Filling in pages, part 2

(Pages 37-62,137,481,607,683,772,792,819,822,955)

1 A (Continuing) supervising the academic program and

2 maintaining academic integrity of the Discipline.
3 Q Do you teach any courses at DePaul?

A I do generally teach at least one course per 5 quarter, ordinarily some aspect of the Old Testament.
6 ~ Would you please describe what your area of

~ scholarship is?
8 A My area is Biblical studies generally, and I suppose
more specifically, I’ve been engaged with the Old

10 Testament.
11 Q Is there a particular term or terms which describes

12 the study that you engage in?
13 A Well, it goes by various terms. I suppose we’d call

14 it Text of Jesus., which is determining the sense of the

15 text, and Biblical theology, which is synthesizing the

16 various messages of the scripture.
17 In general we speak also of the historic literary study
18 I’ the Bible.
19 Q Does the term “hermeneutics” have any meaning in the
20 ontext of your scholarship?
21 A Hermeneutics is the interpretation, I suppose you

22 ould call it. It’s the showing to what extent and how

23 elevant to the present situation the historical meaning
24 f the text might be.
25 Q Could you describe the method by which you engaged
1 Q (Continuing) in the use, or the exercise of the
2 ext of Jesus and hermeneutics?
3 A Well, it involved primarily the study of the text
4 tself, which is our point of departure. And when we
5 peak of historical literary method, we mean that we take
6 he Bible as a piece of literature, subject to the
i ontrols of anybody of literature, and place it within its
8 istorical media, and then attempt to do this by means of
g hether sciences or findings of sciences will relate to
10 stablishing the reconstruction of the historical
11 ituation of which the text is composed.
12 Q Do you rely on any kind of discipline, Father, other
13 han your own, in the exercise of hermeneutics?
14 A Yes. It would be particularly dealing with the body
15 f literature as mentioned in the Old Testament.
16 rcheology is extremely important. The study of ancient
17 pigraphy. Comparative literature. The linguistic helps.
18 Q What is epigraphy?
19 A In this context epigraphy means ancient writings,
20 ncient inscriptions.
21 Q Do you rely on any particular text, any analysis of
22 the Old Testament that you engage?
23 A Do you mean any particular version of the Bible?
24 Q Yes.
25 A Well, I use the original text ordinarily as my


1 A (Continuing) point of—— Not that I teach that to

2 the students, but I have control over the original Hebrew
3 text.

Q When you say the “original Hebrew text”, would you
5 explain that for me, what you mean by it?

6 A In respect to Genesis, particularly, or—— 7 Q Well, just from where that source is drawing.
8 A The only complete manuscripts of the entire Old

~ Testament, Hebrew, that exist are from the Christian era.

10 Prior to that, of course, it was handed down by, the text

n was handed down either by word of mouth or handed down in
12 literary form.
13 But what remains from the ancient times is the text, as

14 I say, the complete text of the Bible, forming from the
15 early Christian times.
16 The accuracy of that transmission, however, has been
17 rather marvelously maintained, as far as can be

18 determined. The ancient rabbis who handed down the text

i9 built into the text itself by their annotations various

20 controls which made the preservation of the text much

21 simpler. And it has been—— It is, as all would agree, in
22 a rather remarkable state of preservation.
23 Q Do you make reference to any other ancient sources?
24 A Ancient translations, such as the ancient Greek
25 translation Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate,
A (continuing) particularly, which were made before

2 the time that’s predating any of the existing manuscripts

3 of the Old Testament and various other ancient versions.
4 Q Father Vawter, may I ask you to speak up, because

5 I’m having a little difficulty hearing you.
6 A All right.
7 Q Do you also refer to the work of other scholars in

8 your field in connection with your studies?
9 A Oh, certainly. You stand on the shoulders of your

io predecessors and you are supported by the stout right arm
ij of your contemporaries.
12 Q And could you, for our edification, identify some of
13 the authorities of other scholars to whom you make

14 particular reference in your work?
15 A Well, that would be a morning’s task, I suppose.
16 But in respect particularly to Genesis, I rely very

17 heavily upon the great works of Hermann Gunkel, and

18 present day commentary of, particularly, I would say,
i~ Claus Westermann, both of these rather famous German

