Transcripts of Testimony

Transcripts of Testimony

Plaintiff's transcript

The plaintiff's portion of the transcript was transcribed at the time. We so far have obtained a partial copy, and we have put it in machine-readable format.

The following gives the locations of the testimonies of the various witnesses. They are indexed as to Page Number/Line Number. If you wish to view the transcripts in their original line numbered form you can find them here.

* Rev. Kenneth W. Hicks
* Fr. Francis Bruce Vawter
o Current holdings are missing up to page 62 (this missing material apparently included the testimony from these first two witnesses.
* Dr. George Marsden
* Prof. Dorothy Nelkin
* Dr. Langdon Gilkey
* Dr. Michael Ruse
* Dr. Francisco Ayala
o The transcript to Prof. Ayala's testimony was not transcribed along with the rest of the plaintiffs case, and is currently missing.
* Sen. James Holsted
* Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple
* Dr. Harold Morowitz
* Dr. Stephen Jay Gould
* Dennis Glasgow
* Ronald W. Coward
* William C. Wood
* Ed Bullington
* Marianne Wilson
* Dr. William Vernon Mayer
* Missing pages
o pp. 1-62
o p. 137
o p. 446
o p. 481
o p. 607
o p. 683
o p. 772 (partial)
o p. 792
o p. 819
o p. 822
o (All further testimony beyond page 954 is missing.)

Line Numbered Transcripts Index

Transcripts of Testimony in Original Line Numbered Format

    The following transcripts retain the line-numbered format of the original transcript



George Marsden

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Siano Page 62/1

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Campbell Page 91/17

  • Redirect Examination by Mr. Siano Page 98/10

Dorothy Nelkin

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Crawford Page 102/10

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 130/6

Langdon Gilkey

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Siano Page 172/7

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Campbell Page 207/2

  • Redirect Examination by Mr. Siano Page 238/7

Michael Ruse

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 244/19

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 301/4 

  • Redirect Examination by Mr. Novik Page 369/18

  • Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 376/23

James Holsted

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 379/6

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 405/1 

Gary B. Dalrymple

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 406/19

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 449/6

  • Redirect Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 471/18

  • Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 486/24

Harold Morowitz

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 494/8

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 577/6 

Stephen Jay Gould

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 514/16

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 611/22

Dennis Glasgow

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 641/20

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 684/5  

Ronald W. Coward

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 720/14

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Clark Page 755/1

  • Redirect Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 808/13

  • Recross Examination by Mr. Clark Page 813/17

William C. Wood

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Crawford Page 816/11

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 835/12 

Ed Bullington

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 867/13

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 928/12

Marianne Wilson

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 879/23

  • Cross Examination by Mr. Clark Page 920/15

William Vernon Mayer

  • Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 931/9 to 954/25




























  • Missing pages
    • pp. 1-62
    • p. 137
    • p. 446
    • p. 481
    • p. 607
    • p. 683

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P062-099


1 A (Continuing[Covered]groups, but they

2 are something[Covered]ague or something

3 like that[Covered]eague, whatever,

4 the Bible Cr[Covered]of groups.

5 I might say[Covered]the question.

6 Q Would you[Covered]tion, sir.

7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would object, since there

8 is a proper form to present a deposition to a witness, and

9 I would suggest to Mr. Campbell that he might ask the

10 witness if he recalls the particular question and answer.

11 I would object to this method of questioning my witness,

12 and particularly approaching it in this way.

13 THE COURT: Why don't you follow the procedure.

14 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

15 Q Professor Marsden, do you recall my asking you the

16 question, "Just so we can get this straight, and I don't

17 want to go back and repeat what we've talked about in

18 terms of your expertise, but will you be talking about

19 contemporary Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalism as it

20 exists today, or will you be narrowing your testimony to

21 fundamentalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century,

22 1920 or 1930."

23 And do you recall your answer to that?

24 A No, I don't.

25 Q (Reading) "I think, I guess I'll be emphasizing


1 Q (Continuing) Fundamentalism up to 1920 or 1930.

2 Perhaps--It depends on what I'm asked, I guess.

3 But suggesting there might be some connection with what

4 is going on today, but not presenting myself as an expert

5 on what is going on today, in that sense, or as a strong a

6 sense as I would from a historical source of things."

7 Do you recall that statement?

8 A Clearly at the time you were asking the question, I

9 was a bit off the guard. What I said was, they will be

10 emphasizing Fundamentalism of the Twenties or Thirties.

11 Perhaps, it depends on what I'm asked, I'm not as much an

12 expert on Fundamentalism today as I am in the past. Not in

13 as strong a sense.

14 So I meant to be qualifying it. At that time I wasn't

15 clear what was being asked of me or expected of me. I'm

16 willing to present myself as an expert an Fundamentalism

17 up to the 1930's, and to a somewhat lesser degree, I must

18 confess, at least somewhat of an expert on Fundamentalism

19 since then..

20 There are degrees of being experts.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, we would move to limit

22 Professor Marsden's expertise up to 1930 in the area of

23 Fundamentalism.

24 THE COURT: It's overruled.




3 Q Professor Marsden, you have continued to study

4 Fundamentalism right up until today, haven't you?

5 A Yes, I have.

6 Q And from your perspective as a church's authority,

7 isn't that correct?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q Now, did you, because your book stops at 1930, stop

10 to your research at 1930?

11 A No, I did not stop my research at 1930.

12 Q Now, did I engage your services in 1981 as an

13 expert?

14 A Yes, you did.

15 Q And as to what subject matter?

16 A On the history of Fundamentalism.

17 Q Any particular other topic?

18 A The history of Fundamentalism as it relates

19 particularly to Act 590.

20 Q Professor, could I ask you to describe for me the

21 circumstances of the development of the movement which we

22 describe as Fundamentalism in America?

23 A Fundamentalism is a movement that began as a

24 coalition primarily among evangelical Protestants in the

25 late nineteenth century. The distinguishing feature of


1 A (Continuing) Fundamentalists that distinguishes

2 them from related religious movements is their militancy

3 in opposition to what they called at the time Modernism,

4 which meant certain ideas that were pervasive in modern

5 secular culture, and equally to certain modern

6 esthesiologies that they saw as incorporating the secular

7 ideas into Christianity.

8 So the militancy in opposition to Modernism became the

9 distinguishing factor that brought together concerned to

10 evangelicalists from a variety of other traditions.

11 Q Did this movement of Fundamentalism have any other

12 goals?

13 A Yes. It had what it would describe as positive

14 goals of evangelization, converting people to Christianity.

15 Q And that's how you would define that term

16 "evangelization"?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Would you also describe it as spreading the faith?

19 A Yes. Certainly.

20 Q Could you describe furthers the development of

21 Fundamentalism again, starting in the mid-nineteenth

22 century?

23 A Sure. One has to go back to about a hundred years

24 ago and imagine the condition of America at that time,

25 which was a nation pervaded by a Protestant evangelical


1 A (Continuing) ethos. Protestant evangelicalism had

2 a special position in America because of its being here

3 first, primarily, and the revivalism of the nineteenth

4 century.

5 For instance, in the public schools in the mid and

6 latter nineteenth century, it was characteristic to use

7 McGuffey's Readers. And in McGuffey's Readers, there were

8 explicit Protestant principles taught. There were lessons

9 like, "The Bible - The Greatest of All Books," or "My

10 Mother's Bible," or "Observance of the Sabbath Rewarded."

11 And these sorts of doctrines were the standard American

12 doctrine equated often with being a good American.

13 Now, it's in that context that there are a number of

14 shocks that hit this Evangelical ethos in America. And

15 they combined social factors of change with very

16 spectacular intellectual changes that hit here roughly at

17 the same time, in the period from about 1870 through 1900.

18 The social changes were those associated with vast

19 immigration, the tremendous growth of the cities, and the

20 shift of the center of gravity toward the cities from the

21 countryside, and the general increase of pluralism in an

22 Industrial society.

23 In that context of social change then hit also higher

24 criticism of the Bible, which had been developing in

25 Germany since about 1800. And then more or less at the


1 A (Continuing) same time, here comes Darwinism, which

2 was taken by some people, at least, to be an implicit

3 attack on the veracity of the Bible.

4 Those factors converged, and different religious people,

5 different Protestants reacted in different ways. And

6 there were a group of them who decided that the best

7 defense was to take a strong stand at the most secure

8 position, which was a defense of the literal

9 interpretation of the Bible; concede nothing to modern

10 thought, defend the Bible at every point.

11 Those people who did that and who did it militantly, in

12 opposition to other religious groups and the secularists,

13 began to feed into the coalition that came to be known as

14 Fundamentalism.

15 There were, in this development, several traits of the

16 Fundamentalist, emergence of the Fundamentalist movement.

17 There were several sub-movements. One important one was

18 the emergency of a theology, basically an interpretation

19 of prophecy called dispensationalism.

20 Dispensationalism is relevant to this case in this

21 respect: That its hermeneutical principle, that is, its

22 principle of interpreting the Bible is the principle,

23 literal when possible.

24 And many Fundamentalists became dispensationists. Not

25 all. But dispensationalism was symptomatic of a tendency


1 A (Continuing) of people to say, in the late

2 nineteenth century, the literal interpretation of the

3 Bible is the best defense against modern thought.

4 Sometimes also, though not as much as usually is

5 imagined, opposition to Darwinism became a tenet of these

6 people who were defending literal interpretation.

7 Particularly in the South in the late nineteenth century,

8 Darwinism began to be a symbol of secularism, though this

9 didn't spread to the North until a somewhat later date.

10 Q Did it in fact spread to the North at a later date?

11 A Yes, it did. It gradually developed in the North,

12 or there were advocates saying that Darwinism was

13 necessarily antagonistic to Christianity right from the

14 start. I would say most Bible believing evangelicals in,

15 say, 1870, 1880, would have said Darwinism and literal or

16 conservative Biblical interpretations are to some degree

17 compatible. Not fully compatible, but given certain

18 amendments to one or the other, you could make them

19 compatible.

20 It's not until the period basically following World War

21 II that it becomes a large scale factor in Fundamentalism

22 in the North to oppose evolutions.

23 Q Did you say World War II?

24 A I'm sorry. If I did, I meant to say World War I

25 Q Focusing on the period following World War I, did


1 Q (Continuing) the Fundamentalist assault on

2 evolution come to the forefront at that time?

3 A That's correct. What happens is, before World War

4 I, as I was saying, Fundamentalists sometimes emphasized

5 opposition to evolution. But it was World War I that

6 rather dramatically brings us to the fore.

7 And it involved -- the story is, very briefly -- during

8 World War I there was a tremendous propaganda effort

9 against Germany. And the war was considered to be the war

10 to save civilization from barbarism. The war would make

11 the world safe for democracy.

12 In that context, American propaganda emphasized that the

13 reason why Germany had turned to barbarism was the

14 evolutionary philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and that

15 might be the right philosophy, as they said, was what

16 accounted for Germany's losing its Protestant Christian

17 heritage. The birthplace of Protestantism now turned to

18 barbarism.

19 Well, Fundamentalists picked this up, people like Bryan

20 picked this up and said the same thing could happen here.

21 And after World War I there was period much like the

22 period today, where there was a sense of general unease

23 for the progress of American civilization.

24 There was a sense that something had gone wrong; a

25 rather indefinite sense, not a real disaster, much like

the 1980's, it seems to me. And in that context, that


1 A (Continuing) saying evolution is a problem was

2 something that became convincing to a wide variety of

3 people.

4 So out of that World War I concern for the progress of

5 civilization, evolution began to emerge as a symbol of the

6 Fundamentalists fight against secularism.

7 Q Could you describe for me how the Fundamentalists

8 waged this campaign against evolution in this country?

9 A Primarily by working for legislation in the public

10 schools by getting state legislatures to pass acts banning

11 the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

12 They also worked within universities and colleges

13 sometimes to try to prevent the teaching of evolution, and

14 sometimes within their own schools they made them.

15 Now, usually for the first time anti-evolution became a

16 test of whether you were in or out.

17 Q Were Fundamentalists also pursuing this goal of

18 evangelization that you described earlier in your

19 testimony at this time?

20 A Certainly. That's correct.

21 Q Was there a model of origins put forward by

22 Fundamentalists during the 1920's?

23 A Yes, there was.

24 During the 1920's, Fundamentalists made it very clear

25 that the only adequate source for knowing about the


1 A (Continuing) questions of the origin of the

2 universe or the origins of the human race was the Bible.

3 The Bible alone was, after all, one of the hallmarks of

4 the whole Protestant heritage that they were defending.

5 The Bible alone was the source of knowing about evolution.

6 And God was the only person who was there, and so forth.

7 Q I'm sorry?

8 A God alone was the only source for knowing about

9 creation. And God was the only person there. And so to

10 learn about it, we have to read about that in the Bible.

11 There were one or two people, two at least, who were at

12 that time trying to marshal scientific evidence to fit a

13 very conservative reading of the Bible. A man named G.M.

14 Price, and another man named Harry Rimer were the primary

15 defenders of pitting scientific investigation into this

16 literal interpretation.

17 Q Did all Fundamentalists derive this scientific

18 constructive origins from the literal interpretation of

19 Genesis at that time?

20 A Yes, they did, though there are degrees of

21 literalism. One of the interesting factors is that,

22 William Jennings Bryan, at the time of the Scopes trial,

23 was a Biblical literalist. But as many Biblical

24 literalists were at that time, he was convinced that the

25 days referred to in Genesis One could be long periods of


1 A (Continuing) time.

2 For instance, " God rested on the seventh day." He did

3 not just rest for twenty-four hours, he rested for a

4 longer period of time, so the days of creation could be

5 longer.

6 Bryan said at the trial, `It seems to me just as easy to

7 believe that God created the world in six million years,

8 six hundred million years, whatever you want, as to

9 believe he created it in six days.' The length of

10 creation at that time wasn't considered to be a necessary

11 tenet of literalism. It is only since then that a certain

12 group of Fundamentalists has made that into a special test.

13 Q So what you're saying, then, Professor, is the

14 interpretation of the Biblical account of origins became

15 even more literalistically interpreted by Fundamentalists

16 after 1920?

17 A That's correct. What happened was that opposition

18 to evolution became more and more a symbol and a test of

19 being in or out of the true Fundamental faith.

20 And so in that sort of context was the tendency to drive

21 out middle positions. And what the history of the

22 development of Fundamentalism and evolution is the history

23 of driving out the middle positions until you end up with

24 only two positions: One, creationism, and everything else

25 in the world, any others view, is some species of


1 A (Continuing) compromise with evolution.

2 Q That mental process, from a church historian's point

3 of view, could you describe that as dualism?

4 A Well, it ends up with a very dualistic outlook, yes.

5 Q Thank you.

6 What happened to this Fundamentalist movement

7 particularly focused on the-- focusing on origins between

8 the 1930's and up until about the 1950's?

9 A During the 1930's, Fundamentalism after the Scopes

10 trial tended to be a rebuilding, forming independent

11 groups and churches and so forth, and working, shoring up

12 its own resources. And by about the 1940's and `50's,

13 there begins to be a very perceptible split within the

14 Fundamentalist movement.

15 The split is a split that is called, the one party, the

16 more moderate party came to be known as

17 neo-evangelicalism. On the other hand, the

18 Fundamentalists who wanted to preserve the Fundamentalist

19 division became more and more hard line, more and more

20 insisting on the classic tenets of Fundamentalist faith.

21 Q Did the more moderate view have an opposite number,

22 if I might use that expression, in the area of scientific

23 investigation?

24 A Yes. The more moderate view involved people who

25 continued to say that, as has been done since the


1 A (Continuing) inception of Darwinism, that there were

2 ways of being faithful to the infallibility of the Bible,

3 even the inerrancy of the Bible, that did not necessarily

4 rule out all process in God's way of creating; that it's a

5 false choice between evolutionism on the one hand and

6 creationism on the other hand. And many of the

7 neo-evangelicals in the 1950's and since then have

8 emphasized that, particularly in an organization known as

9 the American Scientific Affiliation.

10 Q As a church historian, Professor Marsden, do you see

11 any essential similarity between the Fundamentalism of the

12 late 1920's and Fundamentalism today?

13 A There's a great deal of, both similarity and

14 continuity. The main contours of the movement are the

15 same. That is, militant opposition to what was called

16 modernism, what has now come to be called more likely

17 secular-humanism, continues to be the glue that brings

18 together a coalition.

19 On the periphery of the movement, of course, there is

20 some variety. Any movement that has been around as long

21 as Fundamentalism has some change. For instance, the

22 hardening of the categories kind of phenomenon just

23 described tends to be one of the changes that has taken

24 place since the 1920's.

25 In many respects, there is a striking similarity.


1 Q Is there any similarity between the Fundamentalist

2 movement of the 1920's and Fundamentalism today, with

3 reference to the view of the factual inerrancy of the

4 Genesis account of creation?

5 A Yes, there is. There continues to be an emphasis on

6 Genesis and the literal interpretation of Genesis as the

7 primary source of our knowledge about the origins. And as

8 I said, more emphasis on this being a young earth, a

9 twenty-four hour day, six day creation.

10 Q Now, at the time that Fundamentalist Christians were

11 coping with modernism as you described it from a

12 historical perspective, were other groups in America

13 to coping in different ways?

14 A That's correct. There's a whole spectrum of opinion

15 among Christians relating to the question of origins,

16 evolution, and the like. And in that spectrum, you name

17 it, you can find any variety of relating Christianity to

18 science.

19 Q Is there any particular number of points which

20 defined Fundamentalism from a historical perspective?

21 A No, there's not. Fundamentalists emphasized certain

22 fundamentals of the faith. That has something to do with

23 the origin of the term "Fundamentalism". Views like the

24 virgin birth were defended as fundamentals of Christianity.


1 A (Continuing) It used to be thought that there were

2 just five fundamentals around with which the movement had

3 coalesced.

4 In fact, that turned out to be an error made by the

5 first historian of the movement, a man named Stewart Cole

6 in 1931. Some years ago, about ten years ago, that was

7 discovered to be a sort of mythology, that there were five

8 points of Fundamentalism.

9 In fact, sometimes there were fourteen points, sometimes

10 there were five, sometimes there were seven; sometimes

11 there were different numbers for different groups. There

12 were some groups that didn't even have a list.

13 Q Did you find that Fundamentalism was embraced only

14 by Protestants in this country?

15 A No. It's a coalition at the heart of which are

16 evangelical Protestants, primarily in the revivalist

17 tradition. But that coalition has brought into it people

18 from other groups, Catholics, Mormons, even sometimes

19 conservative Jews, Seventh Day Adventists. Certainly all

20 sorts of people might come into the Fundamentalist

21 movement as they become militantly opposed to some aspect

22 of modern religion.

23 Q In the course of your studies as a religious

24 historian, are you familiar with the phrase "religious

25 apologetics"?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Do you have a definition which you might make

3 reference to at this point of that phrase?

4 A Religious apologetics is simply an attempt to defend

5 the faith against its critics.

6 Q Were the Fundamentalists in the historical period

7 you made reference to engaged in religious apologetics in

8 the arena of science and education?

9 A Yes. Certainly.

10 Q Was that the reference you made earlier to the

11 scientific works of Mr. Price and Mr. Rimer?

12 A Right. They would be the best examples of doing

13 that.

14 Q Are you familiar with what might be described as

15 creation science?

16 A Yes, I am.

17 Q Are you familiar with the organizations that

18 presently promote creation science?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of

21 professional certainty as to whether the groups involved

22 in the creation science movement are part of the

23 Fundamentalist movement?

24 A Yes, they certainly are.

25 Q Is that your opinion?


1 A That's my opinion, yes.

2 Q Upon what do you base that opinion, sir?

3 A Well, I base that opinion on my research into the

4 history of Fundamentalism, looking at documents published

5 by such groups and seeing the convergence of their views

6 with Fundamentalist views.

7 Q And have you examined these creation science groups

8 in the ordinary course of your scholarship?

9 A Yes.

10 Q In other words, without particular reference to my

11 engagement of you as an expert?

12 A To some degree, yes.

13 Q And also to some degree with reference to my asking

14 you to look at creation science?

15 A Yes. Certainly.

16 Q Does the creation science movement today contain any

17 elements found in the Fundamentalist movement as you have

18 described it historically?

19 A The creation science movement today does contain

20 elements that are strikingly and typically

21 Fundamentalist. One is the creation science movement,

22 from its inception, has emphasized the divine creation and

23 literalistic interpretation of the Bible, which tends to

24 be a leading trait of Fundamentalism, and necessarily

25 opposed to all forms of evolutionalism.


1 A (Continuing) So, for instance, if you look at a

2 book like Henry Morris' The Troubled Waters of Evolution--

3 Q Professor Marsden, would having that book facilitate

4 your testimony in this connection?

5 A Yes, it would.

6 Q You were about to make reference to one of those,

7 Professor. Could you, before you begin to read, identify

8 the book by author, title, and page?

9 A This is a book by Henry M. Morris, The Troubled

10 Waters of Evolution, published by C.L.P. Publishers, San

11 Diego, California. Copyright 1974.

12 I am going to refer to page 10.

13 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, at this point I would state

14 for the record that Professor Marsden has brought this

15 book with him, and I would like to see if we have got a

16 document, Exhibit Number Four, at this time. If I may

17 have a moment to do that.

18 Q You brought those books with you, didn't you?

19 A Well, yes, I did. Actually I brought my copies.

20 These are copies of the same books.

21 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, we are going to offer a

22 record designation to the pages to which Professor Marsden

23 makes reference. We will insert in the blank exhibit

24 numbers that are in the record at this point as Exhibit

25 Number Thirty, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, by Henry


1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) Morris, and provide copies

2 to counsel for the defendants at this point.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, in I might interject, it

4 would assist us greatly if we could have a copy of that

5 book now to look at, so we can prepare our cross

6 examination. Without that, I think we would be prejudiced.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy?

8 MR. SIANO: There are only two.

9 THE COURT: Fine. You can look at my copy.

10 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

11 Q You were about to make reference to those, Professor?

12 A Yes. One characteristic of Fundamentalism has been

13 to emphasize, as you described it, the dualistic

14 position. That is, that there are only two positions,

15 they say, that are positions. There is the position of

16 creationism now defined as twenty-four hour a day

17 creationism, virtually, at least, and everything else,

18 which is evolution.

19 So in this book by Morris, he says this on page 10,

20 "Sometimes, evolution is described as God's method of

21 creation, in an attempt to make it more palatable to

22 die-hard creationists, but this device has never been

25 satisfactory, either to evolutionists or creationists."


1 A (Continuing) Now, Morris, the origin of that sort

2 of sentiment, you trace in Morris' own thoughts of this--

3 Q Are these books all in?

4 You may make reference to that in Exhibit Number

5 Thirty-One at this point.

6 A There is a second book called, by Henry M. Morris

7 again, called, Studies in the Bible and Science, which is

8 a collection of essays by Morris published by Presbyterian

9 and Reform Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1966,

10 copyright.

11 In 1963, Morris delivered an address at the American

12 Scientific Affiliation around the same time, I think, as

13 the emergence of the Creation Research Society, and the

14 theme of the address was "No Compromise". That's a

15 characteristic Fundamentalist emphasis, you're either with

16 us or you're with Satan. And Morris said that in just so

17 many words. On page 102--

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I object to the last

19 comment, certainly, concerning a statement. Perhaps I

20 misunderstood, but if he is making reference to a speech

21 that was given that he does not have, that would violate

22 the best evidence rule and I would move to strike that.

23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm sorry. This is a

24 quotation from that speech. This is a collection of

25 essays.


1 MR. WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the objection, Your

2 Honor.

3 A He says this-- Well, he's referring to another

4 point there. He says, "And this should be true more than

5 anywhere else in connection with the philosophy of

6 evolution, since as been pointed out above" -- And he has

7 just argued this at some length -- "as has been pointed

8 out above, this philosophy", that is evolution, "is really

9 the foundation--" The philosophy of evolution is really

10 the foundation, "of the very rebellion of Satan himself

11 and of every evil system which he has devised since that

12 time to oppose the sovereignty and grace of God in this

13 universe."

14 So there you have it. On the one side is evolution and

15 every evil philosophy on the side of Satan, or you can

16 have creationism. No middle ground.

17 Q Do creation scientists today, as you understand

18 them, share any common characteristics of early

19 Fundamentalists in insisting that the Bible is the source

20 of their creation science models?

21 A That's correct. Often in creation science

22 literature it is stressed that the Bible is the only

23 source for finding out about origins.

24 For instance, here is another book by Duane T. Gish,

25 called Evolution: The Fossils Say No. This book is


1 A (Continuing) published by Creation Life Publishers,

2 San Diego, Californian copyrighted, the first edition,

3 1972.

4 In this book, Mr. Gish, on page 42, makes a

5 characteristic statement in his definition of creation.

6 He says, "By creation we mean the bringing into being of

7 the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of

8 sudden or fiat creation," -- and this is the key --

9 "described in the first two chapters of Genesis."

10 That's just the very definition of creation in many

11 creation science publications. Henry Morris says this

12 even more strongly in a book, The Studies in the Bible of

13 Science.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would have to interject

15 at this point an objection. This has absolutely, without

16 question, no relevance to Act 590. We're talking now

17 about a statement where someone said that creation is as

18 described in Genesis. This Act specifically prohibits any

19 mention to Genesis. I fail to see what relevance it has.

20 Obviously, it cannot go to the legislative intent. These

21 people did not pass Act 590; the Arkansas Legislature did.

22 We have an Act which is specific, and we should look at

23 the Act. This is irrelevant.

24 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in addition to the


1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) memorandum that the

2 Plaintiffs submitted earlier this morning on the question

3 of relevance, I will speak briefly to that point, if your

4 Honor feels it appropriate at this time.

5 THE COURT: I think maybe you should. And

6 incidentally, the memorandum was never given to me. I've

7 never read it.

8 MR. SIANO: Excuse me, your Honor. I think it was

9 conveyed to a member of the Court's staff earlier this

10 morning.

11 THE COURT: Well, the first I heard of it was when

12 we were getting ready to walk in the courtroom this

13 morning. I haven't read it.

14 MR. SIANO: In that case, I'll be a little more

15 detailed. I'm sorry about the time it will take.

16 Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, your

17 Honor, the test of relevance is a logical test. It's a

18 test as to whether the proper evidence has a tendency in

19 logic to make the point being proposed more likely to have

20 occurred; or the point being opposed less likely to have

21 occurred.

22 Now, in this case it is the point to be made by the

23 Plaintiffs that the entire body of writings of the

24 creation science movement display their purpose as being

25 religious. And that this purpose, this religious purpose,


1 MR. SIANO: (continuing) is intrinsic in the

2 writings of the creation science movement.

3 And that we believe that this is relevant, your Honor,

4 logically likely to make the fact finder conclude that the

5 term, creation science, is, in fact, a religious

6 apologetic, in that all the writings advance a religious

7 thought.

8 Furthermore, the defendants' witnesses have stated in

9 their depositions that the gentlemen, particularly

10 referred to in this case as to this witness, Mr. Morris

11 and Mr. Gish, are authorities on the topic of creation

12 science. And that, therefore, we believe what is being

13 put before the Court are these relevant sections of these

14 books which bear upon the question of religious purpose,

15 or argue quite strenuously in opposition to the

16 defendants' position that creation science is, in fact,

17 science, and not a religious apologetic.

18 And it is offered for that purpose, and that is why

19 we're offering these writings, to show the religious

20 purpose and intent of the creation science movement.

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the plaintiffs cannot

22 overcome the section of the Act which specifically

23 prohibits any religious instruction. Merely because

24 someone calls it creation science somewhere out in the

25 world does not mean it complies with Act 590, just as


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) evolution may have been

2 abused in the past for some doctrine which it does not

3 fairly characterize. So it is irrelevant to the question

4 at hand.

5 THE COURT: Well, I'll have to wait and see what the

6 witnesses say about how much they relied on Mr. Gish and

7 Mr. Morris and other writers in that connection. If the

8 people the creation scientists are relying upon are people

9 who write in terms of religious writings, I think that

10 would be relevant.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think our point is that

12 to the extent that there are writings out there which have

13 religious references and talk about creation science, they

14 cannot be used under Act 590. It is specifically

15 prohibited.

16 THE COURT: I appreciate that, yes, sir. But I

17 don't think the writers can call it religion for one

18 purpose and science for another, if that's what they have

19 done in these writings. And they underpin it with

20 religious writings, then I don't think they can just take

21 the hat off and say, "Well, we're talking about science

22 now." I think that's the point the Plaintiffs are trying

23 to make.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: That may be true, But I just wanted

25 to make the point, your Honor, that these individuals are--


1 THE COURT: I appreciate the point that you're

2 making. They can't teach out of the book in school. I

3 understand that, and they wouldn't be used in school, or

4 even those viewpoints wouldn't be used in school

5 necessarily.

6 I think the evidence is admissible and relevant.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor.

8 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

9 Q Professor Marsden, you have in front of you a copy

10 of Exhibit Twenty-Nine in evidence, Act. 590 of 1981. You

11 have, in fact, seen that Act before, have you not?

12 A That is correct.

13 Q Do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether the

14 definition of creation science as set forth in Section

15 4(a) of Act 590 is a statement of Fundamentalist belief?

16 A Yes, I do.

17 Q As a professional opinion to a reasonable degree of

18 certainty, could you state what that opinion is?

19 A Yes. The striking thing to me about reading this

20 Act is that when reading it, as a historian one is quite

21 aware of the variety of opinions that there have been on

22 relating science to the Bible. There are numbers of

23 things that might plausibly be called creation science in

24 the sense of using science to confirm or to agree with the

25 Bible in some way or another.


1 A (Continuing) This Act singles out and gives

2 preferential treatment to just one such view, one that is

3 very easily identifiable as a characteristically

4 Fundamentalist view.

5 Q Now, is there an interpretation of Genesis from a

6 Fundamentalist perspective that coincides with subdivision

7 1 of Section 4(a), "Sudden creation of the universe,

8 energy, and life from nothing"?

9 A Yes. The anti-evolutionism characteristics of

10 Fundamentalist would emphasize the word "sudden".

11 Q And is there an interpretation, a Fundamentalist

12 interpretation of Genesis that coincides with point 2 of

13 Section 4(a), "Insufficiency of mutation and national

14 selection in bringing about the development of all living

15 kinds from a single organism"?

16 A Yes. The word "kinds" is a word that appears in

17 Genesis One several times and which is characteristic of

18 Fundamentalist talk about the subject.

19 Q Now, is there a Fundamentalist view of Genesis that

20 coincides with point 3 of Section 4(a), "Changes only

21 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

22 and animals"?

23 A Yes. Genesis One repeatedly says that they brought

24 forth after their kind. And that's interpreted by

25 Fundamentalists to mean that you can't change from one


1 A (Continuing) kind or species to another.

2 Q Is there an interpretation of Fundamentalist view of

3 Genesis that coincides with point 4 of Section 4(a),

4 "Separate ancestry for man and apes"?

5 A Yes. That's an elaboration of the previous point,

6 that different kinds don't change into each other.

7 Q Is there a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis

8 that coincides with point 5 of Section 4 a, "Explanation

9 of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the

10 occurrence of a worldwide flood"?

11 A Yes. Point 5 is particularly characteristic of a

12 branch of Fundamentalism that is the one that is

13 associated with what is now widely called creation science

14 that emphasizes flood geology, as it's called, and

15 catastrophism as a way of explaining the fossil evidence.

16 Q That flood that Fundamentalists talk about, is that

17 the Noachian flood?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Is there an interpretation in the Fundamentalist

20 view of Genesis that coincides with point 6 of Section

21 4(a), "A relatively recent inception of the earth and

22 living kinds"?

23 A Yes. That again is characteristic of a particular

24 subbranch of Fundamentalism which emphasizes the

25 twenty-four hour day creationism, and therefore quite a


1 A (Continuing) young earth.

2 Q Professor Marsden, are there other sections of Act

3 590 of 1981 that in your professional opinion reflect

4 aspects of Fundamentalism in America as you know it?

5 A Yes, there are.

6 Q I'll ask you to focus first on Section 4(b) and the

7 subdivisions therein, please.

8 A Yes. Without going through--

9 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed the question.

10 Q Can I ask you, Professor, to focus now on Section


12 A Yes.

13 In Section 4(b), without going through the details of

14 it, the general characterization of evolution science

15 there is one that makes evolution science, it seems to me,

16 virtually necessarily a wholly naturalistic process. And

17 it's one that is written as the inverse of the special

18 flood geology kind of science of 4(a).

19 Q In other words, that's establishing a dualist

20 definition in this action?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q I'll direct your attention to Section 6. Are there

23 any particular points in Section 6 that reflect typical

24 literalist Fundamentalism as you understand it?

25 A Right. There's a striking one here in Section 6,


1 A (Continuing) the third line, where -- this is the

2 legislative purpose, the declaration of purpose. One of

3 the purposes is to insure neutrality toward students'

4 diverse religious conviction.

5 Now, it seems to me that the only way that you can

6 suppose that presenting just two positions, or giving a

7 privileged position to just two positions, amounted to

8 neutrality, was if you thought there were only two

9 positions. If you thought there were fifteen positions,

10 you wouldn't say this is ensuring neutrality by giving a

11 privileged position to just one.

12 So this reflects the kind of Fundamentalist thinking

13 that I quoted from the books, particular the book by Henry

14 Morris.

15 MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.





19 Q Professor Marsden, I'd like to ask you a few

20 questions about the books which are introduced. I'm

21 sorry, but I did not get all the exhibit numbers.

22 The Morris book, The Troubled Waters of Evolution,

23 that's Exhibit Thirty-One, is that correct?

24 A I believe that's correct, or Thirty.

25 Q Thirty. The Morris book on The Bible and Science.


1 A Thirty-one.

2 Q And finally, the Gish book, Evolution: The Fossils

3 Say No.

4 A Seventy-eight, I believe.

5 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, for the record I'll state

6 that there are two editions to that book, and we believe

7 it's Seventy-eight. The other is Seventy-seven. I

8 believe we questioned him out of Seventy-eight.

9 Q Professor Marsden, where did you get these books?

10 A Where did I get the books?

11 Q Yes, sir.

12 A Well the fact of the matter is that I brought these

13 three books with me on the airplane. My attorney said--

14 One of them is a library book, and they said, "We have the

15 same book." Let's use our copy.

16 Q Where did you get these books that you brought with

17 you?

18 A The ones I brought with me, a couple were in my

19 personal library, and the other one was in Calvin College

20 library.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, may I approach the

22 witness.

23 THE COURT: You may.

24 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

25 Q According to plaintiff's Exhibit Number Thirty,


1 Q (Continuing) which is the Morris book, The Troubled

2 Waters of Evolution, would you please read to me the

3 inside cover of that book, please?

4 A The inside cover has pasted in this statement, "This

5 book is not designed or appropriate for public school use

6 and should not be used in public schools in any way." It

7 continues in smaller print, "Books for public schools

8 discuss scientific evidence as supports creation science

9 or evolution science. This book instead discusses

10 religious concepts or materials that support Creationist

11 religion or evolutionist religion, and such religious

12 material should not be used in public schools."

13 Q I'd like you to examine Plaintiff's Exhibit

14 Thirty-one, which is the Morris book, The Bible and

15 Science, and tell the Court whether or not that same

16 disclaimer appears in that book?

17 A Yes. The same disclaimer is in this book. I don't

18 know whether it's relevant. I don't think these are in my

19 copies.

20 Q I appreciate that. Exhibit Number Seventy-eight,

21 which is the Gish book, is a similar disclaimer in there?

22 A Yes. Same thing.

23 Q What research have your done on Fundamentalism in

24 Arkansas in 1981?

25 A What research have I done on it?


1 Q Yes, sir.

2 A In Arkansas, particularly?

3 Q In 1981?

4 A This is the first time I've been to Arkansas, was

5 yesterday afternoon, in 1981. I have tried to keep up

6 with this case, primarily, and I followed Fundamentalism

7 in the country in a general way in 1981.

8 Q Would it be fair to say that you have not done any

9 research on Fundamentalism in Arkansas in 1981?

10 A No, I wouldn't say so, because since being asked to

11 testify, I have considered this law and Fundamentalism as

12 it relates to that law, and talked to numbers of people

13 about that. So I have done some research.

14 Q Fundamentalism is a coalition of various movements,

15 isn't it?

16 A Yes, it is.

17 Q Can you distinguish Fundamentalism as it existed up

18 to 1925 from contemporary Fundamentalism?

19 A The core of the movement is the same, its militancy

20 and opposition to modernism or secular humanism. There

21 are some differences. For instance, today Fundamentalism

22 has a much more mass media aspect. I think that has

23 changed some of the emphases that are associated with the

24 movement.

25 Q Is it your opinion that Act 590 is exclusively a


1 Q (Continuing) product of Fundamentalism?

2 A No, not exclusively Fundamentalist.

3 Q Do Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation?

4 A Many Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation,

5 yes.

6 Q Do you see the words, "Six day creation", in Act 590?

7 A The words, "Six day creation", are avoided in Act

8 590.

9 Q You said they are what?

10 A They are avoided in Act 590. That's a conclusion.

11 I do not see them.

12 Q Fundamentalists have historically opposed the

13 teaching evolution in the school room, haven't they?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Act 590 permits evolution to be taught in the school

16 room, doesn't it?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Can you separate a religious creator from scientific

19 creation?

20 A From scientific creation as defined in this Act?

21 Q Yes, sir.

22 A No. It seems to me that the very word, "creation",

23 entails "creator".

24 Q You have always studied a creator in a religious


1 Q (Continuing) context, haven't you?

2 A Well, creator is used in all sorts of contexts.

3 Q But you've always studied it in a religious context,

4 haven't you?

5 A Not necessarily, no.

6 Q How else have you studied creator?

7 A Well, I've studied-- Do you mean-- Creator of

8 what, in what sense?

9 Q Have you studied the concept of Creator always in a

10 religious context?

11 A No. I've studied-- For instance, creator might be

12 used in the sense of the Creation of the American

13 Republic, which is the title of a book. And the creators

14 of the American Republic would be the people like Thomas

15 Jefferson. So creator in itself has all sorts of meanings.

16 Q You have never studied a creator in a scientific

17 concept have you, or as a scientific concept?

18 A Studied a creator as a scientific concept? I have

19 studied a lot of the relationship between a creator and

20 scientific concepts.

21 Q But you are not a scientist, are you?

22 A I'm a historian, and historians have to do a lot of

23 history of science to some extent.

24 Q But you are not trained a scientist, are you?


1 A I'm not trained as a scientist, no.

2 Q All Fundamentalists don't hold to the six part

3 definition of creation science in Act 590, do they?

4 A That's correct. Not all Fundamentalists would hold

5 to that view. But of course, that's--

6 Q Thank you.

7 Fundamentalists view sanctification in different ways,

8 don't they?

9 A Yes, they do.

10 Q Fundamentalists view free will in different ways,

11 don't they?

12 A They are sub groups within the movement on all these

13 points.

14 Q Fundamentalists view dispensationalism in different

15 ways, don't they?

16 A There are subgroups on that, too.

17 Q Fundamentalists view revivalism in different ways,

18 don't they?

19 A There are subgroups on that, too. Correct.

20 Q Fundamentalists view creation science in different

21 ways don't they?

22 A There are subgroups in their views that, too.

23 Q Act 590 prohibits any religious instruction or

24 references to religious materials, doesn't it?

25 A That's what it says, yes.


1 Q From a historical perspective, hasn't Fundamentalism

2 embraced or championed the scientific method of inquiry?

3 A It has talked a great deal about championing the

4 scientific method of inquiry. It is typical for

5 Fundamentalists to say the facts of science versus the

6 theory of evolution, for instance.

7 MR. CAMPBELL: I have no further questions.

8 MR. SIANO: Very briefly, Your Honor.





12 Q These books that you brought with you, these are

13 your own copies, aren't they?

14 A None of the books in this courtroom is my copy. I

15 brought-- I have in my hotel room across the street three

16 copies of these books. And since you had these, we

17 decided to use these.

18 Q The ones that you brought with you from Grand Rapids

19 didn't have these little labels in them, did they?

20 A I wouldn't swear to that. I'm pretty sure. I'm

21 sure this one doesn't.

22 Q The Bible and Science, that one doesn't have any

23 label in it? You're certain of that, under oath?

24 A Well, I am-- I am ninety-nine percent sure. I'd


1 A (Continuing) be willing to bet.

2 Q So as far as you can remember, the books you got in

3 the ordinary course of business didn't have these labels

4 in them?

5 A I certainly didn't notice it on the particular three

6 I had.

7 MR. SIANO: I'd say for the record, Your Honor, the

8 books we got, we got in the document production from the

9 organizations themselves, and that's where we got the

10 labels.

11 MR. SIANO: (Continuing):

12 Q You identified Calvin College. Could you just tell

13 me what Calvin College is, since I didn't ask you about

14 that, sir?

15 A Yes. Calvin College is the college of the Christian

16 Reform Church, which is the Dutch equivalent of a

17 Presbyterian Church.

18 Q It is, in fact, evangelical?

19 A Calvin College is an evangelical in what is called

20 reformed credo-denomination. It's a conservative

21 Christian basically.

22 MR. SIANO: No further questions, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: You can step down. Thank you.

24 This would probably be a good time to break for

25 lunch. We'll reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P100-133


1 (December 7, 1981)

2 (1:30 p.m.)

3 MR. SIANO: I'd like to approach the bench, your

4 Honor.

5 MR. WILLIAMS: There is a small point to clarify.

6 (Bench Discussion)

7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in connection with Mr.

8 Marsden's testimony, there was some question about these

9 labels. In connection with discovery, we obtained copies

10 of these documents from the organizations themselves.

11 Those are the documents which have the labels.

12 The books that Professor Marsden brought with him from

13 Grand Rapids do not have the labels. I offer to stipulate

14 with my adversary just to that. I have asked whether Mr.

15 Williams is willing to do that, and he is unwilling to do

16 that. I think that would be a more efficient way to

17 address this particular narrow issue.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: All I am saying is, they chose the

19 books they wanted to bring in. Those are the ones they

20 brought in.

21 THE COURT: Why don't you stipulate that the books

22 he brought from Grand Rapids didn't have the labels? Is

23 Marsden not available?

24 MR. SIANO: He is here, your Honor. I guess we

25 will have to put him on the stand.


1 THE COURT: Well, bring him and let him testify as

2 to those.

3 Will that satisfy you?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: I am not disputing it occurred. I am

5 just saying they brought the books they wanted to use. If

6 they think it is that relevant, they could have brought

7 these in in the first place.

8 THE COURT: Will you stipulate to that?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: I will stipulate to it.

10 THE COURT: Okay, fine.

11 MR. SIANO: I will state it for the record, and you

12 can state whether you agree. Thank you, Judge.


(End of Bench Discussion)

14 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, parties have agreed that

15 copies of the books which Professor Marsden brought from

16 Grand Rapids, titled Troubled Waters of Evolution, by

17 Henry Morris, Studies of the Bible and Science, by Henry

18 Morris, and Evolution: The Fossils Say No, do not have

19 any disclaimatory labels in them. The books which the

20 Plaintiffs obtained in discovery from the creation science

21 organizations in this case, i.e., The Troubled Waters of

22 Evolution, Studies of the Bible and Science, both by

23 Henry Morris, are the copies of those books which have

24 labels, and as so stipulated by the parties.

25 THE COURT: Call your next witness.


1 MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiff calls Professor Dorothy

2 Nelkin. Mr. Dewey Crawford will handle the direct

3 examination.

4 Thereupon



6 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

7 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

8 testified as follows:





12 Q Professor Nelkin, would you state your full name for

13 the record, please?

14 A Dorothy Nelkin.

15 Q By whom are you presently employed?

16 A Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

17 Q Who position do you hold there?

18 A I'm a professor in the Department of Sociology and

19 in a program called Science Technology and Society.

20 Q I'm going to ask that Plaintiff's Exhibit

21 Ninety-Nine be passed to Professor Nelkin, and when that

22 arrives, Professor Nelkin, I'm going to ask you if you can

23 identify that as being your curriculum vitae?

24 (Examining same) Yes.

25 Q Your career pattern has been a little bit unusual as


1 Q (Continuing) far as academics, has it not, as far

2 as obtaining your present academic position?

3 A (Nodding affirmatively) Yes, it has. I think women

4 often have unusual, women particularly in my generation

5 often have unusual career patterns.

6 I did not obtain a Ph.D., but instead worked my way into

7 the profession by writing books and by getting some

8 recognition on the basis of work. And Cornell was an open

9 enough academic community to accept that as a reasonable

10 equivalent.

11 Q You are a full tenured professor at Cornell, are you

12 not?

13 A Yes. I have been since 1977. I have been a

14 professor there since 1973 or something.

15 Q And you have also been elected by your colleagues in

16 the sociological profession as president of your academic

17 society in sociology?

18 A I was. I'm past president of the society called the

19 Social Studies of Science. But that is rotating. I am no

20 longer in the position.

21 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I would like to have

22 Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-nine for identification

23 received into evidence as Professor Nelkin's curriculum

24 vitae.

25 THE COURT: It will be received.


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

2 Q Professor Nelkin, will you tell us briefly what your

3 area of research and scholarship is?

4 A Yes. I tend to focus my research on the social

5 implications of science and technology. I study the

6 questions of science and public participation and the

7 relationship between science and the public.

8 I have been particularly interested in my research on

9 the way lay groups, lay groups can be used by— The way

10 science becomes a source of legitimation, a source of

11 credibility for many groups with other kinds of causes.

12 Q Do you have any particular means or methods of

13 approaching these subjects?

14 A Well, I find it very useful to study conflicts, to

15 study controversies, as a means of understanding what

16 people really want, what their demands are, how they

17 articulate these demands. And I have focused my work on

18 controversy.

19 Q Controversies involving science and technology?

20 A Always involving some aspect of science or

21 technology or both.

22 Q Can you give us some examples of such disputes that

23 you have studied or written about?

24 A Well, I've worked on a lot, I've written a lot on

25 technological siting disputes, like the siting of airports


1 A (Continuing) or nuclear power plants. I've written

2 a great deal on the nuclear debate, both in this country

3 and in western Europe.

4 I've studied the recombinant DNA dispute, a little bit

5 on Laetrile dispute, again focusing on issues of expertise

6 and the way people use experts and use science as a way to

7 deal with these issues.

8 Q Can you explain the methods which sociologists use

9 in, drawing conclusions about controversies or the

10 movements?

11 A Well, sociologists use a great number of methods.

12 My own method is to do extensive interviewing, but I start

13 always by collecting the material of any group, or, not

14 only of any group, but surrounding the issue that I am

15 studying. I try to bury myself in the literature, whether

16 it's legal literature, whether it's the documents produced

17 by various groups, to really understand the issues. And

18 after that I do extensive in-depth interviewing with

19 people representing all sides of the controversy.

20 I seldom concentrate on any one group. I try to

21 understand their relationship to society. it's called, in

22 its logical terms, extended case analysis.

23 Q All right. Did you conduct such a study of the

24 creation science movement?

25 A Yes, I did.


1 Q Would you tell me how you came to do that and when

2 you did that?

3 A I became interested in creation science movement

4 around 1973-74, and started collecting material at that

5 time, but then really began to pursue it as a full time

6 research endeavor, I think it was '74 or '75.

7 I, again, collected a lot of material that was written

8 by the creationists, to try to understand and try to get

9 myself under their skins, so to speak, to try to

10 understand what they were thinking, what their concerns

11 were, the diversity of their concerns. And then, also, I

12 tried to look at a lot of other material from teachers,

13 from scientists, from people in the California school.

14 I focused primarily in California at that time, because

15 that's where there was a lot of activity going on.

16 After that, I went around and interviewed people. I

17 interviewed at the Institute for Creation Research,

18 several Morrises, Duane Gish, Lester Lane. I hung around

19 here and talked to some students and some other people.

20 I also went to the Creation Science Research Center and

21 interviewed the Segraves.

22 In addition, I also talked to teachers in various parts

23 of the country, to educators, to school superintendents,

24 People on the California school board, the revolutionists,

25 Mr. Mayer of the Bible Science Curriculum Center, and


1 A (Continuing) others, to try to understand the full

2 dimensions of the dispute and to understand its dynamics.

3 Q This work was not undertaken in connection with any

4 lawsuit or consulting role for any organization, was it?

5 A No, no. It came strictly out of my own curiosity,

6 to understand how a movement that seemed to represent

7 something which most scientists have assumed was long

8 dormant, since 1925. How and why this had revived. Why

9 did it all of a sudden begin to have some apparent

10 political salience. Why this should re-emerge at this

11 particular point in time.

12 What were the ideas being expressed at the time by the

13 creationists themselves which would bring this kind of

14 activity to the fore once more.

15 Q Did you start off with any particular sympathies or

16 feelings about the movement one way or the other?

17 A Well, in some sense I did, because I thought it was

18 kind of strange, as I mentioned, that this should all of a

19 sudden in an age where science has a wide credibility,

20 where scientific events seem to have been relatively well

21 accepted, it seemed strange that this kind of challenge to

22 contemporary science should arise.

23 On the other hand, I started out — and I think this is

24 evidenced in my other work — with some sense of sympathy

25 for people who are challenging science and who feel that


1 A (Continuing) their values are somehow disturbed by

2 scientific research.

3 And I started out with some genuine sense of sympathy

4 for people who are concerned about their young and are

5 concerned about the values being taught in school.

6 Q After completing your study, did you publish your

7 conclusions?

8 A Yes. I published it in the book called, Science

9 Textbook Controversies: The Politics of Equal Time,

10 published by M. I. T. Press in 1977, was the first edition

11 and it was in paperback in 1978.

12 Q Did you also write several articles for magazines?

13 A Yes. Really based on the same material that is in

14 the book.

15 Q As a result of your study, did you form any opinions

16 about creation science?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you tell us, from a reasonable degree of

19 scholarly certainty, what those opinions are?

20 A Yes. Very briefly, there were several different

21 conclusions. First of all, I found that the science of

22 creationists, I felt on the basis of my interviews, to be

23 part of a broader fundamentalist movement, which is

24 essentially opposed to modernism and to science as part of

25 modernism. And they are opposed to it primarily for


1 A (Continuing) religious and social reasons.

2 And they were attempting to try to use, as some of the

3 other groups had, science as a way to legitimate what they

4 were saying, using science as a kind of political resource

5 to legitimizes and give credibility to their own views

6 concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible;

7 Also, I found that one of the reasons underlying the

8 whole of their activities were concerns about a growing

9 secularism in society and a concern that this was going to

10 cut down on the constituency would destroy the values of

11 their young and have their youths. It was a very normal

12 concern that their youths were going off in some direction

13 that they themselves felt very uncomfortable with.

14 Q Could you elaborate for me on what you mean when you

15 say they were using science to legitimize their religious


17 A Yes. Science generally has had a lot of salience in

18 society. It has an image of neutrality, of objectivity.

19 It is widely used by a lot of groups. I mean, after all

20 the transcendental meditationists call themselves the

21 Science of Creative Intelligence. When I looked at the

22 Laetrile people, they used scientific evidence to document

23 the applicancy of apricot pits.

24 Every group that I have studied tends to draw scientific

25 knowledge, scientific evidence, tries to incorporate them


1 A (Continuing) into them, even if their concerns are

2 religious or social or have to do with freedom of choice.

3 They tend to be a translation of these values into

4 scientific and technical terms.

5 It seems to be a ubiquitous tendency in our society,

6 and I think the creationists, as well, are doing this.

7 This is a propagandistic kind of activity in my mind.

8 Q What do creation scientists find objectionable in

9 science?

10 A Well, there are several feelings that run through.

11 One which is very, very strong is a concern about science

12 representing some sort of flux, some sort of change; a

13 great deal of uncertainty. And, as you know, in our

14 society there is a great deal of concern about uncertainty

15 at the present point.

16 Order is a very fundamental value to the scientist, and

17 A scientist's order is a question of design creates a

18 sense of order.

19 Second of all, there is a profound concern about

20 immorality and concern about creating a moral environment,

21 and an association with the evolution theory and the

22 relationships between man and animals is a sore spot of

23 immorality.

24 Q Have you selected, at my request, a illustrative

25 statement from creation scientists which shows that point?


1 A Yeah. I have a couple of quotes. One from Wendell

2 Bird, who is an attorney who writes.

3 Q Who does he work for?

4 A He's a member of the Institute of Creation

5 Research. And in an argument about evolution in public

6 schools, what creationists can do, he writes, "Christians

7 are commanded to be lights for a crooked and perverse

8 nation, and are to stand against the devil with the armour

9 of God. Christians have a responsibility to ensure light

10 and to oppose evil in the public school system, because

11 our country is shaped powerfully by the public school

12 curriculum and our tax dollars finance public education."

13 Q Is that a part of an article describing how

14 Creationists can get creation science in the public

15 schools?

16 A Well, the subtitle above that is, "The

17 Responsibility: Creationists Should Request Instruction

18 in Scientific Creationism."

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

20 the reference to that document. There has been no

21 authentication of that article. I have not seen it. If

22 it is an exhibit, it has not been referred to as one as

23 such.

24 Further, I want to enter an objection to this line of

25 inquiry on the grounds, again, of relevancy. This witness


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) is painting with a very broad

2 brush that all of these things have occurred. I don't

3 think there has been a sufficient showing that a

4 sufficient study has been made to, first of all, make

5 these conclusions; secondly, to relate to this lawsuit

6 that we are concerned with here today.

7 THE COURT: I don't know how many objections that

8 amounts to. Let's take them one at a time. I think what

9 she's reading from is part of the plaintiffs' pre-trial

10 appendix to the brief. I've read it somewhere else when I

11 was reading some material for the trial, and I think it's

12 in that.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, it's Exhibit

14 Eighty-three for identification. It's an excerpt from a

15 periodical which ICR publishes called Impact. It's a

16 self-authenticating document under federal rules covering

17 newspapers and periodicals. It's also information on

18 which Professor Nelkin has, in part, formed her

19 conclusions and comes in as material forming the basis of

20 an expert's opinion and is also admissible for that reason.

21 THE COURT: I agree with that. But he is saying he

22 hasn't seen the document. I think it is in information

23 that has been furnished, at least, to me.

24 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we provided them with all

25 copies of exhibits that were marked for identification.


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) It's page 126 of Exhibit for

2 Identification Eighty-three, which was served on the

3 Attorney General's office.

4 THE COURT: in response to the other objection, I

5 think the material is relevant. I think she is qualified

6 to express opinions as an expert.

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

9 Q We're not going to belabor the point. There was a

10 second vocation I think you selected?

11 A Yes. In my interviews I found that the creationists

12 were relating evolution theories to everything, from

13 Communism to sexual promiscuity to the decline of the

14 family, and at that time to streaking.

15 Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism writes, "The

16 results of two generations of this evolutionary

17 indoctrination have been devastating. Secularized schools

18 have begotten a secularized society. The child is the

19 father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is

20 merely an evolved beast, the man he becomes will behave as

21 a beast, either aggressively struggling for supremacy

22 himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders."

23 I think that essentially documents what we have found or

24 I have found in my own research.

25 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would like to move


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) that Exhibit Eighty-three,

2 from which she previously read, and Exhibit Seventy-six,

3 which have both been marked for identification, be

4 received into evidence.

5 THE COURT: They will be received. And Mr.

6 Williams, I will note your objection to those two

7 documents.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honor.

9 A The third thing that comes through is the concern

10 about secularism and implication for the literal

11 interpretation, that this would essentially defy the

12 literal interpretation of Genesis and consequently it

13 in a loss of faith. And this comes through very clearly

14 in a quote from Robert Kofahl in the Handy Dandy Evolution

15 Refuter. That's Exhibit Eighty-eight, I think.

16 Q It's page 141.

17 Would you read the quotation you selected from the Handy

18 Dandy Evolution Refuter, Professor Nelkin?

19 A "The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen

20 hundred years—"

21 Q Professor, excuse me. Would you slow down a little

22 bit? People are having trouble understanding you.

23 A Okay. Let me skip down a little so it won't take so

24 long.

25 "But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a


1 A (Continuing) sinner must believe what the Bible

2 says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God

3 and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything,

4 therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible

5 as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the

6 Savior whom they must know or perish. Supposedly

7 scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the

8 Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus

9 hinder them from coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ

10 for salvation."

11 I think that's the essence of the quote.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would ask that Exhibit

13 Eighty-eight marked for identification be received into

14 evidence.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: I object on the same grounds, your

16 Honor.

17 THE COURT: I will receive Exhibit Eighty-eight, but

18 I don't understand how that relates to the creation

19 science theory. Is that the product of the Institute, or

20 one of—

21 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

22 Q Would you tell us who published the Handy Dandy

23 Evolution Refuter? Which organization does this come

24 from, Professor Nelkin?

25 A It's published by Beta Books in San Diego, and it


1 A (Continuing) is, I believe, if I remember right,

2 Kofahl is a member, is or was a member of the Institute

3 for Creation Research. And I make a strong association

4 between the Institute for Creation Research, which has

5 been a primary organization among scientific creationists

6 and Act 590.

7 Q I'm going to explore that point with you in just a

8 moment, Professor Nelkin.

9 Your testimony is that that book is by a prominent

10 spokesman of the creation science movement?

11 A Yes.

12 Q How do creation scientists respond to the concerns

13 that you've just articulated?

14 A Well, first of all, their aim and their intention,

15 as far as I could discern, was really to convince people

16 to essentially believe their beliefs, convergent in the

17 sense of convergence of ideas. They want people to

18 believe their definition of reality. And in order to do

19 that, they really felt it was incumbent upon them in

20 today's age to call into question scientific ideas and to

21 give their own ideas a sense of scientific credibility.

22 How they do that is partly, mostly through negative

23 argument, to try to undermine, to try to present arguments

24 that would undermine evolution theories. And to argue

25 therefore, if you can undermine evolution theories, then


1 A (Continuing) the creationism appeared as the only

2 alternative.

3 Their methods of research, however, to somebody who were

4 very familiar with scientific methods of research don't

5 quite fit. They, first of all, start with a priori

6 assumption. Rather than keeping an open mind about the

7 evidence, they really use evidence in order to prove what

8 they would like to prove.

9 Q Professor Nelkin, have you studied ordinary

10 scientists?

11 A Yeah. I don't know if you want a quote on the way

12 they approach things on their a priori assumptions or

13 not. Would that be useful to you?

14 Q Certainly, go ahead. Identify what you are reading

15 from.

16 A Oh, yeah. This from, again, from Henry Morris.

17 Scientific Creationism is the name of the book. It is

18 Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California.

19 Q I believe that is Exhibit 76.

20 A The exhibit is 76, yes. "It should be emphasized

21 that this order is followed, not because of scientific

22 data are considered more reliable than Biblical doctrine.

23 To the contrary, it is precisely because Biblical

24 revolution is absolutely authoritative and persistent that

25 the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the


1 A (Continuing) same testimony as that of the

2 scripture."

3 "There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of

4 science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is

5 no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any

6 aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a

7 verdict in favor of evolution." Very straightforward

8 statement.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: I would ask that that be received in

10 evidence.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object again.

12 THE COURT: You don't need to restate the grounds of

13 to the objection.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like to add one

15 other thing. I think the point does need to be made, and

16 I am sure the Court is aware of this, but ICR, any group,

17 is not on trial.

18 What we are trying is the constitutionality of this Act.

19 At this point, I have not seen evidence going to whether

20 this Act is constitutional or not.

21 There has been a lot of so-called background, which is

22 totally irrelevant from a legal perspective. What does

23 the Act require? That is what we are concerned about.

24 What does the Act on its face require? The Act has not

25 even been implemented yet.


1 MR. WILLLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 What they are, in effect, saying, as I understand it is,

3 the Act can't be implemented because of some of these

4 problems with some of the writings. The Act hasn't been

5 implemented yet and they can't challenge it except as to

6 its constitutionality on its face.

7 THE COURT: I appreciate the argument you are

8 making. I read it in the Brief, and I make the same

9 ruling on it.

10 I think, in order to save a lot of time and to save a

11 lot of effort on your part, if you would just tell me you

12 object on the ground that it is not relevant or on the

13 grounds previously stated, that will help. You don't need

14 to make an argument each time.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, your Honor.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

17 Q Let me address that point. I think the record

18 already reflects that many of the publications of the

19 Institute for Creation Research are published in two

20 editions; is that correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Is Evolution: The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish

23 an illustration of that?

24 A Yes. There seems to be one for public schools and

25 one for general public.


1 Q I think the Attorney General's office has already

2 made the point that when we asked the ICR for those

3 documents and they produced them to us, they put—

4 MR.WILLIAMS: I object to that characterization. I

5 never made that point. I made the stipulation in response

6 to a request.

7 THE COURT: Wait just a second. He is going to

8 withdraw that statement.

9 Go ahead and just ask her the question.

10 MR.CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

11 Q You are familiar with the way scientists operate?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Are you familiar with any other set of texts which

14 carry labels in them designating whether it is religious

15 or science?

16 A No, I have never heard of it before. I can't

17 imagine that just simply semantic changes in books which

18 really carry the same message would really make any

is difference, and I have never seen any scientific books

20 which are written several in editions except for efforts

21 to popularize them. But that does not try to say that one

22 is scientific and one is not.

23 Q Let me turn now and ask you some specific questions

24 about the scientific-creation roots. You heard Professor

25 Marsden testify earlier today?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Did you hear him mention the American Scientific

3 Affiliation?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Could you give us a brief description of the

6 creation-science groups and their development?

7 A Okay. The American Scientific Affiliation was

8 developed, I believe, in 1941 or the early 1940's. At

9 that time, most of the creationists, as I understand, were

10 members of that affiliation. They began to split with it

11 in the late 1950's, early 1960's, because it was really

12 not fundamentalist enough with respect particularly to

13 science.

14 There were several things that occurred at that period.

15 First was the public concern about science education,

16 about the lag of the United States behind the Soviets, the

17 Russians. In particular, that was evidenced by Sputnik,

18 and that caused the National Science Foundation to develop

19 a whole series of federal programs in physics and in

20 biology, which attempted to create science textbooks for

21 the public schools that were more in tune with the latest

22 developments in contemporary science.

23 There was a Darwin centennial in 1959 in which a big

24 case was made to the fact that in biology textbooks in

25 particular there was an extraordinary lag between what was


1 A (Continuing) known within the scientific community

2 and how this was portrayed in the public schools.

3 On the basis of that, the Biology Science Curriculum

4 Study was developed and created books more in keeping with

5 contemporary and well accepted research.

6 So then you began to have public school textbooks in the

7 early Sixties which were developing evolution theories.

8 There were several other things. The Supreme Court

9 ruling in 1963 on prayer in schools was an issue which

10 irritated a number of people.

11 In California, and that's where a lot of the action is

12 at this time or was at that time, Max Rafferty was very

13 concerned about godlessness in the school system.

14 Q Who is Max Rafferty?

15 A Max Rafferty was Superintendent of Schools for the

16 State of California at that time, a fundamentalist, and

17 extremely concerned about the lack of religion in the

18 public schools. He used words like `godlessness' and

19 `secularism' and was very concerned, so he had a little

20 form of political support.

21 At the same time the creationists began, Henry Morris,

22 in particular, began to write books that began to have a

23 dissemination among certain groups.

24 At that time, also, the Creation Research Society split

25 away from the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, to


1 A (Continuing) form their own group. I believe it

2 was in 1963. They had an oath, which I don't have with me.

3 Q Is this a copy of that?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Let me pass you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for

6 identification which, along with the other exhibits for

7 identification, have been provided to the Attorney

8 General's office, and I will ask you, please, if you can

9 identify that.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time, if I might,

11 I would just like to make an objection on the grounds of

12 hearsay. All this that this witness is testifying to is

13 to hearsay.

14 THE COURT: Okay, sir. I will note that objection.

15 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

16 Q Did you identify Exhibit 115?

17 A I can't defend myself against hearsay.

18 Q If you would, please, just describe for us what

19 Exhibit 115 is.

20 A Exhibit 115 is a brochure from the Creation Research

21 Society, a Xerox of a brochure, with a brief history of

22 the organization organized in 1963, firmly committed to

23 scientific special creation.

24 Q Is there an oath which Creation Research Society

25 members must take?


1 A There is a position statement, and then on the

2 application form, to become a voting member you have to

3 have a degree in some recognized area of science.

4 In addition, all members must subscribe to the

5 following: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and

6 because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its

7 assertions are historically and scientifically true in all

8 of the original autographs. To the student of nature,

9 this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a

10 factual presentation of simple-historical truths.

11 Second, "All basic types of living things, including

12 man, were made by direct creative acts of God during

13 Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever

14 biological changes have occurred since Creation have

15 accomplished only changes within the original created

16 kinds."

17 Third, "The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly

18 referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical

19 event, worldwide in its extent and effects.

20 Fourth, "Finally, we are an organization of Christian

21 men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and

22 Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and

23 Eve as ones man and one woman, and their subsequent fall

24 into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of

25 a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come


1 A (Continuing) only through accepting Jesus Christ as

2 our savior."

3 That is the oath or what members have to subscribe to in

4 the ISCRS.

5 Q Is that a leading creation-science organization?

6 A Yes, although it did split once again. These groups

7 tend to split over certain issues. There was a leadership

8 dispute and the CSRC, the Creation Science Research Center

9 then formed in the late Sixties, and that became, by and

10 large, a publishing organization.

11 Then there was a copyright dispute and there was also a

12 dispute over strategy, and it split once more. Henry

13 Morris formed the ICR. It's like the government with all

14 these acronyms. The Institute for Creation Research,

15 which went to Christian Heritage College, which was a new

16 organization in El Cajon, California, supported by the

17 Scott Memorial Baptist Church, and it became the research

18 institute, the research arm and teaching arm also, in the

19 scientific area of Christian Heritage College, which at

20 that time its president was Tim LaHay.

21 Q Could you tell us, please, if there are other

22 organizations that come to mind?

23 A The Bible Science Association is another one and

24 that's been much more of a mass based organization, which

25 serves as a means to disseminate a lot of the material.


1 A (Continuing) Most of the documents, most of the

2 lectures, most of the activities of the people in the ICR,

3 which is now the most active organization, are the

4 lecturers in almost entirely Bible colleges and other

5 religious organizations, and also their writings are

6 published primarily through religious sources.

7 Q Are those the leading national organizations

8 dedicated to promoting creation-science?

9 A Those, at this moment, are the leading

10 Organizations. I think they have subgroups in various

11 states, but these are the leading major national

12 organizations, yes.

13 Q You told us you conducted your study in I think you

14 said around '74 or '75?

15 A '76, yes. '75-'76 was the main part of it, yes.

16 Q Have you had occasion to update your research since

17 that time?

18 A Well, when one does research like that and moves on

19 to other things, what one does is to continually collect

20 material and stick it in the file. I don't really have

21 time to look at it terribly carefully. I was called on

22 the Sacramento case. Was it a year ago—January. The

23 attorney general there had called me. I could not

24 participate in it because I was off to France on

25 sabbatical. But I did have — Again, as it began to come


1 A (Continuing) up, I began to review the material I

2 had collected in the meantime. And then obviously knowing

3 that this was coming up, I have been intensively immersed

4 in material recently. So, I feel pretty up to date.

5 Q Has anything in the material you have reviewed

6 recently changed your conclusions?

7 A No. It has only reinforced it. The only difference

8 I seek really, is it seems to me that in some sense the

9 creationists are a little more politically astute. They

10 have changed — The effort to completely separate, which I

11 really can't quite encompass, I can't quite understand how

12 they can do this, the effort to completely separate

13 biblical creationism from scientific creationism is

14 demarcated just a little bit. There seems to be some

15 conflict within the organization, and I think that is

16 reflected in this split, a conflict within the

17 organization about how to maintain an appeal to a

18 basically religious constituents on the one hand, and gain

19 scientific credibility on the other.

20 I seem to read in their literature at this point a sense

21 of contradiction as they are pulled in two directions.

22 MR. CRAWFORD: I think I failed to offer into

23 evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification. It's

24 the Creation Research Society oath, and I ask that that be

25 received.


1 THE COURT: That will be received.

2 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like my objection

3 made on the grounds previously stated, plus no

4 authentication.

5 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

6 Q Did you, based on your interviews, were you able to

7 create a composite picture of the creation-science leaders

8 based on the research?

9 A Well, it's not really a composite picture in any

10 kind of technical or statistical sense. However, I was

11 told an awful lot of times that these were people who were

12 brought up in fundamentalist families. They were bright

13 kids who went off to college and got trained as

14 scientists. They continually had some trouble reconciling

15 what they were learning with the fundamentalist

16 background. Resorted often to a theistic evolution,

17 essentially saying that God was responsible for change.

18 But, then, somewhere later, felt kind of uncomfortable

19 with all of this and turned to creationism when that

20 alternative occurred. They were attracted to this as a

21 way to reconcile their own self doubts. This is a story I

22 heard again and again in my interviews.

23 Recently got reconfirmed in something that I read by

24 Gary Parker where he says that God told him this

25 essentially. God essentially changed his mind and opened


1 A (Continuing) up new kinds of possibilities with the

2 science in creationism, so the internal conflict didn't

3 really register.

4 Q Professor Nelkin, have you read Act 590?

5 A Yes, I have read Act 590.

6 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether Act 590

7 reflects a connection with the creation-science

8 organizations which you've just described?

9 A Yes, in a couple of ways. Going through, it looked

10 awfully familiar, a lot of it. An awful lot of it seems

11 to have come almost word by word, except in a somewhat

12 different order, from a resolution that was written up, a

13 model resolution that was written by—Was it Wendell

14 Bird—Bird from Institution of Creation Research.

15 In checking over that, the wording was almost

16 identical. The order of the items was somewhat different.

17 In terms of the definition of creationism, it is the

18 kind of definition of creationism I have seen again and

19 again in creationist writings. The same items appear,

20 slightly different wording, but they are fundamentally no

21 different than the statements that come out of the

22 organizations, such as the Institution for Creation

23 Research.

24 Q Could I ask that Exhibit 106 for identification be

25 passed to you, and ask if you can identify that as being


1 Q (Continuing) the Resolution that you referred to.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I think I've got the

3 wrong exhibit number. If I may, on re-direct, I will put

4 that in through her, and I think that will save some time.

5 No more questions.




8 Q Ms. Nelkin, isn't it true that your predominant area

9 of study into the creation-science movement, as you have

10 termed it, came from approximately 1973 up through 1977?

11 A Yes, my primary time in which I was studying that

12 movement, yes.

13 Q And since 1977, say, one of your average weeks, how

14 much time have you spent in studying creation-science?

15 A Very little on a regular basis until very recently,

16 and then it's been full-time again.

17 Q Until how recently?

18 A I picked it up for a couple of weeks in January, a

19 year ago. Then I picked it up, the material up again—Had

20 a lot of it on hand so that it was not hard to get

21 at—about three or four weeks ago.

22 Q But even during that time you weren't spending

23 full-time, were you?

24 A I was also teaching my classes. Researchers in

25 universities don't have full time for research. We do


1 A (Continuing) other things. But in another sense,

2 also I've been teaching about the dispute, looking at the

3 controversy in my classes each year, so I've kept up on

4 the material to do that.

5 Q As a matter of fact, when you wrote your book in

6 1977, at that point, really, your research effectively

7 ended, didn't it?

8 A For the purposes of what I was writing then, yes.

9 Since then, I have resumed it.

10 Q For the purposes of testifying in two lawsuits?

11 A No. One lawsuit. I did not testify in the other

12 lawsuit because I was in Paris at the time it was held.

13 Q But you did look at it at times because of the

14 lawsuit?

15 A I looked at it, the material because of that, yes,

16 and for the purpose of testifying in this lawsuit, and

17 also because of considerable interest, again, because of

18 the lawsuit. So, I've taken it up again, yes.

19 Q When you began studying what you call the science

20 textbook controversy— First of all, the question of the

21 science textbook controversies includes something more in

22 your mind than merely creation-science, does it not?

23 A When I was studying those controversies, there was a

24 simultaneous dispute going on called "The Man, a Course of

25 study" dispute, which raised a lot of the same issues.


1 A (Continuing) So, I used that, as well as another

2 example.

3 Q What was "The Man, a Course of Study" dispute?

4 A It was a social science curriculum developed by the

5 National Science Foundation do teach at the younger school

6 level. I think it was fifth and sixth grades.

7 Q Describe, if you would, the general approach of "The

8 Man, a Course of Study.

9 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I don't

10 understand the relevance of this. Professor Nelkin's book

11 was called The Scientific Textbook Controversies. She

12 studied two controversies; one over creationism and one

13 over some humanities textbooks that were also

14 controversial at that time.

15 It is a second controversy. If your Honor wants to hear

16 it, fine, but I really don't see the materiality of it.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, there are two purposes.

18 First of all, in Plaintiffs ` Exhibit 1 for identification,

19 an article by Ms. Nelkin, this is gone into in some

20 depth. There appears to be, to some degree, an effort to

21 kind of intertwine the two controversies. I want to make

22 clear that they are not intertwined.

23 Second, in "Man, A Course of Study", there were some

24 concepts studied which were highly controversial. They

25 were formulated by some scientists from the National


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Science Foundation, funding,

2 at least. Fifth and sixth graders were studying such

3 questions about what is human about human beings and they

4 were studying animal behavior and how it related to humans.

5 The concepts, even Ms. Nelkin has admitted, were highly

6 controversial and somewhat problematic. There has been an

7 argument made by the plaintiffs in this case that you

8 shouldn't force on high school students this false ploy

9 between what they see as religion and science, that high

10 school students are too impressionable.

11 I would points out that if fifth and sixth graders are

12 not too impressionable to look at these issues in the view

13 of the scientists, who Ms. Nelkin I think acknowledges

14 competent scientists, neither should high school students

15 be too impressionable to look at the facts on both sides

16 of the question of origins.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, it seems very collateral

18 to me.

19 THE COURT: I think it would be easier just to

20 listen to the testimony. I think, really, the relevance

21 of that is kind of remote but if you want to go into that,

22 that's fine.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think it will take that long,

24 your Honor.

25 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question? I

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P134-166


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) couldn't follow your line of

2 argument.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: That was a statement. That was not a

4 question. Let, me ask you the question now.

5 THE WITNESS: All right.

6 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

7 Q "The Man, A Course of Study", could you just give me

8 a brief sketch of the sort of issues that were being

9 present to fifth and sixth graders in that curriculum?

10 A This is an effort to teach students about values.

11 It did have an evolutionary component because it made

12 assumptions that there, were genetic relationships between

13 man and animals, and it looked at animal behavior. It was

14 widely considered to be an interesting course.

15 Its methodology was somewhat controversial because it

16 allowed—It was not rote teaching. It was teaching which

17 involved a lot of participation, a lot of discussion by

18 students.

19 Some of the major concerns came up about whether this

20 was an appropriate methodology through which to teach

21 students or whether children should be simply told by

22 their teachers what is right and what is wrong. That was

23 a controversial aspect of that dispute.

24 Q And the scientists who formulated that based on your

25 studies felt this would be an appropriate course of study


1 Q (Continuing) for fifth and sixth graders; is that correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q They didn't feel that fifth and sixth graders were

4 too impressionable to handle these questions; is that

5 correct?

6 A No. I think it was the assumption that fifth and

7 sixth graders are pretty intelligent and thoughtful human

8 beings and could, yes, deal with it.

9 Q The controversy over "Man, A Course of Study", do

10 you know whether—Well, first of all—that course was ever

11 protested in Arkansas?

12 A I don't remember. It was protested in a number of

13 states. Arkansas could have been one of them, but I

14 really don't remember whether Arkansas was, in fact a

15 state in which it was protested.

16 Q Isn't it true that you don't necessarily see "Man, A

17 Course of Study" in the creation-science movement, as you

18 have termed it, to be one and the same? Those are

19 interrelated in terms of the same people were involved?

20 A There is some overlapping in the people involved in

21 the two studies. John Conlan, for example, the

22 representative, got involved and was also very supportive

23 of the creationist movement. And his aide, I can't

24 remember, a British guy, also got involved. Yes, there

25 was some relationship. The Galbraiths in Texas also got


1 A (Continuing) very agitated about that, similarly

2 agitated about the teaching of the evolution theory. Yes,

3 there were some connections.

4 Q The groups you previously identified as being the

5 leading creation-science groups, did any of them take a

6 formal position on "Man, A Course of Study", to the best

7 of your knowledge?

8 A I don't believe so, but I am not sure. I don't

9 remember.

10 Q In your article entitled Science-Textbook

11 Controversies, which has been previously admitted as

12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, you state that,

13 referring to textbooks published by the Biological Science

14 Curricula Study Committee, you said, quote, All three

15 reflected the fact that modern biological research is

16 based on evolutionary assumptions, close quote?

17 A Yes.

18 Q So, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that

19 somehow creation-science was based on some sort of a

20 priori assumptions. Is not evolution also based on some a

21 priori assumptions?

22 A What is the beginning part again?

23 Q You were talking about three textbooks. Three

24 textbooks were developed, each emphasizing a different

25 aspect of current biological research. Molecular biology,

137. Page Missing


1 A (Continuing) data and to understand.

2 Q Let me ask, you, in Exhibit 1 you state that

3 creation-scientists believe, quote, that all basic types of

4 living things, including man, were made by a direct

5 creative act of God during the creation week."

6 A Yes.

7 Q Can you tell me where does creation-science, as it

8 is defined in Act 590, say that all living things were

9 created in one week.

10 A Act 590 denies—

11 Q I am asking if you can tell me where.

12 A I think it does not state that exactly in that way,

13 and it does not also want to use the word "God", but I

14 find it very difficult to distinguish the notion of a

15 creator and world by design without— I mean, I think that

16 is the semantic equivalent.

17 Q But you studied this, not from you own personal

18 opinion but you studied it as a social science, did you

19 not?

20 A Yes.

21 Q So I want to ask you, not your personal opinion but

22 what you have been able to determine from studying this

23 question.

24 A My opinion is based on what I studied.

25 Q But where in Act 590 does it state that man was


1 Q (Continuing) created within one week?

2 A It does not go into that kind of detail.

3 Q Where in Act 590 does it say that, quote, God, close

4 quote, did the creating?

5 A No, Act 590 does not go into the absolute details.

6 Q It doesn't say that, does it?

7 A No.

8 Q You further state in Exhibit 1 that many

9 nonscientists believe that science is authoritative, exact

10 and definitive?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And, further, that few textbooks are careful to

13 stress the distinction between facts and interpretation?

14 A Yes.

15 Q —Or to suggest that intuition and speculation

16 actually guide the development of scientific concepts?

17 A (Nodding affirmatively)

18 Q First of all, that's an acknowledgment by you, is it

19 not, that things such as intuition and speculation do lead

20 to scientific concepts?

21 A I think there is a great deal of speculation in

22 science, and then it's tested, systematically tested;

23 approached with skepticism and tested, yes.

24 Q Can't the shortcomings you have pinpointed on

25 textbooks lead to false impression that what are


1 Q (Continuing) scientific theories are facts?

2 A I think there is a lot of room for improvement in

3 science popularization. I've written a great deal about

4 this. I think it's a very difficult thing to do to convey

5 both the subtlety and the complexity of science and yet

6 convey it at a level at which it can be understood and

7 which the innuendoes and the procedures and the kinds of

8 insights that go into science are conveyed. It's a major

9 challenge to the scientific community.

10 Q Who was Julian Huxley?

11 A Julian Huxley was a biologist in the nineteenth

12 century.

13 Q Would it be fair to say he was a proponent of

14 evolution?

15 A Well, and he and other people have used—There are a

16 lot of people who have used evolution theory for

17 purposes—special purposes. I am not sure scientists can

18 do anything about that. Scientific theories are amenable

19 to being exploited and used.

20 Q So evolutionary theory can be abused?

21 A Every science and every religious theory can be

22 abused by the public if somebody cares to do so, yes.

23 Q As you understand or what you know about Julian

24 Huxley, was he someone who adopted or adhered to the

25 theory of evolution?


1 A I believe so.

2 Q Are you aware that he called the concept of

3 evolution a naturalistic religion?

4 A (Nodding affirmatively)

5 Q So, at least, Huxley saw some sort of religion being

6 based on evolution, did he not?

7 A There were a lot of nineteenth century scientists

8 who really looked to religion as a way to document the

9 existence of God, yes. That was characteristic of a lot

10 of Darwin's contemporaries and, in fact, his

11 contemporaries in the scientific community were—had a lot

12 of problems with Darwinian theory, yes. In the nineteenth

13 century, definitely.

14 Q In your article that I just quoted from, is not one

15 of you conclusions, "that questions which have normally

16 been resolved by professional consensus are being brought

17 into the political arena"?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Is your conclusion not further that, "The processes

20 resulting in democratic values such as freedom of choice,

21 equality and fairness enter into science policy"?

22 A Yes, and when it comes to the determination of

23 scientific theory—

24 Q I am asking if that is your conclusion?

25 A No, because you are taking it out of context.


1 Q I don't want to take it out of context. Let me read

2 you the quote.

3 MR. CRAWFORD: What are you reading?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit 1, page 30, the last sentence.

5 Q "As questions that are normally resolved by

6 professional consensus are brought into the political

7 arena, and as democratic values such as freedom of choice,

8 equality and fairness enter into science policy, the

9 consequences of such resistance to science may be

10 painful." First of all, is that correct?

11 A Yes. I want to underline the word `policy'. I

12 don't want that to be shown in the record to say science .

13 Q I think I read `policy', did I not?

14 A But I want to emphasize that.

15 Q You didn't emphasize it in your article.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: If Mr. Williams intends to

17 interrogate Professor Nelkin at some length about this

18 article, I would like to give her a copy of it for her

19 reference.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: I've just finished my questioning on

21 the article, Mr. Crawford.

22 THE WITNESS: May I add a point to that, because I

23 think it,- again, is out of context. I do not think that

24 values of democracy and fairness enter the judgment as to

25 what is valid scientific theory.


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q But they do into valid science policy?

3 A Into science policy, where money should be allocated

4 for science, et cetera. But into theories of science,

5 science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy.

6 Achievement, bodies of knowledge, an acceptable set of

7 procedures, these are the things that define science, not

8 democracy, not audience applause.

9 Q I want to refer you now to Exhibit 2 for

10 identification of the plaintiffs' case. This is your

11 article entitled, "Science, Rationality and the

12 Creation/Evolution Dispute".

13 Do you not state in this article that an argument that,

14 quote, science is natural, close quote; it is simply not

15 convincing on historical grounds?

16 A Yes. The argument the scientists make, I think, is

17 a defensive one that exaggerates the total neutrality and

18 objectivity of science, and it allows people to abuse

19 science by having, by taking political recourse to that

20 concept.

21 Q In fact, you go on to say that "Neutral—"

22 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I am sorry to keep

23 intruding, but if he could just identify where he is

24 reading—

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 12 of the article.


1 Q That, in fact, "Neutral, apolitical criteria have

2 very little meaning in the context of science education";

3 isn't that right?

4 A Historically, yes.

5 Q You state, do you not, that in discussing, at the

6 top of page 15, the conflict between creation science and

7 evolution, you state, quote, "As each side defends its

8 position and criticizes the other, their arguments are

9 strikingly similar. Indeed, the debate often sounds like

10 a battle between two dogmatic groups as the anti-dogmatic

11 norms of science fade with the effort to convey the

12 validity of a scientific theory. At times, in the course

13 of the dispute, it becomes difficult to distinguish

14 science from politics and ideology, a fact which only

15 reinforces creationist claims"?

16 A Yes, because the dispute has taken—

17 Q First of all, let me ask you a question about that.

18 A Sure.

19 Q What you are saying here, is it not, is that there

20 is a parallel between the arguments made by the

21 creationists and the evolutionists?

22 A Yes. What I'm saying, though, in a larger sense is

23 that scientists have not, because they have been somewhat

24 isolated from such political challenges, are not very

25 experienced in dealing with such challenges, and I think


1 A (Continuing) that is a real problem in this day and

2 age.

3 So that when they tend to get confronted by a great

4 number of attacks, they tend to respond very, I feel, much

5 too defensively and instead of just sticking to their

6 guns, essentially fall into the trap of creating parallel

7 arguments.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this has been previously

9 marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 2. Unless the

10 plaintiffs have some intention of offering it into

11 evidence, I would like to offer it into evidence as a

12 defendant's exhibit.

13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no objection.

14 THE COURT: It will be received.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

16 Q Ms. Nelkin, are you aware that some scientific

17 journals have established a policy of refusing any

18 consideration of any articles on creation science?

19 A I am not aware it is policy. I know there's been

20 problems in peer reviewing them.

21 Q Let me refer you back to Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs'

22 Exhibit 1—Excuse me. Do you recall an article you wrote

23 on "Creation vs. Evolution: The Politics of Science

24 Education"?

25 A Yes.


1 Q Do you recall in that article you discussed the fact

2 that the National Association of Biology Teachers, their

3 journal stopped publishing any creationist articles by

4 November of 1972?

5 A Yes. It was deluged with articles that stated from

6 preconceptions that simply—

7 Q I am not asking where they came from. I am asking

8 if you are aware whether, in fact, they stopped accepting

9 articles?

10 A Yes, I remember the article and the debate at that

11 time.

12 Q Thank you very much.

13 Ms. Nelkin, you do not believe in the existence of a

14 God, do you?

15 A No.

16 Q But you believe that a religious person can be a

17 competent scientist, don't you?

18 A Certainly.

19 Q in your study of science, have you come to a

20 conclusion that we now have a purity of science so that

21 society no longer affects science and the scientific

22 method?

23 A Do I believe that?

24 Q In your studies, have you come to that conclusion?

25 A That the purity of science no longer—No, I have not


1 A (Continuing) come to that conclusion.

2 Q As a matter of fact, would you say the opposite is

3 true, that society to some degree does tend to affect

4 science?

5 A That is not the opposite, but to some degree there

6 is, yes, certainly.

7 Q You also have looked, have you not, at the way

8 courts have generally handled scientific questions?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you have some doubts personally about the

11 ability of a court to handle a scientific question, don't

12 you?

13 A That is a very complicated question to answer

14 briefly. I think there is a tendency for a lot of

15 technical questions that come to the court to be

16 translated into scientific and technical terms; that a lot

17 of these cases, Vermont Yankee, for example, for one

18 thing, have become very difficult in terms of the ability

19 of the courts to gain sufficient technical competence to

20 make judgments as to whether, in fact, the agencies are

21 doing their jobs.

22 I am very familiar with the Bazelon-Levanthal argument

23 as to the extent to which courts should be buttressing

24 their technical competence or whether they should simply

25 refer these cases back to the agencies that do have the


1 A (Continuing) technical competence or to the

2 legislature to handle them.

3 I have generally come out on the latter side, the

4 Bazelon side to this, that the practical notion of

5 training lawyers to be both scientists and lawyers at the

6 same time, and judges also, to have them technically

7 competent in all fields that are going to come before

8 them, really doesn't work out very well.

9 Q So you've come up on the side of referring it back

10 to the administrative agency or the legislature where it

11 came from?

12 MR. CRAWFORD: I object.

13 MR. WILLIAMS: That was her testimony, I believe.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard the word `legislature' that I

15 had not heard before.

16 THE WITNESS: That was in the Vermont Yankee case.

17 I don't think that applies to every —I certainly don't

18 think it applies to this case, but I'm looking at the

19 Vermont Yankee case in particular.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Ms. Nelkin. First of all,

21 we have an objection. Your Honor, if I could ask the

22 witness—

23 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard what she said.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: All right.


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you think academic freedom includes necessarily

3 the freedom to teach anything an individual wants to teach

4 at any particular time?

5 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I am going to

6 object. We have not tendered Professor Nelkin as an

7 expert on academic freedom. We tendered her as an expert

8 on sociology of science and controversies involving

9 science. I think to take her into the field of academic

10 freedom and areas in which she doesn't necessarily claim

11 expertise is inappropriate.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, she is a professor at

13 Cornell University. I am not asking her for a legal

14 judgment; I am asking her as a member of the academic

15 community.

16 THE COURT: That's fine. That's overruled.

17 THE WITNESS: So the question is, do I think—

18 Would you repeat the question, please?

19 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

20 Q Do you think that academic freedom includes

21 necessarily the freedom to teach anything that an

22 individual wants to teach at any particular time?

23 A No.

24 Q Do you think that a teacher has to agree with a

25 theory before they can effectively teach it?


1 A No.

2 Q In fact, you teach theories you don't agree with?

3 A Let me quality that. I teach in a private

4 university, at the university level only. I have never

5 taught in the public schools, and I really do not want to

6 comment—I cannot comment on the question of academic

7 freedom in the public school context. There is nothing

8 either in anything I have studied or my own personal

9 experience that would allow me to do that with any

10 confidence.

11 Q But in teaching concepts, many times a university

12 like Cornell would be similar to any public institution,

13 would it not?

14 A I teach mostly graduate students over the age of

15 twenty. I would imagine, having never taught but having

16 had teenage kids myself, there must be some difference in

17 the way one teaches.

18 Q Do you think the evolution model of origins should

19 be subject to criticism?

20 A I think all science should be subject to criticism.

21 It's fundamental.

22 Q You are using it in its nonreligious sense, I take

23 it?

24 Yes. That's an unintended pun. Excuse me.

25 Q Do you object to the creationist or creation science


1 Q (Continuing) position of origins being discussed in

2 a humanities or social science class?

3 A I have no objection do the history of religious

4 theory being taught in a history course.

5 Q Don't you believe it is possible for a scientist to

6 do superb scientific work, and then someone else label it

7 as religion?

8 A Do I think—What was the double negative?

9 Q Do you think it is possible for a scientist to do

10 superb scientific work and for someone else to label that

11 as religion?

