Lying UNDER OATH for the 'Truth' in Dover

The Kitzmiller Decision (also available from CNN) is the 2005 Dec 20 ruling by John E. Jones III, United States District Judge, Case No. 04cv2688 TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al. v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Among several direct statements that religious members of the Dover school board lied under oath, on page 115 we find:

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs's election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy

Stunning. I have known that religious people are dishonest and that they will lie for what they consider the 'truth' but I never imagined that they would commit perjury!

The board members railroaded the teachers by refusing to accept the standard biology textbook they needed unless the teachers accepted the creationist text Pandas for teaching and yet Judge Jones reports that

Furthermore, Board members somewhat candidly conceded that they lacked sufficient background in science to evaluate ID, and several of them testified with equal frankness that they failed to understand the substance of the curriculum change adopted on October 18, 2004. ... In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. ... Board members ... admittedly had no comprehension whatsoever of ID.

(page 121) These people didn't know any science and they were forcing their religion on others.

Jones states that the Defendants created a "sham" and gave "repetitious, untruthful testimony" (page 130-132). "Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere." (page 132). "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." (page 137) "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial." (p. 138)

Before you debate about creationism and Intelligent Design I strongly recommend that you read the ruling.