20 scholars.
21 But I make use of any number of other contemporary

22 scholars.
23 Q Now, directing your attention particularly to

24 Genesis, Father Vawter, in the first book of the Bible,

1 Q (Continuing) how long have you devoted to the study
2 of Genesis, its origins and its interpretation?
3 A To the study of it?
Q Yes, sir.
5 A I suppose about forty years or so.
6 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would offer into evidence
7 for purposes of expeditiousness Exhibit Ninety—Five for
8 identification, the resume of Father Vawter, and I would
9 offer him as an expert in the interpretation of Genesis at
10 this time.
11 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection, your Honor.
12 MR. SIANO: (Continuing):
13 Q Father Vawter, did I engage you services as an
14 expert?
15 A You did.
16 Q And as to what subject matter?
17 A The subject matter would be Act 590 of the Arkansas
18 Legislature and its relevance to the literalists’
19 interpretation of the book of Genesis.
20 Q And again, Father, I’d ask you to speak up for this
21 next set Of questions.
22 Would you describe for me how you would characterize the
23 Genesis account in the Bible?
24 A The Genesis account is, various terms could be used
25 for it. I would say that it is in narrative form, the
1 A (Continuing) expression of religious convictions

2 concerning the human origins and the origin of the world

3 and the consequences of that with regard to mankind’s

‘~ duties and his participation in the creative work of God

5 by being made in the human likeness.
6 Q And I take it, sir, that it would be here stated

7 that’s your opinion to a reasonable degree of professional
8 ertainty?
9 A It is.
10 Q Would you describe what evidences or what particular
ii oints support your characterization of Genesis as you’ve
12 just given it?
13 A Well, in the first place, I’d say it’s the narrative
14 ccount of religious conviction. Nobody ever witnessed
15 reation. And the only way that you could have, or the
16 fly way that anyone could have what we call a factual
17 account of anything is by means of contact with empirical
18 vidence. So I characterize it as a narrative in which
19 ertain felt religious convictions are being expressed.
20 Q Does “typical” mean a particular religious view?
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I’m going to object to
22 his line of inquiry on the grounds of relevancy. The
23 eligious testimony is irrelevant on the ground that Act
24 90 specifically prohibits, in Section 2, any references

1 ~ (Continuing) including any religious instruction or

2 any references to religious rights. So to the extent that

3 this witness is going to talk about any religious
‘~ testimony that might come under Act 590, the Act on its
5 face prohibits it.
6 THE COURT: I think we will get to the relevant part
~ in a moment.
8 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, could I have a ruling on
9 my relevancy objection for the record, please?
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing):
12 Q Does Genesis set forth a particular view of
13 creation, ideas that, what we might characterize as your
14 normal christian view?
is A Well, I would say that the christian view of
16 creation has been extracted from the Book of Genesis, yes.
17 Q In the course of your research, have you encountered
18 different interpretations of Genesis among scholars and
19 religious groups?
20 A Oh, yes. Many.
21 Q So not everyone sees Genesis the same way?
22 A By no means.
23 Q In regard to the interpretation by religious groups,
24 could you characterize how they differ?

broadest difference, I would say, would be
25 A The

A (continuing) between what we would call the 2 Fundamentalist or literalist school of interpretation, and

3 what we would call the historical, critical school.

4 Q Could you, in the context of Genesis, describe or

5 explain what is meant by a “Biblical literalist”?
6 A Yes. I think a Biblical literalist would be one who

i simply accepts at face value what is asserted by the Bible 8 without feeling the necessity of adjusting that to other ~ experience or adjusting it to modern contemporary io conditions.
11 Q Would a fair characterization of that be considered
12 factual i.nerrancy?
13 A Yes. I think you could call it that. That
14 everything asserted in the Bible would be factually

15 correct. Yes, that would be a fair characterization.
16 Q In the course of your scholarship, are you aware of

17 whether there are degrees of Biblical literalists?
18 A Oh, yes, there are degrees, certainly.
19 Q Could you give me an example, with particular

20 reference to the .Genesis account of creation as to this
21 creation of Biblical literalism?
22 A Well, there would be, for example, some, I suppose,
23 who would try to maintain, contrary to any other

24 indication, that the world was created, quite literally,
25 in six days. There would be others who would try to
I. _________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ _____________________
1 P. (Continuing) retrieve that Biblical statement by
2 changing the days into eons or indefinite periods of
3 time. That would be a degree away from strict literalism.
~ And that’s what you asked, if there were degrees of
5 literalistic reading of Genesis.
6 Q Both of those would be an attempt, nonetheless, to

7 maintain a Biblical literalist’s view of Genesis?
S A They would, yes.
9 Q Father Vawter, I have placed before you what has
10 been previously marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit Twenty—Nine

ii for identification, Act 590 of 1981.