12 A Well, it depends on the nature—You are putting such

13 a loaded word on `superb'. On what criteria are you using

14 the word `superb'? I mean, what's `superb'? I can't

15 answer the question because of the way it's framed.

16 Q Do you recall during your deposition when I asked

17 you a question to that effect, and you said, quote, I can

18 very well conceive of a first rate scientist doing superb

19 science, and somebody else comes along and says, "No, I

20 think that is a religion"?

21 A Yes. I believe that was at the end of six hours of

22 grilling in a hot room at LaGuardia Airport, and I think

23 by that time I am really not sure what I said, but that's

24 all right.

25 Q Would you say that you, in writing your book on


1 Q (Continuing) Science-Textbook Controversies, ever

2 made a scientific judgment about the validity of

3 creationism or evolution theories?

4 A Have I ever made a scientific judgment on the basis

5 of biological science—Its validity in terms of—I have

6 not, no. I am not a biologist.

7 Q But isn't it true that you actually began with the

8 presupposition that creation-science was not science and

9 was religion?

10 A Yes.

11 Q So you did make a judgment, did you not?

12 A It is not a scientific judgment in the sense that—

13 Yes, I did make a judgment.

14 Q The organizations you mentioned, ICR and some of the

15 other acronyms, do you have any personal knowledge as to

16 whether any of those groups had any input in drafting Act

17 590?

18 A I gather there was an effort on the part of ICR to

19 have an input. I don't know whether Ellwanger or any of

20 his people actually talked —No, I don't know. I don't

21 know the specifics of the relationships that went into

22 drafting that legislation. It's very clear from the

23 language that Ellwanger had certainly read material by

24 Bird and had certainly read the material in ICR. Whether

25 he had personal contact with the individuals who wrote


1 A (Continuing) those articles, I don't know.

2 Q So in other words—I am not sure I understand your

3 testimony. In terms of what happened here in Arkansas in

4 1981 as opposed to what you were studying back in 1977,

5 A No, no, no, no. You asked about Act 590.

6 Q I am asking about 590. I am asking about the passage

7 of 590.

8 A Okay. In the passage of 590—In the drafting of

9 590, it is completely evident to me from looking at the

10 text that Ellwanger had drafted it or whoever had drafted

11 it had seen creationist material from the California

12 creationists.

13 Q So you think from looking at it—

14 A Whether he talked to the people there, I don't know

15 whether he actually was on the telephone or met with those

16 people. I don't know the personal relationship. I know

17 that he would have had to have seen the documents and used

18 them because they are almost word for word.

19 Q What you are doing there—I asked you a question, do

20 you have any personal knowledge. You are trying to, on

21 the basis off comparison and somewhat conjecture you are

22 trying to-say what you think happened; isn't that correct?

23 A No, no, no. Personal knowledge can come from

24 reading.

25 MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the argumentative nature


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) of the question. I believe

2 she answered it.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: I asked her if she had any personal

4 knowledge.

5 THE COURT: I thought she had answered it. I gather

6 she does not.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

8 Q You will agree you are not qualified as an expert to

9 make a decision as to whether creation-science is a valid

10 scientific model?

11 A I would rather that the discussions of the

12 scientific content be left to biologists who are much more

13 competent than I am. They will be here in droves, so I

14 think I would rather leave all the scientific questions to

15 them.

16 Q I am not asking you a question as to whether you

17 would. I am asking you a question—perhaps you didn't

18 hear—that you would agree that you are not competent to

19 make a decision—You are not qualified as a scientific

20 expert to make a decision as to whether creation-science

21 is valid science?

22 A That's right.

23 Q According to your studies, is it not true that what

24 constitutes science can be either a question of

25 philosophy, sociology, or history, depending upon whose


1 Q (Continuing) study you look at?

2 A Say that again.

3 Q According to your studies, is it not true that what

4 constitutes science, depending upon whose study you look

5 at, is a question of philosophy, sociology or history?

6 A Have I ever said that? I don't, I really don't

7 understand your question.

8 Q Let me refer you back to your deposition where I

9 asked you this question: "Is it correct to say that what

10 constitutes science is a philosophical question", and you

11 gave me this answer: "Well, it depends on whose study.

12 It can be a philosophical, a sociological question or a

13 historical question".

14 What was the context of that, because I really don't

15 understand what I said at the moment?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, from what page

17 is he reading?

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 89.

19 THE WITNESS: What was the context of the—What were

20 we talking about at that point?

21 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

22 Q I was asking you what constitutes science.

23 A All right. Science constitutes a body of knowledge

24 and a set of procedures that are widely accepted by the

25 scientific community at a given time. In terms of


1 A (Continuing) historical, this may change, in terms

2 of history, but at this point, at any given point in time

3 it is the body of knowledge that exists and a set of

4 procedures that are widely accepted by a scientific

5 community.

6 Q In other words, if you told me that answer on

7 November 22, 1981, you are now changing that answer as to

8 what constitutes science?

9 A I don't think it contradicts what I said there. I

10 said that there are historical— I mean, I think if you

11 asked that question as to what constituted science in the

12 nineteenth century or the eighteenth century, the body of

13 knowledge and the set of procedures at that time might

14 have been somewhat different, yes. Certainly the body of

15 knowledge would have been different than two hundred years

16 ago.

17 Q You have looked at science and you have to

18 understand science to write about it, to some degree,

19 don't you?

20 A I understand methodology, the approach to science.

21 I do not understand all the technical details of it.

22 Q To the best of your knowledge, based on your study,

23 are theories of origin testable?

24 A A science is not defined only in those terms.

25 Q I am asking you the question now: Are theories of


1 Q (Continuing) origin testable, to the best of your

2 knowledge?

3 A To the best of my knowledge, they are not directly

4 testable by observation.

5 Q Is evolution based on the presupposition of no

6 creator?

7 A It is based on the presupposition that there are

8 natural processes at work. It is totally irrelevant as to

9 whether —Nobody would ever ask that question.

10 Q I asked it on November 22nd. I asked you this

11 question on your deposition on page 94: "Is evolution

12 based on the presupposition of no creator?" Answer:

13 "Yes. Evolution theory is based on the supposition that

14 there is no creator who at a given period of time has

15 created the world, close quote. Do you recall giving that

16 answer?

17 A Okay, yeah, I suppose I did give that answer but,

18 possibly, I guess I was confused. There is really no

19 presupposition. It's almost irrelevant, but I think, yes,

20 if you ask biologists whether they presuppose underlying

21 evolution theory that there was a creator that created the

22 universe in six days, they would say no. They would

23 assume that does not exist.

24 Q But at the time you gave this answer, that was

25 correct to the best of your knowledge, was it not?


1 A I guess, yes.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, may I pass the

3 witness a copy of the deposition? She was asked to

4 elaborate on the answer.

5 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it in context.

6 Again, it's page 146 of 147 pages.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking you the question that

8 was asked there, Ms. Nelkin.

9 THE WITNESS: And I said, "I think the existence or

10 non-existence" — I am reading from the-same thing you are

11 reading — "is not relevant."

12 MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to ask, your Honor—I

13 asked her about the specific question, and she said she

14 gave it. Now if Mr. Crawford wants to bring up anything

15 else on redirect, I think that's entirely appropriate.

16 THE WITNESS: I did not give—

17 THE COURT: Wait a minute.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to Mr. Crawford

19 referring Ms. Nelkin to a page in the deposition which I

20 did not refer to. If he wants to bring it up on

21 redirect, I think that's certainly appropriate.

22 THE COURT: Well, it doesn't make any different when

23 it's brought up if it's convenient. We are not trying it

24 before a jury.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that, your Honor.


1 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, may the witness continue?

2 THE WITNESS: May I ask my lawyer a question?

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Just answer the question.

4 THE COURT: I think it's probably best, Mr.

5 Williams, if you go ahead and ask the questions, and she

6 can answer those. Then, Mr. Crawford, you will get a

7 chance to ask her some questions.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

10 Q Is the presupposition of no creator subject to being

11 tested, to your knowledge?

12 A No, it's not subject to being tested.

13 Q Is that presupposition based an a priori assumption?

14 A The presupposition there is a creator?

15 Q That there is no creator in evolution.

16 A As I said in my deposition, it's totally

17 irrelevant. It would not even come up.

18 Q I am asking a question. Is that presupposition of

19 no creator in evolution based on any a priori assumption?

20 A Ask it again carefully at this point.

21 Q Is the presupposition of no creator in evolution

22 based on an a priori assumption?

23 A Some scientists that I know do believe in God and

24 others do not.

25 Q I am not asking you that question. I am asking you


1 Q (Continuing) if the presupposition of no creator in

2 evolution theory is based on an a priori assumption?

3 A But there is no creator. It's a tautology.

4 Q I am asking you a question. Is it based on an a

5 priori assumption, Ms. Nelkin?

6 A Yes, I guess it's an a priori assumption. If one

7 believes there is no creator, then one believes there is

8 no creator.

9 Q To the extent that there may be some scientific

10 evidence in support of the creation-science model of

11 origins, would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

12 A That's a big if.

13 Q But I am asking you if there is.

14 A My own belief is that it is fundamentally a religion.

15 Q I didn't ask you if it was a religion.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would ask that the

17 witness be instructed to answer my question.

18 THE WITNESS: My belief is that it is a

19 contradiction in terms. It's very hard to answer a

20 question in which I believe there is a contradiction of

21 terms. It's too hypothetical for me to be able to answer.

22 Q On November 22, when I asked you that question—On

23 page 95, I asked you this question: "If there were some

24 scientific evidence in support of the creation-science

25 theory of origins, would you favor its discussion in the


1 Q (Continuing) classroom?" You gave me this answer:

2 "If there were really valid material, again that is not an

3 effort to prove the existence of God, of course."

4 Is that the correct question and answer?

5 A That is in the testimony, and after reading that I

6 was kind of appalled at being led into saying that.

7 Q Did I drive you to say it?

8 A No, but again that was pretty fatiguing

9 circumstances and one gets clearly sloppy at that time.

10 I don't believe, again, that it's relevant. It's too

11 hypothetical when you are talking about religion.

12 Q Do you recall when I took your deposition I told you

13 if you didn't understand any question I asked, please tell

14 me and I would rephrase it?

15 A Yes. That is why I am being careful to do so now.

16 Q Do you agree with the creation-scientists who say

17 that evolution is not a fact but a theory?

18 A Evolution is a theory, yes.

19 Q Do you think that religion can be based on science?

20 A No. I think it is a separate domain, a separate

21 domain of belief.

22 Q Let me refer you to page 102 of your deposition

23 where I asked this question: "Can religion be based on

24 science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think people have a lot of

25 faith in science." And you continue.


1 A I said no, based on faith I didn't say yes. At

2 least in the copy I've got. Is there a discrepancy in the

3 copies?

4 Q Would you look at the next line, line 21 and 22?

5 A Question: "Do you think religion can be based on

6 science?" Answer: "No, based on faith. " Question: "Can

7 religion be based on science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think

8 people have a lot of faith in science."

9 Q So did you not tell me in answer to my question that

10 yes, religion can be based on science?

11 A There are a number of typographical errors that have

12 come through in this. I can't believe that inconsistency.

13 The first thing, I said no, it's based on faith, and

14 then the second, I said yes. Apparently, the same

15 question, at least, as it was typed. But I said, "Yes, I

16 think people have a lot of faith in science, not as a way

17 to justify it. I believe people who have religious

18 beliefs should not have to justify them in terms of

19 science, and if they do justify them in terms of science

20 it is a way to gain a wider credibility and to try to act

21 as missionaries and convert others to those beliefs."

22 The question may have been distorted or I may have

23 interpreted it the second time in a different way.

24 Q On page 103, you continued, I asked you the question

25 again: "Do you think it would be possible to base a


1 (Continuing) religion on science?" Answer: —

2 A And I said it would be inappropriate. It would be

3 possible—Anything is possible, but I said it would be

4 inappropriate.

5 Q So your answer there was that religion can be based

6 on science; isn't that correct?

7 A No, my first answer was—

8 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, the testimony

9 has been brought out and your Honor can draw your own

10 conclusions about it. This is going on at some length.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

12 Q Do you think religion can be based on evolution?

13 A No. I would like to separate the two domains.

14 Q Do you recall that I asked you about that and you

15 said that there were some minor religions that you think

16 might be based on evolution?

17 A I thought you asked me whether it should be.

18 Q Could be?

19 A Yeah, I think that there's lots of people who can

20 make and use science in any way they choose, and there are

21 religions who do base themselves on—Transcendental

22 meditation, for example, calls itself a science of

23 scientific intelligence, yes. There are a lot of

24 religions that claim to base themselves on science, yep.

25 but that doesn't mean I am saying it's appropriate.


1 Q I understand you are not putting your imprimatur or

2 saying that's a correct thing to do, but you are just

3 acknowledging that it has, in fact occurred.

4 Do you think a teacher has a right as a matter of

5 academic freedom to profess his or her professional

6 judgment in the classroom?

7 A Again, I would rather—There is a whole section on

8 this, I believe, on academic freedom, and I would rather

9 have that kind of question delayed to that section of the

10 trial.

11 Q Attorneys for the plaintiffs have made that

12 objection, and it's been overruled. So I would like you,

13 if you could, to answer my question.

14 A You are saying at the college level at which I

15 teach—Yes, we are allowed to interject our own opinions

16 in classrooms, yes.

17 Q Do you think if a teacher has reviewed the data in a

18 field and has done so in a responsible fashion, and has

19 concluded there is support for the theory of creation

20 science, that that teacher should be free to discuss it in

21 the classroom?

22 A At the public school level, no. In biology class,

23 no.

24 Q I asked you that question, and you gave me this

25 answer: "I guess so, but I would say he or she had not


1 (Continuing) done his homework very well."

2 But you did say, "I guess so", so that they should as a

3 matter of academic freedom be able to teach that; isn't

4 that correct?

5 A Well, I hadn't thought that through very well at

6 that time. A lot of these questions came rapid fire over

7 six hours.

8 Q Your research on creation-science, you say, as I

9 understand it, that creationists argue that Genesis is not

10 religious dogma but an inerrant scientific hypothesis

11 capable of evaluation on scientific procedures; is that

12 correct?

13 A Say that again. Creationists—

14 Q —that Genesis is not religious dogma but an

15 inerrant scientific hypothesis capable of evaluation on

16 scientific procedures.

17 A That evolution theory is not scientific? No, it's

18 not scientific dogma.

19 Q No, no.

20 A All right, repeat the whole question right from the

21 beginning.

22 Q Has your research shown that creationists argue that

23 Genesis is not religious dogma but an inerrant scientific

24 hypothesis capable of evaluation on scientific procedures?

25 A That's what creationists claim, yes.


1 Q Does Act 590 allow Genesis to be used in the

2 classroom?

3 A Yes. Not—If it's scientifically—Apparently, —It

4 is based on the assumption that one can create textbooks

5 that will document the scientific validity of that.

6 Q Could you show me in Act 590 where it says they can

7 use Genesis?

8 A In their definitions, they don't use the word

9 `Genesis' but they essentially lay out the definitions of

10 creation-science based on Genesis.

11 Q That's your opinion; is that correct?

12 A That's my opinion, yes.

13 Q Have you read Section 2, which prohibits any

14 religious instruction or any reference to religious

15 writings?

16 A Yes, but I find the whole thing so internally

17 contradictory that I have real problems with it.

18 Q Do you consider Genesis to be a religious writing?

19 A Yes.

20 Q One of the studies quoted - in your book, or

21 referenced, says that, "Groups committed to particular

22 assumptions tend to suppress dissent evidence and

23 criticism, only encourages increasing activities in

24 support of the existing beliefs." Do you recall that?

25 A Yes, I recall that.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P167-199


1 Q Do you recall where that came from?

2 A It came in the analysis. It referred back to how

3 creationists could consistently ignore things like the

4 evidence in evolution theory by radiocarbon dating. It

5 seemed to me it was a very interesting example of the

6 hypothesis developed by the psychologist, Festinger, about

7 how you can't continually suppress evidence.

8 Q Let me make sure. That finding was actually made by

9 Festinger. Did Festinger relate that to creation

10 scientists?

11 A No, he did that with respect to another group. But

12 the point of his argument was to establish a general

13 principle of how a group, because of certain social

14 reinforcement and other kinds of reasons are able to

15 essentially rationalize evidence that contradicts their

16 beliefs.

17 Q That statement would be true for, perhaps, a lot of

18 groups, not just creationist scientists; isn't that right?

19 A Certainly.

20 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether textbook

21 publishers, if this Act should be upheld or similar acts

22 should be upheld, would publish texts in conformity with

23 this Act, that being balanced treatment, treating the

24 scientific evidences for both evolution and

25 creation-science?


1 A No. I don't think there should be balanced

2 treatment.

3 Q No, I am not asking if there should, but whether

4 textbook publishers would publish texts to comply with the

5 Act?

6 A Oh, I think some of them would if the act were

7 passed in states where there is a big textbook market.

8 There is money in it.

9 Q And while you are a sociologist, that is properly

10 considered a form of science, is it not?

11 A There is some argument about that.

12 Q Do you consider yourself to be a scientist of a type?

13 A Of a type, of a kind.

14 Q I am asking you the question, do you?

15 A Yeah.

16 Q And as a scientist you want, to be as accurate as

17 possible, isn't that right?

18 A I try very hard to be.

19 Q Your book that you wrote, page 19, said that, "In

20 Arkansas, Governor Faubus defended anti-evolution

21 legislation throughout the Sixties"?

22 A Yes.

23 Q On what basis did you make that conclusion?

24 A You are asking about the evidence that I dredged up

25 some five or six years ago, and I don't remember the exact


1 A (Continuing) nature of the evidence.

2 Q How many times did Governor Faubus make any

3 statement in support of anti-evolution legislation in the

4 1960's?

5 A I don't remember. It was not a central part of my

6 book.

7 Q But you did make the assertion that he defended it

8 throughout the 1960's; isn't that correct?

9 A (Nodding affirmatively.)

10 Q You don't know now—

11 A I don't remember how many times or what— I don't

12 remember the exact reference, the exact data, from which I

13 drew that argument. That was researched a long time ago.

14 Q Isn't it typical or normal when you are relying on—

15 First of all, in the 1960's did you come to Arkansas and

16 examine this question?

17 A No. The focus of my research was —When one does

18 research, one focuses on a certain aspect of a subject and

19 not—try to build up from secondary sources a lot of the

20 surrounding material. If one had to do primary research

21 on every aspect of a book, there would be no studies done.

22 Q But you did not footnote, did you, giving any

23 authority for that assertion that you made?

24 A I don't remember if there is a footnote. Is there

25 no footnote on there? I don't remember whether there is or


1 A (Continuing) not.

2 Q Ms. Nelkin, I would like to show you this book. Is

3 this a copy of your book?

A Yes. It's a copy of the first hardback edition, yes.

5 Q Directing your attention to page 70, do you not

6 state that, "Other Bible schools, such as Bob Jones

7 University in Arkansas, teach courses—"

8 A Which is not in Arkansas. That got changed

9 immediately to South Carolina in the second edition. Yes,

10 there are occasionally small mistakes that are made that,

11 hopefully, get corrected right away. As you know, during

12 the deposition my copy of the book did not have Arkansas

13 and yours did.

14 Q But there is Arkansas in here so at some point you

15 must have written Arkansas to get it in here; isn't that

16 correct?

17 A Yes, I am sure. It was a mistake and it was

18 corrected right away. Unfortunately, past the point where

19 it could be corrected on the first edition.

20 Q In other words, the two things in your book

21 specifically about Arkansas, one is in error and one you

22 have no authority for; isn't that correct?

23 A No. I didn't say I had no authority for it. I said

24 I cannot remember where I got the material on Arkansas.

25 The error, certainly by saying Bob Jones University is in


1 A (Continuing) Arkansas, that was just an error.

2 There were also some spelling errors that I found

3 afterwards.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. No further questions.

5 THE COURT: Court will be in recess until 3:25 p.m.

6 If you would— Do you have any re-direct?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know, your Honor. If you

8 would, give me just a moment.

9 THE COURT: If you do, just have the witness take

10 the seat in the witness stand.

11 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

12 from 3:10 p.m. until 3:25 p.m.)

13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no more questions. I would

14 like to introduce plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for

15 identification, which she was interrogated about and is

16 now marked as an exhibit. I would ask that it be received.

17 THE COURT: Fine, it will be received.

18 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit

19 Number 1 received in evidence.)

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Also, for the record, your Honor, the

21 Bird resolution which she referred to and I was unable to

22 find, it turns out it had already been admitted as part of

23 Exhibit 83, pages 131 to 135. That has already been

24 admitted.

25 THE COURT: Are you ready to call your next witness.


1 MR. SIANO: Yes. Plaintiffs call Professor Langdon

2 Gilkey.

3 Thereupon,



5 a witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs, after having

6 been first duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows:




9 Q Will you state your name for the record?

10 A Langdon Brown Gilkey.

11 Q Address?

12 A 5713 South Harper Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

13 Q What is your present occupation and place of

14 employment, please?

15 A I am a professor of theology at the Divinity School

16 of the University of Chicago.

17 MR. SIANO: I offer into evidence Plaintiffs'

18 Exhibit Number 90, Doctor Gilkey's resume.

19 THE COURT: That will be received.

20 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 90

21 received in evidence.)

22 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

23 Q Doctor Gilkey, can you give us some background on

24 your area of research and scholarship at the University of

25 Chicago?


1 A My main responsibility is to teach protestant

2 theology, but I have taught the historical, that is to

3 say, the history of Christian theology. I teach a number

4 of protestant theologians of various sorts, both

5 contemporary and ones who preceded us.

6 I teach a history of the development of modern theology

7 since the middle of the eighteenth century. I've been

8 particularly interested in the relations of religion and

9 culture, not as a sociologist or historian, but as a

10 theologian; the relations of religion to science, the

11 relations of religion to politics; relations of religion

12 or the Western religions to the ideas of history, and so

13 forth.

14 I teach courses on those subjects, as well as courses on

15 particular theologians.

16 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would offer Doctor Gilkey

17 as an expert in the field of theology.

18 THE COURT: Any voir dire?

19 MR. CAMPBELL: No voir dire.

20 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

21 Q Doctor Gilkey, did I engage your services in 1981 as

22 an expert?

23 A Yes.

24 Q With respect to what subject matter?

25 A With respect to, first of all, the Act 590 and to


1 A (Continuing) the relation of that act to the

2 general subject matter of religion, and to the subject

3 matter of Christian theology and particularly the subject

4 matter of the doctrine or idea of creation.

5 Q Have you written any books or periodicals on the

6 topic of creation?

7 A My thesis and my first book was on the subject of

8 creation, a book called Maker of Heaven and Earth. I have

9 subsequently found myself reinterested in that subject

10 over and over again since creation remains with us,

11 fortunately. So it keeps arising.

12 In the context of science it has come up repeatedly,

13 needless to say. And I have written some articles on that

14 subject and now find myself involved in it again.

15 Q Doctor Gilkey, getting to your area of expertise,

16 would you please describe for us what is religion?

17 A Definitions of religion are famous for being

18 difficult to produce. That everybody will agree with.

19 That is partly because of the wide variety of religions

20 and partly because, obviously, there is a certain

21 perspective on defining religion.

22 I will offer one here that is on the basis of my own

23 study and reflection, and I propose it as an adequate

24 one. People may disagree with it but I will be willing to

25 discuss that matter.


1 A (Continuing)

2 I will propose that religion involves three different

3 elements or aspects. First of all, in order for anything

4 to be called a religion has these three. Anything that we

5 ordinarily call a religion does illustrate these three.

6 First of all, a view of reality, especially of ultimate

7 reality; a view that emphasizes, first, the basic problem

8 of human existence—for example, death or sin, or rebirth

9 in some religions. Secondly, and perhaps most important,

10 has an answer to that fundamental problem, an answer that

11 is very clearly connected with what is regarded as

12 ultimate reality.

13 These answers are expressed in a number of ways,

14 depending on the kind of religion we are talking about.

15 They can be expressed in myths or stories at certain

16 levels.

17 They can be expressed in what are called truths, for

18 example, in Buddhism. They can be expressed in teaching,

19 they can be expressed in doctrines, and, finally, in

20 dogmas.

21 Q That is the first element?

22 A That is the first element. The second element is

23 that there is a way of life and then a mode of behavior

24 that is involved. Generally, it finds its source in what

25 is regarded as ultimate reality, to which every person in


1 A (Continuing) the religion submits themselves,

2 assents, promises to participate in. Obviously, how much

3 they do or how little is a different matter, but that is

4 part of it.

5 Q Let me ask you, do creeds form a part of this ethic?

6 A Some religions have creeds, some don't, but that's

7 not universal. I suggest that every religion has

8 something like that. They may call it teachings, truths,

9 this, that and the other, and some religions will have

10 definite creeds. That comes more under Number 1, so to

11 speak, with regard to their view of reality.

12 Q What is the third element?

13 A The third element is the community, a community

14 structured in a quite definite way with differences of

15 authority, differences of responsibility, a community that

16 meets at particular times, and as a part of a way of life

17 comes into some kind of relationship with what is regarded

18 as ultimate reality.

19 This may be meditative; it may be esthetic; it may be

20 what we call in our tradition worship. It may be prayer;

21 it may be this, that and the other. There are all kinds

22 of ways.

23 Q You used the phrase "our tradition", I take it you

24 are speaking of Western religion?

25 A I am speaking there of religions of the West and, in


1 A (Continuing) particularly, of Christianity, though the

2 word `worship', of course, applies to many other types of

3 religion, but if one said, `What do we do to come into

4 contact with God', we think immediately of worship and

5 prayer.

6 Q Is there an additional element to religion when you focus

7 on Western religion?

8 A Well, one of the essential elements of Western religions,

9 and I am thinking here particularly of Judaism, Christianity

10 and Islam, if you wish to call that Western, is that they

11 are monotheistic.

12 The meaning, the functional meaning of monotheism is that

13 everything relative to the religion focuses on God.

14 Q Monotheistic is one god?

15 A One god, that's right, and focuses on God and one God.

16 That is to say, God is the ultimate reality; God is the

17 source of the ethic; God is that power that legitimates the

18 community.

19 Q Could you describe for me in a little more detail how

20 Western religion is related to God and God related to

21 Western religion?

22 A Well, as I say, God here in Western religion is regarded

23 as the source of ultimate reality; that is, God dominates

24 the view of reality and of ultimate reality as the creator,

25 as the divine source of all that is.


1 A (Continuing) God is the source of the revelation on which

2 the religion is based; God is the source of the law which

3 those within the religion support or wish to follow; God is

4 the source of the salvation that is the answer to the

5 deepest human problem.

6 And the deepest human problem in our tradition is regarded

7 as separation from God.

8 Q Would it be fair to say that in Western religions what has

9 to do with God is religions and all that has to do with

10 religion has to do with God?

11 A Yes. All that is religious, the meaning on monotheism,

12 `Thou shalt worship no other God', all that is religious is

13 related to God. Correspondingly, what is related to God is

14 religious.

15 Now, this includes not only the acts of God in revealing

16 himself or in saying, but also very specifically the acts of

17 God in creating and preserving the universe.

18 For this reason, it is quite appropriate that the first book

19 of our scriptures has within it as its first part a story of

20 the creation of the whole visible universe by God. And the

21 first article of the traditional Christian creed, the

22 Apostles Creed, reads, "I believe in God, the Father

23 Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth", stating this point

24 as well.

25 Q You described the first book of our scripture. Are


1 (Continuing) you referring to the Genesis Book in

2 the Old Testament?

3 A I am referring to the Genesis Book in the Old

4 Testament. It is the first book of the Christian

5 scripture and it is also the first book, of course, of the

6 Hebrew Scripture, the Torah.

7 Q Is it your testimony, sir, that a creative being is

8 necessarily a god in Western tradition?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor. He is leading

10 the witness. He has not said that before. I don't think

11 he has indicated or alluded to that.

12 MR. SIANO: I will rephrase my question.

13 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

14 Q Do you, sir, have an opinion, to a reasonable degree

15 of professional certainty, as to whether or not a creative

16 being is necessarily a god?

17 A A creator is certainly a god; that is, a being that

18 brings the universe into existence.

19 Q Why, sir, is a proposition that relates to God or to

20 creator a religious concept?

21 A Well, as I've said, in the Western tradition all

22 that relates to God has to do with religion and vice

23 versa. Secondly, the idea of a creator, that is, one who

24 brings the world into existence, fashions it, creates a

25 system of causes within which we find ourselves, is a


1 A (Continuing) being who transcends that system of

2 cause, is not a finite cause, is not merely a part of

3 nature— This has been very deep in the traditions of

4 both Judaism and Christianity—transcends both nature and

5 the human society and human history, and as its founder,

6 in this sense this is a transcendent, a supernatural

7 being, such a being is God.

8 Q Would the source of our understanding of creator

9 also relate to this religious character?

10 A The idea of a creator, particularly the idea of a

11 creator out of nothing, has its source in the religious

12 traditions of Judaism, subsequently of Christianity, and

13 then subsequently to that of Islam. And the form of the

14 concept has its source there.

15 In fact, one might say this is where all of our ideas

16 about what God is or who God is comes from this book and

17 subsequently from that to this tradition.

18 Q Do Western notions of God differ significantly from

19 anyone else's, any other group's notion of God as the

20 creator?

21 A They differ very significantly. Of course, it is

22 obvious and we all know that the word `god', that is to

23 say the words which we would translate `god' into that

24 English word are not confined to the Jewish, Christian,

25 Islamic traditions, the People of the Book. But the idea


1 A (Continuing) of a creator out of nothing, the idea

2 of a creator at an absolute beginning is a unique

3 conception confined to that tradition.

4 There are many creators. There are creators in Hindu

5 mythology and religion. There are creators in Chinese and

6 Japanese traditions. There, of course, were creators in

7 the Babylonian tradition, the Greek tradition, and so

8 forth. None of them have quite that character. That is

9 characteristic of our tradition and has its ultimate

10 source in Genesis.

11 Q Does whether or not this creator is named god, is

12 that relevant to whether it is a religious concept?

13 A No. As I say, if one specifies a creator being one

14 who has supernatural power, intelligence, will, and those

15 are both involved in the concept of design; that is, the

16 power to bring it into being and the will and the

17 intelligence to shape it into our world, such a conception

18 is what we mean by god and a large part of what we mean by

19 god. It is not all of what we mean by god in our

20 tradition, but if you say this much you are talking about

21 a deity and, therefore, this conception is that of a deity.

22 Q Can you translate the meaning of the phrase "ex

23 nihilo" for me?

24 A Yes. The phrase "ex nihilo" appeared in the first

25 centuries—Actually, as far as I know, at the end of the


1 A (Continuing) second century—in the Christian

2 tradition. It came as an interpretation on the meaning or

3 the implication of the Genesis account, of a number of

4 Psalms and some references in the New Testament where the

5 word `creation' was used and where the idea of making was

6 used. This was what it meant. It means that God created

7 the world out of nothing, not out of God, not out of

8 matter, but out of nothing. That is to say, everything

9 was produced by God. That is the fundamental meaning. It

10 means, also, an absolute beginning.

11 Q Is it your opinion, sir, that the phrase "creatio ex

12 nihilo" is a religious concept?

13 A Yes. In the first place because it refers to God.

14 And I have made that point as clearly as possible that

15 what refers to God, particularly in our tradition, is

16 religious. Propositions of that sort are religious

17 propositions.

18 Secondly, one might make the argument, and I am prepared

19 to do so, that of all statements about God, that is the

20 most religious. What I mean by that is that by various

21 definitions there are not other actions there; all other

22 actors are brought into existence by this act. There are

23 no other forces at work.

24 For example, in the concept of the incarnation, there

25 is, let us say, Mary present already; there is a needy


1 A (Continuing) human race, and so forth and so on.

2 God acts, but there are other actors on the scene. The

3 same with the Last Judgment, the same with other doctrines

4 or teachings of the Christian religion.

5 However, creator, God is the only actor. One is only

6 talking about God at this point. The only agent is the

7 divine. In this sense it is the paradigmatic religious

8 statement.

9 Q I show you what has been previously admitted as

10 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29, Act 590 of 1981. I ask you, sir,

11 have you ever seen that statute before?

12 A Yes.

13 Q In fact, I conveyed the statute to you?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And asked you examine it; is that correct?

16 A Yes.

17 Q I ask you, to a reasonable degree of professional

18 certainty, do you have an opinion as to whether the

19 creation-science model as set forth in Section 4 (a) of

20 Act 590 is a statement of religion?

21 A I find it unquestionably a statement of religion.

22 Q What is the basis for that opinion?

23 A The basis for that is that, with the possible

24 exception of Number 2, that is to say, the insufficiency

25 of mutation in natural selection, which is predominantly a


1 A (Continuing) negative statement, the other

2 statements, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, imply, entail, necessitate a

3 deity as the agent involved in what is being said. The

4 sudden creation of the universe from nothing requires

5 there be a being there who preceives the universe, though

6 the word `preceives' is interesting at this point, who

7 preceives the universe, who is self-sufficient, who is

8 necessary, who is eternal and who has a design, an

9 intelligent design, in mind and the power, above all, to

10 do that.

11 The conception of species, kinds of plants and animals

12 created at the beginning means that they were not evolved

13 from anything else or created from anything else but

14 created by a precedent creator.

15 Separate ancestry of man and apes, as has been pointed

16 out, has the same implication.

17 If the Flood is regarded as the catastrophe referred to,

18 the Flood has a divine origin. That is to say, if the

19 meaning of the word `catastrophe' is forces and causes far

20 beyond any normal, natural causes, then number 5 implies

21 the same.

22 Now, mind you, that depends on what is meant by the word

23 `catastrophism'. We could talk about Saint Helens as a

24 catastrophe. That is not what I'm referring to.

25 Something quite beyond the ordinary causality or the


1 A (Continuing) recurring causality of our experience

2 with the universe.

3 Q You don't find a definition of catastrophism

4 anywhere in that section, do you?

5 A Right, but I suspect from the history of these

6 ideas, that it has the reference that I've implied, though

7 I am not sure.

8 A relatively recent inception of the earth certainly

9 requires a divine creator.

10 Q Are you aware—Your testimony earlier was that a

11 creative force is necessarily a deity of some kind. Is

12 that a fair statement?

13 A I would think that the moment you say "force"—I

14 think I said "being"—I think that when you say "a

15 creative force"—that I am not necessarily maintaining

16 that this involves a deity or is involved in religion,

17 though creative forces have the kind of attractiveness,

18 let us say, that we begin to get religious about. So I

19 don't want to exclude creative forces from religion.

20 For example, in a good number of so-called primitive

21 religions, the creative force of fertility was certainly

22 an object of very intent religious belief and of religious

23 interest.

24 Q So you, are saying `a creative being' then?

25 A I would rather put it this way. Not all creative


1 A (Continuing) forces can be regarded as religious.

2 A good number of them, in fact, have been regarded as

3 religious.

4 A creative being, that is, a being who brings things

5 into being, who shapes the universe as we know it, is a

6 religious concept, has appeared in that. And I might say

7 that the reason the study by people, as has been pointed

8 out in this courtroom, in a religious context is that that

9 is where it is. It doesn't appear anywhere else.

10 It comes up in all kinds of ways in human history. Such

11 kinds of concepts always involve with deities, always

12 involve with what we call religion.

13 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I have placed before the

14 witness, but I will not mark as an exhibit unless my

15 adversaries feel it is necessary, the Defendants' Proposed

16 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

17 I direct Doctor Gilkey's attention to Proposed Finding

18 Number 35.

19 Q I will ask you if you will please read that.

20 A "Creation science does propose the existence of a

21 creator to the same degree that evolution science

22 presupposes the existence of no creator." I would dispute

23 that, but that is neither here nor there.

24 "As used in the context of creation-science as defined

25 by Section 4 of Act 590, the terms or concepts of


1 A (Continuing) `creation' and `creator' are not

2 inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense,

3 the term `creator' means only some entity with power,

4 intelligence and a sense of design."

5 "Creation science does not require a creator who has a

6 personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion,

7 justice and so on which are ordinarily attributed to a

8 deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not

9 require that the creator still be in existence."

10 Q Doctor Gilkey, I would like to ask you, as a

11 theologian, are you aware of a concept—As a religious

12 premise, are you aware of the concept of a creator-deity

13 who was not also not loving, compassionate and just?

14 A There are a number of them, of course. In many—

15 Q If I might, sir, in Christianity particularly.

16 A Right. Well, I was going to back up just a moment.

17 That is to say, there are a number of polytheistic faiths

18 which have spoken of a creator deity, who may or may not

19 be the deity who saves.

20 In a monotheistic faith, of course, this is impossible.

21 Actually, it is interesting to me that this conception of

22 a creator being who is not the god who saves—I would say

23 the creator being is inevitably a deity—but a creator

24 being who is not the god who saves has appeared within

25 Christian history as its first and most dangerous major


1 A (Continuing) heresy.

2 Now, I am hoping that was intended by counsel here, but

3 this was the Marcionic heresy and the Gnostic heresy,

4 which the church with great vehemence reacted against in

5 the first two centuries.

6 Q Would you spell the names of them?

7 A Yes. Marcion is Capital M-a-r-c-i-o-n. The

8 Gnostic, capital G-n-o-s-t-i-c. Both of them were not

9 very friendly to the Old Testament for various reasons,

10 wished Christianity not be associated with it, presented a

picture of malevolent or, at least, not very benevolent,

12 deity who created the world and of another god who came in

13 to save it.

14 The main thrust of the earliest theology of the church

15 and the source of the so-called Apostles' Creed in a

16 Hundred and Fifty, which is the first example of it that

17 is known, was to combat this and to say that the god we

18 worship is the maker of heaven and earth, and the god who

19 made heaven and earth is the father of the being who saved

20 us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Thus, comes out, "I believe in

21 God, the Father, the maker of heaven and earth and in his

22 son, Jesus Christ, our Lord."

23 Q So what you are saying then, Doctor Gilkey, is that

24 as a result of these two heresies, Marcion and Gnostic

25 heresies, the Christian church developed what we now know


1 Q (Continuing) as the Apostles' Creed?

2 A It is pretty clear that there was a teaching summary

3 that was used quite consistently, probably from Eighty,

4 Ninety and so forth, on. This became more and more

5 consistent because there are hints of it in the earliest

6 documents at the turn of the century.

7 As far as we know, it was formulated into a creed at

8 Rome against Marcions to say, `No, we do not believe in

9 two gods, a creator god is distinct from a saving god. We

10 do believe in one god.' They regarded that, of course, as

11 within the Jewish tradition. They regarded it as the

12 Christian way of speaking of that, and so that became the

13 thrust of that creed. That is the main article of the

14 creed.

15 Q Is it, none the less, your view, Doctor Gilkey, that

16 the concept of these two heresies are, none the less,

17 religious concepts?

18 A Oh, yes, absolutely.

19 Q Directing your, attention to Section 4 (a) of Act 590

20 again, do you, in fact, there have a model of creation if

21 you extract from that-the concept of the creator?

22 A As I have indicated, each one, with the exception of

23 2—

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think we have to object

25 to that question. I think that calls for, at least, a


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) legal if not a scientific

2 conclusion as to whether you have a model of origin in the

3 scientific sense, and this witness is testifying only as a

4 religious expert as to whether there would be a coherent

5 scientific model.

6 MR. SIANO: I don't think I quite understand the

7 nature of the objection. Let me speak to both sides of

8 what I think I hear.

9 It is the plaintiffs' argument, your Honor, that the

10 model of origins being proposed as scientific creationism

11 is, in fact, a religious model from Genesis.

12 We propose to have the witness testify on whether or not

13 this model exists without the deity. And the witness has

14 already testified that a deity is an inherently religious

15 concept.

16 I think he is entitled to testify whether, without the

17 deity, there is a model of any kind.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Model of religious origin, perhaps,

19 but he is not competent to testify as to whether it's a

20 scientific model of origins because, as I understand it,

21 he has not been qualified as an expert on science. I

22 think the term is somewhat ambiguous. He is talking about

23 a model of origins. He needs to make clear whether he is

24 talking scientific or religious.

25 THE COURT: Are you talking about a religious model


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) of origins?

2 MR. SIANO: Let me ask a few more questions and see

3 if it clears up the problem.

4 Q Doctor Gilkey, Section 4 (a) sets forth what it

5 describes as a creation-science model. In your view, is

6 that a religious model or a scientific model?

7 A My view is that, for various reasons which I will be

8 willing to spell out, but as will quickly be pointed out,

9 and which my expertise is slightly less than what I like

10 to talk about, this is not the scientific model at all. I

11 am willing to talk about that.

12 As I have indicated, I think there is no question but

13 that the model in 4 (a) is a religious model. I have

14 already testified to that effect.

15 The question as I understand it now is, is there a model

16 there that is not a religious model, and I think that is a

17 legitimate question considering what I have just said. It

18 follows up from that.

19 And I would like to argue that there is simply no idea

20 there at all without the figure and the agency of a

21 supernatural being. - In this sense, there is no

22 explanation. There is a claim that it can be shown that

23 the universe appeared suddenly. There is the claim that

24 species are fixed and change only within those fixed

25 limits.


1 A (Continuing) There is the claim for the separate

2 ancestry of man and of ape. There is the claim for the

3 explanation of the earth formed by catastrophism, and a

4 relatively recent inception of the earth.

5 These are all, so to speak, claims. I don't think they

6 are true but that's neither here nor there. They are

7 claims, but they are not a theory.

8 In order for there to be a theory, in each case, as I've

9 said, there must be an agent. The moment you have the

10 agent, you have deity. If there is no deity, there is no

11 theory. If there is a theory, it is religious.

12 Q Doctor Gilkey, have you written on the topic of the

13 difference between religion and science?

14 A I have.

15 Q Could you describe to me briefly what the nature of

16 those writings have been?

17 A I have written several articles on this subject. I

18 have written a book called Religion and the Scientific

19 Future on the interrelations of religion and science.

20 Q Could you, therefore, state for me in your

21 professional opinion what the differences between

22 religious theories and scientific theories are?

23 THE COURT: Wait a second. I am making a couple of

24 notes and I would like to finish these before we go any

25 further.


1 Q Doctor Gilkey, can you state for us, please, in your

2 professional opinion what the differences are between

3 religions theories and scientific theories?

4 A Well, let me begin by saying that I think that all

5 theories which purport to explain or seek to explain, and

6 that is he general use of the word `theory' that I presume

7 we are using here—all theories do have certain things in

8 common. They appeal to certain types of experiences and

9 certain kinds of facts. They ask certain types of

10 questions and they appeal to certain authorities or

11 criteria.

12 Thus, they have a certain structure. That is, they go

13 by the rules of the road. They have in what in some

14 parlances are called canons. That is to say, rules of

15 procedure. I would like to suggest that while both

16 religious theories and scientific theories have this

17 general structure in common, they differ very much with

18 regard to the experiences and facts that they appeal to,

19 to the kinds of questions they ask, the kinds of

20 authorities they appeal to and, therefore, to their own

21 structure.

22 And I would like to make some comments at the end, the

23 experiences and facts that science has, so to speak, in

24 its own consensus come to agree this is what we appeal to

25 are first of all, observations or sensory experiences.


1 A (Continuing) They are, therefore, repeatable and

2 shareable. They are in that sense quite public. Anybody

3 who wishes to look at them and has the ability and

4 training so to do can do so. These are objective facts in

5 that sense, and experiences are somewhat the same.

6 I would say that most religions, and certainly our

7 traditions, when they appeal to those kinds of facts

8 appeal to those facts rather as a whole to the world as a

9 whole, as illustrating order or seemingly to a purpose or

10 goodness, and so forth. So, they can appeal to those

11 kinds of facts. That isn't quite so public, because

12 someone might say, "It's very disorderly to me," and so

13 on. It's not quite so public.

14 But also religions appeal to what we call inner facts,

15 facts about experience of guilt, facts of being, facts of

16 anxiety, death, and the experience of the release from

17 those anxieties or miseries, or what have you.

18 These are public in the sense that they are shared by

19 the community but they are not public at all in that

20 sense. They are not objective in that sense.

21 The kinds of questions that they ask are significantly

22 different, it seems to me. That is to say, science tends

23 to ask `how' questions. What kinds of things are there?

24 What kinds of relations do they have? What sort of

25 processes are there? Can we find any laws within those


1 A (Continuing) processes? Can we set up a set of

2 invariable relations if P then Q, if this, then that.

3 This is the kind of question. These are `how' questions,

4 process questions, if you will.

5 Religion asks, might ask some of these questions, but

6 basically it is asking `why' questions. It is asking

7 questions of meaning. Why is the world here? Why am I

8 here? Who am I? What am I called to do? What is it my

9 task in life to be? Where are we going? How are we to

10 understand the presence of evil? These are quite

11 significantly different kinds of questions.

12 Correspondingly, science appeals to the authority, and

13 this is decisive, of logical coherence and experimental

14 adequacy. It also appeals through coherence with other

15 established views and to some things that are called

16 fruitlessnesses. There is also a sense of elegance.

17 Now, when you work that out in terms of its cash value,

18 you have, as has been said before, the consensus of the

19 scientific community on these matters. And there almost

20 always is a consensus of the community making such a

21 judgment.

22 This is an earned authority. It is not granted by some

23 other power. It is earned by expertise, by training, by

24 excellence at work. Religions generally appeal to

25 revelation of some sort, not always to the same sort, but


1 A (Continuing) some manifestation of the divine or

2 some place where the divine is encountered.

3 For example, in Buddhism, what is called the higher

4 consciousness might be a very important authority.

5 Subsequently to that, of course, are those who mediate

6 that authority, to the interpreters of the Book, to the

7 spokesman for the church, for the community, to those who

8 have an intimate and direct and unique relationship to God.

9 It can take all kinds of forms—To a particular kind of

10 religious experience and so on. Notice these are not in

11 that way public. They are not generally earned. They are

12 given; they are granted.

13 Q The authority in Christianity, is there one

14 particular reference or source of authority?

15 A Well, of course, this has been the subject of a good

16 deal of friendly debate. That is to say, this was an

17 issue with the Gnostics we were speaking of, whether the

18 apostolic churches—The scriptures were not then

19 canonized, but whether the apostolic churches were the

20 authority or just anybody.

21 Later it came to be agreed the scriptures, the apostolic

22 scriptures, and they were given authority because they

23 were believed to be written by the Apostles, the apostolic

24 scriptures and the apostolic church were the dual and not

25 separable authorities.


1 A (Continuing)

2 By the time one gets to the Reformation, there is a real

3 argument over this. Are both tradition and authority an

4 ascription authority or solely scriptural, that is,

5 scripture alone, which, of course, was the Lutheran and

6 then the Calvinist position, and has been a basis for

7 Protestantism. So that in each case the authority

8 appealed to is regarded as the place where the divine is

9 in some way manifesting itself or is speaking, and that is

10 the basis of the authority.

11 Q Does modern protestant Christianity include the

12 Bible as the scriptural source of authority?

13 A I would say it better.

14 Q Is that a yes answer?

15 A That is a yes answer.

16 Q As a religious source of authority, do the concepts

17 inspiration and revelation also form a part of it?

18 A Yes, and there is a good deal of debate about what

19 they mean. Revelation is a fairly consistent word

20 throughout the history of Christian, and I think I could

21 say Jewish, thinking.

22 The meaning of inspiration has varied a good deal.

23 Now, we were talking about the kinds of questions. I

24 wanted to go on and talk about the kinds of theories.

25 In science, theories are generally laws; that is to say,


1 A (Continuing) universal, necessary, automatic,

2 impersonal, "if P then Q" kinds of statements.

3 One of the most basic rules of scientific inquiry is

4 that no non-natural or historical cause, that is, no

5 supernatural cause, may be appealed to.

6 Thus one could say, I would rather take the canon as the

7 scientific inquiry. It's not a presupposition; it's a

8 canon; it's a rule of the road.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will have to interject

10 an objection on the grounds that this witness has not been

11 qualified as an expert on science. He is qualified as a

12 theologian. His testimony has gone at some length now,

13 and I thought it was going to be brief. Therefore, I

14 would have to object to this line of testimony and move to

15 strike the previous testimony to the extent he is

16 discussing what is science.

17 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, the witness has written on

18 the differences between science and religion, and speaks

19 as a philosopher on this topic. His resume so reflects

20 those topics.

21 THE COURT: That's what I recall. I think he is

22 qualified to offer his opinion.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: He is offered only as a theologian,

24 your Honor, by the plaintiffs.

25 MR. SIANO: I might broaden that offer if that


1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) might give Mr. Williams some

2 comfort, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

5 Q You were taking about theories.

6 A Yes. It reflects, as I said, a universal necessary

7 concept of law or separate and variable relations. It

8 does not and cannot, and I think this is also true in the

9 discipline of history and, perhaps, of the law, cannot

10 appeal to a supernatural cause in its explanations.

11 It is verified by a particular shamble, objective,

12 sensory kind of experiment and has its origin in that, or

13 as better put falsified. Non-falsifiable by those.

14 And where religious theories concern God in our

15 tradition they use a quite different kin of language, a

16 symbolic language, about God. They invoke personal

17 causes, intentions, will. God created the world with a

18 design, God created the world in order that it be good,

19 God created the world out of compassion or out of love,

20 and so forth and so on. These are familiar ways of

21 speaking of these kinds of acts.

22 Above all, perhaps most important, they have to do,

23 religious theories have to do with the relation of God to

24 the finite world and to human beings.

25 If they specify only relations between persons or only

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P200-233


1 A (Continuing) relations between forces of nature,

2 they cease being religious theories.

3 But when they specify the relationship to God, then they

4 become religious theories and obviously God is very much

5 in the picture.

6 This is very different from a scientific form of

7 theory. They are testable, if that's the right word, in

8 terms of experience and, perhaps, in terms of a new mode

9 of living. That is to say, being released, being

10 redeemed, having a new kind of courage, a new kind of

11 benevolence, and so forth and so on. That is the kind of

12 fruitfulness that religious ideas have where it's quite

13 different than anything scientific.

14 Q Now, are you, sir, aware of the field of religious

15 apologetics?

16 A I am.

17 Q Could you please state for me what your

18 understanding of the concept of religious apologetics is?

19 A Apologetics has been used for a long time to

20 describe certain kinds of religious speaking and religious

21 writing, or writing by religious persons, with a religious

22 purpose.

23 It refers to an argument by members of a community to

24 those outside the community, seeking to show the

25 meaningfulness and the validity of the doctrines, the


1 A (Continuing) truths, the position of the community.

2 This is a very old tradition. One finds it, of course,

3 in the earliest writings, some of the earliest writings of

4 the Christian church in a group who were, in fact, called

5 the apologists, and quite deliberately sought to speak to

6 the Roman empire and to argue for Christianity on the

7 basis of what Romans could accept.

8 One finds this in the medieval period. Saint Thomas

9 Aquinas was probably the great example of this in some of

10 his documents. They are not theological documents; they

11 are arguments to the world about the truth of certain

12 elements, particularly the truth of the Creator. Certain

13 elements, one finds them in Jewish documents as well. You

14 find them also in the modern world.

15 Q The purpose of apologetics is that one purpose of

16 it—to spread the faith?

17 A Yes, yes. I am not sure that `evangelize' is quite

18 the right word. Generally, we use the word `evangelize'

19 with preaching. This is argument. It is certainly to

20 convince people, persuade people, and so forth, of the

21 validity of the faith, that one represents.

22 Q Does religious apologetics always speak with a

23 religious framework or does it use language and concepts

24 from other fields?

25 A Well, in seeking to speak to those without the


1 A (Continuing) faith it must find some kind of

2 common ground. This may be a common ground in morals; it

3 may be in the customs of a community; it may be in certain

4 forms of philosophy; it may be—And in the scientific age,

5 this may be the best way to do it—It may be science.

6 That is to say, when it seeks the common ground of

7 scientific facts in order to persuade others of the

8 validity of one's own idea.

9 In that case, one could say the ideas do not arise out

10 of the facts, but they are brought to them to show the

11 ideas made more sense of the facts than any other idea.

12 Q Is what you are, saying, Doctor Gilkey, that even

13 though a religious apologist may speak in science, his

14 purpose is religious?

15 A At this point, I would say the religious apologist

16 probably tends to disagree with some of the theories of

17 science, seeks to except the facts that science has

18 developed and to show that his or her own idea makes more

19 sense of those facts.

20 Q His or her own religious idea?

21 A Yes, his or her own religious idea, correct.

22 Q Do you have a view, sir, an opinion, sir, to a

23 reasonable degree of professional certainty, as to whether

24 creation-science is engaged in religious apologetics?

25 A I certainly do have such an idea. I look at the


1 A (Continuing) logic of it, and it seems to me

2 precisely what I have described. And there is a concept

3 here of a sudden creation at the beginning of separate

4 kinds by a deity. That is an old traditional conception

5 within the Christian community, given here a particular

6 interpretation, I may say, which is presented as making

7 more sense of the various facts or some of the facts that

8 are claimed to be scientific facts.

9 This is the structure, the logical structure, of

10 apologetics. Now, let me say there is nothing wrong with

11 apologetics. I've done it, and I'm not at all ashamed of

12 that. I don't know how good it was but I have done it.

13 I think the only problem with apologetics is when you

14 seek to dissemble that you are doing apologetics, when you

15 quote an authority, when one has two hats on and hides one

16 of them. This is what's the problem on it.

17 Q Now, are you aware, sir, of whether or not —Strike

18 the question.

19 Is the sectarian nature of the creation-science argument

20 in any way related to this opinion you have of its

21 apologetic nature?

22 A Yes, though let me say, apologetics are not

23 necessarily sectarian. That is to say, a good number of

24 apologetics take the very general position that is shared

25 by all members of a particular religious tradition.


1 A (Continuing)

2 In that sense one could say the tradition as a whole is

3 sectarian vis-a-vis other traditions, but that is not the

4 usual meaning of the word.

5 In this case I would say that is definitely the case.

6 The apologetic that is carried on here in the name of

7 creation gives, and insists upon giving, a particular

8 interpretation of that concept of creation. In a sense it

9 is doubly particular, so to speak. It is particular to

10 the Christian tradition as opposed to others, though

11 Jewish persons may agree with it but on the whole they

12 know this is a Christian idea. It is significantly

13 different from ideas in other religions, for example,

14 Hindu ideas, Buddhist ideas and, not least important,

15 American Indian ideas. But also within the Christian

16 tradition it is particularistic, and that is why I am

17 happy to be a witness. It is particularistic in that it

18 identifies the concept of creation with a particular view,

19 sets it over against evolution and says, `This is what

20 creation means.' And it is a very particular view. It's

21 been made evident here, a literal interpretation of

22 creation, of creation in recent time, of fixed species,

23 and so forth and so on.

24 Q In your examination of Act 590, Doctor Gilkey, are

25 you aware of whether or not the Act sets up a dualist


1 Q (Continuing) approach to origins?

2 A It seems to me it very definitely does. And that

3 is to say, I agree with the testimony that said its kind

4 of neutrality presupposes that there are only two views

5 and these are mutually exclusive.

6 I think on both counts, that is to say that there are

7 only two views and on the account that they are mutually

8 exclusive, are both factually wrong.

9 That is to say, there are many other views of origins

10 than these two views. There are other views within the

11 history of religions; there are other views within

12 philosophical speculation, although those don't have a

13 deity, as I've said.

14 One could list any number of views of origins that are

15 significantly different than either one of these. This is

16 simply wrong.

11 Secondly, the view that these two are mutually

18 exclusive, it seems to me, is, in fact, false. There are

19 people who believe in God who also accept evolution.

20 Now, that possibility depends upon something that I

21 think is not evident in the document. That is to say,

22 that science is our most reliable way of publicly

23 knowing. — I certainly believe that. I couldn't come by

24 airplane and leave by airplane if in some sense I didn't

25 believe that.


1 A (Continuing)

2 On the other hand, it is a limited way of knowing, and I

3 am speaking here as a theologian, as well as a

4 philosopher. That is to say, it can't and doesn't wish to

5 and doesn't purport to speak of all things, of all the

6 things that are.

7 It is difficult for science to get at our inner-personal

8 being, which I firmly believe. It is, as I said, by its

9 own rules, rules out discussions of a deity. In this

10 sense it is not at all saying, as a science, there is no

11 deity. It does not presuppose there is no creator.

12 It presupposes that a scientific statement cannot speak

13 of such a thing. Now, that's a quite different matter.

14 Some may conclude that is no creator. That is a religious

15 or philosophical judgment, not a scientific judgment.

16 The limitation of science is very important in this

11 whole case. One might say science asks questions that can

18 be measured, shared, mutually tested in certain ways, but

19 doesn't ask a number of important questions.

20 Personally, those are the questions that interest me.

21 That is why I am a theologian.

22 MR. SIANO: One moment, your Honor.

23 No further questions.








4 Q Professor Gilkey, can you distinguish between

5 primary causality and secondary causality in discussing

6 origins?

7 A Yes. And I must say I am glad you brought that

8 up. This is a distinction that arose during the medieval

9 period and was made particularly prominent by St. Thomas

10 Aquinas to distinguish between two different types of

11 questions about origins.

12 Another important issue in this: Not all questions

13 about origins are religious questions; not all questions

14 are about ultimate origins.

15 One could ask, `What is the origin of —Well, let's

16 see— the city of Chicago'? That is a profane question

17 if there ever was one.

18 One can ask about the ultimate origins of the universe.

19 That is a quite different kind of question.

20 Q Let me ask you this. Scientists cannot talk about

21 first causality, can they?

22 A Well, I was getting to your question. The first

23 kind of question is a typical question about secondary

24 causality. That is to say, out of what set of finite

25 forces and causes of various sorts did something we now


1 A (Continuing) see around us arise?

2 This is a question of secondary causality. It appeals

3 to no ultimate supernatural kinds of causes. It stays

4 within the world of finite or natural historical causes.

5 If one asks, `Where did that whole system come from' one

6 is asking the question not of particular origins but of

7 ultimate origins.

8 This is a philosophical but primarily a religious

9 question — and I will be willing to say why I think that

10 is; I think I already have —in which one moves beyond the

11 available system of experience to ask about its origin.

12 And that is what Thomas meant by first causality.

13 Q Scientists cannot talk about first causality, can

14 they?

15 A I, actually—I would like to appeal to the point

16 that was made that I don't want to pretend to say

17 everything scientists do or don't talk about. However, I

18 think in obedience to their own canons, they, so to speak,

19 will not do. If they do they are straying a little bit, a

20 good deal beyond what it is intelligent for a scientist,

21 any scientist to talk about.

22 As Aristotle said, `Nothing can come from nothing'.

23 Therefore, one always has to presuppose scientifically

24 that is something before what we are talking about.

25 Science does talk only about secondary causes.


1 Q And cannot talk about first causality without

2 getting into theology or philosophy; isn't that correct?

3 A I believe that is correct. That is right.

4 Q The question of how a finite form of life arises

5 out of secondary causality could be secondary or could be

6 a scientific question, couldn't it?

7 A Precisely.

8 Q Secondary causality is what we would ordinarily

9 call, and I believe you referred to, as natural,

10 historical and human causes?

11 A (Nodding affirmatively)

12 Q In your opinion primary causality would always be

13 divine cause, wouldn't it?

14 A Well, I think that is pretty near a tautology.

15 That is to say, when you are talking about something quite

16 beyond the system of causes that are available to us that

17 we would in our own day call natural, then the minute one

18 is talking that kind of thing one is talking about what is

19 generally agreed to be a divine figure, a deity.

20 Q And so long as we are talking about secondary

21 causality, we are talking about an area that can be dealt

22 with in science; is that correct?

23 A Correct.

24 Anytime that scientific inquiry leaves the area of

25 secondary causality and discusses ultimate origins, it has


1 Q (Continuing) left the laboratory and is entered

2 into theology and philosophy?

3 A I would think so.

4 Q Do you think that primary and secondary causality

5 are discussed in the Bible?

6 A Oh, no. No, no. Those are words that

7 came—Actually, the word `causality' probably has origins,

8 I think one could say, in Aristotle. It certainly came

9 down into Roman philosophy and was a way that those of a

10 philosophical bent who were Christians who wished to

11 express what creatio ex nihilo meant made the distinction

12 between primary and secondary causality.

13 Q Do you think primary and secondary causality can be

14 implied from Genesis and Psalms?

15 A Well, I would say that some authorities, for

16 example, St. Thomas Aquinas who certainly outranks me,

17 would say that that is the case.

18 Now, that is obviously a controversial issue. Some

19 people say it is not Biblical; it has no place in

20 Christianity, and so forth. Others would say that's a

21 pretty good shot at expressing what Genesis has in mind.

22 Q It could be implied then?

23 A Oh, yes, yes.

24 Q Do you see the Bible as a guide in your own life?

25 A I certainly do.


1 Q Would you use the Bible as a guide to your

2 understanding of the world?

3 A Myself understanding, being a theologian, would be

4 yes. That is what I meant by saying you had better have

5 the Bible as a basis.

6 Now, there are other things, for example, the tradition

7 of one's faith to take into account, but the primary

8 source for a Christian theologian is the Scriptures.

9 Q So your opinion of your own religion would also be

10 influenced by the Bible?

11 A Yes. Let me qualify that to say that when I teach

12 other religions I seek to present the other religions as

13 much in their own point of view as I can. But I think it

14 is useful to remind your students that you are a white,

15 male, Protestant character and that they had better watch

16 it.

17 Q Would your opinions on philosophy likewise be

18 influenced by the Bible?

19 A Oh, yes, indeed.

20 Q And your opinions on science?

21 A Yes. I hope everything is.

22 Q Do you think the scientific community is the only

23 body that can tell us what is and what is not in science?

24 A No, no. There are historians of science who are

25 doing a very good job at the present of reminding


1 A (Continuing) scientists of a lot of things they've

2 sought to forget.

3 Q Do you recall our discussion concerning whether or

4 not the scientific community could tell us what is and

5 what is not science when I took you deposition on the—

6 A Well, let me put it this way. I think —Let me

7 back up a bit if that is permissible —that any discipline

8 or any community has the right to seek to define itself

9 and has a kind of authority in that definition.

10 So, myself, I would go, first of all, to the scientific

11 community if I were asking what is science. What do they

12 think science is? Now, the qualification to that is, to

13 take an example of my own discipline, religion, I think

14 we've had revealed to us a good deal that we didn't want

15 to study about ourselves by others, by the sociologists,

16 by the psychologists, by the philosophers, and so forth

17 and soon, and in many cases they were right.

18 So that I think that what a discipline is, for example,

19 anthropology, chemistry, and so forth, is, first of all,

20 something in which the members of the discipline and those

21 who have studied it, philosophers and the historians of

22 the discipline, have sort of first rank. But I wouldn't

23 leave it entirely up to them because we always tend to

24 look at our own discipline with a more loving eye than

25 other disciplines look at that discipline.


1 Q So, then, the scientific discipline should decide

2 what is and what is not science?

3 A They should certainly make up their minds about

4 it. I think if they are unclear about it, then we are in

5 real trouble.

6 But let me say, when I am asked, what is the relation

7 between religion and science, I would certainly like to

8 talk with as loud a voice as scientists would on that

9 relation.

10 Q You mentioned a moment ago that scientists have

11 tried to forget certain things and historians have

12 reminded them of them. What things are you talking about?

13 A Well, the relatedness of science to the culture as

14 a whole, the ways in which scientific ideas have

15 developed, and that sort of thing. The, how shall I put

16 it, the cultural relatedness of scientific concepts.

17 Q Scientists had kind of gotten off path?

18 A No, not the scientists. This isn't really their

19 business. One could say the interpretation of science,

20 and it was similar to the interpretation of my own

21 discipline where most theologians thought that everything

22 that we said came directly from on high. And it took some

23 historians to point out that there was influence, the

24 medieval period, the Renaissance, and so forth and so on.

25 Q If the scientists-and this is a hypothetical


1 Q (Continuing) question—felt that there was some

2 evidence to support creation or creation-science as it is

3 spelled out in Act 590, do you think he should be free to

4 discuss that in the classroom?

5 A What classroom?

6 Q In the classroom.

7 A Well, I suppose he could only discuss it in the

8 classroom he found himself in, but I have already made

9 clear that I don't think it is merely evidence that makes

10 something scientific.

11 I am not sure I understand what scientific evidence is.

12 think I understand what a scientific theory is, and my

13 own view is that science is located in its theories and

14 not necessarily in its facts, which are quite public.

15 I would say that creation is not a scientific theory and

16 cannot be taught in that way, so —

17 Q I understand your position. What I am asking is,

18 if a scientist felt that there was legitimate scientific

19 evidence to support creation-science as it is defined in

20 Act 590, would you favor his being able to present that in

21 the classroom?

22 A If he or she felt and was prepared to argue that

23 this was a scientific theory under the rubrics of the

24 general consensus of what a scientific theory was, then I

25 think they should make that argument.


1 A (Continuing)

2 Now, they can make that public, the scientific

3 community, that it is a scientific theory.

4 Q And you think that he should be free to discuss

5 that in the classroom?

6 A Whether that is a biological theory or not in the

7 classroom of biology, I am not sure. I think that-Well,

8 it seems to me that one of the important things is that a

9 profession be able to determine what is or what is not

10 within its general bounds. The general association of

11 biologists, I would say, would be able to be the final

12 authority as to whether something is a biological theory

13 or not.

14 I think these certainly could be well discussed in

15 comparative world views or some other such course. I

16 don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.

17 Q Do you recall in your deposition when I asked you

18 the question. —

19 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, page and line, please.

20 MR. CAMPBELL: This is page 57, beginning on line

21 11.

22 Q I asked you this question. This is a hypothetical

23 question. "If a scientist felt that there was some

24 evidence to support creation science as it is spelled out

25 in Act 590, do you think that he should be free to discuss


1 Q (Continuing) it in the classroom", and your

2 answer, "of course, of course. I don't have any question

3 about that, and the only adjudicating supporters are his

4 or her peers."

5 A Right.

6 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, that is not the complete

7 answer.

8 MR. CAMPBELL: I was going on, Mr. Siano.

9 Q "Now they are not in the classroom, but the

10 principle. I would say the same about a teacher of law.

11 I believe that. I think that is a part of science, that

12 one should be quite open to new interpretations. Now we

13 can discuss whether this is possibly scientific and I am

14 willing to state my opinion on that, though not as a

15 philosopher of science."

16 "MR. SIANO: And not as a scientist."

17 And your answer, "Not as a scientist, correct, but let's

18 leave that one out. I agree with that thoroughly,

19 absolutely."

20 Do you recall that answer?

21 A (Nodding affirmatively).

22 Q Do you think that science should be more interested

23 in how to think about an idea rather than trying to

24 emphasize that a particular idea is true?

25 A As I understand the scientific method, the


1 A (Continuing) concentration is almost entirely on

2 the how to think about an idea. That is to say, as the

3 scientific movement developed, the emphasis became more

4 and more on methods rather than conclusions.

5 Conclusions were regarded as always hypothetical,

6 approximate, to be criticized, to be changed. What

7 remained solid was the methods and, as I've said, the

8 canons that makes a theory legitimate and so on within the

9 scientific world.

10 So I would say yes, as a method they do concentrate on

11 the how.

12 Q And in teaching how to think about an idea, should

13 alternative viewpoints be considered?

14 A Within the realm of that idea, yes, certainly.

15 That is to say, I think alternative scientific theories

16 certainly should be created, be discussed. And if this

17 one can make a case—I don't think it can, but if it can

18 make a case that's another thing. Requiring that it be

19 taught is another issue.

20 Q Despite the fact that parts of the definition of

21 creation-science as it appears in Section 4 (a) of Act

22 590, is, in your opinion, consistent with Christian and

23 Jewish traditions—

24 A Let's be careful of the Jewish there.

25 Q If there were some legitimate scientific evidence


1 Q (Continuing) to support a part of that definition,

2 shouldn't it be discussed openly?

3 A Certainly, openly. I am not sure it is a

4 scientific concept. I would argue that (a) represents a

5 scientific concept. I don't think it has its place—

6 Q I understand your response. What I am saying is,

7 if there was some legitimate scientific evidence to

8 support one of those parts, should not it be discussed

9 openly?

10 A My point has been that, say, evidence, scientific

11 or otherwise, a common experience, supports an idea,

12 notion, that's not science. That's, I suppose one could

13 say, only philosophy. This makes sense of this. This

14 makes it intelligent. That is not the scientific method.

15 So that the conception, scientific facts proving or

16 making probable or simply an idea, is not an example of

17 scientific methods.

18 Now, `openly' I don't know just what that means. I

19 think this is a concept that certainly should be openly

20 discussed. Whether it should appear as a part of a

21 scientific discipline is quite another matter to me.

22 Q That would be for the scientists to determine?

23 A Correct. The scientific community to determine.

24 Q And if a member of a scientific community felt that

25 there was legitimate evidence to support a part of


1 Q (Continuing) creation-science as it is defined in

2 Act 590, he should be free to discuss that?

3 A Yes, I think that the responsibility of any

4 scientist is to be a part of that community, listening to

5 its general views and consensus; of course, quite free to

6 disagree with it, and there should be the ability to

7 present something as a scientific theory.

8 Q Would you say that creation is essentially a part

9 of — I believe you were the one who used the words

10 Jewish and Christian traditions; is that correct?

11 A Right. I am glad you said that because my

12 correction of you was only to be uneasy to be stating

13 something that Jews believe that I have no business

14 stating they believe. That it came out of the Jewish

15 scriptures, there was little question. That is probably

16 the meaning of what I meant, but I don't wish to state

17 what the beliefs of the various synagogues of our country

18 are or should be.

19 Q Is creation a part of Greek religion?

20 A Ideas of creation are there. They are

21 significantly different ideas about creation. They

22 usually picture one god, for example, Zeus, as arising out

23 of other gods. In fact, he was regarded as one of the

24 children of a former god and winning a victory over other

25 gods and, perhaps, establishing order, and so forth and so


1 A (Continuing) on. This is not the conception of

2 absolute beginning.

3 Q So the concept of creation as it is known in the

4 western religious circles would be different than that

5 concept of creation in Greek religion?

6 A Very significantly, and this is the thrust of a

7 good number of the early arguments of the church, as I

8 indicated.

9 Q Likewise, would Western religious views of creation

10 differ from the Buddhist religion?

11 A Oh, very definitely.

12 Q And, likewise, would the Western view of creation

13 differ from Babylonian religion?

14 A Yes. Not as much as with Buddhist.

15 Q So if creation-science were taught to a Greek, a

16 Buddhist or a Babylonian student, that student would not

17 view it as inherently religious, would he?

18 A Oh, he would. They would view it as a Christian

19 view. That is very specifically what they would view it

20 as.

21 Q They would not view it as religious in their own—

22 A Oh, they wouldn't view it as Buddhism, certainly.

23 They would view it as simply wrong. They would have no

24 question about that. In fact, if you go to Japan, and

25 China and talk with Buddhists, you will find this is one


1 A (Continuing) of the points they really will tackle

2 you on. "This is an absurd idea", they would say.

3 There is no question of its Christian character when it

4 appears within another context. They would regard it as

5 religious but not as true. And mind you, not everything

6 religious is true.

7 Q They would only view it as religion if we were

8 talking about ultimate origins, wouldn't they?

9 A No. I haven't said that everything religious has

10 to do with ultimate origin, but then everything having to

11 do with ultimate origin is religious, which is a quite

12 different statement.

13 Q If there are empirical scientific evidences which

14 support a science or a theory of science, it would not

15 matter if it were religious apologetics or not, would it?

16 A Well, that is a pretty hypothetical case because I

17 can't, at the moment, think of a genuinely scientific

18 theory which remaining a scientific theory becomes a part

19 of religious apologetics.

20 Q But if there were?

21 A Well, give me an example.

22 Q I am just asking you a hypothetical.

23 A Well, I don't understand. I've got a blank in my

24 mind. You cannot help me out?

25 Q You cannot answer that question?


1 A I cannot conceive of a case in which a theory in

2 science that remains a theory in science—Now, there are

3 many which might be regarded as excluding certain

4 religious theories, but I can't conceive of a case which

5 would become, remaining a theory in science, an aspect of

6 religious apologetics.

7 Q If there were scientific evidence to the view that

8 the earth was less than four billion years old, that

9 scientific evidence would not be religious apologetics,

10 would it?

11 A No. It would lead the scientists to ask, how are

12 we going to understand this. Now, they might pop up with

13 the idea of an absolute beginning. Then they are not

14 submitting a scientific explanation.

15 I am not saying there aren't explanations. I think none

16 of us know what possible kinds of explanations. I would

17 say that would be an interesting event which would call

18 for a total reworking of all scientific theories that I

19 know anything about and the production of other scientific

20 theories giving it in terms precisely of secondary

21 causality.

22 Q Can there be such a thing as atheistic apologetics?

23 A Yes. Of course, Bertrand Russell was a very good

24 example of that.

25 Q I believe you mentioned that scientists ask `how'


1 Q (Continuing) questions; is that correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And scientist are interested in observable

4 processes?

5 A Yes, they are. Yes, we all are, but they use those

6 as testing devices in quite particular ways. That doesn't

7 mean they are confined to observable processes.

8 Q You stated that religion asks `why' questions?

9 A Among other questions.

10 Q And you opined, I believe, that the definition of

11 creation-science as it appears in Section 4 (a) of Act 590

12 was inherently religious; isn't that correct?

13 A I would like a little heavier word than `opine'.

14 Q Well, is it your opinion—That's got more letters.

15 A Okay, I'll settle for that. I would assert that.

16 That would be a better way of putting it.

17 Q In looking at the definition of creation-science as

18 it appears in Section 4 (a), there are six parts of that

19 definition. I would like for you to review that with me,

20 and tell me where the `why' question is in the definition

21 of creation-science as it appears in Section 4 (a).

22 In other words, where is the `why' question in "sudden

23 creation of universe, energy and life from nothing"?

24 A Well, as I say, there are other questions in

25 religion than `why' questions.


1 Q I understand, but you did say that religion asks

2 `why' questions primarily?

3 A Yes, but that is not the only kind of question.

4 `Where did it all come from' is also a religious question,

5 as I have stated, I think, as clearly as I could. Where

6 did it all come from, and that is number one.

7 Q Where are the `why' questions, though, in the

8 definition of creation-science as it is defined in Section

9 4(a) of Act 590?

10 A Well, there are all kinds of answers to `why'

11 questions in number 1, inclusively in number 1, and that's

12 why—

13 Q I didn't ask where the answer are. I asked where

14 the question was.

15 In other words, aren't you assuming in making your

16 assertion that the definition of creation-science in

17 Section 4 (a) is religious? Aren't you assuming that your

18 definition of creation-science is actually answering `why'

19 questions?

20 A I said it was answering them, so I don't find the

21 question in any religious doctrine.

22 Q You do not find a question asked in the definition

23 of creation-science?

24 A I haven't claimed that in a statement of a creed

25 you find the question to which the creed is the answer.


1 A (Continuing)

2 What you find in statements of religious belief are answers.

3 Now, I said you can get at the meaning of those answers by

4 asking kinds of questions.

5 Therefore, I said that, number one, states an answer.

6 Q I understand, but we talked about the `why'

7 questions that religion asks. Can you testify that there

8 are no `why' questions -

9 A I can testify there aren't any questions at all

10 there, and I would say in any statement of a creed there

11 aren't questions; there are answers. And I tried to make

12 that quite clear.

13 Theology is not, thank the good Lord, confined to

14 questions.

15 Q Is it your opinion that science cannot answer the

16 `why' questions?

17 A It depends on what you mean by `why'. There has

18 been general agreement since—and I think I am right—the

19 seventeenth century, at least since the impact of Galileo

20 and the reinterpretation of that by Descartes, an agreement

21 that purpose kinds of causes, causes that appeal to

22 purpose—What Aristotle called final causes—Why is this

23 going on—were not relevant to scientific inquiry.

24 And I take it that this has been generally agreed. If

25 you mean why did this happen—If you mean by that question


1 A (Continuing) `what forces brought it about' and

2 one could use that, in ordinary speech, then, of course,

3 `why are we having rain today', well, the answer is

4 because of a cold pressure front and so forth and so on.

5 That kind of `why' question, but the kind of `why'

6 question that is quite different, `why did it happen to

7 rain on my wedding', is not the kind of question the

8 weatherman will be able to answer.

9 Q Is there such a thing as religious humanists?

10 A Yes, there certainly is. At least, there is a

11 group that calls themselves humanists that has written a

12 couple of manifestoes in my lifetime, I think, and a group

13 called the Ethical Culture Society and perhaps some other

14 groups that are exclusively humanist and that also are

15 happy to claim the word `religious' connected with them,

16 and I suppose the great founder of positivism, Auguste

17 Comte, sought to found a humanistic or positivistic

18 religion in the nineteenth century.

19 Q Once evolution begins to examine ultimate origins,

20 it is not within science, is it?

21 A I would say so.

22 Q Are you saying it is not or it is?

23 A It is not within science. Yes, I am agreeing with

24 a portion of your question, it has moved out of science

25 into a wider arena.


1 Q Into the area of theology and philosophy?

2 A Right, correct.

3 Q As one who has studied religions, are there any

4 religions which have taken evolution from its original

5 scientific state and adopted it as part of their belief

6 system?

7 A They have taken evolution—Yes, I would say so, and

8 I would say some of the forms in the nineteenth and

9 twentieth century of what you would call, although they

10 may or may not have liked that word, religious humanism,

11 have taken that form.

12 Perhaps the great formulator of this was Herbert

13 Spencer, though he wouldn't have, wanted to be called

14 religious, and he said he was an agnostic.

15 Nevertheless, here was a picture of the whole of the

16 universe, and so forth and so on, and there have been a

17 number of evolutionists, Julian Huxley, that was appealed

18 to here and who is a good example of that. A good number

19 of them have taken that position.

20 This is perfectly possible for this idea. There is a

21 number of ideas to leave its particular residence, so to

22 speak, within a particular discipline, subject to its

23 canons and to expand out to doing the job of a religious

24 idea.

25 Q In some sense, is evolution atheistic?


1 A No. That is to say, I would say any scientific

2 method—This is not a presupposition; this is a canon. It

3 does not talk about God.

4 In the same way history is atheistic. That is to say, a

5 historical account of he Second World War won't talk about

6 the judgment of God.

7 I suppose law is atheistic in exactly that sense. An

8 account of a murder which explained the murder by an act

9 by God, by God rubbing this fellow out, let's say, is not

10 an admissible theory.

11 In this sense, these are what we mean by secular

12 disciplines. That is to say, they do not bring in a

13 divine cause as an explanatory factor in what they are

14 trying to explain.

15 This does not mean, and I think the example of the

16 history of law made perfectly clear, this sort of factor

17 is not there. This is not a presupposition. It is a rule

18 of the road, a rule of that kind of talking.

19 Q Is evolution consistent with Buddhism?

20 A Now, there I will have to speculate on that. I

21 don't put myself forward as an expert on Buddhism. I

22 would say no, not consistent with historic Buddhism in the

23 sense that historic Buddhism has held to the set of ideas

24 that are also true of historic Hinduism, namely, that time

25 goes in a circle.


1 A (Continuing)

2 Now, that is a significantly different idea than

3 nineteenth century and twentieth century evolution where

4 time is lineated and there is no set cyclical.

5 Within those concepts, one cay say that both Hindu and

6 Buddhist conceptions state of the world as coming to be in

7 the cycle and then going out of existence again, and then

8 coming in.

9 This is not evolution. That is not at all the same idea.

10 Now, the main problem with Buddhism is they are

11 convinced of the unreality of things rather than the

12 reality of things. Now, if you want to discuss that, we

13 can do it but I think that would try the patience of

14 everybody in the room.

15 Q You mentioned that evolution is not consistent with

16 historical Buddhism, but would it be with contemporary

17 Buddhist beliefs?

18 A As somebody said, almost anything is possible.

19 People in the history of religion have put the two most

20 seemingly antithetical ideas together to create theory

21 that one beforehand could have believe they were going to

22 do it. I would say this would take an awful lot of work

23 on the part of some enthusiastic Buddhist to put the two

24 together, but it could be done.

25 Q Is evolution consistent with Taoism?


1 A My answer would be substantially the same. That is

2 to say, Taoism and Buddhism and Hinduism are forms of—

3 Well, I am risky here—Pantheism, Monism, where each have a

4 cyclical view of time, insofar as they have any view,

5 and probably you have very much the same situation there.

6 Q If evolution is expanded into a world view, will we

7 get into metaphysics?

8 A It depends on how it's done. That is to say, a

9 metaphysical idea is partly determined not by what it

10 talks about but the way it does about constructing itself.

11 And those within the philosophical community who still

12 think metaphysics interesting and possible, and they are

13 not everybody, would probably be very much interested in

14 the grounds, the warrants, the reasons why an idea was

15 advanced as being.

16 So, it isn't so much the content of the idea as its

17 method or I should say both of them.

18 Insofar as you mean by metaphysics a view of a whole and

19 a recent view of a whole, I would say say. Yes, that is

20 exactly what, for example, the great philosophy of Alfred

21 North Whitehead is. One could say it is an expansion of

22 some evolutionary idea into a total view of the universe.

23 Q And once evolution is discussed in terms of

24 metaphysics, it is no longer science, is it?

25 A It has a cousin once removed relation to science.


1 A (Continuing) Let's put it that way. It is

2 certainly not at that point dependent upon science.

3 Q Is scientific inquiry generally set within a

4 framework of presupposition?

5 A Again, I am glad you asked that question because I

6 think it is good to try to clarify that point. I'd say

7 there are two different kinds of presuppositions we are

8 talking about here.

9 One of them is that set of presuppositions, and it would

10 be rather hard quickly to state them accurately so that

11 there's no disagreement, that having characteristic of

12 Western culture, arising out of the Jewish and the

13 Greek-Roman background.

14 Now, these are genuine presuppositions of the scientific

15 method, it seems to me, and that is quite rightly used.

16 There was a very well known book by E. Burt, The

17 Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Empirical Science,

18 which I think stated the point very well.

19 The puzzle would be the reality of the empirical world.

20 The reality, therefore, — The cognitive value of sense

21 experience. The fact that the world involves, we don't

22 know what kind, but some sort of order.

23 These are presuppositions of the scientific method.

24 There are other things that I call canons or rules of the

25 road that are really quite different.


1 A (Continuing)

2 They themselves, perhaps, have presuppositions, but they

3 are not quite presuppositions.

4 Q Is falsification a presupposition?

5 A No, that's an aspect of method, I would say. That

6 is what is meant by testing. That is not a

7 presupposition; this is a canon. Every idea that is

8 scientific must be tested, and what we mean by that is, it

9 is not falsified. Or, at least, that's Popper's theory

10 of that.

11 Q Do you recall your deposition when I asked you

12 questions concerning presuppositions, beginning on page

13 135 of your deposition, I asked this question: "Assuming

14 a scientific inquiry is based on some, within a framework,

15 of presupposition, could a theory ever be truly

16 falsified?"

17 Mr. Siano interjected, "And that's a hypothetical

18 question", which I responded, "Do you understand what I am

19 asking?"

20 Mr. Siano again interjected his comments, "you started

21 out assuming, and that is what I asked, if it is a

22 hypothetical question. Is it a hypothetical question?"

23 I responded, "Yes, it can be a hypothetical question.

24 Actually, it is a philosophical question."

25 Mr. Siano: "It may be a philosophy of science question."


1 The Witness: "It is totonegy. It is just utterly

2 totogeny."

3 THE WITNESS: Tautology.

4 MR. CAMPBELL: It is misspelled in the deposition.

5 THE WITNESS: I know. I think that one went right

6 over the reporter's head and bounced around.

7 Q (Continuing) This is your answer: "Falsification

8 itself has presuppositions, which is your answer. Without

9 presuppositions that lie in the back of scientific

10 methods, there is no meaning to the word `falsification'.

11 You have to agree to having a mode of falsifying what kind

12 of data are relevant, what kinds of experience gets us in

13 touch with those data, what type of methods are relevant.

14 What have to agree on that."

15 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, this answer goes on for

16 two and a half pages. Would you like me to—

17 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, since the only appropriate

18 use of this deposition is to impeach Mr. Gilkey, I would

19 suggest that Mr. Campbell now continue to read the answer

20 if he intends to impeach my witness.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: I am certainly not trying to impeach

22 the witness, your Honor. I am just trying to refresh his

23 memory with regard to this area of falsification.

24 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I haven't heard anything —

25 THE COURT: I think you can ask him the question.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P234-266


1 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you remember making that statement?

3 THE COURT: Well, let him answer —I mean, whatever

4 point you are making, why don't you just ask the question

5 without referring to the deposition?

6 THE WITNESS: I remember making that statement. I

7 am under the impression that I have just repeated it, but

8 I may be wrong.

9 Q So falsification does have some presuppositions?

10 A Oh, yes, yes, and I have tried to make clear that

11 those general presuppositions that I spoke of first, lie

12 back not only of, let's say, the conclusions of science

13 but the method of science. That is to say that sensory

14 experience places into touch with what we wish to find out

15 about. This is not a universally held view. In many

16 cultures sensory experience is regarded as the pathway to

17 illusion.

18 Now, that presupposition is there if you and I are going

19 to agree that a sensory observable experiment will falsify

20 an idea. We have got to agree on that point.

21 That is what I meant by the terms of falsification or in

22 the other side verification. They have got to be agreed

23 on, and I think has been becoming increasingly clear to

24 the scientific community since the rise of the empirical

25 sense as to meaning what we mean, that some kind of


1 A (Continuing) shareable experiment will test this

2 thing. You say and I say.

3 Q Does the history of science reveal that in actual

4 practice science is based upon creative leaps of

5 imaginative vision?

6 A I would certainly say so, though as I said to you

7 in the deposition, that takes a certain knowledge of the

8 biography of great scientists that I don't pretend to have

9 within my—Well, I hesitate to say educated guess, but my

10 somewhat educated guess is, of course.

11 Q Weren't these creative leaps of imaginative vision,

12 from an historical standpoint, considered unscientific and

13 illogical at the time that they were being taken?

14 A Correct in many cases; not in all, many.

15 Q Were the men and women who have taken creative

16 leaps of imaginative vision in science, to your knowledge,

17 generally considered to be in the mainstream of the

18 scientific community in their times?

19 A When they took the leap, to use your phrasing, I

20 would say no. Shortly after they landed, yes.

21 Q Professor Gilkey, isn't the phrase, "creative leap

22 of imaginative vision" actually your phrase?

23 A I don't know whether I ought to claim it or not. I

24 don't remember.

25 Q Do you recall writing an article on the "Religious


1 Q (Continuing) Convention of Scientific Inquiry",

2 which appeared in Volume 50, Number 2, of the Journal of

3 Religion, July, 1970? Do you recall whether or not you

4 used the phrase, "creative leaps of imaginative vision" in

5 that article?

6 A Yes. I am just wondering whether I thought it up

7 myself or picked it up somewhere else. I am not sure

8 about that. It's a rather catchy phrase, so I suspect

9 I got it from somebody else.

10 Q Was Copernicus within the mainstream of the

11 scientific thinking of his day?

12 A That's a very touchy question. There was

13 certainly— He didn't arise like the universe, ex nihilo.

14 Let's make that clear. There were things that lay back,

15 in my view. I am no expert on this. There are many

16 people who are. I think that there were many ideas, many

17 possibilities, Aristotelian, Platonic, Ptolemaic, and so

18 forth that lay back of those. He certainly rearranged

19 things in a new way and this was, with some qualification,

20 a quite new set of ideas. It certainly appeared in his

21 time as a new set of ideas. It was not completely new

22 under the sun, however.

23 Q Likewise, was Galileo in the mainstream of

24 scientific thinking in his day?

25 A By that time, much more, though the mainstream is a


1 A (Continuing) very small river at that point. We

2 mustn't think of it in terms of the present. That is, the

3 number of scientists who were coming in that tradition is

4 really minimal. We now think of science as a very large

5 part of the intellectual community. That was not so

6 then. So, within that Galileo certainly builds on

7 foundations it seems to me more than Copernicus did.

8 Newton much more than Galileo.

9 Q Would it be fair to say that Copernicus, Galileo and

10 Newton all were somewhat outside the contemporary

11 scientific community at their time?

12 A Well, I hate to bring up an old word, but one is

13 almost saying with figures like that, a chronological

14 statement. That is to say, each one of those is producing

15 a really quite new synthesis of what was known and, of

16 course, giving new elements to it.

17 This is why they are so important. This is why we know

18 their names. This is why Newton was such a transcendent

19 figure really in the seventeenth and especially, perhaps,

20 the eighteenth century.

21 So that creative leap, imagination, everything, are

22 completely appropriate. This doesn't mean, as I say, they

23 arrived de novo. Newton built on Galileo; Galileo built

24 on names that preceded him, including some Roman

25 philosophers, and so forth and so on, and lots of things


1 A (Continuing) that had been going on.

2 But I will be quite happy to talk about the creative

3 leaps of imagination. Now, the issue of testing is a

4 little different than a leaping, let's say.

5 MR. CAMPBELL: I understand. I have no further

6 questions. Thank you, sir.




9 Q Doctor Gilkey, what is your understanding of the

10 meaning of the word `secular'?

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor. That's not

12 in the scope of direct.

13 THE COURT: That's overruled.

14 MR. SIANO: It's not outside the scope of cross.

15 Let me rephrase the question.

16 Q Because a concept is secular, is it necessarily

17 atheistic?

18 A Not at all, not at all. The separation of church

19 and state legally specifies what one might call the

20 secular world. It is a world of the law, a world of

21 government, a world of our vocations that are not grounded

22 in, established by authoritatively ruled by in any way

23 religious doctrines or religious authority.

