--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 9, 2005
School Board
Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that
had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an
alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday
by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design
policy.
Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who
testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded
federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan
Bonsell.
The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the
nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class
curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court
that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by
early January.
"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent
design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about,"
said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.
The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the
case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new
school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the
policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.
"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology
class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a
science."
The vote counts were close, but of the 16 candidates the one with the fewest
votes was Mr. Bonsell, the driving force behind the intelligent design
policy. Testimony at the trial revealed that Mr. Bonsell had initially
insisted that creationism get equal time in the classroom with evolution.
One incumbent, James Cashman, said he would contest the vote because a
voting machine in one precinct recorded no votes for him, while others
recorded hundreds.
He said that school spending and a new teacher contract, not intelligent
design, were the determining issues. "We ran a very conservative school
board, and obviously there are people who want to see more money spent," he
said.
One board member, Heather Geesey, was not up for re-election.
The school board voted in October 2004 to require ninth grade biology
students to hear a brief statement at the start of the semester saying that
there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an
alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading a
textbook "Of Pandas and People," available in the high school library.
The board was sued by 11 Dover parents who contended that intelligent design
was religious creationism in new packaging, and that the board was trying to
impose its religion on students. The parents were represented by lawyers
from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, and a private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP.
a.. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company