12 In the course of your work for me in this case, have you
13 had occasion to review Arkansas Act 590?
14 A Yes, I have.
15 Q And have you, to a reasonable degree of professional

16 certainty, formulated a particular opinion as to the Act?

17 A I did formulate the opinion that this Act, in its

18 description, of what it calls creation science, has, as its

19 unmentioned reference book, the first eleven chapters of
20 Genesis.
21 Q And is it your opinion, sir, that Act 590—— What

22 section is that that you are particularly referring to?
23 14 Section 4.
24 Q And the subdivision?

1 A Subdivision (a).
2 Q Do you have a view, sir, as to whether 590 is, in

3 fact, a restatement of any particular part of the Bible?
4 A Well, first of all, the text of the Act says that,
5 reation—science embraces, “Sudden creation of the

6 universe, energy, and life from nothing,” which sounds

7 very much like Genesis 1, verse 1.
8 “It changes only within fixed limits of originally

9 reated kinds of plants and animals.” I take it that the

10 anguage there has been extracted from the King James
i~ ersion of the Bible.
12 “Separate ancestry for man and apes.” The Book of

13 enesis very carefully describes the creation of man as
14 omething separate from the animals.
15 “Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism,” a

16 ord which is not in my vocabulary which is defined here

17 S including the occurrence of a worldwide flood. There is

18 o story of creation k~nown to me that includes the stating

19 f a worldwide flood in conjunction with creation or the
20 tory or origins except the Book of Genesis.
21 “And a relatively recent inception of the earth and
22 lying kinds.” I again assume that what this is

23 ttempting to do is take into account the text in the 10th
24 nd 11th chapter of Genesis, where the ages of the

25 enerations between creation and the flood and subsequent

1 A (Continuing) to the flood are counted as tens, and

2 where rather astronomical ages are assigned to these, but

~ added up all together it would be relatively recent.

Q So what you’re saying with regard to the last one,

5 Father Vawter, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that when

6 you calculate the genealogy set forth in Genesis, you will

7 come to—— 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, he’s leading the

9 witness. I’d like to request that he not lead the witness.
10 THE COURT: Okay. This is sort of harmless leading,

it and if it helps clarify it, I’ll let him go ahead.
12 MR. SIANO: I’m trying to focus, Your Honor, the

13 witness on particular computations, since he used the word

14 “assumed”.
15 MR. SIANO: (Continuing):
16 Q Father Vawter, jf I might rephrase the question,

17 would a computation of’ the geneaologies In Genesis lead to

18 the recent inception of the earth?

19 A If you took those literalistically and tallied up

20 the numbers, yes.
21 Q Now, are you aware of any other creation accounts

22 ther than the Genesis account?

23 A I’m aware of a great number of them. I’m more

24 familiar with the ones which have some relationship to the

25 iblical story, particularly the creation myths of ancient

1 14 (Continuing) Sumer and Babylonia.

2 Q Are you aware of whether the definition of creation

3 as set forth in Section 4(a) of Act 590 parallels exactly

4 any other creation account of which you have knowledge?
5 A I don’t—— I’m not aware of it, no. But I do not

6 know of any other creation story or story of origins which
7 embraced particularly these points.

8 Q Is the idea of creatio ex nihilo, or creation from

9 nothIng, consistent with a literalistic interpretation of

10 GenesIs?

ii A It certainly is consistent with a literalistic

12 interpretation, yes.
13 Q And is that same idea set forth in Act 590?
14 14 Section 4 (a), “Sudden creation of the universe,
is energy and life from nothing,” yes.
16 Q I take it that’s a yes answer to my question?
17 A That’s a yes answer, yes.
18 Q And is the use of the term “kinds” to describe
19 differing kinds of living organisms consistent with a

20 literalistic interpretation of Genesis?
21 A Yes, I believe it is.
22 Q And is that same idea present in Act 590?
23 A The language of Section 2, it’s number 2 under
24 Section (a), •does use that language, yes.
25 Q Now, you have identified for me and stated in
1 ~ (Continuing) testimony that you are aware of other

2 creation that is different from Genesis. Do any of those

3 creation stories have religious significance?

A Yes, I think they are primarily religious in nature.
5 ~ Could you give me a particular example by way of

6 illustration?
7 14 Well, the ancient Babylonian myths were told

8 precisely to explain to the hearer his situation with

9 regard to the gods, and, therefore, I would say that

10 primarily that’s the reason. So—— 11 Q And each creation myth differs substantially from

12 the creation account recited in Genesis?