24 Now, that world is a world of American experience

25 generally since the founding of the Constitution and by no


1 A (Continuing) means is it irreligious. So, that,

2 now, I've testified and I've got to emphasize the fact

3 that inherently science has a secular character. It

4 cannot be appealed to a supernatural cause.

5 In this sense it is a secular endeavor. Now, that

6 doesn't mean it is atheistic, and that is why empirically

7 there are scientists who are believers in God and there

8 are scientists who are not believers in God. I suspect,

9 though this is speculating, that those believing or not

10 believing is based on other grounds than their science.

11 In this sense if evolution is a secular theory, and I

12 believe it is, this doesn't mean at all and historically

13 it has not meant, that it was an atheistic theory. In

14 fact, two of the closest friends of Darwin argue with him

15 at this point, Asa Gray and Wallace did. And there have

16 been a number of theistic evolutionists.

17 MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.

18 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

19 MR. SIANO: Yes, your Honor.

20 MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, your Honor.

21 THE COURT: We will reconvene at 9:00 a.m.

22 tomorrow. Court will be in recess.

23 (Thereupon, Court was in recess at

24 5:10 p.m.)





2 Witness:

3 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:



6 Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 244

7 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 301

8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Novik Page 369

9 Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 376


11 Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 379

12 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams: Page 405


14 Direct Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 406










23 Plaintiffs' No. 94 245 245

24 Plaintiffs' No. 98 407 407

25 Plaintiffs' No. 86 442 442


1 (December 8, 1981)

2 (9:00 A.M.)

3 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, I have gone over the

4 Motion in Limine and the brief. Do you have anything else

5 you'd like to say in connection with that?

6 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think the Motion

7 is largely self-explanatory. I would just reiterate that

8 the legislature has not seen fit to try to define what a

9 scientific theory is. Therefore, it does not fall to this

10 Court to have to find that either. And on this ground we

11 think that the evidence on that point should be properly

12 excluded.

13 THE COURT: Perhaps you are right about that,

14 that I won't be called upon to decide whether or not this

15 is science, but as I understand the thrust of the

16 plaintiffs' case, they first undertake to try to prove the

17 Act is, or the definitions in the Act, what is set out in

18 Section 4(a), is not science but religion. And I can't

19 very well tell them they can't put on evidence of that.

20 I don't know whether they can actually sustained

21 that position or not.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: The point that I wanted to make

23 in the Motion in Limine is that what the Act says, that

24 the scientific evidence for both creation-science and

25 evolution-science are to be taught, it never tries to


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) elevate or state that

2 either is a scientific theory, as such. So that really is

3 the only purview of the issue in this case, and it really

4 is irrelevant.

5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I will deny the Motion in

6 Limine.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, one other preliminary

8 matter that I would like to bring up now. Yesterday—

9 This may already be in the record, but to make sure that

10 it is, I want to move into the record those portions of

11 Mrs. Nelkin's deposition that I quoted to her yesterday to

12 the degree that they were inconsistent with her earlier

13 testimony.

14 This is pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil

15 Procedure and Rule 801 of the Rules of Evidence.

16 THE COURT: Okay, sir. Do you— I don't quite

17 understand. Did you read the parts that you wanted to

18 yesterday?

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. The parts which I read into the

20 record.

21 THE COURT: Well, they will be in the record anyway.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I want to make sure they are

23 going in as evidence and simply not for the purpose of

24 impeachment.

25 Counsel for plaintiffs yesterday made an assertion at


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) one time that some of

2 the quotes being read from the deposition could only go to

3 impeach the witness.

4 THE COURT: I think he was complaining about the

5 method of using the deposition and not whether or not

6 it— Once it's in the record, it's in there.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to make sure. Thank

8 you, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Mr. Cearley, are you ready to call your

10 next?

11 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir. Michael Ruse will be the

12 first witness, your Honor, and Mr. Jack Novik will handle

13 the direct examination of the witness.

14 Thereupon,


16 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

17 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

18 testified as follows:




21 Q Would you state your full name for the record?

22 A Michael Escott Ruse.

23 Q Have you been sworn?

24 A I have.

25 Q What is your address? Where do you live?


1 A I live at 44 Edinburg Road, North, Ontario, Canada.

2 Q Are you a Canadian citizen?

3 A I am indeed.

4 Q And what is your occupation?

5 A I'm professor of history and philosophy at the

6 University of Guelph, Ontario.

7 Q What is your particular area of academic specialty?

8 A I'm a historian and philosopher of science.

9 Typically, history and philosophy of biology. I also

10 teach other areas in philosophy, philosophy of religion

11 and philosophy of education. General philosophy.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, is this your curriculum vitae?

13 A Yes.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, this has previously been

15 marked as Exhibit Ninety-Four for identification. Our

16 copies of the exhibits are not yet here. I'd be glad to

17 pass you a copy. We will fill it in with the—

18 THE COURT: Okay. It will be received. And if you

19 would, make sure it's in the record.

20 MR. NOVIK: Yes, sir, I'll do that.

21 In light of Doctor Ruse's qualifications as described

22 in the curriculum vitae, which has previously been made

23 available to the defendants, I move that Doctor Ruse be

24 qualified as an expert in philosophy of science and



1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) history of science, in

2 particular, the philosophy and history of biology.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Williams.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection, your Honor.

5 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

6 Q Doctor Ruse, will you please describe to the Court

7 your understanding, as a philosopher and historian of

8 science, of what science is today?

9 A Well, Mr. Novik, I think the most important thing

10 about science, if I was going to extract one essential

11 characteristic, is that it be predominantly brought in the

12 law. In other words, what one's trying to do in science

13 is explained by law, whereby "law" one means unguided,

14 natural regularities.

15 Q When you say "law", you mean natural law?

16 A I mean natural law. I mean Boyle's Law, Mendel's

17 Law, Cook's Law.

18 Q Doctor, is there any one single definition of

19 science?

20 A I wouldn't say there is one single definition of

21 science, but I think the philosophers today would

22 generally agree on that point.

23 Q Are there other attributes of science that

24 philosophers today would generally agree are important in

25 defining what is a science and what is not?


1 A Well, you say philosophers. Let's broaden it. I

2 hope we can include historians. And I'd like to think

3 that scientist agree with what we say.

4 Yes. I think what one's got to do now is start teasing

5 out some of the attributes of science, starting with the

6 notion of law.

7 Particularly, science is going to be explanatory.

8 Another thing there, another very important aspect of

9 science is it's going to be testable against the empirical

10 world. Another characteristic, and perhaps we can stop

11 with these, is that it's going to be tentative. It's

12 going to be, in some sense, not necessarily the final word.

13 Q Would you explain to the Court what you mean in

14 saying that science must be explanatory?

15 A Yes. When I talk about science, or when

16 philosophers and scientists talk about science being

17 explanatory, what we mean is that in some sense we can

18 show that phenomena follow as a consequence of law.

19 Perhaps I can give you an example to sort of explain a

20 little bit more what I mean. And let's take a very

21 mundane example. I like to take mundane examples because

22 one of the things I really want to point out is that

23 science isn't that different from the rest of human

24 thinking.

25 Suppose, for example, you've got, say, a baseball which


1 A (Continuing) is being pitched from the pitcher to

2 the hitter, and the ball goes along and then suddenly it

3 dips down. The guy swings and the ball is not there,

4 not— You know, I suspect the pitcher, you know, might

5 start thinking in terms of divine intervention.

6 But a scientist would be saying things like, well, now,

7 why did this happen. Well, let's look at Galileo's Laws;

8 let's look at laws to do with air resistance together with

9 initial conditions like the speed the ball was thrown and

10 so on and so forth.

11 Q In connection with these characteristics of science

12 that you've identified, can you tell us what you mean by

13 testable?

14 A Yes. Again, it all follows, I think, very much from

15 the nature of law. A scientific theory is not a

16 hypothesis of a body of science. It must, in some sense,

17 put itself up against the real world. That is to say, one

18 must be able to do experiments, either in the lab or out

19 in nature and try and get inferences from the main body of

20 science, and then to see whether or not they follow and

21 whether or not they actually obtain in the world.

22 I think one would want to say that any science that's

23 worth its salt is certainly going to have a lot of

24 positive evidence in its favor. More than that, I think a

25 very important aspect of science is that somehow it must


1 A (Continuing) be sort of self-generating. In other

2 words, a scientific hypothesis, a scientific theory is not

3 only going to explain what it set out to explain, but it's

4 going to lead to new areas as well, and one has got to be

5 able to test it in this respect.

6 Q Is it fair, then, to say that a science has to

7 generate new facts which then can be tested against a

8 theory?

9 A Well, it's not generating the facts, but it's

10 generating inferences about expected facts. Do you want

11 an example or two?

12 Q No. That's fine.

13 In connection with the attributes of science and

14 this issue of testability, does the concept of

15 falsifiability mean anything to you?

16 A Yes. The concept of falsifiability is something

17 which has been talked about a great deal by scientists and

18 others recently. It's an idea which has been made very

19 popular by the Austrian-English philosophist, Karl Popper.

20 Basically, the idea of falsifiability is that there must

21 be, as it were, if something is a genuine scientific

22 theory, then there must, at least, conceivably be some

23 evidence which could count against it. Now, that doesn't

24 mean to say that there's actually going to be evidence. I

25 mean, one's got to distinguish, say, between something


1 A (Continuing) being falsifiable and something being

2 actually falsified.

3 But what Popper argues is that if something is a genuine

4 science, then at least in the fault experiment, you ought

5 to be able to think of something which would show that

6 it's wrong.

7 For example, Popper is deliberately distinguishing

8 science from, say, something like religion. Popper is not

9 running down religion. He's just saying it's not science.

10 For example, you take, say, a religious statement like

11 God is love, there's nothing in the empirical world which

12 would count against this in a believer. I mean, whatever

13 you see— You see, for example, a terrible accident or

14 something like this, and you say, "Well, God is love.

15 It's free will," or, for example, the San Francisco

16 earthquake, you say, "Well, God is love; God is working

17 his purpose out. We don't understand, but nothing is

18 going to make me give this up."

19 Now, with science, you've got to be prepared to give up.

20 Q I was going to ask you for an example of

21 falsifiability in the realm of science.

22 A Well, let's take evolutionary theory, for example.

23 Suppose, I mean, contemporary thought on evolutionary

24 theory believes that evolution is never going to reverse

25 itself in any significant way. In other words, the dodo,


1 A (Continuing) the dinosaurs are gone; they are not

2 going to come back.

3 Suppose, for example, one found, say, I don't know,

4 somewhere in the desolate north up in Canada, suppose one

5 found evidence in very, very old rocks, say, of mammals

6 and lots and lots of mammals and primates, this sort of

7 thing, and then nothing for what scientists believe to be

8 billions of years, and then suddenly, mammals come back

9 again.

10 Well, that would obviously be falsifying evidence of

11 evolution theory. Again, I want to make the point, you've

12 got to distinguished between something actually being

13 shown false and something being in principle falsifiable.

14 I mean, the fact that you've got no contrary evidence

15 doesn't mean to say that you don't have a theory. I mean,

16 it could be true.

17 Q The last characteristic you mentioned was that

18 science was tentative. Can you explain that

19 characteristic of science?

20 A Yes. Again, this is all very much bound up with the

21 points I've been making earlier. What one means when one

22 says that science has got to be tentative is that

23 somewhere at the back of the scientist's mind, he, or

24 increasingly she, has got to be prepared to say at some

25 point, "Well, enough is enough; I've got to give this


1 A (Continuing) theory up." It doesn't mean to say

2 you are going to be every Monday morning sort of

3 requestioning your basic principles in science, but it

4 does mean that if something is scientific, at least in

5 principle, you've got to be prepared to give it up.

6 Q Doctor Ruse, in addition to those four

7 characteristics, natural law, explanation, testability and

8 tentativeness, are there other characteristics of science,

9 methodological characteristics of science which serves to

10 distinguish science from non-scientific endeavors?

11 A Yes, I think there are. of course, one starts to

12 get down from the body of science and starts to talk more

13 about the community of scientists. Fairly obviously,

14 scientists have got in some sense to try to be objective.

15 One has got to, even though scientists might have personal

16 biases, personal issues, at some level you've got to try

17 to filter these out in science.

18 Science has got to be public. In other words, if you've

19 got some sort of scientific ideas, you've got to be

20 prepared to let your fellow scientists see it.

21 Science has got to be repeatable. Fairly obviously,

22 again I say, science has got to try to be honest. I mean,

23 obviously not all scientists all the time have been all or

24 any of these things. But speaking of science as sort of a

25 general body of knowledge and a body of men and women


1 A (Continuing) working on it, these are the sorts of

2 ideals we are aiming for. They are not that different

3 from philosophers and lawyers.

4 Q How does science deal with a new observation or new

5 experimental data which is not consistent with a theory

6 that science has generally accepted to be true for a

7 period of time?

8 A Well, you know, it's a little difficult to answer

9 that question because what can one say. It depends on the

10 scientific theory which is threatened. It depends on the

11 new evidence.

12 I guess a good analogy would say science is something as

13 happens here. Suppose, for example, there was some

14 question about whether or not somebody is going to be

15 convicted of a crime. Well, you have them up, you have a

16 trial, and then let's suppose they are found guilty. Now,

17 they are found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. You

18 accept the supposition. That doesn't mean to say that

19 never, ever could you open up the case again.

20 For example, if somebody else was found the next week

21 committing exactly the same crime, you'd probably look

22 very hard at the first one. So, I mean, there are things

23 that would make you change your mind.

24 And I think it's the same with science. I mean, if you

25 just establish something, and then something pretty


1 A (Continuing) massive comes up fairly soon

2 afterwards, then you're going to rethink it.

3 On the other hand, suppose somebody has been convicted

4 twenty years ago, and his mother on the deathbed says,

5 "Well, he didn't really do it." Well, you might say, "I'm

6 not too sure about that."

7 It's the same with science. If you've got something

8 which is really working, really going well, lots of

9 evidence for it, you get something which seems to be a bit

10 against it, I mean, you don't ignore it. You say, "Let's

11 try and explain it."

12 On the other hand, you don't suddenly say, ooh, I've

13 lost everything. I've got to start again.

14 Q Do scientists work at trying to fit the new data

15 into the old theory?

16 A They work at trying to fit it in. What can I say.

17 mean, sometimes they, I suspect that first of all they

18 are going to look very carefully at the data again. Other

19 scientists are going to see if the data really is what

20 it's supposed to be, try new experiments, so on and so

21 forth.

22 Q Doctor Ruse, have, you ever seen reference to

23 observability as an attribute of science?

24 A Well, I've certainly seen reference to it in the

25 scientific creationist literature.


1 Q How do creation scientist use the term

2 "observability"?

3 A Well, they seem to make it an essential

4 characteristic of science, and they tend to use it in the

5 sense of direct eyewitness observation.

6 Q Now, as a philosopher of science, do you believe

7 that observability is an attribute of science?

8 A It's funny you say that. Certainly empirical

9 evidence is important, but I wouldn't want to say that

10 direct empirical evidence is important for every aspect of

11 every science. We don't see electrons, for example.

12 Q Why is science not limited to the visible, to what

13 you can, to what an observer can actually see?

14 A Well, because— This takes us right to the heart of

15 the way science works. I mean, scientists pose some sort

16 of hypothesis, some sort of idea, suppose about the nature

17 of the electrons, something like this. From this he tries

18 to derive inferences, ultimately trying to find something

19 out about the real world, and then you argue back to what

20 you haven't seen.

21 I mean, you don't see that I've got a heart, but you can

22 infer that I've got a heart from all of the observable

23 characteristics like the fact that it thumps and so on and

24 so forth.

25 Q Speaking of your heart, I note—


1 A Yes. It's thumping quite a bit at the moment.

2 Q —I note that your latest book is titled Darwinism

3 Defended. Does the title of that book suggest that

4 evolution is in question and that evolution is in need of

5 defense?

6 A Certainly I hope not. Certainly— Well, let me put

7 it this way. I do not want to imply that the happening of

8 evolution, as we understand it today, is in any sense

9 under attack by credible scientists.

10 I am concerned, I'm talking in the book about

11 mechanisms, forces and so forth.

12 Q Do I understand you to be drawing a distinction

13 between the happening of evolution and the mechanics of

14 evolution?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And what is that distinction?

17 A Well, the happening of evolution is claims about the

18 fact or the supposition that we all today, and the fossil

19 record is a function of the fact that we all evolved,

20 developed slowly over a long time from, to use Darwin's

21 own phrase, one or a few forms.

22 The mechanism, the cause of evolution is — what shall I

23 say — it's, I won't say why, but it's the 'how did it

24 happen' sort of question.

25 Q When scientists today speak of the theory of


1 Q (Continuing) evolution, are they referring usually

2 to the theory that evolution happened, or are they

3 referring to the theory about how evolution happened?

4 A Well, I guess I'd have to say it tends to be used

5 somewhat ambiguously. Sometimes you see it one way;

6 sometimes you see it the other way. To a great extent, I

7 think you have to look at the context in which the

8 discussion occurs.

9 But I think usually it's true to say that scientists

10 today are concerned about the mechanisms. They accept

11 that evolution occurred.

12 Q Do you know of any scientists other than the

13 so-called creation scientists who question the happening

14 of evolution?

15 A No, I don't really think I know anybody I would call

16 a scientist. I say scientist in the sense of

17 professional, credible scientist. Now, certainly the

18 creation scientists want to argue that it didn't occur.

19 Q You say that scientists today agree that evolution

20 happened.

21 A Yes.

22 Q Why is that so?

23 A Well, quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming.

24 Q What is the history of the consensus in the

25 scientific community that evolution has happened?


1 A Well, like everything, I think in Western

2 intellectual thought, you could well go back to the

3 Greeks. But probably the story, at least as affects us,

4 of the scientific revolution picks up off Copernicus' work

5 showing that the earth goes around the sun and not vice

6 versa.

7 I think it's true to say that Copernicus' ideas and the

8 ideas of the Copernicans spurred a number of things which

9 led ultimately to evolution thought.

10 For example, on the one hand, one had the fact that even

11 Copernicus' ideas put certain pressure on the Bible taken

12 literally. For example, in the Bible, it talks of the sun

13 stopping for Joshua, implying the sun moves. And people

14 pointed out— In fact, Luther and Calvin pointed out,

15 even before Copernicus published, that this seemed to go

16 against the truth of the Bible.

17 And as people began to accept Copernicanism, they

18 started to say, "Well, you know, if one part is not

19 literally true, maybe another part isn't either." That

20 was one thing.

21 Another thing was although the Copernican theory, per

22 se, doesn't talk about how things actually came about,

23 certainly it set people thinking this way. And certainly

24 during the eighteenth century, there was an awful lot of

25 speculation and hypothesizing about the way in which the


1 A (Continuing) universe might have come about through

2 natural law.

3 And in particular, there was a very popular hypothesis

4 known as the nebular hypothesis which was developed

5 including part of this by the great German philosopher,

6 Immanuel Kant, which suggested the fact this universe of

7 ours has evolved gradually by natural law from clouds,

8 clouds of gases.

9 So in physics one is getting what I say analogical

10 directions. Then in the biological sciences themselves,

11 people are finding more and more evidence which were

12 leading them to think that maybe Genesis wasn't quite all

13 that could be said.

14 For example, more and more fossils were being found, and

15 people were starting to realize that these fossils simply

16 weren't just curiously shaped pieces of stone, so on and

17 so forth.

18 To cut a long story short, I think by the end of the

19 eighteen century a lot of people were starting to think

20 that maybe organisms had, in fact, developed slowly.

21 In fact, one of the first people to think up the idea

22 was Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who used

23 to write unbelievably bad verse all about how we all

24 evolved up from the oak tree and everything like this.

25 Probably the first really credible scientist to put


1 A (Continuing) everything together was a Frenchman by

2 the name of Lamarck, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, who

3 published a work on evolutionary science or evolutionary

4 theory in 1809.

5 After that, people started new evolution ideas. They

6 didn't much like them, but they talked about them more and

7 more. Certainly in the Anglo-Saxon world, evolutionism

8 got a big discussion with the publication in 1844 of a

9 book by an anonymous Scottish writer known as Robert

10 Chambers.

11 So again the people went on talking and talking and

12 talking. Finally in 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin

13 of Species. And I think it's true to say that within a

14 very short time, and I mean a very short time, certainly

15 the scientific community was won over to evolutionism.

16 And from that day on by the professional body of

17 scientist, certainly by biologist, I don't think evolution

18 has ever been questioned.

19 Q When you say the scientific community was won over

20 to evolution, I take it you mean that shortly after the

21 publication of Origin of Species, the scientific community

22 accepted that evolution happened, is that correct?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Charles Darwin also proposed a theory of describing



1 Q (Continuing) the mechanics of evolution, did he not?

2 A He did indeed.

3 Q What theory was that?

4 A Well, it was the theory of natural selection.

5 Q Now, do scientist today generally agree about how

6 evolution happened?

7 A No, not at all. In fact, sort of looking about the

8 courtroom at the moment, I can see several people who, as

9 it were, when they get outside start to disagree very,

10 very strongly indeed about the actual causes.

11 Q Can you describe the nature of that debate about the

12 mechanics of evolution that is ongoing today?

13 A Yes. I would say that if you like to use sort of a

14 boxing metaphor, in one corner you've got the more

15 orthodox Darwinians who think that natural selection is

16 still a very, very major factor.

17 I don't think anybody, even Darwin himself, ever thought

18 that natural selection was all there was to it. But

19 certainly, you've got some people who want to argue that

20 natural selection still plays the major role.

21 On the other hand, you've got some people who want to

22 argue that there are other factors which are probably very

23 important random factors, some important genetic drift —

24 I'm sure you will be hearing more about that — and other

25 sorts of factors which could have been involved in evolution.


1 Q Doctor Ruse, you testified earlier that creation

2 scientists often confuse the difference between the

3 happening of evolution and the how of evolution, is that

4 right?

5 A I did indeed.

6 Q Would you please explain what you meant by that,

7 please?

8 A Well, what they do is they'll, say, take a passage

9 where a scientist, a biologist, something like this, is

10 talking about the question of causes, the question of

11 reasons, this sort of thing, and they will quote just this

12 one sentence or half a sentence, one paragraph, and then

13 as it were, automatically assume and lead the reader to

14 assume that what's under question here is the actual

15 occurrence of evolution itself.

16 So one gets, I think, this sort of mixing of the two.

17 Q Doctor Ruse, are you familiar with creation science

18 literature?

19 A Yes.

20 Q In your book, Darwinism Defended, do you analyze

21 creation science literature?

22 A Well, I analyzed one work in particular. This is a

23 work edited by Doctor Henry Morris of the Institute for

24 Creation Research.

25 It's one— It's not only edited by him, but I think


1 A (Continuing) there are some thirty other

2 scientists, including Doctor Gish, who were either,

3 co-authors or co-consultants.

4 This is the work which was published in 1974 call

5 Scientific Creationism. It's a work which was published

6 in two versions. One was the public school edition, and

7 the other was the Christian school edition or the

8 Christian edition.

9 I analyzed the public school edition. It seemed to me

10 that this was about as frank and as full a statement of

11 scientific creationism as one was likely to find.

12 Q That was analyzed in your book?

13 A That's analyzed in the final two chapters in my

14 book, yes.

15 Q In addition to the book, Scientific Creationism

16 Excuse me, Doctor Ruse. There are two editions of

17 Scientific Creationism. One is the sectarian edition, and

18 one is the public school edition.

19 Which of those did you consider in your book?

20 A I considered the public school edition.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, in addition to Scientific Creationism,

22 the book Scientific Creationism, have you read scientific

23 literature excuse me creation science literature

24 extensively?

25 A Yes, I have.


1 Q Could you describe some of the books that you've

2 read?

3 A Well, I've read a couple of books by Doctor Gish.

4 I've read Evolution: The Fossils Say No and the book for

5 children, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards.

6 I should add, by the way, that Doctor Gish and I are

7 sort of old friends, old adversaries. And we've debated

8 together, and I've been reading this stuff for a while now.

9 Also, I read what I believe is taken to be the classic

10 by creation scientists. That's the Genesis Flood by, I

11 think, Whitcomb and Morris.

12 I have read a couple of recent books by a man called

13 Parker, one which is his testimony on how he got converted

14 to creationism, and another which is a very recent book,

15 the most recent book I've found by the creationists,

16 called Creation, something on the facts or the facts say

17 so, something like that.

18 The Handy-Dandy Evolution Refuter by a chap called

19 Kofahl, and another book by him. Creation Explanation: A

20 Scientific Alternative to Evolution, that's by Kofahl and

21 I think somebody called Segraves.

22 Q Is it fair to say you have read widely in creation

23 science literature?

24 A Well, I think so.

25 Q Have you considered the creation science literature


1 Q (Continuing) in your scholarship?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Have you examined that literature as a philosopher

4 and historian of science?

5 A Yes, I have.

6 Q You testified earlier that creation scientists often

7 confuse the difference between the happening and the how

8 of evolution. And you suggested they do so in part by

9 taking quotations out of context. Is that correct?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Do you know any examples of that?

12 A Yeah. Well, for example, in Parker's book, which I

13 said was the most recent, I think, or the most recent book

14 I've come across by creationists, I think you'll find at

15 least one very flagrant example of that.

16 Q Doctor Ruse, I'd like to show you a copy of Act 590?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Act 590 has previously been admitted as exhibit

19 number twenty-nine.

20 Doctor Ruse, I'd like to direct your attention to the

21 references to creation science in Act 590. In particular,

22 I'd like to refer your attention to Section 4(a) of the

23 Statute.

24 As a historian and philosopher of science and someone

25 who has read extensively in the creation science


1 Q (Continuing) literature, how does Act 590 relate to

2 the body of creation science literature that you have read?

3 A I would say very closely indeed. In fact, so

4 closely I would want to say identical.

5 Q What are the similarities that you see between the

6 description of creation science in Act 590 and creation

7 science as it appears in the body of literature that

8 you've read?

9 A Well, a number of things. But I think what one

10 would want to say is, there are at, least three features

11 which are obviously interrelated.

12 First of all, one has this sort of stark opposition

13 between two supposed positions, so-called creation science

14 and so-called evolution science. And one is often sort of

15 an either/or, this sort of notion of balanced treatment of

16 these two models. Let's call that sort of a dual model

17 approach.

18 Secondly, the fact that creation science in 4(a) deals

19 point by point with all and virtually only the things that

20 the scientific creationist deal with.

21 And thirdly, the fact that 4(b) — what shall I say —

22 this hybrid, this hodgepodge known as evolution science

23 appears described here, and once again that is something

24 which occurs, basically as a unit like this, I think,

25 occurs only in the scientific creationist literature.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P267-299


1 Q Doctor Ruse, I'd like to explore each of those areas

2 with you. First, what is your understanding of the theory

3 of creation?

4 A Well, that the whole universe, including all

5 organisms and particularly including ourselves, was

6 created by some sort of supernatural power very recently.

7 As it was tacked on, the fact that having done this, he or

8 she decided to wipe a lot out by a big flood.

9 Q Where does that understanding of the theory of

10 creation come from?

11 A Well, my understanding comes from the reading of the

12 scientific creationist literature.

13 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't catch what you said

14 earlier. What was the question and the response? Do you

15 mind starting on that again?

16 MR. NOVIK: Not at all. Did you hear his

17 understanding of the theory of creation?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 MR. NOVIK: I could start after that.

20 THE COURT: Start with that, if you would.

21 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

22 Q What is your understanding of the theory of creation?

23 A That the world, the whole universe was created very




1 A (Continuing) recently. And when I talk about the

2 whole universe, I'm talking about all the organisms in it

3 including ourselves.

4 And as I said, sort of added on as sort of a — what

5 shall I say — a sub-clause, that some time after it was

6 done that everything or nearly everything was sort of

7 wiped out by a big flood.

8 Q How was that creation accomplished according to the

9 theory of creation?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor, to the use of

11 the term "the theory of creation." As previously pursued

12 in our Motion in Limine, the term "theory of creation" is

13 used nowhere within the Act.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, a few more questions, and I

15 think that objection will answer itself.

16 THE COURT: Okay, sir. Go ahead.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe I asked you whether the

19 creation you mentioned was accomplished by any force?

20 A Yes. By a creator.

21 Q Where does your understanding of the theory of

22 creation come from?

23 A Well, from my reading of the scientific creationist

24 literature.

25 Q Is that theory of creation a part of Act 590?


1 A Well, I think so, yes.

2 Q Is the creation, the theory of creation that you

3 have identified in the creation science literature the

4 same as the creation science theory identified in Act 590?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Does Act 590 mention a creator with a capital C?

7 A It doesn't actually use the word.

8 Q Where do you see in Act 590 the theory of creation?

9 A Well, I see it very much in the first sentence of

10 4(a). And I think all the time when looking at 4(a), one

11 has got to compare it against 4(b) because these are

12 obviously intended as two alternative models.

13 And if you look, for example, at 4(b), you see that

14 evolution science means the scientific evidences for

15 evolution, inferences from those evidences.

16 We are talking about scientific evidences. Scientific

17 evidences for, well, what we mean, a theory. Scientific

18 evidences outside the context of a theory are really not

19 scientific evidences.

20 Q What theory do the scientific evidences in 4(b)

21 support?

22 A Well, they are talking about this theory of

23 evolution science. What I want to say is if we go back to

24 4(a), then if we are going to start talking about

25 scientific evidences, then presumably we are talking about


1 A (Continuing) scientific evidences for some theory.

2 And analogously, what we are talking about is the theory

3 of creation.

4 Q Where in Act 590 do you see a reference to a creator?

5 A Well, again, as I say, I don't see the word

6 creator. I think the, Act is very carefully written so

7 that I wouldn't.

8 However, I think if you look at 4(a)(1), sudden creation

9 of the universe, energy and life from nothing, I think a

10 creator is clearly presupposed here.

11 Again, if you look at 4(b)(1), which says "Emergence" —

12 that's not a word I care for particularly — "Emergence"

13 by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered

14 matter and emergence of life from non-life.

15 Now, you will notice that the key new word here is

16 naturalistic processes, which doesn't occur in 4(a)(1),

17 sudden creation.

18 So my inference is that we are dealing with

19 non-naturalistic processes in 4(a)(1) and non-naturalistic

20 processes, meaning by definition a creator.

21 Q Looking at—

22 THE COURT: Wait a second. Let's go back over that

23 again.

24 A What we are dealing with is the question of to what

25 extent 4(a)(1) implies some sort of non-naturalistic


1 A (Continuing) creator.

2 And the point I was trying to make, your Honor, was that

3 I think if you look at 4(b)(1), it says emergence—

4 THE COURT: Okay. Fine.

5 A —emergence by naturalistic processes.

6 I feel very strongly that to understand 4(a) you've

7 got to compare it all the time with 4(b) and vice versa.

8 And my point simply was that 4(b) talks about naturalistic

9 processes, so presumably in 4(a), which doesn't, we're

10 talking about non-naturalistic processes.

11 Q In 4(a), the language to compare with naturalistic

12 processes you said was sudden creation, is that correct?

13 A Yes. Right.

14 Q Now, looking at 4(b)(3) and 4(a)(3), can you comment

15 on those sections with respect to the issue of creator?

16 A 4(b)(3), "Emergence by mutation and natural

17 selection of present living kinds from simple earlier

18 kinds." Again, the word "kind" has a superfluous

19 connotation. It makes me feel a bit uncomfortable,

20 certainly in talking about it in the context of science.

21 Q But in 4(b)(3), does the Statute make reference to

22 naturalistic processes?

23 A Well, it doesn't mention naturalistic processes. It

24 doesn't use the word "naturalistic," but clearly one is

25 talking about naturalistic processes. Mutation, natural


1 A (Continuing) selection, these the epitome of

2 naturalistic processes.

3 Q Yes, sir. And how does that compare with 4(a)(3)?

4 A Well, one's only got changes only within fixed

5 limits of originally created kinds. And I take it

6 originally created since we are not dealing with natural-

7 istic processes. We are dealing with non-naturalistic

8 processes.

9 Q Does the word "kind" in 4(a)(3) have any special

10 significance in that context?

11 A Well, as I mentioned, the word kind certainly is not

12 a word which we find used by biologists. It's a word

13 which occurs in Genesis.

14 Q Do scientists use the word kind at all in any

15 professional taxonomic sense?

16 A Well, I'm sure if you went through the literature

17 you might find that some scientists some day. But, no,

18 it's not one of the categories.

19 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe you testified earlier that

20 each of the six elements of creation science identified in

21 Sections 4(a)(1) through 4(a)(6) were identical to the

22 elements of creation science as you knew them through the

23 literature. Is that so?

24 A Yes.



1 Q Would you please give an example of the similarity

2 between the elements of creation science in Act 590 and

3 the elements of creation science in the literature?

4 A Well, by an example, what I want to say is that

5 every one of these elements in 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), so on and

6 so forth, as you go down them, can be found mirrored

7 virtually exactly in almost the same order in Morris'

8 edited book, Scientific Creationism.

9 If one wants to pick out specific examples, for example,

10 section 4(a)(5) talks about a worldwide flood. And this

11 is something which is discussed at some length in

12 Scientific Creationism.

13 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe you also testified that

14 another similarity between creation science literature

15 generally and Act 590 is the reference to evolution

16 science in 4(b) of the Act, is that so?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you explain what you meant by that?

19 A Well, this term "evolution science," as we can see

20 in 4(b) includes a great many different things. And my

21 reading both of the work of scientists and the work of

22 scientific creationists is that it's only the scientific

23 creationists who want to deal with this as one package

24 deal. Evolutionists and other scientists separate them

25 out and deal with them separately.


1 Q What other scientific disciplines are implicated by

2 the provisions of 4(b)?

3 A Well, it's almost a question of what isn't. I would

4 say physics and chemistry in (b)(1). I would suspect that

5 most of the social sciences in (b)(4). I would have

6 thought geology in (b)(5).

7 Q Doctor Ruse, you are not a scientist, are you?

8 A No.

9 Q Do you have any training as a biologist?

10 A No.

11 Q Do you have any training in the philosophy and

12 history of biology?

13 A Yes.

14 Q What do scientists generally mean by the word

15 evolution?

16 A That organisms descended through constant generation

17 from one or a few kinds.

18 Q Does the theory of evolution presuppose the

19 nonexistence of a creator or the nonexistence of a God?

20 A I don't think the theory of evolution says anything

21 at all about the Creator. I mean, in other words, it

22 doesn't say if there is one; it doesn't say that there

23 isn't one.

24 Q Understanding that scientists do not generally use

25 the term, "evolution science," let me, nonetheless, direct


1 Q (Continuing) your attention to the definition of

2 evolution science in the Statute.

3 Looking first at Section 4(b)(1), what is your

4 professional assessment of 4(b)(1) as a scientific

5 statement?

6 A "Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe

7 from disordered matter and emergence of life from non-life."

8 Well, the word "emergence," I think, is not one that

9 scientists would readily use. But taken as it stands like

10 that, I think it's at least potentially a scientific

11 statement.

12 Q Does 4(b)(1) reflect an accurate description about

13 scientific learning about the origins of the universe and

14 the origins of life on this planet?

15 A It certainly doesn't represent the consensus. In

16 fact, there's quite a debate going on at the moment about

17 where life came from originally on this earth.

18 Certainly, I think a substantial body. of scientists

19 would think that it developed naturally on this earth from

20 inorganic matter.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, is the study of origins of the universe

22 and the study of origins of life on this planet the same

23 discipline in science?

24 A No, I would have said not. In fact, evolutionary

25 theory takes, as it were, like Mrs. Beeton's Cookbook, it


1 A (Continuing) take the organism or the initial

2 organisms given and t hen starts from there.

3 For example, The Origin of Species is very careful. it

4 never mentions about where life comes from. And I think

5 this has been a tradition of evolutionists. I mean,

6 obviously, evolutionists are going to be interested in the

7 topic, and today certainly textbooks will probably mention

8 it. But it's not part of the evolutionary theory proper.

9 Q What is your professional assessment of 4(b)(2)?

10 A "The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection

11 in bringing about development of present living kinds from

12 simple earlier kinds."

13 Well, it's potentially a scientific statement. I don't

14 thing that anybody has ever believed this.

15 Q That mutation and natural selection are sufficient?

16 A No. Charles Darwin didn't and today's evolutionists

17 would certainly want to put in other causes as well.

18 Q How does that provision in 4(b)(2) relate to the

19 provision in 4(a)(2)?

20 A "The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection

21 in bringing about development of all living kinds from a

22 single organism."

23 Well, in fact I think one would. find that most

24 evolutionists would feel more comfortable with 4(a)(2)

25 except I'm not sure they would want to, say it all came


1 A (Continuing) from a single organism.

2 In other words,. we've got sort of a paradoxical

3 situation here where I think the evolutionists would be

4 somewhat happier with part of 4(a) rather than 4(b).

5 Q Do you understand the meaning of Section 4(b)(3)?

6 A "Emergence by mutation and natural selection of

7 present living kinds from simple earlier kinds."

8 Well, I take it this mean this is what actually

9 occurred. I take it, it means it occurred by naturalistic

10 processes since we are comparing it with 4(a)(3), which

11 talks of originally created kinds.

12 With the proviso that the word "kind" is a bit of a,

13 what shall I say, mushy word. Yes, I think that is

14 something I understand.

15 Q Again referring to 4(a)(3), what does changes only

16 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

17 and animals mean?

18 A Obviously, on the one hand, one is making reference

19 to sort of supernatural causes starting everything. But

20 on the other hand, I see 4(a)(3) as an ad hoc device which

21 creationists have had to think up to get away from some of

22 the obvious indisputable cases of evolution that

23 evolutionists in the last hundred years have come across.

24 I mean, since Darwin, evolutionists have been working

25 hard to find places where they can say, "Look, here is


1 A (Continuing) something that actually did evolve

2 from one form to another," and they came up with some

3 examples.

4 Now, the scientific creationists can't get away from

5 this fact. And so, as I see it, what they've done is

6 they've sort of hurriedly, or not so hurriedly, added ad

7 hoc hypotheses to get around these sorts of problems.

8 For example, and probably the most famous case is of the

9 evolution of moths in England. England, as I'm sure

10 everybody knows, has gotten a lot dirtier in the last

11 hundred years because of the industrial revolution.

12 And a number of species of moths have gotten darker and

13 darker over the years.

14 Q Excuse me, Doctor Ruse. You are making reference to

15 a picture in what book?

16 A It's a Scientific American book called Evolution.

17 It first appeared as an issue of Scientific American, I

18 think, in September of '78.

19 Q What page are you referring to?

20 A I'm looking at page— Well, they don't put a page

21 number on it. It's two pages after 114. It's opposite an

22 article called "Adaptation" by Richard Lewontin.

23 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I intend to use this

24 reference solely for purposes of explaining the witness'

25 testimony. I believe that's appropriate under the rules.


1 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

2 MR. NOVIK: And I have no interest in admitting it

3 into evidence unless Mr. Williams would like to admit it.

4 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

5 Q Please proceed.

6 A Here is a classic case of evolution actually being

7 seen going on. If we look down at the bottom, we see that

8 there are two moths. You have to look rather hard to see

9 one of them.

10 And this, the model form was the standard original kind

11 of this particular sort of moth. And the main predator is

12 the robins who sort of fly along and eat the moths. And

13 obviously, they see the dark forms very easily, and so

14 they pick them off.

15 However, over the last hundred years or so because of

16 the industrial revolution, parts of England has gotten a

17 lot dirtier around Birmingham and these sort of places.

18 So consequently, the trees have sort of changed from the

19 bottom form up to looking much more like the top form.

20 And what has happened is that the moths have evolved

21 along with the change in the trees, so that now what

22 happens — and there is experimental evidence to show this

23 — robins are much more likely to pick off the original

24 model forms.

25 Here we have got a beautiful case of evolution in


1 A (Continuing) action, natural selection working.

2 Scientists and biologists have studied it time and again.

3 They found that it happens with other species of moths, so

4 on and so forth.

5 It's evolution that you just can't get away from.

6 Q How did the creation scientists deal with this

7 question of evolution?

8 A Well, what they do is they try to run around it.

9 They introduce, as I said, ad hoc hypotheses saying, "Oh,

10 well, we're not against all forms of evolution. In fact,

11 we ourselves admit a certain amount of evolution. It's

12 just only evolution within fixed kinds."

13 "In other words, we admit to evolution that

14 evolutionists have found. That's just not enough."

15 Q In terms of the philosophy of science, what is the

16 significance of the contrast between the unrestrained

17 evolutionary change identified in 4(b)(3) and accepted by

18 most scientists, and the evolutionary changes only within

19 fixed limits of created kinds referred to in 4(a)(3)?

20 A Well, I would want to say this means that

21 evolutionary theory is, lays itself open to falsification

22 in a way and testing in a way that so-called creation

23 science doesn't, and that it leads to a certain sort, of

24 fertility.

25 One expects to see evolution occurring and having


1 A (Continuing) occurred so very much more generally.

2 And this, of course, is the sort of thing one expects of a

3 Science.

4 Q In your reading of the creation science literature,

5 have you found any explanation, scientific explanation

6 from the creation scientists as to why evolution should

7 stop at the limit of a kind?

8 A Not really, no.

9 Q Doctor Ruse, let me direct your attention to Section

10 4(b)(4) and ask your professional assessment of that

11 section?

12 A Well, emergence, I guess one would say, that man and

13 apes— Emergence of man from a common ancestor with

14 apes. I think that evolutionists would certainly want to

15 agree that man and woman, too, come from common ancestors

16 with gorillas, orangutans.

17 Of course, nobody has ever wanted to claim that we come

18 from a common ancestors of apes or monkeys which are

19 living today.

20 Q How does that relate to 4(a)(4)?

21 A Well, again, separate ancestry for man and apes,

22 which, again, is something which is very important within

23 the scientific creationist literature, is something which

24 is, what can I say, again shows some sort of special

25 consideration for man and certainly puts in mind that the


1 A (Continuing) Creator had some sort of special place

2 for man in mind when he set about doing his job.

3 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at Sections 4(a)(5) and

4 4(b)(5), do you understand the use of the words "catastro-

5 phism" and "uniformitarianism" as used in the Statute?

6 A Not really.

7 Q What is your understanding, then, of how uniformi-

8 tarianism is used in the creation science literature?

9 A Well, I think they, confuse issues. What they say

10 uniformitarianism is, is causes of the same kind and the

11 same intensity interacting today have been responsible for

12 the gradual development of the earth up to its present

13 form.

14 Q Is that something that scientists agree on today?

15 A Certainly not. Scientists today certainly think

16 that in the earth's past there were all sorts of events

17 which occurred which are not of the kind which occur today.

18 Q Were they, nonetheless, a junction of the same

19 operation of natural law?

20 A Yes. Of course, this is the trouble. What one's

21 got is just sort of conflation, I think, in the scientific

22 creationist literature between two possible senses of

23 uniformitarianism.

24 And if by uniformitarianism, you mean exactly the same

25 laws and the same kinds of causes, like the law of


1 A (Continuing) gravity, then I don't think any

2 scientist — well, I know that no scientist, no geologist

3 is going to deny that.

4 But then on the other hand, if you want to mean by

5 uniformitarianism, not only the same causes, same laws,

6 but always acting in the same intensity, the same amount

7 of rain, the same amount of frost, then certainly

8 scientists today don't accept this.

9 Q How do you interpret catastrophism in 4(a)(5)?

10 A "Explanation of the earth's geology by

11 catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide

12 flood

13 Well, my understanding is that what we've got is some

14 sort of special divine intervention at this point bringing

15 about major upheavals of one sort or another.

16 Q Doctor Ruse, do you find much reference to the words

17 "uniformitarianism" and "catastrophism" in the creation

18 science literature?

19 A Oh, yes.

20 Q What is your professional opinion about the

21 significance of the worldwide flood contention as it

22 relates to creation science?

23 A Well, it certainly puts— I mean, again, this is

24 something which comes up again and again in the creation

25 science literature. And it's obviously to be identified

with Noah's flood. I mean, Genesis Flood, for example, is


1 A (Continuing) quite explicit on this.

2 By Genesis Flood, I'm referring to one of the creation

3 science books.

4 Q Who is the author?

5 A Whitcomb and Morris. I think it was published in

6 1961.

7 Q Doctor Ruse, what is the relationship between a

8 worldwide flood and the subject of origins, which, after

9 all, purport to be the subject of this statute?

10 A Well, I don't think there is any relationship. I

11 think it's something which is being tacked on to, as it

12 were, added on to Genesis. I mean, if you're going to

13 talk about worldwide floods, why not talk about the

14 Chicago fire.

15 Q Finally, Doctor Ruse, do you have any professional

16 observation with respect to Subsection 6 of 4(b)?

17 A Yes. I'd say that an inception several billion

18 years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life, I think

19 that evolutionists would accept this.

20 Q And how does that relate to 4(a)(6)?

21 A Well, a relatively recent inception of the earth and

22 living kinds, again, this is the position which is taken

23 in the scientific Creationist literature.

24 No actual times are given here. I mean, I take it, it

25 could be anything from five million years ago to about a


1 A (Continuing) week last Thursday. But certainly we

2 think it would be interpreted in this way, along with the

3 scientific creationist literature that what we are talking

4 about is six, ten thousand years ago. The sort of Genesis

5 scale that we heard about yesterday.

6 Q Do you find that theory of a young earth in the

7 creation science literature?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Do you find that theory of a young earth any place

10 other than in the creation science literature?

11 A No.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, does a creation theory necessarily

13 require a young earth?

14 A I wouldn't have thought so, no. I would have

15 thought that one could have a relatively old earth and

16 still have some sort of creation theory.

17 Q Doctor Ruse, you also testified that another

18 similarity between the Statute and the body of creation

19 science literature is the reliance on a two model approach

20 to the teaching of origins?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Would you please describe what you meant by that?

23 A Well, what `I mean by this is that everything is

24 being polarized in the Act. And this polarization is

25 something which is very distinctive of the scientific


1 A (Continuing) creationist literature. You've got to

2 be either one or the other.

3 And as I see matters, truly, and if you look at what

4 evolutionists and other scientists are saying is, they are

5 saying, "Well, no, there could be other options." One

6 doesn't have to say, "Well, it must be one or it must be

7 the other." There are all sorts of possibilities.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, the Act 590 does not use the words

9 "dual model approach." Where do you see references to

10 this so-called dual model approach that you've identified

11 in the creation science literature?

12 A Well, just as a point of order, Mr. Novik, on page

13 one I see "balanced treatment of these two models." So, I

14 mean, I think we are getting very close to a talk of dual is

15 models.

16 But of course, dual model approach is something which is

17 adopted time and again in scientific creationist

18 literature. I mean, for example, once again referring to

19 Morris' book, the two models are set out quite

20 explicitly side by side, and they look very much like

21 4(a) and 4(b).

22 Q Have you encountered this so-called dual model

23 approach to teaching science any place other than the

24 creation science literature?

25 A No.


1 Q Doctor Ruse, as a philosopher of science, what is

2 your professional opinion about the logic of the dual

3 model approach by which disproof of evolution is offered

4 as proof of creation?

5 A Well, it seems to me sort of fallacious because what

6 one is saying is you've got two alternatives and they are

7 contradictious.

8 And as I understand the true situation, what one's got

9 is several options. Not all of them could be true, but at

10 least one's got more than just two options.

11 Q Can you give an example of a particular discipline

12 of science which the creationists set up as a dual model,

13 but, in fact, you see more than two theories at work?

14 A Yes. Well, if you look, for example, at 4(b)(1),

15 "emergency by naturalistic processes of the universe from

16 disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife,"

17 well, if one's going to talk about this, in fact, there

18 are all sorts of hypotheses. I mean, there's several-

19 Q Excuse me. Are you referring to the "origin of the

20 universe or to the origin of life?

21 A I'm sorry. I'm talking specifically about the

22 origin of life here on earth, which certainly seems to be

23 included under 4(b)(l).

24 And there are all sorts of hypotheses being floated

25 around at the moment. I mean, on the one hand you've got


1 A (Continuing) people who believe some sort of, form

2 of, and by Genesis that life is created or life was

3 produced by natural law gradually from inorganic matter

4 here on earth. And there's certainly several hypotheses

5 about how this might have happened.

6 Then, again, for example, just recently Francis Crick,

7 Nobel prize winner of Watson-Crick fame, has suggested

8 that maybe life here on earth was seeded by intelligent

9 beings from outer space.

10 Then, again, another idea coming out of England, Sir

11 Fred Hoyle, and a colleague of his, Wickramasinghe, who I

12 think is one of the defendants' witnesses, they suggested

13 that possibly life came here on earth because we were

14 somehow passed through some sort of comet or some comet

15 passed close to us which carried life.

16 So, what I'm saying is that there are three, four, five

17 hypotheses being floated around at the moment as to how

18 life started here on earth.

19 And as I see it, this 4(a), 4(b) is sort of locking us

20 into saying that it is just one.

21 Q Does the two model approach take into account these

22 various theories of how life began?

23 A No. I think it sort of, what shall I say, pushes

24 them all together. They are very different.

25 Q And as a philosopher of science, focusing


1 Q (Continuing) specifically on this issue of the

2 origins of life, what do you think about, what is your

3 professional opinion about the logic of doing that?

4 A I think it's fallacious.

5 Q Now, we've been using The Origins of Life as an

6 example. Does creation science, as you know it in the

7 literature, apply the same two model approach to every

8 other aspect of the issues raised in its model?

9 A Yes, I think it does. Yes. For example, I was

10 thinking of some aptitude towards geology. Either you've

11 got to be a uniformitarian, whatever that means, or you've

12 got to be a catastrophist.

13 And I think that geologist today would certainly want to

14 sort out a lot of different options here.

15 Q Doctor Ruse, having examined the creationist

16 literature at great length, do you have a professional

17 opinion about whether creation science measures up to the

18 standards and characteristics of science that you have

19 previously identified in your testimony here today?

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q What is that opinion?

22 A I don't think it does.

23 Q Does creation science rely on natural law which you

24 identified as the first characteristic of science?

25 A It does not. It evokes miracles.


1 Q Would you explain that a bit?

2 A Well, by reading the creation science and having

3 thought about specific examples, if you want me to, is

4 that creation scientists quite openly and frequently talk

5 of supernatural interventions or processes lying outside

6 natural law.

7 Again, this goes back to something which was being

8 talked about yesterday. Nobody is saying that religion is

9 false. The point is it's not science.

10 Q Are there any examples in the creation science

11 literature that you've read that creation science does not

12 rely on natural law?

13 A Yes, there are.

14 Q Do you know of any such examples?

15 A Yes. I can give you some examples.

16 Q Could you give us one?

17 A Yes. For example, Doctor Gish's book, Evolution:

18 The Fossils Say No, states this quite explicitly.

19 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, this book identified by the

20 witness as being produced by the plaintiffs as plaintiffs,

21 exhibit 78 for identification, certain portions of that

22 book have been extracted and introduced for identification.

23 I believe Doctor Ruse is going to refer to a page that

24 has been already produced.

25 THE COURT: All right, sir.


1 A Mr. Novik, before I begin, perhaps I might note that

2 since this book was discussed yesterday that this edition

3 we are dealing with here states quite explicitly on the

4 front page that it's the public school edition, and there

5 are no disclaimers on the inside cover.

6 Okay. I'm turning now to page 40 of Evolution: The

7 Fossils Say No by Doctor Duane Gish. And this was

8 published in 1978, or at least this edition. I think it

9 came out earlier.

10 And I quote: "By creation, we mean the bringing into

11 being by a supernatural Creator — That's a capital C, by

12 the way — of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the

13 process of sudden, or fiat, creation.

14 "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes

15 He used, for," and this is all now in italics, "He used

16 processes which are not now operating anywhere in the

17 natural universe," end italics. "This is why we refer to

18 creation as special creation. We cannot discover by

19 scientific investigations anything about the creative

20 processes used by the Creator."

21 I don't think you can get much more blatant than that.

22 Q As a philosopher of science, what do you make of

23 that statement?

24 A Well, it's certainly not science.

25 Q Doctor Ruse, with respect to the second


1 Q (Continuing) characteristic of science that you

2 mentioned earlier, the matter of explanation, do you think

3 that creation science is explanatory?

4 A No, I don't because I think that as soon as anything

5 comes up, they evoke all sorts of ad hoc hypotheses, which

6 are naturally explanatory.

7 To give you an example which has a nice historical

8 connotation, there is a widespread phenomenon in the

9 organic world known as homology. That's to say, the sort

10 of structural similarities that you find, say, for

11 example, between the bones of animals of different species.

12 The bones of the human arm, for example, are very

13 similar to the bones of the horse, the foreleg of the

14 horse, the wing of the bat, the flipper of the porpoise

15 and all these sorts of things.

16 Now, these are real problems for creationists because

17 they are used for different functions and yet, why should

18 you have these similarities.

19 What creationists say, and incidentally, this is

20 something that people used to say before Darwinism, "Oh,

21 well, if you don't find any homologies, then God was just

22 working His purpose out. If you do find homologies, then,

23 well, God would have a special plan in mind."

24 I mean, in other words, it doesn't matter what comes up,

25 you know, we've got an explanation. And something which


1 A (Continuing) can explain anything is certainly no

2 true scientific explanation at all.

3 Q But isn't the creation science theory explanatory in

4 some sense? For example, the eye has to be admitted to be

5 a remarkable organ. Creation science would say it was

6 made by the Creator. Isn't that an explanation?

7 A Well, it's an explanation, but it's not a scientific

8 explanation because you are evoking a creator, you are not

9 doing it through natural law. And basically, you are not

10 saying, for example, why one eye is one way, another eye

11 is another way or particular features of the eye, per se.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, do you think that creation science is

13 testable?

14 A Not really genuinely testable, I wouldn't say.

15 Q Could you explain that?

16 A Again, this goes back to some of the points we've

17 been making. Every time one comes up with any kind of

18 evidence, the creation scientists, as I see it, sort of

19 wriggle around it.

20 One comes up with the case, for example, of the moth

21 saying, "Oh, no, this is not something which counts

22 against us." One comes up with fossil record, "Oh, no,

23 this is not something which counts against us."

24 Everything and nothing—



1 Q Is creation science falsifiable?

2 A No.

3 I'm sorry. As I was saying, there's basically nothing

4 one can think of that creation scientists couldn't fit

5 in. And I'll go even further than this, the creation

6 scientists themselves are quite explicit about this in

7 their writings.

8 They state time and again that, "Look folks, we start

9 with the Bible, this is our framework. If it doesn't fit

10 in, then we are not going to accept it."

11 Q And do you have any examples of that?

12 A Yes. I think I could give you some examples of that.

13 Q And what is that specific example?

14 A Well, one thing is the oath or the pledge that one

15 has to sign or accept if one's going to become a member of

16 the Creation Research Society, which is, I think, a

17 society out in California, founded in California for

18 creation scientists with masters or other degrees.

19 And it states quite explicitly in that—

20 Q Excuse me. Do you have a copy of that oath?

21 A Yes, I do. Do you want me to read some of this?

22 THE COURT: Is that different from the oath that was

23 read yesterday?

24 MR. NOVIK: No, it's not, your Honor. I'm not going

25 to have him read it.


1 THE COURT: You don't need to read it again for me.

2 I heard it yesterday.

3 MR. NOVIK: Yes, sir.

4 A Also, if you look in the literature itself, you find

5 explicitly time and again stated that one must follow the

6 limits set by the Bible.

7 Q Doctor Ruse, does this also bear on whether creation

8 science is tentative?

9 A Yes. Well, as I said earlier on, I mean, these are

10 all really very much a package deal, these various

11 features we are talking about.

12 And it's obviously the case that nothing is going to

13 shake the position of creation scientists about their

14 fundamental claims.

15 Q Do you have an example in the creation science

16 literature of creation science not being tentative?

17 A Yes. In, I think it's Kofahl and Segraves' The

18 Creation Explanation there is several cases.

19 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, the book, The Creation

20 Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution,

21 written by Kofahl and Segraves has been identified as an

22 exhibit for identification, number 87.

23 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

24 Q Doctor Ruse, would you identify for us the portion

25 of the book you are referring to?


1 A Yes. Referring to the book, The Creation

2 Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution, on

3 page 40 we find the following statement: "Ultimate

4 historical evidence always involves human eyewitness

5 testimony or documents left by eyewitnesses, but no such

6 testimony or documents are available for the early history

7 of the earth."

8 "One document, however, purports to give authoritative

9 testimony about the early earth from a Person — Capital

10 P, Person — who was present. This document is the Bible,

11 and its contents are to be classified not as scientific

12 evidence but as divine revelation. Such revelation is

13 either accepted by faith or rejected. Christians by faith

14 accept the biblical revelation in all of its details,

15 including its reports of early earth history. Thus the

16 Christian student of origins approaches the evidence from

17 geology and paleontology with the biblical record in mind,

18 interpreting that evidence in accord with the facts

19 divinely revealed in the Bible."

20 That is not tentative and that is not science.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, do you find that creation science

22 measures up to the methodological considerations you

23 described earlier as significant in distinguishing

24 scientific from nonscientific endeavors?

25 A No. My feeling is that really it doesn't. I think


1 A (Continuing) that, for example, they play all sorts

2 of slights of hand; they quote all sorts of eminent

3 evolutionists out of context, implying that evolutionists

4 are not saying quite what they are saying, implying they

5 are saying other sorts of things.

6 In other words, what I'm saying is, I think that the

7 creation scientists do all sorts of things that I teach my

8 students in introductory logic not to do.

9 Q With respect to the quotation out of context, do you

10 have an example of that?

11 A Yes. For example, if we look at Parker — this is

12 the recent book—

13 MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, Doctor Ruse.

14 Your Honor, the witness is referring to a book by Gary

15 Parker entitled Creation: The Facts of Life. It has

16 previously been marked for identification as exhibit 84.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Would you identify the page you are referring to?

19 A Yes. I'm looking now at page 144.

20 And incidentally, what we're talking about and what

21 Parker is going to be referring to is the article by

22 Lewontin, your Honor, which is in the book you've already

23 got upon your desk, Evolution, and it's the page exactly

24 opposite the picture of the moths.

25 And what I'm suggesting is that Parker takes Lewontin


1 A (Continuing) right out of context. It certainly

2 leaves the impression that Lewontin is saying something

3 other than what he's really saying.

4 Q The Lewontin article is on what page?

5 A It's page 115. 1 don't think it's numbered.

6 Just as a little background, Lewontin is not an eminent

7 evolutionist, but he states quite categorically on that

8 page that he is, that he accepts the evolutionary theory.

9 If you look at the final column there half way down,

10 beginning at the paragraph, Lewontin talks about the

11 modern view of adaptation is the external world has

12 certain problems and so on and so forth.

13 Q You were going to identify an out of context

14 quotation?

15 A Yes. Now, what Parker says, and I quote, is: "Then

16 there's 'the marvelous fit of organisms to the

17 environment,' the special adaptations of cleaner fish,

18 woodpeckers, bombardier beetles, etc., etc., — what

19 Darwin called `Difficulties with the Theory,' and what

20 Harvard's Lewontin (1978) called 'the chief evidence of a

21 Supreme Designer.'"

22 The quote is "the chief evidence of a Supreme

23 Designer." In fact, if you look at the original, you will

24 see that this actual passage occurs in the second column.

25 And what Lewontin is saying in the old days before we


1 A (Continuing) taught Darwin, people believed that

2 adaptation was the evidence of a designer.

3 The first paragraph, "It was the marvelous fit of

4 organisms to the environment much more than the diversity

5 of forms." That was the chief evidence of a Supreme

6 Designer.

7 Q So Lewontin was referring to the belief in a Supreme

8 Designer prior to Darwin?

9 A Certainly.

10 Q And it's quoted in Parker as if he believed

11 presently in the evidences of a designer?

12 A That's right.

13 Personally, that strikes me as a rather sleazy practice.

14 Q Doctor Ruse, you also mentioned honesty as a methodo-

15 logical type attribute of science. Do you believe that

16 creation science approaches its subject honestly?

17 A I really don't. I think that one gets all sorts of—

18 THE COURT: Who wrote the Creation book?

19 A This is Creation: The Facts of Life by Gary E.

20 Parker.

21 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

22 Q Doctor Ruse, do you believe that creation science

23 approaches its subject honestly?

24 A No, I don't.

25 Q Would you explain that, please?

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P300-333


1 A I think that they pretend to be scientific and they

2 are not going to be scientific at all. They know they are

3 not going to be scientific. And I think that they are

4 putting up a facade of being scientific when they know

5 perfectly well that they are pushing a religious belief.

6 Q Do you have any examples of the dishonesty of

7 creation science?

8 A Well, again, it's— Well, I think, for example,

9 they take things out of context like this. I think that's

10 dishonest.

11 I think, for example, in Morris' book, Scientific

12 Creationism, where they are talking about homologies.

13 They deal with it somewhat dishonestly. It's a general

14 position.

15 Q Doctor Ruse, do you have an opinion to a reasonable

16 degree of professional certainty about whether creation

17 science is science?

18 A Yes, I do.

19 Q And what is that opinion?

20 A That it is not science.

21 Q What do you think it is?

22 A Well, speaking as a philosopher and speaking, also,

23 as one who teaches philosophy of religion, I would say

24 that it is religion.

25 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions.


1 THE COURT: We will take a recess until 10:30.

2 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 10:15 a.m. to 10:38

3 a.m.)




6 Q Doctor Ruse, isn't it true the last time you were

7 actually enrolled in a course in biology was at the age of

8 approximately thirteen or fourteen?

9 A Probably more like thirteen or fourteen.

10 Q That's what I said, thirteen or fourteen.

11 A Yes.

12 Q And you have not made any independent examination of

13 the scientific data to determine whether there are

14 scientific evidences which support creation science, have

15 you?

16 A No.

17 Q You stated that all scientists that you were aware

18 of believed that evolution happened?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Do all scientists that you are aware of believe that

21 life evolved from non-life?

22 A No.

23 Q So to the extent that's part of evolution, all

24 scientists don't agree with that, do they?

25 A Well, to the extent that's evolution. But of


1 A (Continuing) course, as I said in my, earlier on, I

2 don't conclude that in evolution. I say I don't. I don't

3 think that evolutionists do.

4 Q Do not some scientists include that?

5 A Well, creation scientists.

6 Q Do not some scientists say that life emerged from

7 non-life?

8 A Well, the word "emerged", of course, is a bit of a

9 funny word.

10 Q Evolved, I'll use that word.

11 A Certainly some scientists would say that. But as I

12 said, that's not necessarily part of the theory of evolu-

13 tion.

14 Q But it is a scientific theory, nonetheless, isn't it?

15 A Well, it's a scientific hypothesis.

16 Q It is science?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And do some scientists say that, or have theories

19 about how the universe was formed?

20 A They do.

21 Q And is that science?

22 A Yes.

23 Q How it was formed initially? The ultimate origin of

24 the universe?

25 A Well, you know, you'd have to tell me what exactly


1 A (Continuing) they are saying at a particular time.

2 I mean, scientists, a lot of them are very religious, and

3 certainly, I'm quite sure that some scientists have made

4 claims that I would certainly judge to be religious and

5 have then gone on to make scientific claims.

6 Q Are you aware of what is commonly referred to as

7 "the big bang theory"?

8 A I've certainly heard of it, but, no, this isn't my

9 area of expertise.

10 Q I understand that. But you consider that to the

11 degree that you are aware of the theory to be a scientific

12 hypothesis?

13 A To the degree that I'm aware of it, yes.

14 Q Does the theory of evolution state exactly where man

15 evolved from?

16 A Not really. The theory of evolution shouldn't be

17 confused with sort of phylogeny, the actual path of evolu-

18 tion.

19 A theory is something to do with the actual causes, the

20 processes, rather than what actually happened right down

21 the line like that.

22 Now, certainly, I would say that evolutionists today

23 believe that man evolved naturally. And I'm sure we all

24 know that there is an awful lot of speculation about how

25 this occurred.


1 A (Continuing) But I wouldn't have said that the

2 actual point at which man evolved was part of the theory,

3 per se. It's something that you are going to try to

4 explain through the mechanisms.

5 Q You mentioned, I believe, was it Kant, is that

6 correct?.

7 A K-a-n-t. Immanuel Kant.

8 Q And he spoke of, perhaps, evolution of the world

9 from some sort of clouds?

10 A Right.

11 Q Would you consider that to be a scientific hypothe-

12 sis?

13 A Well, I'd say it's a scientific hypothesis.

14 Certainly at that point it wasn't much more. In the

15 nineteenth century, quite a bit of work was done on the

16 nebular hypothesis, and certain aspects of it seemed to

17 work and others didn't.

18 Q So again, that is science?

19 A Yes. I would want to say so, yes. At least I would

20 want to say that it was something which could be dealt

21 with as science.

22 Q So generally, then, in terms of looking at theories

23 of origin, we are talking about ultimate origins of the

24 universe, the planet earth, and of life; that there are

25 what you consider to be theories or hypotheses of science


1 Q (Continuing) which address these questions. Is

2 that correct?

3 A No. I don't like your words "ultimate origins". I

4 think you are trying to slip that one in there.

5 Talking of origins, yes, I think that they can be

6 scientific theories. If you're going to start talking

7 about ultimate origins in the sense of where did it all

8 begin way back when; start wondering what was before time

9 started, then I don't see that this is necessarily going

10 to be scientific at all.

11 Seems to me you are really getting into metaphysics or

12 religion.

13 Q In other words, when you say ultimate, do you

14 consider that to mean, for example, where matter came

15 from, the inorganic matter from which life later evolved?

16 A I think you certainly could. But you are talking

17 about the nebular hypothesis, for example.

18 Now, Kant, as it were, took the gases. I mean, he said,

19 "Look, we start with these gases, and there seems to be

20 evidence of these. Now, how could these, as it were,

21 develop into a universe like ours?"

22 Now, in that sort of sense of origin, I would say that

23 we could certainly have a scientific theory; we can have

24 a hypothesis. I'm not sure, though, that I'd want to talk

25 about that as ultimate origins.


1 Q I understand that your theory of evolution, as you

2 have articulated in your testimony here today, takes life

3 as a given; that there was life?

4 A Well, it's not my theory.

5 Q Well, the one that you have articulated and we have

6 adopted?

7 A Yes. I would say it takes life as a given. I'm

8 certainly not denying it, but there is going to be obvious

9 interests in, well, where did life come from before that.

10 Q And that can be a question of science?

11 A It certainly can, yes. Not that it can be, but

12 certainly is.

13 Q Then how can we, first of all, test those theories?

14 For example, the nebular hypothesis, how the world was

15 formed from clouds.

16 A Well, do you mind if we talk about how we test, say,

17 a theory, a biological theory, because, as I say, my area

18 of expertise is not positive physics.

19 Q But you have said this is a science theory, so I'd

20 like to know how—

21 A Sure. Well, what you're going to do is a number of

22 things. First of all, for example, with nebular hypoth-

23 esis, you might see, for example, whether it's happening

24 elsewhere in the universe, whether something analogous is

25 occurring. That's one way. It's sort of a natural


1 A (Continuing) experiment.

2 Alternatively, what you might try to do is run some

3 controlled experiments of your own. I mean, for example,

4 you might try to set up some sort of model which you think

5 in some respects is very similar, and then sort of run it

6 and see whether this comes out.

7 Today, obviously, you are going to be working with, say,

8 computer simulated models and so on and so forth. I mean,

9 clearly you are not going to go back to the original point

10 in time of our universe and start again and see if it

11 works.

12 Q Why not?

13 A Well, because we don't have time machines.

14 Q You can't do it?

15 A You can't do it. That doesn't mean to say that it's

16 not scientific or that the scientists can't make any

17 scientific claims about it.

18 And of course, to continue, this is the sort of thing

19 which is occurring today on the origins of life. This is

20 the sort of work scientists are doing, running experi-

21 ments, what they think would be closely analogous, these

22 sorts of things, looking for evidences.

23 Q Closely analogous?

24 A Closely analogous. What they think would be closely

25 analogous.


1 Q How it might have happened?

2 A Well, yes. I mean, the point is, look, we were not

3 there to see it happen. I mean, if we had been, I doubt

4 if you and I would be arguing like — well, we're not

5 arguing — talking like we are at the moment.

6 But what the scientist is going to do is clear up some

7 sort of hypothesis. For example, suggestion that maybe

8 the earth originally had certain gases, certain sorts of

9 compounds, certain sorts of electrical discharges and so

10 on and so forth.

11 Now, the hypothesis is that if you start with something

12 like this, then possibly way down the road, life might be

13 naturally produced.

14 And so you are going to start to think about the sorts

15 of stages in which life might be produced. First of all,

16 you are going to start with inorganic molecules, and then

17 put these people together into, say, amino acids or

18 certain more complex models, so on and so forth.

19 And what the scientist is going to do, what scientists,

20 in fact, have done is say, "Okay, here's my hypothesis.

21 Let's try running experiments to see if this works. Let's

22 mix these various compounds together; let's put some

23 electric sparks through; let's see if the sorts of things

24 that I would like to see occur, my hypothesis predicts,

25 do, in fact, attain."


1 A (Continuing) This, of course, is what they've done,

2 and sometimes it hasn't worked. But sometimes it

3 certainly has.

4 Q How do scientists know what gases there were when

5 the world or the earth was formed?

6 A Well, there are various ways in which you can do

7 this. I mean, for example, you can study what there was,

8 you know, what's on other planets, what's on other

9 universes.

10 Q How do we know what was on this planet?

11 A Well, when we look at what the properties of the

12 earth are, these sorts of things, we can calculate what is

13 going to be thrown out from the sun or if something

14 exploded, what sorts of things are on our earth, what

15 sorts of things are on other planets, calculating with

16 gravity what sorts of things would have been lost, say,

17 from Jupiter or Mars but not from our earth, and so on and

18 so forth.

19 Q And from that we'd know what was on this planet?

20 A No. I don't think anybody is talking about 'we know

21 what's on this planet.' In fact, you may well know that

22 there's quite a controversy at the moment among scientists.

23 So again, I do want to emphasize I'm not a philosopher

24 of physics. But I read an article in Science I think

25 about this time last year where there's some controversy


1 A (Continuing) now about which, exactly which

2 processes or which products, in fact, were on earth.

3 But one's inferring back, as one always does, one is

4 working analogically from other planets and so on and so

5 forth.

6 Q So if we don't really know what the elements were,

7 how can we test or falsify that?

8 A Well, I think you are using the word "know" in

9 either `I know it or I don't know it.' It's sort of black

10 or white.

11 Now, I mean, there's a lots of sorts of shades of gray

12 in between. I mean, we've got certain sorts of

13 hypotheses, these sorts of things. Some things we know or

14 we feel more reasonably assured about than others.

15 And certainly if I've given the impression, for example,

16 that, what shall I say, of beliefs about the origination

17 of life here on earth, it's something that a scientist

18 today would want to claim, "Now I know; now there's no

19 doubt," then I'm sorry. I've certainly given a false

20 impression because that's not so.

21 This is the way that science works. You try out

22 hypotheses. You throw them up, you work with them. If

23 they seem to go for a while, then they enter as they were

24 in the community of science for a while.

25 If there seems to be things against them, then you put


1 A (Continuing) them on the back shelf, so on and so

2 forth.

3 Q You've stated that since shortly after Origin of

4 Species was published, evolution had never been

5 questioned, is that correct?

6 A No, I didn't say that. What I said was shortly

7 after the Origin of Species was published, credible

8 scientists, certainly scientists working in the field at

9 all interested in the topic — I'm not talking, now, about

10 creation scientists, obviously — were won over almost

11 completely to an evolutionary position.

12 Now, certainly, there were one or two old men who died

13 believing in sort of God's instantaneous creation. Adam

14 Safley, for example.

15 But my point and the point I certainly want to stand by

16 is that the scientific community was won over incredibly

17 rapidly, certainly, in Britain, which, of course, is what

18 I've written about most, but also, I think, in North

19 America to a great extent.

20 Now, for example, there's one well-known American, Swiss

21 American, Louie Agassiz, at Harvard who never became an

22 evolutionist. I think he died about 1872, 1873.

23 On the other hand, interestingly, his son, Alexander,

24 became quite a fervent evolutionist.

25 Q You stated, though, that in looking at Darwin's


1 Q (Continuing) Origin of the Species that all

2 scientists don't agree on natural selection. Some would

3 argue natural selection. Some would argue random factors

4 such as genetic drift. Is that correct?

5 A Well, no. Again, I didn't quite say that. What I

6 said was that there's quite a bit of debate both at the

7 time of Darwin and today about the causes of evolution.

8 My feeling is, and I think I can go so far as to say

9 that this is a very professional feeling, is that there

10 weren't many evolutionists who denied natural selection

11 role.

12 I think increasingly they've allowed natural selection

13 an important role. And I think — I say even today — I

14 think today that this would be general consensus that

15 natural selection is extremely important.

16 People from Darwin on have always said that there are

17 other causes, and there is quite a controversy today. But is

18 what is not often known is that there was a great contro-

19 versy at Darwin's time.

20 For example, Darwin's supposedly great supporter, T. H.

21 Huxley, who was well-known for getting up and debating

22 with the Bishop of Oxford, in fact, always had quite

23 severe doubts about the adequacy of selection.

24 Q Also, are not some scientists today arguing some-

25 thing which is commonly termed the "punctuated equilibrium


1 Q (Continuing) theory of evolution"?

2 A They certainly are. In fact, I can see at least two

3 or three of them right here today watching us. I hope

4 they are enjoying themselves.

5 Yes. Because they are punctuated equilibrists — I

6 suppose that's the sort of term — you might want to slap

7 a subpoena on them and find out exactly what they do

8 believe.

9 Because they believe it, I would say that they also

10 believe that selection is important. I mean, what they

11 are saying is selection is not everything.

12 Q And is one of the people who you would identify with

13 that group, in fact, one of the leading authorities on

14 that Stephen J. Gould, one of the plaintiffs' other

15 witnesses?

16 A Yes. And furthermore, I'd want to say one of the

17 most important and stimulating evolutionist writing today,

18 a man for whom I've got a great deal of admiration.

19 Q You've talked about how the creation scientists

20 quote evolutionists out of context, using one sentence.

21 Yet, if an evolutionist should quote a creation scientist

22 out of context, would that be any less dishonest, in your

23 opinion?

24 A I think that I would have to say that it would be no

25 less dishonest if one sort of played fast and loose with


1 A (Continuing) that point there.

2 Q And when you quote from some of the books you

3 mentioned earlier, specifically, Doctor Gish's book, you

4 didn't point out to the Court, did you, that Gish goes on

5 to talk about how neither, under the pure definition as

6 articulated by Karl Popper, neither evolution nor creation

7 science can qualify as a scientific theory?

8 A I thought it was—

9 Q Did you point that out? If you did, I didn't hear

10 it.

11 A Well, if you didn't hear it, then I expect I

12 probably didn't. But I, you know— Let me add very

13 strongly that I want to dispute the implication that I'm

14 being dishonest at this point.

15 My understanding was it wasn't evolution on trial here;

16 that it was, if you like, creation. That's the first

17 point. And secondly, as you know, I personally don't

18 necessarily accept everything that Popper wants to say.

19 So I've don't think that I've quoted Gish out of context

20 at all. I was asked to give an example of a passage in

21 scientific creationist writings where the scientific

22 creationists quite explicitly appeal to processes outside

23 the natural course of law.

24 Now, I'd be happy to reread it, but I think that's what

25 I did, and I think I did it fairly.


1 Q Doctor Ruse, you and I can agree, can we not, that

2 that book does specifically talk about how in the author's

3 opinion if you used the criteria which you have used this

4 morning of testability, falsifiability and the other

5 criteria, that neither creation science nor evolution

6 science can be classified as a scientific theory?

7 A I think we can agree on that. I think I can go

8 further and say that this is a very common claim by the

9 scientific creationists that neither side is— I mean, I

10 don't think they are altogether consistent at times.

11 I mean, for example, I've got a book by these people,

12 what is it, Kofahl and Segraves, who talk about a

13 scientific alternative to evolution.

14 Sort of on page one, on the cover, I'm told that it is

15 scientific. And then, you know, later on we're told,

16 well, neither is scientific. I mean, you know, to a

17 certain extent, pay your money, take your choice.

18 Q Don't the creation scientists make the claim that

19 creation science is as scientific as evolution science?

20 A Well, you know, it's like—

21 Q Excuse me. Can you answer my question? Do they

22 make that claim?

23 A What? That it's as scientific?

24 Q Yes.

25 A No. They make so many different sort of fuzzy


1 A (Continuing) claims. What they say is that, they

2 quite often say that they are the same status.

3 Now, sometimes they want to say they are both

4 scientific; sometimes they want to say they are both

5 philosophical; sometimes they want to say they are both

6 religious, which is certainly true.

7 And of course, this is one of the things I was talking

8 about with Mr. Novik, that the creation scientists want to

9 put evolutionary theory and creation theory on the same

10 footing.

11 My understanding, that's what the bill is all about.

12 Q You also quoted some works, a book by Parker?

13 A Yes.

14 Q That was by Gary Parker, is that right?

15 A That's right, yes

16 Q It was not Larry Parker?

17 A No. It was Gary Parker, Creation: The Facts of

18 Life.

19 Q You testified on: direct examination that Section

20 4(a) of Act 590 as it, defines creation science is

21 identical to— Act 590 is identical to the creation

22 science literature, the definition used. Is that correct?

23 A Yes. In the sense that this is one paragraph, and

24 creation science literature is, you know, there's an awful

25 lot of it. Pretty Victorian in its length.


1 Q The creation science literature that you have read,

2 some of it does rely upon religious writings, does it not?

3 A It does.

4 Q And Act 590 specifically prohibits the use of any

5 religious writing, does it not?

6 A Yes. But if you will remember, I was very careful

7 to state and, furthermore, to keep the sorts of references

8 I was dealing with to public school editions as much as I

9 could.

10 For example, Scientific Creationism, the book that I

11 referred to, that comes in a Christian edition as well.

12 And I deliberately didn't use that one. I wanted to use a

13 nonreligious version.

14 Q Within Act 590, is creation science ever identified

15 or called a theory?

16 A Well, I don't see the word "theory" there, just as I

17 said earlier. I see the whole passages as being written

18 very carefully to avoid the use of the word theory.

19 But as I went on to say, in my professional opinion, I

20 don't think that one can read this without understanding

21 "theory."

22 And if you remember, I drew this particularly on the

23 analysis of the first two sentences. In other words,

24 4(a), creation science means the scientific evidences for

25 creation, et cetera. Evolution science means the


1 A (Continuing) scientific evidences for evolution.

2 And my point is, was, that it doesn't make any sense to

3 talk about scientific evidences in isolation. I mean,

4 scientific evidences mean, well, what? Scientific

5 hypothesis, scientific theory.

6 Q How about data, the facts?

7 A What about the facts?

8 Q Cannot scientific evidences mean the scientific data?

9 A Not just a naked fact on its own, that's not

10 scientific. I mean, it could just as well be religious or

11 metaphysical or anything mathematical.

12 You see, the thing is, science is a body of knowledge

13 which you try to bind together to lead to scientific

14 understanding. Facts disembodied on their own are not

15 part of science. It's only inasmuch as your bringing

16 together within a sort of framework that you start to get

17 science.

18 And that's precisely why I want to say that creation

19 science means scientific evidences for creation is

20 meaningless unless you are talking about a theory of

21 creation.

22 Q What is a model?

23 A In my opinion, a model is — it's one of those words

24 which is very commonly used I think of a model as being

25 a sort of subpart of a theory.


1 A (Continuing) For example, another of the witnesses,

2 Doctor Ayala, has written a book called Evolving: The

3 Theory and Processes of Evolution. And presumably, I

4 assume what he's doing is, in the overall context, talking

5 about a theory, and then later on he talks about models

6 where what he's trying to do is set up specific little

7 sort of explanations to deal with specific sorts of

8 situations.

9 Q So a model is more narrow than a theory? A theory

10 is broader? Is that generally—

11 A Well, let me put it this way. That's the way which

12 I would use it as a philosopher of science. And I think

13 most philosophers of science would know what I'm talking

14 about

15 Q Can you have scientific evidences for a model?

16 A Well, a scientific model is certainly something that

17 you use in the context of scientific evidences, but

18 certainly.

19 Q You talked about the use of the word "kind". You

20 said that's not an exact term?

21 A Yes.

22 Q In taxonomy are the terms species in general and

23 other classifications, are they fixed? Has there been no

24 change in them?

25 A What do you mean by "fixed, has there been no


1 A (Continuing) change in them"?

2 Q Well, has the definition of the species or the

3 particular classification of animals, for examples, into

4 species, has that been unchanging through time?

5 A Well, you know, that's a very interesting question

6 from a historical point of view. And certainly, I think

7 one can see differences in emphasis.

8 But I think it's very interesting, for example, that you

9 talk about species that, in fact, you see a concept of

10 species being used, say, in the early nineteenth century,

11 before Darwin, which is very, very similar in many

12 respects to the concept of species today.

13 That's to say, a species is a group of organisms like

14 human beings which breed between themselves, don't breed

15 with others. And certainly this was a notion of species

16 which certainly goes back, as I know it, a couple of

17 hundred years.

18 Certainly, again, genera and higher orders, perhaps

19 higher orders are, as we all know, brought up a lot more

20 arbitrary in the sense that it's a lot more place for the

21 taxonomist to make his or her own decisions.

22 Q Species, you said, though, are groups which

23 interbreed and do not breed with other groups?

24 A Basically, yes.



1 Q For example, is a dog a different species than a

2 wolf?

3 A I guess so.

4 Q Do they interbreed, to your knowledge?

5 A Sometimes you get this. But of course, the point

6 is, you see, you can't turn this one against me because

7 I'm an evolutionist and I expect to find that. This is

8 the whole point about the evolutionary theory.

9 Q But the definition for species that you gave me

10 breaks down in that one example, does it not?

11 A Oh, listen, that's the whole— Any definition you

12 give in biology, you are going to find conflicts. For

13 example, what I'm doing is I'm giving you the point about

14 biological concepts, is that they are not like triangles.

15 If I give you a definition of triangle, then if it

16 hasn't got three sides, it ain't a triangle. On the other

17 hand, when you are dealing with concepts in the biological

18 world, then you are dealing with things which are a great

19 deal fuzzier. Now, that doesn't mean to say we don't have

20 paradigm cases.

21 I mean, for example, humans don't breed with cabbages;

22 we don't breed with horses; we are a good, you know,

23 classification of the species.

24 Now, of course, as an evolutionist, my belief is that



1 A (Continuing) one species will change into another

2 or can split into two different ones.

3 Of course, I expect to find species all the way from

4 being one species like human beings to being sort of two

5 separate species like, you know, say, some sort of species

6 of fruit fly and human beings.

7 So the fact that we find, you know, borderline cases, it

8 doesn't worry me at all.

9 Q You testified concerning kinds, that that concept

10 did not have any fixed definition. But your definition of

11 species does not apply to the just one example I

12 mentioned. Is that not correct, Doctor Ruse?

13 A Well, I think you are twisting my words, Mr.

14 Williams.

15 Q I'm just merely asking you, does your definition of

16 species, that they interbreed within themselves and do not

17 breed with others, does that fit the example of the

18 species of a dog and wolf?

19 A No, it doesn't. But—

20 Q Thank you.

21 You had discussed the example of these peppered moths as

22 an example of evolution. Did those peppered moths—

23 There were peppered moths and what was the other, a

24 darker colored moth, is that correct?

25 A Yes. There's light and dark.


1 Q Now, did the peppered moths become dark colored?

2 Did they change into dark colored moths?

3 A No. You mean, did the individual moth change?

4 Q Or the species changed?

5 A The species, yes. Certain races or groups, popula-

6 tions within the species did indeed, yes.

7 Q Are you aware that in discussing that example in the

8 introduction to the Origin of Species, L. Harrison

9 Matthews stated that these experiments demonstrate natural

10 selection in action, but they do not show evolution in

11 progress?

12 A Am I aware of that passage?

13 Q Yes.

14 A I have glanced through it. I am quite sure you are

15 reading correctly, and I know those are the sorts of

16 sentiments which he expresses in that introduction.

17 Q Is L. Harrison Matthews, to your knowledge, a

18 creation scientist?

19 A You certainly know perfectly well that I know that

20 he isn't.

21 Q Was any new species created — excuse me — evolved

22 in that peppered moth example?

23 A To the best of my knowledge, no.

24 Q So you had two species when you started and you had

25 two species—


1 A No. You've got two forms within the same species.

2 Q All right. Two forms.

3 And there were still two forms, correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Now, you mentioned that, in discussing the defini-

6 tion of creation science in the Act, that they — "they"

7 being the creation scientists — talk about a relatively

8 recent inception of the earth, and you take that to mean

9 six to ten thousand years?

10 A Well, as I say, I interpret that against the

11 scientific creationist literature. As I said, if you just

12 look at the sentence right there, it could be anything

13 from, well, let's say, a hundred million years to, as I

14 said, a week last Friday.

15 Q So it could be several million years old and still

16 be relatively recent on the scale of the several billion

17 year age which some scientists think the earth is?

18 A Yes, I think it could be.

19 Q You also talked about the two model approach, which

20 you say it polarizes. It's either/or?

21 A Right.

22 Q And just looking at the origin of life and of man

23 and the universe, can you think of any other options

24 besides there was some sort of creator at some point and

25 there was not?


1 A Well, you know, I find that very difficult to answer

2 because that's a sort of religious question or at least a

3 metaphysical question.

4 And I think one would have to specify a little more

5 definitely what you meant by creator in that sort of

6 context.

7 I mean, now, if you say to me, "Well, by creator, I mean

8 Yahweh of the Old Testament, then, yes, I would say that,

9 for example, I could think of some sort of life force or

10 world force, like, for example, Plato suggests in The

11 Timaes.

12 So I can think of lots of different notions of creator.

13 And same of the others were talking about some of these

14 yesterday, so I certainly think there are lots of options

15 that are open.

16 Q But if we talk about creator in the broad context of

17 that word, can you think of any other options besides

18 having a creator and not having a creator?

19 A I don't really think I can. But as I say, not

20 having a creator, does that mean that the earth is eternal

21 or that it just was caused by nothing?

22 Q I'm not asking you what significance you would

23 attach to it. I'm asking if you can think of any other

24 options?

25 A Well, I'll tell you something, I'm not altogether


1 A (Continuing) sure that I know what the disjunction

2 means. So if I say no, I can't, I have to confess it's at

3 least partly predicated on the fact that your question—

4 And I'm not trying to be clever, now. It's just so

5 fuzzy that I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

6 Q If there are two approaches, two models, and if they

7 should be mutually exclusive, would not evidence against

8 one be evidence for the other if they are mutually

9 exclusive?

10 A If they are, then, of course, I would agree with

11 what you're saying. However, you've got the if in.

12 Q I understand that.

13 A And if wishes came true, then beggars could ride.

14 Q You also talked about the other theories on, as I

15 understand, the creation of life or how life came about,

16 let me put it that way. And you mentioned one that life

17 was generated by some slow processes. And you mentioned a

18 theory or hypothesis espoused by Crick. And then you

19 mentioned one espoused by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.

20 Do you consider those to be scientific hypotheses?

21 A Well, I'll tell you, I haven't read Crick's book, to

22 be quite honest about it. I just saw a review of it in

23 the New York Review of Books. I have read rather quickly

24 Hoyle and Wick—whatever it is, book.



1 A (Continuing)

2 I thought, and this, was my opinion, that at least parts

3 of it were acceptable as scientific hypotheses. Person-

4 ally, I thought that they ignored an awful lot of evidence,

5 but I thought parts of it.

6 On the other hand, I think that finally there are parts

7 of their book where they certainly seemed to me to slop

8 over into religion.

9 However, I would want to say that at least as far as

10 life coming here on this earth is concerned, I would have

11 thought that this is at least a form that science could be.

12 I mean, it's not well confirmed science, as far as I know.

13 Q Directing your attention to Act 590, again, let's

14 look at 4(a)(2) which mentions the insufficiency of

15 mutation and natural selection in bringing about

16 development of all living kinds from a single organism.

17 First of all, do you know whether there is any

18 scientific evidence to support that portion of the

19 definition?

20 A Well, I don't like the term "single organism"

21 there. I don't know that there is any scientific evidence

22 to suggest that it's a single organism or many organisms.

23 And I'm not sure that anybody else does.

24 Q All right. Let's look at the first part?

25 A The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection

in bringing about development of all living kinds. Yes.


1 A (Continuing) I would have thought that, for

2 example, there is good evidence to suggest that certain

3 random processes are also extremely important.

4 Q And could there be natural laws which would be

5 utilized in looking at that aspect of the definition?

6 A I would have thought so, yes. Of course, it doesn't

7 necessarily— I mean, part of the excitement is we don't

8 know all of the laws. And if we knew all of the laws,

9 there would be no jobs for evolutionists.

10 The excitement of being a scientist is that a lot of the

11 laws we don't know at the moment, but we are working

12 towards them.

13 Q And science is a changing—

14 A It's an ongoing process, yes.

15 Q And when we look back now at some of the things

16 which were considered to be scientific years ago, in light

17 of our present-day knowledge, they don't seem very

18 scientific, do they?

19 A You know, again, that's an interesting question.

20 They certainly wouldn't be very scientific if we held

21 them, and certainly there are some things that we would

22 count out.

23 We'd say today, for example, "Well, that's not

24 scientific; that's obviously religious. On the other



1 A (Continuing) hand, there are some things I think

2 we'd want to say, well, no. Obviously we wouldn't hold

3 them as scientific today, but they certainly were validly

4 scientific by our own criteria in the past.

5 I mean, for example, the Ptolemaic system belief that

6 the earth was at the center, and in my opinion, was a

7 perfectly good scientific theory. It made a lot of sense.

