Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two



                             WESTERN DIVISION

                                      - - -
REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,       )
                      vs.                          )                  NO. LR-C-81-322
al.,                                                )
                            DEPOSITION OF

                       DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

                     Friday, November 20, 1981

Pages 114 - 289
Volume II
Reported by:
Karen Williams, CSR
Cert.# 2933

Susan Scott, CSR
Cert.# 4666


                          I N D E X

Deposition of DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA


Examination by                                        Page

MR. WILLIAMS                                         120


                      E X H I B I T S

Number                                                 Page

2      Letter, 12-29-81, Ayala to               144

3      The National Association of              152
       Biology Teachers Press Release
       entitled "National Associations
       Confer On Creationism"

4      "Countering the Creationists"           155

5      Letter, 11-9-81, Weinberg to Ayala   177

6      Group of letters re Committee          178
       of Correspondence

7      Statement of Dr. Francisco Ayala      183

8      Handwritten Notes                           265

9      Handwritten Notes                           268

10    The Watchtower, July 15, 1978         277


       BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to
Continuance from Wednesday, November 18, 1981,
and on Friday, November 20, 1981, commencing
at the hour of 2:30 o'clock p.m. thereof, at
One Market Plaza, San Francisco, California
94104, before us, KAREN L. WILLIAMS and SUSAN
SCOTT, Certified Shorthand Reporters and
Notaries Public in and for the State of
California, personally appeared

                 DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

called as a witness herein, who, having been
previously duly sworn, was thereupon examined
and testified as hereinafter set forth.

                            - - -

Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022,
represented by DAVID KLASFELD, Attorney at
Law; and

43rd Street, New York, New York 10036,
represented by SUSAN STURM, Attorney at Law,
appeared as counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Plaza, San Francisco, California 94104,
represented by BEENU MAHMOOD, Attorney at Law,


appeared as counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

       STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of
Arkansas, Justice Building, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201, represented by DAVID WILLIAMS,
Deputy Attorney General, appeared as counsel
on behalf of defendants.

                            - - -


                 FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

MS. STURM: Before we get started, I
want to say for the record, first of all, that
for today's deposition, and to accommodate the
defendants, we have produced voluminous
documents, and Dr. Ayala has agreed to be here
at great personal inconvenience. But we have
complied with the defendant's document request.

Also, in terms of the documents, the
parties have agreed that all documents
produced will be used solely for purposes
directly related to the litigation. And we
reserve objections to documents because we've
not had really adequate time to go through
them in any great depth.

MR. WILLIAMS: As to the purposes of
documents, these documents will be used --
they will be used for purposes of litigation,
I understand, but it was my understanding that
it related more to the correspondence.

MS. STURM: Right, to the correspondence.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not to publication.

MS. STURM: That's right.




MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, you were --

A. Excuse me a second. Am I supposed
to be under oath?

Q. I was going to ask you, you were put
under oath a couple of days ago, and you are
technically still under oath; if you would
like to be we sworn --

A. No.

Q. This is a continuation of that
deposition; therefore, that one oath will
suffice. I want to ask you some questions
first of all about some more of your

What was your first full-time employment
after you finished undergraduate school in

A. I didn't have any full-time
employment in Spain.

Q. All right. When did you complete
your first diploma, postsecondary diploma, in

A. It would be 1954, 1955. I think '54

Q. And after 1955, what did you do?


A. Well, I continued studying.

Q. In what field or discipline?

A. From around 1955 to -- no, let me
try to put it together. I'm sorry.

At least until about '55, '56 I was
studying philosophy; then I started theology
from about '55 to '60.

Q. So you studied philosophy --

A. Do you want me to go on?

Q. No. Let's take that right now.

So, you studied philosophy for
approximately five years in Spain?

A. No. Philosophy for approximately

Q. You said '55 to '60?

A. That was theology.

Q. Excuse me, theology, that's correct.

A. I said philosophy until '55. I
think I started philosophy around '52, because
I was doing more than one thing at the same

Q. Okay. And you've studied theology
up until 1960?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you studying theology as a


A. No.

Q. In what capacity were you studying

A. As a student of theology for the

Q. Have you ever been ordained as a

A. Yes.

Q. And in what faith?

A. Catholic.

Q. And what day were you ordained as a

A. I think probably June 1960. I may
be off, but that seems to me --

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's go off the record.

(Discussion off the record).

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Were you ordained
in any particular order?