13 A There are some parallels. The flood story in

14 Genesis is certainly very closely paralleled by one of the

‘5 Babylonian myths which exists in about ten different 16 forms, I think.

But as I said earlier, that story always parallels a

18 part of Genesis. There is no story which parallels the

19 whole of Genesis.
20 MR. SIANO: I would move the admission of Exhibit

21 Twenty—nine, Act 590, 1981.
22 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection.
23 THE COURT: It will be received.

24 MR. SIANO: No further questions, Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Before we start cross examination, I
1 THE COURT: (Continuing) think we’ll take a
2 recess. There is a big crowd, our facilities are limited
3 and everything, so I would ask you to, if you leave, to
~ try to keep in mind that when we reconvene we’d like to
5 have as little disturbance as possible. So try to get
6 back in the courtroom before we reconvene. We’ll have to
7 add about another five minutes to our usual recess, so
8 we’ll reconvene at ten minutes after eleven.
9 I don’t know if this clock back here is right or not,
10 but that’s the one we use.
11 (Thereupon, court was in recess from 10:55 a.m.
12 to 11:10 a.m.)
13 THE COURT: Go ahead.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Assistant Attorney General Rick
is Campbell will conduct the cross examination of this
16 itness.
19 Q The Bible is an historic source, is it not?
20 A Partly, yes.
21 Q Do you think that a person should be inhibited from
22 eeking to establish a religious fact by positive
23 mpirical evidence?
24 14 No, I don’t. I don’t think that, not at all.
1 Q Are you a Biblical literalist?
2 A No. I don’t not classify myself as such.

3 Q Is there a classic definition of what a Biblical

~ literalist would believe about the Bible?
5 14 I think the classic definition of a Biblical

6 literalist might well be that the Bible means precisely

7 what it says in so many words.

8 Q I believe you testified on direct examination that a

9 Biblical literalist accepts at face value what is asserted

10 by the Bible, is that correct?
ii A I did.

12 Q In looking at Section 4(a) of Act 590 which you
13 testified to on direct examination, that is the

14 definition, Section 4, Creation—Science, can you tell me

15 where on its face that the Book of Genesis speaks of the
16 insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in

17 bringing about the development of all living kinds from a
18 single organism?
19 14 The Book of Genesis does not either affirm or deny

20 the sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in

21 bringing about the development of all living things from a

22 single organism.

23 Q Can you tel]. me one space where the Book of Genesis

24 talks about changes only within fixed limits of originally

25 reated kinds of plants and animals?
1 A On its face, the Book of Genesis describes as

2 separate acts of creation the creation of the plants, the

3 creation of the animals, the creation of man.

Q But can you tell me where on its face where it says
5 that changes only within fixed limits of originally
6 created kinds of plants and animals?
7 A Well, that is language you don’t expect to find in
8 the Bible.
9 Q Can you tell me where on its face the Book of

10 Genesis says there is separate ancestry for man and apes?
ii A No. On is face the Book of Genesis does not say

12 that there is separate ancestry of man and apes. It does

13 describe animals as separately created from man, however.
14 Q Can you tell me on its face where the Book of
15 Genesis seeks to explain the earth’s geology by

16 catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide

ti flood?
18 14 Geology and catastrophism do not appear in the Book

19 f Genesis, but the description of a worldwide flood does.
20 Q Can you tell me on its face where the Book of

21 Genesis speaks about a relatively recent inception of the

22 earth and living kinds?
23 A Relatively recent, I would assume, would be in
24 ice with the adding together of the various

25 al years that are included in the genealogy of the
Pt (Continuing) Book of Genesis.
Q Gut on its face, the Book of Genesis does not speak
of a relatively recent inception of the earth and living
kinds, does it?
A No. On its face, it does not.
~ And on its face, the Book of Genesis does not speak
of the sudden creation of the universe, energy and life
8 from nothing does it?

A Those are terms which again you don’t expect to find
10 in Genesis.

Q Genesis does not give us any indication of the

12 origin of matter, does it?
13 A That can be debated. Interpreters differ from

14 precisely what the author of Genesis intended in the first several verses as to whether the chaos out of which order

16 is educed by God’s creative power, whether that chaos

itself was the creation of the creator. In other words,
that would be the symbol that the notion of the origin
from nothing would be found in the Book of Genesis.
20 ~ But the Book of Genesis does not give us any

21 indication of the origin of matter, does it?