8 Q As we, to the extent that we can, look into the

9 future, do you think that people will look back on this

10 day and age and look at what we consider now to be

11 scientific and have the same sort of impression that that

12 is not scientific as they look at it, although it may have

13 been today?

14 A Do you know, that's a very interesting question. I

15 hope I'm around two hundred years from now to answer

16 that. I hope we are both around.

17 But I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think in the

18 last two, three hundred years the notion of science has

19 started to solidify, and that, for example, at the time of

20 Newton, people were getting to the point where they could

21 have a good feel for what science was.

22 Now, certainly, I think you are right to suggest that,

23 say, a couple of hundred years from now people will look

24 back at us and say, "Well, how could they have believed

25 all those sorts of things?" And I, you know, I hope very


1 A (Continuing) much that's the case. It's going to

2 be a pretty boring future for our grandchildren, otherwise.

3 Q If we are not, science will be—

4 A But I don't think they are going to say we are not

5 scientists.

6 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, Mr. Williams on a number of

7 occasions interrupted the witness' answer, and I would

8 appreciate it if he could be instructed not to do that.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, my understanding is he's

10 finished the answer. Also, the witness has interrupted me

11 on a couple of occasions, too.

12 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. You know,

13 professors talk too much.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

15 Q Now, looking back at the definition in 4(a) again,

16 if you look at 4(a)(3), "changes only within fixed limits

17 of originally created kinds of plants and animals," if we

18 start looking at the degree of change, is that not

19 something we can look at by resort to natural laws?

20 A That we can use— That we can look at— Now, I'm

21 not quite sure I'm following you.

22 Q (3) speaks of the degree of change that there is.

23 A We can certainly look, for example, at how much

24 change has occurred since certain times in the past and



1 A (Continuing) using laws, of course.

2 Q Does that require miracles to study that?

3 A No, I certainly don't think it does, because

4 evolutionists do this and they don't use miracles.

5 Q And (4), looking at the ancestry for man and apes.

6 It says "separate" there. But separate or not separate,

7 did that require the implication of miracles to study that?

8 A No. But of course, it does require the willingness

9 to be prepared to take counter-evidence to what you find.

10 And as I pointed out earlier, I don't think creation

11 scientists would be prepared to take counter-evidence.

12 Again, for example, one could talk about Parker's book

13 where he flatly denies or twists every finding by paleo-

14 anthropologists in the last ten years about human ancestry.

15 Q Looking, then, at (5), explanation of the earth's

16 geology, is explanation of the earth's geology something

17 which we could study by resort to natural laws rather than

18 miracles?

19 A Yes it is.

20 Q And (6) "a relatively recent inception of the earth

21 and living kinds." There we are talking about the age of

22 the earth and how long life has been on the earth. Can we

23 look at that or resort to natural laws without looking at

24 miracles?

25 A We can. However, what I do want to suggest is that


1 A (Continuing) very frequently the creation

2 scientists do not. They argue, for example, that the laws

3 change or speeded up or grew in certain intensities and so

4 on and so forth.

5 So, certainly, I think one can study the age of the

6 earth naturally by using laws and inferring back. I'm

7 quite prepared to accept that.

8 I'm not prepared to accept that creation scientists do

9 do it.

10 Q You said that something which can explain everything

11 is not a scientific theory?

12 A Right.

13 Q If that statement were true about the theory of

14 evolution, it, therefore, would not be a scientific

15 theory, would it?

16 A Well, it's another of your hypotheticals, Mr.

17 Williams.

18 Q Well, I'm asking you if it were true?

19 A But I'm just saying, accepting the hypothetical that

20 if it were the case, then your consequent follows.

21 However, once again, we've got, "If it were the case."

22 Now, what I'm saying and what I've said earlier is that

23 it's not the case, so I argue that the consequent doesn't

24 follow.

25 Q You also talked about creation science or about the


1 Q (Continuing) quality or attribute or criteria of

2 science as being falsifiable. And you said that creation

3 scientists, they start with the Bible and if it doesn't

4 fit in there, we don't accept it?

5 A Right.

6 Q As you look in Act 590, does it limit the scientific

7 evidence which can be brought in to support creation

8 science to Biblical references?

9 A Act 590 says nothing at all about the Bible in the

10 sense that Act 590 does not use the term "the Bible"

11 anywhere.

12 Q What does Act 590 say you can use to support

13 creation science?

14 A Well, the words are "scientific evidences."

15 Q All right. Thank you.

16 The books you have referred to, do you happen to know

17 whether those have been accepted by the Arkansas Depart-

18 ment of Education for use as textbooks in implementing Act

19 590?

20 A No, I don't.

21 Q Many of them, in fact, based upon your own

22 knowledge, would not stand the scrutiny of this law

23 because they do rely upon religious references, is that

24 not true?

25 A That's the problem, Mr. Williams.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P334-366


1 Q Excuse me. Could I get an answer to my question

2 first?

3 A Yes. The answer is yes. But of course, if I just

4 finish by saying yes, I've only said half of what I want to say.

6 Q I'm not trying to cut you off

7 A I've just said what you want me to say. Fine.

8 Q And you state finally that creation science is not a

9 science; it is a religion. And you base that in part

10 upon your own experience in teaching the philosophy of

11 religion. Is that correct?

12 A I do, yes.

13 Q Does the science curriculum in secondary schools

14 have an effect one way or the other for good or ill on a

15 student when that student enters a university to study

16 science?

17 A Is this sort of a general question?

18 Q You can take the question as you will. It's a

19 question.

20 A I would have thought so, yes.

21 Do you recall that you told me in your deposition

22 that you said, "I don't know," in answer to that question?

23 A Well, as I said, you don't— I think it's a very

24 general sort of question which is so general, I mean, you

25 could put it at different levels. And in the context of


1 A (Continuing) our discussion earlier, it could have

2 been much more specific, in which case I would have said I

3 don't know.

4 Q Is creation science taught in the public schools of

5 Canada?

6 A My understanding — and again, please understand I

7 do not speak as a professional educator at that level in

8 Canada, but my understanding is that in some schools it is

9 certainly taught and not simply in private schools, but in

10 some of the public schools.

11 I believe, for example, that in the Province of Alberta

12 it is taught.

13 Q Have you ever made any effort to find out how

14 creation science is taught in Canada?

15 A Have I made any effort?

16 Q Yes.

17 A In fact, interestingly, since you took my deposi-

18 tion, I have certainly talked to some of the evolutionists

19 on campus. I confess I haven't found out very much yet,

20 but I intend to.

21 Q Has the teaching of creation science ever been a

22 matter of much great debate in Canada?

23 A It's growing debate. For example, like that of the

24 event of welcoming Doctor Gish onto my campus in February,

25 I think it is.


1 A (Continuing)

2 And certainly, for example, about two months, ago I

3 debated with one of the creationists, in fact, one of the

4 co-authors of Doctor Morris' book on the equivalent of

5 public television.

6 Q But in the past, has it been a matter of much debate

7 or controversy in Canada?

8 A I wouldn't say it's been a matter of great debate,

9 great controversy. I confess, you know, an awful lot of

10 Canadian news tend to be about you folks, and you polarize

11 things much more quickly than we do.

12 That's not a criticism, by the way.

13 Q When you teach your courses in philosophy, do you

14 try to give some sort of balanced treatment to

15 different is theories, different types of philosophy?

16 A I certain try to give a balance treatment to what I

17 teach. But it doesn't follow that I should teach every

18 particular philosophy that every particular philosopher

19 has ever held or anybody else has ever held.

20 Q But you do teach some philosophies which might be

21 conflicting or at least not consistent with each other?

22 A I certainly do, in a historical context. I mean, I

23 teach— Look, I teach creationism in a historical

24 context. I mean, I teach history of science, I talk about

25 creationism as it was up through the 1850's and this sort


1 A (Continuing) of thing.

2 So, I mean, of course, I'm teaching it in a historical

3 context.

4 Q But you try to be fair in teaching these different

5 philosophies, don't you?

6 A I certainly do. For example, I'd like to think that

7 I'm being fair to the creationists, for example, in my

8 book on The Darwinian Revolution.

9 Q Do you have any objection to all of the scientific

10 evidence on theories of origin being taught in the public

11 school science classroom?

12 A Well, you used that term "scientific evidence"

13 again. I'm not prepared to accept scientific evidence

14 without talking about the theory.

15 If you say to me, do I have any objection to all

16 theories which I hold as, what shall I say, which are held

17 by the consensus of scientists being taught, I don't have

18 any objection, with the proviso that, of course, at the

19 high school level, at the university level, undergraduate

20 level, you are certainly not going to try to teach every-

21 thing.

22 And in fact, as I see it, high school level and also at

23 the university level, one is going to be teaching the

24 basic, the fundamentals. Certainly, one is going to talk

25 about some of the controversies, some of the ideas, this


1 A (Continuing) sort of thing.

2 But as far as, for example, teaching the latest thing in

3 punctuated equilibria at the high school level, somebody

4 said, "Oh, well, we are going to spend, say, six weeks on

5 punctuated equilibria."

6 I'd say, "Well now, listen, fellow, maybe you should be

7 spending a bit more time on Mendel's laws."

8 Q What you are saying, then, is because of a limited

9 amount of time, choices do have to be made in curriculum?

10 A Not just because of a limited amount of time, but

11 because of the whole general philosophy of proper

12 education that educators must select.

13 Education isn't sort of an indifferent—

14 THE COURT: Where are you going with that?

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Pardon?

16 THE COURT: What is the point of going into that?

17 MR. WILLIAMS: The point of that is that in teaching

18 all scientific evidence and that curriculum has to be, he

19 will concede that you have to make some choice of

20 curriculum.

21 THE COURT: That seems so obvious to me.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, to some degree. It's not

23 obvious in the plaintiffs' pleadings, your Honor. They

24 want to state that apparently the state has no right to

25 make any choice of curriculum; that, it falls to the


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing.) individual teacher to teach

2 what they want, when they want, how they want.

3 THE COURT: I don't believe they make that

4 contention, but let's go on to something else.

6 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

6 Q What is your personal belief in the existence of a

7 God?

8 A I would say that today my position is somewhere

9 between deist — that's to say in believing in some sort

10 of, perhaps, unmoved mover — and agnosticism. In other

11 words, don't really know.

12 I mean, I'm a bit like Charles Darwin in this respect.

13 Some days I get up and say, "You know, I'm sure there must

14 be a cause." And then other days I say, "Well, maybe

15 there isn't after all."

16 Q There must be a cause?

17 A There must be something that— There must have been

18 something originally.

19 Q The term "cause", what do you use that in relation

20 to your concept of a God?

21 A I'm talking about in the sense of some sort of

22 ultimate religious sort of reason. It doesn't necessarily

23 mean cause in the sense of a physical cause. It could

24 well be final cause or something like this.

25 Q Is your conception of a God some sort of world


1 Q (Continuing) force? Is that one way you would

2 describe it?

3 A As I say, I don't say my conception of a God is some

4 sort of world force. My conception is, perhaps, sometimes

5 there is more to life than what we see here and now.

6 Q But you did tell me in your deposition that your

7 conception of God would be that there might be some sort

8 of, quote, world force?

9 A There might be because, as I say, I'm not even an

10 expert on my own beliefs in this respect.

11 Q Do you have a personal belief as to whether a

12 creator, in whatever form, had a hand, figuratively

13 speaking, in creating the universe, the life or man?

14 A Not really. It's all so foggy to me.

15 Q Do you feel a religious person can be a competent

16 scientist, Doctor Ruse?

17 A Oh, certainly.

18 Q As you look at the definition in the Act of creation

19 science, Section 4(a)(1), "Sudden creation of life," et-

20 cetera, is that consistent with your own religious beliefs?

21 A Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life

22 from nothing. I, you know, to be perfectly honest, to me

23 it's almost a meaningless question. You say, is it

24 consistent. I think that one— This sort of level, I

25 prefer not to talk in terms of consistency.


1 A (Continuing)

2 As I say, the whole thing is simply, a mystery to me.

3 And if I say, well, is this consistent, then already I'm

4 starting to define what my position is more than I'm

5 prepared to do.

6 Q Well, you have earlier equated Section 4(a) to some

7 sort of supernatural intervention by a creator?

8 A Right.

9 Q And is that consistent with your religious beliefs?

10 A That some sort of supernatural thing way back when—

11 I don't think it's inconsistent. I don't think, on the

12 other hand, that that's a very exciting part to me. I

13 mean, quite frankly, what concerns me is not how did it

14 all start, but how is all going to end.

15 Q But did you not tell me in your deposition, Doctor

16 Ruse, that that was— I asked you the question, "Is that

17 consistent with your religious beliefs," and you said,

18 "No." I'm referring to page 52, lines 7 through 9.

19 A Okay. I'm prepared to say no. As I say, it's so,

20 foggy that I'm no, yes. We're really getting to the

21 borderline here where if you insist on an answer, I would

22 have to say, "Well, I'll give you an answer if you want

23 it, but it's, you know, it's not something I feel very

24 confident about."

25 I mean, if you ask me, "Are you wearing glasses," I can


1 A (Continuing) say yes, and I'll stand by it. If you

2 ask me, "Was there a creator," I'll have to say, "Well,

3 possibly." And if you say, "Well, do you really think

4 there is, are you not an atheist," and I'd have to say,

5 "Well, no, I'm not an atheist." That's definite.

6 Do I accept 4(a)(1), could I accept 4(a)(1), well, I

7 guess possibly I could in some respects, but other

8 respects, possibly not.

9 Q Would you look at the definition is 4(b) of

10 evolution science, 4(b)(1), for example. Would that be

11 consistent with your religious beliefs?

12 MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, your Honor. I've allowed the

13 questioning to go an without objection because I thought

14 the relevance would become apparent. To me, it has not.

15 And I object on the grounds that this line is entirely

16 irrelevant to these proceedings.

17 THE COURT: What relevance is it?

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, if the plaintiffs want to

19 stipulate that the religious beliefs of the witnesses on

20 these matters are not relevant, we will stipulate to that,

21 and I can go on to other matters.

22 THE COURT: I think the religious beliefs of the

23 witnesses could be relevant on the issue of bias or a

24 question of bias of a witness. I think they are

25 relevant. I just wonder how relevant they are to go into


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) all this kind of exchange of

2 words. It doesn't seem to get us any place.

3 MR. NOVIK: That was precisely my point.

4 THE COURT: It seems to me like you've got about as

5 much out of that as you can. If you want to continue to

6 beat it, that's fine with me.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to make sure that

8 the record is clear that, for example, in this witness'

9 case, that the theory or the part of the Act, the

10 definition section, that he personally thinks is more

11 correct is also consistent with his own religious beliefs.

12 THE COURT: Okay. If you can ever make that clear.

13 MR. WILLIAMS: I think I'd like to try, at least.

14 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's my soul which is at

15 stake, so I don't mind keeping going if we can find out

16 what—

17 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

18 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at Section 4(b) generally,

19 4(b)(4) and 4(b)(6), is it not true that when you talk

20 about man coming from a common ancestor with apes and you

21 talk about an inception of the earth several billion years

22 ago, those are consistent with your own religious beliefs?

23 A Oh, certainly. Yes.

24 Q Do you think that evolution is contrary to the

25 religious beliefs of some students?


1 A Yes. I think that I would want to say that, yes.

2 But then again, so is a lot of science.

3 Q In teaching philosophy courses, do you ever teach

4 theories or philosophies that you don't personally agree

5 with?

6 A In a historical context, certainly.

7 Q And a teacher should not have to teach only those

8 courses which they agree with, isn't that correct?

9 A Now, hang on. Try that one against me again.

10 Q Do you think a teacher should teach only those

11 things he or she agrees with?

12 A Well, you say "should only teach those things that

13 they agree with." I mean, for example, I teach a lot of

14 things that I don't agree with. But of course, as I say,

15 I do this in a historical context.

16 I mean, it seems to me that a historian could certainly

17 teach all about the rise of Hitler without being a Nazi

18 themselves.

19 Now, one can teach and deal with things that you don't

20 agree with, certainly in a historical context.

21 Q Are there scientists that you would consider

22 scientists who feel the theory of evolution cannot be

23 falsified?

24 A Are there scientists that I would consider

25 scientists— Well, now, you say the theory of evolution.


1 A (Continuing) What are you talking about?

2 Q Well, what would you consider the theory of

3 evolution?

4 A Well, I mean, are you talking about Darwinism? Are

5 you talking about punctuated equilibria? Are you talking

6 about—

7 Q Let's talk about Darwinian evolution.

8 A Certainly some people have thought that Darwinian

9 evolution cannot be falsified.

10 Q As a matter of fact, that's an increasing number of

11 scientists, isn't it?

12 A No, I don't think it is. In my opinion, it's a

13 decreasing number of scientists.

14 I'm glad you made that point because, in fact, one of

15 the leading exponents of the book, Unfalsifiability of

16 Darwinism, is Karl Popper. And recently, certainly, he's

17 started to equivocate quite strongly on this and so are a

18 number of his followers, by the way.

19 Q When did you write an article entitled "Darwin's

20 Theory: An Exercise in Science"?

21 A Well, I wrote it, I think, earlier this year. It

22 was published in June.

23 Q in that article, did you not state that, "Although

24 still a minority, an increasing number of scientists, most

25 particularly, a growing number of evolutionists,


1 Q (Continuing) particularly academic philosophers,

2 argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine

3 scientific theory at all"?

4 A I think that I'd probably say something along those

5 lines

6 Q So you did state in this article, did you not, that

7 there was an increasing number?

8 A An increasing number. I think I said an increasing

9 number, of philosophers, don't I, or people with philo-

10 sophical pretensions or something along those lines.

11 Q I think the record will speak for itself as to what

12 was said. I think the word "scientists" was used.

13 A You know, I'm not a sociologist of science. I'm not

14 a sociologist of philosophies. You know, you want to take

15 a head count, you could be right, I could be right. Who

16 knows.

17 I certainly know that a number of important scientists,

18 or I'll put it this way, a number of important philos-

19 ophers have certainly changed their minds.

20 Q Has Popper changed his mind about that?

21 A I really don't know. Popper is an old man, you

22 know. Without being unkind, I think Popper is getting to

23 the point where mind changes aren't that important to him

24 anymore.

25 Q Did he not state that evolutionary theory was not


1 Q (Continuing) falsifiable?

2 A Oh, no. Certainly at one point, Popper wanted to

3 claim that Darwinism was not falsifiable. Now, where

4 Popper stood on evolutionary theories per se, I think is a

5 matter of some debate.

6 It's certainly the case that he himself in the early

7 seventies was trying to come up with some theories which

8 he thought would be falsifiable.

9 In recent years it's certainly true to say that Popper

10 has argued more strongly that at least at some level

11 evolution theories can be falsified.

12 Q At some level?

13 A Yes.

14 Q But he also said, did he not, that evolutionary

15 theory was, in fact, a metaphysical research program?

16 A I think he said that Darwinism was. I'd have to go

17 back and check to see whether Popper ever said that all

18 evolutionary theories are unfalsifiable or metaphysical.

19 MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, your Honor. We learned from

20 the Attorney General yesterday in his opening argument

21 that the State is interested in demonstrating that

22 evolution is not science, and that evolution is religion.

23 This line of questioning seems to go to that issue.

24 The plaintiffs contend that that entire line of

25 questioning as to both of those points are irrelevant to


1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) these proceedings. Evolution

2 is not an issue in this case.

3 We have previously submitted to the Court a memorandum

4 of law arguing this issue, and I would request the Court

5 to direct defendants' counsel not to proceed along these

6 lines on the grounds stated in that motion.

7 I'd be happy to argue that briefly at the present time,

8 if the Court desires.

9 THE COURT: Is that the purpose of the questioning,

10 Mr. Williams? Are you trying to establish that evolution

11 is a form of religion?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Not this particular line of question-

13 ing itself. But in view of the Court's ruling on the

14 motion in Limine, that it is appropriate to consider

15 whether creation science is a scientific theory, I think

16 we are entitled to try to show that creation science is at

17 least as scientific as evolution.

18 Indeed, the Bill on its face raises this issue in some

19 of the findings of fact. And to the extent that they have

20 been attacking the findings of fact in the Act, I think we

21 are entitled to go into this to show one as against the

22 other, the relative scientific stature of these two models.

23 THE COURT: Why don't we take a ten minute recess,

24 and I'd like to see the attorneys back in chambers.



1 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 11:40 a.m. to 11:50

2 a.m.)

3 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, just to put this in some

4 perspective, as I understand it, the State is not making

5 the contention that evolution is not science. The purpose

6 of the questions is simply to demonstrate that some

7 scientists do not think that evolution meets all the

8 definitions of science as this witness has given a

9 definition

10 MR. WILLIAMS: That is it in part, your Honor.

11 Also, just the point being to demonstrate that, we are not

12 demonstrating that evolution is not science, but that if

13 you, according to this particular definition, that

14 creation science clearly would be as scientific in that

15 neither could meet, according to some experts, the

16 definition of a scientific theory.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

19 Q Doctor Ruse, what is the concept of teleology?

20 A Understanding in terms of ends rather than prior

21 causes.

22 THE COURT: Excuse me. What is that word?

23 MR. WILLIAMS: Teleology. T-e-l-e-o-l-o-g-y.

24 THE COURT: What is the definition? That's not one

25 of those words that's in my vocabulary.


1 THE WITNESS: Shall I try to explain this?

2 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

3 THE WITNESS: Well, a teleological explanation, for

4 example, one would contrast this with a regular causal

5 explanation. For example, if I knocked a book on the

6 floor, you might say "What caused the book to fall to the

7 floor." In which case, you are also talking about what

8 happened that made it fall.

9 A teleological explanation is often done in terms of

10 design. For example, in a sense of, "Well, what purpose

11 or what end does this glass serve." In other words, why

12 is the glass here," something along those sort of lines.

13 Sort of things that were being talked about yesterday

14 afternoon.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

16 Q And is it possible to have both a religious and sort

17 of theological concept of teleology and a nonreligious or

18 nontheological concept?

19 A It's possible. I mean, not impossible. I mean,

20 there have been both concepts.

21 Q How would you distinguish the two?

22 A Well, I would say the theological one is where, for

23 example, you explain the nature of the world in terms of

24 God's design, the sorts of things I find in 4(a), where

25 one tries to understand why the world is, as it is because

that's what God intended and that was God's end.


1 A (Continuing)

2 A non-theological one would be the kind, I think, the

3 kind of understanding that evolutionists, Darwinian

4 evolutionists, for example, who says, "What end does the

5 hand serve." In this case, they are looking at it as a

6 product of natural selection and looking at its value in a

7 sort of struggle for existence in selection.

8 Q So some modern biologists do consider themselves to

9 be teleologists?

10 A Let me put it this way. Some certain philosophers

11 think that biologists are teleologists.

12 Q Do they always use the term "teleology"?

13 A The philosophers or scientists?

14 Q The philosophers in describing this concept?

15 A Not always. In other words, sometimes used as

16 teleonomy, but I personally like the word teleology.

17 Q Is this word, teleonomy, used to show that they are

18 using the concept of teleology in its non-theological,

19 nonreligious sense?

20 A I would think that's probably true, yes.

21 Q In other words, they are trying to overcome a

22 problem of semantics?

23 A Well, they are trying to set themselves up against

24 their predecessors. Scientists like to do this.

25 Q Do you consider Thomas Coon's book, The Structure of


1 Q (Continuing) Scientific Revolutions, to be

2 recognized as an authority in either the history or

3 philosophy of science?

4 A Well, we don't have authorities in the philosophy of

5 science. You know, they are all pretty independent

6 types. I would certainly say that Thomas Coon's book is

7 considered a very important book. I think it's a very

8 important book.

9 Q In your book, The Philosophy of Biology, you state

10 that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is true

11 beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?

12 A Right.

13 Q And you further state that the falsity of its rivals

14 is beyond a reasonable doubt?

15 A Right.

16 Q Is not the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory a

17 rival to some degree to the modern synthesis theory?

18 A I'm not sure that it's a rival in the sense that I

19 was talking about it in the book, quite honestly. I dealt

20 with a number of alternatives, and punctuated equilibrium

21 theory certainly wasn't one of those which was there to be

22 considered when the book was written.

23 What I was saying was things like the original

24 Lamarckism, you know, are false beyond a reasonable

25 doubt. It certainly holds to that.


1 A (Continuing)

2 What I also said was that the importance of selection,

3 mutation, so on, are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

4 Q Again, to my question, is not the punctuated

5 equilibrium theory a rival, contrasting to the modern

6 synthesis theory which you think has been proven beyond a

7 reasonable doubt?

8 A Well, that's a nice point. I think some people

9 would think of it as such. I don't personally think of it

10 as such, and I'm glad to find that a lot of evolutionists

11 like Ayala doesn't think of it as such.

12 Q Others do, do they not?

13 A Well, quite often I think some of the people who put

14 it up like to think of it as a rival. But, you know,

15 we're still— I mean, the punctuated equilibria theory is

16 a very new theory. We're still working on the sort of

17 conceptual links between it and the original theory.

18 And I think it's going to take us awhile yet to decide

19 whether we are dealing with rivals or complements or

20 whatever.

21 But of course, let me add that in no sense does this at

22 any point throw any doubt upon evolution itself. We are

23 talking just about causes.

24 Q Is defining a science a task which falls to

25 philosophers rather than to scientists themselves?


1 A Well, it falls to people acting as philosophers.

2 Scientists can certainly act as philosophers.

3 Q So is science a question of philosophy?

4 A It's a philosophical question.

5 Q Do philosophers uniformly agree on what is science?

6 A I think that basically we would agree, yes.

7 Q They would not agree entirely, would they?

8 A Well, philosophers never agree entirely. Do lawyers?

9 Q Do you think that in the society with a commonly

10 held religious belief that religion could properly be

11 taught in the public schools?

12 A Try that one on me again.

13 Q Do you think in a society with a commonly held

14 religion that religion could properly be taught in the

15 public schools?

16 A Yes. I think that for example, in medieval Europe

17 where, in fact, everybody is a Catholic, I see no reason

18 not to teach it in the public schools.

19 Of course, that has absolutely no relevance to us here

20 today. We are talking about America and we are talking

21 about Arkansas.

22 Q Is part of your opposition to creation science, and

23 more specifically to Act 590, based on your belief that

24 it's just a foot in the door, as you view it, for the

25 fundamentalist religious groups?


1 A Yes, I think I would. It's part of my belief. I

2 mean, I think it's important to oppose Act 590 in its own

3 right. I think it's wrong, dreadfully wrong. But

4 certainly I do see it as a thin end of a very large wedge,

5 yes.

6 Q And you see it as some sort of wedge which includes

7 attacks on homosexuality on women and on other races,

8 don't you?

9 A Insofar as it spreads a very natural literalistic

10 reading of the Bible, which as you know and I know

11 certainly says some pretty strong things about, say,

12 homosexuals, for example, certainly, yes, I can see it as

13 a thin end of a very big wedge, yes.

14 Q But Act 590 has absolutely nothing to say on those

15 subjects, does it?

16 A Well, I didn't say that it did. I mean, my point

17 simply is that if you allow this, this is the thin end of

18 the wedge. You don't talk about all the wedge when you

19 are trying to shove the tip in.

20 Q We are dealing here with the law, Doctor Ruse. And

21 is it not true that part of your reason for being against

22 the law is what you think might happen in the future if

23 this law should be upheld?

24 A Certainly. But as I said earlier, my opposition to



1 A (Continuing) the law is independent in its own

2 right.

3 Q I understand that.

4 Who is Peter Medawar?

5 A I think he's a Nobel Prize winner, a biologist or

6 biochemist. Lives in England.

7 Q Is it not true that he has stated and as you quote

8 in your book that there are philosophical or

9 methodological objection to evolutionary theory; it is

10 too difficult to imagine or envision an evolutionary

11 episode which could not be explained by the formula of

12 neo-Darwinism?

13 A Medawar as opposed to Darwinism. But of course,

14 that does not mean in any sense that Medawar opposes

15 evolutionary theory in the sense of general evolution per

16 se.

17 Q But isn't what Medawar is saying there is what we

18 talked about this morning, that Darwinism can accommodate

19 any sort of evidence?

20 A But you are doing what we talked about this

21 morning. You are confusing the causes with the fact of

22 evolution.

23 Yes, Medawar was certainly uncomfortable, let's put it

24 that way. I don't know where he stands today. I know

25 that Popper has drawn back, but Medawar was certainly

uncomfortable with the mechanism of neo-Darwinism.


1 A (Continuing)

2 But to the best of my knowledge, Medawar has never, ever

3 denied evolution.

4 Q Is Medawar a creation scientist?

5 A I said to the best of my knowledge, Medawar has

6 never, ever denied evolution.

7 Q Do you consider the Natural History Branch of the

8 British Museum to be a creation science organization?

9 A Of course, I don't.

10 Q Is it true that this museum has had a display which

11 portrays creation science as an alternative to Darwinism?

12 A Well, of course, this is hearsay. I guess we are

13 allowed to introduce this, but my understanding is, yes, I

14 read it in the "New Scientist." I've certainly been told

15 about this, yes. I think it was a shocking thing to do,

16 frankly.

17 Q That's your personal opinion?

18 A That certainly is. It goes to show that this is a

19 real problem we've got in Arkansas, in Canada and, alas,

20 in England, too.

21 Q Whether it's a problem depends on one's perspective,

22 does it not, Doctor Ruse?

23 A I don't think so, no. I think the problems can be

24 objectively identified. That it smells of problems.

25 Q Do scientists, after doing a degree, a lot of work


1 Q (Continuing) in an area, sometimes, become

2 emotionally attached to a theory?

3 A Scientists are human beings. I'm sure they do.

4 Q And might they also be intellectually attached to a

5 theory?

6 A Individual scientists, certainly. But not

7 necessarily the scientific community. I mean, Louie

8 Agassiz that we talked about earlier was emotionally

9 attached to his position, but the scientific community

10 wasn't.

11 Q Had not, you written that Darwinian evolutionary

12 theory is something which you can love and cherish?

13 A Me, personally, yes, I do indeed. I think it's a

14 wonderful theory.

15 Q Also, have you not advocated that the subject of

16 creation science is a battle which you must fight?

17 A That is why I'm here.

18 Q And how long have you been writing on Darwinism

19 yourself?

20 A Oh, altogether, fifteen years. I mean, quite

21 frankly, some of my early stuff was done when I was a

22 graduate student. I mean, I don't know whether you'd call

23 that writing.

24 Q Doctor Ruse, in an article entitled "Darwin's

25 Legacy", did you state—


1 MR. NOVIK: What page?


3 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

4 Q —did you state, first of all, that Christianity and

5 other forms of theism and deism are not the only world

6 religions today; that in many parts of the world there is

7 a powerful new rival?

8 A Marxism.

9 Q And then you write at some length, do you not, about

10 Marxism, particularly as it is affected by evolutionary

11 thought, as it affects that thought?

12 A Right. I'm talking, of course, in the context, very

13 much the context of discovery there as opposed to the

14 context of justification.

15 In other words, what I'm saying is that certain

16 scientists have tried to blend their position with

17 Marxism, and certainly extra scientific ideas have been

18 importantly influential in leading people to certain

19 scientific theories.

20 I am not at all saying, for example, that evolutionary

21 theory is Marxist.

22 Q I understand that. Back to the point you just

23 mentioned, science is really not concerned, then, is it,

24 where a theory comes from or a model comes from? The more

25 important question is, does the data fit the model?


1 A Well, more important to whom? Certainly, to the

2 scientist, of course, is a question of you get the ideas

3 and then you put them in a public arena, and how do they

4 fare.

5 For example, Copernicus was a Pythagorean, but we accept

6 Copernicus' theory, not because we are Pythagoreans and

7 Sun worshipers, but because Copernicus' theory works a lot

8 better than the Ptolemaic system does.

9 Q Do you consider Marxism to be a religion?

10 A In a sense. We talked about this in the deposi-

11 tion. As I said, religion is one of these very difficult

12 terms to define.

13 I would have said if you are going to define religion

14 just in terms of belief in a creator, then obviously not.

15 But if you are going to talk of religion in some sort of

16 ultimate concern, some sort of organization, something

17 like this, then, as I said, I'm happy to talk about

18 Marxism as a religion.

19 Q In your article at page 57, do you not state, "But

20 cutting right through to the present and quietly

21 admittedly basing my comments solely on a small group of

22 Marxist biologists working in the West, what I want to

23 point out here is that just like Christians, we find that

24 the Marxists try to modify and adapt Darwinism to their

25 own ends and within their own patterns. I refer


1 Q (Continuing) specifically to such work as is being

2 done by the Marxist biologist, Stephen J. Gould,

3 particularly his paleontology hypothesis of punctuated

4 equilibria introduced and briefly discussed early in this

5 essay?"

6 A I say those words. I certainly do not in any sense

7 imply that punctuated equilibria is a Marxist theory. In

8 fact, the co-founder who is sitting over there would be

9 horrified to think that it is.

10 What I am saying is that Gould as a Marxist, from what I

11 can read and what he has done, has probably been led to

12 make certain hypotheses and claims which he finds

13 certainly empathetic to his Marxism.

14 I do not want to claim that punctuated equilibria is

15 Marxist, per se, and I certainly don't want to claim that

16 only and all Marxists could accept punctuated equilibria.

17 In fact, my understanding is that a lot of Marxists

18 don't like this.

19 Q Please understand, what I understand you are saying

20 here, in fact, what you state is, for example, with

21 reference to Gould, that he is strongly committed to an

22 ideological commitment to Marxism in his science. And you

23 have previously equated Marxism with a religion. Is that

24 not correct?

25 A No. You know, you are twisting my words here. I'm


1 A (Continuing) saying, "Look, here's a guy who, to

2 the best of my knowledge" — and, goodness, you are going

3 to be able to ask him tomorrow yourself — "here's a guy

4 who has got strong philosophical" — if you want to call

5 them religious beliefs, I am prepared to do this — "who

6 certainly would like to see the aspects of these in the

7 world," certainly using his philosophy, his religion to

8 look at the world just as Darwin did, incidentally, and

9 just as Copernicus did.

10 And I see, you know, nothing strange about this. I see

11 nothing worrying about this. Once you've got your theory,

12 then, of course, it's got to be evaluated and is indeed

13 being evaluated by independent objective criteria, and

14 there's nothing Marxist about that.

15 Q What you are saying is that these Marxist biologists

16 are conforming their science to some degree to their

17 politics or if you consider politics religion?

18 A No, I'm not. I don't like the word "conforming".

19 You know, we can go around on this all day. I don't like

20 the word "conforming".

21 What I'm saying is that some of their ideas are

22 important in their context of discovering plus for formulating

23 their ideas.

24 But as I say, you know, you could take Darwin, for



1 A (Continuing) example. Darwin was a deist, no doubt

2 about it. The only reason why Darwin became an evolution-

3 ist is because it fitted best with his religious ideas.

4 Copernicus was a Platonist.

5 Q Have you not said that Gould, for example, pushes

6 his scientific positions for three Marxist related reasons?

7 A What he does is, he pushes the ideas to get them out

8 on the table. This is the sort of thing he likes. Of

9 course, you do. You sharpen your ideas. Copernicus

10 pushed his ideas.

11 It doesn't mean to say that Gould is going to be a

12 punctuated equilibrist because he's a Marxist. It doesn't

13 mean to say that Eldridge or anybody else is going to be a

14 punctuated equilibrist because they are Marxists.

15 What it means is that probably Gould pushes these sorts

16 of ideas. You see, again the context of discovery, the

17 context of justification.

18 People discover things. People come up with ideas for

19 all sorts of crazy reasons and all sorts of good reasons.

20 But once you've got them out, as it were, within the

21 scientific community, then they've got to be accepted

22 because of the way that they stand up, do they lead to

23 predictions. I mean, does punctuated equilibria lead to

24 predictions that are predictions within the fossil record.

25 Q Doctor Ruse, but you have previously stated, I


1 Q (Continuing) think, and would agree that this idea

2 of punctuated equilibria, this debate that you see in the

3 evolutionary community is a healthy debate?

4 A I do indeed.

5 Q And they are not challenged — "they" being the

6 punctuated equilibrists — have not challenged evolution

7 over all, have they? Just merely the mechanism?

8 A Right.

9 Q But their challenge as you have stated in these

10 writings states that it has come from a motivation based

11 on Marxism which you have identified as religion, doesn't

12 it?

13 A Motivation. See, here we go again. What is

14 motivation?

15 Q Is that correct? Is that what you have said?

16 A Well, if you read the passage, I'm quite sure I said

17 those words, but you are deliberately refusing to

18 understand what I'm saying.

19 Q And then on the other hand, you simply, because

20 someone challenges evolution, the theory of evolution

21 itself, and you feel they are doing it based on religious

22 reasons, and you are someone who is an adherent of

23 Darwinian thought, you object to that. Is that not

24 correct?

25 A Look, you are twisting my words. The challenge is


1 A (Continuing) being done on an evidentiary basis,

2 that is, moving into the context of justification. In

3 that paper and other papers I'm talking about a context of

4 discovery. What I'm saying is that when scientists

5 discover things, often they have different sorts of

6 motivations.

7 But whether or not one is to accept punctuated

8 equilibria has nothing at all to do with Gould's personal

9 philosophy, personal religion.

10 It's the fossil record. It's what we find out there

11 that counts.

12 Q You call it a healthy' debate, but you also state

13 that this fails as science. This—

14 A What, fails as science?

15 Q This Marxist version of evolutionism, as you term it.

16 A Well, I say it fails, as science. But what I'm

17 saying is I don't think it's true, but I don't think it's

18 true or false because of Marxism.

19 I personally don't accept it because I don't think

20 they've made the case on the fossil record. Now, Gould

21 thinks that he has. We can argue that one.

22 But when I talk about its failing as a science, I do not

23 mean it is now nonscientific. What I mean is that I don't

24 think as a scientific hypothesis that it will fly.

25 But as I say, Marxism is a red herring here.


1 Q I'm merely referring you to—

2 A What I was doing, I was talking about the context of

3 discovery. And if you want to talk about that, I'm

4 prepared to do so.

5 Q Well, you've said that the Marxism version of

6 evolution has failed as science, but that's healthy. But

7 creation science fails as science and that's unhealthy?

8 A Well, you see, you are putting words into what you

9 want me to say. Marxist version of evolutionary theory.

10 What I'm saying is, one prominent evolutionist is a

11 Marxist. That led him, I think that encouraged him to try

12 out certain ideas.

13 But I don't think that punctuated equilibria theory is

14 Marxist, per se. I certainly don't think the judgment is

15 going to get into evidentiary level.

16 Q Now, you are not a scientist yourself?

17 A No, I'm not a scientist. No. I'm a historian and

18 philosopher of science which I would say encompasses a

19 great deal of other areas in philosophy.

20 Q The discovery basis you mentioned, if a creation

21 scientist believes in a sudden creation, should that not

22 be advanced and then fail or succeed on its merits of

23 scientific evidence?

24 A No. Because we are not talking about scientific

25 theory here. We are talking about religion. As a

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P367-399


1 A (Continuing) philosopher I can distinguish between

2 science and religion. We are not talking about the

3 context of discovery here.

4 And as I say, in any case, creation science isn't

5 science. It's religion.

6 Q Do you agree with John Stuart Neill that, "If all

7 mankind, minus one, were of one opinion and only one

8 person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no

9 more justified silencing that one person that, had he had

10 the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

11 A Well, the subject is so strange that— You can't

12 shout "Fire" in a loud crowded cinema. Yes, I do,

13 right. I think it's a wonderful statement.

14 But of course, silencing somebody is different from not

15 allowing the teaching of religion in the science classroom.

16 Q Teaching religion in the science classroom is your

17 conclusion, is that correct?

18 A Right.

19 Q And Marxism is a religion in your mind?

20 A I certainly would not want Marxism—

21 THE COURT: Let's don't go through that again. He

22 is not going to admit what you want him to.

23 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm glad I've got one

24 philosophical convert here.



1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you feel that the concept of a creator is an

3 inherently religious concept?

4 A Yes, I do.

5 Q So that the Creator should not be interjected into

6 the science classroom?

7 A Well, I mean, let's be reasonable about this. I

8 mean, for example, if you've got a biology class going,

9 and one of the kids asks you about, say, what's going on

10 in Arkansas at the moment, I wouldn't say, "Gosh, don't

11 talk about that. Wait until we get outside." No.

12 But I'd certainly say, "Look, if you want to talk about

13 this religion, then, you know, maybe we could wait until a

14 break," or something like that. Sure.

15 Q Does not The Origin of the Species conclude with a

16 reference to a creator and state that there is a grandeur

17 in this view of life with its several powers, having been

18 originally breathed by the Creator — with a capital C, I

19 might add — into a few forms or into one?

20 Does Darwin not call upon a creator in his book on The

21 Origin of the Species?

22 A Listen, before we—

23 Q Does he?

24 A Okay. Before we start on that, just pedantic, could

25 we get Darwin's book right. It's The Origin of Species.


1 A (Continuing) You said The Origin of the Species, if

2 we're going to be at this for two weeks—

3 Q Does he call upon a creator?

4 A Darwin certainly says that. But as I've said to you

5 a couple of weeks ago, Darwin later on modified what he

6 says and says, "Look, I'm talking metaphorically."

7 Q But would this subject, this book be appropriate for

8 consideration, in a science classroom?

9 A I certainly wouldn't want to use The Origin of

10 Species today in a science classroom. I'd certainly use

11 it in a historical context.

12 Q Or History of Science?

13 A Surely. Yes, I do indeed. It's one of the set

14 books in my course.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions, your

16 Honor.

17 THE COURT: Mr. Novik?



20 Q Doctor Ruse, you are a Canadian citizen?

21 A I am indeed.

22 Q Does Canada have a constitution?

23 A Well, ask me in a week or two. I think we might be

24 getting one.



1 Q Does Canada have a First Amendment?

2 A I'm afraid not.

3 Q Is there anything in Canada that prohibits the

4 teaching of religion in the public schools?

5 A I think it's a provincial situation.

6 Q That means it's up to each province?

7 A Yes. In fact, some provinces insist on it.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, I would like you to look at the statute

9 again, please, particularly Section 4(b). Section 4(b)

10 refers to scientific evidences.

11 What are those scientific evidences for?

12 A They are meaningless outside the context of the

13 theory.

14 Q In the statute, Doctor Ruse, what is the theory that

15 those scientific evidences are for?

16 A Are we looking at 4(b) now?

17 Q Yes.

18 A Well, as I said, I don't see a real theory here.

19 Q It says scientific evidences for—

20 A Well, a theory of evolution.

21 Q Now, if you will look up at 4(a), it says scientific

22 evidences for—

23 A Well, it's the theory of creation.

24 Q Doctor Ruse—

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object for the


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) record. It doesn't say

2 "theory" in either place.

3 THE WITNESS: No. But I said I can't understand it

4 without using the concept theory.

5 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

6 Q In 4(b), what scientific theory supports the

7 scientific evidences and inferences referred to?

8 A I'm sorry. Give that again?

9 Q In 4(b), what theory supports the scientific

10 evidences and inferences referred to? -

11 A I take it they are talking about the things covered

12 in 1 through 6.

13 Q What theory is that?

14 A Part of it is the evolutionary theory.

15 Q And in 4(a), what theory unifies the scientific

16 evidences and inferences referred to?

17 A Creation science theory.

18 Q Mr. Williams referred you to 4(a)(2), the

19 insufficiency of mutation and natural selection. What

20 theory does 4(a)(2) support?

21 A I take it, it's creation theory. As I say, it's

22 sort of funny because in another level, I think it's

23 supposed to be about creation theory, but in another

24 level, it seems to me to support evolutionary theory.

25 Q But it's in the statute as a support for creation


1 Q (Continuing) theory, is that correct?

2 A That seems to be, you know, a bit of a mixup.

3 Q When the statute speaks of insufficiency in 4(a)(2),

4 is that insufficiency because of natural processes?

5 A I suppose not. I suppose supernatural processes

6 would be presupposed.

7 Q When the statute speaks of insufficiency in 4(a)(2),

8 is that because of the act of a creator?

9 A Yes. Supernatural—

10 MR. WILLIAMS: I will object. I think it's

11 conjecture on the part of the witness. He's saying why

12 the statute speaks to this and why it does not. I think

13 it is conjecture on his part.

14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure I agree. I am

15 sorry.

16 THE COURT: That's overruled. Go ahead.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Mr. Williams took you through the statute, and I'd

19 like to do the same.

20 When in 4(a)(3), the statutes speaks of limited changes,

21 what theory is that evidence meant to support?

22 A Creation theory.

23 Q And in 4(a)(4) when the statutes speaks of separate

24 ancestry for man and apes, what theory is that meant to

25 support?


1 A The creation theory.

2 Q And in 4(a-)(5) when the statute speaks of earth's

3 geology, what theory is that meant to support?

4 A Creation theory.

5 Q And in 4(a)(6) when the statute speaks of the age of

6 the earth, what theory is that meant to support?

7 A Creation theory.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at the statute, what are

9 evidences?

10 A I just don't know. Evidences don't mean anything

11 outside of scientific theory. That is meaningless and

12 it's misleading.

13 Q Are evidences facts or data or observations?

14 A Well, evidences can be facts, observations, data.

15 It doesn't make it scientific.

16 Q I was about to ask you whether evidences are

17 scientific?

18 A We are thinking like one at the moment, Mr. Novik.

19 Q I take it your answer is no?

20 A No.

21 Q When does evidence assume scientific significance?

22 A Only when you bind it together within a scientific

23 theory or a scientific hypothesis. Until that point—

24 THE COURT: That's all right. I've listened to that

25 earlier today. You don't need to go over it again.


1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

2 Q Can science have evidence divorced from a theory?

3 A No.

4 Q Can a science have an inference divorced from a

5 theory?

6 A No.

7 Q Have you ever seen anyone attempt to divorce an

8 evidence from its theory?

9 A Scientific creationists.

10 Q What is the effect of talking about data without

11 connecting it to its theory?

12 A Well, it's meaningless.

13 Q Can you teach science by only teaching evidences?

14 A No.

15 Q Can you teach science by only teaching inferences?

16 A No.

17 Q Do you have an opinion about why creation science

18 tries to speak about its scientific evidences and

19 inferences divorced from its theory?

20 A Because it's phony. It's religion. It's trying to

21 pretend it's something that it isn't.

22 Q And even though some evidence may look scientific,

23 is the theory of creation science scientific?

24 A No.

25 Q And even though some inferences may look scientific,


1 Q (Continuing) does it support a scientific theory of

2 creation?

3 A No.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Your Honor, I want to

5 object on the grounds, first of all, it's leading, and I

6 think it's— I think we've been over this before.

7 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

8 MR. NOVIK: I have no further questions.

9 THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Williams?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Nothing, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: We will reconvene at 1:30.

12 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30

13 p.m.)

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I would like to be permitted

15 to recall Doctor Ruse very briefly.

16 For the record, although plaintiffs do not believe that

17 evolution or the scientific merit of evolution is in

18 issue, the Court has permitted the defendants to raise

19 that question. And for the limited purpose of responding,

20 I'd like to ask Doctor Ruse a few questions.

21 Thereupon,



23 was recalled for further examination, and testified as

24 follows:





2 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

3 Q Doctor Ruse, is evolution based on natural law?

4 A Yes, it is.

5 Q Is evolution explanatory?

6 A Yes, it is.

7 Q Is evolution testable?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Is evolution tentative?

10 A Yes.

11 Q In your professional opinion as a philosopher of

12 science, is evolution science?

13 A Yes.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions

15 of the witness.

16 In the course of the witness' direct examination, he

17 referred to a number of documents, Exhibit 74 and 75, 78

18 and 84 for identification. I move they be admitted into

19 evidence.

20 THE COURT: They will be received.

21 MR. NOVIK: Thank you very much. No further

22 questions.




25 Q You stated that evolution was a fact?


1 A I have in my book, yes.

2 Q What is a tentative fact?

3 A Tentative fact?

4 Q Yes.

5 A I think it's the question of the approach that

6 somebody takes to it. One holds something tentatively.

7 But it's a fact that I have a heart. If you ask me my

8 justification or something like this, of course,

9 ultimately I have to say, logically I cannot logically

10 prove it as I do in mathematics.

11 But I can simply say the fact that I have a heart. And

12 you have a heart, too, Mr. Williams.

13 Q The fact of evolution, you have testified to, has

14 been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

15 A Beyond reasonable doubt.

16 Q But yet you say you think it's still tentative? Is

17 that your answer?

18 A I'm using the word "tentative" here today in the

19 sense that it's not logically proven. There are some

20 things which, you know, I think it would be very difficult

21 to imagine, but I'm not saying logically I couldn't

22 imagine it, very difficult to imagine that it wouldn't be

23 true.

24 I mean, I find it very difficult to imagine that neither

25 of us have got hearts.


1 A (Continuing)

2 On the other hand, I've never seen one, or rather,

3 haven't seen yours and I haven't seen mine.

4 So in that sense I'm talking about it being a fact, that

5 it's something I'm quite sure is true, but in that

6 tentative sense, if you like the logical sense, it's

7 tentative.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

9 (Witness excused)




(Reporter's Note: The testimony


of Francisco Ayala not included


in Volume II, and will be made a


separate volume.)












1 Thereupon,



3 called in behalf of the Plaintiffs herein, after having

4 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

5 testified as follows:




8 Q Tell us your name and your address, please?

9 A James Leon Holsted. 4900 Edgemere Drive, North

10 Little Rock.

11 Q What is your business or occupation, Mr. Holsted?

12 A Independent businessman in North Little Rock, real

13 estate business and other investments.

14 Q Mr. Holsted, are you currently a member of the

15 Arkansas Senate?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q Can you tell me for how long you have been a member?

18 A I'm concluding my first term. It was a four year

19 term.

20 Q This last session, then, would have been your second

21 session?

22 A Correct.

23 Q Are you familiar with the piece of legislation that

24 became Act 590 of 1981?

25 A Yes, sir.


1 Q Who introduced that bill in the Senate of Arkansas?

2 A I did.

3 Q Can you tell me what your first contact was with the

4 legislation that became Act 590?

5 A I received a copy of a model piece of legislation in

6 the mail from a constituent.

7 Q And was that constituent Carl Hunt?

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q What did you do with it when you received it?

10 A Looked it over. I'd been contacted by him to see if

11 I'd be interested in introducing that piece of legis-

12 lation. I didn't know anything about it, so I asked him

13 to send me some background information. And I think he

14 sent me a copy of the bill. I'm not certain if he sent

15 one or Larry Fisher sent me one. It was between those two

16 that I believe I got a copy of the bill.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, defendants would object

18 to this line of inquiry. I think that we have already

19 essentially agreed to stipulations as to legislative

20 history, as such, that is relevant, when it was

21 introduced, how many votes it had, the hearing. And

22 anything else Senator Holsted might have to say as to

23 intent, personal motivation, that this is irrelevant to

24 the question of determining legislative intent as we've

25 argued in our brief, that the testimony of a legislator


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) given, particularly after

2 enactment of the bill, are not probative, certainly of

3 what a legislator might have thought, and clearly not as

4 to what the legislature intended. We are dealing with one

5 hundred thirty-five members and not one member in

6 determining legislative intent.

7 We have an act which is quite clear on its face as to

8 what the intent is, and it is not ambiguous as to its

9 intent. Therefore, we would object on the grounds of

10 relevance.

11 THE COURT: Since the Arkansas Legislature does not

12 make a record of its legislative process such as Congress

13 does so we can find out what the legislators thought about

14 it and what the arguments were on the floor and that sort

15 of thing, I think it's appropriate that he testify about

16 the process the bill went through as it was passed.

17 Very frankly, I'm not so sure about what his personal

18 intentions were and that sort of thing, but if I use any

19 of that evidence as part of the decision, I'll make a note

20 of that and note your objection so the objection will be

21 preserved.

22 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

23 Q Did you also receive, prior to the enactment of the

24 bill, some materials from various creation science

25 organizations and groups?


1 A Prior to the enactment, I received some materials;

2 not prior to the introduction.

3 Q So between the time that you first introduced it in

4 the Senate and the time it was finally passed, can you

5 tell me the groups from which you received such materials?

6 A No. I received some preliminary materials from Mr.

7 Hunt. And then I was inundated through the mails as more

8 publicity came out about the legislation. I stuck it

9 aside. I didn't have time to read everything that came

10 in. I didn't really pay any attention to most of it.

11 Q You did have some communications from the Institute

12 for Creation Research, did you not?

13 A That was one of them that sent some material, yes.

14 Q And particularly, did you receive letters from Mr.

15 Gish and communications from Mr. Gish?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And from Mr. Morris?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And from Mr. Wysong?

20 A Yes. I believe I did from him, also.

21 Q And from Mr. Bliss?

22 A Yes. I recall those names. I'm not sure what kind

23 of materials I received from them other than some

24 preliminary letters.

25 Q And did you receive information from Creation

Science Research Center in San Diego, also, the Segraves


1 Q (Continuing) institution?

2 A Yes.

3 Q All those before the bill was actually enacted?

4 A Correct.

5 Q Do you recall how long before the introduction of

6 the bill you did actually receive the bill?

7 A Approximately two to three weeks, the best of my

8 recollection. I looked at it a couple of weeks, I think,

9 before I introduced it.

10 Q What did you do with it when you received it?

11 A Looked at it. I read some of the materials that Mr.

12 Hunt gave me, thumbed through it, and looked at that

13 material.

14 Read the legislation to see if I could introduce that bill

15 and stand up before the Senate and try to pass it.

16 Q Did you give it to any Arkansas body in the

17 legislature or associate with a legislator in an attempt

18 to put it into final form?

19 A I gave it to the Legislative Council to draft it

20 when I did decide to introduce it, yes. It had to be

21 drafted in the form we introduce them in Arkansas.

22 Q Senator, I'm going to show you a document which has

23 been marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs'

24 Exhibit Number 33 and ask you if that is the bill you

25 received from your constituent, Mr. Hunt, and which you

transmitted to the Legislative Council?


1 A Yes. This appears to be, but those marks on it

2 were— This is not, exactly the same one, but a close

3 facsimile to the one I received from him.

4 Q You mean, it's a photocopy of the one?

5 A Yes. And I think— Let me see if all the

6 sections— Yes.

7 MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer number 33.

8 THE COURT: It will be received.

9 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing.)

10 Q Can you tell me whether, when the Legislative

11 Council concluded its work on the model bill which had

12 been transmitted to you, whether there were any changes?

13 A I seem to recall that they took out the short title

14 provision in it. And I think that was basically the only

15 change.

16 Q In other words, by the time it got to be introduced

17 in the Arkansas Senate, except for some very, very minor

18 changes, particularly with regard to the title, it was

19 identical?

20 A Correct.

21 Q And can you tell me if you learned, either then or

22 subsequently, who the author of that bill was?

23 A I learned after the passage of the bill and signing

24 of the Act where the legislation came from or who the

25 author was.


1 Q And did it come from Paul Ellwanger?

2 A That is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.

3 Q And do you know how you learned that it came from

4 Mr. Ellwanger?

5 A I don't have any idea who told me. I can't remember.

6 You know, I talked with so many people about it, so many

7 people said that, I don't recall the first one who said it.

8 Q You learned at least from sufficient numbers of

9 persons to satisfy yourself that it did come from Mr.

10 Ellwanger?

11 A That's correct.

12 Q Now, we have entered into some stipulations with

13 regard to the actual dates and the mechanism by which the

14 bill went from Senate Bill 42 to Act 590. But I would

15 like briefly to discuss with you something about the

16 hearing process.

17 Were there any hearings before the Senate?

18 A We had what you might consider a hearing when we

19 discussed it on the Senate floor.

20 Q There were no committee hearings at any rate in the

21 Senate?

22 A No.

23 Q And can you tell us approximately how long the

24 debate before the full Senate was?

25 A Probably fifteen to thirty minutes.


1 Q You told us in your deposition that Senators Hendren

2 and Howell spoke in favor of the bill. Were there any

3 other Senators who spoke in favor of the bill?

4 A I don't recall anyone else speaking in favor of the

5 bill.

6 Q Was there anyone in opposition to the bill?

7 A I was trying to remember. I think some people spoke

8 in opposition in the manner of asking questions when

9 someone was speaking for the bill.

10 Do you understand? That's the way you try to oppose a

11 piece of legislation. Many times you ask questions about

12 it from the floor, but don't actually come down to the

13 podium and speak about it.

14 And there were quite a few questions asked, but I don't

15 remember anyone taking the floor and actively speaking

16 against the bill.

17 Q Do you recall how many votes there were against the

18 bill in the Senate?

19 A No, sir, I have forgotten. It's a matter of record

20 that we can find out. It passed, though.

21 Q Do you recall how long the actual debate was?

22 A Fifteen to thirty minutes, to the best of my

23 recollection.

24 Q I'm sorry. I had forgotten that I'd asked you that.

25 Was there a prior announcement other than the morning


1 Q (Continuing) calendar that indicated that Senate

2 Bill 482 was going to be debated that day?

3 A No more than we do on any other piece of legis-

4 lation. In fact, sometimes the authors don't even know

5 when their legislation is going to come up for a vote.

6 Now, we discussed it in the quiet room that day. And I

7 remember quite a few of the Senators meeting in there, and

8 I told them I was going to try to get it up for a vote.

9 But I didn't know if I was even going to be able to get

10 it up for a vote, or not.

11 Q Prior to your own introduction of Senate Bill 482,

12 had you conducted a review of the biology texts then

13 currently in use in any of the school districts in

14 Arkansas?

15 A I looked at the text used in North Little Rock and

16 visited with the gentleman that bought text books for the

17 North Little Rock school system to get his ideas of what

18 was being used around the state. He's pretty familiar

19 with what was being taught around the state.

20 Q And had you had some previous acquaintance with him?

21 A Yes. He's a friend of mine.

22 Q A parent of your legislative assistant, is that

23 correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Now, what did you discover upon your review of those biology texts?


1 A The only theory being presented in the school

2 systems for the origin of life was the evolutionary theory.

3 Q That's the only theory you found present in those

4 texts?

5 A That's correct.

6 Q Did you discuss with this gentleman— Mr. Dyer, I

7 think, his name was?

8 A Correct.

8 Q —whether any other alternatives or any other

10 theories were under discussion in the North Little Rock

11 public schools?

12 A Yes. I asked him if he knew of anything being

13 taught anywhere in the state, as well as in North Little

14 Rock.

15 Q And did he respond negatively to that?

16 A He responded that he didn't know of anything else

17 being taught.

18 Q Was this lack of anything other than evolution

19 theory being under discussion or being taught one of the

20 primary motivations for your introduction of this piece of

21 legislation?

22 A Well, I felt like, that was the only way the

23 legislation could pass. If anything else was being

24 taught, there was no need for the legislation.

25 Q The bill passed the Senate and went to the House, is


1 Q (Continuing) that correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q There was a committee meeting before which this bill

4 was discussed in the House, is that correct?

5 A Correct.

6 Q And that discussion took place one morning, and you

7 yourself were present?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q And do you recall that the committee met for

10 approximately thirty minutes, fifteen minutes on this bill

11 and approximately fifteen on another bill?

12 A I think they limited the debate to ten minutes a

13 side on this.

14 Q And do you recall the individuals who spoke on

15 behalf of the legislation in the House?

16 A Myself and Cliff Hoofman.

17 Q Cliff Hoofman is a member of the Arkansas House?

18 A He was the one that was handling it in the House for

19 me. And I believe Larry Fisher spoke for the bill.

20 Q And do you recall the individuals who spoke against

21 the legislation in the House committee?

22 A Mike Wilson, who is a member of the House, and a

23 representative of the Arkansas Education Association. I

24 don't recall if there was a third one. I thought there

25 was a third one, but I don't recall who spoke against it.


1 Q And then the bill was enacted in July and signed by

2 the governor and became Act 590?

3 A It went to the House floor first.

4 Q Right. I'm sorry.

5 A Then was debated on the House floor, and then it

6 went to the governor's office.

7 Q Do you recall the length of time it was debated on

8 the House floor?

9 A Seemed like all afternoon. They would pass it, and

10 they would try to repeal the vote, rescind the vote, do

11 something else with it and table it. It was quite a bit

12 of parliamentary movement going on at that time.

13 Q Did you witness part of it, or was it reported to

14 you?

15 A It was reported to me. I was back in the Senate.

16 Q Prior to your putting the bill up in the Senate, or,

17 indeed, at any time during the entire legislative process,

18 did you have any discussions with the Department of

19 Education regarding this matter, the bill?

20 A No.

21 Q Did you have any discussion with any teacher

22 organizations?

23 A No.

24 Q Did you have any discussion with individual science

25 teachers or curriculum coordinators regarding the bill,

other than Mr. Fisher?


1 A No, not really.

2 Q You did have some material, though, that had been

3 submitted to you during this process where it was going

4 through the legislative mill?

5 A Correct.

6 Q And you have supplied some of those or, at least,

7 copies of virtually everything that you had to us, is that

8 right?

9 A I think I did. A big box of stuff.

10 Q Did you ever ask the Attorney General for an opinion

11 regarding the constitutionality of the bill?

12 A No. We were in the closing days of the session.

13 Had a week, maybe a week and a half when I started the

14 process. There would have never been time to get an

15 opinion out of his office on the constitutionality of that

16 issue.

17 Q Was one of the materials that you had received in

18 our packet an indication that Attorneys General in other

19 states had indicated some considerable doubts about the

20 constitutionality of the bill?

21 A Probably I did, but that's not unusual. I think

22 everybody, when they want to try to defeat a bill on the

23 floor of the Senate, will get up and say it's unconsti-

24 tutional.

25 The only way you can determine whether it's


1 A (Continuing) unconstitutional or not is through

2 this process; not any other way.

3 Q Do you recall that there was a letter from a number

4 of creation science proponents to the Attorney General of

5 South Carolina questioning the Attorney General's opinion

6 which said that the bill was unconstitutional?

7 A I may have had one. I didn't think that was very

8 relevant. You get letters like that all day long that say

9 all kinds of different things.

10 Q I just want to show you the materials that you

11 submitted to us and ask you do you recall that this letter

12 from John Whitehead, Randall Byrd, and a Chief Judge

13 Braswell Dean to the Honorable Richard Riddon,

14 R-i-d-d-o-n, deals with the Attorney General's opinion in

15 South Carolina?

16 A I remember seeing that.

17 Q This did not prompt you to make further inquiry

18 about the constitutionality of the legislation, however,

19 is that correct?

20 A No sir. As I've' stated before— Maybe I didn't

21 state this. But the Attorney' General's opinion is just an

22 opinion.

23 And while it's a well researched opinion and he tries to

24 give the best opinion he feels like will be held up in a

25 court of law, it's just an opinion.

Q Do you recall whether any of the sections were


1 Q (Continuing) amended from the time 482 was first

2 introduced until it became 590?

3 A No, sir, they were not amended.

4 Q We've talked about your feeling regarding the lack

5 of anything but evolution being taught as a motivator in

6 the introduction of the bill.

7 Were there other motivations for you in the introduction

8 of the bill?

9 A Not really.

10 Q Were your own individual deep religious convictions

11 part of the motivation in introducing the bill?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to again object on

13 the grounds of relevance, particularly on this point. I

14 think the cases are quite clear that the motive even

15 Epperson itself— Epperson says—

16 THE COURT: I'll make that same ruling. I'll let

17 that evidence go in. If I use that evidence. If I use

18 that evidence in the decision, I will make a note of it.

19 MR. WILLIAMS: For purposes of efficiency, I would

20 like the record to reflect my objection as continuing to

21 this line of inquiry.

22 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

23 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

24 Q Were your own individual deeply held religious

25 convictions a significant motivation in your introduction

of this legislation?


1 A Certainly it would have to be compatible with what I

2 believe in. I'm not going to introduce legislation that I

3 can't stand before the Senate and present as something I

4 can't believe in.

5 Q Well, even in addition to it being compatible, is it

6 not true that you said contemporaneous with the intro-

7 duction of the legislation that you introduced the

8 legislation because of your deeply held religious

9 convictions?

10 A Did I say that? Are you stating I said that?

11 Q I'm asking you is it not true that you said that

12 contemporaneous with, at the same time, that you

13 introduced the bill?

14 We are talking about that same time span while the bill

15 is going through the legislative process and immediately

16 after its enactment.

17 Did you not say that the motivating or, at least, a

18 significant motivating factor in the introduction of the

19 legislation was your own deeply held religious conviction?

20 A I probably said that at one time or another during

21 the course of the legislation.

22 Q Indeed, as late as yesterday, did you not say that

23 God had spoken to you at the time and told you to sponsor

24 the bill?

25 A No. I can't believe somebody said I said that. I


1 A (Continuing) didn't say that.

2 Q You didn't say that?

3 A No. I've been misquoted so many times, and I

4 definitely remember yesterday. A week ago would be

5 difficult, but I definitely remember yesterday.

6 Q Do you yourself hold to a literal interpretation of

7 the Bible?

8 A Yes, I do.

9 Q You are Methodist, are you not?

10 A That is correct.

11 Q Did you not say that at the time of the enactment of

12 the bill that the bill favors the views of Biblical

13 literalists?

14 A Yes. I was asked did this favor some particular

15 view over another. And I said perhaps it does.

16 Q And that the view that was favored was the view of

17 the Biblical literalists, is that correct?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Did you not also say contemporaneous with the

20 enactment of the bill that the strongest supporters of Act

21 590 would be those holding to a fundamentalist view of

22 Christianity?

23 A Correct.

24 Q Did you not say also contemporaneous with the

25 enactment of the bill, and do you not now believe that


1 Q (Continuing) creation science presupposes the

2 existence of a creator?

3 A Correct.

4 Q Did you not say that this bill's reference to

5 creation means a divine creator?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q Now, if— I'm going to ask you to tell me now from

8 your own view of this legislation as the person who

9 shepherded it through—

10 THE COURT: Wait a second. Where did he say he made

11 the last two statements?

12 Q Did you not say that publicly to the press and to

13 anyone else who asked you?

14 A Yes.

15 THE COURT: Not on the Senate floor, anyway?

16 MR. KAPLAN: No, not on the Senate floor.

17 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

18 Q These press accounts, however, were contemporaneous

19 with the legislative process, were they not?

20 A No.

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

22 that question.

23 A No, they were not.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact not in evidence.

25 think it's contrary to what actually occurred.


1 MR. KAPLAN: I am not certain where we are now. Let

2 me just ask a new question.

3 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

4 Q Is it your view that this bill, which presupposes a

5 divine creator complies with the First Amendment of the

6 Constitution because it doesn't teach one particular view

7 of religion?

8 A Right.

9 Q That is, Methodist over Baptist or Catholic over Jew?

10 A Right. It doesn't mention any particular god.

11 Q And is it your view that it is not religion because

12 there is a specific prohibition against using religious

13 writings? Indeed, one could not bring Genesis into the

14 classroom under this particular legislation?

15 A Correct.

16 Q And that is your view of why this is not in conflict

17 with the First Amendment?

18 A Correct. My layman's view, you have to understand.

19 Q Let me briefly discuss with you some of the specific

20 portions of the bill. There is in the introduction to the

21 bill an injunction or a rationale for the enactment with

22 regard to and states as follows, "To prohibit religious

23 instruction concerning origins."

24 Prior to the enactment, were you aware of any

25 instruction, religious instruction regarding origins in


1 Q (Continuing) the public schools?

2 A No, I wasn't.

3 Q Let, me ask you, as far as you are concerned, what

4 that phrase means, to prohibit religious instruction

5 concerning origins?

6 A To not allow anybody to use Genesis in the classroom.

7 Q Isn't that what you are concerned about here?

8 A And any other religious writings, no matter if it

9 would be Genesis or whatever, of any other religion.

10 If you're planning on going down through every one of

11 those parts of the bill, I can save you some time on that.

12 Q No, I'm not going to do every one. The Judge

13 wouldn't let me anyway. I want to ask you just about a

14 few more.

15 A Okay.

16 Q I want to ask you about balance and what balance

17 means to you?

18 A Balance to me means equal emphasis. I don't think

19 you measure balance by the amount of time, but it does

20 mean equal emphasis from one subject matter to another.

21 Q Does it also, within your constellation of balance

22 and how you view balance, mean that a teacher could not

23 say, "Okay,' we're going to spend our ten minutes here or

24 however much is necessary to balance," and then say, "But

25 I disclaim any view of creation science; I don't like it?"


1 A A teacher could do that and there would be no way of

2 getting around it. But I believe in the professionalism

3 of the teachers we have in Arkansas, and I believe that

4 professional ethics would not allow him to do that.

5 Q Do you believe if a district— Is it your view that

6 if a district said, "Now, look, we want balanced treatment

7 and we don't want any comment," that a teacher could be

8 terminated because of the teachers failure and refusal to

9 avoid these disclaimers?

10 A I think if a school district, wanted to do that and

11 school board, that's completely under their right to do

12 that. If a teacher doesn't teach English and she's

13 supposed to be teaching English, they can terminate her

14 for that.

15 Q Do you know, whether there was any inquiry other than

16 what already existed in the bill with regard, to the

17 legislative findings as they appear in the bill?

18 A No, sir.

19 Q That's there was no inquiry other than what was

20 already written down here?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q And indeed, there was no legislative discussion

23 about that isn't that correct?

24 A About what?

25 Q About findings other—

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P400-433


1 A We just discussed the bill in general. I assumed

2 everybody had read it. They'd had it in their books for

3 quite a while.

4 Q Do you recall that there were a number of materials

5 that you gave us including some material from a man named

6 Luther Sunderland in Apalachin, New York?

7 A No.

8 Q Well, I will show it to you and perhaps that will

9 refresh your recollection. These are a series of

10 documents you gave us. Here is one, "Introducing the

11 Model Teaching of Origins in Public Schools, An Approach

12 that Works" by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 Griffin Drive,

13 Apalachin, New York.

14 A If I gave it to you I am sure I received it.

15 Q Did you note the organizations from whom he

16 suggested that one could obtain creationist materials?

17 A No.

18 Q Could you take a look at that first letter, the one

19 that I have marked for you there, and tell me the names of

20 the organizations from whom he suggests that a public

21 school district looking to institute such a model might

22 obtain material?

23 A You want me to read these off?

24 Q Yes. Would you, please?

25 A Creation Research Society, Model Science

Association, Institute for Creation Research, Creation


1 A (continuing) Science Research Center, Students for

2 Origin Research, Citizens for Fairness in Education.

3 Q Any others?

4 A I don't see anything else.

5 Q In all of the materials that were submitted to you,

6 Senator Holsted, did you ever discover any organization

7 other than those which you have just read which were

8 indicated as organizations from which you might be able to

9 obtain creationist material?

10 A That was not my problem.

11 Q I understand that. I am merely inquiring as to

12 whether you were ever able to ascertain the names of any

13 organizations other than those which you have just read

14 which might be able to furnish such information?

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the question assumes a

16 fact not in evidence. It calls for speculation on the

17 witness' part. There is no showing that Senator Holsted

18 ever tried—

19 THE COURT: All he has to do is say no, as I

20 understand it.


22 MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, I want to interpose

23 an objection on the grounds that I think this does,

24 perhaps, go to the question of legislative privilege and

25 the immunity that a legislator has to consider whatever he

wants to in passing on a bill.


1 THE COURT: I think if there is anybody can invoke

2 that, that's Senator Holsted if he wants to. I am not

3 sure that privilege goes that far, but if he wants to

4 invoke that—

5 THE WITNESS: What do I get to invoke it?

6 THE COURT: But in any event, not Mr. Williams.

7 THE WITNESS: It will be up to the Department of

8 Education to determine what materials will be used and to

9 obtain materials I received stuff— You wouldn't believe

10 how much stuff I received. Most of it I didn't even look

11 at. I just stuck it in a box.

12 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

13 Q Let me ask you to just take a look at this. Here is

14 the second page of Mr. Sunderland's book—I am sorry, Mr.

15 Sunderland's communication. At the bottom of that first

16 page he describes how somebody might go about reaching a

17 community and convincing folks that they ought to enact a

18 scientific creation approach.

19 Can you tell me the names of the two books that he

20 suggested one obtain and look at in order to do that

21 convincing? Just read that sentence.

22 A He obtained a number of copies of The

23 Creation-Evolution Controversy by Wysong, and Evolution:

24 The Fossils Say No, Public School Edition by Gish.



1 Q By the way, Mr. Sunderland was also selling something

2 for fifty dollars, too.

3 A Oh, is that right? I am sure it is. You would be

4 surprised how many people have got stuff to sell.

5 Q Another one of his points, and I think this will be the

6 last one I will ask you about, are these two over here.

7 Will you just read those?

8 A Points on Reaching the Community. Always document

9 your main points with good references. Never use

10 references from creationist books, religious literature or

11 the Bible. Any aspect of the creation model which

12 requires reference to or interpretation of a religious

13 doctrine should be avoided other than the fact, of course,

14 that a Creator did the creating.

15 Q Then just one more thing I want you to look at.

16 This is also in your materials, and this is a list of,

17 from your materials, dated September, 1980, Creation

18 Evolution Material. It says, "The following books,

19 periodicals, pamphlets and tapes offer invaluable aid to

20 those interested in learning more about evolution versus

21 creation." Can you tell me the names of those sources?

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I object to that. I

23 think the characterization is, this is the witness'

24 writing, that the document is his own. I don't think that

25 is correct. I don't know where that came from.


1 THE WITNESS: I never used these in—

2 THE COURT: Mr. Kaplan, the witness never saw them,

3 never used them. I have a hard time seeing how it is

4 admissible through him.

5 MR. KAPLAN: Fine, your Honor.

6 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

7 Q Let me ask you as a final matter, Senator Holsted,

8 whether in your experience the Senate has ever considered

9 a bill, for example, to allow Christian Scientists to be

10 released from health classes or discussion of various

11 matters that might conflict with their religious views?

12 A No. I think the only thing we did last session that

13 I can remember concerning Christian Scientists is, we

14 released, certain designators in the Christian Science

15 faith from jury duty because they were a minister under

16 their designation. We exempt ministers from jury duty.

17 That was the only thing I can think of that was done like

18 that.

19 MR. KAPLAN: That's all I have. Thank you.

20 THE COURT: We will take about a ten minute recess.

21 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 4:10 p.m.

22 until 4:20 p.m.)








3 Q Senator Holsted, how long does the Arkansas

4 Legislature meet and how often does it meet?

5 A It meets once every two years, constitutionally

6 sixty days. We generally run sometimes eighty, ninety

7 days.

8 Q In that period of time, meeting sixty to eighty

9 days every two years, are all bills given a long

10 deliberative and investigative process by the Legislature?

11 A In the past session we considered over sixteen

12 hundred pieces of legislation that came through the

13 Senate, to either vote on or for our consideration to vote

14 for, and there's no way possible to have hearings on every

15 piece of legislation that comes through. We'd still be

16 going on on last year's bills.

17 Q Is it unusual to have a bill to be considered in

18 committee only for a matter of minutes?

19 A Not at all. This last special session a lot of

20 bills didn't even go to committee. The only thing the

21 committee process does is try to speed up the flow of

22 legislation, because you have different committees meeting

23 all the time to consider many different bills.

24 The best hearing, of course, that's possible is to get



1 A (Continuing) it on the floor and all thirty-five

2 senators hear it.

3 Q At the time that you introduced what is now Act

4 590, as to the extent of your knowledge as a layman in

5 science, did you feel that there was and is scientific

6 evidence to support creation science?

7 A Yes, I did.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

9 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

10 MR. KAPLAN: Yes, Your Honor.

11 MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiffs call Doctor Brent

12 Dalrymple. Mr. Ennis will handle direct.


14 Thereupon,



16 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

17 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

18 testified as follows:




21 Q Doctor Dalrymple, will you please state your full

22 name for the record?

23 A Yes. My name is Gary Brent Dalrymple.

24 Q I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit

25 Ninety-eight for identification, your curriculum vitae.


1 Q (Continuing) Does that accurately reflect your

2 education, training, experience and publications?

3 A Yes, it does.

4 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I move that Plaintiffs'

5 Exhibit Ninety-eight for identification be received in

6 evidence.

7 THE COURT: It will be received.

8 MR. ENNIS:. (Continuing)

9 Q When and where did you receive your Ph.D.?

10 A The University of California at Berkeley in 1963 in

11 the field of geology.

12 Q What is your current employment?

13 A I am presently employed as the assistant chief

14 geologist for the western region of the United States

15 Geological Survey, and I am one of three assistant chief

16 geologists for the three regions of the United States.

17 The western region includes the eight western states in

18 the Pacific coast territory.

19 Q Were you responsible for scientific testing of the

20 lunar rock samples returned from the moon?

21 A Yes. I was selected by NASA to be one of the

22 principal investigators for the lunar rocks returned by

23 the Apollo Eleven through Thirteen missions.

24 Q What are your areas of expertise?

25 A My areas of expertise include general geology,


1 A (Continuing) geochronology, paleomagnetism, and

2 radiometric data in general.

3 Q What, briefly, is geochronology?

4 A Well, geochronology includes methods that are used

5 to determine the ages of geological events.

6 Q Have you published a substantial number of books

7 and articles in these fields?

8 A Yes. Over a hundred scientific papers and a book

9 that is commonly used as a textbook in radiometric dating

10 classes.

11 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I offer Doctor Dalrymple as

12 an expert in the fields of geology, geochronology,

13 paleomagnetism and radiometric dating techniques in

14 general.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection.

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

18 Q Doctor Dalrymple, I have just handed you a copy of

19 Act 590. Have you had an opportunity to read Act 590?

20 A Yes, I have.

21 Q Is there anything in the Act's definition of

22 creation science to which the field of geochronology is

23 relevant?

24 A Yes. Section 4(a)(6) specifies, and I quote, A

25 relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds,

end of quote.


1 Q Is there anything in the Act's definition of

2 evolution to which the field of geochronology is relevant?

3 A Yes. Section 4(b)(6) specifies, quote, An

4 inception several billion years ago of the earth and

5 somewhat later of life, end of quote.

6 Q Are you familiar with the creation science

7 literature concerning the age of the earth?

8 A Yes, I am. I have read perhaps two dozen books and

9 articles either in whole or in part. They consistently

10 assert that the earth is somewhere between six and about

11 twenty thousand years, with most of the literature saying

12 that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.

13 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

14 indicate that the earth is no more than ten thousand years

15 old?

16 A None whatsoever. In over twenty years of research

17 and reading of scientific literature, I have never

18 encountered any such evidence.

19 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

20 indicate the earth is no more than ten million years old?

21 A None whatsoever.

22 THE COURT: Wait a second. What is it that the

23 creation scientists say is the age of the earth?

24 A They make a variety of estimates. They range

25 between about six and about twenty thousand years, from


1 A (Continuing) what I've read. Most of them assert

2 rather persistently that the earth is less than ten

3 thousand years. Beyond that they are not terribly

4 specific.

5 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

6 indicate the earth is no more than ten million years old?

7 A None whatsoever.

8 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

9 indicate a relatively young earth or a relatively recent

10 inception of the earth?

11 A None whatsoever.

12 Q If you were required to teach the scientific

13 evidences for a young earth, what would you teach?

14 A Since there is no evidence for a young earth, I'm

15 afraid the course would be without content. I would have

16 nothing to teach at all.

17 Q Is the assertion by creation scientists that the

18 earth is relatively young subject to scientific testing?

19 Q Yes, it is. It one of the few assertions by the

20 creationists that is subject to testing and falsification.

21 Have such tests been conducted?

22 A Yes. Many times, by many different methods over

23 the last several decades.

24 Q What do those tests show?

25 A Those tests consistently show that the concept of a

young earth is false; that the earth is billions of years


1 A (Continuing) old. In fact, the best figure for the

2 earth is in the nature of four and a half billion years.

3 And I would like to point out that we're not talking

4 about just the factor of two or small differences. The

5 creationists estimates of the age of the earth are off by

6 a factor of about four hundred fifty thousand.

7 Q In your professional opinion, are the creation

8 scientists assertions of a young earth been falsified?

9 A Absolutely. I'd put them in the same category as

10 the flat earth hypothesis and the hypothesis that the sun

11 goes around the earth. I think those are all absurd,

12 completely disproven hypotheses.

13 Q In your professional opinion, in light of all of

14 the scientific evidence, is the continued assertion by

15 creation scientists that the earth is relatively young

16 consistent with the scientific method?

17 A No, it is not consistent with the scientific method

18 to hold onto a hypothesis that has been completely

19 disproven to the extent that it is now absurd.

20 Q How do geochronologists test for the age of the

21 earth?

22 A We use what are called the radiometric dating

23 techniques.

24 Q Would you tell us very briefly, and we'll come back

25 to the details later, how radiometric dating techniques



1 A Yes. Basically we rely on the radioactive decay of

2 long lived radioactive isotopes into isotopes of another

3 element. By convention we call the long lived isotopes

4 that's doing the decaying the parent, and the end product

5 we call the daughter.

6 What we do in principal is we measure the amount of

7 parent isotopes in a rock or mineral and we measure the

8 amount of the daughter isotope in a rock or mineral, and

9 knowing the rate at which the decay is taking place, we

10 can then calculate the age.

11 It is considerably more complicated than that, but

12 that's the essence of those techniques.

13 Q Are these isotopes, isotopes of various atoms?

14 A Yes, they are.

15 Q Could you briefly tell the Court what an atom is,

16 how it's composed?

17 A Well, an atom consists of basically three

18 particles. The nucleus, or inner core of the atom, has

19 both neutrons and protons. The number of protons in the

20 nucleus determines what the chemical element for that atom

21 is. Both neutrons and protons have the same mass.

22 Neutrons have no charge. The number of neutrons in an

23 atom do not determine the elemental characteristics of

24 that atom, only the number of protons.

25 Orbiting the nucleus of the atom is a cloud of electrons


1 A (Continuing) that orbit more or less like the

2 planets around the sun.

3 Q Could you tell us briefly what an isotope is?

4 A Yes. Differing atoms of the same element that have

5 different numbers of neutrons in a nucleus are called

6 isotopes of that particular element. The addition of a

7 neutron, more or less, as I said, does not change the

8 character of the element, it only changes the atomic

9 mass. And in some cases, when several neutrons are added

10 to the nucleus, the atom becomes unstable and becomes

11 radioactive.

12 Q Could you give an example of an isotope?

13 A Yes. Carbon-14, for example. The element, Carbon,

14 normally contains six protons. Ordinary carbon contains

15 six neutrons, as well, giving it an atomic mass of

16 twelve. That is usually indicated by the capital letter

17 C, for carbon, and the superscript in the upper left hand

18 corner denotes it being Carbon-12 for the atomic mass. If

19 we add two neutrons to that atom, it can become Carbon-14,

20 which is designated C-14.

21 Carbon-14, because of those two extra neutrons, is

22 unstable and is radioactive, whereas Carbon-12 is not

23 radioactive.

24 Q Why did geochronologists rely upon radiometric

25 dating techniques rather than other techniques?

A Because radioactivity is the only process that we


1 A (Continuing) know of that's been constant through

2 time for billions of years.

3 Q Is radioactive decay affected by external factors?

4 A No, radioactive decay is not affected by external

5 factors. That's one reason we think it's been constant

6 for a long time.

7 Q Could you give an example of processes that are

8 affected by external factors.

9 A Yes. Examples would be the rates of erosion or the

10 rates of sedimentation. That is the rate that sediments

11 are deposited into the oceans and lakes. Both of those

12 processes are affected by the amount of annual and daily

13 rainfall, they are affected by the height of the

14 continents above sea level, they are affected by the

15 amount of wind, and so forth.

16 We know that all those factors vary with time, both on a

17 daily and annual basis, and, therefore, the rates are not

18 constant. They can't be used to calculate ages of any

19 sort.

20 Q Do creation scientists rely on the rates of erosion

21 or sedimentation in their attempts to date the age of the

22 earth?

23 A Yes. In some of their literature they have used

24 both of those techniques, and that is a good example of

25 how unscientific some of their estimates are, because


1 A (Continuing) again, these processes have not been

2 constant over time.

3 Q Could you tell us why radioactive decay rates are

4 basically impervious to external factors?

5 A It's basically because the nucleus of an atom is

6 extremely well protected from its surroundings. And also

7 because radioactive decay is a spontaneous process that

8 arises only from the nucleus; it's not affected by

9 external factors.

10 The cloud of electrons that surrounds the nucleus of an

11 atom provides very good protection against external

12 forces. And also the strength of the nuclear glue, the

13 strength of the nuclear binding, is among the strongest

14 forces in nature. This is one reason why scientists have

15 to use powerful and extensive accelerators in atomic

16 reactors to penetrate the nucleus of an atom. It's really

17 tough to get in there.

18 Q Have scientists tested and measured those decay

19 rates under various circumstances to see whether they

20 would be affected by external forces?

21 A Yes. There has been a variety of tests over the

22 past number of decades addressing exactly that point. And

23 they found, for example, that decay rates do not change

24 with extremes of temperature, from a hundred ninety-six

25 degrees below zero Centigrade to two thousand degrees


1 A (Continuing) Centigrade. The rates were not

2 affected.

3 At pressures of a vacuum or two thousand atmosphere, for

4 example, thirty thousand pounds per square inch, we found

5 that the combining of radioactive isotopes in different

6 chemical compounds does not affect the decay rates.

7 Q Have any tests ever shown any change in the decay

8 rates of any of the particular isotopes geochronologists

9 use in radiometric dating?

10 A None. They've always been found to be constant.

11 Q Are changes in decay rates of various isotopes at

12 least theoretically possible?

13 A Yes. Theoretically in some instances, and let me

14 explain that. There are three principal types of decay

15 involved in radioactive dating techniques. One is alpha

16 decay. That's the decay that involves the ejection of an

17 alpha particle from the nucleus of the atom. Another is

18 beta decay. That involves the injection of something like

19 an electron - it's called a beta particle - from the

20 nucleus.

21 Theory tell us that neither of those types of decay can

22 be affected by external factors, and in fact, none of the

23 experiments have ever shown any effect on either alpha or

24 beta decay.

25 There is a third type of decay called electron capture,


1 A (Continuing) where an orbital electron falls into

2 the nucleus and converts a proton into a neutron. That

3 type of radioactive decay, because the original electron

4 comes from the electron shell, one can imagine if you

5 depress that shell a little bit, you might increase the

6 probability of the electron falling into the nucleus.

7 Theory tell us that such changes in electron capture

8 decay are possible, but theory also tells us that those

9 changes should be very small. And in fact, the maximum

10 changes ever detected or ever forced have been the

11 Beryllium-7, and that changes only one-tenth of one

12 percent. No larger.

13 There have never been any changes affecting any of the

14 decays being used for radioactive dating.

15 Q Do creation scientists challenge the constancy of

16 those radioactive decay processes?

17 A Yes, they do. There have done that on a number of

18 occasions.

19 Q Have they advanced any scientific evidence to

20 support their challenge?

21 A None whatsoever.

22 Q Did they use the relevant data on the decay rates

23 in a fair and objective manner, in your professional

24 opinion?

25 A No. In fact, they frequently cite irrelevant or


1 A (Continuing) misleading data in their claims of

2 decay rates change.

3 Q Could you give an example?

4 A Yes, I can give two examples. The first is in an

5 Institute for Creation Research technical monograph

6 written by Harold Slusher entitled, I believe, A Critique

7 of Radiometric Dating.

8 In that publication he makes the statement that the

9 decay rates of Iron-57 have been changed by as much as

10 three percent by strong electric fields. The problem with

11 that is that Iron-57 is not radioactive. Iron-57 is a

12 stable isotope. When Iron-57, it does undergo an internal

13 conversion decay, and by that I mean simply a mechanism

14 for getting rid of some excess energy. And that type of

15 decay does also have a decay rate, but it's completely

16 irrelevant to radioactive dating.

17 So when Iron-57 decays, "by internal conversion", it

18 remains Iron-57. One of the dating schemes used in

19 geology involved internal conversions. So the example of

20 Iron-57 cited by Slusher is simply irrelevant.

21 And in fact, he did reference his source of that data,

22 and I've been unable to confirm the fact that Iron-57

23 decay rates by internal conversion have been changed, so

24 I'm not sure that's even true.



1 Q But even if it were true, it would be irrelevant

2 because Iron-57 would remain Iron-57?

3 A That's exactly right.

4 Q And the isotope techniques you rely upon are

5 changed from one element to another?

6 A That's true.

7 Q Could you give, another example?

8 A Yes. Another example frequently cited is the use

9 of neutrinos. They frequently claim that neutrinos might

10 change decay rates. There are several things wrong with

11 that hypothesis also. The first thing, the source of

12 their statement was a column in Industrial Research by

13 Frederich Houtermanns entitled Speculative Science or

14 something. Scientific Speculation is the title of his

15 column.

16 And without any empirical evidence whatsoever,

17 Houtermanns speculated the neutrinos might somehow effect

18 radioactive clocks. But there is no theory for that and

19 there is no empirical evidence that such is the case.

20 The creationists conveniently leave out the speculative

21 nature of that particular idea.

22 The second thing is that neutrinos are extremely small

23 particles. They have virtually no mass or little mass and

24 no charge. They were first postulated by Pauli back in

25 the 1930's as a way of an atom carrying off excess energy


1 A (Continuing) when it decays by beta decay. They

2 interact so little with matter, in fact, that they're very

3 difficult to detect, and it's several decades later before

4 they were even detected. Neutrinos can pass completely

5 through the earth without interacting with the matter, and

6 there's no reason at all to suspect that they would change

7 the decay rates or alter the decay rates in any way.

