The Lies of the ID Apologists

Well, I'm back from my travels. A few weeks ago, I was surprised at the relative silence of the pro-ID folks with respect to the Dover Panda Trial decision (Jason Rosenhouse's excellent summary of Judge Jones's decision can be found here.) I was curious how they might respond, given the detail that went into the decision. Sure, there were the "activist judge" accusations predicted by Judge Jones in his ruling. Another tack taken by Phyllis Schlafly is to accuse the life-long Christian Judge of bias when he thinks that religious people shouldn't lie. Of course, she doesn't come right out and say that, she actually accuses him of bias and quote mines the ruling to make it look like the Judge is biased against religious people.

[Judge Jones] lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."

But her quote dishonestly puts a period where there is none. Here is the sentence from which she quotes only a clause:

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.

The meaning is clear. Judge Jones did not criticise anyone for any public assertions of religious conviction. The criticism is for lying. If there is any bias, it is his apparent view that dishonesty in those who are overtly religious is somehow ironic. Such a view is naïve, but even so, the attempted deception was unusually blatent and clumsy.

Q. When did you first become aware of the fact that your father was in possession of the $850.00 that was being donated to buy Of Pandas and People?

A. Well, Mr. Buckingham gave the check to me to pass to my father. He said this was money that he collected for donations to the book. So I gave it to him.

Q. So you were the conduit --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- by which your father received the $850.00?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me why, in January of 2005, you didn't tell Mr. Rothschild on his repeated questioning that your -- that Mr. Buckingham was involved in that exchange?

A. Basically because I understood the question to be, who donated the books? Do you know anybody that donated? I only knew my father was the one that donated the books. I am still to this day convinced, you know, that Mr. Buckingham didn't give any money towards the books.

He said to me, this is money that he collected towards the books. And I didn't ask him. You know, he didn't say -- if he would have said, some of this money is mine, or I put 50 bucks in the pot, or I did this, I would have told Mr. Rothschild at that time.

Q. The specific question was asked to you, sir: You have never spoken to anyone -- anybody else who was involved with the donation? And your answer was, I don't know the other people. That didn't say, who donated? That said, who was involved with the donation?

A. Okay. I'm sorry. What --

Q. Why did you -- I'm on page 16.

A. Okay.

Q. Line 9. That didn't say, who donated? That said, who was involved in the donation? Now you tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham's name.

A. Then I misspoke. Because I was still under -- from behind -- wait a second. I -- well, I'm going back here -- and so, yeah, that's my fault, Your Honor, because that's not -- in that case, I would have -- I should have said, Mr. Buckingham.

Q. Tell me again why you gave the money to your father. Why did you utilize your father as the ultimate recipient -- not the ultimate recipient, but as a conduit for this money?

A. Why he was the conduit?

Q. You took the money from Mr. Buckingham, if I understand it. You turn it over to your father. Is that correct?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. Because the check was made specifically to your father. Why was your father involved?

A. He agreed to -- he said that he would take it, I guess, off the table or whatever, because of seeing what was going on, and with Mrs. Callahan complaining at the board meetings not using funds or whatever.

Q. Why couldn't you use Mr. Buckingham's check? What was the difference?

A. My father was the one that agreed to do the books.

Q. I understand that.

A. And that basically anybody, you know, if somebody wanted to give money, they could give money to him. He just passed, you know --

Q. Now the way I understand it from Mr. Buckingham's testimony, Mr. Buckingham stood up in front of his church. Mr. Buckingham, despite testimony which was somewhat confusing, obviously, apparently made a plea for funds for this book. Mr. Buckingham received in addition to, apparently, his own contribution funds, which totaled $850.00. Why couldn't Mr. Buckingham's check be used? Why did your father have to be involved?

A. I guess it could have been used, but put the thing is, the money was going to him, and he was purchasing the books. And I think it was basically, if somebody gave money, fine. If not, he was going to buy the books. He was going to do it himself.

Q. You don't know why Mr. -- in other words, you don't know why Mr. Buckingham couldn't just purchase the books directly? Is that what you're telling me? Because I still haven't heard an answer as to why your father -- why the funds had to be paid first to Mr. Buckingham, why Mr. Buckingham couldn't write a check. Why did he have to give the funds to your father? I still haven't heard an answer.

A. I guess he wouldn't have had to give the funds to my father. It's just that he was -- he had made -- he had made the --

Q. Who's he?

A. My father. He had made the -- oh, I don't know what word I'm looking for. He said that he would get -- donate the books, you know. So basically, I guess, he asked -- I guess you're saying, Mr. Buckingham went before his church. He collected money --

Q. You were here. You heard Mr. Buckingham.

A. He collected the money. And just -- because -- he had the check, gave me the money, I gave it to my father.

Q. I still haven't heard an answer from you as to why your father was the recipient of this money. Tell me why.

A. Because he's the one that said he would donate the books.

Q. It wasn't -- the money did not belong to your father. It came from Mr. Buckingham. He didn't donate the books. He received money from Mr. Buckingham that Mr. Buckingham received through donations from his church. Your father, unless I'm missing something, did not donate the books. He was the recipient of donated money and purchased the books.

A. No, but my father donated money towards the books. It's just that people had given money, and if -- basically, if no one had given a penny, my father would have bought all the books. So he must have went out and said, you know, if you want to give money, Mr. Bonsell is -- and so that's why the check is in his name, because the money was going to him. He was buying the books. So he did put money towards the books, and he would have bought all the books.

Q. Now you were under oath. You know you were under oath on January the 3rd of 2005, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your reason that you didn't mention Mr. Buckingham's name on January 3rd of 2005 is because you said you misspoke?

A. I was under the impression, Your Honor -- I was under the impression -- they were asking me who -- do you know anybody else? I mean, because I'm the one that brought my father forward in the testimony. I said, it was my father. He was the only one that I knew that put money towards the books. Because, to be honest -- I mean, truthfully, I did not know that Mr. Buckingham gave any money towards those books. I would have said that. I would have said that. Now like I said --

Q. You knew on January 3rd that Mr. Buckingham had possession of funds that he received from his church, didn't you?

A. Not from his church, no.

Q. You knew that Mr. Buckingham had received funds, which he turned over to your father, from someplace?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Do you have any explanation for why Mr. Buckingham in this same series of depositions in January of 2005 also failed to admit that he was involved in soliciting money for the purchasing of this book? Do you have any explanation for that?

A. Why he said he wouldn't solicit money? I don't know.

Q. Were you here for Mr. Buckingham's testimony?

A. I heard part of it.

Q. Well, let me represent to you that Mr. Buckingham testified in June of 2005 in his deposition that he didn't know where the money came from. Do you have any explanation for why that is?

A. I don't have any explanation for that.

THE COURT: All right. Those are the questions I have.

Now, unlike Judge Jones, I expect dishonesty from a certain class of religious individual. Witness Phyllis Schlafley's dishonest criticism of Judge Jones. I expect their dishonesty. What angers me is their unmittigated gall in expecting their dishonesty to go unexamined. And their faux indignation when they are called on it.

(via Evolutionblog.)