14 No. I do not believe it does. It’s my own
23 interpretation.
24 ~ Genesis is not concerned with how things came to be,

~ it?

A In my interpretation, it’s not.
2 Q And Genesis is only concerned with who the author of

~ creation is, isn’t it?
A In my interpretion, true.
5 Q The process of how things came to be is for us to

6 discovery from empirical evidence, isn’t it?
7 14 That’s my position, yes.
8 Q And you’re not in any capacity a judge of the value

9 of scientific data, are you?
10 A No. I simply have a journeyman’s idea of science.
11 I take my science from the scientists.
12 Q You cannot distinguish creation as it is described
13 •n the Book of Genesis from scientific creation, can you?
14 A I don’t know what scientific creation means.
15 Q But you can’t make any distinction between the two,
16 an you?
17 A Without knowing what one of the terms is, I can’t
18 ake the distinction, no.
19 Q You’ve only studied creation in a religious context,
20 aven’t you?
21 A Yes, I have.
22 Q And you’re not a scientist, are you?
23 14 Iamnot.
24 G~ Is evolution—science as it is defined in Act 590 ——
25 hat’s in Section 4(b) of the Act —— is that consistent

Q (continuing) with your interpretation of the Book

2 of Genesis?
3 14 I don’t accept the terminology, evolution—science,
4 as though there is an opposition between that and

~ creation—science, as though evolution is somehow opposed
6 to the doctrine of the creation.

Q But what we have are two separate definitions in Act 8 590; Section 4(a) describes or defines, partially defines
9 creation—science, and Section 4(b) partially defines

10 evolution—science for purposes of this Act.

Do you believe that evolution—science, as it is defined

12 in Act 590, is consistent with your interpretation of the

13 Book of Genesis?
14 A I believe that evolution is consistent with my

15 interpretation of the Book of Genesis. I would not want

16 to go warrant for the definition of evolution—science as

17 given in the Act, however.

18 MR. CAMPBELL: I have no further questions.

21 Q Father Vawter, do you have any ongoing familiarity

22 with the Biblical literalist view of the Genesis account?
23 A Yes. I am editor of a Bibliographical service which

24 is called Old Testament Abstracts, in which we abstract
25 articles from any number of several hundred
1 A (Continuing) journals, and in the course of that,
2 being also one of the abstractors, I have occasion to read
3 material from Fundamentalist sources, as well as others.
Q Now, do you still have Exhibit Twenty—Nine in front
5 of you?
6 14 Yes.
7 Q I direct your attention to Section 4(a), the six
8 subpoints therein. Now, the concept in Section 4(a),
9 subdivision (1), creation from nothing, is that concept
io identical to a concept of creatio ex nihilo embraced by
~ Biblical literalists?
12 14 Yes, I believe it is.
13 Q And the source of the Biblical literalists’ position
14 on creatio ex nihilo is what?
15 A The Book of Genesis.
16 Q Now, Section 4(a), subdivision (2), “Insufficiency
17 of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the
18 development of all living kinds.” “All living kinds,” is
19 that consistent with a concept of creation of kinds held
20 by Biblical literalists?
21 14 Yes, I believe it is.
22 Q And the source of the Biblical literalist’s view as
23 to that is what?
24 A The Book of Genesis.
Q Subdivision (3), Section 4(a), “Changes within only
2 fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and
3 animals,” the concept recited there, is that consistent
~ with a Biblical literalist’s view of creation?
5 A The concept is, yes.
6 Q And the source of the Biblical literalists’ view as
7 to that point is what?
8 A The Book of Genesis.
9 Q Subdivision (4), “Separate ancestry of man from
io apes,” that concept, is that held by the Biblical
11 literalists?
12 A It is.
13 Q And the source of that concept is what?
14 A The Book of Genesis.
is Q Subdivision (5), Section 4(a), “Explanation of the
16 earth’s geology by worldwide flood,”. is that concept
17 y the Biblical literalists as an element in
18 .tion?
19 A It is.
20 Q And the source of that concept is what?
21 A The Book of Genesis.
22 Q Subdivision (6), “Recent inception of the earth,” is
23 1 hat concept as part of creation embraced by Biblical
24 .iteralists?
25 14 It is.
1 Q And the source is what?
2 ~ The Book of Genesis.
Q Now, you are aware of the Biblical literalist view
~ of Genesis, are you not, from your scholarship?
5 A I am.
6 Q And are these six elements key tenets of a Biblical
7 literalist’s interpretation of Genesis?
8 A To the best of my knowledge, yes.
9 Q And are you aware of any other theory of origins,
10 other than a Biblical literalist view of Genesis, which
11 recites these key tenets in view of origins?
12 A I am not aware of it, no.
13 MR. SIANO: No further questions, Your Honor.
14 MR. CAMPBELL: Nothing further.
15 THE COURT: Could this witness be excused?
16 MR. SIANO: Yes, Your Honor.
17 At this time Plaintiffs call George Marsden.
18 Thereupon,
20 called in behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having
21 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and
22 testified as follows:
25 Q Would you state your name for the record?
1 A George Marsden.
2 Q What is your address?
3 14 loll Worthen Southeast, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
4 Q What is your occupation and place of employment, sir?
5 A I’m a professor of history at Calvin College, Grand
6. Rapids, Michigan.
7 MR.SIANO: Your Honor, at this time I would like to
8 offer to the Court for its consideration Plaintiff’s
9 Exhibit Number Ninety—One for identification, the resume
10 of Professor Marsden.
11 THE COURT: Okay, sir.
12 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)
13 Q Professor Marsden, could you tell me a little bit
14 about your area of research and scholarship?
15 ~ I’m a specialist in American religious history,
16 primarily the history of American Protestantism and
17 Evangelicalism.
18 Q Your area of scholarship and research, does that
i~ include the Fundamentalist influence on America?
20 A Yes, it does.
21 Q Have you authored any books on Fundamentalists?
22 14 Yes. I’ve written a book called Fundamentalism and
23 American Culture.
24 Q When was that published?
1 14 It was published in 1980.
2 Q And has that book received any awards?
3 A Yes. It was just recently awarded Book of the Year
~ by Eternity Magazine, which is a large evangelical
5 counterpart magazine.