8 Finally, the creationists typically argue that neutrinos

9 might reset the atomic clock. I am not quite sure what

10 they mean by that, but if it's used in the usual sense, to

11 reset a clock means starting it back at zero. The effect

12 of that would be that all of our radiometric dating

13 techniques would overestimate the geologic ages and ages

14 of the earth, not underestimate them. So that works

15 against their hypothesis.

16 Q If they reset the clocks, then the test results

17 from that resetting would show the earth to be younger

18 than in fact?

19 A Yes. What, in fact, we would have would be a

20 minimum age instead of a correct age. So it works in

21 exactly the opposite direction.

22 Q In addition to questioning the constancy of the

23 decay rates, do creation scientists make other criticisms

24 of radiometric dating?

25 A Yes. One of their other criticisms is that your


1 A (Continuing) parent or daughter isotopes might be

2 either added or subtracted from the rock between the time

3 of its formation and the time it would be measured. And

4 they commonly say that since we can't know whether or not

5 the daughter or parent isotopes have been added or

6 subtracted, therefore, we have no basis for assuming they

7 are not, or for calculating an age from this data.

8 Q Is that commonly referred to as the closed

9 system-open system problem?

10 A Yes. Basically all radiometric dating techniques

11 require - most of them do, not all - most of them

12 require that the rock system, the piece of rock or the

13 mineral they were measuring, has been a closed system

14 since the time of crystallization up until the time that we

15 measure.

16 And what they're basically saying is that we have no way

17 of knowing whether they have been a closed system or not.

18 Q What steps do geochronologists take to insure that

19 the samples they test have remained closed systems and

20 have not changed since they were initially formed?

21 A We try to be fairly careful with that. We don't

22 run out and pick up just any rock and subject it to these

23 expensive and time consuming tests. There are several

24 different ways we go about this. The first thing is, we

25 can observe the geological circumstances in which the


1 A (Continuing) sample occurs. And that tells us a

2 lot about the history of that sample, what kinds of

3 external factors it might have been subjected to.

4 The second thing is that there are microscopic

5 techniques that we can use to examine the rock in detail

6 and tell, whether or not it's likely to have been a closed

7 system since its formation.

8 You see, all things that can affect the rock system in

9 terms of opening it also leave other evidence behind, like

10 changes in minerals that we can observe. So we have

11 pretty good field and laboratory techniques which will

12 tell in advance whether a system has been a closed system

13 or an open system.

14 Q Do you, yourself, engage in that testing process?

15 A Oh, yes, all the time. As a result, I personally

16 reject perhaps a half to three-quarters of all samples for

17 dating just for that very reason that the samples are not

18 suitable. This rejection is done before we get any

19 results.

20 Q Once you have a sample which you believe has not

21 changed since formation, is there any objective way to

22 test a sample to determine whether you're right or wrong?

23 A Yes. There are a number of objective ways to do

24 that. These ways rely on the results themselves.

25 Q Do the results themselves show whether the sample has

changed its formation?


1 A Yes, they do.

2 Q If the results of a test showed that a sample had changed

3 since formation, is that sample then utterly

4 worthless?

5 A No, not at all. We are not always interested in

6 the age of the rock, For example, sometime we are

7 interested in the age of the heating events. If, for

8 example, a rock body has been subjected to heating, we

9 might be more interested in what event caused that heating

10 than the usual crystallization age of the rock, so that

11 usually these kinds of results give us other kinds of

12 information.

13 They also tell us a good deal about the state of that

14 sample, whether or not it has been an open or closed

15 system. So just because we don't get a reliable

16 crystallization age doesn't mean that we aren't getting

17 other information.

18 For example, we might end up with the age of the heating

19 events which would be an extremely valuable piece of

20 information. Sometimes just knowing the sample has not

21 been a closed system is an extremely valuable piece of

22 information.

23 So we use these dating techniques for lots of things

24 other than determining the age of the rock sample.

25 Q How many methods are there for determining


1 Q (Continuing) subjectively whether a sample has been

2 changed since formation?

3 A Well, there are quite a variety, but I think they

4 can be lumped into about four categories. Those include

5 dating two minerals from the same rock; using two

6 different techniques on the same rock; other tests that

7 are called geological consistency tests, and finally,

8 there is a category of techniques called isochron

9 techniques that also serve that purpose.

10 Q Could you briefly describe the first method?

11 A Yes. In dating of two minerals from the same rock,

12 the reason we do that is because different minerals

13 respond in different ways to external factors.

14 For example, in the potassium argon method, the daughter

15 product is argon, which is a rare gas. It's not terribly

16 happy being inside minerals. It doesn't chemically

17 combine with any of the other elements there.

18 If we take the mineral biotite, that's a mica, for

19 example, and date that with the potassium argon method,

20 then we also date the mineral hornblende with the

21 potassium argon method, if there has been an external

22 influence on this system, we expect those two minerals to

23 respond differently.

24 This is because the biotite would start to release its

25 argon at temperatures of perhaps two-fifty to three


1 A (Continuing) hundred degrees centigrade, whereas

2 the hornblende would reach six or seven hundred degrees

3 centigrade before it starts to release its argon.

4 There, of course, has been a heating event of, let's say

5 hypothetically five hundred degrees, we would expect to

6 see argon loss or younger ages from the biotites, whereas

7 the hornblende might retain all of its argon completely.

8 The main point is that when we get a discrepancy like

9 this, we know that something has happened to the system

10 that made it, violate our assumption of a closed system,

11 and that's valuable information.

12 Q And if you get that result, you then do not use

13 that sample to postulate an age for the initial formation

14 of the samples?

15 A That's right. The results themselves tell us that

16 that would be a very dangerous conclusion to come to. But

17 we can postulate that there has been something happen to

18 that rock.

19 Q Go to the second method you use.

20 A The second method involves using two different

21 dating techniques on the same rock. This has a couple of

22 advantages. It's a little more powerful than the first

23 method.

24 For example, if we use the potassium argon method, which

25 has a half life of one point two five billion years, and


1 A (Continuing) we use the rubidium strontium method,

2 which has a half life of forty-eight point eight billion

3 years, we essentially have two clocks running at different

4 speeds but keeping the same time.

5 If I could use an analogy, we might have two

6 wristwatches. One wristwatch might use a balance wheel

7 that rotates back and forth five times a second. On the

8 other hand we might have a digital watch that uses a

9 little quartz crystal that operates at a speed of, let's

10 say, twenty thousand times a second. We, then, have two

11 watches that are ticking at different rates but keeping

12 the same time. That same advantage accrues to using two

13 different methods on the same rock.

14 The second advantage is the daughter products are

15 different. The daughter product of the potassium argon

16 method is argon. It's a rare gas. It behaves quite

17 differently to heating, whether in alteration, than does

18 strontium-87, which is the daughter product of the

19 rubidium strontium method. Strontium-87 is not a gas,

20 it's a chemical element that likes to be in chemical

21 combination with certain other things in a rock.

22 So again we expect a different response.

23 Q Does testing a sample with the two or more

24 techniques frequently yield the same age for that sample?

25 A Yes. Particularly in the cases where we know from


1 A (Continuing) other evidence that the sample has

2 been undisturbed, we commonly get that result.

3 Q What do creation scientists say about age

4 agreements between different techniques?

5 A Well, they usually just ignore them. They don't

6 pay any attention to them at all.

7 Q Does testing a sample with two or more techniques

8 ever yield different rates for that sample?

9 A Yes. Quite often it does.

10 Q What do creation scientists say about those age

11 disagreements?

12 A Well, they usually use those disagreements and

13 purport that they have evidence that the techniques don't

14 work.

15 Q Is that a scientific assessment of the evidence?

16 A Well, no. There are several things wrong with

17 that. In the first place, when we get disagreements, they

18 are almost invariably caused by some external factor that

19 has caused one of the clocks to read in a way that's too

20 young. It gives us an age that is too young.

21 The second thing is that age that is too young might

22 measure, for example, the age of the event. Those ages

23 that are too young are still millions and millions of

24 years old, which, even though we don't have agreement

25 between the techniques, still contradict the hypothesis


1 A (Continuing) of an earth less than ten thousand

2 years old.

3 Finally, the reason for doing these kinds of tests is to

4 determine in advance upon the results themselves whether

5 or not the technique is reliable. Therefore, they are

6 using our very test method as a criticism of the method

7 itself, and I sort of consider that dirty pool. It's not

8 very honest.

9 Q What's the third method commonly used to test the

10 changes in a sample?

11 A Well, the third method involves geological

12 consistency. Rocks don't occur all by themselves. They

13 usually are surrounded by other rocks, and the

14 relationship of the sample to these other rocks can be

15 determined.

16 Perhaps the simplest example might be a lava flow. If

17 we have a stack of lava flows from a volcano and we are

18 interested in determining the age of that volcano or that

19 stack of lava flows, we wouldn't just date one rock. We

20 would date one from the top of the sequence, perhaps; we

21 would date one from the bottom of the sequence, and we

22 might date eight or ten intermediate in the sequence.

23 We know because of the way lava flows form, one on top

24 of the other, that all of those ages should either be the

25 same or they should become progressively older as you go


1 A (Continuing) down in the pile.

2 If, in fact, we get random or chaotic results, that

3 tells us that something is wrong about our assumption of

4 the closed system, so we can use a variety of geological

5 consistency tests like this to test the results as well.

6 Q What is the fourth method that you rely upon?

7 A Well, the fourth is really a family of methods

8 called isochron techniques.

9 Q How do the isochron techniques differ from the

10 other techniques you've just mentioned?

11 A These are techniques that have especially built in

12 checks and balances, so that we can tell from the results

13 themselves, without making any other assumptions, whether

14 or not the techniques are giving reliable ages.

15 Some isochron techniques really work very well, and work

16 best on open systems. Isochron techniques typically yield

17 two important results. One is, most of the isochron

18 techniques are able to tell us the amount and composition

19 of any initial daughter that is present. That's not

20 something we need to assume, it's something that falls out

21 of the calculations.

22 The second thing is that the isochron techniques tell us

23 very clearly whether a sample has been opened or closed.

24 If the sample is still an isochron, then we know that that


1 A (Continuing) sample is a good closed system. If we

2 don't get an isochron, we know that something is wrong

3 with the sample. And we get these results just from the

4 experimental data themselves, without any other geological

5 consideration.

6 So they are ultimately self-checking, and they are one

7 of the most common, surefire ways to date rocks.

8 Q Have creation scientist's produced any evidence or

9 suggested any plausible theory to support their assertion

10 that the earth is only about ten thousand years old?

11 A No. I know of no plausible theory that they

12 suggest. They have proposed several methods that don't

13 work.

14 Q Have you looked into the creation science claim

15 that the decay of the earth's magnetic field shows a young

16 earth?

17 A Yes. I've looked into that in some detail. That

18 is rather fully described in an Institute for Creation

19 Research technical monograph by Thomas Barnes, which if I

20 recall correctly is titled The Origin and Destiny of the

21 Earth's Magnetic Field.

22 Let me try to explain briefly what Barnes asserts. For

23 the last hundred and fifty years or so, since 1835,

24 scientists have analyzed the earth's magnetic field, and

25 they have noticed that the dipole moment, and we can think


1 A (Continuing) of that just as the strength of the

2 main magnetic field, has decreased, and it has decreased

3 in intensity over the last hundred and fifty years.

4 The decrease amounts to about six or seven percent.

5 Barnes claims that the earth's magnetic fields are

6 decaying remnants of a field that was originally created

7 at the time the earth was created, and that it is

8 irreversible decaying and will eventually vanish, in about

9 nine or ten thousand years.

10 What Barnes does is assume that this decay is

11 exponential. Actually you can't tell whether it's

12 exponential within the earth, but he assumes it's

13 exponential going back to a hypothesis proposed by,

14 actually a model proposed by Sir Forrest Land back in the

15 eighteen hundreds.

16 Land is not talking about the magnetic field, though.

17 He gives the mathematical calculations that Barnes uses.

18 Barnes then calculates a half life with this presumed

19 exponential decay, extrapolates backwards in time and

20 concludes that in 8000 B.C. the strength of the earth's

21 dipole moment would have been the same as the strength of

22 the magnetic star.

23 And since that is obviously absurd, and I would have to

24 agree that that would be absurd, therefore, the earth must

25 be less than ten thousand years old.


1 Q What is wrong with that claim?

2 A Well, there are quite a few things wrong with that

3 claim. To start with, Barnes only considers the dipole

4 field. The earth's magnetic field, to a first

5 approximation, is like a dipole. That is, it produces the

6 same field as would a large bar magnet, roughly parallel

7 to the axis of rotation of the earth, lining across the

8 merging poles, circle around the earth, and return back in

9 at the other pole. But that's not the whole story.

10 That's only the part that Barnes works with.

11 The other component of the magnetic field is the

12 non-dipole field. These are irregularities that are

13 superimposed on the dipole field and amount to a

14 considerable proportion of the total field.

15 Finally, theory tells us that there is probably another

16 very large component of the magnetic field inside the core

17 of the earth that we can't observe because the line of the

18 flux are closed.

19 So Barnes makes several mistakes. First, he equates the

20 dipole field with the total earth's field, which it's

21 not. It's only a part of the earth's field. And second,

22 he equates the dipole field strength with the total

23 magnetic energy. And both of those extrapolations are

24 completely unjustified.

25 Careful studies of the non-dipole and dipole field over


1 A (Continuing) the past fifty years have shown that

2 the decrease in the dipole field is exactly balanced by an

3 increase in the strength of the non-dipole field.

4 In fact, over the last fifty years, as far as we can

5 tell, there has been no decay in total field energy

6 external to the core at all. Similar studies over the

7 last hundred and twenty years show a very slight decrease

8 in the total field energy external to the core. So in

9 fact, we don't know exactly what's happening to the total

10 field energy.

11 And finally, paleomagnetic observations have shown that

12 the strength of the dipole moment doesn't decrease

13 continually in one direction, but it oscillates with

14 periods of a few thousand years. So it goes up for a

15 while and goes down for a while. At the same time the

16 non-dipole field is also changing.

17 And lastly, he completely ignores geomagnetic

18 reversals. Paleomagnetic studies of rocks have shown

19 conclusively that the earth's field has periodically, in

20 the past, reversed polarities, so that the North Pole

21 becomes the South Pole, and vice versa. This happens

22 rather frequently geologically, that is, hundreds of

23 thousands to millions of years at a time.

24 We now have a pretty good time scale for those reversals

25 over the last ninety million years. And Barnes completely

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P434-466


1 A (continuing) ignores that evidence.

2 One thing we do know about geomagnetic reversals from

3 the evidence, of rocks is that during the process of the

4 field reversing, the dipole moment decays.

5 Q What do creation scientists say about the

6 possibility of the polarity reversals?

7 A Well, they claim that they can't happen, and they

8 claim that they have not happened.

9 Q Is there any basis for that claim?

10 A No, none whatsoever. The paleomagnetic evidence is

11 very sound, and, in fact, it's verified by other evidence

12 as well.

13 It's also interesting to note that the earth's field is

14 not the only field that reverses polarity. For example,

15 in 1953, the dipole field of the sun was positive polarity

16 in the North and negative polarity in the South pole.

17 Over the next few years the strength of the sun's dipole

18 field began to decrease, very much in the same way that

19 the strengths of the earth's dipole field is now

20 decreasing, until within a few years it had vanished

21 entirely. It couldn't be measured from the earth.

22 Then gradually it began to reestablish itself, and by

23 1958 the sun's dipole field was completely reversed, so

24 that the North Pole, instead of being positive, was now

25 negative, and vice versa for the South Pole.


1 A (Continuing) So geomagnetic reversals are not a

2 surprising phenomena, and in fact, they are expected.

3 Magnetic reversals have also been seen in the stars.

4 Q But creation scientists just deny that that happens?

5 A Well, they never mention that. It's simply ignored.

6 Q Do creation science arguments for a young earth

7 rely on the cooling of the earth?

8 A Yes. They commonly use that argument. And again,

9 that argument is one that has been championed by Thomas

10 Barnes and some of the patrons of the Institute of

11 Creation Research.

12 That particular theory, or idea, goes back to an idea

13 championed by Lord Kelvin (Thomson) who started in the

14 mid-eighteen hundreds. At that time you must remember

15 that there was no such thing as radioactivity. By that I

16 mean it had not been discovered yet.

17 Kelvin observed that the temperature of the earth

18 increased as it went downward from the surface. That is,

19 he observed the geothermal gradient. He had started with

20 the assumption that the earth started from a white hot

21 incandescent sphere and it cooled to its present state.

22 So he calculated how long that would take.

23 His first estimates were something between twenty and

24 four hundred million years. Later he settled on

25 twenty-four million years, which was not his figure, but


1 A (Continuing) it was a figure that was first

2 calculated by the geologist Clarence King, who quite

3 incidentally was the first director of the Geological Survey.

4 The problem with total analysis in Barnes championing of

5 this thing is that partly he took a physical way to

6 calculate the age of the earth. The problem with that is

7 that in 1903 Rutherford and Soddy demonstrated

8 conclusively that there's an enormous amount of energy

9 available in radioactive decay. In fact, all of the heat

10 now pouring outward from the earth can be accounted for

11 solely by radioactive elements in the earth's crust and

12 mantle.

13 Kelvin never publicly recanted his views, but in the

14 history of his life it has been recorded that he privately

15 admitted that the discovery by Rutherford and Soddy that

16 said this enormous energy is from radioactive decay had

17 completely disproved his hypothesis. Even Kelvin knew it

18 was wrong.

19 It's quite amazing to me that the creationists would

20 hold such an idea for a couple of reasons. The first

21 reason being that we've known for all these centuries that

22 Kelvin's calculations were completely irrelevant. And the

23 second thing is that Kelvin thought the earth was billions

24 of years old.

25 Q Do creation scientists rely on the accumulation of meteor

dust as evidence for a young age of the earth?


1 A Yes. That's another one that they claim. And I've

2 looked into it some, and if you don't mind, I'd like to

3 refer to some notes on that so that I get the figures

4 straight.

5 Q Could you explain that creation science claim?

6 A Yes. Morris, in 1974, and also a book by Wysong in

7 1966, both claim that there's evidence that the influx of

8 meteoric dust to the earth is fourteen million tons per

9 year.

10 And they calculate that if the earth were five billion

11 years old, this should result in a layer of meteoric dust

12 on the earth a hundred and eight-five feet thick. And

13 they say, "How absurd, we don't observe this," of course.

14 There are some problems with that, however. They are

15 relying on calculations done by a man by the name of

16 Peterson in 1960. What Peterson did was collect volumes

17 of air from the top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, using

18 a pump originally developed for smog, I believe.

19 Then he thought about the dust. Then he analyzed this

20 dust for nickel content. He observed that nickel was a

21 fairly rare element on the earth's crust. That's not

22 exactly true, but that was the assumption that he used.

23 And he assumed that the meteoric dust had a nickel

24 content of two and half percent. So using the mass of

25 dust that he had and the nickel content of the dust and an


1 A (Continuing) assumed two and a half percent nickel

2 content for meteoric material, he was able to calculate

3 the annual volume of meteoric dust that flowed into the

4 earth.

5 He came up with a figure of about fifteen million tons

6 per year, but when he weighed all of the evidence, he

7 finally concluded that perhaps, about five million tons per

8 year was about right.

9 Morris, on the other hand, and Wysong, both choose the

10 higher number, I think because that makes the layer of

11 dust thicker.

12 The problem with that is that nickel is not all that

13 uncommon in the earth's crust, and probably Peterson was

14 measuring a lot of contamination.

15 There have been more recent estimates than Peterson's.

16 In 1968, for example, Barker and Anders made an estimate

17 of the meteoric influx of cosmic dust based on the uranium

18 osmium contents, which are extremely rare, of matter in

19 deep sea sediments. And they came up with an influx

20 figure that was a factor of twenty-three lower than

21 Peterson's figure, and, therefore, twenty-three times

22 lower than the figure used by Morris.

23 Probably the best completely independent estimates,

24 however, are based on satellite data, satellite

25 penetration data. That is, the number and the mass of

particles distract satellites as they orbit the earth.


1 A (Continuing) And NASA collected quite a bit of

2 these data in the 1960's.

3 There was a review of that done in 1972, and you note

4 that that information was available when Morris and Wysong

5 wrote their book, but they didn't cite it.

6 Q What does that NASA data show?

7 A Well, that showed that the influx of meteoric

8 materials was, in fact, not fourteen million tons or even

9 five million tons per year, but more like eleven thousand

10 tons per year. In other words, two orders of magnitude

11 lower.

12 And coming out here on the plane, I redid Morris'

13 calculations using these better figures, and I came up

14 with a rough layer of four point six centimeters in five

15 billion years. And of course, with the rainfall and

16 everything, that simply would have been washed away.

17 There's an interesting aside. NASA was quite concerned

18 about the layer of dust on the moon. NASA estimated that

19 it would produce a layer of dust on the moon in four and a

20 half billion years of about one and half to perhaps

21 fifteen centimeters maximum. And in the least disturbed

22 areas of the moon, the astronauts measured a thickness of

23 about ten centimeters, so the observations agree exactly

24 with the predictions.

25 Q Do these observations on the moon prove that the


1 (Continuing) earth or the moon are, in fact, four

2 point five to five million years old?

3 A No, they don't prove anything whatsoever except

4 that there's dust on the moon. It's another one of those

5 processes that has a non-constant rate. We have more

6 reason to suspect that the rate of influx of meteoric dust

7 has been constant with time. In fact, we have a lot of

8 reasons to suspect that it is not.

9 For example, in the early history of the earth, four and

10 a half billion years ago when the earth was first formed,

11 it was sweeping up out of space enormous amounts of

12 material. During those periods of the earth's history, we

13 would expect the influx rate to be very, very high. Now

14 it's much lower.

15 The evidence indicates it has probably been constant for

16 perhaps the last ten million years. We have no idea what

17 the rate of influx of meteoric dust has been over geologic

18 history. So it's one of these things that you simply can't

19 use.

20 Q Do creation scientists rely upon the shrinking of

21 the sun?

22 A Yes. That's another one I've read, and that stems

23 from a paper, I think in the Institute of Creation

24 Research Impact, Number 82, published in April of 1980.

25 Their claim is based on a paper by Eddie Inpornasian (Aram

Boornazian) which was published in 1979. Using


1 A (Continuing) visual observations of the sun, Aram

2 Boornazian observed that they thought that the sun's

3 diameter was decreasing. And it was decreasing at such a

4 rate that in a hundred thousand years the sun would vanish

5 to a point.

6 And the creationists work this backwards and say that if

7 the earth was as old as geologists claim it was, then the

8 sun would have been very large in the past history, and

9 would have been so large that life would not have been

10 possible on the earth.

11 The problem with this particular calculation is that the

12 original data of Aram Boornazian was completely wrong.

13 There had been another study done by Irwin Shapiro of MIT,

14 who used twenty-three transits of mercury across the face

15 of the sun that occurred between 1736 and sometime within

16 the last few years, a much more accurate way to measure

17 the diameter of the sun than the techniques used by Aram

18 and his colleagues. Shapiro, his paper was published in

19 1980. He said rather conclusively that the sun's diameter

20 is not changing at all. The sun is not shrinking or it's

21 not growing.

22 Q Are you aware of other supposed tests for the

23 earth's age proposed by creation scientists?

24 A Yes. There are a number of them in a book by

25 Morris called, I believe, The Scientific Case for Creation.

As I recall, he proposes about seventy


1 A (Continuing) different methods that he lists. They

2 ranged all the way from influx of soda aluminum into the

3 oceans, for which he gets a figure of a hundred years, I

4 believe, to influx of magma into the crust, for which he

5 gets a figure of five hundred million years.

6 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, Plaintiffs have previously

7 marked for identification excerpts from that particular

8 book that include approximately six pages to which Doctor

9 Dalrymple might refer in his testimony. I have given

10 copies of those additional six pages to the Attorney

11 General.

12 If there is no objection, I'd like for those six pages

13 to be added and included with Plaintiffs' Exhibit

14 Eighty-Six for identification.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

17 Q I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit Eighty-Six

18 for identification.

19 A Okay.

20 Q Does Mr. Morris, in that book, acknowledge any

21 assumptions he used in deciding which of those tests to

22 rely upon and which not to rely upon?

23 A Yes, he does. On page 53 he makes the following

24 statement: "It is equally legitimate for creationists to

25 calculate apparent ages using assumptions which agree with


1 A (Continuing) their belief in special creation,

2 provided they acknowledge that fact. And then he goes on

3 to present seventy such calculations, most of which are

4 made by him and his colleagues, but some of which he

5 refers to the scientific literature.

6 Q What do those seventy tests supposedly show?

7 A Well, Morris approaches this in a rather strange

8 way. He says, "I'm going to make all these calculations

9 for the age of the earth using these assumptions," and

10 then gets a variety of results, ranging from too small to

11 measure, to, I don't know, five hundred million years,

12 something like that.

13 And he says, "Look how inconsistent the results are. As

14 you see, we really can't calculate the age of the earth."

15 However, he thinks that the young ages are probably more

16 reliable than the old ages, basically because there would

17 have been less time for external factors to affect the

18 calculation.

19 The problem with these seventy ages is that most of them

20 rely on rates that are not constant. And these seventy

21 also include things like the magnetic field and meteoric

22 dust, which I have already discussed.

23 Sometimes, however, he uses very misleading and

24 erroneous data.

25 Q Could you give me an example of that?


1 A Yes, I can. There is one which is here, number

2 thirty-three. It's entitled, "Formation of Carbon 14 on

3 Meteorites." The age he lists is a hundred thousand

4 years, and the reference he gives is to a paper published

5 in 1972 by Boeckl. There is a problem with that, and that

6 is that Boeckl's: paper was not about meteorites at all;

7 Boeckl's paper was about tektites. Tektites are objects

8 which are thought to originate on the earth.

9 The second thing was that Boeckl was interested in

10 calculating the cosmic rays exposure ages for these

11 tektites. He wanted to know how long they had spent in

12 space.

13 In order to make the calculations he was trying to make,

14 he had to assume an initial age for the tektites. His

15 calculations were not terribly sensitive at all to what he

16 assumed, so he just assumed ten thousand years for his

17 particular purpose.

18 I don't know where Morris got a hundred thousand years.

19 That figure he must have made up. But the fact is that

20 Boeckl's paper wasn't about the subject Morris claims it

21 was. There was no data in Boeckl's paper that could be

22 used to calculate the age of the earth or anything else.

23 The one age that Boeckl was trying to calculate was the

24 residence time of these objects in space, and that's all.

25 So this is truly misleading and very unscientific.


1 Q Doctor Dalrymple, in conclusion, in your

2 professional opinion, is there any scientific evidence

3 which indicates a relatively recent inception of the earth?

4 A There is none whatsoever.

5 MR. ENNIS: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: I think we probably ought to recess for

7 the night. How long do you think your cross examination

8 is going to be?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Not very long, your Honor.

10 THE COURT: You are talking about five or ten

11 minutes?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: It will be a little longer. Might

13 take twenty minutes, or under.

14 THE COURT: Why don't we wait until tomorrow to do

15 it if you don't mind.

16 I found out today that GSA recalculated the cost of

17 driving an automobile, and it is not twenty-two and a half

18 cents a mile like they were paying us; it is twenty cents

19 a mile. And you can find some comfort in that, but I

20 think I am going to protest by quitting early today.

21 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

22 at 5:15 p.m.)







3 Witness:

4 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:



7 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 449

8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 471

9 Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 486



12 Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 494

13 Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 577



16 Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 514

17 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 611



20 Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 641

21 Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 684










5 Plaintiffs' No. 121 474 474

6 Defendants' No. 1 486 486

7 Plaintiffs' No. 93 494 494

8 Plaintiffs' No. 96 515 515

9 Plaintiffs' No. 101 552 552

10 Plaintiffs' No. 123 556 556

11 Defendants' No. 2 616 616

12 Plaintiffs' No. 40 649 649

13 Plaintiffs' No. 41 - 50 660 660

14 Plaintiffs' No. 128 667 667

15 Defendants' No. 3 689 689












1 (December 9, 1981)

2 (9:00 a.m.)

3 THE COURT: I see you all made it back, and I

4 believe we are about to begin the cross examination of

5 Doctor Dalrymple.




8 Q Is constancy of the rate of radioactive decay a

9 requirement for radiometric dating?

10 A Yes. It is required that radiometric dating be

11 based on constant decay rates, at least within limits of

12 significant areas, and what I mean by that is that if the

13 decay rates were to change a percent or two, that would

14 probably not significantly alter any of our major

15 conclusions in geology.

16 Q To the best of your knowledge, has the rate of

17 radioactive decay always been constant?

18 A As far as we know from all the evidence we have, it

19 has always been constant. We have no, either empirical or

20 theoretical reason to believe it is not.

21 Q So as far as you know, it would have been constant

22 one billion years ago, the same as it is today.

23 A As far as we know.

24 Q Five billion years ago?

25 A As far as we know.


1 Q Ten billion years ago?

2 A As far as we know.

3 Q Fifteen billion?

4 A I don't know how far back you want to take this, but

5 I think for the purposes of geology and the age of the

6 solar system, we are only interested in using radiometric

7 dating on objects we can possess in our hand, so we only

8 need to take that back about four and a half or five

9 billion years.

10 I think whether it's been constant fifteen billion years

11 is irrelevant, we have no way of getting samples that old.

12 We can only sample things that have been in the solar

13 system.

14 Q How old is the solar system, to the best of your

15 knowledge?

16 A As far as we know, it is four and a half billion

17 years old.

18 Q The solar system itself?

19 A The solar system itself. Now, when we talk about

20 the age of something like the solar system, you have to

21 understand that there was a finite period of time over

22 which that system formed, and we may be talking about a

23 period of a few hundred years, so it is not a precise

24 point in time, but some interval, but compared with the

25 age of the solar system, it is thought that that interval


1 A (Continuing) was probably rather short-a few

2 percent.

3 Q Are you aware of when those scientists hypothesized

4 or when the so-called Big Bang occurred, how many years

5 ago?

6 A No, I am not sure exactly when that was supposed--

7 Q Would the rate of radioactive decay have been

8 constant at the time of the Big Bang?

9 A I am not an astrophysicist. I don't know the

10 conditions that existed in the so-called primordial bowl

11 of soup, and so I am afraid I can't answer your question.

12 Q So you don't have any opinion as to whether it was

13 constant then?

14 A That's out of my field of expertise. I can't even

15 tell you whether there were atoms in the same sense that

16 we use that term now.

17 Q But you did state that it had always been constant

18 as far as you knew, but now you state you don't know about

19 the Big Bang, whether it was constant then; is that

20 correct?

21 A Well, what I said, it's been constant within the

22 limits in which we are interested. For the purposes of

23 radiometric dating it hardly matters whether it was

24 constant at the moment of the Big Bang. Let me say this-

25 Q I don't want to interrupt you.


1 A That's all right.

2 Q You say as far as you are concerned, for the

3 purposes of your concern it has been constant as far as

4 you know, and your purposes go back to the age of the

5 earth for four point five billion years; is that correct?

6 A Yes, that's correct.

7 Q But you base that age of the earth on the assumption

8 or on this requirement that it has always been constant;

9 is that correct?

10 A That is not entirely- That's correct, but it is

11 not an assumption. It is not fair to calculate it that

12 way. In a certain sense it is an assumption, but that

13 assumption has also been tested.

14 For example, if you look at the ages of the oldest,

15 least disturbed meteorites, these objects give ages at one

16 point five to four point six billion years. A variety of

17 different radioactive decay schemes, schemes it at

18 different half lives. They are based on different

19 elements. They would not give those identical ages if the

20 rate of decay had been constant.

21 Q But do those schemes that you mentioned there rely

22 upon the requirement that the rate of radioactive decay

23 has always been constant as well?

24 A Yes, they do.

25 Q So all methods you know would rely upon this, what


1 Q (Continuing) you termed a requirement and what I

2 termed an assumption; is that correct?

3 A That is correct.

4 Q The rate of decay is a statistical process, is it

5 not? I think you testified yesterday to that.

6 A Basically, it is.

7 Q Would you agree that any deviation in the rate of

8 decay would have to be accompanied by a change in physical

9 laws?

10 A As far as we know, any change in decay would have to

11 be accompanied by a change in physical laws, with the

12 exceptions that I mentioned yesterday. There are small

13 changes known in certain kinds of decay, specifically in

14 electron capture, a tenth of a percent.

15 Q What do you consider the strongest evidence for the

16 constant rate of radioactive decay?

17 A Well, I don't think I could give you a single piece

18 of strongest evidence, but I think the sum total of the

19 evidence, if I can simplify it, is that rates of decay

20 have been tested in the laboratory and found to be

21 essentially invariant.

22 Theory tells us those rates of decay should be

23 invariant. And when we are able to test those rates of

24 decay on undisturbed systems; that is, systems that we

25 have good reason to presume have been closed since their


1 A (Continuing) formation clear back to the oldest

2 objects known in the solar system, we find we get

3 consistent results using different decay schemes on

4 isotopes that decay at different rates.

5 So that is essentially a synopsis of the evidence for

6 constancy of decay.

7 Q Did you say- but is it not true that as long-

8 Well, if the rate of decay has varied and as long as the

9 variation would have been uniform, would you still get

10 these consistent results?

11 A It is possible to propose a set of conditions under

12 which you could get those consistent results.

13 THE COURT: Excuse me. I didn't understand that.

14 THE WITNESS: I think what he is saying is, is it

15 possible to vary the decay rate in such a way that you

16 could still get a consistent set of results by using

17 different decay schemes, and I think it is always possible

18 to propose such a set of circumstances, yes.

19 So that question is in the nature of a "what if", and

20 one can always come to the conclusion that you can

21 restructure science in such a way to make that "what if"

22 happen. But that is not the sort of thing we usually do

23 unless we have good reason to presume the physical laws

24 have changed, and we presume they have not.

25 The same is true with things like the speed of light,


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) gravitational constant and

2 so forth. May I elaborate just a little bit more? We are

3 not talking about small changes in decay. If the creation

4 scientists are correct and the earth is only ten thousand

5 years old, we are talking about many orders of magnitude,

6 thousands of times difference. The difference between the

7 age of the earth that scientists calculate and the age

8 that the creationists calculate are different by a factor

9 of four hundred and fifty thousand.

10 So you don't have to perturb the constancy of decay laws

11 a little bit; you have to perturb them a lot.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

13 Q Where in Act 590 is the age of the earth listed as

14 ten thousand years?

15 A It is not listed as ten thousand years in 590.

16 Q To you, as a geologist, would not an age of several

17 hundred million years still be relatively recent?

18 A That would be considered on the young side of middle

19 age, yes.

20 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, while we are on that

21 point, I have really been curious. What does the State

22 contend a teacher is supposed to interpret that to

23 mean- "relatively recent"? What is going to be your

24 contention, if you are a biology teacher and the biology

25 teacher tells the students about "relatively recent"?


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) What does that mean?

2 MR. WILLIAMS: I think it means a couple of things.

3 First of all, that there may be some doubt as to the

4 reliability of some of the dating methods which are

5 currently being used. Therefore, the generally accepted,

6 as described by Doctor Dalrymple, age of four point five

7 billion years may not be that certain.

8 I think, secondly, our testimony will show that because

9 of this factor the age of the earth may, in fact, be

10 somewhat younger. The State, I don't think, is tied to

11 the age of ten thousand years as the plaintiff has tried

12 to pin on Act 590.

13 Indeed, the age of the earth is probably, in terms of

14 the overall creation science model, is probably, I would

15 say, the least important of those. I am not sure how much

16 the subject would come up in a biology class myself. I

17 have some questions about it myself.

18 THE COURT: Apparently the Act directs that it come

19 up. I'm curious about that.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, your Honor, the Act directs

21 that there be balanced treatment when there is scientific

22 evidence on either side. And doesn't it require that all-

23 THE COURT: I assume that any biology course will

24 address the age of the earth in some fashion, and they

25 will, I think, talk about radioactive decay and that


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) method of aging the world or

2 judging the age of the world. And I gather the Act also

3 directs the biology teacher to say something about a

4 relatively recent formation of the earth, and I'm puzzled

5 as to what the teacher is supposed to say.

6 Are they supposed to approach it in a negative fashion

7 and say, "No, it's not four and a half billion years

8 old"? And what if some student says, "Well, how old is

9 it, then, under this model?" What would they say?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, let me say that

11 I'm not engaged in curriculum design or materials design,

12 but as I understand it, I think that they could say that

13 there are besides this, other sciences, first of all, who

14 have some doubts as to this dating method. There are

15 other competent scientists who believe that the earth

16 might be, relatively speaking, to the four point five

17 billion years, relatively speaking, younger than that. I

18 don't think there is any one age which anyone would have

19 to be taught as an alternative age. I think it would be a

20 range of ages.

21 THE COURT: Well, again, what is that range, then?

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, your Honor, I would prefer, if

23 we could, to defer that to the presentation of our

24 testimony when we will get into that.

25 THE COURT: Maybe that would be best. It's just


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) something that keeps occurring

2 to me as we listen to the testimony here.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

4 Q Mr. Dalrymple, is it correct that you think that

5 geochronology establishes an age of the earth, not only

6 that the earth is several million years old, but also

7 establishes the age of the fossils which are enclosed in

8 the rocks?

9 A Yes. That's correct.

10 Q Is there any reliable method for gauging fossils

11 themselves that you are aware of?

12 A You mean dating the fossil specifically?

13 Q Yes.

14 A There is one method, but it does not go back very

15 far, and that's Carbon-14. The rest of the fossils on the

16 record are done by dating primarily igneous rocks that are

17 in known relationship to fossils. By an igneous rock, I

18 mean a rock that's cooled from a melt, like a lava flow or

19 granite.

20 Q How old would you say that geochronology establishes

21 the ages of the oldest fossils?

22 A Well, the oldest fossils that I know of - And I'm

23 not a paleontologist; I'm going to have to give you a

24 semi-layman's answer - that I know of are bacteria that

25 are found in certain shales in, I believe, Africa or South


1 A (Continuing) Africa. And if I remember correctly,

2 those are close to three billion years old.

3 Q You say you're not a paleontologist and you give a

4 lay answer, but the method of dating fossils actually

5 relies upon the dating of certain rocks around the fossil,

6 does it not?

7 A Well, not necessarily the rocks that actually

8 enclose the fossil, because most of the dating technicians

9 work on igneous rock or metamorphic rocks, that is,

10 crystalline rocks in which fossils don't occur.

11 But again, to take a simple case, if we had a

12 sedimentary bed that includes fossils and we have a lava

13 flow beneath that bed and another lava flow on top of that

14 bed. And if we date those two lava flows, then we have

15 sensibly dated the age of that fossil, or at least we have

16 bracketed the age of that fossil.

17 That's the general way in which fossils are dated

18 radiometrically.

19 Q Now, do you understand that biologists consider

20 these fossils enclosed in these rocks to be the relics or

21 the remnants of some evolutionary development?

22 A Well, I think the fossils are relics of an animal.

23 Q Would that be the evidence of the evolutionary

24 development?

25 A Well, as far as I know, yes.


1 Q Then would it be fair to say in your mind that the

2 ages for the various types of fossils have been most

3 precisely determined or measured by radioactive dating or

4 by geochronology?

5 A That sounds like a fair statement.

6 Q Since geochronology does play such an important role

7 on the ages of the rocks and the fossils, would you agree

8 that it would be important to know whether there is any

9 evidence which exists which would bear on the fundamental

10 premises of geochronology?

11 A Of course. Let me add that that's a subject that's

12 been discussed considerably in scientific literature.

13 We're always searching for that sort of thing. That's a

14 much debated question

15 Q I think you said yesterday that anyone who believes.

16 in a young age of the earth, in your opinion, to be not

17 too bright scientifically, and are in the same category as

18 people who believe that the earth is flat?

19 A Yes. I think if we are talking about people who

20 profess to be scientists and insist on ignoring what the

21 actual evidence is for the age of the earth, then I find

22 it difficult to think that their thought processes are

23 straight.

24 Q Is it true that you do not know of any scientists

25 who would not agree with you, with your viewpoint on this


1 Q (Continuing) radioactive dating and of the age of

2 the earth and fossils?

3 A Will you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand

4 it.

5 Q Is it true that you stated, I think in your

6 deposition, that you do not know of any scientist-

7 MR. ENNIS: Excuse me. If you're referring to the

8 deposition, please identify it, what page.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not referring to a page at this

10 point, I'm asking a question.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

12 Q Is it true that you do not know of any scientist who

13 does not agree with you and your view point and opinion as

14 to the age of the earth and the fossils?

15 A It depends on who you include in the word

16 "scientist". I think if you want to include people who

17 categorize themselves as creation scientists, then that

18 would not be a true statement. I know that some of those

19 do not agree.

20 As far as my colleagues, geologists, geochemists,

21 geophysicists and paleontologists, the ones that I know

22 of, I don't know of any who disagree that the earth is

23 very old or that radiometric dating is not a good way to

24 date the earth.

25 Q Are you aware of any creation scientist, then, who


1 Q (Continuing) has published evidence in the open

2 scientific literature who has questioned the fundamental

3 premises of geochronology by radioactive dating?

4 A I know of one.

5 Q Who is that?

6 A That's Robert Gentry. I should say that Robert

7 Gentry characterizes himself as a creation scientist, if I

8 understand what he's written.

9 Q Are you familiar with Paul Damon?

10 A Yes. I know him personally.

11 Q Who is Mr. Damon?

12 A Mr. Damon is a professor at the University of

13 Arizona at Tucson. He specializes in geochronology.

14 Q Are you aware that Mr. Damon has stated in a letter

15 that if Mr. Gentry's work is correct, that it casts in

16 doubt that entire science of geochronology?

17 A Which letter are you referring to?

18 Q Do you recall the letter which you gave to me from

19 EOS by Mr. Damon?

20 A Yes. I recall the general nature of that letter.

21 Q And do you recall that Mr. Damon said that if

22 history is correct, in his deductions it would call up to

23 question the entire science of geochronology?

24 A Well, I think that's the general sense of what Paul

25 Damon said, but I think it's an overstatement. I'm not


1 A (Continuing) sure I would agree with him on that.

2 Q Mr. Damon is not a creation scientist, is he?

3 A No. Doctor Damon is not a creation scientist,

4 by any means.

5 Q Would you consider him to be a competent scientist

6 and an authority in this field?

7 A Yes. He's extremely competent.

8 Q Are you aware as to whether Mr. Gentry has ever

9 offered or provided a way for his evidence to e falsified?

10 A I am aware that he has proposed one, but I do not

11 think his proposal would falsify it either one way or the

12 other.

13 Q Have you ever made any attempts, experiments that

14 would attempt to falsify his work?

15 A Well, there are a great many- I guess you're going

16 to have to tell me specifically what you mean by "his

17 work". If you could tell me the specific scientific

18 evidence you're talking about, then let's discuss that.

19 Q Well, first of all, do you like to think you keep

20 current on the scientific literature as it may affect

21 geochronology?

22 A Well, I keep as current as I can. There's a mass

23 amount of literature. In the building next to my office,

24 there are over two hundred fifty thousand volumes, mostly

25 on geology. It's extremely difficult to keep current.


1 A (Continuing) But I am currently relatively up on

2 the mainstream, anyway.

3 Q Certainly the most important points?

4 A I do my best.

5 Q And if someone had issued a study which would, if

6 true, call up to question the entire science of

7 geochronology, would you not want to be made aware of that

8 and look at that closely yourself, as an expert in the

9 field?

10 A Oh, yes, I would.

11 Q And as a matter of fact, your familiarity with Mr.

12 Gentry's work is limited, is it not, to an article that he

13 wrote in 1972 and a letter that he wrote in response to

14 Mr. Damon's letter, in terms of what you have read, is

15 that correct?

16 A Those are the things I can recall having read, and

17 the reports that I have some recollection of. I have

18 never been terribly interested in radioactive haloes, and

19 I have not followed that work very closely. And that is

20 the subject upon which Mr. Gentry has done most of his

21 research.

22 As I think I told you in the deposition, I'm not an

23 expert on that particular endeavor. I'm aware that Mr.

24 Gentry has issued a challenge, but I think that challenge

25 is meaningless.


1 Q Well, let me ask you this. You stated in the

2 deposition, did you not- Let me ask you the question,

3 can, to your knowledge, granite be synthesized in a

4 laboratory?

5 A I don't know of anyone who has synthesized a piece

6 of granite in a laboratory. What relevance does that have

7 to anything?

8 Q I'm asking you the question, can it be done?

9 A Well, in the future I suspect that it will be done.

10 Q I understand. But you said it has not been done yet?

11 A I'm not aware that it has been done. It's an

12 extremely difficult technical problem, and that's

13 basically what's behind it.

14 Q To the extent that you are familiar with Mr.

15 Gentry's work and that as you have reviewed it, would you

16 consider him to be a competent scientist?

17 A I think Mr. Gentry is regarded as a competent

18 scientist within his field of expertise, yes.

19 Q And you would agree with that?

20 A From what I've seen, that's a fair assessment of his

21 work, yes. He's a very, did some very careful

22 measurements, and by and large he comes to reasonable

23 conclusions, I think, with the possible exception of what

24 we're hedging around the fringes here, and that is his

25 experiment to falsify his relatively recent inception of


1 A (Continuing) the earth hypothesis. We have not

2 really discussed what his hypothesis is and what his

3 challenge is, we've sort of beat around the edges.

4 Q Well, you haven't read his articles that he wrote

5 since 1972, have you?

6 A No. That's true.

7 Q So if his hypothesis were in those articles, you

8 really wouldn't be able to talk about it, at any rate,

9 would you?

10 A His hypothesis, I believe, is pretty fairly covered

11 In those letters between, exchange of letters between

12 Damon and Gentry, and I can certainly discuss that part.

13 That's a very current exchange of letters. It is just a

14 few years old. And it is in that letter that he throws

15 down to challenge to geology to prove him wrong. What I'm

16 saying is, that challenge is meaningless.

17 Q Are you familiar with his studies of radio haloes?

18 A No, I'm not familiar with that work at all.

19 Q But to the extent that work shows that evidence that

20 these formations are only several thousand years old,

21 you're not familiar with that?

22 A I'm not familiar with that, and I'm not sure I would

23 accept your conclusion unless I did look into it.

24 Q If you're not familiar with it, I don't want to

25 question you about something you're not familiar with.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P467-499


1 A Fair enough.

2 Q You have been active, of late, have you not, in

3 trying to formulate a resolution against creation science

4 in one of the professional societies to which you belong?

5 A That's true. The American Geophysical Union.

6 Q How do you go about writing that? Did you just sit

7 down and try to write something yourself?

8 A No. I requested from Bill Mayer copies of the

9 resolutions holding the teaching of creation science as

10 science in the classroom last March, so that I could see

11 the general form and tone of resolutions that had already

12 been passed by other principal scientific societies,

13 including the National Academy of Sciences. He sent me, I

14 believe, copies of about eight or nine.

15 And after reading through those, I drafted a proposal

16 which was sent around to members of the Council of the

17 American Geophysical Union. That proposal was discussed,

18 the resolution was modified, and a much abbreviated

19 resolution was adopted Sunday night.

20 Q I think you stated earlier that you reviewed quite a

21 bit of creation-science literature in preparation for your

22 testimony in this case and also a case in California, is

23 that correct?

24 A Yes. I think I've read either in whole or in part

25 about two dozen books and articles.


1 Q But on the list of books that you made or articles

2 that you have reviewed, you did not include any of Robert

3 Gentry's work as having been reviewed, did you?

4 A That's right. I did not.

5 Q Although you consider Gentry to be a creation

6 scientist?

7 A Well, yes. But, you know, the scientific literature

8 and even the creation science literature, which I do not

9 consider scientific literature - It's outside the

10 traditional literature - there is an enormously complex

11 business. There is a lot of it. And we can't review it

12 all.

13 Every time I review even a short paper, it takes me

14 several hours to read it, I have to think about the logic

15 involved in the data, I have to reread it several times to

16 be sure I understand what the author has said; I have to

17 go back through the author's references and sometimes read

18 as many as twenty or thirty papers that the author has

19 referenced to find out whether what has been referenced is

20 true or makes any sense; I have to check the calculations

21 to find out if they are correct. It's an enormous job.

22 And given the limited amount of time that I have to put in

23 on this, reviewing the creation science literature is not

24 a terribly productive thing for a scientist to do.

25 Q How many articles or books have you reviewed,


1 Q (Continuing) approximately?

2 A You mean in creation science literature?

3 Q Creation science literature.

4 A I think it was approximately twenty-four or

5 twenty-five, something like that, as best I can remember.

6 I gave you a complete list, which is as accurate as I can

7 recall.

8 Q And if there were articles in the open scientific

9 literature - Excuse me - in referee journals which

10 supported the creation science model, would that not be

11 something you would want to look at in trying to review

12 the creation science literature?

13 A Yes, and I did look at a number of those. And I

14 still found no evidence.

15 Q But you didn't look at any from Mr. Gentry?

16 A No, I did not. That's one I didn't get around to.

17 There's quite a few others I haven't gotten around to. I

18 probably never will look into all the creationists

19 literature.

20 I can't even look into all the legitimate scientific

21 literature. But I can go so far as to say that every case

22 that I have looked into in detail has had very, very

23 serious flaws. And I think I've looked at a

24 representative sample.

25 And also in Gentry's work, he's proposed a very tiny


1 A (Continuing) mystery which is balanced on the other

2 side by an enormous amount of evidence. And I think it's

3 important to know what the answer to that little mystery

4 is. But I don't think you can take one little fact for

5 which we now have no answer, and try to balance, say that

6 equals a preponderance of evidence on the other side.

7 That's just not quite the way the scales tip.

8 Q If that tiny mystery, at least by one authority who

9 you acknowledge his authority, has been said, if correct,

10 call to question the entire science of geochronology.

11 A Well, that's what Damon said. And I also said that

12 I did not agree with Paul Damon in that statement. I

13 think that's an overstatement of the case by a long way.

14 I think that Paul in that case was engaging in rhetoric.

15 Q What is your personal belief as to the existence of

16 a God?

17 A Well, I consider my religion a highly personal

18 matter, and I've never required personally anything other

19 than explaining the world we see around us by natural

20 events. But I try to remain rather open minded on the

21 subject.

22 So I guess at best I can tell you that I have not come

23 to any firm conclusion that I am not willing to change in

24 the future.

25 Q Did you not tell me during your deposition that you


1 Q (Continuing) would be something between an agnostic

2 and an atheist; is that correct?

3 A No. I said about halfway between an agnostic and an

4 atheist. But the reason I said that was because you were

5 trying to get me to label myself. And I think I also said

6 that I do not label myself. But you were insistent that I

7 give you some answer on that scale, and I'm afraid that's

8 the best I can do. I'm not happy with that answer, but I

9 simply can't do any better.

10 Q But you also stated, did you not, that you had not

11 seen any proof of a God?

12 A I think I did say that. Yes.

13 Q Nonetheless, you would agree that a religious person

14 can be a competent scientist?

15 A Absolutely, and I know a number of them.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions, Your Honor.





20 Q Doctor Dalrymple, Mr. Williams asked you about a

21 resolution of the American Geophysical Union. What is the

22 American Geophysical Union?

23 A The American Geophysical Union is the largest

24 society of physicists- Well, let me take that back. I

25 think it's one of the largest societies of geophysicists


1 A (Continuing) in North America. The American

2 Society for Exploration of Geophysicists may be larger.

3 I'm not sure.

4 It consists of a variety of sections that include

5 scientists working on geochemistry, seismology, petrology,

6 hydrology, planetology, astronomy, meteorology, upper

7 atmosphere physics, and so forth. Anything to do with the

8 physics and chemistry of the earth is included in the

9 American Geophysical Union.

10 Q Mr. Williams brought out on his cross examination

11 that you had worked on a proposed resolution to be

12 considered by the American Geophysical Union on this

13 subject, is that correct?

14 A Yes, I have.

15 Q And he brought out that in the course of working on

16 that resolution, you asked to see if other scientific

17 organizations had adopted resolutions on teaching of

18 creation science in public schools?

19 A That's correct.

20 Q What other resolutions did you obtain from which

21 other organizations?

22 A Well, I'm not sure I can remember them all. They

23 were mostly biological societies. There was the National

24 Association of Biology Teachers, there was the National

25 Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the


1 A (Continuing) Advancement of Sciences has a

2 resolution, and there were five or six others whose names

3 I don't remember at the moment. They are all included

4 in the material I think I gave to Mr. Williams.

5 Q These are other scientific organizations that have

6 adopted resolutions opposing the teaching of creation

7 science in public schools?

8 A Yes. They have opposed the teaching of creation

9 science as science. I want to e very specific about

10 that. Most organizations are not opposed to teaching it

11 as a part of a social science curriculum.

12 Q Do you have the power or authority by yourself to

13 issue a resolution on behalf of the American Geophysical

14 Union?

15 A No, of course not. I can only submit one to the

16 Council for approval.

17 Q And you testified during cross examination that on

18 December 6th the Council of the American Geophysical Union

19 did, in fact, adopt a resolution, is that correct?

20 A Yes. It was Sunday night, if that was December 6th.

21 Q I'd like to show you a document and ask you if that

22 document reflects the resolution adopted by the American

23 Geophysical Union?

24 A Yes, that is the resolution.

25 Q Could you please read it for the record?


1 A Yes, I will. It's preceded by the following

2 statement. It says: "The final resolution was passed

3 unanimously by the Council of the American Geophysical

4 Union on Sunday, December 6, 1981."

5 Then the resolution reads as follows: "The Council of

6 the American Geophysical Union notes with concern the

7 the continuing efforts by creationists for administrative,

8 legislative, and political action designed to require the

9 teaching of creationism as a scientific theory.

10 "The American Geophysical Union is opposed to all

11 efforts to require the teaching of creationism or any

12 other religious tenets as science."

13 That's the end of the resolution.

14 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I would like to move that

15 that resolution be received in evidence as a plaintiffs'

16 exhibit.

17 THE COURT: It will be received.

18 MR. ENNIS: Do we know which number it will be

19 assigned?

20 THE COURT: I don't.

21 MR. ENNIS: We'll take care of that detail later.

22 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

23 Q Doctor Gentry, Mr. Williams asked you some

24 questions-

25 A Doctor who?


1 Q Doctor Dalrymple. Mr. Williams asked you some

2 questions about Mr. Gentry's hypothesis. Are you familiar

3 with that hypothesis?

4 A Well, I'm familiar with it if it is accurately

5 represented in the exchange of letters published in EOS

6 between Mr. Gentry and Doctor Damon.

7 Q Does Mr. Gentry's hypothesis depend upon

8 supernatural causes?

9 A Yes, it does.

10 Q Could you explain, please?

11 A Well, I think it might be best explained if I could

12 simply read his two statements from his letter, and then I

13 won't misquote him, if that would be permissible.

14 Q Do you have that with you?

15 A No, I don't, but it was supplied in the material

16 that I gave in my deposition.

17 MR. ENNIS: I have been informed that we can mark

18 the resolution of the American Geophysical Union as

19 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Twenty-eight.

20 THE COURT: It will be received.

21 A Yes, I have it now.

22 Q Doctor Dalrymple, would you please read from that

23 document, after describing what it is?

24 A Yes. It's just a couple of sentences. It's State's

25 Exhibit Number Nine, is the way it's marked. It's two


1 A (Continuing) letters that appeared, actually three

2 letters that appeared in a column for that purpose in

3 EOS. EOS is the transactions of the American Geophysical

4 Union. It's a newsletter in which letters like this are

5 commonly exchanged.

6 It's Volume 60, Number 22; May 29, 1979, page 474. In

7 Mr. Gentry's response to Doctor Damon, he makes the

8 following statement: "And as far as a new comprehensive

9 theory is concerned, I would replace the once singularity

10 of the Big Bang with two major cosmos-related

11 singularities (in which I exclude any implications about

12 extraterrestrial life-related phenomena) derived from the

13 historic Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the events

14 associated with (1) the galaxies (including the Milky Way)

15 being Created ex nihilo by Fiat nearly 6 millennia ago and

16 (2) a later catastrophe which resulted in a solar

17 system-wide disturbance that was manifested on earth

18 primarily as a worldwide flood with subsequent crustal

19 adjustments."

20 And then he goes on.

21 Q During cross examination Mr. Williams asked you if

22 Mr. Gentry's argument or hypothesis could be falsified.

23 Has Mr. Gentry proposed a method for falsifying his

24 hypothesis?

25 A Yes, he has proposed a test and that is the one I


1 A (Continuing) characterized as meaningless.

2 Q Why would it be meaningless?

3 A Let me first see if I can find a statement of the

4 test, and I will explain that. I have it now.

5 THE COURT: May I read what you quoted from the

6 newsletter before you go to that?

7 Okay, sir.

8 A The experiment that Doctor Gentry proposed-

9 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. As I

10 understand it, that's his conclusion. I still don't

11 understand what his theory is.

12 THE WITNESS: He has proposed that it is either a

13 theory or a hypothesis that he says can be falsified.

14 THE COURT: What's the basis for the proposal? How

15 does he come up with that?

16 THE WITNESS: Well, basically what he has found is

17 there is a series of radioactive haloes within minerals in

18 the rocks. Many minerals like mica include very tiny

19 particles of other minerals that are radioactive, little

20 crystals of zircon and things like that, that have a lot

21 of uranium in them.

22 And as the uranium decays, the alpha particles will not

23 decay, but travel outward through the mica. And they

24 cause radiation damage in the mica around the radioactive

25 particle. And the distance that those particles travel is


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) indicated by these

2 radioactive haloes. And that distance is related directly

3 to the energy of the decay. And from the energy of the

4 decay, it is thought that we can identify the isotopes.

5 That's the kind of work that Gentry has been doing.

6 And what he has found is that he has identified certain

7 haloes which he claims are from Polonium-218. Now,

8 Polonium-218 is one of the isotopes intermediate in the

9 decay chain between uranium and lead.

10 Uranium doesn't decay directly from lead. It goes

11 through a whole series of intermediate products, each of

12 which is radioactive and in turn decays.

13 Polonium-218 is derived in this occasion from Radon

14 222. And what he has found is that the Polonium haloes,

15 and this is what he claims to have found, are the

16 Polonium-2l8 haloes, but not Radon-222 haloes. And

17 therefore, he says that the Polonium could not have come

18 from the decay of Radium, therefore it could not have come

19 from the normal decay change.

20 And he says, how did it get there? And then he says

21 that the only way it could have gotten there unsupported

22 Radon-222 decay is to have been primordial Polonium,

23 that is Polonium that was created at the time the solar

24 system was created, or the universe.

25 Well, the problem with that is Polonium-2l8 has a


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) half-life of only about

2 three minutes, I believe it is. So that if you have a

3 granitic body, a rock that comes from the melt, that

4 contains this mica, and it cools down, it takes millions

5 of years for body like that to cool.

6 So that by the time the body cooled, all the Polonium

7 would have decayed, since it has an extremely short

8 half-life. Therefore, there would be no Polonium in the

9 body to cause the Polonium haloes.

10 So what he is saying, this is primordial Polonium;

11 therefore, the granite mass in which it occurs could not

12 have cooled slowly; therefore, it must have been created

13 by fiat, instantly.

14 And the experiment he has proposed to falsify this is

15 that he says he will accept this hypothesis as false when

16 somebody can synthesize a piece of granite in the

17 laboratory.

18 And I'm claiming that that would be a meaningless

19 experiment.

20 Does that- I know this is a rather complicated subject.

21 THE COURT: I am not sure I understand all of this

22 process. Obviously I don't understand all of this

23 process, but why don't you go ahead, Mr. Ennis?

24 MR. ENNIS: Yes, your Honor. Obviously, your Honor,

25 these subjects are somewhat complex, and if the Court has


1 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing) additional questions, I'd hope

2 that the Court would feel free to ask the witness directly.

3 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

4 Q Why, in your opinion, would the test proposed by Mr.

5 Gentry not falsify his hypothesis?

6 A Let me read specifically first what his proposal

7 is. He said, "I would consider my thesis essentially

8 falsified if and when geologists synthesize a hand-sized

9 specimen of a typical biotite barium granite and/or a

10 similar sized crystal of biotite."

11 And if I understand what he's saying there, he's saying

12 that since his proposal requires that granite form

13 rapidly, instantly, by instantaneous creation, that he

14 does not see any evidence that these granites, in fact,

15 cool slowly; his evidence said they cool rapidly. And he

16 would accept as evidence if somebody could synthesize a

17 piece of granite in the laboratory.

18 There are a couple of problems with that. In the first

19 place, we know that these granites did form slowly from a

20 liquid from the following evidence: These rocks contain

21 certain kinds of textures which are only found in rocks

22 that cool from a liquid. And we can observe that in two

23 ways, these textures. They are called igneous and

24 crystalline textures.

25 We can observe these textures by crystallizing compounds

481. Page is missing.


1 A (Continuing) a liquid. There is no other way that

2 they could have formed.

3 The other problem with Gentry's proposal is that the

4 crystallization of granite is an enormously difficult

5 technical problem, and that's all it is. We can't

6 crystallize granite in the laboratory, and he's proposing

7 a hand-sized specimen. That's something like this, I

8 presume.

9 In the first place, the business of crystallizing rocks

10 at temperatures, most of them crystallize at temperatures

11 between seven hundred and twelve hundred degrees

12 centigrade. The temperatures are high. And in the case

13 of granites and metamorphic rocks, sometimes the pressures

14 are high, many kilobars. So it takes a rather elaborate,

15 sometimes dangerous apparatus to do this.

16 And the apparatus is of such a size that usually what we

17 have to crystallize is very tiny pieces. I don't know of

18 anyone who has developed an apparatus to crystallize

19 anything that's hand-sized.

20 So he's thrown down a challenge that's impossible at the

21 moment, within the limits of the present technical

22 knowledge.

23 The second thing is that the crystallization of granite,

24 the reason we have not been able to crystallize even a

25 tiny piece in the laboratory that I know if, unless there


1 A (Continuing) has been a recent breakthrough, is

2 essentially an experimental one. It's a kinetic problem.

3 Anyone who has tried to grow crystals in a laboratory

4 knows that it's very difficult to do if you don't seed the

5 melt. That is, you have to start with some kind of a

6 little tiny crystal to begin with. And when the

7 semi-conductor industry, for example, grows crystals to

8 use in watches like this, they always have to start with a

9 little tiny seed crystal. And once you have that tiny

10 seed crystal, then you can get it to crystallize.

11 So it's basically a problem of getting the reaction to

12 go, it's a problem of nucleation, getting it started, and

13 it's a problem of kinetics, getting the reaction to go on

14 these viscous melts that are very hot under high pressure.

15 And what I'm saying is that even if we could crystallize

16 a piece of hand-sized granite in the laboratory, it would

17 prove nothing. All it would represent would be a

18 technical breakthrough. All of a sudden scientists would

19 be able to perform experiments that we cannot now perform.

20 But in terms of throwing down a challenge to the age of

21 the earth, that's a meaningless experiment. So he's

22 thrown down a challenge that has no meaning, hand-sized

23 crystallized granite. And he's saying, `If you don't meet

24 it, then I won't accept your evidence.' Well, it's a

25 meaningless challenge. It's not an experiment.


1 Q Doctor Dalrymple, if I understand correctly,

2 Polonium-218 is the product of the radioactive decay of

3 Radon-222, is that correct?

4 A Yes, that's correct.

5 Q And does Polonium-218 occur through any other

6 process?

7 A Not as far as I know. I suspect you could make it

8 in a nuclear reactor, but I don't know that. I'm not

9 sure, but I don't think Polonium-2l8 is a product of any

10 other decay chain.

11 Q So if there were Polonium-218 in a rock which did

12 not have any previous Radon-222 in that rock, then that

13 existence of Polonium-218 would mean that the laws of

14 physics as you understand them would have had to have been

15 suspended for that Polonium to be there; is that correct?

16 A Well, if that were the case, it might or it might

17 not. But there are a couple of other possibilities. One

18 is that perhaps Gentry is mistaken about the halo. It may

19 not have been Polonium-218. The second one is that it's

20 possible that he's not been able to identify the Radon-222

21 halo. Maybe it's been erased, and maybe for reasons we

22 don't understand, it was never created.

23 This is why I say It's just a tiny mystery. We have

24 lots of these in science, little things that we can't

25 quite explain. But we don't throw those on the scale and


1 A (continuing) claim that they outweigh everything

2 else. That's simply not a rational way to operate.

3 I would be very interested to know what the ultimate

4 solution to this problem is, and I suspect eventually

5 there will be a natural explanation found for it.

6 Q Does Mr. Gentry's data provide scientific evidence

7 from which you conclude that the earth is relatively young?

8 A Well, I certainly wouldn't reach that conclusion,

9 because that evidence has to be balanced by everything

10 else we know, and everything else we know tells us that

11 it's extremely old.

12 The other thing that I should mention, and I forgot to

13 make this in my previous point, if I could, and that is

14 that Mr. Gentry seems to be saying that the crystalline

15 rocks; the basic rocks, the old rocks of the contents were

16 forms instantaneously. And he uses granite.

17 But the thing that he seems to overlook is that not all

18 these old rocks are granites. In fact, there are lava

19 flows included in those old rocks, there are sediments

20 included in those old rocks. These sediments were

21 deposited in oceans, they were deposited in lakes. They

22 are even pre-Cambrian glacial deposits that tells that the

23 glaciers were on the earth a long, long time ago.

24 So it's impossible to characterize all of the old

25 crystalline rocks as being just granite. Granite is a


1 A (Continuing) very special rock type, and it makes

2 up a rather small percentage of the pre-Cambrian or the

3 old crystalline rocks that formed before the continents.

4 MR. ENNIS: May I have one moment, your Honor?

5 THE COURT: Sure.

6 MR. ENNIS: No further questions, but I would like

7 to state for the record, I have now been informed that

8 Exhibit 28 was not an available number for exhibits, so if

9 we could remark the resolution of the American Geophysical

10 Union with the exhibit number 122 for plaintiffs. I

11 believe that is an available number.

12 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, do you have any more

13 questions?

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Briefly, your Honor.

15 May I approach the witness, your Honor?

16 THE COURT: Yes.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Inasmuch as the witness is quoting

18 from this letter, I would like to have it introduced into

19 evidence so that it can be read in the context, these two

20 pages from Forum EOS dated May 29, 1979. We could make

21 these Defendant's Exhibit 1.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: I'll have it marked.




Q You state that the challenge which Mr. Gentry has


1 Q (Continuing) issued, if I understand you, is

2 essentially impossible?

3 A It is presently impossible within our present

4 technical capability. There have been people working on

5 this, and I suspect someday we'll be able to do it.

6 Q Is it not true that you can take a pile of

7 sedimentary rocks and by applying heat and pressure just

8 simply convert that to something like a granite?

9 A Something like a granite, yes, that's true. But

10 it's something like a granite, but they have quite

11 different textures. When you do that, you now have a

12 metamorphic rock, and it has a different fabric, and it

13 has a different texture, which is quite distinct from a

14 igneous texture. They are very easily identified from

15 both a hand specimen and a microscope. Any third year

16 geology student could tell you if you handle a piece of

17 rock whether it's igneous or metamorphic. It's a very

18 simple problem.

19 Q But it is quite similar to a granite, but you just

20 can't quite get it to be a granite, can you?

21 A Well, granite sort of has two connotations. In the

22 first place, in the strict sense, granite is a composition

23 only. It's a composition of an igneous rock. Granite is

24 a word that we use for rock classification.

25 It is also used in a looser sense, and that looser sense


1 A (Continuing) includes all igneous rocks that cool

2 deep within the earth. And they would include things like

3 quartz, diorite- I won't bother to tell you what those

4 are, but they are a range of composition.

5 Sometimes granite is used in that loose sense. People

6 say that the Sierra Nevada is composed primarily of

7 granite. Well, technically there is no granite in the

8 Sierra Nevada. They are slightly different compositions.

9 It is also used to describe the compositions of certain

10 types of metamorphic rocks. So you have to be a little

11 careful when you use the term `granite' and be sure that

12 we know exactly in what sense we are using that word.

13 Q Now, you stated that you think, in trying to explain

14 why Gentry's theory might not be correct or not that

15 important, you said that perhaps he misidentified some of

16 the haloes, and I think you also said that perhaps he had

17 mismeasured something, is that correct?

18 A Well, I think those were the same statement. I'm

19 just offering that as an alternative hypothesis.

20 Q Do you know that's what happened?

21 A Oh, no, no.

22 Q You have not made any of these studies and

23 determined that yourself, have you?

24 A No, no.

25 Q We've already had testimony in the record, Doctor


1 Q (Continuing) Dalrymple, in this case yesterday from

2 another of plaintiffs' witnesses that science is not

3 concerned with where a theory comes from, a model comes

4 from, it's concerned with whether the data fit the

5 model. Would you agree with that?

6 A Well, I think that that sounds like a fair statement,

7 yes. If you mean by that that we don't really care who

8 proposes it. Is that- I'm not sure I understand the

9 sense of your question. That's the way I took it anyway.

10 Do you mean that is anyone eligible to propose something

11 like that and will it be considered?

12 Q Not just who proposes it, but the source from which

13 they get it or their motivation. Those aren't important.

14 The important thing is that the data fit what has been

15 proposed.

16 A Well, the motivation might be important. For

17 example, I think we went over this in the deposition a

18 little bit. You don't just simply propose a theory. What

19 you really propose is a hypothesis or something smaller in

20 scale. A theory only becomes accepted as a theory in the

21 scientific theory when there is a large amount of evidence

22 -- I would characterize it as a preponderance of evidence -

23 to support that theory.

24 That doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. At some

25 time in the future it may have to be modified. But we


1 A (Continuing) don't just characterize any idea as a

2 theory. I think we start with something much less

3 tentative. And even a hypothesis is usually proposed to

4 explain some set of facts so that- One thing we're not

5 allowed to do in science is to let any kind of belief or

6 prejudice drive our hypotheses or theories. We're not

7 supposed to become personally involved in them.

8 And this is why I say that motivation might be

9 important. We are not out to prove our personal beliefs.

10 What we're out to do is seek the truth within the limited

11 framework within which science operates.

12 So that's why I say that motivation might be important.

13 If someone is out to prove something for their own

14 benefit, then their motivation might come into it.

15 Q If someone had proposed, for example, a theory or

16 hypothesis motivated by their own political ideology,

17 would you be concerned about that, as long as the data fit

18 the hypothesis or the theory?

19 A I think as long as the data, if it was proposed on a

20 reasonable basis, on the basis of existing data, then I

21 think in a case like that, that would be perfectly

22 acceptable. As long as the motivation was truly divorced

23 from the hypothesis, then I would have no problem with it.

24 Q By the way, you differentiated between a hypothesis

25 and a theory. Is it true that a hypothesis is something


1 Q (Continuing) more tentative, in your mind, and a

2 theory is perhaps more established, and at some point a

3 theory becomes a fact?

4 A No, I don't put them together in quite that

5 difference, but I'll explain to you as best I can what my

6 notion of those terms are.

7 I think a fact — facts are data. That's the way I

8 consider facts. A fact is if we measured the length of

9 this box a number of times and determined that it's three

10 and a half feet long, then that becomes a relatively

11 indisputable fact.

12 There is a difference, in my mind, between a theory and

13 a hypothesis, both in scale and in the degree of proof

14 behind it. I think a hypothesis can be a relatively small

15 thing. We might again hypothesize that this box is three

16 and a half feet long, and we could test that hypothesis by

17 making measurements and find out whether that is true or

18 false. That could be a reasonable hypothesis.

19 Or it might be bigger. After it become rather firmly

20 established, after there is a lot of evidence for it, then

21 it is adopted as a theory. And I think if you look in

22 places like Webster's Dictionary, I think you will find

23 that there is a distinction made there in the degree of

24 tentativeness.

25 Theories are fairly firmly established things. Now,


1 A (Continuing) sometimes we find that they are not

2 true and have to modify them, but there is this degree of

3 scale between hypothesis and theory.

4 Q For example, Copernicus proposed a theory, did he

5 not—

6 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I didn't object earlier to

7 this line of questioning, but I think it's entirely

8 outside the scope of my redirect examination.

9 THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's limited by

10 that, or it wouldn't be as far as I'm concerned, but where

11 are you going with it?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think I'm going, this

13 particular line of testimony is important to show that

14 there is perhaps not an accord among even the Plaintiffs'

15 scientists as to what is a fact, what's a theory, what's a

16 hypothesis.

17 And I think it goes to the fact that there is no

18 unanimity on these things, even among the plaintiffs' own

19 scientists. I think that has some relevance at least to

20 the argument which the plaintiffs are making as to whether

21 this is a scientific theory in looking at creation science.

22 THE COURT: Well, I would take notice that there's

23 probably not unanimity among all the scientists.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Fine.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q As part of Defendants' Exhibit 1, Mr. Gentry quotes


1 Q (Continuing) from a National Academy of Science

2 Resolution of April of 1976, which reads in part: "That

3 the search for knowledge and understanding of the physical

4 universe and of living things that inhabit it should be

5 conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom,

6 without religious, political, or ideological

7 restrictions. That freedom of inquiry and dissemination

8 of ideas require that those so engaged should be free to

9 search where their inquiry leads, without political

10 censorship and without fear of retribution and consequence

11 of unpopularity of their conclusions. Those who challenge

12 existing theory must be protected from retaliatory

13 reactions."

14 Do you agree with that statement?

15 A Yes, I would subscribe to that.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

17 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

18 MR. ENNIS: He may, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Thank you.

20 Why don't we take about a ten minute recess.

21 (Thereupon, court was in

22 recess from 10:10 a.m. to

23 10:25 a.m.)




1 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, Plaintiffs call Doctor

2 Harold Morowitz.

3 Thereupon,



5 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

6 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

7 testified as follows:




10 Q Doctor Morowitz, would you please state your full

11 name for the record?

12 A Harold J. Morowitz.

13 Q What is your occupation?

14 A I'm professor of molecular biophysics and

15 biochemistry at Yale University. I'm also professor of

16 biology and Master at Pierson College.

17 Q Doctor Morowitz, I show you this curriculum vitae

18 (Handing same to witness). Is that yours?

19 A Yes.

20 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, plaintiffs move the

21 admission of Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 93 for

22 identification, the curriculum vitae of Doctor Harold

23 Morowitz.

24 THE COURT: It will be received.



1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

2 Doctor Morowitz, what is your particular area of

3 academic expertise?

4 A I have been actively doing research in various

5 areas of biophysics and biochemistry, with particular

6 emphasis on the thermodynamic foundations of biology and

7 the problems of the origins of life, or biogenesis.

8 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, based on the qualifications

9 of the witness as disclosed in his curriculum vitae and

10 the description just now given by Doctor Morowitz of his

11 area of academic interest and expertise, Plaintiffs move

12 that Doctor Morowitz be accepted as an expert in

13 biophysics and biochemistry, particularly with respect to

14 the origin of life and the thermodynamic foundation of

15 biology and the laws of thermodynamics.

16 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, we would agree that Doctor

17 Morowitz is sufficiently qualified to offer his opinions

18 in these areas.

19 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

20 Q Doctor Morowitz, let me show you a copy of Act 590

21 marked, I believe, Exhibit 29 in these proceedings.

22 Had you read this Act before?

23 A Yes, I have.

24 Q Would you look at Section 4 of this statute,

25 particularly Section 4 (a), purporting to define creation


1 Q (Continuing) science. Do you see any reference in

2 that section to the origin of life?

3 A 4 (a) (1) refers to sudden creation of life from nothing.

5 Q And is `sudden creation' a term that has scientific

6 meaning to you?

7 A No. To my knowledge it is not a term in scientific

8 literature or in general use in the scientific community.

9 Q Do you know the meaning of the words `sudden

10 creation'?

11 A `Sudden creation' assumes a creator, and, as such,

12 implies the supernatural explanation, and, therefore, lies

13 outside the bounds of normal science.

14 Q Does the statute give you any indication that 4 (a)

15 (1), `sudden creation' implies supernatural processes?

16 A Yes. Because if one looks at 4 (b) (1) and the (a)

17 and (b) sections are put into step by step opposition, 4

18 (b) (1) refers to emergence by naturalistic processes of

19 several things, ending with "of life from nonlife". And

20 so since (b) refers to emergence by naturalistic

21 processes, (a) must assume under creation that is by

22 supernatural processes.

23 Q Are you familiar with creation science literature?

24 A Yes, I am.

25 Q What have you read?


1 A I've read a number of works by Henry Morris,

2 Scientific Creationism, Scientific Case for Creation, I've

3 read the Kofahl and Segraves work on the creation

4 explanation, I've read the Wysong work on the

5 creation-evolution controversy, and a number of shorter

6 works.

7 Q Have you also engaged in the creation science

8 debates?

9 A Yes, on two occasions. On one occasion I debated

10 with Doctor Duane Gish, and on another occasion I debated

11 with Kelly Segraves.

12 Q Now, based on your knowledge of creation science

13 generally, from those debates and from your reading of

14 creation science literature, is Act 590 consistent with

15 the theory of creation science found in that literature?

16 A Yes. The format as it's spelled out in Section 4

17 (a), (1) through (6) is similar, almost identical with the

18 methods that the arguments are presented in creation

19 science books.

20 Q Would you now, please, look at the definition of

21 evolution-science in Section 4 (b)?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Do you see any reference to the origin of life in

24 that section?

25 A Yes. The phrase, "Emergence by naturalistic


1 A (Continuing) processes of life from nonlife."

2 Q Now, as a scientist studying the origins of life,

3 do you find it meaningful to include that study within the

4 scope of evolution-science as defined in the statute?

5 A Well, I don't find evolution-science a phrase that

6 occurs normally in the scientific community. Section 4

7 (b) groups together in an ad hoc fashion a number of

8 subjects which are normally not treated together under a

9 single topic in the scientific literature. Therefore, I

10 don't find evolution-science very meaningful.

11 These subjects are generally treated by very varying

12 methods. And in addition, evolution theory, as it is

13 normally used in science, is used in a much narrower

14 context, dealing in the speciation and the development of

15 species in higher taxa, rather than the rather broad array

16 of subjects that are linked together in Section 4 (b).

17 Q Does the theory of evolution as used by scientists

18 include the study of the origins of life?

19 A Normally that's treated as a separate subject in a

20 technical sense.

21 Q What is your understanding of the relationship

22 between Sections 4 (a) (1) and 4 (b) (1) as they pertain

23 to the origins of life on this planet?

24 A Well, I think that's what normally is referred to

25 in the creation-science literature as the dual model. And


1 A (Continuing) the implication there is that there

2 are only two possible explanations, either a creation

3 explanation or an evolution explanation, and the

4 reputation of one, therefore, forces the acceptance of the

5 other.

6 I find that to be a rather distorted view, since there

7 are many creation explanations, and there are also a

8 variety of scientific explanations of the origin of life

9 so that it is quite deceptive to just present it as a

10 two-view model.

11 Q Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, is

12 the dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life

13 on this planet a scientific approach to that subject?

14 A No.

15 Q Why is that?

16 A Because as I just stated, one of the explanations

17 lies outside of science. It is a supernatural

18 explanation, and, therefore, its investigation lies

19 outside the bounds of science.

20 In addition, as I've also stated, the acceptance of

21 owning two views is a totally inaccurate representation of

22 the large multiplicity of views that are held on these

23 issues.

24 Q Doctor Morowitz, do you know how life was first

25 formed on this planet?

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P500-533


1 A We do not know in any precise way how life was

2 formed. However, it is a very active field of research.

3 There are a number of studies going on, and we are

4 developing and continuing to develop within science a body

5 of knowledge that is beginning to provide some

6 enlightenment on this issue.

7 Q Now, you have been explaining why the creation

8 science dual model approach to the teaching of origins of

9 life on this planet is unscientific. Is there any other

10 aspect of the creation science treatment of the origins of

11 life on this planet that is similarly unscientific?

12 A Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to

13 be somewhat deceptive.

14 Q Would you explain what you mean?

15 A In general in the creation science literature, they

16 start out by assuming, by making statements about the

17 complexity of living systems. These will generally be

18 fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living

19 systems.

20 They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic

21 calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a

22 complex system will come about by random. When you do

23 that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they

24 then assert that therefore life by natural processes is

25 impossible.


1 A (Continuing)

2 But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the

3 processes by which life has come about in detail. To do

4 the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all

5 the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes

6 have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to

7 do the calculations. We are simply lacking the

8 information to do the calculations now, so to present them

9 on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.

10 Q Is it also in your view unscientific?

11 A Since deception is unscientific, the answer to that

12 is yes.

13 Q Are there any other respects in which the

14 creation science treatments of the origins of life on this

15 planet is unscientific?

16 A Well, they play rather fast and loose with the use

17 of the second law of thermodynamics to indicate that the

18 natural origin of life would not be possible.

19 Q And can you describe for us what about the

20 creation-science treatment of the second law of

21 thermodynamics is unscientific?

22 A They state the second law in terms of the

23 spontaneous movement of systems from an order to a

24 disordered state, and then they argue that since evolution

25 and the origin of life involve states going from a


1 A (Continuing) disordered to more ordered states,

2 that these transitions are inconsistent with the second

3 law of thermodynamics.

4 What they totally leave out in the original statement of

5 these arguments is that the second law of thermodynamics

6 applies only to isolated systems. In the statement that

7 they use as the second law of thermodynamics, it applies

8 to isolated systems where the surface of the earth is, in

9 fact, not an isolated system, but an open system, and

10 therefore, not subject to the constraints that they place

11 on it in the isolated systems statement.

12 Q Doctor Morowitz, perhaps it would help if you

13 explained the second law of thermodynamics a bit.

14 A Although there are a large number of statements of

15 the law, for our purposes we can state the second law as

16 saying that in isolated systems there is a tendency of the

17 system to go to a maximum degree of molecular disorder.

18 Q And what is an isolated system?

19 A An isolated system is one that is cut off from all

20 matter or energy exchange with the rest of the universe.

21 Q Is the earth an isolated system?

22 A The earth is not an isolated system.

23 Q Does the second law of thermodynamics imply that

24 the surface of the earth is becoming disorganized?

25 A That does not follow from the second law of


1 A (Continuing) thermodynamics.

2 Q And that's because the earth is an open system?

3 A The earth is an open system because it has a flow

4 of energy from the sun to the earth, and then there is a

5 subsequent flow of energy from the earth to outer space,

6 and so those two constitute it being an open system.

7 Q Can you give us an example of how the second law

8 would work in an isolated system, a system that is totally

9 closed to influx of energy or matter?

10 A If you had an isolated system and you had within

11 that system a hot object and a cold object, which would be

12 a certain degree or organization, the two of them being at

13 different temperatures, if you put the two of those in

14 contact with each other, heat would flow from the hotter

15 body to the colder body and eventually, within the

16 isolated system, they would come to the same temperature.

17 That would be a more disordered state, because the state

18 would be uniform and homogeneous throughout.

19 Or if I may take a biological example, if we were to

20 take a laboratory mouse and put it in isolation; that is,

21 we were to put it in a closed, sealed container through

22 which there was no flow of matter or energy, then in a

23 short time the mouse would die, the very ordered structure

24 of all the molecules and cellular structures in the mouse

25 would decay, and if we came back in a few hundred or two


1 A (Continuing) thousand years, we would find just a

2 puddle of liquid gases and a few residual crystals. That

3 would be a movement from order to disorder in an isolated

4 system.

5 Q Now, I believe you testified that creation science

6 misstates the second law of thermodynamics. Is that so?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Can you give an example of the way they do that?

9 A Yes. In Morris' book Scientific Creationism, and

10 if I can look at a copy of that book, I can give you more

11 exact references.

12 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, the witness is referring to

13 the public school edition of Scientific Creationism, which

14 has previously been identified by plaintiffs as Exhibit 75

15 and admitted into evidence.

16 THE COURT: All right.

17 A If we look at page 23 of this book-I should state

18 at the outset that this book is by Henry M. Morris, who is

19 the director of the Institute for Creation Research. This

20 is a very well accepted book within the creationism

21 community and among the scientific creationists.

22 In this book, Morris, on page 22, states that law of

23 energy decay, the second law of thermodynamics, tells us

24 that energy continually perceives to lower levels of

25 utility.


1 A (Continuing)

2 He continues in that vein in discussing the second law,

3 he picks up again on this discussion on page 38. On page

4 38 he quotes a number of people, a number of rather well

5 known physicists, with such statements as, "In any

6 physical change that takes place by itself, the entropy

7 always increases-

8 Q Excuse me. You're reading at the very bottom of

9 that page, is that right?

10 A The bottom of page 38. And I should point out that

11 entropy is the measure of the molecular disorder of a

12 system. It's a mathematical measure of that disorder.

13 In another quotation he states. "As far as we know, all

14 changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of

15 increasing disorder, of increasing randomness of running

16 down."

17 In that entire discussion, the entire original

18 discussion of the second law of thermodynamics as applied

19 to living systems, the limitation of the second law to

20 closed systems is not made, nor is it pointed out that the

21 surface of the earth where life arose is not a closed

22 system, but an open system.

23 Q Does the book ever recognize the distinction

24 between an open and an isolated system?

25 A Yes. On page 40, the statement occurs that the


1 A (Continuing) second law, speaking about ordering,

2 he says, "The second law says this will not happen in any

3 natural process unless external factors enter to make it

4 happen." And by `external factors', I assume there he is

5 recognizing that the system is then open. `External

6 factors' means opening a system to the flow of matter and

7 energy.

8 And under these conditions, Morris admits that

9 organization can take place.

10 Q Does he continue that discussion of open systems?

11 A Yes. He then picks up again somewhat later in the

12 book on open systems, and he does that under a very

13 strange device.

14 He starts that discussion by saying, "When pressed,

15 however, for a means of reconciling of the entropy

16 principle with evolution, one of the following answers is

17 usually given," and then he gives a list of five answers,

18 the fifth of which is that the second law of thermo- the

19 second law does not apply to open systems.

20 So he finally admits to the fact that the second law does

21 not require that an open system like the earth go from an

22 ordered to a disordered state, but he does it in a way by

23 sneaking it in as a fifth item on the list of the excuses

24 that evolutionists give when pressed.

25 Q Is the limitation of the second law of


1 Q (Continuing) thermodynamics to isolate its systems

2 an evolutionist excuse?

3 A No. It is fundamental to the structure of

4 thermodynamics of an open system. It is fundamental to an

5 entire body of knowledge, which we will call the study

6 itself organizing systems, which is most relevant to this

7 problem of abiogenesis.

8 Q Doctor Morowitz, you've been referring thus far

9 only to the book Scientific Creationism. In your opinion

10 and based on your reading of creation science literature

11 generally, is that misapplication or misstatement of the

12 second law typical in that creation science literature?

13 A The views that Morris presents are very similar

14 throughout the rest of the literature that I am familiar

15 with.

16 Q Doctor Morowitz, I believe you testified that in

17 addition to misstating the second law of thermodynamics,

18 creation science literature also misapplies the second law

19 of thermodynamics to conclude that evolution is not

20 possible on earth. Is that accurate?

21 A That is true.

22 Q In what ways do they do that? What arguments do

23 they use?

24 A Well, again, the primary arguments are ignoring the

25 fact that the earth is an open system, and that for open


1 A (Continuing) systems under the flow of energy,

2 rather than being disordered, the systems, in fact, go

3 from less ordered to more ordered states, so that

4 evolution, rather than being contrary to the laws of

5 thermodynamics, is part of the unfolding of the laws of

6 thermodynamics.

7 Q Can you give us an example of the ordering effect

8 of energy flow in an open system?

9 A Yes. If we took the case we discussed before,

10 where we had two objects at different temperatures and we

11 placed them in contact and there was a flow of heat in

12 which they went to the same temperature, and we discussed

13 the reasons why that was a disordering phenomenon, if we

14 now take a sample of a substance that's at a uniform

15 temperature and we place it in contact with a radiator and

16 a refrigerator, there will be a flow of energy through

17 that system from the hot source to the cold sink, that

18 will give rise to a temperature gradient within the system

19 which is an ordering of that system

20 Q In the system, in the earth's biosphere system,

21 what is the energy source?

22 A For the surface of the earth, the principal energy

23 source is the electromagnetic energy which flows from the

24 sun.

25 Q What is the energy sink, to use your word?


1 A The energy sink is the cold of outer space. That

2 is to say, energy comes in from the sun, it would by and

3 large convert it to heat energy, that heat energy is

4 reradiated to outer space.

5 Q Is the ordering effect of the flow of energy

6 through the earth's system what caused the formation of

7 life on this planet?

8 A Yes. Although the exact processes are not known,

9 the primary driving force was certainly the flow of energy

10 through the system.

11 Q Do you know how life was formed, precisely?

12 A Again, not in precise detail, although as I pointed

13 out, it is an active area of scientific research, and at

14 the moment one, as an enthusiastic scientist always feels,

15 that we're getting close.

16 Q Does creation science literature take account of

17 the ordering effect of the flow of energy?

18 A No. Other than mentioning it in terms of an excuse

19 when pressed, they then go on to say, although the flow of

20 energy is capable of ordering the system, it does not do.

21 so because such ordering requires, and to use their

22 terminology on page 43 and 44, that "such ordering,"

23 according to the creation literature, "requires a program

24 to direct the growth and a power converter to energize the

25 growth."


1 Q Of those requirements of a program to direct growth

2 and a power converter, are those requirements recognized

3 elements of the second law of thermodynamics?

4 A Those are not part of the second law of

5 thermodynamics. However, I should point out that there is

6 nothing at all supernatural about an energy converter or a

7 program to direct growth.

8 Energy conversion occurs, let's say, in photochemical

9 conversion or electrochemical conversion. It's part of

10 the ordinary physics and chemistry of all systems.