A. Yes, the Dominican order.

Q. And, essentially, what is the
Dominican order?

A. It's an order of preachers,
technically. It's a religious order within
the Catholic faith.

Q. Would they have any particular
emphasis within the faith?


A. I think very diversified.
Considerable emphasis in the teaching and
learning of theology. Considerable emphasis
also on missionary work.

Q. Would priests within that order be
involved in the active ministry to a church or

A. Yes. Not -- in some countries, yes.

Q. What were your responsibilities once
you were ordained?

A. After ordained I was sent -- in
agreement with my superiors, I went to study,
to continue studies.

Q. In 1960?

A. That's correct, late 1960.

Q. Where did you go to study?

A. Came to New York to work at Columbia

Q. That's where you began your master's

A. That's correct.

Q. And that was in biology?

A. Zoology.

Q. Zoology. How long were you a member
of the Dominican order?

A. You mean as a priest?


Q. Yes, as a priest.

A. From about -- I was ordained in 1960,
and I left there in 1966, if my memory serves
me right.

Q. During your time in the priesthood,
did you have any duties other than pursuing
your studies?

A. I could corroborate in church
services and -- simply as a helper, you know,
on occasion. I was not regularly assigned to
a parish, or such, you know, in the sense of
having the responsibility for it, for a parish.
But I was, you know, helping out.

Q. When did you make the decision to
enter the priesthood?

A. May I ask for a clarification? I
don't mind making it public, but off the

Is it all right?

MR. WILLIAMS: If you want --


(Discussion off the record)

A. Will you repeat the question, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. When did you make
the decision to enter the priesthood?

A. To enter the priesthood?


Q. Yes.

A. I believe around 1951 or '52.

Q. And why did you make that decision?

MS. STURM: Just for the record, we
reserve the right to object at trial on these
and all other areas in the deposition.

A. I'm sorry --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Why did you make the
decision to enter the priesthood?

A. I could say largely for idealistic
reasons. I thought it was something I could
do for the good of mankind. I'm embarrassed
to say that, but ...

Q. I take it -- well, at the time you
entered the priesthood, did you believe that a
God exists?

A. Surely.

Q. At the time you entered the
priesthood, what was your -- was your concept
of God different from the concept that you
have today?

A. Yes.

Q. What would your concept of God have
been in 1951, as best you remember it, just

MS. STURM: You just need to answer the


question --

A. Yes. Very similar to the concept of
Got as established in the Catholic Church.

Q. Would that include a God with a

A. Yes, except that today I'm much
fussier about what such a personality means,
than I was at the time; but fair enough.

Q. A God who had qualities of love and
compassion, and those sorts of things?

A. Yes.

Q. For individuals?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Why did you leave the priesthood?

A. Because I could not accept anymore
some of the tenants of the Catholic Church.

Q. I don't want to be repetitive of the
questions I asked you the other day; so, if I
do go into some of those, I hope you will bear
with me.

A. Surely.

Q. I think you mentioned some of those
the other day that you had some problems with.
And you specified, I think, for example, the --

A. Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

Q. Right.


A. The Immaculate Conception, which is
not the virgin birth.

Q. Right.

A. But I could have said the virgin
birth, too.

Q. Did you have a problem accepting the
concept of God as you had once accepted him
and conceived of him?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you today state that you
would agree or disagree with the concept of a
God with a personality and love and compassion
and concern for individuals?

A. It will depend very much on the
definition of personality.

Q. Well, the other day you mentioned
that your concept of God was something of a
goodness in nature.

A. Yes.

Q. That does not on its surface to me
encompass a concern for an individual.

A. That's right. A personalty -- you
mean individual, that's correct.

Q. Did you leave the priesthood

A. Yes.


Q. At the time when you left the
priesthood, did you remain a member of the
Catholic Church?

A. No.

Q. When did you sever your relationship
with the Catholic Church?

A. At the time when a left the
priesthood; I believe around 1966.

Q. And would that severance of your
relationship with the Catholic Church have
been voluntary or involuntary?

A. Voluntary.

Q. What role did your studies in
science play, if any, and, if you will forgive
my use of the term, evolution, from one
believing in a God who cared for individuals
with compassion and love and other qualities
that we normally ascribe to that concept, to
the concept of just a goodness in nature?

A. To the best of my knowledge, none;
they played no role.

Q. Were there any factors which you can
point to today which did play a role?

A. Yes. The presence of evil in the
world, physical and moral world. I found it
difficult to make them compatible with the


existence of the notion of God as an
individual who is good and omnipotent.