6 Q How long have you studied Fundamentalism in America?

7 A Well, I worked on research in writing the book for
8 about ten years, and to some extent for ten or fifteen
9 years before that.
10 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would offer Professor
~ Marsden as an expert on church history and Fundamentalism

12 in American.
13 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, may I voir dire the
14 witness?
15 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
18 Q Professor Marsden, your expertise is really limited
19 to a discussibn of Fundamentalism in America to 1930,
20 isn’t it?
21 ~ I don’t think so.
22 Q Did you remember on November 21st of this year, when
23 I was taking your deposition in Chicago?
24 A Yes, I do.
25 Q Mr. Siano was present at that time, wasn’t he?
1 A Yes, he was.
2 Q Do you recall our discussion of Fundamentalism at
3 that time?

A Yes.
5 Q Do you recall my questioning you on whether or not

6 you are an expert on contemporary as opposed to historical
7 Fundamentalism?
8 A Well, okay. I need a definition from you what an
9 expert would be.
10 Let’s put it this way, I’ve written a book on
11 Fundamentalism up until 1930. I have studied
12 Fundamentalism to a lesser extent from 1930 to the

13 present, and am currently working in that area.
14 I would say I’m not as much of an expert in the latter

15 area as I am in the former, if I’m going to go either way.
16 Q Professor Marsden, do you recall during that

17 deposition —— I’d like to show you a copy of this and ask

18 if you would to read into the record beginning on page 68

19 of your deposition. All right, it’s the question by me

20 and then your answer, the next question and the next
21 answer, if you would, please, sir.
22 14 The question is, “When you talk about your
23 expertise, you really go up to 1930.”

• 24 My answer is, “Yes. There are things like the World 25 Christian Fundamentalist Association. I can’t remember
1 14 (Continuing) all the names of the groups, but they
2 are something like they Anti—Evolution League or something
3 like that, or the Bryan Anti—Evolution League, whatever,
4 the Bible Crusaders. There were all kinds of groups.
I might say, I don’t seem to be answering the question.
6 Q Would you please just read the deposition, 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
• io witness if he recalls the particular question and answer.
ii 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 ant to go back and repeat what we’ve talked about in
18 terms of your expertise, but will you be talking about
19 ontemporary Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalism as it
20 xists today, or will you be narrowing your testimony to
21 undamentalism 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
Q (Continuing) cell biology and ecology, all three
2 reflected the fact that modern biological research is
3 based on evolutionary assumptions which were described as,
4 quote, the warp and woof of modern biology, close quote.
5 A And you are saying that is parallel to saying
6 creationism is based on——
7 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, from what page
8 is he reading?
g MR. WILLIAMS: Page 33, the first page.
10 MR. CRAWFORD: Could you tell me where on the first
ii page?
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Third column, at the very top.
13 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
15 Q My question is, you earlier stated——
16 14 Yes, I get your question now. Creationism is based
17 on a priori assumptions about the existence of a designer.
18 Q Is evolution based on a priori assumptions?
19 A No.
20 ~ It’s not?
21 14 Well, the only a priori assumption it’s based on is
22 that there are natural processes at work. It’s certainly
23 not based on any assumptions about the existence of a
24 designer or a god, and it’s not trying to prove anything;
25 it’s trying to test——It’s trying to look skeptically at