11 Likewise, a program to direct growth can well be

12 encompassed under the laws of nature, the laws of quantum

13 mechanics, the laws of thermodynamics, the periodic table,

14 and the laws of nature, which are, indeed, a program to

15 direct the ordering of the universe.

16 Q Doctor Morowitz, is the scientific literature

17 regarding the ordering effect of the flow of energy well

18 known?

19 A Yes. It's certainly well known to all

20 thermodynamicists.

21 Q Is there a considerable amount of such literature?

22 A There are a number of books, scientific books,

23 there are a large number of journal articles on the

24 subject. And it's even found its way into the popular

25 press in the sense that in 1977 Ilya Prigogine was awarded


1 A (Continuing) the Nobel Prize in chemistry, cited in

2 part because of the results of his theory on the ordering

3 effect in biological systems, so that the matters we're

4 talking about are extremely well known.

5 Q Do you know whether there is any indication that

6 the creation-scientists who have written the literature

7 that you have read are familiar with this science

8 literature about the ordering effect of energy flow?

9 A Well, very frequently they quote the authors who

10 have written on the subject of the ordering effect of

11 energy flow, ut they rarely quote them in the exact areas

12 which are stressing that ordering effect.

13 Q Do they quote you?

14 A Yes, they do.

15 Q And you've written about the ordering effect of

16 energy flow, is that right?

17 A Yes, I have.

18 Q Doctor Morowitz, looking back at the book

19 Scientific Creationism, what is your assessment of the

20 rest of the section that you were referring to, through

21 page 46, I believe.

22 A Well it then goes on to what I would consider a

23 good deal of rambling, rather unscientific rambling.

24 Unscientific in the sense that wherever an open question

25 arises, it's referred back to an act of creation, whereas


1 A (Continuing) the scientific approach to an open

2 question would be to go into the laboratory and try to do

3 the experiments or to set up a theory or to do the hard

4 work, the enthusiastic science of going ahead and trying

5 to solve the problem.

6 And in the approach there, the unsolved problems are

7 always referred back to the supernatural, rather than the

8 scientific approach of `how do we go about solving them'.

9 Q Doctor Morowitz, you're a scientist studying the

10 origins of life. How do you approach that subject in

11 terms of your science?

12 A Well, I have certain reasonably detailed hypotheses

13 about now the energy flows in the early pre-biotic system

14 led to the chemical orderings in that system. And what I

15 do is to set up experiments in the laboratory, where we

16 actually introduce those flows into the system and then we

17 conduct various kinds of chemical and physical

18 investigations of the systems that are subject to these

19 energy flows to see now they organize under those flows.

20 Q Do you then publish your work as it proceeds?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Doctor Morowitz, do you know of any creation

23 science experimentation regarding the origins of life?

24 A I am not aware of any creation science experiments

25 in this area.


1 Q Are you aware of any creation science literature-

2 I'm sorry. Are you aware of any creation science

3 publication of his theory of the origins of life in any

4 reputable scientific journal?

5 A I'm not aware of it in any of the journals that I

6 read.

7 Q Doctor Morowitz, we have been speaking mostly about

8 the book, Scientific Creationism. What is your opinion

9 about the other creation-science literature you have read,

10 with respect to its attributes as science?

11 A Well, I think it's all very comparable. I think

12 this is a paradigm example, and insofar as this is not

13 science, the rest of the literature also is not science.

14 Q Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, does

15 the creation-science treatment of abiogenesis, the origins

16 of life from non-life, have the attributes of science?

17 A No.

18 Q In your professional opinion, does the creation

19 science treatment of the second law of thermodynamics have

20 the attributes of science?

21 A No.

22 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions.

23 MR CHILDS: We will reserve our cross examination

24 until after Doctor Gould's direct and cross.

25 THE COURT: All right. Fine.


1 MR NOVIK: May we please have a few minutes?

2 We'll be getting Doctor Gould from the witness room.

3 THE COURT: We'll take a ten minute recess.

4 (Thereupon, court was in

5 recess from 10:50 a.m.

6 to 11:00 a.m.)


8 MR NOVIK: Plaintiffs' next witness is Doctor

9 Stephen Gould.


11 Thereupon,



13 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

14 seen first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

15 testified as follows:,




18 Q Professor Gould, what is your current employment?

19 A Professor of Geology at Harvard University and

20 curator of invertebrate paleontology and comparative

21 zoology there.

22 Q I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 96

23 for identification, which purports to be your curriculum

24 vitae.

25 A (Examining same)


1 Q Does it accurately reflect your education,

2 training, experience and publications?

3 A Yes, it does.

4 MR NOVIK: I move that that be received in

5 evidence, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: That will be received.

7 MR NOVIK: (Continuing)

8 Q Professor Gould, when and where did your receive

9 your Ph.D.?

10 A Columbia University in 1967.

11 Q In what field?

12 A In paleontology.

13 Q What are your areas of expertise?

14 A Paleontology, geology, evolutionary theory, and

15 I've also studied the history of evolutionary theory.

16 Q Have you published a substantial number of books

17 and articles in these fields?

18 A Yes. I've written five books and more than a

19 hundred and fifty articles.

20 MR NOVIK: Your Honor, I offer Professor Gould as

21 an expert in the fields of geology, paleontology,

22 evolutionary theory, and the history of evolutionary

23 theory.

24 THE COURT: Any voir dire?

25 MR. WILLIAMS: No, your Honor.


1 MR NOVIK: (Continuing)

2 Professor Gould, I'm showing you a copy of Act

3 590. Have you had an opportunity to read that act?

4 A Yes, I have.

5 Q Have you read Act 590's definition of

6 creation-science as it relates specifically to geology?

7 A Yes. As it relates specifically to geology, point

8 number 5 proclaims that the earth's geology should be

9 explained by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a

10 world wide flood.

11 Q Have you read the creation science literature

12 relative to geology?

13 A I have indeed. Let me say just for the record,

14 though, I'll use the term `creation science' because it's

15 so enjoined by the Act, but in my view there is no such

16 item and creation science is not science. I would prefer

17 to refer to it as creationism.

18 But yes, I have read the creation science literature, so

19 called.

20 Q Is the statutory definition of creation science as

21 it relates to geology consistent with that creation

22 science literature?

23 A Yes. The creation science literature attempts to

24 interpret, in most of that literature, the entire

25 geological column as the product of Noah's Flood and its


1 A (Continuing) consequences, and it is certainly

2 consistent with point number 5 of the Act.

3 Q Have you read Act 590's definition of evolution as

4 it relates specifically to geology?

5 A Yes. I would say that that primarily is the point

6 that uniformitarianism is-

7 Q And the Act defines it as-

8 A Oh, yes. An explanation of the earth's geology by

9 catastrophism. Or it says that evolution is the

10 explanation of the earth's geology and evolutionary

11 sequence by uniformitarianism.

12 Q What does uniformitarianism mean?

13 A As creation science defines it, it refers to the

14 theory that I would call the notion of gradualism, namely,

15 that the phenomena of the earth and geological record were

16 produced by slow, steady, imperceptible change, and the

17 bar scale events were produced by this slow accumulation

18 of imperceptible change.

19 Q And it is in that sense that uniformitarianism is

20 used in the Act?

21 A In the Act, yes.

22 Q Are you familiar with scientific literature in the

23 field of geology?

24 A Yes, I have. In fact, I have authored several

25 articles on the meaning of uniformitarianism.


1 Q Is Act 590's definition of evolution in respect to

2 uniformitarianism consistent with the scientific

3 literature?

4 A Certainly not. It may be true that Charles Lyell,

5 a great nineteenth century geologist, had a fairly extreme

6 view of gradualism, but that's been entirely abandoned by

7 geologists today.

8 Geologists have been quite comfortable with the

9 explanations that some events have been the accumulation

10 of small changes, and others as the result of, at least,

11 local catastrophes.

12 Q So modern geologists believe in both; is that

13 correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Is the Act's definition of evolution in terms of

16 uniformitarianism creation consistent with the creation

17 science literature?

18 A Oh, yes. The creation science literature continues

19 to use the term "uniformitarianism" only to refer to the

20 notion of extreme gradualism. For example, they argue

21 that since fossils are generally only formed when

22 sediments accumulate very rapidly, that, therefore, there

23 is evidence for catastrophe, and somehow that confutes

24 uniformitarianism.

25 In fact, paleontologists do not deny that fossils that


1 A (Continuing) are preserved are generally buried by

2 at least locally catastrophic events, storms or rapid

3 accumulations of sediments. And indeed, that's why we

4 believe the fossils record is so imperfect and most

5 fossils never get a chance to be preserved, because the

6 rate of sedimentation is usually slow and most fossils

7 decay before they can be buried.

8 Q Is there any sense in which modern geologists do

9 believe in uniformitarianism?

10 A Indeed, but in a totally different meaning.

11 The term `uniformitarianism' has two very distinct

12 meanings that are utterly separate. First is the

13 methodological claim that the laws of nature are unvaried,

14 but natural laws can be used to explain the past as well

15 as the present.

16 That's a methodological claim that we assert in order to

17 do science.

18 The second meaning which we've been discussing, the

19 substantiative claim of falsifiable, the claim is often

20 false, about actual rates of change. Namely, the rates of

21 change are constant. And that is a diagnostic question for

22 scientists.

23 Q Could you give us an example of these two different

24 meanings of uniformitarianism?

25 A Yes. For example, take apples falling off of


1 A (Continuing) trees. That's the usual one. The

2 first principle, the methodological one that we do accept

3 as part of the definition of science, holds that if apples

4 fall off trees, they do that under the influence of

5 gravity. And we may assume that they do so in the past

6 and will continue to do so in the future.

7 For example, the great Scottish geologist James Hutton

8 said in the late eighteenth century on this point, that if

9 the stone, for example, which falls today will rise again

10 tomorrow, principles would fail and we would no longer be

11 able to investigate the past in the present. So that's

12 what we mean by the methodological assumption.

13 The notion of gradualism or constancy of rates would

14 hold, for example, that if two million apples fell off

15 trees in the state of Arkansas this year, then we could

16 assume with the constancy of rates in a million years from

17 now, two millions apples would fall, which of course is

18 absurd. Apples could become extinct between now and

19 then. We've got a contravene in the laws of science.

20 Q Does the creation science literature accurately

21 reflect these two different meanings of uniformitarianism?

22 A No, it doesn't. It continually confuses the two,

23 arguing that because we can't refute constancy of rates,

24 in many cases which indeed we can, that, therefore,

25 somehow the principle of the uniformity of law, or the


1 A (Continuing) constancy of natural law, is also

2 thrown into question. And they are totally separate

3 issues.

4 Q Let's return to the Act's definition of creation

5 science as including scientific evidence for a worldwide

6 flood. Are you aware of any scientific evidence which

7 would indicate a worldwide flood?

8 A No, I'm not.

9 Q Are you familiar with creation science literature

10 concerning a worldwide flood?

11 A Yes, I've read a good deal of it.

12 Q Is the creation-science theory concerning a

13 worldwide flood a scientific theory?

14 A At its core, it surely isn't, because from the

15 literature I've read, it explicitly calls upon miraculous

16 intervention by God; that it is an extension of natural

17 law.

18 That's what I take it we mean by miracles, for some of

19 these events in the flood narrative. For example, there

20 just isn't enough water in the world's oceans to

21 thoroughly cover the continents in a deluge as profound as

22 that of Noah's, and so they call upon water that is

23 presumed to be in the earth and Whitcomb and Morris in The

24 Genesis Flood talk about a giant canopy of water above the

25 firmament. But then have to rely upon God's miraculous


1 A (Continuing) intervention to get that water onto

2 the earth. If I may quote from Whitcomb and Morris-

3 Q What are you quoting from?

4 A Pardon me. It's from The Genesis Flood, by John

5 Whitcomb and Henry Morris. On page 76, the statement,

6 "The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any

7 kind of a Genesis flood without acknowledging the presence

8 of supernatural events."

9 Then the next paragraph, "That God intervened in the

10 supernatural way to gather the animals into the ark and to

11 keep them under control during the year of the flood is

12 explicitly stated in the text of scripture. Furthermore,

13 it is obvious that the opening of the windows of heaven in

14 order to allow the waters which were above the firmament

15 to fall upon the earth, and the breaking up of all the

16 bounties of the great deep, were supernatural acts of God."

17 THE COURT: What page?

18 THE WITNESS: Page 76, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: What exhibit?

20 MR NOVIK: Your Honor, I believe that The Genesis

21 Flood has been pre-marked- Actually, that has not been

22 pre-marked.

23 If the Court would like, we could mark that as

24 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 124-126.

25 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

Q You testified that at its core the flood theory is


1 Q (Continuing) a supernatural, relies on a

2 supernatural process; is that correct?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Are there any predictions based on flood geology

5 that can be tested?

6 A Yes, they do make certain testable predictions.

7 They have been tested and falsified long ago.

8 Q Could you give an example, please?

9 A Yes. The creation science literature assumes that

10 since God created all forms of life in six days of

11 twenty-four hours, that, therefore, all animals lived

12 simultaneously together. One would, therefore, assume, at

13 first thought, that the geological strata or the earth

14 would mix together all the forms of life, and yet that is

15 outstandingly not so.

16 And the outstanding fact of the fossil record which must

17 be admitted by everybody, creationists and evolutionists

18 alike, of course, is that rather than mixing together all

19 the animals, that the geological record is very well

20 ordered; that is, we have sequence of strata, and

21 different kinds of animals and plants characterize

22 different layers of those strata.

23 For example, in a rather old strata, we get certain

24 kinds of invertebrate, such as trilobites that are never

25 found in higher strata.


1 A (Continuing)

2 In strata of the middle age we find dinosaurs, but never

3 trilobites. They're gone. Never large mammals. In upper

4 strata we find large mammals but never any dinosaurs.

5 There is a definite sequence that occurs in the same

6 manner throughout the world and that would seem to

7 contradict the expectation that all forms of life lived

8 simultaneously should not so order themselves.

9 And therefore, creation scientists, in order to get

10 around this dilemma and to invoke another aspect of the

11 Genesis story, call upon Noah's flood and say that all the

12 animals and plants were mixed up together in this gigantic

13 flood and that the ordering in the strata of the earth

14 records the way in which these creatures settled out in

15 the strata after the flood or as the result of the flood.

16 Q Have creation scientists advanced any specific

17 arguments or claims for why a worldwide flood would sort

18 out the fossils in this unvarying sequence?

19 A Yes. As I read the literature, there are three

20 primary explanations that they invoke. First, what might

21 be called the principle of hydrodynamic sorting. That

22 when the flood was over, those creatures that were denser

23 or more streamlined would fall first to the bottom and

24 should end up in the lower strata.

25 The second principle you might call the principle of


1 A (Continuing) ecological zonation, namely, things

2 living in the bottom of the ocean end up in the lowest

3 strata, where those that lived in mountaintops, for

4 example, would probably end up in the uppermost strata.

5 And the third principle that they use is what I might

6 call differential intelligence of mobility. That smarter

7 animals or animals that can move and avoid the flood

8 waters might end up in higher strata because they would

9 have escaped the rising flood waters longer than others.

10 Q Are those three claims or hypotheses consistent

11 with the observable facts?

12 A Certainly not.

13 Q In your opinion, have they been falsified by the

14 observable facts?

15 A Yes, they have.

16 Q Could you give an example, please?

17 A Yes. If you look at the history of any

18 invertebrate group, for example, our record is very good.

19 We have thousands upon thousands of species in those

20 groups, and each species is confined to strata at a

21 certain point in the geological column.

22 They are recognizable species that only occur in a small

23 part of the geological column and in the same order

24 everywhere. And yet we find that throughout the history

25 of invertebrates, we get species each occurring at a


1 A (Continuing) separate level, but they do not

2 differ in any of those properties.

3 For example, in the history of clams, clams arose five

4 or six hundred million years ago. Initially almost all

5 clams were shallow burrowers, in that they burrowed into

6 the sediment. Now, it's true that in the history of clams

7 there have been some additions to that repertoire, some

8 clams like the scallops now swim, others are attached to

9 the top, but in fact, a large majority, large number of

10 species of clams still live in the same way.

11 So there is no difference in the hydrodynamic principles

12 among those clams throughout time; there is no difference

13 in ecological life-style, they are all shallow water

14 burrowers; they are not different in terms of intelligence

15 or mobility, indeed, clams can't even have heads. So they

16 cannot be intelligent creatures.

17 And yet, as I stated, each species of clam lives in a

18 definite part of the stratigraphic column and only there.

19 There are large-scale extinctions of certain kinds; you

20 never see them again, yet they do not differ in any of

21 the ways that the creation scientists have invoked to

22 explain the order in the strata as the results of the

23 single flood.

24 Q Could you give another example, please?

25 A Yes. Another good example is in the evolution of


1 A (Continuing) single-celled creatures. It is a

2 unicellular calcite (sic?) called foraminifera. Many of the

3 foraminifera are planktonic; that is, they are floating

4 organisms. They all live in the same lake floating at the

5 top or the upper waters of the oceans, they don't differ

6 in hydrodynamic properties. They live in the same

7 ecological zone, and they certainly don't differ in

8 intelligence and mobility. They don't even have a nervous

9 system.

10 And yet for the last twenty years there has been a

11 worldwide program to collect deep sea cores from all the

12 oceans of the earth. And in those cores, the sequence of

13 planktonic foraminifera species are invariably the same.

14 Each species is recognizable and lives in only a small

15 part of the column; some at the bottom of the column, some

16 at the top of the column. Those at the bottom do not

17 differ from those at the top, either in intelligence,

18 ecological examination, or hydrodynamic properties.

19 Q Professor Gould, does the creation science argument

20 based on principles of hydraulics explain why trilobites

21 are always found in the bottom layers of the stratigraphic

22 record?

23 A Certainly not. Trilobites are the most prominent

24 invertebrate animals found in the early strata that

25 contain complex invertebrates, but they are neither


1 A (Continuing) particularly streamlined or very

2 thin. In fact, one group of trilobites that occurred

3 early, even within the history of trilobites, in the

4 earliest rocks we call Cambrian, called the agnostids,

5 which are very delicate, tiny, floating creatures, yet

6 they are abundant not only with the trilobites, but early

7 in the history of trilobites. I don't see how that can be

8 explained that in any creation science philosophy.

9 Q Professor Gould, you have been talking up until now

10 about invertebrates. Do these creation science arguments

11 explain the stratigraphic sequence of vertebrates?

12 A They do just as badly. The earliest fossil

13 vertebrates are fishes, and one might think that's all

14 right because they were swimming in the sea, and yet in

15 detail it doesn't work out that well.

16 Indeed, the fishes with the relatively largest brains,

17 namely the sharks, occur rather early in the record. And

18 even more importantly, those fishes that, in fact, today

19 represent more than ninety percent of all fish species,

20 the teleosts, the most advanced fish, do not appear until

21 much later and do not flower until the period that we call

22 Cretaceous, which is sixty to a hundred million years

23 ago. The record of fishes goes back to three or four

24 hundred million years ago.

25 Why should the teleosts occur only in the upper strata?


1 A (Continuing)

2 Moreover, when you look at the history of other

3 vertebrate groups, in both the reptile and the mammals,

4 there are several lineages that have secondarily evolved

5 from terrestrial life to marine life and, therefore, lived

6 in the sea with fishes and you might expect them at the

7 bottom of the column. They're not. In fact, they occur

8 in geological sequences where their terrestrial relatives

9 occur.

10 For example, during the age of dinosaurs, there were

11 several linages of reptiles that returned to the sea.

12 Ichthyosaurus, pelycosarus and the therapsids, in

13 particular. And they are always found in the middle

14 strata with dinosaurs, never in the lower strata.

15 When you get a history of mammals, you find whales only

16 in the upper strata with other large mammals, never in the

17 lower strata, with the early fishes.

18 Q Do geologists and paleontologists have natural law

19 explanations for the universal sequences found in the

20 fossil record?

21 A Yes. The earth is very ancient, and those animals

22 that were alive at any given time occur in the rocks

23 deposited at that time. They then become extinct or

24 evolve into something else, and that's why they're never

25 found in younger rocks deposited on top of those.


1 Q Is it possible to determine at least relative dates

2 for the different strata in the stratigraphic record?

3 A Yes, indeed, just by noting which fossils

4 invariably occur in strata on top of others, and,

5 therefore, we assume deposited later and, therefore,

6 younger.

7 Q In assigning relative dates to the stratigraphic

8 record, is it necessary to rely at all on any theory of

9 evolution or any assumption of evolution?

10 A Certainly not. It's merely a question of

11 observation, to see what fossils occur in what sequences.

12 It's the same way throughout the earth; there is no

13 assumptionary process at all involved in that.

14 Q Do creation scientists claim that evolutionary

15 theory does play a role in the relative dating of the

16 geologic column?

17 A Yes. One of the most persistent claims is that the

18 whole geological column is probably invalid, because it's

19 involved in a circular argument, namely, that since you

20 need to assume evolution in order to establish the

21 sequence of fossils, but then use that sequence to

22 demonstrate evolution, that the whole subject is

23 tautological.

24 If I may give you some examples?

25 Q Please do.


1 A In Scientific Creationism

2 MR. NOVIK: I believe that's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 76

3 for identification, your Honor.

4 A In Scientific Creationism, on pages 95 and 96, we

5 read, as a cardinal principle, number 2, page 95, "The

6 assumption of evolution is the basis upon which fossils

7 are used to date the rocks." And then the tautology

8 argument is made on the next page, 96, "Thus, although the

9 fossil record has been interpreted to teach evolution, the

10 record itself has been based on the assumption of

11 evolution."

12 I repeat, that is not so, it is merely based on

13 observation of evidence of sequence.

14 Now, I continue the quote, "The message is a mere

15 tautology. The fossils speak of evolution because they

16 have been made to speak of evolution."

17 "Finally we being to recognize the real message of the

18 fossil is that there is no truly objective time sequence

19 to the fossil record, since the time connections are based

20 on the evolutionary assumption."

21 And there's another example, Duane Gish, in Evolution:

22 The Fossils Say No.

23 MR. NOVIK: I believe that's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 78

24 for identification, your Honor. And the book, Scientific

25 Creationism, comes in two versions, a public school

edition and a non-public school edition, and those are


1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) Exhibits 76 and 75.

2 A Duane Gish writes on page 59, "This arrangement of

3 various types of fossiliferous deposits in a supposed

4 time-sequence is known as the geological column. Its

5 arrangement is based on the assumption of evolution.

6 Q Professor Gould, would you please explain how

7 geologists do assign relative dates to different layers of

8 the stratigraphic record?

9 A Yes. We use these principles that have names that

10 involve some jargon. They are called the principles of

11 original horizontality; the principle of superposition,

12 and the principle of biotic succession.

13 Q What is the principle of original horizontality?

14 A The principle of original horizontality states that

15 sedimentary rocks that are deposited over large areas, say

16 that are deposited in oceans or lakes, are laid down

17 initially in relatively horizontal layers.

18 That doesn't mean that in a small area if you deposited

19 on a hill slope that you might not get some that are

20 somewhat inclined, but at least deposition in large basins

21 would be fundamentally horizontal.

22 Q What is the principle of superposition?

23 A The principle of superposition states that given

24 that principle of horizontality, that those strata that

25 lie on top of others will be younger because they were


1 A (Continuing) deposited later, unless subsequent

2 movements of the earth have disturbed the sequence by

3 folding, faulting, and other such processes.

4 Q What is folding?

5 A I will illustrate. Folding is when rocks

6 originally deposited in horizontal layers are twisted and

7 contorted in such a way that the sequence can be changed.

8 For example, if we had three horizontal layers laid

9 down, originally horizontal, in superposition, if through

10 later earth movement they got folded over, you can see how

11 the top layer here, which is the youngest layer, in a

12 folded sequence would come to lie underneath a layer of

13 rock actually older than it.

14 Q What is faulting?

15 A Faulting is when rocks break and later move. For

16 example, the kind of faulting most relevant here is what

17 we call thrust faulting. Suppose the rocks break. So we

18 have that three ways (Indicating), and that is the break

19 and that's the fault. Then what we call thrust faulting.

20 One sequence of rocks that is literally pushed over on top

27 of another, and that would also create a reverse of the

22 sequence, such as you see here. The oldest strata here,

23 this so-called thrust block broken and pushed over this

24 older stratum and would then come to lie upon the younger

25 stratum here, and you get all of those sequence.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P534-566


1 Q Are geologists able to tell whether folding or

2 faulting or some other geological process has disturbed

3 the initial strata?

A Yes. And I should say it is not done secularly by

5 finding of fossil sequences, and then assuming that only

6 because of that there must be a fold or a fault. We look

7 for direct evidence, of fold or fault.

8 There are two main ways of doing that. The first is

9 geological mapping, where you actually trace out the folds

10 and faults in the earth's strata.

11 In the others you can well imagine what there is. For

12 example, in thrust faulting, a large block or blocks has

13 literally been pushed over. In another, there would be

14 some disturbance of the boundary. That is, this heavy

15 block of rock has literally pushed over the other. But

16 you would get fracturing and folding of rocks from either

17 side of the so-called thrust plane, and we find this.

18 Q Could you please give an example of a thrust fault?

19 A Probably the most famous thrust fault that is known

20 in the United States is the so-called Lewis Overthrust in

21 Montana where rather ancient rocks of pre-Cambrian age,

22 that is current even before we have the first

23 invertebrates and the fossil record, are thrust over much

24 younger rocks of Cretaceous age that is coeval with the

25 dinosaurs.


1 Q What do creation scientists say about the Lewis

2 Overthrust?

3 A They try to argue that it's a good example of why

4 the geological column is wrong, because of the sequence of

5 the mass and the sequence of fossils, and that it isn't

6 really an overthrust because they claim that the

7 sedimentary layers are in fact undisturbed, and that the

8 so-called thrust plane is really just a bedding plane, and

9 that it's a single calm sequence of the process of rocks.

10 Q Did they cite any evidence for that claim?

11 A Well, they certainly claim to. For example, again,

12 in the Genesis Flood that we referred to previously by

13 Whitcomb and Morris—

14 MR. NOVIK: That's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 126.

15 A —we find the following statement about the Genesis

16 flood. Whitcomb and Morris are here quoting from a

17 reputable source.

18 Q This is a statement about the Lewis Overthrust?

19 A Yes. A statement about the Lewis Overthrust from

20 an article by C.P. Ross and Richard Rezak quoted by

21 Whitcomb and Morris. And the quotation on page 187

22 reads: "Most visitors, especially those who stay on the

23 roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are

24 undisturbed" — the Belt strata is the upper strata of the

25 pre-Cambrian thrust, sorry — "that the Belt strata are


1 A (Continuing) undisturbed and lie almost as flat

2 today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished

3 so many years ago."

4 And that would seem to indicate that it was just a

5 single sequence. It's rather interesting if you would go

6 back to the Ross and Rezak article and read the very next

7 statement, which Morris and Whitcomb did not cite, you

8 would find the following.

9 The very next statement, uncited by Whitcomb and Morris,

10 is as follows: "Actually," talking about folded rocks,

11 "they are folded, and in certain places, they are

12 intensely so. From points on and near the trails in the

13 park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt

14 series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and

15 canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as

16 intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains

17 south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the

18 park to the east," the younger strata being the Cretaceous

19 rocks below.

20 But that's certainly a good example of selective

21 misquotation.

22 THE COURT: Let me see if I've got both of those

23 references.

24 MR. NOVIK: The second reference, your Honor, I

25 believe has been marked as Plaintiffs'—


1 THE COURT: Before you get to the second one, the

2 first one is—

3 A The first one, your Honor, is from The Genesis

4 Flood.

5 THE COURT: That's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 126?

6 MR. NOVIK: That's correct, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Page what?

8 MR. NOVIK: Page 187.

9 A The continuation, I'm citing from an article by

10 Christopher Weber called Common Creationist Attacks on

11 Geology.

12 THE COURT: Is that an exhibit?

13 MR. NOVIK: It's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 127, your

14 Honor.

15 THE COURT: From what page are you reading?

16 A That is on page 21, if I'm not mistaken. 21 and

17 22. It continues on 22.

18 Q Professor Gould, while the Court is making that

19 notation, if I might simply state, if you could slow down

20 your answers a little, the court reporter might be able

21 to—

22 A I apologize. My father is a court stenographer,

23 and I should know better.

24 Q Professor Gould, you've talked about the first two

25 principles geologists rely upon to assign relative dates


1 Q (Continuing) to this stratigraphic record. What

2 is the third principle?

3 A The third principle is biotic succession, which

4 states that fossils occur in the same sequence everywhere

5 in the earth.

6 For example, if we go to one place and examine a

7 sequence of strata, and we find — Well, they don't have

8 to be organisms — suppose we found bolts, nuts, and

9 screws. Bolts in the oldest rocks, nuts in the rocks, on

10 top of them, and screws in the rocks on top of them. By

11 the principle of biotic succession, we would find that

12 same sequence anywhere on earth.

13 If we went to another area, for example, we would find

14 bolts at the bottom, rocks in the middle, and screws on

15 top. And we use that to predict.

16 Suppose we go to another area and we find only one

17 sequence with only nuts in it, we would predict that in

18 rocks below that, if we dug, for example, we would

19 probably find bolts, and then screws would be in rocks

20 found on top of that.

21 Q And is that what you find?

22 A Yes, indeed.

23 Q Everywhere in the—

24 A Except when the sequence has been altered by

25 folding or faulting, and we could determine that on other


1 A (Continuing) grounds.

2 Q In order to assign relative dates based on the

3 sequence of fossils, is it necessary to assume that the

4 fossils in the higher strata evolved from the fossils in

5 the lower strata?

6 A Certainly not. It's merely a question of preserved

7 sequence. You don't have to assume any theory or process

8 at all. It could literally be bolts, nuts, and screws.

9 If they compared the same sequence everywhere, we could

10 use them.

11 Q So is the creation science claim that the

12 assumptions of evolutionary theory are essential to the

13 relative dating of the stratigraphic record correct?

14 A No. It's a red herring. The stratigraphic record

15 is established by observation and superposition.

16 Q When were those relative dates first established?

17 A In broad outline, the geological column was fully

18 established before Darwin published The Origin of

19 Species. And I might add, was established by scientists

20 by the most part who did not believe in evolution, didn't

21 even have the hypothesis available.

22 In fact, some of the scientists who first worked on the

23 geologic problem didn't even believe that the fossils they

24 had been classifying were organic. They really did see

25 them as so many nuts, bolts and screws, and yet recognized


1 A (Continuing) that you could date rocks thereby.

2 Q And is that knowledge of when the relative dates

3 were first assigned widely known?

4 A Indeed.

5 Q Do creation scientists refer to that at all?

6 A Not that I've seen.

7 Q Is there any other evidence in the fossil record

8 which is inconsistent with flood geology?

9 A Yes. I think the outstanding fact of the fossil

10 record is the evidence of several periods of mass

11 extinction during the history of life. And by mass

12 extinction, your Honor, I mean that you will find at a

13 certain level in the geological column, a certain strata

14 in rocks of the same age, the simultaneous last occurrence

15 of many forms of life; that you would never find any of

16 them in younger rocks piled on top of them.

17 The two most outstanding such extinctions are the one

18 that marked the end of the Permian Period, some two

19 hundred twenty-five million years ago when fully fifty

20 percent of all families of marine invertebrates became

21 extinct within a very short space of time.

22 The other major extinction, not quite as tumultuous, but

23 in effect was more famous, was the one that occurred at

24 the end of the Cretaceous, some sixty-five million years

25 later. The dinosaurs became extinct then, as well as


1 A (Continuing) several invertebrate groups,

2 including the amniotes. That posed a problem for the

3 creation science literature I've read, because they want

4 to see the entire geological column as the result of this

5 single flood of Noah, and they are expecting a more graded

6 sequence. Due to hydrodynamic sorting or differential

7 intelligence, you wouldn't expect these several episodes

8 of mass extinction.

9 Q How do creation scientists explain away the

10 evidence of repeated episodes of mass extinction?

11 A In the literature that I've read, in a most

12 remarkable way, considering that this is the outstanding

13 fact of the geological records paleontologists study.

14 Simply by not referring to it.

15 In Scientific Creationism, by Henry Morris, again, what

16 he does is merely to cite from a newspaper report coming,

17 at least from a science newspaper, a secondary news

18 journal, not even from the primary literature, one single

19 citation in which he misquotes a scientist to the effect

20 that perhaps these extinctions don't take place.

21 And he then argues, `You see, there weren't any such

22 extinctions anyway,' which I think makes a mockery of

23 hundreds of volumes of scientific literature devoted to

24 the study of mass extinctions and their causes.

25 Q Is the flood geology proposed by creation


1 Q (Continuing) scientists a new idea?

2 A No, it isn't. It was proposed more than a hundred

3 and fifty years ago, tested and falsified. It was, in

4 fact, the subject of intense geological discussion in

5 England in the 1820's. It was assumed by many of the

6 early geologists particularly the Reverend William

7 Buckland, the first professor, the first reader of geology

8 at Oxford University— Now, he didn't try to claim the

9 whole geological column was the result of this single

10 flood, out he did try and argue that all the upper strata

11 were products of a single flood. And indeed, he wrote a

12 book called The Reliqwae Deluviavi, or the relics of the

13 flood, in 1820 to argue that.

14 That proposition was extensively tested throughout the

15 1820's and falsified, because scientists, including

16 Buckland, who came to deny his previous assertion, found

17 that all the strata that they assumed were the same age

18 and a product of a single flood, were in many cases

19 superposed, and, therefore, represented many different

20 episodes.

21 Now, we know today that they, in fact, represent the

22 remains of glacial ages, not floods, and that there were

23 several ice ages.

24 Indeed, in 1831, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, then

25 president of the Geological Society of London, read in his


1 A (Continuing) presidential address, his recantation

2 of the flood theory. And I'd like to read it, because to

3 my mind it's one of the most beautiful statements ever

4 written by a scientist to express the true nature of

5 science as a tentative and correctable set of principles.

6 Adam Sedgwick, in the 1831 address, first of all, writes

7 that the theory is falsified, and says, "There is, I

8 think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably

9 established, namely, that the vast masses diluvial gravel"

10 — That's the name they gave to this strata they were

11 trying to attribute to the flood — "scattered almost over

12 the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and

13 transitory period."

14 Then he makes what is one of my favorite statements in

15 the history of science. He writes, "Having been myself a

16 believer, and to the best of my power, a propagator of

17 what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more

18 than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain,

19 I think it right as one of my last acts before I quit this

20 chair" — that is the chair of the Geological Society of

21 London — "thus publicly to read my recantation. We

22 ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the

23 Diluvian theory" — that was the flood theory — "and

24 referred all our old superficial gravel to the actions of

25 Mosaic flood. In classing together distant unknown


1 A (Continuing) formations under one name and giving

2 them a simultaneous origin, and in determining their date

3 not, by the organic remains we have discovered, but by

4 those we expected hypothetically hereafter to discover in

5 them, we have given one more example of the passion with

6 which the mind fastens upon general conclusions and of the

7 readiness with which it leaves the consideration of

8 unconnected truths."

9 Q Professor Gould, in your professional opinion, has

10 the flood geology theory required by a literal

11 interpretation of Genesis been falsified?

12 A Yes, it has, more than a hundred and fifty years

13 ago. Nothing new has occurred since then.

14 Q Is it consistent with a scientific method to

15 persist in a theory that has been falsified?

16 A Certainly not.

17 Q Professor Gould, have you read Act 590's definition

18 of creation science, as it relates specifically to

19 paleontology?

20 A Yes. Item 2.

21 Q What does Act 590 provide with regards to

22 paleontology?

23 A It states explicitly that there are changes only

24 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

25 and animals, and then explicitly states there must be a


1 A (Continuing) separate ancestry for man and apes.

2 Q Have you read the creation science literature

3 relevant to paleontology?

4 A Yes, I have.

5 Q Are Sections 4 (a), subdivisions 3 and 4 of the

6 Act's definition of creation science consistent with that

7 creation science literature?

8 A Yes. The main point that that literature makes is

9 how the existence of so-called gaps in the record — and

10 by `gaps' we mean the absence of transitional forms

11 linking ancestors and descendants — but the gaps in the

12 record are evidence for the changes only within fixed

13 limits of created kinds.

14 Q Is that a scientific theory?

15 A In its formulation, certainly not, because it calls

16 again upon the suspension of natural law and the divine,

17 or the creation by miracle, by fiat, of new forms of life.

18 Q How does the creation science literature deal with

19 the fossil evidence in this regard?

20 A By selected quotation, by overstating the extended

21 gaps, by not mentioning the transitional forms that do

22 exist in the literature.

23 Q Are there natural law explanations for these gaps

24 in the record?

25 A Yes, there are. Though there are gaps, and I don't


1 A (Continuing) mean to say that every aspect within

2 them has been resolved. But there are two major natural

3 law explanations, the traditional one, and one proposed

4 rather more recently, in part by myself.

5 The traditional explanation relies upon the extreme

6 imperfection of the geological record, and the other

7 explanation argued that the gaps are, in fact, the result

8 of the way we expect evolution to occur. It's called the

9 theory of punctuated equilibrium.

10 Q Let's turn first to the imperfection in the fossil

11 record. Would you please elaborate upon that explanation?

12 A Yes. The fossil record is a woefully incomplete

13 version of all the forms of life that existed. Some tiny

14 fraction of one percent of all the creatures that ever

15 lived have any opportunity of being fossilized. In most

16 areas of the world rocks are not being deposited, but

17 rather are being eroded.

18 Lyell expressed it in a famous metaphor, usually known

19 to historians as the "metaphor of the book." Lyell argues

20 that the fossil record is like a book of which very few

21 pages are preserved, and of the pages that are preserved,

22 very few lines, of the lines that are preserved, few

23 words, and of the words, few letters.. We can well imagine

24 that in such a book you would not be able to read a

25 particularly complete story.


1 Q Given the infrequency of fossilization, would

2 scientists expect to find a complete record of the

3 evolutionary process?

4 A No, you would not.

5 Q Would you please briefly explain the theory of

6 punctuated equilibrium?

7 A The theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is an

8 attempt to explain gaps as the normal workings of the

9 evolutionary process, begins by making a distinction

10 between two modes of evolution. First, evolution might

11 occur by the wholesale or entire transformation of one's

12 form, one's species into another.

13 We maintain in the theory of punctuated equilibrium that

14 that is, in fact, not a common mode of evolution, but what

15 normally happens, the usual way for evolutionary change to

16 occur, is by a process called speciation or branching.

17 That it's not the whole transformation of one entire

18 species into another, out a process of branching, whereby

19 one form splits off. In other words, a small group of

20 creatures may become isolated geographically from the

21 parental population, and then, under this small isolated

22 area, undergo a process of accumulation of genetic

23 changes to produce a new species.

24 The second aspect of the theory of punctuated

25 equilibrium— The first one is—


1 THE COURT: Did you say equilibrium?

2 A Equilibrium. I did leave out a point there.

3 That most species, successful species living in large

4 populations, do not change. In fact, are fairly stable in

5 the fossil record and live for a long time. The average

6 duration of marine invertebrate species was five to ten

7 million years. During that time they may fluctuate mildly

8 in morphology, but most of them — I don't say there

9 aren't exceptions — most of them don't change very much.

10 That's what we would expect for large, successful,

11 well-adapted populations. And that's the equilibrium part.

12 By punctuation, we refer to those events of speciation

13 where descendent species rather rapidly in geological

14 perspectives split off from their ancestors. And that's

15 the second point.

16 First, that evolutionary changes accumulate, not

17 through the transformation of entire population, but

18 through events of slipping, branching, or speciation.

19 Then we have to look at the ordinary time course, how

20 long the event of speciation takes. And it seems to be

21 that it occurs probably on the average — there is an

22 enormous variation — in perhaps tens of thousands of years.

24 Now, tens of thousands of years, admittedly, is very

25 slow by the scale of our lives. By the scale of our


1 A (Continuing) lives, ten thousand years has been

2 deceptively slow. But remember, we're talking about

3 geological time. Ten thousand years, in almost every

4 geological situation, is represented by a single bedding

5 plane, by a single stratum, not by a long sequence of

6 deposits.

7 And therefore the species forms in ten thousand years,

8 although that's slow by the standards of our life, in

9 fact, in geological representation, you would find all of

10 that represented on a single bedding plane. In other

11 words, you wouldn't see it.

12 What's more, if it's a small, isolated population that's

13 speciated, then the chance of finding the actual event of

14 speciation is very, very small, indeed. And therefore, it

15 is characteristic of the fossil record that new species

16 appear geologically abruptly. This is to my mind a

17 correct representation of the way in which we believe the

18 evolution occurs.

19 Q Professor Gould, would it assist you in your

20 testimony in explaining punctuated equilibrium to refer to

21 a chart?

22 A Yes. I have a chart that I presented to you. What

23 we see here, your Honor—

24 MR. NOVIK: Professor Gould, let me state for the

25 record, I am handing to you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 101 for


1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing) identification.

2 Q Does that exhibit contain a chart illustrating

3 punctuated equilibrium?

4 A Yes. I have two charts here. The first, your

5 Honor, illustrates the principle of gradual-

6 Q What page would that be?

7 A That is on page 642. -illustrating the slow and

8 steady transformation of a single population.

9 The next page, page 643, illustrates punctuated

10 equilibrium in which we see that in geological

11 perspectives, though remember, we're talking about tens of

12 thousands of years, that in geological perspective,

13 species are originating in periods of time that are not

14 geologically resolvable and are represented by single

15 bedding planes and, therefore, appear in the record

16 abruptly.

17 I might say at this point, if I may, that there are two

18 rather different senses that would turn gap into record.

19 The first one refers to an existence of all interceptable

20 intermediate degrees. And to that extent, those are gaps,

21 and I believe they are gaps because indeed, evolution

22 doesn't work that way, usually. They are gaps because

23 that is not how evolution occur.

24 There is another sense of gaps in the record claiming,

25 in other words, there are not transitional forms


1 A (Continuing) whatsoever in the fossil record.

2 It's, in fact, patently false.

3 Indeed, on page 643, if you consult the chart, we do

4 display an evolutionary trend here on the right, and

5 evolutionary trends are very common in the fossil record.

6 Punctuate equilibrium does not propose to deny it. By

7 evolutionary trends, we mean the existence of intermediate

8 forms, structurally intermediate forms between ancestors

9 in the sense that we don't have every single set, and we

10 find transitional forms like that very abundant in the

11 fossil record.

12 But the theory of punctuated equilibrium says that you

13 shouldn't expect to find all interceptable intermediate

14 degrees. It's not like rolling a ball up an inclined

15 plane, it's rather, a trend is more like climbing a

16 staircase, where each step would be geologically abrupt.

17 In that sense that are many transitional forms in the

18 fossil record.

19 I might also state that when the geological evidence is

20 unusually good, that we can even see what's happening

21 within one of these punctuations.

22 Q Within one of these bedding planes, as you refer to

23 it?

24 A What is usually bedding planes, but in very rare

25 geological circumstances, we have finer geological


1 A (Continuing) resolution. Those ten thousand years

2 may be represented by a sequence of deposits, and we can

3 see what is actually happening within that interval of

4 tens of thousands of years.

5 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I'd like to move that

6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 101 for identification be received in

7 evidence.

8 THE COURT: It will be received.

9 Q Professor Gould, you have testified that in some

10 rare instances you can find actual evidence of

11 punctuation; is that correct?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Can you give us an example of such?

14 A There is one very good example that is published in

15 Nature magazine by Peter Williamson. It concerns the

16 evolution of several species of fresh water clams and

17 snails in African lakes during the past two million

18 years. At two different times water levels went down and

19 the lakes became isolated.

20 Now, in lakes you often get much finer grained

21 preservation of strata than usual, so you can actually see

22 what's happening within one of these punctuations.

23 So the lakes become isolated, and we can see in the

24 sequence of strata the transformation of ancestors and

25 descendants within a period of time that is on the order


1 A (Continuing) of tens of thousand of years.

2 I have submitted three photographs-

3 Q Would it assist you in your testimony to refer to

4 these photographs?

5 A Yes, it would.

6 Q Let me state for the record, Professor Gould, that

7 these photographs have been previously marked as

8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 123 for identification.

9 A In the first photograph, marked number one, you

10 see, your Honor, on your left is the ancestral form. It's

11 a snail that has a very smooth outline, and on your right

12 is a descendant form that comes from higher strata. You

13 notice that the outline is stepped, more like the Empire

14 State Building, in a way.

15 The second photograph shows the actual sequence of

16 intermediate forms. Again, on your left is the ancestor,

17 on your right is the descendant. The three or four snails

18 in the middle are average representatives from a sequence

19 of strata representing tens of thousands of years.

20 And the third, which is the most remarkable that we

21 actually have evidence for the mechanism whereby this

22 transition occurred, we have three rows there. The top

23 row represents a sequence of representative series of

24 snails from the lowermost strata, in the ancestral form.

25 And you'll note that there's not a great deal of


1 A (Continuing) variability. They all look pretty

2 much alike.

3 On the bottom row are the descendant forms, the ones in

4 the uppermost strata in this sequence, and they all,

5 again, look pretty much alike, but they are different

6 forms. These are the ones that have the stepped like

7 outline.

8 In the middle row, notice that there is an enormous

9 expansion of the variability. Presumably, under

10 conditions of stress and rapid evolution, there are

11 enormous expansions of variability. There you have a much

12 wider range of variation. There are some snails that look

13 smooth in outline, there are some that look pretty much

14 stepped, and there are all intermediate degrees.

15 Here is what happened, you get a big expansion of

16 variability, and the natural selection or some other

17 process eliminated those of the ancestral form. And from

18 that expanded spectrum and variability, only the ones that

19 had the stepped-like outline were preserved.

20 And in the sequence, we, therefore, actually see the

21 process of speciation occurring. So it's not true to say

22 that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of

23 despair, because you don't see transitional forms. When

24 the geological record is unusually good, you do, indeed,

25 see them.


1 Q Professor Gould, how does creation science deal

2 with the theory of punctuated equilibrium?

3 A From the literature I've read, it's been very badly

4 distorted in two ways. First, it's been claimed that

5 punctuated equilibrium is a theory of truly sudden

6 saltation, that is, jump to a new form of life in a single

7 generation. That is a kind of fantasy.

8 The theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn't say that.

9 It merely says that the correct geological representation

10 of speciation in tens of thousands of years will be

11 geologically instantaneous origin.

12 The second distortion is to claim that under punctuated

13 equilibrium we argue that entire evolutionary sequences

14 can be produced in single steps. In the transition from

15 reptile to mammal or from amphibian to reptile might be

16 accomplished under punctuated equilibrium in a single

17 step. That's manifestly false.

18 The punctuations in punctuated equilibrium are in much

19 smaller scale record the origin of new species. And we

20 certainly believe that in the origin of mammals from

21 reptiles that many, many steps of speciation were

22 necessary.

23 Again, as I said, it's like climbing a staircase. But

24 believers and those who advocate the theory of punctuated

25 equilibrium would never claim mammals arose from reptiles


1 A (Continuing) in a single step. And yet that is

2 how it's often depicted in the creation science literature.

3 Can I give an example?

4 Q Certainly. Let me offer you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 57

5 pre-marked for identification.

6 A The Fossils: Key to the Present, by Bliss, Parker

7 and Gish.

8 On page 60 we have a representation of punctuated

9 equilibrium which distorts it exactly in that way. The

10 diagram implies that the transition from fish to amphibian

11 and from amphibian to reptile and from reptile to mammal

12 and from mammal to man occur, each one, in a single step.

13 And that, therefore, there are no transitional forms.

14 The theory of punctuated equilibrium does not say there

15 are no transitional forms. When we're talking about large

16 scale evolutionary trends, there are many transitional

17 forms.

18 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, at this point, before we go

19 on, I'd like to offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 123, the

20 photographs, in evidence.

21 THE COURT: They will be received.

22 Q So the charts from creation science literature on

23 which you are relying suggests that punctuated equilibrium

24 would require great leaps from-

25 A Yes. Single step transitions, in what we, in fact,


1 A (Continuing) believe are evolutionary trends in

2 which ancestor and descendent are connected by many

3 intermediate steps. But again, they are not smooth,

4 gradual transitions, because evolution doesn't work that

5 way. It's more like climbing steps.

6 Q And that's not what the theory suggests at all?

7 A No.

8 Q Does the fossil record provide evidence for the

9 existence of transitional forms?

10 A Yes, it does.

11 Q Are there many such examples?

12 A Yes, there are.

13 Q Could you give us one example?

14 A One very prominent one is the remarkable

15 intermediate between reptiles and birds called

16 Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is regarded as an

17 intermediate form because it occurs, first of all, so

18 early in the history of birds. But secondly, and more

19 importantly, is a remarkable mixture of features of

20 reptiles and birds.

21 Now, I should say that we don't expect evolution to

22 occur by the slow and steady transformation of all parts

23 of an organism at the same rate; therefore, we find an

24 organism that has some features that are very birdlike and

25 some that are very reptile-like. That's exactly what we


1 A (Continuing) would expect in an intermediate form,

2 and that's what we find in Archaeopteryx.

3 Archaeopteryx has feathers, and those feathers are very

4 much like the feathers of modern birds. Archaeopteryx

5 also has a so-called furcula or wishbone, as in modern

6 birds.

7 However, in virtually all other features of its anatomy

8 point by point, it has the skeletal structure of a

9 reptile; in fact, very much like that of small running

10 dinosaurs that presumably were their ancestors.

11 For example, it seems to lack the expanded sternum or

12 breastbone to which the flight muscles of birds are

13 attached. It has a reptilian tail. And detail after

14 detail of the anatomy proves its reptilian form.

15 Most outstandingly, it possesses teeth, and no modern

16 birds possessed teeth. Archaeopteryx and other early

17 birds possess teeth, and the teeth are of reptilian form.

18 I can also say, though this is not the opinion of all

19 paleontologists, but many paleontologists believe that if

20 you study the arrangement of the feathers and the inferred

21 flight musculature of Archaeopteryx, that it, in fact, if

22 it flew at all, and it may not have, was a very poor flier

23 indeed, and would have been intermediate in that sense, as

24 well.

25 Q How do creation scientists deal with this evidence


1 Q (Continuing) of a transitional form?

2 A Again, mostly by ignoring it. And using the

3 specious argument based on definition rather than

4 morphology -

5 Q What do you mean by morphology?

6 A Morphology is the form of an organism, the form of

7 the bones as we find them in the fossil record.

8 In that sense, Archaeopteryx had feathers, and since

9 feathers are used to define birds, that, therefore,

10 Archaeopteryx is all bird, thereby neglecting its

11 reptilian features. The question of definition is rather

12 different from a question of the assessment of morphology.

13 For example, Duane Gish, in Evolution: The Fossils Say

14 No-

15 MR. NOVIK: That's Plaintiffs' 78 for

16 identification, your Honor.

17 A -says on page 90, "The so-called intermediate is

18 no real intermediate at all because, as paleontologists

19 acknowledge, Archaeopteryx was a true bird - it had

20 wings, it was completely feathered, it flew. It was not

21 a half-way bird, it was a bird."

22 And then for the most part just ignoring and not talking

23 about all the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx, or by

24 using another specious argument to get around the most

25 difficult problem, namely, the teeth of Archaeopteryx.


1 A (Continuing)

2 Gish writes on page 92, "While modern birds do not

3 possess teeth, some ancient birds possessed teeth, while

4 some other did not. Does the possession of teeth denote a

5 reptilian ancestry for birds, or does it simply prove that

6 some ancient bird had teeth while others did not? Some

7 reptiles have teeth while some do not. Some amphibians

8 have teeth, out some do not. In fact, this is true

9 throughout the entire range of the vertebrate subphylum -

10 fishes, Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves," - that is birds -

11 "and Mammalia, inclusive."

12 That, to me, is a specious argument. It's just a

13 vaguely important question. Yes, it's true, some reptiles

14 have teeth and some don't. But the important thing about

15 the fossil record of birds is that the only birds that

16 have teeth occur early in the history of birds, and those

17 teeth are reptilian in form. Thus, you have to deal with

18 not just the issue of some do and some don't, and that is

19 not discussed.

20 Q Professor Gould, you have just talked about a

21 transitional form, Archaeopteryx. Could you give an

22 example of an entire transitional sequence in the fossil

23 record?

24 A Yes. A very good example is that provided by our

25 own group, the mammals.


1 Q Would it assist you in your testimony to refer to

2 an exhibit?

3 A Yes. I have a series of skulls illustrating the most

4 important aspect of this transition.

5 Now, in terms of features that would be-

6 Q Let me state for the record, Professor Gould, I

7 have just handed you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 125 for

8 identification.

9 Please continue.

10 A Yes. In terms of the evidence preserved in the

11 morphology of bones which we find in the fossil record,

12 the outstanding aspect of the transition from reptiles to

13 mammals occurs in the evolution of the jaw.

14 The reptilian jaw, lower jaw, is composed of several

15 bones, and the mammalian lower jaw is composed of a single

16 bone called the dentary.

17 We can trace the evolution of those lineages which gave

18 rise to mammals a progressive reduction in these posterior

19 or back bones of the jaw, until finally the two bones that

20 form the articulation or the contact between the upper and

21 lower jaw of reptiles becomes smaller and smaller and

22 eventually becomes two or the three middle ear bones, the

23 malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil, of mammals.

24 And you can see a progressive reduction in the charts

25 I've supplied. The first animal, Dimetrodon, is a member


1 A (Continuing) of a group called the pelycosaur,

2 which are the ancestors of the so-called therapsids or the

3 first mammal like reptiles.

4 And then within the therapsids you can trace the

5 sequence of the progressive reduction of these post

6 dentary bones until - and this is a remarkable thing -

7 in advanced members of the group that eventually gave rise

8 to mammals, a group called the cynodonts. In advanced

9 members of the cynodonts, we actually have a double

10 articulation, that is, a double jaw joint. It is one

11 formed by the old quadrate and articulate bones, which are

12 the reptilian articulation bones, the ones that become the

13 malleus and incus, the hammer and the anvil, later.

14 And then the secondary articulation formed by the

15 squamosal bone, which is the upper jaw bone of mammals

16 that makes contact with the lower. And at least in these

17 advanced cynodonts, it seems by a bone called the

18 surangular, which is one of the posterior post-dentary

19 bones, and then in a form called Probainognathus, which is

20 perhaps the most advanced of the cynodonts, you get, in

21 the squamosal bone, the actual formation of what is called

22 the glenoid fossa, or the actual hole that receives the

23 articulation from the lower jaw.

24 And in Probainognathus, it's not clear. Some

25 paleontologists think that the dentary was actually


1 A (Continuing) already established, the contact. In

2 any event the surangular seems to be in contact.

3 And then in the first mammal, which is called

4 Morganucodon, the dentary extends back, excludes the

5 surangular and you have the complete mammalian

6 articulation formed between the dentary of the lower jaw

7 and the squamosal of the upper jaw.

8 Now, Morganucodon, it appears the old quadrate

9 articulate contact is still present, the bones that go

10 into the middle ear, although some paleontologists think

11 that, in fact, that contact may have already been broken,

12 and you may have this truly intermediate stage in which

13 the quadrate and articular are no longer forming an

14 articulation, but are not yet detached and become ear

15 bones.

16 I might also state that if you look at the ontogeny of

17 the growth of individual mammals and their embryology,

18 that you see that sequence, that the malleus and incus,

19 the hammer and anvil, begin as bones of the jaws. And in

20 fact, in marsupials, when marsupials are first born, it is

21 a very, very undeveloped state that the jaw articulation

22 is formed still as in reptiles, and later these bones

23 actually enter the middle ear.

24 Q Now, Professor Gould, you've used a lot of

25 technical terms here. If I understand you correctly, the


1 Q (Continuing) point of this is that this transitional

2 sequence for which we have good evidence shows the

3 transformation of the jaw bones in reptiles to become the

4 ear bones in mammals; is that correct?

5 A Yes. We have a very nice sequence of intermediate

6 forms. Now again, it's not in perceptible transition

7 through all intermediary degrees, because that's not the

8 way evolution works.

9 What we do have is a good temporally ordered structural

10 sequence within the intermediate forms.

11 Q How does creation science deal with this evidence?

12 A For the most part simply by not citing it, as they

13 usually do, or by making miscitations when they do discuss

14 it. For example, again, Duane Gish, in Evolution: The

15 Fossils Say No-

16 MR. NOVIK: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 78 for

17 identification.

18 A -gets around the issue by discussing only a single

19 form, a form called Thrinaxodon. Now, Thrinaxodon is a

20 cynodont; that is, it is a member of the group that gave

21 rise to mammals within the therapsids, but it is, in fact,

22 a primitive cynodont. It is not close within the

23 cynodonts of the ancestry of mammals, and, therefore, it

24 does not have many of these advanced features.

25 Mr. Gish discusses only Thrinaxodon in his discussion


1 A (Continuing) and writes, "Even the so-called

2 advanced mammal-like reptile Thrinaxodon," that's an

3 interesting point. Thrinaxodon is an advanced mammal-like

4 reptile because all the cynodonts represent an advanced group.

5 But within the cynodonts, it is a primitive member

6 of that group, and therefore, would not be expected to

7 show the more advanced features.

8 "Even the so-called advanced mammal-like reptile

9 Thrinaxodon, then, had a conventional reptilian ear." We

10 are quite simply not talking about the more advanced

11 cynodonts who have the double articulation.

12 Q He does not discuss the example you have just

13 testified about at all?

14 A Not in this book published in 1979. It was

15 published long after this information became available.

16 Q And the example he does use is, in your opinion,

17 irrelevant on this point?

18 A Yes. He discusses only the genus Thrinaxodon, which

19 as I have stated, is a primitive member of the cynodonts.

20 Q Professor Gould, is there evidence of transitional

21 sequences in human evolution?

22 A Yes. It's rather remarkable that the evidence is as

23 complete as it is, considering how difficult it is for

24 human bones to fossilize.

25 Q Why is it so difficult for human bones to fossilize?


1 A Primarily for two reasons. First, there weren't

2 very many of us until rather recently. And secondly,

3 creatures that lived in fairly dry terrestrial

4 environments where rocks are more often being eroded than

5 deposited, are not often preserved as fossils.

6 Q What does the fossil record indicate with respect to

7 human evolution?

8 A A rather well formed sequence of intermediate

9 stages. The oldest fossil human, called Australopithecus

10 afarensis, or often known as "Lucy", is one of the most

11 famous specimens and a remarkable specimen is forty

12 percent complete, so it's not just based on fragments.

13 Lucy is an animal that is very much like Archaeopteryx

14 and contains a mixture of some rather advanced human

15 features with the preservation of some fairly apelike

16 features.

17 For example, based on the pelvis and leg bones of

18 Australopithecus afarensis, we know that this creature

19 walked as erect as you or I and had a fairly so-called

20 bipedal gait. Indeed, we've even found fossil foot prints

21 that indicate this bipedal gait.

22 On the other hand, the cranium of Australopithecus

23 afarensis' skull, in many features, is a remarkably

24 apelike cranium and perhaps it is scarcely if at all

25 larger than the ape, with a comparable body size in the

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P567-599


1 A (Continuing) dentician. It is a rather nice

2 mixture.

3 Q What do you mean by `dentician'?

4 A Teeth. Sorry. Or a mixture of apelike and

5 humanlike features. Humans have a general shape of the

6 dentician of a parabola, where apes tend to have a more,

7 look at the molars and the incisors, rather more blocky or

8 what we call quadrate outline. The outline of the palate

9 and the upper jaw of Australopithecus afarensis is quite

10 blocky, as in apes, and yet in many respects the teeth are

11 more human in form, particularly in the reduction of the

12 canine.

13 So Australopithecus afarensis is a remarkable

14 intermediate form which mixes together apelike and

15 humanlike features, just as we would expect. And then

16 when you go to younger rocks in Africa, you find

17 transitional forms again.

18 The first representative of our own genus, for example,

19 a form called Homo habilis, is found in rocks less than

20 two million years old and is intermediate in cranial

21 capacity between Lucy and modern humans. It has a cranial

22 capacity of seven hundred to eight hundred cubic

23 centimeters, compared to thirteen or fourteen hundred for

24 modern humans, with approximately on the order of four

25 hundred or a little less for Lucy.


1 A (Continuing)

2 And then in younger rocks, you get the next species,

3 Homo erectus, or more popularly the Java or Peking Man,

4 which is the first form that migrated out of Africa and

5 came to inhabit other continents as well.

6 And it is again an intermediate between Homo habilis in

7 brain size and modern humans, with cranial capacities on

8 the order of a thousand cubic centimeters. And then

9 finally in a much more recent strata we get the first

10 remains of our own species, Homo sapiens.

11 Q How does creation science deal with this evidence of

12 transitional forms?

13 A Again, in the literature I've read, in the most part

14 by ignoring it and by citing examples from Henry Morris'

15 Scientific Creationism, again.

16 Henry Morris does two things simply to dismiss that

17 evidence. He argues that Australopithecus is not an

18 intermediate form, out entirely an all-ape, again by

19 citing a single citation from a news report, not from

20 primary literature.

21 He writes on page 173, this is now a citation from that

22 news report. "Australopithecus limb bone have been rare

23 finds, but Leakey now has a large sample. They portray

24 Australopithecus as long-armed and short-legged. He was

25 probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker, as many


1 A (Continuing) archaeologist presently believe."

2 Now, gorillas and chimps are knuckle-walkers, and the

3 implication is that the Australopithecus was just an ape.

4 But I don't know where that news report came from. We

5 certainly are quite confident from the pelvis and leg

6 bones that Australopithecus walked erect. There are

7 volumes devoted to that demonstration. That is certainly

8 not decided by a certain news report that seems to

9 indicate otherwise.

10 Morris then goes on to say, "In other words,

11 Australopithecus not only had a brain like an ape, but he

12 also looked like an ape and walked like a ape."

13 And the second thing that Henry Morris does is to argue

14 that contrary to the claim I just made, that there is a

15 temporally ordered sequence to the intermediate forms.

16 Morris argued that modern humans are found in the oldest

17 rocks that preserve any human remains. And he again cites

18 a news report, but misunderstands it or miscites it.

19 The news report says, "Last year Leakey and his

20 co-workers found three jaw bones, leg bones and more than

21 400 man-made stone tools. The specimens were attributed to

22 the genus Homo."

23 Now, the claim is, yes, they were attributed to the

24 genus Homo, but it is not our species. Leakey then goes

25 on to say, "It is not our species. In fact, these belong


1 A (Continuing) to the species Homo habilis. The

2 intermediate form of the cranial capacity was seven

3 hundred to eight hundred cubic centimeters, and does

4 not show, as Morris maintains, "that a fully modern human

5 existed in the ancient strata."

6 Q Professor Gould, are you familiar with the creation

7 science argument that there are explained gaps between

8 pre-Cambrian and Cambrian life?

9 A Yes, indeed. The pre-Cambrian fossil record was

10 pretty much nonexistent until twenty or thirty years

11 ago. Creationists used to like to make a big point of

12 that. They argued, `Look, for most of earth's history

13 until you get rocks that you say are six hundred million

14 years old, there were no fossils at all.'

15 Starting about 30 years ago, we began to develop a very

16 extensive and impressive fossil record of pre-Cambrian

17 creatures. They are, indeed, only single-celled

18 creatures. And the reason we haven't found them before is

19 because we were looking for larger fossils in different

20 kinds of rocks.

21 So creation scientists had to acknowledge that, and they

22 then shifted the argument and said that, "All right, these

23 are only single-celled creatures and they are not

24 ancestors to the more complicated forms that arise in the

25 Cambrian, but there are no fossils of multi-cellular


1 A (Continuing) animals before the Cambrian strata."

2 But we've known now for about twenty years that that,

3 too, is false. There is one rather well known fauna

4 called the Ediacaran fauna, after a place in Australia

5 where it was first found, but now, in fact, found on

6 almost every continent of the earth.

7 These fossils are pre-Cambrian. They are not very

8 ancient pre-Cambrian fossils. They occur in rocks pretty

9 much just before the Cambrian. They are caught all over

10 the world invariably in strata below the first appearance

11 of still invertebrate fossils.

12 And the creation scientists, as far as I can see, for

13 the most part, just simply ignore the existence of the

14 Ediacaran fauna. For example, Duane Gish, again, in

15 Evolution: The Fossils Say No cites, although this book

16 is published in 1979, cites the following quotation by a

17 paleontologist named T. Neville George on page 70, "Granted

18 an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and

19 not an act of special creation, the absence of any record

20 whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the

21 pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox

22 grounds as it was to Darwin."

23 That was a fair statement that T. Neville George made,

24 but he made it in 1960, so Mr. Gish must surely know of

25 the discovery of the Ediacaran fauna since then. I think


1 A (Continuing) he's misleading to the extreme in that

2 he continues to cite this earlier source when, in fact,

3 later discoveries had shown the existence of this

4 pre-Cambrian fauna.

5 Q Professor Gould, are there any natural law

6 explanations for the rapid diversification of

7 multicellular life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian

8 era?

9 A Yes, indeed. Without in any way trying to maintain

10 the problem has been solved - it has not - we have some

11 promise and possibilities based on natural law that may

12 very well tell a large part of the story.

13 Q What explanations are those?

14 A For example, I have said there was an extensive

15 record of pre-Cambrian single-celled creatures. But all

16 of these single-celled creatures reproduced asexually, at

17 least until late in the pre-Cambrian, as far as we can

18 tell. And animals that reproduced asexually, according to

19 Darwin's theory, have very little opportunity for

20 extensive evolutionary change.

21 Under Darwin's theory, natural selection requires a

22 large pool of variability, genetic variability, upon which

23 natural selection operates. And you can't generate that

24 pool of variability in asexual creatures. In asexual

25 creatures, the offspring will be exactly like their


1 A (Continuing) parents unless a new mutation occurs,

2 but mutations are rare. And you may have a lot of

3 favorable mutations, but there is no way you can mix them

4 together. One line has one mutation and another clone

5 another mutation.

6 But it is in sexual reproduction that you can bring

7 together the favorable mutations in several lines. But

8 each sexually produced creature represents a mixture of the

9 different genetic material of two different parents. And

10 that way you can bring together all the favorable

11 mutations and produce that normal pool of variability

12 without which natural selection can't operate.

13 So it may be that the so-called Cambrian explosion is a

14 consequence of the evolution of sexuality, which allowed

15 for the first time enough variability for Darwinian

16 process to operate.

17 Q Are there any other possible natural law

18 explanations?

19 A Yes, there are. One explanation that I find

20 intriguing which is complimentary and not contradictory to

21 the argument about sexuality, involves the characteristic

22 mode in which growth proceeds in all systems that have

23 characteristic properties. If 1 may have-

24 Q Would it help you to refer to Plaintiffs' Exhibit

25 101?


1 A Yes, please. I have an illustration here-

2 Q I believe the Court has a copy of that exhibit

3 already. What page are you referring to?

4 A It's on page 653. And here we are making an analogy

5 of bacterial growth, but it is talking about

6 characteristic growth in systems with the following

7 properties, where into a system with superabundant

8 resources you introduce for the first time a creature

9 capable of self multiplication. So that if, for example,

10 you introduce a single bacterial cell onto a plate of

11 nutrients upon which it can grow, initially you're not

12 going to see, although the rate of cell division doesn't

13 change, nothing much is going to happen if one bacterial

14 cell, then two, then four, then eight, then sixteen,

15 thirty-two. You still can't see it, so the increase

16 appears to be initially quite slow. We call it a lag

17 phase.

18 But eventually it starts to increase much more rapidly;

19 you get a million, then two million, then four million,

20 then eight million. Even though the rate of cell division

21 hasn't changed, the appearance of the increase has

22 accelerated enormously. We call that the lag phase.

23 Then eventually it reaches the point where there is as

24 many bacteria as the medium can support and then it tapers

25 off and you have a so-called plateau. And that gives rise


1 A (Continuing) to the so called S shape, or the

2 Sigmoid curve, after the initial slow lag phase to the

3 rapid log phase and the later plateau.

4 Now, when you plot the increase of organic diversity

5 through pre-Cambrian and Cambrian transition, you seem to

6 have a very good fit to that S-shaped curve, which is what

7 you'd expect in any system in which into a regime of

8 superabundant resources you introduce a creature capable

9 of self multiplication for the first time.

10 So the lag phase is presumably indicated by the slow

11 increase in numbers of organisms at the end of the

12 pre-Cambrian, culminating in the Ediacaran fauna. The log

13 phase represents the rapid acceleration, not acceleration,

14 but rapid increase in numbers of forms that we would expect

15 in such a system gives analogous to the million, two

16 million, four million bacteria and the later plateau.

17 And, therefore, I think ordinary Sigmoidal growth may

18 well represent the Cambrian explosion. In other words,

19 the argument is the Cambrian explosion is, the log phase if

20 one is using Sigmoidal processes.

21 Q Does creation science take care of these two

22 alternative natural law explanations?

23 A I have not seen them depicted in the creation

24 science literature that I've read.

25 Q Professor Gould, does evolutionary theory presuppose


1 Q (Continuing) the absence of a creator?

2 A Certainly not. Indeed, many of my colleagues are

3 devoutly religious people. Evolution as a science does

4 not talk about the existence of a creator. It is quite

5 consistent with one or without one, so long as the creator

6 works by natural laws.

7 Q Professor Gould, do you have a professional opinion

8 concerning creation science in the areas of paleontology

9 and geology?

10 A Yes, indeed. I think they proceed by misquotation,

11 by selective quotation, and by invoking supernatural

12 intervention to produce the basic kinds of life, all of

13 which are not only unscientific, but represent skill and

14 rhetoric rather than science.

15 MR. NOVIK: I have no further questions, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: The court will be in recess until 1:30.

17 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

18 from 12:30 p.m. until 1:40 p.m.)

19 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I will just state for the

20 record, I appreciate the opportunity to finish reading

21 Doctor Morowitz' deposition which was taken last night,

22 and the opportunity to collect my thoughts for this cross

23 examination.




1 Thereupon,



3 having been previously sworn, was examined and testified

4 as follows:





8 Q Doctor Morowitz, has Mr. Novik advised you that

9 Judge Overton wants all witnesses to respond to the

10 questions that are actually asked in this courtroom?

11 A Pardon?

12 Q Has Mr. Novik told you that Judge Overton wants you

13 to respond directly to the questions that are actually

14 asked of you?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q When were you first contacted about being a witness

17 in this lawsuit?

18 A Sometime within the last few weeks. I believe it

19 was in late October, although— The reason I'm

20 equivocating a bit is I was called as a consultant first,

21 to discuss some aspects of the case as an expert

22 consultant, and then my role as a witness emerged from

23 that. And the exact date of that transition, I'm not

24 clear on.

25 Q When were you first contacted to be expert to


1 Q (Continuing) advise plaintiffs in this case.

2 A Sometime in October.

3 Q Okay. I believe last night you told us that you

4 were first contacted one to two months ago?

5 A That would be sometime in October, yes.

6 Q When were you first advised that you would actually

7 testify in this lawsuit?

8 A I believe that was about two weeks ago.

9 Q Were you advised that your testimony would be

10 because that Doctor Carl Sagan was unable to testify?

11 A I did not discuss that with anyone, no.

12 Q Were you told why you would be a witness here?

13 A No, I was not told; I was asked to be a witness.

14 Q When was the subject matter of your testimony first

15 discussed?

16 A At that time.

17 Q That was some two weeks ago?

18 A Yes. Whenever it was that I agreed to be a witness.

19 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor., the proposed testimony of

20 Doctor Carl Sagan was the nature of science, why creation

21 science is not science, and the relevancy of astronomy to

22 creation science.

23 It's my understanding, based on discussing with Mr. Dave

24 Williams of our office, is that Doctor Morowitz would be a

25 substitute for Doctor Sagan. I would move at this time


1 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing) that all of Doctor Morowitz'

2 testimony which was outside the scope of what we were

3 originally advised by the plaintiffs be struck from the

4 record.

5 THE COURT: it seems to me like if you took Doctor

6 Morowitz' deposition last night, that a timely motion in

7 that connection would have been before he testified today.

8 MR. CHILDS: Well, your Honor, I think the Court

9 can consider at this point as only a tender in his

10 testimony for purposes of review.

11 THE COURT: I will deny that motion.

12 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

13 Doctor Morowitz, would you please tell Judge

14 Overton and the people here in the courtroom what

15 thermodynamics in an equilibrium state means?

16 A Thermodynamics is a field of study. It is the

17 study of energy transformations in equilibrium systems.

18 That is the field called classical thermodynamics, which

19 the term `thermodynamics' is usually used, is the study of

20 transformations of state in equilibrium systems.

21 Q Last night you told me that you have made some

22 calculations regarding the possibilities or probabilities

23 of life originating from non-life in an equilibrium state,

24 did you not?

25 A That is correct.


1 Q Would you tell Judge Overton what the odds of life

2 emerging from non-life in an equilibrium state are,

3 according to your calculations?

4 A All right. Ten to the minus ten to the tenth.

5 Q Could you relate that so that us non-scientists can

6 understand that?

7 A All right. That is one over one followed by ten

8 million zeros.

9 Q Ten million?

10 A Ten billion zeros.

11 Q Ten billion?

12 A Right.

13 Q Now then, as I understand your testimony, the

14 calculations based on an equilibrium state cannot be

15 applied to the surface of the earth?

16 A That is correct.

17 Q Can you tell me the first time that science-

18 THE COURT: Excuse me. What was that question?

19 I didn't catch the question. The last question you

20 asked, what was that?

21 MR. CHILDS: I don't have any idea. We can have

22 the court reporter read it back.

23 THE COURT: No, no. Maybe it wasn't that important.

24 MR. CHILDS: Let me see if we can start over again.

25 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

Q Historically, have biologists considered the


1 Q (Continuing) equilibrium theory of thermodynamics

2 applicable to the evolution of life?

3 A By and large, biologists have not dealt with that

4 subject. Thermodynamics has been the subject of

5 physicists and physical chemists.

6 Most biologists are not terribly well informed on

7 thermodynamics.

8 Q Okay. Let me repeat my question. Historically,

9 where the area of thermodynamics has been applied to the

10 evolution of life, has it not been the calculations that

11 would be derived from the equilibrium state?

12 A I don't know of any such specific calculations, so

13 I'm unable to answer your question. I don't recall any

14 such calculations.

15 Q Last night in your deposition you mentioned the

16 name Ilya - and I'll have to spell it —

17 P-r-i-g-o-g-i-n-e.

18 A Right.

19 Q Would you pronounce that for me, please?

20 A Prigogine.

21 Q Are you familiar with an article that appeared in

22 Physics Today in November of 1972 entitled Thermodynamics

23 of Evolution, subheading being, "The functional order

24 maintained within living systems seems to defy the second

25 law. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics describes how such


1 Q (Continuing) systems come to terms with entropy."

2 A I have read that article, yes.

3 Q Do you presently recall in this article the quote,

4 "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation

5 of biological structures. The probability that at

6 ordinary temperatures a macro, m-a-c-r-o, scopic number of

7 molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly

8 structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing

9 living organisms is vanishingly small"?

10 A Now, what's your question?

11 Q My question was, do you recall, do you remember

12 that statement in the article?

13 A No, I do not.

14 Q Would not that appear to be the application of the

15 calculations from equilibrium state thermodynamics to the

16 evolution of life on the surface of the earth?

17 A Well, much of Prigogine's work has dealt with

18 non-equilibrium dynamics. I think if you read on

19 following that quotation, he gets into a little more

20 detail about how the problem is solved. If you go just

21 following that quotation, the next sentence or two.

22 MR. NOVIK: Perhaps it would help if the witness

23 had a copy of the offer.

24 THE COURT: It doesn't sound like he needs one to

25 me.


1 Q Professor Morowitz, if you need to refer to the

2 article, I only have one copy, I'll be glad it share it

3 with you. Is that okay?

4 A Yes.

5 Q My question is, in the historical perspective of

6 application in the field of thermodynamics to the creation

7 of life from non-life, were not your calculations, your

8 type of calculations based on an equilibrium state applied

9 to the model?

10 A The calculations based on an equilibrium state were

11 to show that life could not arise in an equilibrium

12 state. That was the scientific thrust of the argument.

13 And to my knowledge, that is the only case I'm aware of

14 where that kind of calculations has been used.

15 It is to show the necessity of open system

16 thermodynamics to study this kind of phenomenon.

17 Q I'll read you another quote. "A number of

18 investigators have believed that the origin required so

19 many chance events of such low probability that we have no

20 way of studying it within the framework of science, even

21 though it involves perfectly normal laws of nature."

22 Do you recall that statement?

23 A Yes. I wrote it.

24 Q Okay. And I believe that was with — Who was that

25 with?


1 A I believe that occurs in an article with Kimbel

2 Smith.

3 Q And then another quote in here, "The view that

4 life's origin cannot be predicted from physics because of

5 the dominance of chance factors was elaborated by Jack

6 Monod," M-o-n-o-d, "in his book Chance and Necessity." Do

7 you recall that?

8 A Yes. The article then goes on to criticize what's

9 wrong with those points of view and why they were

10 incorrect.

11 Q Bear with me, if you will.

12 My understanding of what happened in the history of the

13 application of thermodynamics to the evolution of life

14 itself, was that the first model that was applied was the

15 one that they were familiar with, which was the

16 equilibrium state.

17 A No. Monod did not deal with thermodynamics at all

18 in his work. Monod dealt with mutation rates, not with

19 thermodynamics.

20 Q Okay. Are you telling me that I'm wrong in my

21 understanding, that the first model that was applied was

22 the equilibrium state of thermodynamics?

23 A Other than the calculation of mine which you cited

24 which was designed to show that life could not arise in an

25 equilibrium system and must take place in an open system,


1 A (Continuing) I don't know of other calculations,

2 thermodynamic calculations related to the origin of life.

3 Q You're not aware of anybody in the field that

4 applied equilibrium theory to the evolution of life?

5 A To the origin of life.

6 Q To the origin of life?

7 A I don't recall any such calculations.

8 Q When did you do your calculations applying

9 equilibrium theory?

10 A 1966.

11 Q And when did you come up with your theory that it's

12 not equilibrium theory that should be applied, but rather

13 it should be non-equilibrium theory?

14 A I can't give you a date. Ever since I've been

15 involved in this field, probably since 1951, I believe

16 that required non-equilibrium theory, but I can't give you

17 an exact date.

18 Q When did you first postulate your theory in writing

19 that the non-equilibrium state is the correct one to apply

20 to the evolution of life itself?

21 A My book was published in 1968.

22 Q I believe that's the book that you provided to me

23 last night called Energy Flow in Biology?

24 A That is correct.

25 Q Are you familiar with the work of a fellow named Miller?


1 A Stanley Miller?

2 Q I believe so, yes, sir.

3 A There are a lot of people named Miller.

4 Q Are there any Millers other than Stanley Miller

5 that would be working in your particular area of endeavor?

6 A Not that I'm aware of.

7 Q Did Mr. Miller, or let's say Doctor Miller, did

8 Doctor Miller come up with anything unusual in the 1950's

9 in his research?

10 A Yes.

11 Q What did he come up with?

12 A In Miller's experiments, he took a system of

13 methane, ammonia and water, and in a closed system he

14 provided energy through an electrical, high frequency

15 electrical spark discharge, and he demonstrated the

16 synthesis of amino acids, carbocyclic acids, and other

17 prebiotic intermediates.

18 Q Who was the previous historian, excuse me, the

19 previous scientist in history who dealt with that same

20 subject matter on a significant basis?

21 A The origin of life?

22 Q Yes.

23 A Prior to the Miller experiment, I would say that

24 the leading name in that field was A.I. O'Parin.

25 Q And prior to that?


1 A Prior to that, in a sense, the field didn't really

2 exist.

3 Q Why was that?

4 A Because people believed through the 1800's that

5 life arose spontaneously all the time; that maggots arose

6 and became meat, and mice old piles of rags and so forth

7 and so on. And as long as people believed that, there was

8 no need to have a theory of the origin of life.

9 Q Who put that theory to rest?

10 A Louis Pasteur.

11 Q And what were Doctor Pasteur's experiments?

12 A Basically his final experiments that were most

13 persuasive in this field consisted of flasks of sterile

14 medium to which no organisms were admitted, and these

15 flasks remained sterile for long periods of time.

16 Q So?

17 A Meaning no growth of living organisms occurred in

18 them.

19 Q What work has been done since Stanley Miller's

20 work in the area of generating life in the laboratory?

21 A Well, there have been some several thousand

22 experiments on the, of the type done by Miller, follow-up

23 experiments, where various energy sources have been

24 flowed; there has been the flow of various kinds of

25 energy through systems of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and


1 A (Continuing) oxygen, and there has been a study of

2 the kinds of molecules that are produced in such energy

3 flow systems.

4 These experiments universally show that the flow of

5 energy through a system orders it in a molecular sense.

6 Q Has anybody created life by the flow of energy?

7 A Have any of those experiments resulted in the

8 synthesis of a living cell? Is that the question?

9 Q Yes, sir.

10 A No. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

11 Q Would you say that this area has received intensive

12 scientific scrutiny in the scientific community?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Do you have any explanation of why you have not

15 been able to synthesize life in the laboratory?

16 A It's an extremely difficult problem.

17 Q What is the difficult —

18 A I would point out to you that we have put far more

19 money into trying to cure cancer, and that is still an

20 unsolved problem, also. We have put far more time, money,

21 effort and human endeavor into that problem, and that is

22 also an unsolved problem because it is a very difficult

23 problem.

24 Q What is the information you need to accomplish that?

25 A To accomplish the synthesis of a living cell?


1 Q Yes, sir.

2 A Two kinds of information. One is the detailed

3 understanding of the chemical structure of the small

4 molecules, micro molecules, organelles and other

5 structures that make up a living cell. And secondly, one

6 has to know the kinetic processes by which those

7 structures came about in prebiotic systems.

8 Q In perusing some of the literature that you've

9 written last night, I came up with an article which would

10 seem to indicate that sincerely believe that given enough

11 time and research, that you or scientists like you can

12 ultimately go back to the ultimate combinations of atoms

13 which led to the formation of molecules.

14 A That is not a question.

15 Q Do you recall an article to that effect?

16 A Well, you said "we can go back to that" and then

17 there should be an `and' clause, `and do some things'.

18 Q Do you believe that you can go back and ultimately

19 understand how atoms combined to form molecules?

20 A That is a branch of chemistry. That is rather well

21 understood.

22 Q Well, I'm talking about the first molecules on the

23 surface of the earth.

24 Do you understand my question?

25 A No, I don't.


1 MR. CHILDS: May I approach the witness, your Honor?


3 Q The article that I have is Biology as a

4 Cosmological Science, reprinted from Main Currents and

5 Modern Thought, volume 28, number 5, May through June,

6 1972.

7 Page 50 to, well, the page number I have on this is

8 615186. The first column is in brackets. I'd like you to

9 read that paragraph, please.

10 A "If we are able to obtain the kind of theory of

11 self-order, this kind of theory of self-ordering should

12 challenge us to apply the most profound insights we can

13 muster to link biology to non-equilibrium physical

14 chemistry."

15 "The job seems very formidable indeed, but the rewards

16 could be very great; the ability to seek out our origins

17 in terms of a law that would promulgate our action. This

18 is truly a new frontier, and one that challenges the

19 maximum intellectual effort of which we are all capable."

20 Q Do I understand this paragraph to mean that you

21 believe that you and scientists from the scientific

22 community can explain the origins of man in terms of the

23 laws of atomic interaction?

24 A I believe that the origin of life can be explained

25 in terms of the laws of atomic interactions.


1 Q Historically, has there seen a conflict between

2 biology and physics as it relates to the three laws of

3 thermodynamics?

4 A Yes, there has.

5 Q When did that conflict appear?

6 A The conflict appeared at the time of the appearance

7 of Darwin's Origin of Species.

8 Q Why did that conflict between biology and physics

9 appear?

10 A Because at the time of the first formulation —

11 That followed very shortly the formulation of the second

12 law of thermodynamics, and people at that time thought

13 there was a conflict between the disordering influences

14 mandated by the laws of physics and the ordering

15 influences mandated by the laws of evolution.

16 Q And in your article you say that this apparent

17 conflict, quote, still rages today among some who have

18 failed to grasp the real nature of the problem." Now, I

19 wonder if you could tell me who those people are?

20 A Well, I should point out that it also states in

21 there that the problem was essentially solved in 1886 by

22 Bolzmann, B-o-l-z-m-a-n-n. And it has been a subtle

23 problem, and a number of people have simply not understood

24 the solution and therefore there has been some residual

25 argument.


1 A (Continuing)

2 I would say by 1981 that has been almost entirely

3 cleared up, and I know of no one other than the creation

4 scientists who have any qualms about there being any

5 conflict between life and the laws of thermodynamics.

6 Q Do you know of a fellow named Sir Fred Hoyle, or

7 know of Sir Fred Hoyle?

8 A I have heard of Fred Hoyle, yes.

9 Q What is his particular area of expertise?

10 A Professor Hoyle is an astrophysicist.

11 Q Does the field of astrophysics include a

12 familiarity with thermodynamics?

13 A It might. I mean, there are a number of fields

14 within astrophysics. Some of them would certainly require

15 thermodynamics. All of them would not.

16 Q Are you aware that Sir Hoyle has come up with some

17 probabilities which would indicate that the origination of

18 life itself on the planet earth is impossible?

19 A I have not read that work by Hoyle.

20 Q Are you aware that those are basically

21 conclusions?

22 A I have not heard — I have not read that work

23 directly.

24 Have you heard that? I'm not asking if you've read

25 the books. Have you heard, do you understand that within


1 Q (Continuing) the scientific community?

2 A No. I had not heard that before my deposition.

3 Q Is Jack Monod a molecular biologist?

4 A He was a molecular biologist?

5 Q Is he deceased?

6 A He's now deceased.

7 Q Did he write a book called Chance and Necessity in

8 1971?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you've spent a great deal of time putting his

11 thesis about the origin of life to rest, have you not?

12 A I have certainly disagreed with his views about the

13 origin of life.

14 Q When was your first contact with a Doctor Robert E.

15 Kofahl?

16 A I don't remember the date. I had some brief

17 correspondence with him, probably be on the order of ten

18 years ago.

19 Q And what was your interest in communicating with

20 Doctor Kofahl?

21 A I had, shortly before that, heard of the work of

22 the Creation Research Institute. And since I do some

23 writing in these problems of the origin of life, I wanted

24 to find out what their views were.

25 Q For what purpose?


1 A Information.

2 Q You provided last night two letters, one dated

3 August 10, 1976, to Doctor Kofahl, and a letter asking for

4 his writings which would constitute a contemporary

5 statement of fundamentalism, and a letter of September 2,

6 1976, thanking him for his letter.

7 Do you have his letter of August 24, 1976?

8 A No. I went through my files in gathering any

9 material for the deposition, and those were the only two

10 letters from that correspondence that I found.

11 Q Do you consider the creation explanation or a

12 source of life being creation rather than chemical

13 evolution a threat to your position in the scientific

14 community?

15 A No. Because the idea is totally outside the

16 scientific community.

17 Q And how do you define the scientific community?

18 A Well, I think you're asking for a sociological

19 definition since you are asking if it affected my position

20 in the community. If you want a sociological definition,

21 that should be posed to those persons making a living in

22 the field.

23 Q I asked you about your definition of science last

24 night, didn't I?

25 A We discussed it briefly.


1 Q Do you recall what your definition of science was

2 last night?

3 A Well, if you have it, it would be helpful. I don't

4 remember the exact words that I used.

5 Q It's on page 56, if you would.

6 On the bottom of page 56, line 24, I asked you the

7 question, "Should the public schools' science teachers

8 teach what is accepted in the scientific community?"

9 What is your answer on line 1 and line 2 of page 57?

10 A That defines what science is. "Science is a social

11 activity."

12 Q Science is what is accepted in the scientific

13 community.

14 A That is correct.

15 Q Which when you reduce it down to its simplest terms

16 means that if the people like you or in the scientific

17 community don't believe in it, then it's not science?

18 A Of course, the community has rules by which it

19 operates. This is not a random acceptance or rejection by

20 the community. The community has rules dealing with

21 natural law, testability, explanatory power, and a number

22 of other rules like that which relates to what is accepted

23 and what is not accepted in the scientific community.

24 There was some implication the way you asked that

25 question that this was a capricious sort of choice on the


1 A (Continuing) part of a community of scholars.

2 it is not a capricious choice. It's a community of

3 scholars who are very dedicated to a discipline by which

4 information is evaluated.

5 Q Isn't that your viewpoint as somebody being on the

6 inside looking out?

7 A I don't really know how to answer that question.

8 Q Well, it sort of sounds to me like somebody might

9 be a member of a country club looking at all the people

10 who are not a member of the club. They make their own

11 rules and they decide who will be admitted.

12 A Again, you're making the assumption that the rules

13 are capricious. The rules are not capricious, because

14 nature is a hard taskmaster.

15 Q Who makes the rules?

16 A The rules are ultimately, come from natural law.

17 The understanding of those rules is the task of a group of

18 people who are trying to understand that natural law,

19 trying to study that natural law.

20 Q Are you trying to say that this is some kind of

21 interpretation of the data that people perceive of what

22 they see around them?

23 A Science deals with observations. You go from

24 observation to constructs, which would be what you would

25 call hypothesis, theories, and then you go back through


1 A (Continuing) the loop of verification, and back to

2 the observables again. And this is the general procedure

3 by which science operates.

4 Q Can you tell me the name of one Ivy League

5 university that has a creation science scientist on that

6 staff?

7 A No, I cannot.

8 Q Can you tell me one graduate school that you would

9 consider reputable in the United States that has a

10 creation scientist on the staff?