Q. Are -- excuse me.

A. It's clear that I'm not preaching.
I'm not trying to convince anybody.

Q. I understand that, Dr. Ayala.

Is the --

MR. KLASFELD: You may have a convert
down at this end, but --

MS. STURM: Totally not because of your

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is the concept of a
God who is compassionate and cares for
individuals and the presence of evil in the
world inconsistent to the Roman Catholic faith,
to your knowledge?

A. No.



MR. WILLIAMS: Q. As you learned more
about science, and as you, I assume, during
this period of the 1960's were thinking about
your own faith, did you think about whether
science and religion were consistent or

A. Whether I thought about it?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion on that?

A. That religion that I'm more familiar
with, which is the Catholic and various types
of Protestantism, is quite compatible with
science as I know it.

Q. Was that what your opinion was
during this same time period?

A. Yes.

Q. The Catholic church, I assume, was
responsible for the cost of your education
during this time, or not?

A. No.

Q. I'm curious. How did this work?
Were you on sort of leave to continue studies?

A. It's a bit, perhaps, more
complicated than that. I largely paid through
my own efforts and money, got fellowships and


the like. I could have had my studies paid by
at least two sources, one the Catholic Church
and one private, my own family.

Q. Would it be fair to say, Dr. Ayala
that you have rejected a belief in the
existence of a God as that God is perceived by
organized faith, particularly the Roman
Catholic Church?

MS. STURM: Would you clarify that
question, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Well, let me restate

Q. Would it be fair to state that you
have personally, as your own personal position,
have rejected a belief in God as God is
perceived by the Roman Catholic Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any organized
religion which would presently adhere or
subscribe to or be similar to your present
idea of what God is?

A. Let me restate what you're asking to
be sure I understand what you're trying to ask.
Whether I know of an organized religion which
will profess or accept a concept of God which
is similar to mine.


Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the Society of
Religious Humanities?

A. Yes.

Q. Is their concept of their "faith"
similar to your own?

A. No.

Q. How would they differ with your own

A. I don't know much about them. I
know about them but --

MS. STURM: You only need make the
response based on your personal knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. To your present
knowledge, how would you differ from them?

A. They tolerate and accept a variety
of notions of God, some of which are not
consistent with mine.

Q. Have you ever been a member of any
other religious group or other group which
subscribes to some belief of ethics?

A. Personally?

Q. Yes.


A. No. I take it you mean as a member.

Q. As a member, yes.

A. As a good card-carrying member.

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Are there any other groups besides
organized religions, perhaps informal groups
or groups of ethical society that you find
yourself in somewhat agreement with?

A. Well, the way you qualify it, you
know, I would have to say yes because "in
somewhat agreement," there are all sorts of
scientists that belief in being nice to people,
for example.

Q. That's a fair statement. Let me
rephrase it. Which you would find your own
views to be fairly similar to?

A. And you are talking about religious

MS. STURM: It would be helpful if you
would maybe give more specific adjectives to
which the witness could respond.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if he has some
problem in framing an answer to it --

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am having a problem.
It is that you qualify some of your questions


with things like "somewhat," and of course
there is a lot of agreement with many groups,
some kind of agreement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. If I asked you, then,
to just name the one group of either organized
religion or some sort of informal group or
ethical society to which you could say that
your own code of personal conduct is most
similar to, is there one group?

A. You are asking now about a code of
personal conduct?

Q. Right.

A. I could say the Christian church.

Q. Why did you decide to become a U.S.

A. Because I decided -- once I had
decided to remain in this country, it was the
natural thing to do. And also I feel very
grateful to this country that gave me the
opportunity to work and to develop.

Q. Was your decision to become a
citizen of this country related to your
decision to leave the priesthood at all?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge has the National
Academy of Sciences taken any position on the


issue of Creation Science? First of all, for
the record, you are a member of the National
Academy of Science?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge has it taken any
position on the issue of Creation Science?

A. You mean specifically, you're
talking about?

Q. Yes.

A. Rumors heard should be considered as

MR. KLASFELD: Is your question has it
officially taken a position?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm talking now of a
formal position - -

THE WITNESS: But also you are talking
about serious knowledge that I might have?

MS. STURM: Based on your knowledge,
that you know of.

THE WITNESS: I have heard in the last
two or three days that the National Academy
had filed an amicus in this case.


Q. Did you play any role in that

A. I may have.


Q. When you say "I may have," what
action did you take in that regard, if any?

MS. STURM: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

THE WITNESS: Will you repeat the
question, please.


I think it might be good just for the
record to state that counsel for plaintiffs
have conferred with the deponent outside.