MAY 61933



v. NO. LR—C-81—322

et al



Page 446 - 704

Sandra Smith, CVR
Official Court Rcporter
United States District Court
Post Office Box 1540
Little Rock, Arkansas 7220.3
1 A (Continuing) in the .taooratory that we are able to
2 crystalize. And they always form these crystalline
~ textures. We can also ooserve things like lava flows and
watch them cool today and see what kind of textures they
5 produce.
6 There has been an experiment since 1959 going on in the
7 Kilauea—Iki lava lake. Now, Kilauea—Iki is a small

8 volcano event on the top of the Kilauea volcano, wnich is

9 one of the five volcanoes which make up the island of
10 Hawaii.

ii And in 1959, Kilauea—Iki erupted, it not only threw up

12 fountains of lava, lava flows, out it formed a large pool

13 of lava that was captured in a crater. And that lava is

14 hundreds of feet thick. Since 1959, scientists have been

is drilling down through that lava, watching it crystallize.

16 Every few years they go Dack and drill another hole and

17 watch the degree to which that lava lake is cooled. It

18 takes a long time for this to cool. This is a fairly
19 thick one.

20 And we see that in the case of lava lakes and lava flows
21 and these things, when they cool from their melt, from

22 their liquid, they form these textures that are unique to
23 all rocks that pool from a liquid. When we go to a

24 granite and we see these same textures, then I think we

25 are entitled to presume that these rocks also formed from

1 A (Continuing) and if you limit a teacher to only
2 one side of anything, the whole country will eventually
3 have only one thought, oe one indiviaual. I oelieve in
4 teaching every aspect of every proolem or theory.”
5 I oelieve tflere is another paragraph there. The
6 last paragraph that starts with the word “finally”. Would
7 you please read tnat into tne record?
8 14 “Finally, we cannot imagine that the cause of truth
9 is served ny keeping unpopular or minority ideas under
10 wraps——”
11 Q And the next sentence, please?

12 14 “——today’s students are much less inclined than

13 tnose of former generations to unquestionaoly accept the

14 pronouncements of authority. Specious arguments can only oe exposed oy examining them. Nothing is so unscientific

16 as the inquisition mentality that served to flood the

17 truth oy seeking to suppress or conceal dissent rather

18 than oy grappling with it. Tnerefore, we will oriefly

19 state, for those who are interested, several major

20 thesis,” etcetera, etcetera.
21 Q Have you had articles refused for publication?
22 A Yes.

23 Q Does the fact that somebody has articles refused
24 for puolication indicate that they are not a reputaDle
25 scientist?

THE WITNESS: My interpretation of that is a
2 relatively recent inception would be in the neighborhood
of ten thousand years ago. Because all I’ve heard from
the scientific point of view is that the earth is maybe

four and a half billion years old. I’ve heard no other 6 explanations in the area of science that would give an age

~ that was much younger than that.
8 Like I said, I have to rely upon my background, and I do

~ know from a religious background—— 10 THE COURT: Where do you get the ten thousand year

11 figure?
12 THE WITNESS: I’ve seen the ten thousand year

13 figure quoted in terms of a various assortment of

14 pamphlets and textbooks. I can’t identify specifically

15 which ones, but that’s something. I don’t know that it’s

16 ten thousand years, as such, but—— 17 THE COURT: Are you talking about current textbooks

18 currently used in the schools, or are you talking about—— 19 THE WITNESS: No. I’m talking about creation

20 science pamphlets and booklets and so forth that I have
21 examined.
22 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, would this be a good time
23 to take a break for the day?
24 THE COURT: No. Let’s go ahead and finish with

25 thiS witness.
I ~ (Continuing) educational principles and techniques?
2 A That’s correct.
Q Do you nave any formal academic training in
14 Yes, I do.
6 ~ How much?
A Oh, approximately twenty—four hours, I would say.
8 Q Any at the graduate level?
A No.
10 ~ All undergraduate?
11 A No. I take that Dack. Yes, I do have. Probably
12 half of it is at tne graduate level. I was thinking of
13 post graduate.
14 Q Can you define for me what is the scientific
15 community? You’ve talked about the body of science.

