curriculum, you need to know something about science. And you need to put in the effort to educate yourself on the issues you vote about. To vote to put a concept into the curriculum that you don’t understand and refuse to take the time to understand is unprofessional, willfully ignorant and dangerous to the entire purpose for which you are on a school board.
Of course, this is the same woman who made this absolutely bizarre statement during a school board meeting after the policy was passed:
“We are not doing to be sued. It’s not going to be a problem. I have confidence in the district’s lawyers.”
Except that the district’s lawyers had urged the board not to adopt the policy and told them that they were going to be sued if they did so. The pro-ID school board members were willfully ignorant to the point of being delusional.