11 A No, I cannot.

12 Q Can you give me the names of a single journal that

13 you would consider reputable that has a creation-scientist

14 who reviews articles submitted for publication?

15 A No, I cannot. On the other hand, I cannot give you

16 the name of a single Ivy League school or major university

17 or major journal in which the flat earth theory was

18 published or reviewed.

19 Q What about the theory of phlogiston?

20 A I cannot give you the name of a single such

21 institution or journal which would consider it.

22 Q What is there about the concept of flat earth which

23 requires that it not be taught?

24 A It's wrong.

25 Q Would you say that everybody in the scientific


1 Q (Continuing) community that you know of agrees

2 that it's wrong, the people that you know and respect?

3 A Two hundred years ago this was not true, or four

4 hundred years ago this was not true.

5 Q Let me restate my question.

6 A It is universally accepted — I will answer your

7 question. It is universally accepted that the flat earth

8 theory is wrong.

9 Q Is it your conclusion as to what has been referred

10 to in this trial as creation science is also wrong?

11 A It is not science.

12 Q No. My question is, is it not also your conclusion

13 that it is wrong in the same sense that the flat earth

14 theory is wrong?

15 A Aspects of it which are lumped into that section

16 4(a) 1 through 6 of the law are certainly wrong.

17 Q And the people you know and respect in the

18 scientific community also think that creation science is

19 wrong?

20 A That those aspects of it are wrong, yes.

21 Q So where is the democratic process that you refer

22 to in the scientific community for creation science views?

23 A Well-

24 Q For creation science views?

25 A Anyone's ideas are open-


1 Q Please try to answer my question.

2 A I am.

3 Q Where is the democratic process in the scientific

4 community that will allow creation science views to be

5 presented?

6 A Well, you just gave an example — When I wrote to

7 Doctor Kofahl and asked him for a copy of his papers.

8 Q Didn't you get Doctor Kofahl's papers so that you

9 could tear them apart?

10 A I got them so I could evaluate them.

11 Q To show that they were wrong?

12 A That was not the conclusion prior to evaluating

13 them. I wouldn't have needed to have gotten them if I had

14 made the conclusion before evaluating them.

15 Q Do you know a Doctor John W. Patterson?

16 A I don't know him. I have corresponded with him.

17 Q He sent you a draft, a proposed draft, of an

18 article to be submitted to the Creation Research Society.

19 Do you know why he sent it to you?

20 A I believe he had covered some thermodynamics in the

21 article, and he asked me for my opinion on them.

22 Q He says in the second paragraph, "I am alerting you

23 to this because I know you have either been directly

24 involved with the creationists in the past or, at least, I

25 have a reason to believe you have a direct interest in

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P600-633


1 Q (Continuing) this." Was he correct in his

2 assertion that you have a direct interest in creation

3 science being shown to be incorrect?

4 A It has not been a very major interest of mine.

5 Q Is it a direct interest of yours, as Doctor

6 Patterson describes it?

7 A Could you define what "direct interest" means?

8 Q As opposed to an indirect interest?

9 A I don't want to be facetious, but it seems to me

10 major and minor interests are much more descriptive. It

11 is a very minor interest.

12 Q I have here a note, a copy of a note that you sent

13 to a gentleman at the law firm Skadden and Arps, where you

14 say in the third paragraph, "This is a case of great

15 importance and I stand willing to help in any way." Does

16 that indicate a minor interest in your life regarding

17 creation science?

18 A It indicates a major interest with respect to this

19 case.

20 Q Is your theory that— Let me start over. Do you

21 know how life formed on the surface of the earth?

22 A I have a theory of how life formed on the surface

23 of the earth.

24 Q Have you been able to take that theory and create

25 life in the laboratory?


1 A No.

2 Q Let me repeat my question. Do you know how life

3 evolved on the surface of the earth?

4 THE COURT: He just answered that.

5 MR. CHILDS: I think he said he had a theory.

6 THE COURT: I think that is the answer. I think he

7 has a theory. He doesn't know for a fact.

8 MR. CHILDS: I think there has been a blurring in

9 the distinction between a theory and a fact in this

10 lawsuit, and that is the point I am attempting to make,

11 your Honor.

12 THE COURT: I don't know how it's blurred, but it

13 doesn't seem to me like that answer blurred it.

14 MR. CHILDS: I will move on, your Honor.

15 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

16 Q Is it your position— Let me start over again.

17 Have you attempted to apply the theory of thermodynamics

18 to post-life evolution?

19 A No.

20 Q In your opinion, is the case to be made for

21 post-life evolution less clear thermodynamically?

22 A Yes.

23 Q As I understand your concept of earth and sun, is

24 that thermodynamically in relation to the sun and earth

25 relation is in a state of unbalanced equilibrium?


1 A That's a fair statement.

2 Q And that when we use the phrase "an open system",

3 that can be translated into a non-equilibrium state?

4 A An open system is necessarily a non-equilibrium

5 state. A non-equilibrium system is not necessarily open.

6 Q And it's your position that the relationship of the

7 earth and the sun, is that it is a non-equilibrium state?

8 A The surface of the earth is in a non-equilibrium

9 state, yes.

10 Q What is your position as to whether or not the solar

11 system, the planets around our sun, is an

12 equilibrium or non-equilibrium state?

13 A The solar system is in a non-equilibrium state.

14 Q And what about the universe?

15 A That is a question in astrophysics that goes beyond

16 my area of expertise. That has to do with whether the

17 universe is closed or open.

18 Q Are there legitimate reputable scientist who

19 believe the universe is a closed system?

20 A That goes beyond my area of expertise.

21 Q I am not asking you to testify within your area of

22 expertise. I am asking you if you know of your own

23 personal knowledge whether there are reputable scientists

24 in the field who postulate that the universe is a closed

25 system.


1 A I am not really equipped to evaluate astro-

2 physicists with respect to their competence.

3 Q Is there controversy in that field in that area?

4 A I believe there are astrophysicists who hold the

5 view that the universe is open, and there are astro-

6 physicists who hold the view that it is a closed universe,

7 yes.

8 Q Of the astrophysicists who hold the view the

9 universe is the closed system, do you know whether or not

10 they are creation scientists?

11 A I do not.

12 Q As I understood your direct testimony, there would

13 be a transmittal of either energy or matter between the

14 earth and the sun?

15 A That is correct.

16 Q Can you tell me what matter is transmitted between

17 the earth and the sun?

18 A There is some small flux of particulate matter from

19 the sun. It's really quite negligible compared to the

20 flow of energy in sunlight.

21 Q Is it possible to calculate the amount of energy

22 that the earth receives from the sun?

23 A Yes. One can do a quite accurate calculation of

24 that.

25 Q Is it possible to accurately figure the amount of


1 Q (Continuing) radiation that the earth gives off?

2 A With somewhat less accuracy, but it can be

3 calculated.

4 Q With what degree of accuracy can, what you referred

5 to last night as infrared radiation, be calculated?

6 A Again, that would be generally an area that comes

7 from the field of atmospheric physics, which I am also not

8 an expert in, but my guess is that the flux of energy from

9 the earth can be calculated to within a couple of percents.

10 Q I believe in your direct testimony you said that

11 the concept of creation was not in scientific literature.

12 Did I hear your testimony correctly?

13 A I believe it was that the phrase "creation science"

14 does not occur in the scientific literature.

15 Q Could it possibly have been that sudden creation is

16 not in the scientific literature?

17 A That certainly is possible.

18 Q In your article, "Biology of Cosmological Science",

19 there is a paragraph that talks about creation. I'd like

20 you to read that paragraph yourself and tell me in what

21 sense you were using it?

22 A I believe the sense you have in mind is that this

23 view has two rather profound consequences. First, that the

24 universe has an origin, or as some would rather term it, a

25 creation, meaning that the universe has an origin as


1 A (Continuing) scientists would state it or a

2 creation as others, namely, theologians, would state it.

3 Q You weren't referring to scientists?

4 A No. That is not an article from scientific

5 literature. That is an article of a broader philosophical

6 nature.

7 Q It is the only one I could understand, Doctor

8 Morowitz.

9 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, could I have a few minutes?

10 THE COURT: Yes. We will take ten minutes.

11 Right (Thereupon, Court was in

12 Right recess from 2:30 p.m.

13 Right until 2:40 p.m.)

14 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

15 Q Doctor Morowitz, I want to return to the statements

16 last night about what public school teachers teach.

17 That's on page 56, if you want to refer back to that.

18 My question was, "Should the public school science

19 teachers teach what is accepted in the scientific

20 community?"

21 What is your feeling about that?

22 A I believe that that constitutes their subject

23 matter.

24 Q Do you think that high school or public school

25 science teachers should teach what is accepted in the


1 Q (Continuing) scientific community?

2 A I think the subject matter of science is defined by

3 what is accepted in the scientific community, yes.

4 Q I'm going to pass a book to you called The World of

5 Biology, published, copyrighted in 1974 by McGraw-Hill—

6 MR. CHILDS: May I approach the witness, your Honor?

7 THE COURT: Yes, sir. By the way, you all needn't

8 ask my permission to do that.

9 MR. CHILDS: Thank you, your Honor.

10 Q Would you please read that yourself?

11 A "Education, you know, means broadening, advancing,

12 and if you limit a teacher to only one side of anything,

13 the whole country will eventually have one thought, be one

14 individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every

15 problem or theory."

16 Q Does the line directly above that quote indicate

17 the source of that quote?

18 A Yes, it does.

19 Q Who is the source of that quote?

20 A John Thomas Scopes.

21 Q Who is John Thomas Scopes?

22 A Of the famous Scopes monkey trial.

23 Q Would you please read that one more time into the

24 record?

25 A "Education, you know, means broadening, advancing,

607. Page is missing.


1 A It means there is a difference of opinion about

2 matters within the scientific community.

3 Q And the mere fact that somebody had articles

4 refused for publication would not indicate on its face or

5 by itself that they were an incompetent scientist?

6 A That's true.

7 Q One thing that I thought I heard during your direct

8 testimony was that the evolution of life itself is not

9 properly considered within the area of evolution?

10 A Within the area of the theory of evolution.

11 Q Okay. Do you find it personally offensive that

12 chemical evolution would be treated in the same context as

13 biological evolution?

14 A I don't find it offensive, I just don't feel that

15 they are of necessity lumped together because of different

16 methods by which we studied them.

17 Q And that was in reference to Act 590, was it not?

18 A Right.

19 Q Did I understand your testimony correctly, that you

20 thought it inappropriate that chemical evolution, or what

21 would commonly be called chemical evolution, be included

22 within the definition of evolution science in Act 590?

23 A I said that was not the usual usage.

24 Q Is it not customary in textbooks in the public

25 schools for the origins of life to be considered in the


1 Q (Continuing) same textbooks as biological

2 evolution?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And did I also understand during your direct

5 testimony that a criticism that you have of Act 590 is

6 that it does not teach all origins of life?

7 A No. I was criticizing the dual model point of view

8 which arises in the creation science literature. And Act

9 590 seems to follow through that dual model point of view,

10 indicating that there are only two models.

11 Q Did I understand you to say that Act 590 in some

12 way prohibits the teaching of an additional theory in the

13 public schools?

14 A I said it presents a two-model, a dual model point

15 of view.

16 Q Okay. In your reading of Act 590, did you see any

17 indication in itself which said this theory of panspermia

18 couldn't be called?

19 A No, I did not say that.

20 Q Would you very briefly tell Judge Overton what the

21 panspermia theory is?

22 A That is the theory that life on earth was

23 transported here from some other distant planet, galaxy,

24 or some other astral object.

25 Q Is that view held by reputable scientists within


1 Q (Continuing) what you consider to be the academic

2 community, the scientific community?

3 A Yes, sir.

4 Q Who is someone that we might have already heard

5 about that holds that view?

6 A The most recent advocate of that book, I would

7 gather, from having read a review of a recent book of his,

8 is Frances Crick.

9 Q What about Sir Fred Hoyle?

10 A Again, I have not personally read Hoyle's work on

11 this, but I am told he accepts the point of view that the

12 earth passed through some rather prebiotic or biogenetic

13 material in space and was seeded from that source.

14 Q Is Sir Fred Hoyle a reputable scientist?

15 A He's a well known astrophysicist.

16 Q Well, is he reputable?

17 A That, again, you're going to be asking me to

18 evaluate people in astrophysics. I'm in no position to do

19 that.

20 Q Well, before when you were telling about the

21 scientific community, I thought you were talking about a

22 broad mainstream of science.

23 A Yes. But the evaluations of people in astrophysics

24 is done by people in astrophysics.

25 Q Well, is he published in reputable journals?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Are his articles subject to peer review?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Do his publications meet the criteria that are

5 ordinarily assigned to those who you would consider

6 reputable?

7 A Yes. I'm not in any way trying to attack Fred

8 Hoyle. I'm simply stating that evaluating people in

9 astrophysics in not my field.

10 Q Okay.

11 MR. CHILDS: I have nothing further, your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Any redirect?

13 MR. NOVIK: No redirect.

14 THE COURT: May Doctor Morowitz be excused?

15 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: You may be excused. Thank you, sir.

17 Thereupon,



19 having been previously sworn, was examined and testified

20 as follows:





24 Q Would you agree that a theory is a structure of an

25 idea that explains and interprets the facts?


1 A Yes, I think that's a statement from my article in

2 Discover magazine.

3 Q So that would be your own personal definition of a

4 theory?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Are you a member of the Society for the Study of

7 Evolution?

8 A Yes, I am.

9 Q How long have you been a member of that

10 organization?

11 A I think since I was in graduate school. I'm not

12 sure. Probably about 1965.

13 Q Are you a member of the Education Committee of that

14 organization?

15 A Yes, I am.

16 Q And that was appointed by Doctor Ayala, or you were

17 requested to serve by him?

18 A Yes, I was requested to serve, and I'm not sure of

19 the chairman.

20 Q The chairman that Doctor Ayala appointed; is that

21 correct?

22 A Yes. Doctor Ayala sent the letter.

23 Q And one of the charges of that committee, in

24 essence, is to try to meet creation science and oppose it;

25 is it not?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Have you also been active in other efforts, or at least

3 involved in other efforts to oppose the teaching of

4 creation science?

5 A Mostly in my personal writings and studies, though

6 there was a brief committee, a committee of brief life set

7 up by the American Society of Naturalists, which is

8 another organization of professional evolutionists., I was

9 president pro tem through the death of the president and,

10 therefore, it fell my lot to appoint that committee.

11 Q And you are motivated to oppose creation science in

12 your professional concern as a scientist, is that correct,

13 Doctor Gould?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Do you have any political motivation in opposition

16 creation science?

17 A As Aristotle said, man is a political animal. I think

18 everything one does is partly in the context of one's

19 larger views.

20 Q Are you aware that one of plaintiffs' other

21 witnesses, Doctor Ruse, has termed you a Marxist biologist

22 whose theory does not qualify as, quote, science, close

23 quote?

24 A I've heard rumors to the effect about the first

25 statement. I don't know if the second one is juxtaposed


1 A (Continuing) or not. It doesn't sound like

2 something Michael would say, but then I wasn't here when

3 he said it.

4 Q Have you ever written an article for Science for

5 the People about creationism?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And what is Science for the People?

8 A Science for the People is a magazine published in

9 Boston by scientists concerned with social issues, with

10 views to the left of center.

11 Q Their political views are to the left of center?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Did you not say in that article that creationism is

14 part of a program of the evangelical right in America, and

15 this movement considered peripheral a decade ago has

16 become central in Reaganland?

17 A Yes, I think that's correct. A somewhat

18 abbreviated assessment of what's happening in this nation

19 today.

20 Q And did you not also state in this article and at

21 least one other that the Arkansas law requires equal time

22 for creation science in science classrooms?

23 A We discussed that in the deposition, Mr. Williams,

24 and I think I agreed at that time that the law says

25 balanced treatment and that perhaps I was incorrect in


1 A (Continuing) calling it equal time. Although I

2 don't really know what balanced treatment means. But

3 perhaps I did misstate that. And I think I also added I

4 have been wrong many times before.

5 Q And you relate creation science, do you not, to be

6 a link with anti-ERA, anti-abortion, and militant

7 anti-Communism?

8 A Yes, I think that it's programmed for various

9 evangelical groups that are part of the creation science

10 movement who support it. There are aspects of their

11 political program that include those.

12 I don't, by any means, think that's the entire story,

13 nor is it in any sense the only reasons for my opposition

14 to creation science. Indeed, the primary motivation in my

15 opposition, which by far predates ever hearing the name of

16 Jerry Falwell and others, is the lack of scientific nature

17 for it with respect to my profession, which is

18 evolutionary biologist.

19 Q Could you identify— Well, let me have this

20 marked, if I might, as Defendants' Exhibit Two.

21 Can you identify the article I'm showing you?

22 A This is the one.

23 Q Which one is that?

24 A The one from Science for the People.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, we'd like to have this


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) submitted as Defendants'

2 Exhibit Two.

3 THE COURT: It will be received.

4 Q You have called or termed evolution to be a fact,

5 have you not?

6 A I have. It is also a theory.

7 Q But in your writing at the conclusion, that

8 evolution is a fact, the evidence that you rely on is

9 largely inference; is it not?

10 A I said in the Discovery article in which I made

11 that claim that there were three primary ways whereby

12 scientists are confident that evolution is a fact. Two of

13 them were direct, and only one indirect. I do think the

14 indirect category has the most persuasive evidence.

15 First, the direct evidence is that small scale evolution

16 as we've observed for over a hundred years. Secondly, the

17 direct evidence, that fossils, when, despite the

18 imperfections of the record, we have transitional forms.

19 And third, the very large class of indirect evidence which

20 encompasses such subjects as biogeography, vestigal

21 organs, homologies, embryologies, et cetera.

22 Q And in talking about the evolution that we have

23 observed, as you termed it, evolution in action, in the

24 last one hundred years, how much evolution have we

25 observed in the last one hundred years?


1 A About as much as one could reasonably hope to

2 observe in such a short space of time.

3 Q And in your deposition did you not tell me that was

4 literally nothing?

5 A I certainly didn't. Literally nothing? I don't

6 quite understand the context. I mean, it doesn't produce

7 new orders of animals. But you wouldn't expect that.

8 It's not nothing; it's the amount of steady change.

9 Do we have a corrected copy of the deposition?

10 Q I have never received a correct copy.

11 A Given my breakneck speed of talking, to which the

12 court reporter has so correctly objected, many things in

13 the original deposition do not come across correctly.

14 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, the only copy of Doctor

15 Gould's deposition that I have in my possession is a copy

16 of it that has not yet been corrected by the witness.

17 I believe that the only copy that was corrected by the

18 witness was delivered directly to the Attorney General's

19 office.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: We have yet to receive it, your

21 Honor. It was to be delivered, but we have yet to receive

22 it, unfortunately.

23 THE COURT: Let's move on.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

25 Q On page 106 of your deposition I asked you this


1 Q (Continuing) question: "How much do you think

2 we've been able to observe about evolution?" And you gave

3 this answer, "As much as we can really be expected to in

4 the time scale of a hundred years, which is nothing, since

5 the publication of The Origin of the Species.

6 A I'm sorry. I mean, which is very little time.

7 That's clearly an incorrect statement. Indeed, what

8 you're quoting is, of course, inconsistent with the first

9 statement. It's unlikely that that's what I really

10 meant. I said, as much as we can expect to observe.

11 If I said, "which is nothing", I meant that a hundred

12 years is so little time it doesn't amount to very much.

13 It's remarkable we've observed as much as we have. But

14 that would be corrected in the corrected copy when you get

15 it. I'm sorry.

16 Q In terms of the evidence, the physical evidence we

17 have observed, you do mention in this article The Peppered

18 Moths, which has been referred to before in this

19 courtroom. Now I want to see if I understand how you view

20 this. Did these moths change color?

21 A Evolution changes gene frequencies within

22 populations. What happened in the case of the peppered

23 moths is that before industrial soot blackened the trees

24 around Manchester, that the moths which exist in two

25 different forms, depending on which state of the gene they


1 A (Continuing) have, basically peppered and black,

2 with very few black ones, almost all the moths in the

3 population were peppered, when industrial soot blackened

4 the trees in England, there was very strong selection for

5 the first time against peppered moths, which had been

6 virtually invisible against the lighter trees.

7 And there was then for the first time an advantage to

8 the black moths, as we call them, black moths, a few of

9 them. And within fifty years the population consisted

10 almost entirely of black moths, and that's natural

11 selection.

12 Q But did the peppered moths reproduce into black

13 moths?

14 A No. What happened was what the theory of natural

15 selection predicts would happen, namely, that from a

16 spectrum of variability, which included the peppered moths

17 and black moths, the gene frequencies changed, indeed, the

18 gene from black moths — the gene that produces black

19 colors, excuse me, increased markedly and frequently

20 within the population until virtually all moths were black.

21 Q And in 1850, we had two types of moths, black and

22 peppered?

23 A Yes. Very, very deep black. Almost all-

24 Q And today we have two types of moths, black and

25 peppered?


1 A Almost all black. That's what evolution is,

2 natural selection of change of gene frequency.

3 Q Were there any new species generated through this

4 process?

5 A Not in the case of the peppered moths. There are

6 species that have been generated in other ways.

7 Q I think you stated earlier that your second and

8 third reasons, besides evolution in action, in which your

9 primary example was the peppered moths—

10 A No, I had other examples, the evolution of the

11 D.D.T. resistance, which is the incorporation of new

12 mutation in various forms and the production of new

13 species of plants due to conflict.

14 Q All right.

15 A But yes, I mentioned the peppered moths as a

16 prominent—

17 Q But your second and third reasons do rely on

18 inference, do they not?

19 A The second reason I regard as reasonably direct,

20 mainly temporal sequences of fossils. I guess insofar as

21 we don't have a time machine that would take us back two

22 hundred million years, it's not direct visual observation.

23 But to me we are often seeing pretty largely the

24 evolutionary sequences that develop. I think the second

25 category is somewhere in between the direct, visual


1 A (Continuing) observation and the more inferential

2 character. But the third, I might say, the inference is

3 as good a method in science as direct observation. It's

4 not very often that, in fact, we reject conclusions merely

5 through direct vision or sight.

6 Nobody has ever seen an atom or an electron or gravity,

7 for that matter.

8 Q But inference is a process of essentially logic, is

9 it not, of looking at what we have now and trying to—

10 A And drawing out what conclusions we can from it

11 after inference is as inescapable as visual observations.

12 Q Is there any subjectivity in arriving at an

13 inference?

14 A We do see subjectivity, and lack of certainty is,

15 indeed, never certainty in science. I think it's

16 notorious how often even eye witness testimony can be

17 fallible. There just is no certainty in science. I don't

18 think that well documented inferences necessarily is any

19 way secure in certain forms of eye—

20 THE COURT: Excuse me. Do you mind speaking into

21 the microphone. Some of us are having a problem—

22 A Yes. Sorry.

23 Q You've been offered as an expert also, Doctor

24 Gould, on the history of evolutionary theory or

25 evolutionary thought, I think.


1 A Yes.

2 Q As an expert on that area, would you want to be

3 aware of any challenges to evolutionary theory?

4 A Sure.

5 Q Have you read and studied, for example, a book

6 an individual named Kirka called The Implications of

7 Evolution?

8 A Since you called it to my attention, I have indeed

9 read it. I've got it right here.

10 Q Does Kirka develop a general theory of evolution?

11 A He developed something he calls a general theory of

12 evolution. He is not an anti-evolutionist.

13 Q He is not an anti-evolutionist?

14 A No.

15 Q Could I perhaps borrow that for a moment?

16 A Sure.

17 Q Kirka says there are seven basic assumptions in the

18 theory of evolution, does he not?

19 A Yes. That may be six or seven. I remember that

20 list.

21 Q Does he find any of those assumptions to be beyond

22 question?

23 A The book is primarily a critique of the notion that

24 all-

25 Q I'm sorry. I-


1 A You'll have to show me the list. I gave you the

2 one copy I had.

3 Q I'll be glad to show you the book. I asked you did

4 he find any proof for any of those assumptions?

5 A Let me review the list of assumptions. What page

6 are you on? Do you remember where they were?

7 Q I think they're throughout the book.

8 A I see the assumptions. Shall I read them?

9 Q Yes.

10 A The assumptions all have to do with a particular

11 path of history, along with nonliving things that gave

12 rise to living material. Two, spontaneous generation

13 occurred only once. Three, the viruses, bacteria, plants

14 and animals are all interrelated. Four, the protozoa gave

15 rise to metazoa, from single cell to multi-cell creatures.

16 Fifth, that various invertebrate following are

17 interrelated. Sixth, that invertebrates gave rise to

18 vertebrates. And seventh, that invertebrate fish gave

19 rise to amphibian, amphibian to reptiles, and reptiles to

20 birds and mammals.

21 So you see, the set of statements is about the actual

22 path for the history of life. His book calls into

23 question particularly the second one. His main argument

24 appears that is quite consistent with the evidence as we

25 have it, that life might have originated more than one


1 A (Continuing) time on earth. But it's not a

2 critique of whether or not evolution is the mechanism

3 whereby changes in the history of life have occurred.

4 It is disputing the particular pathways. At one point

5 he argues, for example, that it may be true that the

6 metazoa, that is the multi-cellular animals, arose not

7 from protozoa, single-celled animals, but perhaps from

8 single-celled creatures that we call plants, which by the

9 way is an outmoded system of classification.

10 Q Would you say that Kirka is not an

11 anti-evolutionist, in your opinion?

12 A He is not an anti-evolutionist. He says in the

13 last page that he accepts, he calls it a special theory of

14 evolution, namely the mechanics of the process of change

15 is evolutionary.

16 He is disputing, and I don't agree with him in all

17 cases, he is disputing our assurance in knowing the actual

18 pathways of change.

19 Q Does he also talk about that there are certain

20 misconceptions and half truths in evolutionary theory?

21 A Oh, there are, yes. We feel like it is important

22 for scientists to analyze them and be critical.

23 Q Would you recognize this book as being something

24 of, to the degree that it talks about it, an authority or

25 authoritative work on evolution?


1 A It was written in 1960, and I would say much of it

2 is now outdated. I think even in the context of 1960 it's

3 not a book that I regard as particularly strong of the

4 book that were made different assessments of. I would

5 certainly include it within the traditions of science.

6 Q Doctor Gould, if you would, I would like for you

7 to, in the conclusion, read, beginning, "Most students..."

8 A Sure. The whole thing?

9 Q Yes.

10 A That's a lot. "Most students become acquainted with

11 many of the current concepts of biology while still

12 at school, and at an age when most people are, on the

13 whole, uncritical. Then, when they come to study the

14 subject in more detail, they have in their minds several

15 half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them

16 from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation."

17 I might say I don't agree with that. I think we teach a

18 lot of pap, and having taught is one of the reasons why my

19 associates and I developed punctuated equilibrium as an

20 alternative to the gradualism that I can have no

21 justification is a universal incident.

22 To continue with Kirka, "In addition, with the uniform

23 pattern of education, most students tend to have the same

24 sort of educational background, and so in conversation and

25 discussion they accept common fallacies and agree on


1 A (Continuing) matters based on these fallacies. It

2 would seem good principle to encourage the study of

3 scientific heresies. There is always the danger-" I

4 might say I agree with that, too.

5 "There is always the danger that a reader might be

6 seduced by one of these heresies, but the danger is

7 neither as great nor as serious as the danger of having

8 scientists brought up in a tight mental straight jacket,

9 or taking them so quickly through a subject that they have

10 no time to analyze and digest the material and study it.

11 "Careful perusal of the heresies will also indicate the

12 facts in favor of the currently accepted doctrines, and if

13 the evidence against a theory is overwhelming and that

14 there is no other satisfactory theory to take its place,

15 we should just have to say that we do not yet know the

16 answer."

17 My interpretation of that paragraph is—

18 Q You have now finished reading that part now, have

19 you not?

20 A I have.

21 Q I don't want to cut you off.

22 A That's fine. I'm sorry. You only asked me to read

23 it, not give you an exegesis.

24 Q Do you think it would good, then— I think you

25 said you agree with that portion where it said to


1 Q (Continuing) encourage the study of scientific

2 heresy? It would be a good idea?

3 A Yes. But note the phrase "scientific heresies".

4 Q Yes. Well, would it heresy to propose, perhaps, a

5 new idea of what is science?

6 A A new idea of what is science? It's almost a

7 definitional matter, isn't it? It isn't an argument about

8 substance, it's an argument about words and their

9 meanings. No, I wouldn't call that part of an heretical

10 framework.

11 Q Isn't what Kirka is saying there, as you understand

12 it, that if you have these scientific heresies to be

13 studied, even though they may be terribly minority

14 opinions, that through this clash of ideas, opposing

15 ideas, that the students can better understand the

16 predominate scientific thought, and when they do work

17 themselves, they can come to it with a fresh appraisal and

18 a fresh outlook?

19 A Yes, and I agree with that. Remember the

20 scientific heresy he is teaching in this book is the

21 notion that life may have arisen from non-life on earth

22 more than once. It's a scientific heresy. I repeat, not

23 one that is outside science.

24 Q There is nothing which insulates scientists from

25 being dogmatic and elitist, is there?


1 A Nothing— I didn't understand the question.

2 Q Are scientists not at times dogmatic and elitist?

3 A Scientists are human beings. Some people are

4 dogmatic and elitist. And it is my regret that sometimes

5 scientists are, too, some individuals. I think that among

6 folks I've known, scientists as a group are generally more

7 free from those attitudes than some people, but they are

8 human beings.

9 Q Have you not also described science or scientists

10 as perhaps to appear, at least, as, quote, the new

11 priesthood, close quote?

12 A You'd have to read me the quotation. There is that

13 tendency sometimes. As in the television ads where a

14 scientist comes on in a white coat and says, `drink this

15 brand of orange juice because it's better for you.'

16 Q I think you earlier stated that as far as you know,

17 there is no new evidence and no new idea for creation

18 science in the past one hundred years; is that true?

19 A I think I said since William Jennings Bryan and the

20 Scopes trial I have seen no new arguments from the

21 creationists.

22 Q The metaphor that I think you used earlier this

23 morning on the fossil record, that it's like a book where

24 you have only certain pages, and of the pages you have,

25 you have only certain words, and of the words you have,


1 Q (Continuing) you have only certain letters-

2 A Yes.

3 Q If you had a book like that, do you think you could

4 read it coherently if it were as sparse as that in its

5 outline?

6 A It depends on what criteria and inference I had

7 before me for filling in bits and pieces.

8 Q But if you have that criteria, you have to fill in,

9 do you not, in order to make sense, to make a coherent

10 whole out of the book?

11 A There are different ways that scientists fill in.

12 What I was referring to in the metaphor of the book is the

13 geological record in any one spot.

14 Now, suppose you had a thousand copies of the Iliad and

15 each one only had a few letters, but it was a different

16 few letters in each copy. You could, by gathering

17 together the thousand copies, piece together a more

18 coherent version that you might even be able to read

19 completely. You might not still have every letter.

20 That's pretty much what you do in geology. In any one

21 spot the record is as poor, as Lyell describes it, but by

22 bringing together the evidence from many spots, you can

23 get a much more complete story.

24 Q Were you not describing this book to be the entire

25 fossil record?


1 A I meant to describe it as the record of only one

2 place.

3 Q I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

4 A I meant to describe it as the record of only one

5 person. Realize, please, that many fossils are

6 geographically very limited in their extent, and so,

7 therefore, there is a limited number of places. The

8 record of any particular fossil is likely to be that way.

9 But the entire larger scale record of the history of life

10 would be pieced together much better.

11 Q Do you consider the use of the word `creator' to be

12 an inherently religious word or religious concept?

13 A It's a word that has so many different vernacular

14 meanings that it's not inherently so. Indeed Darwin uses

15 it himself once or twice, in a metaphorical sense, not to

16 mean supernatural disruption of natural law. Einstein

17 used it in metaphorical senses.

18 Q You wrote a part of a biology textbook, did you not?

19 A Yes, I did. It's called A View of Life.

20 Q A View of Life?

21 A Yes.

22 Q What part did you write?

23 A I wrote the concluding chapters, five or six of

24 them, on evolutionary theory and its implications.

25 Q Do you— First of all let me ask you, do you


1 Q (Continuing) consider the origins of life to be

2 part of the theory of evolution?

3 A It's not part of the theory of evolution as studied by—

5 Q Is it part of evolutionary biology?

6 A It's part of biology. It happened to come into

7 chapters that I wrote, and I think you'll see four pages I

8 wrote on the subject of the history and the treatment of

9 that subject in recent biology textbooks.

10 Q But in treating evolutionary biology, you treated

11 the origin of the first life, did you not?

12 A I would say those chapters are about evolutionary

13 biology and about the whole field we call whole animal

14 biology. There are other subjects treated in those

15 chapters, particularly in the last chapter on the ecology,

16 that are not themselves part of evolutionary biology.

17 Q And in this book, you state at page 689, "Two broad

18 and fascinating questions arise from this scenario for the

19 origin of life. First, given a primordial soup was a

20 complex joining together of organic molecules to form life

21 an inevitable result or a lucky accident."

22 A Yes.

23 Q Do you consider those two parts of that question to

24 be scientific theories or to be testable of scientific

25 theories?


1 A Yes. Those are two alternate views that have been

2 proposed. Again, I disclaim— That is a very short

3 section or a few pages on something I don't know a lot

4 about. I'm sure Mr. Morris will come back and give much

5 more—

6 Q Did you write this?

7 A Oh, yes. Because I'm aware that any textbook

8 writer, of course, is compelled in treating an entire

9 field to deal, at least, summarily with subjects that are

10 not directly within the realm of their expertise. And in

11 so doing, you summarize what the prevailing opinions in

12 the scientific community are. And those, if I understand

13 the literature, are the two major views.

14 One, that the origin of life was virtually chemically

15 inevitable, and one that each step in the sequence is

16 fairly chancy, but given the immense age of the earth, it

17 was bound to happen.

18 Q You further asked the question, "Is life on our

19 planet the product of a single origin?"

20 A Yes. That's Kirka's question.

21 Q Is that testable?

22 A Yes. By inference. It's going to be very

23 difficult to get a—

24 Q By inference?

25 A Most of science's testables are by inference.


1 A (Continuing) There is no way we can go back and

2 look, but what you do is you study the detail of nature

3 biochemical similarities in all forms of life. And from

4 our knowledge of chemistry, which mine is so meager I

5 wouldn't dare to go further, you make assessments of the

6 probability that such great similarities could arise

7 independently more than once.

8 But it is, again, not—

9 Q But using those similarities, are they not subject

10 to more than one interpretation, Doctor Gould?

11 A I gave both interpretations in the book.

12 Q Right.

13 So it's an either/or question?

14 A I guess so, as a matter of definition, either it

15 arose once or it arose more than once, or didn't arise

16 at all.

17 Q And there's no way we can really accurately know

18 how if it arose once or more than once, is there?

19 A Well, I really don't know. You'd have to ask my

20 chemical friends. There may be ways of obtaining pretty

21 fair certainty based on biochemical similarities, but I

22 really don't know that subject. That's why, as I said,

23 I've listed both possibilities.

24 Q This textbook was written for what level?

25 A Introductory college.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P634-666


1 Q You further state that as to some of the questions

2 of the ordering of life, quote, "Biologists have been—"

3 THE COURT: Would you tell me what page?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. Page 710.

5 Q "That biologists have been proceeding in this

6 manner for more than a century, making inferences about

7 organic programs by peering through a glass darkly at

8 their translated products. More work with the same

9 methods may never yield satisfactory answers. After all,

10 a century of concentrated effort has failed to find them."

11 A I don't know the content of that quotation.

12 MR. ENNIS: Excuse me. I haven't found that on

13 page 170.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: (Indicating) Let me show you.

15 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, do you mind if I present

16 the entire book to the witness?


18 A Could I read the sentences that come after that?

19 Q First of all, those are your words I previously

20 read, are they not?

21 A Yes. But on 711 is the continuation.

22 Q If you'd like to see it, I'd be glad for you to.

23 A Yes. What I said, the question here is not the

24 origin of life, but the interrelationships of the various

25 phyla of animals, of organisms in general.


1 A (Continuing)

2 It's been a persistent problem in biology for two

3 hundred years, that although many schemes have been

4 proposed, there is no satisfactory resolution.

5 I argue in the chapter that we have been unable to

6 resolve them because the evidence of morphology is

7 inadequate; there just isn't enough of it. And then I go

8 on to say, with the possibility of doing sequencing with

9 DNA, we may be able to get firm answers.

10 As I said, every century has been— See, more work with

11 the same methods may never yield satisfactory answers.

12 After all, centuries of concentrated efforts have failed

13 to find them. And then I point out there are now new

14 methods that will, I hope, resolve them.

15 It's a hard problem, about the origin of life.

16 Q Did you write the summary of these chapters that

17 you wrote, as well?

18 A The ones called "Coding?" Yes.

19 Q Now, where it says "Summary" at the end of the

20 chapter, after the "Coding".

21 A What page are you on?

22 Q We can take any chapter, but we can look at 711.

23 A Yes.

24 Q The first sentence of the summary states, quote,

25 Life arose naturally from chemical constituents of the


1 Q (Continuing) earth's original atmosphere and

2 ocean, close quote.

3 And you earlier stated that after a century of work on

4 the subject you were discussing in this chapter, there are

5 no satisfactory answers.

6 A No.

7 Q But yet you have given an answer, have you not?

8 A No. The century of work is on a different

9 question, the interrelationships of the phyla of animals,

10 how are mollusks related to arthropods and et cetera.

11 Q On what do you base your conclusion that you know

12 enough to state here that life arose naturally?

13 A It's the best judgment in the scientific

14 community. In summary statements on the last page, you

15 need to summarize the work of an entire chapter. The

16 discussion is much more abbreviated than the actual

17 commentary itself within the chapter.

18 Q But you didn't state that most scientists think,

19 you said, "Life arose naturally," without qualification,

20 isn't that correct?

21 A That's what it says. That is the best judgment of

22 the scientific community. It is subject to alteration, as

23 is every statement in science. Undoubtedly, subsequent

24 editions of this textbook will change much that is in it.

25 Q In discussing Act 590 this morning, did you testify


1 Q (Continuing) to the effect that you didn't think

2 there was any such thing as a dual model or two model

3 approach to origin; that that was something that creation

4 scientists have thought up?

5 A I stated that— It depends on what you mean by

6 `dual model.' I don't think there is any dual model

7 within science, but it includes belief that some divine

8 power sustains the laws of nature to do things to the

9 universe, to create things out of nothing. That is not

10 science.

11 So yes, within science there could be no dual model like

12 that.

13 Q Are you aware of any possibility of how things

14 originated other than by natural processes or by some sort

15 of creator intervening?

16 A By `things', do you mean the ultimate origin of the

17 universe, or—

18 Q How life—

19 A Well, it either arose through natural law or

20 through the suspension of it. Science deals with natural

21 law.

22 Q So you would not want any sort of dual or two model

23 approach mentioned in a science classroom? You think that

24 is some sort of false dichotomy, as I understand it?

25 A Science questions deal with science. Science is


1 A (Continuing) about natural law explanations of

2 phenomenon and could be falsified and would be tentative.

3 Q I understand you think it could be falsified, but

4 you wouldn't want a dual model approach, as I understand

5 your testimony, on Act 590, is that correct?

6 A Not in which one of the models is outside the

7 definitions of science and not subject to tests or

8 revision.

9 Q And do you not state, 572 of that text, where you

10 introduce part E, quote, Biologists have described more

11 than a million species of living organisms, and at least

12 this many still await discovery. Why are there so many

13 kinds of organisms, and why are they so varied yet

14 evidently organized into groups of similar forms. These

15 ancient questions have two potential resolutions. Either

16 all species were created as we find them and the

17 relationships among them reflect the creator's opinion

18 about how the world should have been organized, or all

19 species have descended naturally, from a common ancestor,

20 and true relationships among them reflect patterns of

21 genealogical proximity of an evolutionary tree, close

22 quote.

23 A Yes. Despite the historical introduction, which is

24 a two page introduction to the five parts of the textbook,

25 are historical commentaries, if you read the other four,


1 A (Continuing) you'll see that is so. And what I'm

2 stating is merely the fact of what in history has been the

3 two explanations.

4 Q But you don't say that these ancient questions had

5 two essential resolutions, you said they have.

6 A That's true, isn't it? I mean, it is true that

7 there are two possibilities. One of them has been

8 falsified, perhaps. And as in any thing, you can use that

9 linguistic mode of statement. I can state the earth is

10 either round or flat. I guess there are other

11 possibilities there.

12 Q Was that a metaphor for reference to the creator

13 there?

14 A Where is the creator?

15 Q In that quote.

16 A Creator of all things? No, no. That is a

17 statement of what, in true history of biology — as I

18 repeat, all five of these introductions are two page

19 historical introductions to the subject matters - that is

20 a statement of what in history have been two patterns.

21 I didn't go on right in the beginning of the chapter on

22 the next page, that's what I said before, to say why we're

23 convinced that true correct explanations that we say, that

24 evolution is a fact.

25 Q You further go on, on page 576, do you not, and


1 Q (Continuing) talk about adaptation, you mention

2 the fact that pro-creationist adaptation reflects the

3 wisdom of God and the harmony of his world. Exquisite

4 adaptation is the closest thing to perfection that

5 organisms display and perfection need not need a history.

6 It's an adaptation as the best design that we can imagine

7 that might have been created as we find it.

8 A You are making, again, a historical comment.

9 Within true context of the chapter you can see that the

10 entire chapter is built on why that is not an adequate

11 explanation for life. But as a historian would attempt to

12 write textbooks, it has a heavy historical flavor, but

13 tempered throughout the various chapters of this book you

14 will find various comments about what people have believed

15 in the past. But if you read the chapter, particularly

16 that statement about evolution and facts, those are to see

17 that the entire context of the chapter is to point out why

18 we do not accept that explanation.

19 Q So the question as you understand it, is not that

20 these questions had two resolutions, or they still have

21 one to two resolutions; is that correct?

22 A That's a statement of logic. And they have two

23 that one can think of, and one of those is excluded by

24 science. That's what the chapter is about. You can't

25 deny historically that before 1859 the notion that all


1 A (Continuing) forms of life were created as we find

2 them was the usual opinion. That's merely a historical

3 fact; there have been two. It's also a historical fact or

4 we wouldn't be in this room, and many people in this

5 country still believe that.

6 But sociological fact and science are different

7 phenomenon.

8 Q Perhaps whether those are historical facts is what

9 this trial is about, Doctor Gould.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions.

11 THE COURT: Any redirect?

12 MR. ENNIS: We have no further questions.

13 THE COURT: You may be excused.


15 Thereupon



17 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

18 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

19 testified as follows:




22 Q Will you state your name and occupation, please,

23 for the record?

24 A I am Dennis R. Glasgow, and I am Supervisor of

25 Science in Little Rock schools.


1 Q Will you tell true Court briefly what your

2 educational and professional background is?

3 A I have a Bachelor of Science in Education degree with

4 emphasis in biology from Southern State College. I

5 have a Master of Science in Education, also with emphasis

6 in biology and a minor in education, from Arkansas State

7 University. And in addition, I have an Educational

8 Specialist Degree in educational administration from the

9 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

10 Q Would you describe for the Court, and if you will,

11 Mr. Glasgow, pull that microphone a little bit closer to

12 you and speak right into it, will you describe for the

13 Court, please, what your present duties and

14 responsibilities are?

15 A As supervisor of science, basically I'm the staff

16 administrator for science. That involves serving as a

17 consultant to classroom teachers, coordinating the process

18 through which textbooks are selected, coordinating the

19 process through which curriculum guides are developed,

20 organizing and planning for in-service training for

21 teachers, serving as the chief advisor to the

22 superintendent of schools and the board on matters

23 concerning science education.

24 Q Can you tell the Court appropriately how many

25 science teachers there are in the Little Rock school


1 Q (Continuing) district?

2 A I would say approximately five hundred.

3 Q Can you tell the Court, in size, how the Little

4 Rock school district ranks among those in the state of

5 Arkansas?

6 A I believe the Little Rock school district is the

7 second largest in the state.

8 Q Do you, sir, in your capacity as science

9 supervisor, have authority over the determination or

10 development of curriculum in the area of science in the

11 Little Rock school district?

12 A Yes. I think that would be a fair statement, in the

13 sense that I'm the administrator that coordinates and

14 plans and originates things along that line.

15 Q Do you do that at all levels of public education in

16 the Little Rock school district?

17 A My duties include the span from kindergarten

18 through twelfth grade.

19 Q Do you also have any additional employment in the

20 area of science or science education, Mr. Glasgow?

21 A Yes. I teach introductory biology at UALR.

22 Q How long have you been doing that?

23 A About four years.

24 Q How long have you served in your present capacity

25 for the Little Rock school district?


1 A Two and a half years.

2 Q Prior to that time, did you teach in the area of

3 science?

4 A Yes, I have, at times in the past.

5 Q What subjects have you taught?

6 A I've taught physics, chemistry and biology in the

7 Newport public schools.

8 Q How long did you do this?

9 A For five years.

10 Q Will you tell the Court, please, what science

11 courses are required in the Little Rock school district?

12 And if you can divide your answer between the elementary

13 level and junior high or middle school and senior high, I

14 would appreciate that.

15 A Well, in essence, at the elementary level, all of

16 the science courses, and we have science at each level,

17 kindergarten through grade six are required. There are no

18 graduation requirements from elementary to junior high as

19 such, but, indeed, they are required.

20 At the junior high level, all three science courses,

21 life science in seventh grade, physical science at the

22 eighth grade, and earth science in the ninth grade, are

23 required courses.

24 At the senior high level, there is not a required course

25 as such. The students have an option to take either an


1 A (Continuing) additional science course or an

2 additional math course. I would say the vast majority of

3 the students elect to take an additional science course

4 rather than the math.

5 Q And which science course among those available is

6 most popular?

7 A It's typically biology.

8 Q At what grade level is that offered?

9 A The course I'm referring to that students usually

10 take to meet that requirement is tenth grade biology.

11 Q Are there other biology courses available in the

12 Little Rock district?

13 A Yes, there are several.

14 Q Can you tell the Court what those are?

15 A Yes. There is an advanced biology course that's

16 offered. It's essentially a twelfth grade course. There

17 is a human physiology course which is an eleventh grade

18 course.

19 Q Are there any others?

20 A Well, the subject of biology is dealt with in

21 general science, which is also taught at the tenth grade

22 level.

23 Q How, within your area of responsibility in the

24 Little Rock school district, is the curriculum determined

25 in the area of science?


1 A Well, essentially, I would say a major part of the

2 science curriculum is determined through the process of

3 textbook selection, in that to a large extent we utilize

4 the textbooks as our curriculum. In addition to that, we

5 have committees of teachers that develop curriculum guides

6 that specify to some degree what teachers should deal with

7 in a particular course.

8 We also have in-service institutes and courses that are

9 offered from time to time that would deal with curriculum.

10 Q I have placed in front of you, Mr. Glasgow, an item

11 that has been previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 40,

12 and ask you if that is a copy of the curriculum guide for

13 science or biology at the tenth grade level?

14 A It is the curriculum guide for tenth grade regular

15 biology.

16 Q Does that curriculum guide function in any manner

17 to mandate curriculum within a particular course in

18 science?

19 A Well, I hate to say that it mandates it as such,

20 but I think this gives directions and gives boundaries

21 within which teachers can operate.

22 Q Is the theory of evolution as you have heard it

23 described in the testimony in this courtroom presented or

24 treated at all in that curriculum guide?

25 A It is.


1 Q In what manner?

2 A In this particular section of the curriculum guide,

3 there are eighteen concepts or skills that deal with the

4 theory of evolution.

5 Q Does the curriculum guide, together with the

6 textbook that is selected, more than any other factor

7 determine curriculum in the classroom?

8 A That is correct.

9 Q Does the Little Rock school district select

10 textbooks for use in its science classrooms?

11 A Yes, it does.

12 Q With regard to the biology text currently in use

13 and with regard to the curriculum guide that you have just

14 referred to, is there any presentation of what is

15 identified in Act 590 of creation science?

16 A There is none.

17 Q Has there ever been, in your history with the

18 Little Rock public schools?

19 A No, there has not.

20 Q In addition to the—

21 THE COURT: Pardon me, Mr. Cearley, would you ask

22 that question again?

23 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, I will.

24 THE COURT: There were two questions you asked that

25 I didn't get.


1 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir.

2 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

3 Q You have testified, Mr. Glasgow, that textbook

4 selection largely determines curriculum within a given

5 subject?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And additionally, the district makes suggestions

8 about curriculum in the curriculum guide, is that right?

9 A That's correct.

10 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I hate to interpose an

11 objection during Mr. Cearley's eloquent presentation of

12 Mr. Glasgow, but I would like to interpose an objection on

13 the ground of relevancy of this testimony as to the

14 constitutionality of Act 590 or relating to the possible

15 implementation of Act 590. I fail to see the relevance of

16 this testimony.

17 THE COURT: That's overruled.

18 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, could I have the reporter

19 read my question back? I have lost my place and my train

20 of thought.

21 THE COURT: Well, the point I've missed, and I wish

22 you'd repeat it, is how 590 relates to the curriculum

23 guide.

24 MR. CEARLEY: I'll ask that question again.

25 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

Q You've described textbook selection and curriculum


1 Q (continuing) guides, and you testified that the

2 theory of evolution appears a number of times in the

3 curriculum guide; is that correct?

4 A That's correct.

5 Q My question was, does the subject of creation

6 science as it is defined in Act 590 appear anywhere in the

7 curriculum guide that you've described?

8 A It does not.

9 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I would move admission of

10 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 40, which is the curriculum

11 guide that has been—

12 THE COURT: It will be received.

13 Q Has the subject of creation science ever appeared

14 in a curriculum guide in this subject, Mr. Glasgow, within

15 your tenure at the Little Rock school district?

16 A No, it hasn't.

17 Q Will you tell the Court whether, in the Little Rock

18 district, there are any other restraints or constraints on

19 you or on the district with regard to developing

20 curriculum for science courses?

21 A Well, first, there would be some constraints in the

22 area of time and money. We essentially use the textbooks

23 that are available because they are there; we can purchase

24 them through state money. We do not have the time to

25 develop curriculum to any large extent ourselves. We


1 A (Continuing) reserve that for the scientists to

2 have input into the development of textbooks.

3 There is only a certain amount of time that is available

4 during a school year, and of course, our curriculum must

5 be scaled down to some extent, and only certain things are

6 selected for inclusion because of the limited amount of

7 time.

8 Q How are those decisions generally made with regard

9 to the educational aspects of the science curriculum?

10 A Well, as far as the educational aspects are

11 concerned, I think that we would certainly want the

12 curriculum to reflect the level of development of the

13 student.

14 Students at certain ages are only capable of handling

15 concepts that are so sophisticated. So we deal with

16 things that are appropriate for the developmental level of

17 the individual students in the classes.

18 Q Is there any particular order of presentation of

19 science courses for students in your district?

20 A I'm not sure I understand your question.

21 Q Is there any particular order or sequencing of

22 science courses? Must a student take biology before

23 chemistry, or anything of that sort?

24 A Generally, yes.

25 Q Is that a factor in the selection of curriculum?


1 A Yes, it is.

2 Q With regard to the textbooks that are used in the

3 Little Rock District, Mr. Glasgow, will you tell the Court

4 how the district goes about purchasing textbooks and

5 what mechanism is used?

6 A Yes. Generally, we purchase textbooks using state

7 money The state has a committee that every five years

8 goes about selecting textbooks for inclusion on a state

9 list. And usually there are quite a few alternatives to

10 choose from there.

11 As far as the Little Rock schools are concerned, we

12 convene a committee of teachers, and frequently I'm

13 included on these committees, that would look at the

14 choices available from the state list and then we would

15 make our selections from that list.

16 This way we would be reimbursed by the state for the

17 cost of the textbooks.

18 Q Is the local district prohibited in any manner from

19 purchasing books that do not appear on a state approved

20 list?

21 A It's not prohibited, it's just that they do not

22 receive state money for those books.

23 Q Is there, to your knowledge, on the state list

24 right now a book available that gives what Act 590 terms

25 `balanced treatment' to creation science?


1 A No, there certainly is not.

2 Q Does the State of Arkansas Department of Education

3 produce anything in the way of a curriculum guide for

4 science courses?

5 A Sort of, yes. They have, and I forget the name of

6 it at the moment, some sort of science guidelines that are

7 used by individual school districts simply as a model or a

8 guide within which they can formulate their own curriculum.

9 Q Is there any coercive aspect to that? Does the

10 state tell a local district be their curriculum guide how

11 it should teach a subject?

12 A No. I don't think that's the intent whatsoever.

13 Q Are there any mandatory guidelines or regulations

14 or policies at all from the State Department of Education

15 to a local school district about curriculum content?

16 A Not to my knowledge.

17 Q Are any subjects required by the State in the area

18 of science, required to be taught on a local level?

19 A No.

20 Q Are any subjects required to be taught in any other

21 area of public education, to your knowledge?

22 A I think that perhaps American History, Arkansas

23 History, and maybe Civics are required.

24 Q With regard to the Little Rock District, can you

25 tell the Court how you, as science supervisor, control or


1 Q (Continuing) supervise what is actually taught in

2 the classroom?

3 A Well, as you recall my statement earlier, including

4 the elementary teachers, there are perhaps five hundred

5 teachers that teach science in the district. I have no

6 way to control what these teachers teach directly.

7 Indirectly, through the selection of competent, capable,

8 professional teachers, I'm assuming that they will teach

9 appropriate things in the class.

10 THE COURT: Mr. Cearley, where are you going with

11 this testimony?

12 MR. CEARLEY: Well, your Honor, one of the

13 allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint is that Act 590

14 violates the rights of academic freedom of both students

15 and teachers, in that it represents an attempt by the

16 state-

17 THE COURT: I'm aware of the allegation.

18 MR. CEARLEY: —to circumvent the process.

19 Mr. Glasgow's testimony will go to establish that what

20 the legislature has done, what the state has done, is

21 unprecedented in the area of education. And that there is

22 no method or manner within the context of the local

23 district to monitor what goes on in the classroom in order

24 to keep religion out of the classroom under a statute like

25 this, that the effect on science education of teaching


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing) creation science as it is

2 defined in this Act is damaging to the understanding of

3 science of students in a classroom situation.

4 THE COURT: Why don't we move on to those, direct to

5 those points, if you would.

6 MR. CEARLEY: All right, sir.

7 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

8 Q Have you, at my request, Mr. Glasgow, carefully

9 read Act 590 of 1981?

10 A I have.

11 Q And have you done that with a view toward

12 determining what will be required of you as the science

13 supervisor in the Little Rock School District?

14 A I have.

15 Q Have you also surveyed the textbooks that are

16 approved for use and are currently in use in the area of

17 science in the Little Rock School District?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Can you tell the Court what science courses would

20 be affected by Act 590?

21 A I think that all science courses from kindergarten

22 through the twelfth grade would be affected by Act 590.

23 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I have placed before the

24 witness exhibits labeled Plaintiffs' 40 through 50, which

25 are excerpts from textbooks. And I don't wish to prolong


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing) this or try the Court's

2 patience.

3 There are several parts of specific textbooks that I

4 would like to be reflected in the record. I would like

5 all of it in the record, if Mr. Glasgow can identify it.

6 But there are specific passages that I would like to have

7 him refer to, and I can move through that very quickly and

8 then offer all of the exhibits into the record.

9 Q Mr. Glasgow, would you refer first to Plaintiffs'

10 Exhibit Number 41. Do you have that in front of you?

11 A Yes, I do.

12 Q Is that an elementary science, or excerpts from an

13 elementary science book for use in the second grade in the

14 Little Rock School District?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Will you tell the Court specifically what language

17 in the excerpts that you have selected would, in your

18 view as science supervisor, require some sort of balanced

19 treatment under Act 590?

20 A Yes. On page 111, for instance, there is a side

21 note in the teacher's edition that talks about dinosaurs

22 as a group of reptiles known to live on the earth long

23 ago. "These animals could not adapt to the changing

24 conditions and, became extinct about sixty-five million

25 years ago." In my mind that would certainly be something


1 A (Continuing) that would be covered under Act 590.

2 Q Do you have any materials available to teachers in

3 the Little Rock District with which they could balance a

4 presentation of that sort pursuant to the Act?

5 A No, I do not.

6 Q Will you refer, please, to Plaintiffs' Exhibit

7 Number 42.

8 Can you tell the Court whether that is copies of pages

9 out of the elementary science text for use in the fourth

10 grade?

11 A Yes, it is.

12 Q Have you identified specific ideas there that would

13 trigger implementation of Act 590?

14 A Yes. There is one chapter that is talking about

15 continental drift. There is a general discussion several

16 pages long on the continental drift and plate tectonics.

17 It indicates that the continents perhaps split apart

18 about two hundred million years ago.

19 There is another part concerned with the erosion of the

20 Grand Canyon. I think that that possibly could trigger

21 Act 590. There is one other aspect that indicates that

22 dinosaurs survived for over sixty million years and there

23 is not a single dinosaur alive today.

24 Those are some examples of types of things that are in

25 that particular textbook.


1 Q Will you refer, Mr. Glasgow, to Plaintiffs' Exhibit

2 Number 43 and just tell the Court briefly why, in your

3 opinion, Act 590 would require balanced treatment?

4 A Yes. It talks about three ideas as to how

5 everything in space was formed. One of these particular

6 theories talks about one of these particular theories

7 suggests that the universe explodes, comes together,

8 explodes again, and this happens about every eighty

9 billion years.

10 Are there any materials available on either the

11 fourth or fifth grade level with which to balance such a

12 presentation under the Act right now, Mr. Glasgow?

13 A I don't think so, no.

14 Q Will you look, please, sir, at Plaintiffs' Exhibit

15 Number 44.

16 Does that represent excerpts that you've selected from

17 the sixth grade elementary science book?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Can you tell the Court what concepts are presented

20 there that are also found in the definition section of Act

21 590?

22 A Yes. There is a general discussion of the earth's

23 past, including a discussion of dinosaurs which states

24 that they lived long ago. There is some information or a

25 chapter or two on fossils that indicate or that states


1 A (Continuing) that, "Life and environmental

2 processes operating today have also operated in the past,

3 and based upon the fossil record, the scientists

4 conclude," or geologists, I guess, "conclude that simple

5 forms of life probably appeared first on the earth,

6 complex forms developed later."

7 Q Will you look now, sir, at Plaintiffs' Exhibit

8 Number 45 and just tell the Court simply whether that also

9 represents a presentation of the concept that appears in

10 the definitions under Act 590?

11 A Yes, I think it does.

12 Q Would the same be the of the excerpts that appear

13 labeled as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 47?

14 A Yes. Exhibit Number 47 is our earth science book,

15 and I would say the major part of the earth science book

16 would trigger Act 590.

17 Q And that's taught in what grade, Mr. Glasgow?

18 A The ninth grade.

19 Q Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 48 is excerpts from a

20 text called Modern Biology. Is that selected passages or

21 pages from the text that is used in the tenth grade

22 biology class?

23 A Yes, indeed.

24 Q What part does the theory of evolution play in the

25 organizational structure of that book?


1 A Well, the chapters dealing with plants and animals

2 are arranged in a phylogenetic manner with the simpler

3 plant, the chapter dealing with simpler plants appearing

4 first and then the chapters on simple animals appearing

5 first and proceeding in a manner that is consistent with

6 phylogenetic thought.

7 Q Do you have any outside materials or other

8 materials available of sufficient quality to balance the

9 treatment that's presented there?

10 A There aren't any materials available at all that I

11 know of.

12 Q Would the same thing be true, Mr. Glasgow, of

13 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 49, advanced biology? The name

14 of that book is Biology.

15 A Yes. The same thing would be the. This book is

16 similar in the format to the Modern Biology book that is

17 taught at tenth grade.

18 Q And lastly, Mr. Glasgow, will you go to what has

19 been labeled Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 50 and turn to the

20 second page inside, page number 18. Can you tell the

21 Court what is printed there as a statement of principle of

22 evolution?

23 A Yes. "The principle of evolution is reinforced by

24 analysis at all levels of organization in nature. That is

25 why the principle of evolution is the major unifying theme


1 A (Continuing) of this book."

2 Q How would you describe the presentation of

3 evolution in that book?

4 A I think it's pervasive throughout.

5 THE COURT: What exhibit are you referring to?

6 MR. CEARLEY: 50, your Honor.

7 Your Honor, I would move the admission of Plaintiffs'

8 Exhibits 41 through 50.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection.

10 THE COURT: Those will be received. Why don't we

11 take a recess for ten minutes or so.

12 (Thereupon, Court was in

13 recess from 4:00 p.m. until

14 4:10 p.m.)

15 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

16 Q Mr. Glasgow, do you have in front of you a copy of

17 Act 590?

18 A Yes, I do.

19 Q And you have studied that Act, have you not?

20 A I have.

21 Q You have testified that in the Little Rock School

22 District you will be the one who is responsible for

23 implementing Act 590; is that correct?

24 A Well, I'll be the one that is responsible for

25 initiating the process. I'll have the overall


1 A (Continuing) responsibility for this, although I

2 would assume I would have help.

3 Q Do you know what the term `balanced treatment'

4 means?

5 A Well, really, I don't know. When I first looked at

6 this, I was in a quandary as to what that meant. I might

7 say, however, that since I am responsible, or would be the

8 primary person responsible in the Little Rock schools for

9 implementing this, that I've been forced to make some

10 assumptions or something of an operational definition from

11 my own mind. It's not based on anything, other than I

12 just had to make a decision one way or another.

13 The way I've interpreted `balanced treatment' is that

14 equal emphasis or equal legitimacy must be given to what

15 is called in the Act creation science and evolution

16 science.

17 Q Does that allow, from your point of view, a teacher

18 to express a professional opinion or a personal opinion

19 contrary to a balanced treatment or equal legitimacy?

20 A Well, from the standpoint of the operational

21 definition that I've used for `balanced treatment', no, I

22 do not think that would be allowed. I simply, from the

23 standpoint, you could present two things; you could even

24 spend equal time on those two things. But if at the end

25 of that the teacher said, "This is science and this is


1 A (Continuing) something else," I don't agree with

2 this, then certainly I don't think the two would be given

3 equal emphasis or equal legitimacy.

4 Q What do you interpret the term `creation' as it

5 appears in creation science in Act 590 to mean?

6 A To me it implies creation by God.

7 Q What do you interpret the term `deals in any way

8 with origins of life, man, or the universe' to mean with

9 regard to the language of Section 1 of the Act?

10 A Again, I think as would be true of many of these

11 areas, it's not clear to me exactly what it means. But

12 again, I'm the person that's responsible for implementing

13 this in the Little Rock schools, and that would be next

14 September that that would have to be done, so I've had to

15 make some assumptions regarding that.

16 I think on that basis that what it means is that anytime

17 you deal with organic evolution, anytime you deal with

18 theories about the formation of the universe or the solar

19 system, the earth/moon system, anytime you deal with

20 natural selection, anytime you deal with things that date

21 the age of the earth, then these would be areas that would

22 refer to that statement.

23 Q And I take it that your view of the meaning of that

24 statement is reflected in the textbook selections that you

25 made as Exhibits 41 through 50?


1 A Yes, it is.

2 Q Section 2 of the Act prohibits religious

3 instruction. What do you interpret that to mean?

4 A I think that prohibiting religious instruction

5 would prohibit topics or instruction that deals with

6 religious beliefs. It would prohibit documents or

7 curricula or books or whatever that use religious writings

8 as their references. Basically anything that is religious

9 in nature, I think, would be prohibited.

10 Q Section 3 of the Act states that public schools

11 within the state or their personnel shall not discriminate

12 against the student who demonstrates a satisfactory

13 understanding of evolution science and creation science.

14 Is there such discrimination in the Little Rock School

15 District how?

16 A Certainly not to my knowledge.

17 Q Is there any discrimination against students in the

18 area of science or religion at all in the Little Rock

19 School District?

20 A To my knowledge, and I feel rather comfortable with

21 this, there is no discrimination against students who

22 profess an understanding of the principles of science or

23 who profess various religious beliefs.

24 Q Do you recognize in 590 the definitions section

25 which is Section 4 of the Act, and in particular, do you


1 Q (Continuing) have any recognition of the elements

2 of the definitions of creation science and evolution

3 science that appear there?

4 A Do you mean do I recognize the definition prior to—

5 Q Yes, sir. Have you ever seen those in some other

6 source?

7 A From some other source?

8 Q Yes, sir.

9 A Certainly. I have seen basically the identical

10 definitions in creation science pamphlets and booklets and

11 so forth that I have examined. And in particular there is

12 a, I guess you'd call it a curriculum guide or curriculum

13 plan that was given to me by Doctor Richard Bliss which

14 has these definitions almost verbatim from those that are

15 listed in Act 590.

16 Q How did that occur?

11 A Well, sometime after Act 590 was passed in the

18 Legislature, I was called and asked if I would be willing

19 to meet with Doctor Bliss concerning this, and I said that

20 I would.

21 And when I met with him, I learned that he was giving a

22 workshop. I think it was at Central Baptist College, or

23 whichever Baptist college is in Conway. And I indicated

24 to him that I would not be able to attend that workshop,

25 which, by the way, was being held for teachers and other


1 A (Continuing) interested people from around the

2 state.

3 And I asked him if he had any material that he could

4 leave with me. And he said that he had the outline of the

5 workshop that he was presenting to the teachers and other

6 interested people, and that I could have a copy of that.

7 As I recall, I got his copy and ran down to the

8 duplicating machine and copied that for my use.

9 Q Did you later receive a letter from Doctor Bliss

10 including teaching materials and materials that refer to

11 creation science?

12 A No. I did receive a letter from him expressing his

13 thanks for, you know, being, finding the time to meet with

14 him, and suggesting that if I had any problems with this

15 or whatever, that I could give him a call and he would

16 attempt to help.

17 Q I have marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128 for

18 identification, Mr. Glasgow, what appears to be a copy of

19 that letter. Do you have that in front of you?

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q Is that a copy of a letter dated April 28, 1981,

22 from Doctor Richard Bliss?

23 A Yes, it is.

24 Q Does it bear what purports to be his signature as

25 Curriculum Development Professor of Science and Director


1 Q (Continuing) of the Institute for Creation

2 Research?

3 A Director of Curriculum Development and Professor of

4 Science, I believe, yes.

5 Q I see.

6 Are you aware of the outlets in this country for

7 creation science materials for the use in schools?

8 A Generally, yes.

9 Q Is the Institute for Creation Research among those?

10 A Yes, it is.

11 Q Have you determined whether any creation-science

12 materials are available from other sources?

13 A Other than a handful of creation research of one

14 variety or another numbering maybe five or six, I'm not

15 aware of any other source from which materials can be

16 obtained.

17 Q Attached to that letter, Mr. Glasgow, is what

18 appears to be on the first page a two model classroom

19 approach to origins. Is that the material to which you

20 referred that was given to you by Doctor Bliss?

21 A Yes, it is.

22 Q Would you turn to pages 10 and 11 of that material

23 and tell the Court whether that is the definitions section

24 that you referred to?

25 A Yes. Page 10 is scientific creation and there is

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P667-699


1 A (Continuing) six definitions. Page 11 is

2 evolution, and there are also six definitions.

3 Q How do they compare to the definitions that appear

4 in Act 590?

5 A Well, except for the change of a word or two, they

6 appear to be identical.

7 Q What did you do with this information after you

8 received it?

9 A Well, after I received it, I looked through the

10 information, I studied it for some time. At, oh, I don't

11 know, maybe a week or two after that, the school board has

12 an education committee, and of course, they were aware

13 that Act 590 had been passed at that time and they wanted

14 an update on that.

15 And I went to the school board education committee and I

16 brought this material with me, and I expressed some

17 concern that if this were the manner in which we were to

18 implement Act 590, that I had some very severe

19 reservations about it. I didn't feel that it was at all

20 appropriate for use in the science classes.

21 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I would move admission of

22 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128.

23 THE COURT: It will be received.

24 Q Mr. Glasgow, will you refer to that, please, sir,

25 and tell the Court what your objections were to that


1 Q (Continuing) presentation or that two model

2 classroom approach?

3 A Well, my first objection-

4 THE COURT: What page are you on?

5 THE WITNESS: I'm looking at page 4. It's not

6 numbered sequentially all the way through.

7 THE COURT: Okay. I've got that page.

8 A At the top of that page it says that the two models

9 should be explained as alternative and mutually

10 exclusive. "Either of the data support random mechanistic

11 processes, no creator, or the data supports non-random

12 intelligent design or a creator." I found that extremely

13 objectionable.

14 Q Are there any other science courses in the Little

15 Rock School District that even mention a creator?

16 A No.

17 Q Will you turn to page 6 and tell the Court whether

18 there is anything there that you have previously

19 identified?

20 A Yes. I might mention that the pages prior to that

21 are discussing the two model approach, which is the basic

22 gist of the entire document. But at the bottom of page 6,

23 the last sentence, "Each individual should then prepare a

24 paper of at least five hundred words giving their personal

25 view."


1 Q How does giving personal views on a scientific

2 concept fit into the scheme of science education which

3 applies to—

4 A It has no place in the scheme of science.

5 THE COURT: Let me be sure I understand this, Mr.

6 Cearley. Is he suggesting that a student may be taught

7 that there is a creator or there is not, and that they

8 have to then give a paper stating their personal views on

9 whether or not there is a creator or not?

10 THE WITNESS: That's my understanding.

11 Q Move on through that, if you will, Mr. Glasgow, and

12 let me call your attention particularly to what is

13 labeled, it's about five or six pages from the back on an

14 unnumbered page, the label being "Likert Preference

15 Scale"

16 A Yes, I have that.

17 Q Did you have any comment about that to the

18 committee?

19 A Yes, I did.

20 Q Will you tell the court what that is, please?

21 A Yes. First of all, a Likert Preference Scale is a

22 series of statements in which you put an X on the blank

23 next to the statement that you feel comes closest to your

24 own ideas, and you mark only one X on this sheet. And it

25 has a series of eleven statements.


1 A (Continuing)

2 Statement number five is that evolution occurred—

3 THE COURT: Excuse me. What page are you referring

4 to?

5 MR. CEARLEY: It's an unnumbered page, your Honor,

6 that from the back is page 7.

7 THE COURT: Is it at the Pre and Post test?

8 THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's eight pages from the

9 back. I think it's immediately before the Pre-Post test.

10 MR. CEARLEY: It's labeled Likert Preference Scale.

11 THE COURT: Likert Preference Scale?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

13 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

14 Q To what language are you referring on that page,

15 Mr. Glasgow?

16 A Number 5. The statement made is that, "Evolution

17 occurred with the help of God." Number 10 is that,

18 "Creation is a fact that has been proven by scientific

19 studies." Number 11 is that, "Creation is a fact because

20 God has revealed it to us."

21 Keep in mind this is a series of statements that the

22 students are supposed to respond which one, "Which

23 statement do you feel comes closest to your ideas?"

24 Q Are there other choices of that sort presented in

25 the pre and post test for biology students?


1 A Yes, I would say that there are. Your Honor, on

2 the very next page, which is the pre and post test page,

3 at the bottom of that page, part C, number 4, is the

4 statement, one of several choices to choose from, I might

5 add, "Life is the result of a creator's design."

6 Q Is there another statement of that sort on page 4,

7 Mr. Glasgow, of that text?

8 A Yes. Under letter T, number 2, the question is,

9 "Which one of these creation concepts seems most doubtful

10 to you?" And number 2 is "A god of creation specially

11 designed all life on this planet."

12 Q Now, Mr. Glasgow, is this kind of presentation a

13 part of any science course in the Little Rock District now?

14 A No, it's certainly not.

15 Q What effect do you think, as science coordinator

16 supervisor, presentation of this kind of material would

17 have on science education in Little Rock?

18 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I don't think there's been

19 a showing that Mr. Glasgow would ever, in his professional

20 opinion, institute anything such as this. And during his

21 deposition he advised me that he would never recommend

22 anything to anybody that had religious references. And I

23 think that the plaintiffs are building a straw man and

24 then very thoroughly kicking it.

25 And I don't think there's any showing—


1 THE COURT: Is Doctor Bliss going to be a witness

2 in this case?

3 MR. CEARLEY: No, sir. But the plaintiffs' proof

4 intends to establish that there are no other sources for

5 this information other than these institutes.

6 THE COURT: Did Doctor Bliss actually hold this

7 seminar?

8 THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, I did not

9 attend, but yes, that was my understanding.

10 THE COURT: Did anybody attend?

11 MR. KAPLAN: One of the witnesses attended.

12 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, we will also have a

13 deposition to offer into the record that indicates that

14 the Fort Smith School District, in response to a request

15 from its superintendent to prepare teachers to teach

16 creation science, wrote to this same organization and

17 received back material similar, if not identical, to these

18 materials, in response to the fact that there is no other

19 place to get materials.

20 MR. CHILDS: Well, your Honor, I think in Mr.

21 Glasgow's deposition he indicated that it would be

22 possible, as hard as it might be to believe, that the

23 Little Rock School District people could actually develop

24 their own materials. And I think that the plaintiffs are

25 attempting to prove to the negative.


1 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

2 They are trying to prove that in the whole universe

3 there is no possible way that this material can be

4 developed and it's impossible.

5 MR. CEARLEY: That's what our testimony will be,

6 your Honor.

7 THE COURT: What's your objection? I understand

8 you're making an argument, but do you have a legal

9 objection to the evidence being legally inadmissible in

10 some way?

11 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor. I'm saying that this

12 information, until there has been a showing that what Mr.

13 Glasgow has been testifying about is going to be

14 instituted in the Little Rock schools, that it's premature

15 and it is irrelevant. And unless there is a showing that

16 this is the only material that can be incorporated in the

17 curriculum, it is also irrelevant.

18 THE COURT: Okay. That objection is overruled.

19 MR. CEARLEY: May I move on, your Honor?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

22 Q My question, Mr. Glasgow, was what effect teaching

23 pursuant to this kind of model would have on science

24 education in the Little Rock District?

25 A I think it would be extremely damaging to science


1 A (Continuing) education in the Little Rock School

2 District.

3 Q Can you implement — Let me rephrase that. How

4 would you, as science supervisor, implement the

5 requirements of Act 590 to give balanced treatment to

6 creation science?

7 A I don't know. I don't think I can implement the

8 provision of Act 590 to give balanced treatment.

9 Q For what reasons? Can you do it without teaching

10 religion or without religious references?

11 A No. You see, there are religious references in the

12 materials that are available, to my knowledge. I would

13 object very strenuously to including religion. Of course,

14 that wouldn't be allowed under any law that currently

15 exists that I know of. And that's the only thing that's

16 available, to my knowledge.

17 Q Do you know whether there are materials available

18 of a scientific nature that would be acceptable to you

19 that would support creation science?

20 A I haven't examined all of the scientific materials

21 that are available, but I have found none whatsoever that

22 would be suitable.

23 Q Would teaching creation science, Mr. Glasgow, have

24 any differing effect on students in the primary grades as

25 opposed to junior high as opposed to high school?


1 A In my opinion, it would.

2 Q Would you tell the Court how and why?

3 A I think at the primary level students are very

4 trusting of their teachers. In fact, many primary

5 students accidently, a slip of the tongue, I guess, call

6 the teacher mom or daddy. And that they think the teacher

7 is the authority in the classroom.

8 And when you present something like balanced treatment

9 as far as Act 590 is concerned, I think the teacher is put

10 in the standpoint of not really being able to present what

11 is, what I would consider, science. Or they're really not

12 able to say, this is the way or that's the way. They just

13 have to throw it out there. And for students this young,

14 just to throw it out there for them, in my opinion, would

15 cause them to be insecure.

16 Secondly, even students at the primary level watch TV

17 and they look at encyclopedias and other things such as

18 this, and I think that looking at these sources of

19 information, they would certainly have been aware at some

20 time or other that most scientists think that dinosaurs

21 lived millions of years ago.

22 And if the teacher is required to say something

23 different than that, and if the teacher is not able to say

24 when they ask, "Well, which is it? Why are you saying

25 this and that and the TV show that I saw and the


1 A (Continuing) encyclopedia that I read said that

2 dinosaurs are millions of years old and you won't tell me?"

I think it's damaging to the security of the student,

4 and I think it lowers the students' opinion of the

5 teacher. I think it causes great difficulty for the

6 teacher in a situation like that.

7 Q How do elementary school students or primary grade

8 students relate to the concept of time?

9 A Well, time is a skill which is developed or a skill

10 in which development begins at that level. In fact, there

11 is a very conscious attempt on the part of the school to

12 develop concepts of time and space and distance and things

13 of this sort. So in answer to that, they do not have a

14 good concept of time and space.

15 Throughout the primary years and even in the

16 intermediate schools, these are things that are tried to,

17 that teachers try to deal with.

18 Q Have you dealt with that in any workshop fashion

19 for the primary grades?

20 A Well, we have as far as teachers are concerned. We

21 have an elementary science mini-course. By mini-course, I

22 mean a short course lasting three hours, in this case, for

23 primary teachers, that allows them to present the concept

24 of geological time to students.

25 And in this workshop for teachers, one activity that we


1 A (Continuing) undertake is the use of a string to

2 indicate geological time.

3 Q In what grade do you do this, Mr. Glasgow?

4 A I can't say for sure. Second grade, I believe.

5 Second or third, right at that level.

6 Q Go ahead.

7 A Two students get up at opposite ends of the room and

8 they are holding a string that is stretched across the

9 room. One student represents the beginning of the earth.

10 Other students are placed along that string in accordance

11 to the, like the first appearance of plants on earth, the

12 first appearance of animals, whatever, the first

13 appearance of the species, amphibians or reptiles,

14 et cetera, and the first appearance of man.

15 And I might indicate that man is located at the opposite

16 end from the beginning of the earth. There is just a

17 short distance between the appearance of man on earth and

18 the present.

19 This gives the student an idea of geological time, in

20 that of all the geological time that scientists and

21 geologists recognize, the appearance of man is just a very

22 small part at the opposite end.

23 Q Are these students who are involved in that

24 demonstration are seven years old, eight years old?

25 A Basically, yes. About that age.


1 Q Would that require a balanced presentation under

2 Act 590?

3 A I think definitely that it would.

4 Q How would you do that?

5 A Well, other than getting a short string maybe a

6 fraction of an inch long—

7 Q If you had to do that, Mr. Glasgow, how would you

8 try to do it?

9 A I couldn't do it.

10 Q Would there be a differing effect on students at

11 the junior high school level?

12 A In my opinion, there certainly would be. Junior

13 high students teenagers, are sort of rebellious by

14 nature. And I think they would go to almost any end —

15 some of them would, not all — some of them would go to

16 almost any end to catch the teacher in telling a falsehood

17 of some sort.

18 And I think that if you had to implement Act 590 in the

19 room, there would certainly be ample opportunity for

20 students to try to catch the teacher doing wrong. And

21 when they caught the teacher doing wrong, the teacher, in

22 my opinion, wouldn't even have the option of explaining,

23 well, this or that. It's just out there and, as I

24 understand it, you lay it out and the student choose, more

25 or less.


1 A (Continuing) I think the students in this

2 sort of a circus atmosphere would lose respect for the

3 teacher, the teacher would lose respect for himself or

4 herself, and it would be very degrading and very damaging

5 to the science classes.

6 Q And would your thoughts differ on high school

7 students, say, in an advanced biology course?

8 A I think we have fairly sophisticated students at

9 the twelfth grade level in advanced biology. Many of

10 these students go off to the major universities throughout

11 the country. I think that they could see through this

12 attempt to try to give legitimacy to two things that in

13 the scientific community aren't equally legitimate. In

14 fact, one has no legitimacy at all.

15 And I think that they would just, you know, think,

16 `Well, teacher doesn't know what they're talking about. I

17 don't buy that.' And perhaps because of that attitude,

18 they might not buy into other things that might be

19 presented during that course.

20 Q Does the subject of religion ever come up in

21 biology classes?

22 A Well, I can't answer that for sure. I would say

23 that in the context of presenting religion as a integral

24 part or, indeed, any part of a science course, no.

25 I would say, also, that since Act 590 has been in the


1 A (Continuing) news, I'm sure that almost all of our

2 biology teachers in the district have informed the

3 students as to what Act 590 is and what it's all about

4 so that they could keep up with it on the news, et cetera.

5 Q What is the educational purpose as you see it in

6 teaching creation science under Act 590?

7 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I really don't think that

8 would be in this particular witness' area of expertise.

9 It would be pure speculation, and I would object to that

10 very much.

11 THE COURT: It's overruled.

12 A I do not think there would be an educational

13 purpose at all. In fact, it would be damaging as far as

14 education is concerned.

15 Q What is the situation within the Little Rock School

16 District right now with regard to its ability to hire

17 qualified science teachers?

18 A Well, oddly enough, the supply of teachers in the

19 nation as a whole and certainly in Arkansas is such that

20 usually you have quite a few to select from. But in the

21 areas of science and math, there is still a shortage of

22 teachers in the state of Arkansas, and we have a great

23 deal of difficulty in getting qualified teachers in those

24 areas.

25 Q Do primary grade science teachers have a solid


1 Q (Continuing) science background?

2 A No, they do not, unfortunately.

3 Q Do you perceive any effect on the district's

4 ability to hire science teachers by implementation of Act

5 590?

6 A There is no question in my mind that it would

7 greatly hinder the district's effort to hire science

8 teachers.

9 Q Finally, Mr. Glasgow, can you tell the Court, if

10 you know, what you will do or if you have any plans to

11 implement Act 590?

12 A Do I have any present plans? The answer is

13 certainly no. Do I have any future plans? I don't know.

14 I can't see any way that I can do it. I don't know how I

15 can do it. I can't formulate plans if I don't know how.

16 It's rather difficult to answer that question.

17 MR. CEARLEY: No further questions.

18 THE COURT: Let me ask you a couple of questions

19 dealing with the definition of sections. In section 4

20 (a), I assume you've given this some thought and read what

21 little material there is, but how do you propose to

22 explain the `sudden creation of the universe' unless you

23 have reference to the creator, or divine creation? Do you

24 know of any way? Is there anything in the literature

25 anywhere?


1 THE WITNESS: No, sir. I might mention regarding

2 all these definitions, I grew up in Nashville, Arkansas,

3 in a Baptist church, a very, you might classify it a

4 fundamentalist religion. The first time I came across any

5 of these particular ideas, as such, was in my Sunday

6 School class.

7 THE COURT: I appreciate that, but I'm trying to

8 figure out if there is any way you've thought of to

9 accommodate some practical questions that I can imagine

10 will come from the students about, for instance, the

11 worldwide flood. How are you going to suggest to the

12 teachers that they respond to those questions?

13 THE WITNESS: I can't suggest. There is no

14 scientific evidence that I have ever heard of that would

15 indicate that there was a worldwide flood. I would have

16 extreme difficulty in thinking or imagining how water

17 could cover the entire earth, all the tall mountains,

18 et cetera all over the earth at one time.

19 I don't know— I can't think of any way. I know of no

20 materials that could be used. I couldn't even suggest to

21 the teachers how they could give balanced treatment to

22 that without bringing in religion.

23 THE COURT: What is your interpretation of

24 `relatively recent inception of the earth and living

25 kinds'?


Page is missing.


1 MR. CHILDS: I anticipate it will take considerably

2 beyond five o'clock.

3 THE COURT: Well, at the rate the government pays me,

4 I just have to work longer than this.




7 Q Mr. Glasgow, have you had an opportunity to read

8 through your deposition?

9 A Yes, I have.

10 Q Are there any changes that you want to make in that

11 deposition, or have you made any changes in your

12 deposition?

13 A Any substantial changes. I think some of the

14 sentence structure with commas here and there, I didn't

15 make that sort of change.

16 Q Do you remember that you provided me with Exhibit

17 17 at your deposition?

18 A I assume. I don't know what that exhibit is.

19 Q Which relates to the list materials.

20 A Yes.

21 Q Okay. Do you remember that there was a three page

22 abstract on top of those materials?

23 A May I find those materials? I think they're still

24 here.

25 Yes, I recall that.


1 Q Okay. What was the exhibit that Mr. Cearley put

2 into evidence of the Bliss materials?

3 A That was called the Two Model Approach.

4 MR. CHILDS: May I approach, your Honor?


6 Q I want to provide you with a copy that they

7 provided to Judge Overton of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128 and

8 ask you if there is any difference between Plaintiffs'

9 Exhibit 128 and the exhibit that you provided at your

10 deposition, which was Defendants' Exhibit 17?

11 A You'll have to give me a moment to look. As I

12 said, these pages aren't numbered—

13 THE COURT: Do you have anything particular in mind?

14 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor. It's a three page

15 abstract that was a Ph.D. thesis that was attached to the—

16 THE COURT: Do you mean Doctor Bliss?

17 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor. Which was not

18 included within Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128, I believe.

19 Q Is that correct?

20 A I think it is. I didn't see that.

21 Q What does the abstract of Doctor Bliss' Ph.D.

22 thesis indicate?

23 A I haven't looked at it in some time. Do you want

24 me to read it over and summarize, or what? Is there some

25 part you want me to—


1 Q Well, we took your deposition on December 2nd.

2 A Yes.

3 Q You saw it at that time, is that correct?

4 A No, sir. The three page abstract?

5 Q Yes, sir.

6 A I don't recall seeing it, no.

7 Q Do you recall—

8 A I have seen it before. It was with this material

9 when I originally received it. But this material has been

10 sorted through and the pages are not numbered and it's not

11 stapled together.

12 But I do recall seeing it when he gave it to me.

13 Q Do you have any present recollection of what that

14 abstract indicates?

15 A No, I don't.

16 Q Would you take a moment to read it?

17 A Yes, I will.

18 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I wish, for the record,

19 anyway, interpose an objection, if Mr. Childs intends to

20 question Doctor Bliss' opinions, on the grounds that we

21 have offered and will continue to offer a number of

22 publications from the Institute of Creation Research as

23 being the only materials available with which to teach

24 creation science.

25 The abstract that Mr. Childs is looking at presents, I


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing) think, results of a Ph.D.

2 thesis or something of that sort that Doctor Bliss was

3 involved in, and relates to the applicancy of the two

4 model approach as a teaching tool.

5 And I just wish to note that I think that it is entirely

6 irrelevant; that being a matter of his opinion only and

7 not authored to anyone as materials toward teaching under

8 a two model approach.

9 THE COURT: Well, if Doctor Bliss doesn't come

10 testify, I don't care much what the abstract says about

11 his opinions. I won't give any weight to those.

12 Q What does the abstract indicate?

13 A It indicates to me that he evidently undertook a

14 study — you said it was his thesis or dissertation or

15 whatever — to assess differences in concept, development

16 and principle learning between students studying the

17 origin of life from a two model approach compared to those

18 using only a single model approach.

19 Q Does he indicate that the students that were

20 subjected or exposed to a two model approach showed

21 significant improvement in concept development and

22 cognitive skills compared to those studying evolution only?

23 A That's what's indicated on page 3.

24 Q Was a secondary spin-off that he described seem to

25 show that the students taught in the two model fashion


1 Q (Continuing) would be more critical and willing to

2 change ideas as new data came to the scene?

3 A That's what he demonstrates—

4 THE COURT: Maybe my response to his objection

5 wasn't very clear, but if Doctor Bliss doesn't come and

6 describe how he arrived at these conclusions, I don't care

7 what the conclusions. They are meaningless to me. It's

8 just completely hearsay, not evidence.

9 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I think that ordinarily it

10 would be, but this man is testifying as a curriculum

11 development expert, and if these are the kinds of

12 materials that he would ordinarily rely on, I think that

13 we can get in through this witness.

14 THE WITNESS: May I interject? Is It appropriate?

15 THE COURT: It's fine with me. We will just turn

16 this into an open forum, so go ahead.

17 THE WITNESS: I might say, this is simply an

18 abstract. It presents none of his research.

19 THE COURT: I understand that, and that's the

20 reason why it's meaningless to me. I'm not giving any

21 weight to it. And I'm just suggesting that maybe if you

22 just want to put it into the record for some purpose, you

23 don't need to read it to me because I'm not going to give

24 any weight to it unless Doctor Bliss comes here to testify.

25 MR. CHILDS: What's Defendants' next number? I


1 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing) would ask that this be marked

2 a Defendant's Exhibit Number 3 and ask that it be admitted

3 in the record.

4 THE COURT: Yes, sir. We'll put it in the record,

5 with that qualification.

6 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

7 Q Have you seen any other material which would

8 indicate that a two model approach helps children learn?

9 A No.

10 Q Have you seen anything to the contrary?

11 A No.

12 Q Do you have any explanation of how these three

13 pages would be in the exhibit that you produced at your

14 deposition and they would not be in the exhibit to be put

15 in the evidence by the plaintiffs?

16 A No.

17 Q What is the basis of your conclusion that

18 `balanced' means `equal'?

19 A I don't believe I said that `balanced means `equal'.

20 I said `balanced' means equal emphasis or equal legitimacy.

21 Q And what does that mean?

22 A Well, I think I said at the beginning, I don't

23 really understand what it means. But because I am a

24 working practitioner in the area of education, and this is

25 going to affect me in a matter of just a few months, I've


1 A (Continuing) had to assume something, although the

2 grounds upon which my assumption is made are almost

3 nonexistent. I just grabbed something out of the air.

4 That's what my assumption is.

5 Q Do you interpret `balanced' to require that equal

6 amounts of time be spent?

7 A I don't think equal amounts of time. I think equal

8 emphasis and equal legitimacy. You don't exactly give

9 them equal amounts of time. I don't view that as a

10 problem, that particular statement.