16 Science says, they say, we say. Is that the scientific
17 community?
18 A Do you want it in specifics?
19 Q Yes. Is “they”—— Are “they” the scientific
20 community?
21 A Well, when I say “they”, I’m referring to the
22 scientific community.
23 Q Now, tell me what that is?

24 A The scientific community is made up of the men and ~ / 25 women who work in the field of science each day. And
1 ~ (continuing) academic freedom?
2 A I would have to give it further thought.

Q Okay. Does it exceed professional ethics?

14 In my opinion as a scientist, it does, as a science

~ ducator, it does.
6 ~ As a science educator, it does?
14 Witnin the science classroom, I think it does.
8 ~ Why?

A Because it is not science. It is a metaphysical

10 religious concept.
11 Q And that’s based on your independent research and
12 study of tne materials that you found?
13 A That’s based on a professional opinion.
14 Q Based on independent research you’ve done with
is materials you’ve reviewed?
16 A That’s true.
17 Q And your scientific training, which you haven’t had
18 any since 1968, is that right?
19 14 That’s correct.
20 Q Do you decide what is good science and what is bad
21 science in your classroom?
22 A I think that is part of my responsibility as a
23 teacher.
24 Q How do you make that decision, Mr. Coward?
25 A There again, trying to ~e aware of, conscious of

A (Continuing) of the name, Pulaski County Special
2 School District, and of course, the particular heading to

the superintendent.
MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, I’d like

Exhibit 28 received into evidence.
6 THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
8 Q As a result of the passage of that resolution-- And

~ it was passed, was it not?
10 ~ Yes.
11 ~ ——what did the Pulaski School System do?

12 A I believe that at that school board meeting as a

13 result of this presentation and the action taken on it—— 14 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I’d like to interpose an

15 objection at this time on the basis that this is hearsay.

16 I understand that Marianne Wilson is going to testify.

17 And my knowledge from her deposition is that she has a

18 much closer personal knowledge of what happened regarding

19 the formulation of the creation unit than Mr. Wood does,

20 and I would object on the basis of hearsay, no showing

21 that this witness has personal knowledge, which would make
22 him competent to testify about these matters.
23 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor please, Mr. Wood is not

24 going to testify about the drafting of the creation unit
25 that was ultimately written. He was a member of the

Q (Continuing) text the exhibit number that we have
attached to the book previously. And if you would, as you
read tne list, if you could just identify the exhibit
number where there is an exhibit number.
A Yes.
6 Exhibit 73, The Age of the Earth by Slusher; Exhibit

72, Origin and Destiny of the Eartn’s Magnetic Field by
~ Barnes; Exhibit 79, Creation—Evolution Controversy,
~ Wysong; Exhibit 75, Scientific Creationism, public school
10 edition, by Morris; 71, Origin of the Universe by
11 Siusher; 77, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, public
12 school edition, by Gish; the next one has not yet been
13 introduced as evidence, Tne Natural Sciences Know Nothing
14 of Evolution ~y Wildersrnith; Exhibit 81, Origin:
15 Evolution — Creation by Bliss; 80, Origin of Life:
16 Evolution — Creation, Bliss and Parker; 57, Fossils: Key
17 to the Present, Bliss, Parker and Gish; and then the last
18 two are not listed currently as items in the record,
19 Tracking Those Incrediole Dinasours and the People Who
20 Knew Them by Morris; and finally, The Age of the Solar
21 System by Slusher and Duursma.
22 Q And what conclusions did the committee reach after
23 examining the materials?
24 14 The conclusion reached by the committee was that we
25 did not see any science in these materials.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________


I, Sandra Smith. CVR, Official Court Reporter for the Eastern District of Arkansas, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages constitute a true and accurate transcription of a portion of the proceedings held in the above-entitled cause before the Honorable William R. Overton, United States

District Judge, Little Rock, Arkansas, December 7-17, 1981.


WITNESS MY HAND this 6th day f May, 1983.


Sandra Smith, CVR
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
Post Office Box 1540
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203