11 Q Do you interpret `balanced' to mean that a

12 professional school teacher could not express their

13 professional opinion as to the merits or demerits of

14 either model?

15 A I might preface that by saying, as I've said a

16 couple of times before, that I really don't understand

17 what it means. Because I have to implement this, if

18 nothing's done, next September. I had to assume some

19 things. And yes, I would assume that under my operational

20 definition that I've given to it that this would not be

21 allowed.

22 Q Is that what you read into the Act, or is that what

23 the Act actually says? Well, let me rephrase the

24 question. Do you see anything in Act 590 which

25 specifically says that a professional school teacher


1 Q (Continuing) cannot offer their professional

2 judgment on either of these two models?

3 A No, I don't see anything in the Act.

4 Q Do you still hold to the belief that the reason that

5 you think that `balanced' means `equal' is because of what

6 Doctor Bliss told you?

7 A Of course, I make judgments based upon all past

8 knowledge, whether conscious or not. I assume that would

9 possibly be a factor, yes.

10 Q That was one of the things you told me at your

11 deposition, was that the reason that you thought

12 `balanced' meant `equal' was because of your meeting with

13 Doctor Bliss.

14 Do you recall that?

15 A No, I don't.

16 THE COURT: I don't think he has necessarily denied

17 it. I just think he said he doesn't recall it.

18 Q Are you denying that you said that?

19 A No.

20 Q Wouldn't the legislature have made it clear if that

21 was their intent?

22 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I can't think of any way

23 that question is permissible. That's why we're here.

24 Q Let me ask another question, then.

25 What is the current practice in the Little Rock School


1 Q (Continuing) District as to science teachers

2 rendering their personal opinion, excuse me, their

3 professional opinion about the subject matter that they

4 teach?

5 A Would you restate the first part of that? What is

6 the practice?

7 Q What is the current practice in the classroom in the

8 Little Rock School District as to whether or not science

9 teachers can give their professional opinion about the

10 subject matter of what they are teaching?

11 A I don't know that there is any common practice. I

12 can't imagine too many instances that teachers would need

13 to give a professional opinion on something they're

14 teaching.

15 Q I'm not sure that I understand you, Mr. Glasgow.

16 A I think that in things that we teach in science, I

17 think teachers realize that not all scientists hold to all

18 the same theories or things of that sort; that there are

19 disagreements. But I can't recall any classroom that I've

20 ever been in where the teacher had to make a professional

21 opinion about something that was being treated in that

22 class as science.

23 Q Are you telling me that the materials that are

24 presented in the public science schoolrooms does not have

25 any kind of element to it which would cause differences of


1 Q (Continuing) opinion?

2 A I think there might be differences of opinion. But

3 I can't recall of any class that I've ever been in - I

4 may be wrong, but I just don't recall any class that I've

5 been in where the teacher had to give a professional

6 opinion that `this is whatever' and that `this is not' or

7 anything of that sort.

8 I think they present the material. I think they might

9 say that `the majority of scientists believe this; other

10 scientists might believe this, others might believe

11 that.' I don't think they give a professional opinion.

12 I, as a professional scientist, which, in fact, they are

13 not; they are science educators. But I, as a professional

14 educator, `deem this science to be more appropriate or

15 more valid than this science,' just for example.

16 I can't recall that there was ever the necessity for

17 that.

18 Q As an educator, is it your responsibility to judge

19 information as to whether it is scientifically,

20 technically correct or not?

21 A I can view that question from a couple of different

22 viewpoints. Can you restate it in a different manner?

23 I'm not exactly sure—

24 Q Do you consider yourself a scientist or as an

25 educator?


1 A I consider myself an educator.

2 Q As an educator, is it your responsibility to judge

3 information as to whether it is scientifically,

4 technically correct or not?

5 A I'm not sure that I would agree that it would be my

6 responsibility to determine whether it was technically

7 correct or whatever. It's my responsibility as an

8 educator to accept information that comes from the realm

9 of science, the scientific community. And that which does

10 not come from that area, it's the scientists' job to

11 debate the technical merits of the data that is presented.

12 Q Would it be safe to state that you accept as true

13 what is accepted as true in the scientific community?

14 A No, sir, that wouldn't be a correct statement. I

15 accept as science what comes from the scientific

16 community. I don't accept it as true. I don't think a

17 scientist would, either.

18 Q Well, are you teaching falsehoods?

19 A No, sir. I think it has been presented before,

20 science is not a matter of true and false or right and

21 wrong.

22 Q Do you rely upon the scientific community,

23 scientific publication, professional groups of scientists,

24 for your information?

25 A Yes.


1 Q Do you question, as a scientist, that information?

2 A I'm not a scientist, I'm an educator, and it's not

3 my responsibility to question the information. I'm a

4 science teacher or science educator; I teach science.

5 The scientists, as I said before, debate the merits of

6 the information.

7 Q And you do not?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q How much do you know about John Thomas Scopes?

10 THE COURT: Could you narrow the question down a

11 little bit?

12 Q What do you know about John Thomas Scopes' attitude

13 about education in the classroom?

14 A Well, I think that perhaps your original statement

15 didn't need to be narrowed, because I know very little at

16 all.

17 In fact, I'd say nothing. I wouldn't be comfortable in

18 saying anything about his philosophy in the classroom.

19 Q Well, I've got a book, and there is a statement

20 about that that I'd like to present.

21 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I recognize the flair that

22 this line of questioning presents, but I don't think it's

23 a proper line of questioning, unless he wants to ask Mr.

24 Glasgow if he recognizes Mr. Scopes as an expert in the

25 area of education or something of that sort.


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

2 1 think it's an improper question and I object to it.

3 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, if the objection is to

4 show—

5 THE COURT: To save time, just go ahead and ask him

6 about it.

7 Q Were you in court earlier when Doctor Morowitz—

8 A Read the same thing, I believe. Yes.

9 THE COURT: Is that what you were going to ask him?

10 MR. CHILDS: Yes, sir.

11 THE WITNESS: "Education, you know, means—"

12 THE COURT: You don't need to read that. We all

13 heard it.

14 MR. CHILDS: Continuing)

15 Q Do you subscribe to Mr. Scopes' theory of education?

16 A I've indicated already, I don't know what his theory

17 or philosophy of education is.

18 Q Well, do you believe in teaching every aspect of

19 every problem or theory?

20 A No.

21 Q Do you believe that if you limit a teacher to

22 teaching only one side of everything, this country will

23 eventually have only one thought and be only one

24 individual?

25 A No.


1 Q Do you think that education should be a broadening

2 and advancing experience for your students?

3 A I think I could generally subscribe to that.

4 Q I just want to make sure that I understand what

5 you're saying. And if I misstate what you said, you

6 correct me.

7 As I understand it, your position is that high school

8 science classroom teachers and junior high classroom

9 science teachers should pass along, without question, what

10 is accepted within the scientific community. Is that an

11 accurate or inaccurate characterization of your testimony?

12 A I think that's inaccurate.

13 Q Would you please tell me specifically how it's

14 inaccurate?

15 A I think that students have a right to question

16 anything in their own mind. But students at this level do

17 not have the professional backgrounds or the expertise or

18 whatever to make judgments regarding the validity of

19 anything in the area of science.

20 In fact I, as a person who has, oh, I don't know, maybe

21 a hundred some-odd hours in science, most of the things,

22 the data that is generated in science, I don't have the

23 background and I'm not able to make judgements as to

24 whether it's right or wrong. It takes someone with a

25 great deal of technical expertise and someone that has


1 A (Continuing) worked in that area for a great length

2 of time.

3 Certainly if I can't, students aren't able to make

4 that. But in the sense that they can question, if they

5 want to question, that's all right. I don't think that's

6 appropriate for a student. Well, I don't say that they

7 can't say it, but if a student says, `teacher, I don't

8 agree with that particular theory', they can say that if

9 they want to, but I don't think it's appropriate for the

10 teacher to go into any sort of a detailed discussion as to

11 the merits of that particular thing, because I don't think

12 either the teacher or the students has the skills, the

13 capability to make those judgments.

14 Q Let me restate my characterization of your

15 testimony, which would be, do you think that classroom

16 teachers should pass along to their students what is

17 accepted within the scientific community because neither

18 the teachers nor the students have the ability to

19 distinguish between good science and bad science?

20 A That's basically correct.

21 Q Did I misstate it in any way?

22 A Well, I think there could possibly be exceptions.

23 I'm not saying that that's true a hundred percent of the

24 time. There might be some areas that they could make

25 judgments on, I don't know. But basically that would be


1 A (Continuing) true.

2 I think it's the duty of science teachers to teach

3 science. We don't formulate the science, we simply teach

4 it.

5 Q Do you remember I asked you a hypothetical about

6 Albert Einstein at your deposition?

7 A Yes, sir.

8 Q My hypothetical was, let us say that he appeared at

9 the New York Legislature at the time that he was ready to

10 publish his materials on the principle of relativity, and

11 he advised the New York Legislature that he had a

12 revelation, and that that revelation was that E=MC2, and

13 that he wanted to require the New York Legislature to pass

14 a law to teach his theory of relativity. Do you remember

15 that hypothetical?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And I asked you what would have been the scientific

18 community's reaction. Do you remember your response to

19 that?

20 A I assume my response is basically the same. I don't

21 remember exactly what I said at that time. I don't think

22 the scientific community would think very highly of that

23 at all.

24 Q I would like for you to read your response on page

25 28, line 14 through 17.

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P700-733


1 A "It's hard for me to guess. If I were a member of

2 the scientific community myself at that time, what I think

3 other members would do is that they would strenuously

4 object to that."

5 Q Would it be impossible for the Little Rock School

6 District to develop materials which would present a

7 balanced view?

8 A My answer to that is that it would be impossible

9 for teachers in the Little Rock School District to develop

10 scientific materials, a unit, a science unit that would

11 present a balanced view.

12 Q Okay. And that presupposes in your definition that

13 creation science is not science, does it not?

14 A It does.

15 Q And you've been unable to discern any evidence

16 anywhere which would support any of the six definitions of

17 Section 4 (a) of the Act?

18 A Well, I have a problem with the word `evidence'.

19 I think of `evidence' as facts, whatnot, things like that,

20 I think that some of these are legitimate things that

21 appear in scientific journals and are legitimately within

22 the realm of science. But I think when you back off and

23 look at the facts together, yes, I can't imagine any, and

24 I haven't observed or come across any that would support

25 creation science.


1 Q And is your concern with the creation science the

2 interpretation of the information?

3 A Interpretation of what, all the information that's

4 in it, or what?

5 Q Yes.

6 A No. That's not my main objection to it at all.

7 Q What is your bottom line objection to it?

8 THE COURT: Wait a second. We went over about

9 forty-five minutes of his objections to it.

10 MR. CHILDS: I don't think I asked him--

11 A My objection is--

12 MR. CHILDS: Wait, Mr. Glasgow. Excuse me.

13 THE COURT: Nobody ever said, `What's his bottom

14 line objection,' but that was his whole direct testimony,

15 was his objections to it or his problems with it.

16 MR. CHILDS: Let me go on to another question.

17 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

18 Q Does the state of Arkansas have a recommended list

19 of textbooks?

20 A It has-- Yes, I guess you would call it that. It

21 does have a list of textbooks from which you can make

22 selections.

23 Q Have you yourself or are you aware of anybody that

24 has made a comprehensive literature search for information

25 published in the area of creation science?


1 Q (Continuing)

2 Let me ask, have you done that?

3 A I have not made a comprehensive literature review,

4 no.

5 Q At the time of your deposition I asked you what you

6 had done, and at that time, as I understood it, you had

7 read basically three or four different authors.

8 A I think three or four would be limited. I think,

9 as far as read, I haven't read from front to back any that

10 know of. I have scanned through to get a general

11 overall picture of maybe ten or twelve different

12 publications.

13 Q At your deposition, Mr. Glasgow, my recollection

14 and notes indicate that you could only refer me to Gish,

15 Morris, and maybe two other authors in the creation

16 science field.

17 A I don't think I could refer you to any more than

18 that now.

19 Q Could you refer me to any more titles?

20 A Well, I saw a book over on the desk a minute ago

21 called Scientific Creation. I don't know who the author

22 is. I don't recall if that's one of' the books that I've

23 looked through.

24 Q Any other books you can tell me that you've looked

25 through?


1 A Other than those that I mentioned to you before?

2 Q I don't think you named any names of any books that

3 you've read.

4 A I didn't remember the names of the books, no.

5 Q Do you presently remember the names of any of those

6 books?

7 A Evolution: The Fossils Say No, was one that I

8 read. I remember there was a book or two by Doctor

9 Slusher that I looked through. No, I can't remember

10 anymore.

11 Q Okay. Now, then, during your deposition, when we

12 went over these materials that Mr. Cearley has moved into

13 evidence as exhibits, and the particular books in the

14 Little Rock School District, did I ask you about each one

15 of those books as to whether or not it could be balanced?

16 A Yes. And in each of those cases, I said that it

17 could be balanced, but not with legitimate appropriate

18 scientific information.

19 Q Not with what you would consider legitimate

20 scientific information?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q Would you ever recommend textbooks with religious

23 references?

24 A Probably not.

25 Q Would you ever recommend any kind of teaching


1 Q (Continuing) materials which would be footnoted to

2 the Bible?

3 A Probably not.

4 Q Would you ever recommend any kind of teaching

5 materials in the Little Rock School District which dealt

6 with the words `Genesis', `Adam and Eve', or `Noah's

7 Flood'?

8 A No.

9 Q Can a science teacher ignore your curriculum guide?

10 A No, I don't think they can ignore it.

11 Q In subsequent adoptions of textbooks, would you

12 have to choose textbooks with a more balanced view?

13 A You mean if Act 590 is implemented?

14 Q If Judge Overton rules it is constitutional?

15 A Right. Yes, I would think that we probably would.

16 Q Is the reason that you are down here is because you

17 are personally and professionally offended that the

18 legislature would remove your discretion?

19 A Partially.

20 MR. CHILDS: I have nothing further, your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Any redirect?

22 MR. CEARLEY: No, sir.

23 THE COURT: The court will be adjourned until 9:00

24 o'clock in the morning. I'd like to see the attorneys

25 back in chambers.

(Thereupon, Court was in
recess at 5:20 P.M..)





3 Witness:

4 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:



7 Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 720

8 Cross Examination by Mr. Clark Page 755

9 Redirect Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 808

10 Recross Examination by Mr. Clark Page 813



13 Direct Examination by Mr. Crawford Page 816

14 Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 835



17 Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 867

18 Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 928



21 Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 879

22 Cross Examination by Mr. Clark Page 920



25 Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 931






4 Plaintiffs' No. 129 735 735

5 Plaintiffs' No. 15 747 747

6 Defendants' No. 4 785 785

7 Plaintiffs' No. 28 819 819

8 Plaintiffs' No. 71 824 824

9 Plaintiffs' No. 72 824 824

10 Plaintiffs' No. 73 824 824

11 Plaintiffs' No. 77 824 824

12 Plaintiffs' No. 79 824 824

13 Plaintiffs' No. 80 824 824

14 Plaintiffs' No. 81 824 824

15 Plaintiffs' No. 82 824 824

16 Defendants' No. 5 846

17 Defendants' No. 6 865

18 Defendants' No. 7 865

19 Plaintiffs' No. 36 - 39 879 879

20 Plaintiffs' No. 34 881 881

21 Plaintiffs' No. 26 886 886

22 Plaintiffs' No. 27 887 887

23 Plaintiffs' No. 24 903 903

24 Plaintiffs' No. 25 903 903

25 Plaintiffs' No. 18 - 23 909 909

Plaintiffs' No. 92 932 932


1 (December 10, 1981)

2 (9:00 A.M.)


(In Chambers)

4 THE COURT: Gentlemen, Judge Byrd represents some of

5 the witnesses that we talked about yesterday afternoon.

6 He originally intended to introduce their testimony by

7 deposition. Apparently there were some records that the

8 witnesses had in their possession that the witnesses do

9 not want to turn over to the attorneys for plaintiffs.

10 Judge Byrd, do you want to make a motion about that as

11 attorney for the witnesses?

12 For one thing, I think we probably ought to identify the

13 witnesses.

14 JUDGE BYRD: Well, the witnesses are Mr. W. A.

15 Blount, Curtis Thomas and Carl Hunt.

16 I've been informed by the Attorney General that in my

17 absence yesterday afternoon-- I offered to be present with

18 counsel, and they agreed we could show up at 8:30 this

19 morning. I understand that yesterday afternoon the Court

20 ordered the Attorney General to turn the records over to

21 counsel for the plaintiffs and let them be copied.

22 This is a violation of' my clients' rights. My clients

23 have a right of political association, and they demand the

24 records back and all the copies. They have the right,

25 after the Court rules on our motion, to refuse and take


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) whatever consequences the Court

2 gives.

3 But if the Court will remember back when the state was

4 trying to make the teachers list their associations and

5 produce their records of associations, the Supreme Court

6 said they had a freedom of association that was protected

7 by the Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause. They

8 pointed out this is a political freedom that's each man's

9 privacy, and the courts have to give them wide elbow room.

10 It's very unfair for the ACLU to come in--

11 THE COURT: Pardon me, Judge Byrd. Before we get

12 into the argument, I don't know what documents you are

13 talking about. I don't know--

14 JUDGE BYRD: It's my clients' personal records.

15 THE COURT: Mr. Cearley, maybe you tell me how the

16 matter came up, specifically.

17 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir. Your Honor, there was a

18 document request attached to each subpoena that asked

19 basically for any records or documents or written

20 communications or literature in the possession of each of

21 the witnesses that emanated from a list of creation

22 science publishers or some specified individuals that have

23 to do with the creation science movement.

24 It was directed toward establishing where the

25 information came from that resulted in the bill that was

drafted by Paul Ellwanger and what was done with that bill.


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing) after it reached Mr. Blount's

2 hands.

3 I have not examined the documents that were furnished,

4 although co-counsel has looked at that or looked at those

5 documents.

6 But I think the Court has previously ruled that we could

7 introduce testimony and exhibits to establish the source

8 of Act 590 or the Model Bill and the motivation or the

9 purpose behind it, and that is what the document request

10 was directed toward.

11 THE COURT: Well, off the top of my head, I-- Is

12 Mr. Hunt the one that Senator Holstead identified as being

13 a source of the bill?

14 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir.

15 JUDGE BYRD: He is.

16 THE COURT: Okay. And what connection do the other

17 two witnesses have.

18 MR. CEARLEY: My understanding is that Reverend

19 Blount received the bill from Paul Ellwanger; he gave it

20 to Reverend Thomas who gave it to Mr. Hunt. Then it was

21 given to Senator Holstead.

22 And the purpose of that was to establish that line of

23 transmittal, flow and why it was done. And that was the

24 reason for the document request.

25 JUDGE BYRD: The deposition showed that Curtis


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) Thomas got the Act from

2 Ellwanger and gave it to Hunt, and Hunt delivered it to

3 Holstead.

4 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me get this sequence

5 down again. Mr. Hunt gave it to Senator Holstead. What

6 did Mr. Blount have to do with it?

7 JUDGE BYRD: Mr. W. A. Blount and Mr. Thomas Delong

8 to some kind of a loosely held alliance, some sort of

9 Christian alliance, the exact name I cannot recall right

10 now.

11 THE COURT: On Schedule A, is that the list of

12 documents?

13 MR. CEARLEY: Yes.

14 JUDGE BYRD: No. The list of documents are on what

15 you are looking at there, and A is supposed to be

16 definitions.

17 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, there were two separate

18 document requests. One was attached to the first subpoena

19 which was issued and served last week requesting that each

20 of the witnesses appear for deposition.

21 And after contact was made by Kathy Woods who

22 represented each one of the witnesses at that time, that

23 document request was narrowed. And I don't know which of

24 the requests it is here that you've been furnished with.

25 THE COURT: (Handing document to Mr. Cearley)


1 JUDGE BYRD: I've got a copy.

2 MR. CEARLEY: This would be the second one.

3 THE COURT: Okay. This is the final request?

4 MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir.

5 THE COURT: If these three witnesses were the

6 sources of the information that was given to Senator

7 Holstead and resulted in the introduction of this bill in

8 the Arkansas Legislature, I don't see how they could claim

9 any sort of privilege about the material which was the

10 source of the information they gave him.

11 JUDGE BYRD: The witnesses do not object to

12 testifying. They did so freely. But this asks for any

13 program, plan, strategy, tactic, policy or procedure

14 regarding efforts to introduce creation in the public

15 schools. And that gets back to freedom of association.

16 Your Honor messed around with the Legislature for a

17 session or two, and you are well aware that politics makes

18 strange bedfellows.

19 THE COURT: That was one of the lessons I learned.

20 JUDGE BYRD: A preacher's associations or how he

21 goes about associating or getting folks to do something is

22 a freedom of association. And in the Tucker case that

23 came out of the school integration crisis, they pointed

24 out that the teachers had a freedom of association and



1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) didn't have to list their

2 associations.

3 And here you are making these folks produce and show how

4 they campaigned to get this done. It's wrong.

5 THE COURT: Well, I think and--

6 JUDGE BYRD: Would the Court like the cases?

7 THE COURT: Wait just a second. We both can't talk

8 at the same time.

9 As I recall the matter of the teachers, it seems to me

10 like that turned on the question of whether or not the

11 state had a compelling interest in making teachers

12 disclose all organizations to which they belonged.

13 And I think it was determined that there was no such

14 compelling interest. And there were some other acts, some

15 other protections in that particular situation.

16 But it seems to me like the materials sought by this

17 subpoena goes to the very heart of what the plaintiffs are

18 trying to prove in this case; that these organizations,

19 which are basically religious organizations with a

20 religious purpose, have prepared this material and they've

21 tried to get it passed in the legislature, and they've set

22 out plans for doing that and strategy for doing that. And

23 that's what this subpoena is calculated to try to produce,

24 as I understand it.

25 JUDGE BYRD: Well, I disagree with his Honor's


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) interpretation of Shelton vs.

2 Tucker. It had nothing to do with a compelling interest

3 of the state, and I'll read from the case, if the Court

4 would like.

5 THE COURT: Well, it's been fifteen years or twenty

6 years, I guess, so I might not remember much about that.

7 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, might I--

8 JUDGE BYRD: Let me finish. There's another case,

9 Gibson vs. Florida Legislative Committee, where the NAACP

10 president was, they subpoenaed his list of people who

11 belonged to it, and he refused to bring it, but he went up

12 and testified. And the Supreme Court specifically held

13 that he had the right of freedom of association not to

14 produce the list.

15 And this is what we are complaining about. We don't

16 think we need to educate the plaintiffs in this case how

17 to go campaign with the legislature because it affects our

18 associations. And they can go around, and they've

19 publicly criticized my folks in the paper, called them the

20 Moral Majority.

21 And they go around and gouge and put pressure. It's a

22 subtle pressure, but it's there.

23 THE COURT: Are you suggesting this is a membership

24 list that will be produced in response to this subpoena?

25 JUDGE BYRD: I didn't say it was a membership, but


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) it asked for who they

2 associated, contacted, and the records they had of who

3 they contacted. And that's just as important as a

4 membership list because it affects these folks' ability in

5 the future.

6 THE COURT: Mr. Cearley.

7 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, in the first place, I

8 think Shelton vs. Tucker was a case that dealt with the

9 rights of public employees. And the thrust of that case

10 was that public employees can't give up their constitu-

11 tional rights just by virtue of their public employment.

12 And there was no compelling interest on the part of the

13 state to ask for disclosure in the form of the loyalty

14 oath, as I recall.

15 I don't know about the Florida case, but I do know that

16 this is a subpoena arising out of a specific lawsuit and

17 directed toward a specific end. It's not a blanket

18 fishing expedition. There is a purpose for it, and I

19 think it's a legitimate purpose.

20 I simply know of no insulation from disclosure that

21 would be available to these people.

22 JUDGE BYRD: The Florida lawsuit was specifically

23 directed to whether or not certain communists were

24 involved in the associations. And that's what they are

25 trying to get here is, `How did you associate and with


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) which legislator,' and what

2 have you.

3 And unfortunately, these folks are preachers. They are

4 not politicians. As you know, politicians don't keep

5 records, but preachers do.

6 THE COURT: As I understand it, the Attorney General

7 has the material?

8 MR. CEARLEY: The Attorney--

9 JUDGE BYRD: Unfortunately, they've been turned over

10 to these folks, and we want them back.

11 THE COURT: I directed the Attorney General to turn

12 those records over to the plaintiffs. He didn't do it

13 gratuitously.

14 JUDGE BYRD: I understand.

15 THE COURT: Where is the material you are talking

16 about?

17 MS. KERR: It is being copied, your Honor.

18 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, this is Peggy Kerr,

19 co-counsel.

20 We've not even examined the materials. We sent it out

21 to have it copied, and I can't even tell the Court what's

22 in those materials at this point in time.

23 THE COURT: Well, the analogies you draw, Judge

24 Byrd, I don't see are applicable to this situation, but I

25 will look at the material. And direct the attorneys to


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) turn it over to me, and I'll

2 look at it before we proceed any further with that part of

3 the case.

4 JUDGE BYRD: If they would have asked for particular

5 records, we would have given them particular records.

6 This does not ask for particular records. It asks for

7 their strategy.

8 Now, if they just want to know if they've got something

9 from Ellwanger, I'll be glad to pull it out of the record

10 and give it to them.

11 THE COURT: I don't think they are interested in

12 limiting their request to just what they got from

13 Ellwanger.

14 JUDGE BYRD: Well, your Honor, I feel like I've been

15 taken advantage of. We had an agreement with counsel.

16 Mr. Clark was there. And I told him we would seal them

17 up, and Mr. Clark would hold the records until we got a

18 ruling.

19 THE COURT: I made that ruling yesterday afternoon.

20 JUDGE BYRD: And the problem is that now my clients

21 don't have a choice of whether they refuse to turn over

22 the records or not. And this is what the NAACP president

23 refused. He was convicted of contempt, and won.

24 And my clients don't have that choice.

25 THE COURT: I don't understand what you are


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) proposing to me at this point.

2 JUDGE BYRD: Well, I propose that they are still my

3 clients' records. And after the Court rules, my clients

4 have a right to sit down and make a decision whether they

5 turn them over or not.

6 They can take the consequences if they don't want to,

7 but that's their choice.

8 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I might add I don't recall

9 that these records were sealed in any manner, and they

10 were given to the Attorney General.

11 It's not a question of privacy. They just don't want to

12 give them to us.

13 JUDGE BYRD: They weren't given to him to review.

14 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, when they were given to me,

15 they were not sealed, actually, in an envelope. That's

16 correct. I did not examine them. We tied them up in

17 rubber bands or strings or whatever and just left them

18 alone, not to be examined until there was some ruling by

19 the Court, which there was. And at that point, they were

20 given to Mr. Cearley for copying, the originals to be

21 returned today.

22 THE COURT: Judge Byrd, I don't see any legal

23 argument to what you are making. And the records

24 certainly aren't privileged in any way. It seems to me

25 like they are properly sought under the subpoena.


1 THE COURT: (Continuing)

2 I don't quite understand the point about your clients

3 didn't have the opportunity to be in contempt. I

4 certainly don't want anybody in contempt of Court, but--

5 JUDGE BYRD: They do not either, but they have a

6 right to make a choice on their records. And this is my

7 complaint with the Court. I was available-- I offered to

8 make myself available, and it was agreed I'd be here at

9 8:30 this morning for a ruling.

10 THE COURT: Well, I didn't know that. Nobody told

11 the Court.

12 JUDGE BYRD: I understand that, but counsel knew

13 that, and they evidently got a ruling.

14 MR. CEARLEY: I didn't know that either, your Honor.

15 MS. KERR: The problem is that I agreed to call

16 Judge Byrd when this was going to come before the Court

17 for a ruling.

18 THE COURT: Well, that is something that wasn't

19 brought to my attention. Why don't you get the materials

20 back, and I will take a look at them.

21 MS. KERR: They will be available at noon today.

22 They are being copied right now.

23 THE COURT: Where are they?

24 MS. KERR: At a printer's a couple blocks from here.

25 THE COURT: Why don't you send somebody to pick them


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) up, and I will take a look at

2 them.

3 (To Judge Byrd) I would suggest that until we resolve

4 this maybe you ought to stay around.

5 JUDGE BYRD: Plan on it.

6 (9:20 a.m.)


(Open Court)

8 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, Plaintiffs call Ron Coward.

9 Thereupon,



11 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

12 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

13 testified as follows:




16 Q Will you state your full name for the record, please?

17 A Ronald W. Coward.

18 Q And your occupation, Mr. Coward?

19 A I'm a teacher with the Pulaski County Special School

20 District.

21 Q How long have you been employed in that capacity?

22 A I'm currently in my nineteenth year.

23 Q What subjects do you teach?

24 A I currently teach biology and psychology.

25 Q Will you tell the Court - briefly , Mr. Coward , what


1 Q (Continuing) your educational background is?

2 A I have a Bachelor of Science in Education and also a

3 Master's of Science in Education from the University of

4 Central Arkansas.

5 Q And can you tell the Court what subjects you have

6 taught over the past several years?

7 A Yes. On the high school level, I have taught

8 general biology, botany, zoology, human physiology,

9 environmental biology and psychology.

10 Q You are currently teaching which of those courses?

11 A General biology, environmental biology and

12 psychology.

13 Q Are you familiar within the context of your

14 employment in the Pulaski Special School District with how

15 textbooks are selected?

16 A Yes, I am.

17 Q Will you tell the Court how that is done?

18 A The State of Arkansas, the State Department of

19 Education for the State of Arkansas selects a number of

20 books that are certified to be on the State adoption list.

21 When adoption time comes around for the school district,

22 teachers, representative of each high school in the

23 district, are selected to evaluate the contents, the

24 format of individual textbooks.

25 That committee, then, makes a recommendation to the school board which has the final approval on that textbook.


1 Q What textbooks do you currently use in the courses

2 that you teach and in the biology course that you taught

3 last year?

4 A Use the textbook entitled Modern Biology by Madnick,

5 Otto and Towle. It's published by Holt, Rhinehart,

6 Winston.

7 Q How about in psychology

8 A Psychology, I use the book entitled The Invitation

9 to Psychology. I believe that book is published by Scott

10 Orsman.

11 Q And in the advance Biology course that you teach?

12 A It is entitled Biology. It's by Arms and Camp. I

13 believe it's published by H. R. W. Saunders and Company.

14 Q Will you tell the Court, please, sir, how the

15 subject matter within a course is determined in the

16 Pulaski County Special School District?

17 A Within each individual course, teachers, more or

18 less, have free rein or no restraints in deciding what the

19 course content of that particular course should be.

20 Generally, the philosophy of the school district is that

21 we are the professional educators; we know best what is

22 current in our particular discipline or our field.

23 Therefore, that judgment is left entirely to us as

24 educators.

25 Q Does the county produce any curriculum guides similar to what Mr. Glasgow testified to yesterday?


1 A There are no curriculum guides produced by the

2 county, but on different occasions the county has

3 published a supplemental publication to extend beyond the

4 scope of the textbook, particularly in relation to types

5 of activities that might be carried on within the

6 classroom.

7 I think this was designed primarily for beginning

8 teachers or teachers that are having a great deal of

9 difficulty in learning to budget their time over the course

10 of the school year.

11 It's not a curriculum guide, as such, that is to be

12 followed. It's strictly a supplement.

13 Q Well, what constraints are there on you as a science

14 teacher in determining what is going to be taught in your

15 classroom?

16 A There are none. Again, I might add that the

17 County's viewpoint or the District's viewpoint is that we

18 as professional educators certainly are supposed to have

19 the professionalism and the ethics to decide what is

20 current in our field, what is relevant or pertinent to the

21 lives of our students, and therefore, we are given wide

22 scope to do pretty well as we see.

23 There could be limitations if you, perhaps, if you

24 exceeded your ethical authority, I should say, within my

25 discipline.


1 Q Within your own discipline in the area of science,

2 how do you go about determining what is taught in the

3 classroom?

4 A Well, there again, I have to decide what is good

5 science and what is not, and at the same time, base my

6 opinion upon the types of students that I have in a

7 particular course, their ability levels, their

8 backgrounds, what their aspirations or future plans or

9 goals might be. This helps me to determine or set my

10 course curriculum.

11 Q Are you familiar as a biology teacher, Mr. Coward,

12 with the term "creation science"?

13 A As a science educator, I am familiar with it. I do

14 not consider it a science term.

15 Q Will you tell the Court when you first became aware

16 of that term?

17 A I had not heard the science term until approximately

18 eleven months ago. It would have been in January or

19 February of this year, when I was asked by the Pulaski

20 County School District to become part of the committee to

21 investigate into creation materials to determine whether

22 or not these materials had any validity or any substantial

23 scientific content, and if so, to possibly incorporate

24 this into our curriculum.

25 Q As member of that committee, what did you personally


1 Q (Continuing) do, Mr. Coward?

2 A We were presented with a creation science format

3 very similar to Act 590) with very little modifications to

4 it. At the same time, we requested to have presented to

5 us numbers of creation science publications, textbooks,

6 any type of pamphlets or literature that they had. And

7 these were provided for us.

8 Q Was there any particular textbook that you reviewed

9 as a member of that Committee?

10 A Yes, there was.

11 Q Do you recall the name of that textbook?

12 A Yes. I have it here.

13 Q I have placed in front of you, Mr. Coward, a copy of

14 the textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity,

15 published by Zondervan that's labeled as Plaintiffs,

16 Exhibit Number 129 for identification?

17 A That is correct.

18 Q Is that what you have there in front of you?

19 A Yes, it is.

20 Q Did you report to the Pulaski County Board of

21 Education with regard to your findings?

22 A Yes, we did.

23 Q And I think you've testified that you did review

24 that particular textbook?

25 A Yes. I think we met on two different occasions as a


1 A (Continuing) committee. And then on one occasion,

2 we were allowed to take the materials home with us between

3 meetings to preview for approximately a two week period of

4 time.

5 Q Did you do that with that book?

6 A Yes. I did take this book.

7 Q What was your report back to the Board of Education

8 with regard to that book?

9 A The committee-- Well, the committee made one final

10 report back to the Board of Education. The committee

11 reconvened following the examination of the materials.

12 Each person on that committee then was given an

13 opportunity to express their viewpoints based on the

14 materials which they previewed.

15 The general-- Not just general consensus, but the

16 unanimous decision of that committee was that none of the

17 materials previewed had any scientific merit or any

18 scientific validity to it, and more often than not, seemed

19 to advance the cause of religion more than it did science.

20 This was the unanimous vote of this committee.

21 Q What about your own personal reaction to the

22 materials presented in Biology: A Search for Order in

23 Complexity?

24 A Well, I was surprised at the number of religious

25 references that were made in this particular book. Also,


1 A (Continuing) I was surprised to find out things

2 they considered science. Due to my science background, I

3 did not perceive it to be science at all.

4 Q With reference to that textbook, Mr. Coward, can you

5 give the Court any illustration of the kinds of statements

6 that you found in that book upon which you based your

7 report?

8 A I sure can.

9 Q Please refer to the page number, if you will, Mr.

10 Coward.

11 A This is on page 12.

12 Q If you will refer to the page number and tell the

13 Judge where on the page you are reading from?

14 A This is on page 12, your Honor. It is the lower

15 left hand paragraph, second from the bottom.

16 Q What appears there?

17 A If I might read-- They are speaking of flowers

18 closing up at night to protect themselves, and why roots

19 grow geotrophically towards the center of the earth.

21 Reading, "We talk of flowers that close up at night to

21 protect their pollen from insects that cannot effect

22 pollination. We talk of roots that grow toward water to

23 supply the plant with this necessary substance. Flowers

24 and roots do not have a mind to have purpose of their

25 own; therefore this planning must have been done for


1 A (Continuing) them by the Creator."

2 Q How does that statement compare with your under-

3 standing as a biology and botany teacher?

4 A As a biology and botany teacher, a creator does not

5 enter into the subject matter at all. I think that there

6 are natural laws and natural processes which are easily

7 explained as to why roots grow toward the center of the

8 earth. I think geotropism would be the appropriate term

9 here. It's a physical law of nature.

10 Q Would you just thumb through that book, Mr. Coward,

11 to other illustrations that you've marked. And in like

12 fashion, identify the page number and location on the

13 page, and read to the Court?

14 A Yes. On page 147, lower left hand paragraph. In

15 other words, there are latent recessive genes that later

16 become expressed. Also, some variation (from this

17 viewpoint) is simply an expression of the Creator's desire

18 to show as much beauty of flower, variety of song in

19 birds, or interesting types of behavior in animals as

20 possible.

21 Q Is there any similar explanation of those phenomena

22 in the biology or botany text that you have known in your

23 experience as a biology and botany teacher?

24 A I think each of these can be explained through

25 natural processes.


1 A (Continuing)

2 One other significance would be found on page 363.

3 Q Go ahead.

4 A This is a quote from the book of Matthew.

5 Q What is the context that appears in, Mr. Coward?

6 A They first cite a poem here by, I believe this is

7 Wordsworth, if my literature is correct. "The exquisite

8 beauty of color and shape in flowers exceeds the skill of

9 poet, artist, and king. Jesus said (from Matthew's

10 gospel) ..."

11 Q And that is presented there to illustrate what?

12 A That the beauty of the earth far exceeds the

13 perception of poets, artists.

14 Q Do you find like expressions in any biology or

15 botany text with which you are familiar?

16 A I certainly do not.

17 Q What were your objections about that material in is

18 that book?

19 A That I would consider this to be very religious in

20 nature, which is certainly out of the scope of my

21 classroom.

22 Q Did you have any other objections to that book? To

23 the language or the overall order and presentation of the

24 subject matter?



1 A The overall presentation or format of it probably

2 would be very similar as far as sequential that you'd find

3 in an ordinary textbook. But I find, again, no scientific

4 content of any value. Fragmented pieces of science

5 information are found at random, out there again, unless

6 you associate scientific facts together, then really all

7 you have, you have nothing.

8 It's like individual bricks do not make a house until

9 you can associate these pieces together and build

10 something from that.

11 I find that to be the case in this textbook.

12 Q What do you find to be the case? What is the

13 unifying theme of that textbook?

14 A It seems to be that most of the science that is

15 attempted to be used is pointing toward the fact that

16 there is a sudden creation or inception of the earth;

17 that man is apart from ancestral forms that relate him to

18 earlier primates.

19 I would say it readily supports the theme as depicted in

20 the book of Genesis.

21 Q Do you know of any other textbook that's on the

22 market, Mr. Coward, that it has such a theme in it?

23 A No, I do not.

24 Q And by that, I mean any other biology text to which

25 you've been exposed?


1 A No, I do not. This is the only biology text that I

2 have seen, actual text that I have seen from creation

3 publications. I've seen a number of soft cover

4 publications.

5 As far as biology text that I have ever examined on the

6 state textbook adoption list that are put out by major

7 publishing houses, I've never seen anything with this type

8 of science or religion.

9 Q Is the subject of evolution, biological evolution,

10 treated in that textbook?

11 A If you call it that, yes, it is.

12 Q In what fashion is it presented?

13 A Well, there again, most of the information that is

14 used is used to conveniently present or to support the

15 creation viewpoint of recent inception of the earth,

16 catastrophic flood, and there again, man separate from

17 apes.

18 Q Are you thinking of any particular example or just

19 the overall presentation?

20 MR. CLARK: If I may interject just a moment, for

21 the record, we are going to tend to object to this whole

22 line of questioning as being irrelevant from the

23 standpoint that there's been no proof offered that this

24 text or any of these other materials are going to be used

25 to teach under Act 590.


1 MR. CLARK: (Continuing)

2 I understand the point that counsel is trying to

3 demonstrate to the Court; that these are the only kinds

4 of materials there. We have had cumulative testimony to

5 this effect time and time again.

6 I don't see the relevancy of going through all this.

7 THE COURT: I will note the objection.

8 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

9 Q Did you have any particular reference in mind or

10 were you referring to the presentation of evolution in

11 general?

12 A It was the presentation of evolution in general. I

13 might cite a particular instance. This will be found on

14 page 444.

15 Q Were is that located on the page, Mr. Coward.

16 A Bottom paragraph under subheading 23-4.

17 Q Will you read that, please?

18 A The subtopic here is "Differences Between Man and

19 Apes." To show an example of the type of scientific

20 information that they use, the major differences in man

21 and apes, according to them, is the fact that an ape has a

22 broader pelvis than man. They cite this as being evidence.

23 The fact that a man's feet are flat on the bottoms and

24 not designed for grasping, and the apes or the primates

25 still have the grasping type foot, they cite this as


1 A (Continuing) evidence.

2 On the very next page, on 445, I believe it is, they

3 point out that there are differences in man and apes other

4 than physical. For an example, if I may read here -- This

5 is 445, left hand side, middle paragraph: "There are

6 physical distinctions that set man apart from the animals,

7 but of much greater magnitude are the difference in

8 behavior. An ape will not put a stick of wood on the fire

9 even if he is about to freeze. He may use a stick or

10 stone as a tool, if it is handy; but he does not make

11 tools or foresee future use for a tool."

12 I don't think the fact that an ape would not put a stick

13 on the fire to warm himself is hardly evidence that

14 indicates our ancestor.

15 Q How does that compare with your understanding of

16 presentation of evolution in the biology text that you

17 normally are exposed to?

18 A Well, any theory of evolution is supported in the

19 biology text. There again, it has some scientific

20 evidences to support that theory.

21 I don't believe any one field of science could cite any

22 evidence to support this as a scientific viewpoint.

23 Q Are the passages that you quoted to the Court

24 illustrative of the presentation of the subject of

25 creation or creation science and evolution in that

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P734-766


1 Q (Continuing) textbook?

2 A This seems to be the general thrust throughout the

3 book in skimming through. I might also point out one

4 other modification in this text. When I first received

5 this text at that previous meeting, this was not found on

6 the inside cover (Indicating). This is a disclaimer that

7 has been added since I first reviewed this textbook.

8 May I read it?

9 Q Yes, sir. For the record, Mr. Coward, are you

10 referring to a pasted in label that appears just inside

11 the hard cover of that textbook?

12 A Yes, I am.

13 Q Yes, sir. What does that say?

14 A "This book is not designed or appropriate for public

15 school use, and should not be used in public schools in

16 any way." That's the main topic of that.

17 Shall I read the entire disclaimer?

18 Q Yes, sir, if you would.

19 A "Books for public schools discuss scientific

20 evidence that supports creation science or evolution

21 science. This book, instead, discusses religious concepts

22 or materials that support creationist religions or

23 evolutionist religions, and such religious materials

24 should not be used in public schools."

25 Q Now, your statement was, with regard to the book,


1 Q (Continuing) that you first reviewed-- What was

2 your statement with regard to that book?

3 A The first book that I was given to preview and kept

4 for some two weeks did not have this disclaimer.

5 Q And when was that, Mr. Coward?

6 A This would have been in either January or February

7 of this year.

8 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I would like to note for

9 the record that the book from which Mr. Coward was reading

10 was furnished to the plaintiffs pursuant to a request for

11 production of documents that was served upon the Institute

12 for Creation Research and Creation Life Publishers in

13 California pursuant to these proceedings in court.

14 And I would move the admission of Plaintiffs' Exhibit

15 129.

16 THE COURT: It will be received.

17 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

18 Q Now, Mr. Coward, you've examined Act 590, have you

19 not?

20 A Yes, I have.

21 Q Is the subject of creation science, as you under-

22 stand it, presented in any of the science textbooks that

23 you currently use or have ever used in the past?

24 A No, it is not.

25 Q Do you know why not?


1 A I think probably because the writers, authors of

2 these books, also the publishers and publishing companies

3 that put the books out, such as Holt, Rhinehart, et

4 cetera, they do not view this as science or part of the

5 scientific community. Therefore, they chose not to put it

6 in their publications.

7 Q You testified earlier that the work that you did for

8 the Pulaski County School Board was with regard to a

9 proposal or resolution that was put to that Board, is that

10 right?

11 A That's correct.

12 Q How does Act 590 compare to that?

13 A I can't say if it is a word for word, but the

14 general thrust or scheme of Act 590 is closely parallel to

15 the earlier resolution, which I did see it.

16 Q Have you reviewed Act 590 to determine what its

17 provisions would require of you as a classroom teacher in

18 the area of science?

19 A Yes, I have.

20 Q I call your attention specifically to the provisions

21 of Section 7. There is a statement at Section 7(b) that

22 public schools generally censure creation science and

23 evidence contrary to evolution.

24 Is creation science censured in the Pulaski County

25 Special School District?


1 A No, sir. I've taught School for nineteen years, and

2 I had never even heard of creation science until this

3 year, so there is certainly no censuring process.

4 If it is censured at all it is because creation science

5 censures itself by its very nature.

6 Q And what do you mean by that?

7 A The fact that it is religion and does not contain

8 any science. It is self-censuring.

9 Q In your effort to determine what Act 590 would

10 require of you in the classroom, Mr. Coward, have you

11 determined the meaning of the term "balanced treatment"?

12 A I have attempted to. My interpretation of it

13 probably stems from having somewhat of a science

14 background. To me balanced" means "even" or "equal."

15 There again, when I first think of this, I think of,

16 again, emphasis on equal time, equal thrust or teaching

17 with an equal zeal, and also attempting to be bipartial

18 or neutral.

19 Q Turn, if you will, Mr. Coward, to Section 4? Do you

20 have that Act in front of you?

21 A Yes, I do.

22 Q Turn to the definition, Section 4, and tell the

23 Court, if you will, what you interpret 4(a)(1) to mean,

24 "the sudden creation of the universe, energy and light

25 from nothing"?


1 A Well, there again, I interpret this to be an

2 instantaneous creation of matter and life forms on earth

3 from, without any preexisting matter or life forms.

4 Q What does the term "creation" mean to you?

5 A I think it refers to the fact that something is

6 being born or formulated which would indicate to me there

7 must be a creator or a force which is doing so.

8 Q Do you have available to you, either in your

9 experience or in the way of teaching materials, textbooks,

10 audiovisual aids or anything of that sort that would

11 constitute scientific evidence in support of sudden

12 creation of the universe, energy and light from nothing?

13 A Absolutely none.

14 Q Do you have any way to explain that or to support

15 that proposition to your students?

16 A Not from a scientific point of view, no.

17 Q From what point of view, then?

18 A It would strictly be from a religious point of view.

19 Q Look, if you will, to 4(a)(5), "explanation of the

20 earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence

21 of a worldwide flood." Do you see that?

22 A Yes, I do.

23 Q Do you have any scientific evidence available to you

24 in any fashion that would tend to support the occurrence

25 of a worldwide flood at some time in the past?


1 A No. I have never seen a science textbook, film,

2 film strip, cassette tapes or any type of audiovisual

3 materials that would give a scientific explanation of this

4 concept.

5 Q Have you ever seen any support at all for that

6 concept?

7 A Not in the scientific community. I see it as a

8 strictly religious concept.

9 Q Well, specifically, to what do you relate the

10 proposition of a worldwide flood, if anything?

11 A I assume this is from the book of Genesis, speaking

12 of the Noah flood.

13 Q Is there any other place in your experience or your

14 education where you've been exposed to the concept of a

15 worldwide flood?

16 A Only in my own religious background.

17 Q How would you, Mr. Coward, explain to your students,

18 if any inquired, about the occurrence of a worldwide flood?

19 A As far as scientific explanation, I could not. I'd

20 have to refer them, if they wanted to pursue this matter a

21 little further, they'd have to go beyond the classroom and

22 pursue this from some religious authority because I have

23 no knowledge of it or no evidence or no type of literature

24 that I could present this to them in a scientific manner.

25 Q Will you look, Mr. Coward, to 4(a)(6), "a relatively


1 Q (Continuing) recent inception of the earth and

2 living kinds"?.

3 A Yes.

4 Q What does the word "kinds" mean to you as a science

5 teacher?

6 A "Kinds" is not a scientific term. Usually in

7 science, particularly in dealing with taxonomy or

8 classification system, you refer to a specific level of

9 classification, such as species, families, orders, classes

10 or so forth.

11 "Kinds" as a science term really has no meaning or

12 significance at all.

13 Q Is it a science term?

14 A Definitely not.

15 Q Have you ever seen the word "kinds" used in that fashion?

17 A Used in the context that it is in the sentence, I

18 think it is a Biblical usage.

19 Q Do you have available to you any scientific evidence

20 that would tend to support the thought that the earth and

21 living kinds are of relatively recent inception?

22 A No, none whatsoever.

23 Q Do you know what "relatively recent inception" means?

24 A Well, this has been debated in this court as to what

25 kind of time frame that this is put into. The literature


1 A (Continuing) that I previewed on this committee,

2 most of the literature that I looked at, insisted on

3 approximately ten thousand years.

4 But "relative", there again is, the word "relative" is

5 relative in a sense.

6 Q Do you present any information in your classroom

7 with regard to the age of the earth or living kinds or

8 plants, animals, man?

9 A I do relate information to my students from a

10 scientific viewpoint as to what is depicted as the age of

11 the earth and the beginnings of time in relation to

12 certain classifications of organisms. Strictly from a

13 scientific viewpoint.

14 Q And if you recall, what generally appears in the

15 scientific literature?

16 A In regards to what?

17 Q In regard to the age of the earth?

18 A Well, there again, generally in the vicinity of four

19 and half billion years plus.

20 Q Is that relatively recent in your mind?

21 A Not in my perception of the word "relatively", no,

22 sir.

23 Q Mr. Coward, you've testified about 4(a)(1), 4(a)(5)

24 and 4(a)(6). If you don't have any scientific information

25 that would support that, what are you going to do if your


1 Q (Continuing) students ask you questions about those

2 particular items?

3 A There again, all I would be able to say to my

4 students would be that there are no scientific evidences,

5 to my knowledge, that would support any of these six

6 points. Therefore, I assume that since I cannot support

7 that scientifically, I cannot get into it from a religious

8 point of view, and I assume that I have to also not teach

9 them anything about evolution.

10 Q Let me back up for a moment and ask you, if a

11 student asks you about a worldwide flood, how will you

12 handle that?

13 A I would simply say to that student that as far as

14 the scientific community is concerned, as far as my

15 knowledge is concerned, there is no scientific evidence to

16 support a worldwide flood.

17 'If you chose to read on it further, then I suggest

18 there is, obviously, there are religious sources which you

19 might go to.'

20 And quite often if a student were to ask me question

21 like this, I might suggest that, well, you need to talk

22 probably about this with your parents or perhaps talk with

23 your minister, which is strictly a religious viewpoint.

24 It's definitely not a scientific one.

25 Q How does that kind of explanation fit in with your


1 Q (Continuing) understanding of the requirement of

2 "balance treatment"?

3 A We'll, there again, I can't use or cannot implement

4 balance treatment in regard to creation science unless I

5 can present scientific evidences.

6 I think the bill itself is emphatic that I cannot get

7 into the realm or scope of religion. Without any

8 scientific evidences, I don't see how I can implement Act

9 590.

10 Q Tell the Court, Mr. Coward, how, in your experience

11 as a biology teacher, Act 590 would affect the way you

12 teach students in your classroom and your relationship

13 with your students?

14 A I think several problems would probably be created

15 as a result of implementing Act 590 in my classroom. One

16 alone would simply be the time frame. Most textbooks

17 generally have a unit, as such, on the theory of evolution

18 and natural selection. But even aside that, evolution is

19 interwoven throughout the fabric, really, of every chapter

20 within the textbook, virtually on every page.

21 At the time I made any statement at all regarding the

22 development of fishes or amphibians or whatever lines of

23 development, I'd have to stop again and attribute time to

24 the creationist viewpoint.

25 I would spend probably half of my time trying to make a


1 A (Continuing) statement of a scientific nature, then

2 attempting to give balance to the other viewpoint.

3 There is not time as it is to teach all the things we

4 would like to do within a given school year. I would meet

5 myself coming and going in circles attempting to do this.

6 Q You mentioned evolution as a theme in biology?

7 A Yes, I did.

8 Q I have placed in front of you a document labelled

9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15 for identification, and ask if you

10 can tell the Court what that is, Mr. Coward?

11 A Yes. That is a photostat of the advanced biology

12 textbook that is used. It's entitled Biology by Arms and

13 Camp, publishers H. R. W. Saunders.

14 Q Is that book used by you?

15 A Yes, it is.

16 Q In a course on advance biology?

17 A Yes, that's correct.

18 Q How is the subject of evolution presented in that

19 book?

20 A In this particular book, there are seven explicit

21 chapters on the theory of evolution. Some are dealing

22 with primates, some chapters are dealing with flowering

23 plants and so forth. But the scope of the book in all

24 includes seven predesignate chapters.

25 Beyond those chapters, the entire concept of


1 A (Continuing) evolutionary theory and natural

2 selection, again, is interwoven throughout the chapters.

3 Virtually, every page makes references to some type of

4 ancestry or lines of descendance.

5 That is the very fabric or fiber that bonds the

6 scientific information together. It's the glue that holds

7 it all together.

8 Q Have you, at my request, extracted from that

9 textbook several pages that illustrate how evolution is

10 treated?

11 A Yes, I have.

12 Q Would you just very quickly refer to Plaintiffs'

13 Exhibit 15 and tell the Court what is illustrated there?

14 A An example might be found on the very inside cover

15 of the text, which there is a full two page overview of

16 the entire geological time scale dating the various types

17 of organisms and when they appeared on earth. Also dating

18 even the emergence of the various mountain ranges,

19 particularly in regards to the North American continent.

20 And all of this is done on a geological time scale or

21 time clock.

22 Q Is that kind of presentation unusual in a biology

23 text, Mr. Coward?

24 A No. In fact, it is standard in a biology text. I

25 don't recall, offhand, seeing one that did not present


1 A (Continuing) some type of display such as this.

2 Sometimes it will be put into, like, a twenty-four hour

3 face of a clock, and everything will be put into a time

4 sequence, out generally it is displayed in some fashion,

5 yes.

6 Q What other illustrations have you selected? Just

7 pick one or two, if you would.

8 A Okay. Beyond the chapters of evolution? I think,

9 which would speak for themselves, there are numerous

10 references made throughout the book in scattered

11 chapters. These would be some at random. This will be

12 page 323.

13 Q And what is illustrated there?

14 A It's talking about the evolution of fishes, but this

15 is not in an evolution chapter, as such. It's strictly as

16 a chapter regarding fish development, talking about the

17 three major classes of fish.

18 These two groups, speaking of Chondrichthyes, which are

19 the cartilaginous fish, and the Osteichthyes, which are

20 the bony fish, these two groups of fish have made two

21 major evolutionary advances over their agnathan ancestors.

22 Agnathan ancestors is referring to the jawless fish,

23 which we think was the first fish group on earth.

24 I think that would trigger Act 590.

25 Q In addition to the illustrations that you've pointed


1 Q (Continuing) out, there are seven full chapters on

2 evolution, is that correct?

3 A Yes, there is.

4 Q Are the illustrations you've mentioned consistent

5 with the manner in which evolution is presented in that

6 textbook?

7 A Yes, they are.

8 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I move the introduction or

9 admission of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15.

10 THE COURT: It will be received.

11 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

12 Q How, Mr. Coward, will you balance the treatment of

13 evolution with creation science in those courses that you

14 teach?

15 A I see it as an impossibility.

16 Q Do you have materials available with which to do

17 that?

18 A No, I do not. I have none.

19 Q Do you know of any?

20 A None that I have previewed I would consider of a

21 scientific nature enough that be acceptable for my

22 classroom.

23 Q You also stated that you teach the subject of

24 psychology, is that right?

25 A That's correct.


1 Q What grade level students take psychology?

2 A These would be juniors and seniors.

3 Q Have you also thought about the effect that Act 590

4 would have on methods and manner in which you present the

5 subject of psychology?

6 A Yes. I have given that some thought.

7 Q And will you tell the Court how Act 590 will affect

8 your presentation of psychology?

9 A Well, as we all know, there are a number of

10 experiments that are done in psychology based on behavior

11 comparisons of man to other forms of animals, particularly

12 in regards to primates.

13 I might cite as an example Jane Goodall's studies of

14 chimpanzees or Dianne Fossi's studies of gorillas or Harry

15 Harlow's study with monkeys on surrogate mothers,

16 Skinner's experiments with rats, pigeons and so forth.

17 These are examples which if there are no inner-

18 relationships between these organisms, either

19 biochemically, genetically or from a behavioral

20 standpoint, then these studies would have no relevance to

21 our lives at all. It would be a study in futility. It

22 would prove nothing.

23 If Act 590 stands and I have to present the idea of the

24 concept to my students that man and other primates do not

25 have common ancestry, then the first question I will get


1 A (Continuing) from them is, 'what is the

2 significance of this study'. And there I'm caught with

3 really nothing to tell them. It would be no significance,

4 I assume.

5 Q How could you balance that presentation?

6 A I could not balance it.

7 Q What would be left for you to do?

8 A I would, more or less, have to disregard these

9 studies and not make reference to that, or have a negative

10 viewpoint and just tell the students up front, 'well, this

11 study doesn't really mean anything because there are no

12 common similarities or relationships between man and

13 primates. So the study is really irrelevant. I just

14 thought I'd tell you about it.'

15 That's about what the effect would be.

16 Q How do you think that would affect your teaching

17 psychology and your relationship with your students?

18 A I think it would have a great handicap on the

19 teaching of the subject of psychology because I think

20 these are relevant and important studies.

21 At the same time, if I tried to be impartial and not

22 take sides on this issue, as I assume Act 590 insinuates

23 that I should be, I think very quickly, students are very

24 bright people, and they perceive a great deal.

25 I think the students would see in a hurry that I am


1 A (Continuing) trying to slip something by them,

2 trying to make them believe that I believe this or that I

3 accept this.

4 I think they would see through this. I believe it would

5 have a great effect on my credibility as a teacher because

6 they do put a great deal of stock in our professionalism

7 and our ability.

8 And I think they do openly admit that they think that we

9 really know what's best for them in the educational

10 system. If we don't, I don't know who does. I think they

11 admit this readily.

12 I think my credibility would be greatly questioned or

13 destroyed to some degree if I try to implement this in and

14 not be partial. They would see through it.

15 Q Section 5 of Act 590, Mr. Coward, says, "This Act

16 does not require any instruction in the subject of

17 origins, but simply requires instruction in both

18 scientific models (of evolution science and creation

19 science) if public schools choose to teach either."

20 In your courses on biology and psychology, what effect

21 would exercising that option not to teach anything about

22 origins have?

23 A Well, there again, I think that the concepts and the

24 theory of evolution and natural selection, including

25 origins, I think is really the cornerstone of biology,


1 A (Continuing) particularly in biology.

2 I think without being able to teach the evolutionary

3 theory, if I was forced to abandon it because of this, I

4 think without teaching it that my students would be

5 definitely unprepared for future college work.

6 About fifty to sixty percent of our student body does

7 attend college, according to our records. On the other

8 hand, a lot of these students, this would be the last

9 science course that they will ever have. This is the last

10 shot, really, of giving them some type of a scientific

11 background or working knowledge or understanding of how

12 science is and what it is and so forth.

13 I think by being forced to give up the teaching of

14 evolutionary theory by not being able to balance or by

15 choosing not to balance, my students would have scattered

16 fragments of scientific information, but there would be no

17 cohesive force that brings this, or cohesive substance

18 that brings this information together where it

19 collectively can be interpreted and have a significant

20 meaning to it.

21 Q Are there any other constraints on your methods of

22 teaching or the manner in which you present your subjects

23 to your students that are similar to those imposed by Act

24 590?

25 A Certainly not. The only restraints that a teacher


1 A (Continuing) might find themselves being influenced

2 by would be if they, more or less, over extend themselves,

3 perhaps, in a given subject area.

4 There again, we have to use our professional judgment,

5 professional ethics to decide what is pertinent and

6 relevant to our students. But there are no restraints

7 that are handed down by the school district by which I am

8 employed; no restraints from the administration within

9 the particular building which I work.

10 We have pretty well free rein as long as we do not abuse

11 that freedom.

12 Q What statements do you make in your teaching of the

13 theory of evolution or mutation or natural selection that

14 deals in any way with the existence or non-existence of a

15 creator?

16 A There again, this is not a science concept. It is a

17 religious concept, and therefore, the subject of a creator

18 does not normally come up in my classroom. I do not deal

19 with that.

20 Q Do you believe yourself, Mr. Coward, in divine

21 creation?

22 A I'm open minded on the matter. I'm not firmly

23 convinced of that, no.

24 Q Has your teaching or knowledge of the subjects of

25 biology and psychology and botany destroyed your religious


1 Q (Continuing) convictions?

2 A Absolutely not. To me religion is apart from

3 science. It is metaphysical where scientific is strictly

4 based on physical understanding of laws of nature and

5 interpretation of those laws.

6 Q You serve with the Pulaski County Special School

7 District pursuant to a written contract, do you not?

8 A That is correct.

9 Q Is that renewed automatically from year to year

10 unless you get fired or quit?

11 A Not exactly automatically. I think each employee's

12 work production for that particular year is analyzed

13 again, but more or less you could say it is automatic for

14 general purposes, unless they have reasons to the contrary.

15 Q If Act 590 is implemented, Mr. Coward, do you have

16 the option to continue to teach biology the way you've

17 always taught it?

18 A Certainly not.

19 Q Why not?

20 A Well, there again, there is a great deal of

21 confusion, I think, that's centered around the interpre-

22 tation of what we are supposed to do or what we can do.

23 I am told, according to Act 590, that I must teach

24 scientific evidences of which I have none. I'm also told

25 that I cannot cite or quote or instruct in any religious


1 A (Continuing) materials or doctrines.

2 That leaves me with absolutely nothing to present to my

3 students from my point of view as a science educator,

4 which, to me, looks like if I cannot balance Act 590 in

5 order to comply with the law, then I've got to abolish the

6 teaching of evolution, which, to me, is the very heart of

7 biology to begin with.

8 Q Do you know how you will comply with Act 590?

9 A I've given it a great deal of thought. Of course,

10 it doesn't go into effect until another school year. By

11 nature, I'm very much inclined not to comply with Act 590.

12 I do not want to appear to be a revolutionary or a

13 martyr or anything of this nature, but as a science

14 educator I think I know what science is. I think I know

15 what professionalism and ethics are. I think I realize my

16 obligations to my students. If I don't, I wouldn't have

17 been in this business this long, that's for sure.

18 MR. CEARLEY: That's all I have, your Honor.

19 Your Honor, I now have in my hand the documents that

20 were furnished yesterday pursuant to the subpoena. They

21 have not been copied, and I don't know if anyone has even

22 examined them, but I will tender them to the Court.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Set them up here, please, sir.

24 MR. CEARLEY: (Handing documents to the Court.)






3 Q May I look at that textbook just a moment?

4 A Certainly.

5 Q How did you say this came into your possession?

6 A The committee on which I serve for the Pulaski

7 County Special School District, Mr. Larry Fisher was

8 asked, since he provided the resolution to the district in

9 the beginning, he was asked to provide us with some

10 materials from the creation science publishers. This was

11 one of the textbooks which he provided.

12 Q And who did you say was the publisher of this book?

13 A I believe it's Zondervan, I believe.

14 Q Do you know with whom that might be affiliated?

15 A No, I do not.

16 Q Do you know if it's affiliated with the Institute

17 for Creation Research?

18 A Not for certain, I do not, no.

19 Q Or with any other creation research society?

20 A No, I do not.

21 Q You served on the Pulaski County committee to review

22 materials for creation science, is that correct?

23 A That's correct.

24 Q Materials that you reviewed were those that were

25 furnished to you, correct?


1 A That's correct.

2 Q Did you make any independent effort to obtain other

3 materials?

4 A I did not.

5 Q Why didn't you?

6 A On the first committee on which, on the first

7 meeting of that committee, there was not enough materials

8 available for us to make a fair appraisal. The committee

9 as a group requested from Mr. Fisher at that time, since

10 he seemed to have the availability of the materials to

11 himself , he was asked at that time if he would provide us

12 with more materials at the next meeting, and which, I

13 understand, he was to do and did so.

14 I did not make an independent search of my own.

15 Q Do you participate in the selection of textbooks for

16 the county?

17 A I have on two occasions.

18 Q Do you have any judgment as to the validity or the

19 currency of those textbooks, how current they remain in

20 terms of what is happening in science today?

21 A I imagine what is happening this morning has changed

22 science considerably, but I imagine by the time something

23 becomes relevant in the field of science, it probably is

24 in the course of maybe three to five years before it

25 actually appears in high school textbooks.


1 Q When you go to select a textbook for use in your

2 classroom, what sort of steps do you follow in terms of

3 selecting that text?

4 A As a member of the committee?

5 Q As a member of the committee or individually?

6 A We are interested, of course, first in the format of

7 the textbook. Most, again, there will have the same

8 general arrangement, phylogenetic arrangement from simple

9 to complex organisms.

10 We are interested, obviously, in the reading level of

11 the book trying to make it appropriate for the level of

12 students which will be using it. We are interested also

13 in the types of illustrations, the vividness of the book.

14 There is a lot to say for the book being attractive,

15 obviously. The students find it much more appealing and

16 easy to read if they are turned on by it, in a sense, has

17 a lot of eye appeal.

18 And of course, one of the things I am most concerned

19 with is the scientific content of it.

20 Q Do you consider yourself to be a scientist?

21 A That's a relative— Depends on who you are talking

22 with. I think my students consider me, probably, to be a

23 scientist. I don't profess to be a working scientist.

24 I'm a science educator because I chose to be, but I have

25 enough science background that some people may consider me


1 A (Continuing) to be one of sorts.

2 Q Do you not recall telling me in your deposition that

3 you were a scientist who had chosen to be a science

4 educator?

5 A That's right.

6 Q So to some degree, at least, you consider yourself

7 to be a scientist?

8 A To some degree, yes.

9 Q As you evaluate texts for use in your classroom, you

10 then evaluate them from a scientific aspect also, as well

11 as the other things you've already mentioned?

12 A Most definitely.

13 Q As you evaluate texts for use in your classroom, the

14 State, as I understand, had an approved or recommended

15 list of texts for biology, is that correct?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q Do you review all of those?

18 A No, I do not.

19 Q Why not?

20 A The time the textbook selection committee is formed

21 and we have our first meeting, by some fashion that's

22 unknown to me, the Pulaski County School District has

23 already narrowed the list down through their own

24 preliminary processes to normally five or six texts. Then

25 the committee of teachers selects from that group.


1 Q Did you say earlier in your direct testimony a few

2 moments ago that you know what science is?

3 A I think I do.

4 Q All right. Do you accept the recommendation of the

5 textbook committee as to what is science as is contained

6 in your books that you are recommended to use for your

7 classroom or do you make an independent judgment?

8 A Well, I think— We discuss the books. This meeting

9 is an all day type thing. We discusss the books. And

10 even though we do not all agree on which is the best book

11 for our particular students which we teach, I think we all

12 agree on what is science and which books really have the

13 most meat or substance to them.

14 Q But you accept the recommendation of the committee

15 as to which books to discuss rather than discussing all

16 that are on the recommended list, is that correct?

17 A That is correct.

18 Q So you are accepting someone else's recommendation

19 as to what is science, at least their judgment?

20 A Well, I have no choice but to select from the books

21 which are provided for me by, I assume, the school

22 district administration.

23 Q Since you served on that committee, and I assume the

24 committee's work is complete as to their recommendation on

25 the materials they reviewed for creation science, is that


1 Q (Continuing) correct? Has that committee completed

2 its work?

3 A Yes, it has.

4 Q Since that time, have you done any other review to

5 see if there are materials that support the creation

6 science explanation of origins?

7 A No, I have not.

8 Q Since the commencement of this litigation last May

9 and the proceedings that followed therefrom and the

10 publication of the State's witnesses, which I think was

11 about October 15th, the people that would be here to

12 testify on behalf of the State as scientists who would

13 advocate scientific evidence explaining a creation

14 explanation of origins, have you attempted to obtain

15 copies of any of their works or any of their publications?

16 A No, I have not.

17 Q Why not?

18 A I did not see the necessity for doing so.

19 Q Do you not have to enact or implement Act 590 next

20 school year if it's declared to be constitutional?

21 A I believe that's correct.

22 Q Are you not at a crossroads in trying to understand

23 how to do that?

24 A Yes, I am.

25 Q Would it not assist you, then, to look at these


1 Q (Continuing) materials to see if there is

2 scientific evidence or explanation for creation science?

3 A If it is enacted and upheld in this court, then I

4 will do so.

5 Q Have you already presumed it won't be enacted?

6 A No, I haven't.

7 Q Have you ever read any works by Doctor Russell

8 Ackerage?

9 A I'm not familiar with him, no.

10 Q Doctor Wayne Friar?

11 A No. I say that I haven't. Let me qualify that.

12 The materials that were presented to us on that committee

13 by Mr. Fisher, I'm not aware now of the particular titles

14 of these materials or who some of the authors were.

15 They could be incorporated in this group of materials

16 and my not know it. But I'm not personally—

17 Q You made no independent effort whatsoever?

18 A No, I have not.

19 Q In the science that you teach in your classrooms,

20 the textbooks that you've chosen, have you ever made any

21 inquiry into the validity of the concepts in that science

22 text?

23 A I don't think I've ever set out to make a particular

24 search to try to find out if these are valid concepts

25 because in any type of book that I use or reference that I


1 A (Continuing) use, I find the supporting evidence in

2 any book or film or type of material that I might use.

3 It's always supportive in its content.

4 Q Supportive of what? All that you believe to be

5 science?

6 A All of the book from which I teach. Other books

7 that I use as resource materials or outside readings are

8 always supportive of that text. I've never found anything

9 that was really to the contrary except maybe on a

10 particular point or something.

11 Q You've heard testimony in this courtroom during the

12 times that you've been here — I know you haven't been

13 here every day, but you've been here many days — the fact

14 that there is no absolute answer in science, there's no

15 final truth, there's a great deal of discussion and debate

16 about what is science; is that correct?

17 A There's not a great deal of debate about what is

18 science.

19 Q Well, concepts of science. Excuse me. Let me

20 narrow that a little bit.

21 About in biology, for instance, on the concept of

22 evolution from punctuated equilibrium to gradualism and

23 all those things. You've heard that debate?

24 A Yes, I've heard that debate.

25 Q As a science teacher, you have never taken the


1 Q (Continuing) textbook from which you teach and

2 inquired as to the authors, as to their academic training,

3 as to their professional training to try to determine

4 anything about them in terms of their merit or standing in

5 the scientific community? Have you ever done that?

6 A No, I have not.

7 Q Have you ever contacted the publisher of any of

8 those scientific texts which you use and ask him how they

9 collected or compiled the data that went into that text?

10 A No, I have not.

11 Q Is it an accepted concept in the scientific

12 community to, or in any — let's say the scientific

13 community — to use the concept of jury or peer review

14 articles that are going to be published for science?

15 In other words, circulate them among your peers and let

16 them evaluate as to its credibility or its—

17 A I think this is the way the scientific community

18 works, yes.

19 Q Do you do that in terms of texts, materials you use

20 to present in the classroom that you are going to present

21 to students in any way?

22 Do you jury the publications? Are you critical of them?

23 A I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me.

24 Q Okay. Let me— Do you take that textbook and in

25 any fashion look at it with a critical eye? That is, by


1 Q (Continuing) trying to get into the background, the

2 training, professional standing of its authors, its

3 contributors or its publishers before you elect to chose

4 it to teach as the source for your classroom instruction?

5 A No, I do not. I might add at this point, if I

6 might, that there again, as science educators, we cannot

7 possibly know the people or the backgrounds of people who

8 write, edit and publish scientific materials. But we

9 generally accept, within the teaching circles or teaching

10 community, we generally accept that the publishers, the

11 writers, the publishers and the editors of these

12 publishing houses are credible people.

13 We have to, more or less, rely upon their expertise

14 since we have no—

15 Q You rely on them as being credible people because

16 they publish the text that's generally accepted by the

17 community?

18 A No, sir. But they all have science proofreaders and

19 editors that edits this material before it's entered into

20 those textbooks.

21 Q Does science make any assumptions?

22 A A scientist might make a given assumption on a

23 particular point.

24 Q Could it be assumptions contained in the material

25 that you are teaching to your students today in the


1 Q (Continuing) science textbooks you are using?

2 A On a particular point, there could be an assumption,

3 but assumptions do not become part of the scientific body

4 of knowledge, though.

5 I might use an assumption on a given experiment. `Well,

6 let's assume that this were to happen.' The assumption

7 does not become part of that body of information we

8 recognize as scientific knowledge.

9 Q Then it would be your testimony that in the text

10 material, in the textbook that you use in your classroom,

11 there are no assumptions in that material? Those

12 assumptions have been proven valid?

13 A I didn't say there were not any assumptions. I said

14 there might be an assumption on a particular minute point.

15 Q Minute point?

16 A But there are not any assumptions, I don't think, on

17 the overall scope of what might come into this body of

18 knowledge.

19 Q Are those assumptions subject to prejudice?

20 A In most cases I would assume that they are not.

21 Q They are not?

22 A Most of them are scientific assumptions. I cannot

23 say that a scientist cannot be prejudiced because they are

24 human like anybody else.

25 But I think most of them are scientific assumptions


1 A (Continuing) based on a given amount of material or

2 data.

3 Q It's been several questions asked of you on how you

4 would explain various portions of Act 590. In your class-

5 room, how do you explain to a student who asks you, what

6 is the origin of first life'?

7 A I normally do not deal with the origin of first life

8 in my classroom. In the concept of the overall theory of

9 evolution, that really is not a necessary part. What I'm

10 concerned with on a high school level is what happens

11 following. Assume that the life is here, regardless of by

12 what means—

13 Q Let me interrupt you just a second. I'm sorry. You

14 said to the concept of evolution, the explanation of first

15 life is not a necessary part?

16 A Well, on a high school level, it's not necessary.

17 I'm sure that some of the Ph.D.'s that have testified here

18 earlier, that it's very necessary in their realm or scope

19 in which they work.

20 On a high school level, it is not necessary, I don't

21 think, for the student to understand the first concept of

22 origin of life.

23 If they ask me, I do make references to it.

24 Q What references do you make?

25 A I might cite the— The only scientific, really,

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P767-799


1 A (Continuing) references that we would have would be

2 the theory proposed by A. I. O'Parin in 1936 which was

3 followed by Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 on trying

4 to create or synthesize materials in a laboratory, organic

5 materials such as DNA and sugars, amino acids.

6 Q What do you know about that theory? Is that a

7 hypotheses?

8 A O'Parin's was a hypothesis.

9 Q What was Doctor Miller's?

10 A An experiment.

11 Q Does that prove theory?

12 A I'm sorry?

13 Q Does that prove scientific theory, an experiment?

14 A No. It just simply gives credibility to the fact

15 that it is feasible.

16 Q That it is feasible?

17 A That it is feasible. This could have happened. It

18 certainly in no way explains the origin of life. Now,

19 that's really as far as I can go with my students at the

20 level I teach.

21 Q Are there any assumptions made in that experiment

22 that you know of?

23 A Not that I'm aware of, no.

24 Q Do you know how the experiment was conducted?

25 A Basically.


1 Q Please tell me that?

2 A Well, a number of compounds such as methane —

3 might not have the correct ones, but I believe methane,

4 perhaps ammonia, hydrogen, water vapor, maybe carbon

5 dioxide.

6 These compounds or these elements or compounds were used

7 or chosen because we understand these are the basic

8 ingredients of the earth's atmosphere at the time we think

9 first life was begun on earth.

10 Q Let me interrupt you again. You said "We

11 understand", "we think"—

12 A Well, science understands.

13 Q Who is "well? Who is "science"?

14 A Well, you are changing the question now?

15 Q Well, you said "we understand." You told me the

16 answer was science. Now, tell me who is "well and

17 "science" that understand these were the compounds in the

18 earth when first life was formed?

19 A There again, I'm not a scientific expert. I'm not

20 offering this as an expert.

21 Q Well, what is your understanding as a science

22 educator?

23 A I think people that work in the areas of

24 biochemistry and geophysics and so forth—

25 Q You have no personal understanding of that? You are


1 Q (Continuing) relying on someone else?

2 A They indicated to us this was the earth's condition

3 at the time.

4 Q Who is `they" that indicated to you?

5 A There again, the literature from which I read or

6 that I have to rely upon as a science educator, the people

7 that write this material, this is the indications that

8 comes from the millwork of the scientific community.

9 This is accepted among them. I have to rely on that. I

10 have no way of verifying this or testing this myself. As

11 a science teacher, I always have to rely on upon the

12 scientific community.

13 Q You cannot perform that experiment in your own

14 laboratory?

15 A I do not have the expertise to do so.

16 Q Could it be performed in a laboratory?

17 A Certainly. It could be performed any given day.

18 Q Are there any assumptions in that experiment?

19 A None that I'm aware of.

20 Q It is not an assumption to believe that at the time

21 first life was formed, whatever that date may be, that

22 those were the compounds that were found in the earth's

23 atmosphere?

24 A According to the scientific community, this is not

25 an assumption. Here again, I am not an expert on that


1 A (continuing) subject area.

2 Q You said, I think, a minute ago — I want to make

3 sure I understand this — that in a high school classroom,

4 a secondary classroom, it is not necessary to explain the

5 origin of first life to teach evolution. Is that what you

6 said?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q Under Act 590, it says you don't have to instruct in

9 origins, isn't that correct?

10 Read Section 5 with me, clarifications, sentence number

11 two. "This Act does not require any instruction in the

12 subject of origins." Is that correct?

13 A That's correct.

14 Q Did you testify earlier on direct that you can't

15 teach the theory of evolution because of the balanced

16 treatment required in creation science?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Now, is the theory of evolution, in terms of the

19 theory of evolution, are you saying that the evolution

20 explanation of origin or first life can be deleted from

21 your classroom and not negatively impact on your students

22 at all?

23 A If I understand your question, I can delete the

24 teaching of origin in my classroom without losing the

25 validity of the concepts of the theory of evolution.


1 Q Then you can teach evolution?

2 A Not by the— Not according to the six guidelines

3 set down in Section 4.

4 Q Not according to the six guidelines—

5 A Only one of those, I believe, deals with origins.

6 The others deal with catastrophic floods, separate

7 ancestry of man and apes. I could not handle those in my

8 classroom even disregarding origins.

9 Q You said earlier that you consider yourself to be a

10 scientist who has chosen to be a science educator. When

11 was the last time when you, as a scientist, had any

12 scientific training?

13 A I think I would be correct in saying about 1968 or 9.

14 Q '68 or '69. Thirteen years? Twelve or thirteen

15 years is the last formal science training you've had?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q But you consider yourself competent to understand or

18 to evaluate what is science?

19 A That's correct. If I can't, then they need to find

20 somebody to replace me in my classroom.

21 Q I'm interested, Mr. Coward, I know you have a

22 B.S.E., a Bachelor of Science in Education? Correct?

23 Master's of Science in Education?

24 A That's correct.

25 Q In those disciplines you were taught science and


1 (Text Missing [TM]) Continuing) educational principles and techniques?

2 (TM) s correct.

3 (TM) you have any formal academic training in

4 (TM) y?

5 (TM) I do.

6 (TM) much?

7 (TM) approximately twenty-four hours, I would say

8 (TM) at the graduate level?

9 (TM)

10 (TM) undergraduate?

11 (TM) I take that back. Yes, I do have. Probably

12 (TM) it is at the graduate. I was thinking of

13 (TM) duate.

14 (TM) you define for me what is the scientific

15 (TM) You've talked about the body of science.

16 (TM) says, they say, we say. Is that the scientific

17 (TM) ty?

18 (TM) do you want it in specifics?

19 (TM) Yes. Is "they"— Are "they" the scientific

20 (TM) ty?

21 (TM) Well, when I say "they", I'm referring to the

22 (TM) fic community.

23 (TM) Now, tell me what that is?

24 (TM) The scientific community is made up of the men and

25 (TM) who work in the field of science each day. And


1 A (Continuing) their primary objective, of course, is

2 to perform experimentation to uncover data, to analyze

3 data and empirical qualities and quantities, and to

4 assimilate this information into working theories and

5 hypotheses, make it applicable to our daily lives.

6 Q Are you a part of that scientific community?

7 A No, I'm not.

8 Q What is your role in relation to that community in

9 teaching?

10 A As a science educator, I am a go-between, in a

11 sense, between the scientific community and my students.

12 My role is to, more or less, try to keep abreast of what

13 is going on within the scientific community, try to sift

14 through the abundance of data and information that is made

15 available through publications and new texts and so forth,

16 and try to sift through and sort through this material to

17 determine what is applicable to the particular students

18 that I have, what's applicable to their lives and what do

19 they need for basic understanding of science, and what do

20 those need that are preparing themselves to further

21 education, to college or what have you.

22 Now, this is my role, to sift through and decide what is

23 applicable to them, get it on a working level which is

24 understandable by them and can be used by them or utilized.

25 Q Would it be fair to characterize your role, then, as


1 Q (Continuing) that of sitting as a judge to (TM)

2 for your students what concepts in science they should

3 learn and acquire in order that they might prepare

4 themselves for their advance careers?

5 A Not exactly. I think the scientific community is

6 the judge of what is valid and what is not simply in a

7 sense there is so much of that information that I do have

8 to select or scrutinize the information.

9 Q Do you believe that life evolved from nonlife?

10 A I think it is feasible.

11 Q You think it's feasible. What's your basis for that

12 belief that it's feasible?

13 A Based on, there again, the study by Henry Miller

14 shows that it's a feasible process. It doesn't mean that

15 it occurred, but it's feasible.

16 Q Is there a scientific explanation for first life for

17 origin?

18 A No.

19 Q Is there confusion among the scientific community as

20 to the explanation of that in your judgment?

21 A Depends again on— "Confusion" there is a relative

22 word, too.

23 Q All right. Let me say it's a disagreement.

24 A I would say that there are probably people in the

25 scientific community who do not totally agree on that


1 Continuing) concept, yes.

2 (TM) re other areas in science where the

3 (TM) munity disagrees on biology concepts?

4 (TM) ry one.

5 (TM) ed equilibrium, gradualism being two?

6 (TM) y.

7 (TM) you realizing this disagreement in the

8 (TM) mmunity, have the responsibility and the

9 (TM) judge what concepts should be passed on to

10 (TM)

11 (TM) of the disagreements or each viewpoint of

12 (TM) ent still has scientific merit or scientific

13 (TM) en I feel that I should present both

14 (TM)

15 (TM) believe both of those have scientific merit?

16 (TM) nes are you speaking of?

17 (TM) ted equilibrium and gradualism.

18 (TM) they do. There again, I'm not expertise in

19 (TM) s

20 (TM) Mr. Coward, let's pretend I'm one of your

21 (TM) I'm going to ask you that question. What's

22 (TM)

23 (TM) id think they would both have a certain degree

24 (TM) ic validity. I'd have to do further research

25 (TM) ougn, before I could testify as to the validity


1 A (Continuing) of those.

2 Q what kind of research would you do before you would

3 tell me they do as a student?

4 A I would probably try to obtain some type of

5 publication by Doctor Gould would be one good source.

6 Q If you heard the testimony of a witness for the

7 State today or tomorrow, whenever we begin to put on our

8 case, that cited scientific evidence for creation explana-

9 tion of origin, would you do some independent research

10 there, too, and then explain that in your class?

11 A If I heard the evidence and I considered it to be

12 scientific, I would further investigate it, yes.

13 Q Well, now, wait a minute. Whose standard are we

14 judging science by now? Yours or that of the scientific

15 community?

16 A Well, the position I'm in, I have to be a judge, to

17 some degree as to what is science. If I—

18 Q Then you are a judge as to what concepts are passed

19 on?

20 A To some degree. I'm more or less like a traffic

21 cop; not a judge.

22 Q All right. More or less like a controller, a

23 coordinator? Will you take that?

24 A Director, yes.

25 Q A director. All right. You are a director when

information is passed on. As a director, do you think


1 Q (Continuing) it's fair to pass on information about

2 concepts in terms of evolution that deal with gradualism

3 and punctuated equilibrium; is that correct? I don't

4 want to say something you didn't say. Is that what you

5 said?

6 A Would you restate that?

7 Q As a director, you think it's proper to pass on

8 concepts, educational concepts, to your students in the

9 theory of evolution, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?

10 Do you?

11 A If I find both are from the millwork of the

12 scientific community and both seem to have validity in my

13 judgment, I think it would be certainly within my power as

14 a director to present both viewpoints.

15 Q Are they from the millwork of the scientific

16 community?

17 A I believe they are.

18 Q Then they would be passed on?

19 A if that was within the scope of my course that I

20 teach, but it is not. But if I were teaching, perhaps, a—

21 Q In biology when you teach evolution, it's not within

22 the scope of the course to talk about gradualism and

23 punctuated equilibrium?

24 A There again, as the director, I have to keep the

25 work level of my course on the comprehensive level of the


1 A (Continuing) students which I teach.

2 This may or may not be beyond them. It would depend.

3 But I would use my judgment at that time. I think this is

4 probably a little bit, maybe, beyond the scope of high

5 school biology.

6 Q To expose them to the ideas beyond the scope of high

7 school biology?

8 A Perhaps.

9 Q To expose them to the idea that there may be another

10 explanation for first life or origin as based in creation

11 explanation is beyond the high school student's

12 competence, if there's scientific evidence?

13 I understand the burden is to prove that. But if there

14 is, as a director, is that beyond their scope and is

15 competence?

16 A Perhaps not.

17 Q Perhaps not?

18 A I'm not sure of an exact understanding of what

19 you're asking.

20 Q Okay. And yet as a scientist, you tell me you

21 haven't had any training for twelve or thirteen years, is

22 that right?

23 A That's correct.

24 Q No formal institutes, no formal—

25 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I'd like to make it clear


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing) to, the Court and to counsel

2 that Mr. Coward was offered as a witness as a science

3 teacher and not as a science expert. And he's not ever

4 been represented as such.

5 He's answered Mr. Clark's questions about how he

6 perceives himself.

7 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, I've never asked him—

8 THE COURT: Go ahead.

9 MR. CLARK: (Continuing)

10 Q I want to come back to something I asked you

11 earlier. You said in your search for materials that

12 explained a creation explanation of origin that you found

13 none that were presented to you that scientifically—

14 Excuse me.

15 I think you said you found no valid scientific publica-

16 tions, text materials that were valid within the

17 scientific community; is that correct? No established is

18 publishers, printers, those sorts of things, is that

19 correct?

20 A That is correct.

21 Q You also said you did not make much of an

22 independent effort on your own, but what you had seen, no

23 valid publisher would have done that or had done it, to

24 the best of your knowledge?

25 A That's correct.


1 Q I want to show you a textbook here.

2 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, I'd like to have this marked

3 for identification as Defendants' Exhibit, I believe, 4.

4 MR. CLARK: (Continuing)

5 Q That textbook is entitled The World of Biology, is

6 that correct?

7 A Yes, it is.

8 Q Who is it published by?

9 A McGraw Hill.

10 Q Is McGraw Hill a reputable publisher?

11 A Yes, they are.

12 Q Would you turn in that text to what would be

13 numbered, I believe, page 409? Have you found it, Mr.

14 Coward?

15 A Yes, I have.

16 Q Would you read the title of the chapter that starts

17 on page 409?

18 A "Evolutionary Theory and the Concept of Creationism."

19 Q Would you then turn to page 414?

20 A Yes.

21 Q On page 414 you see in bold print or type, the

22 second paragraph, actually, would you tell us what the

23 title is leading that paragraph? What does it say?

24 A Sub-topic is "Creationism."

25 Q Would you take just a minute to peruse the next two


1 Q (Continuing) or three pages and see if those

2 include some explanation of the creation model or creation,

3 theory for origins?

4 A They appear to, yes, sir.

5 Q Thank you, very much.

6 You indicated in your direct testimony, Mr. Coward, that

7 teachers — and I think you were speaking specifically, I

8 think you might have been, of science teachers know

9 what is current in the field; is that correct?

10 A It is part of the responsibility to attempt to keep

11 current, yes.

12 Q How do you do that?

13 A Through the reading of books, periodicals.

14 Q What periodicals? What books?

15 A In what particular area are you speaking of?

16 Q Biology.

17 A Some of the books on the subject such as Origins by

18 Richard Leakey, Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan, Human

19 Fossil Remains, I don't recall the title of that one, this

20 type of thing.

21 Q What do you read regularly?

22 A I read a good deal— In biology, I assume, that you

23 are talking about?

24 Q Yes. Please.

25 A Most of my reading recently has been in psychology,


1 A (Continuing) but I am very much interested in

2 evolutionary theory and for that matter, the scope of

3 history of evolution.

4 Q But specifically, what have you read recently or do

5 you read regularly in terms of biology? Well, just take

6 evolutionary theory, your ongoing—

7 A I skim through current periodicals such as

8 Scientific American and National Geographic and these

9 type things.

10 Q You skim through those, you say?

11 A Well, read areas that might be of particular

12 interest to me. I'm not knowledgeable of all the

13 publications and all the articles that are written in the

14 field of science.

15 Q You testified on direct about the text called

16 Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, and you

17 testified as to its general nature.

18 Did you read that entire text?

19 A Not cover to cover.

20 Q Did you read excerpts?

21 A I did a fair random sampling of the entire book,

22 yes, I did.

23 Q In your direct testimony, you admitted you have

24 some confusion about the implementation of Act 590 in

25 teaching in the classroom, is that right?


1 A That is correct.

2 Q You said that confusion surrounded the fact that you

3 found no scientific evidence to explain the creation

4 model, is that correct?

5 A That's part of the confusion, yes.

6 Q The second part of that confusion was that you were

7 specifically prohibited from using religious materials, is

8 that correct?

9 A That's correct.

10 Q Would it be fair to say, Mr. Coward, that if there