Q. Now, my question was, did you play
any role in the decision of the National
Academy of Sciences' efforts to file as an
amicus in this case?

A. I may have.

Q. Is there any action that you have
taken in this regard?

A. Yes. The president of the Academy
of Sciences.

Q. Who is that?

A. Dr. Frank Press asked me to visit
with him at his own initiative to discuss the

Q. When did you meet with him?

A. I believe Friday, October 9th of
this year.


Q. And what did you tell Dr. Press when
you met with him, to the best of your

A. Well, that he -- he asked me what I
thought of the matter, and I told him that it
was a very important issue because it affected
not only the question of evolution, but the
whole matter of the teaching of science in the
public schools and the separation of state and

Q. Have you had any other meetings with
anyone of the Academy, or have you had any
further input beyond the meeting on October

A. No.

Q. Did you at that time ask Dr. Press
or the Academy to take any specific action?

A. No.

Q. You did not ask them to file as an

A. No. Whether I asked them?

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. Did he ask you whether you thought
they should file as an amicus?

A. Yes.


Q. How did you respond to that?

A. It seemed reasonable.

Q. When you say "it seemed reasonable,"
was that your response to him, or would it be
fair to say you encouraged him to file as an
amicus if it would be appropriate?

A. I would say I encouraged him, and
very strongly, as far as taking some
appropriate action on the matter. Whether the
appropriate way was to do it by filing an
amicus, it seamed reasonable. I did not take
a position.

Q. You are a member of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences as well, are you

A. Yes.

Q. Has the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences taken any position on Creation

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Are you aware -- well, let me
rephrase that. They publish, do they not,
Science Magazine?

A. No.

Q. Who publishes Science?

A. The American Association for the


Advancement of Science.

Q. Thank you. Have you had any
discussions with members of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences concerning this

A. You mean official discussions?

Q. Well, official or unofficial.

MR. KLASFELD: Was your question any

THE WITNESS: Yes. Every scientist in
effect is a member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. How about any leaders
or officers of the organization?

A. No.

Q. When did you learn that the National
Academy of Sciences was going to file as an
amicus in this case?

A. Two or three days ago.

Q. How did you learn of that?

A. Somebody mentioned it in my office.

Q. Another one of your colleagues?

A. No.

Q. A lawyer?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any other a amici who
will be forthcoming?


A. Forthcoming?

Q. Yes, who have not filed.

A. No.

Q. Has the California Academy of
Natural Sciences taken any formal position on
this matter?

A. Not to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you had any
discussions with the officers of the
California Academy on this subject?

A. No.

Q. Has the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, of which you are a
fellow, I believe, taken any formal position
on this subject? By "this subject," I'm
referring again to Creation Science.

MS. STURM: What do you mean by formal

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I mean, have they
published any statement on this? Have they
taken any position in any of their committees?
I'm speaking of anything other than informal
conversations around a coffee table or

A. I see at least three parts to your
question. To my knowledge, on discussions in


committees, to my knowledge no formal
positions have been taken. However, in
Science there have been reports on this matter,
at least one.

Q. Again I think you said they have
taken no formal position that you know of?

A. To my knowledge.

Q. But there have been some articles in
Science Magazine?

A. In the news reports, as opposed to
articles or editorials.

Q. Do the news reports in Science
reflect the position of the organization?

A. I don't think there is any position
of the organization as such, as of this time,

Q. Has the Society for the Study of
Evolution taken any position on the subject of
Creation Science?

MS. STURM: Could you be more specific?
Do you mean formal position?

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's start with a formal
position, by way of resolution or similar
position paper.

THE WITNESS: No, to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Has the Society


initiated any action concerning the issue of
Creation Science?

A. Specifically the issue of Creation

Q. Right.

A. No, the way I understand the

Q. Well, let me word it this way: Has
the Society taken any action on -- well, let
me rephrase that. Quite simply, did you not,
as president of the Society, appoint a
committee to take some action?

A. Concerning the teaching of evolution
in schools, yes.

Q. When was the first action taken in
this regard?

A. The first action was probably
somewhere around June 1980 -- I'm talking
about recent actions. There may have been
others farther in the past -- when the Society
passed a resolution that a committee be
appointed by the president to work towards
fostering the appropriate teaching of
biological matters, including evolution, in
public schools.

Q. There was a formal position


concerning the appropriate method of teaching
biological evolution in public schools; is
that correct? Is that what you said?

A. Actually, we could look at the
record and get the proper wording of the
resolution, as it is in my file that you are
handling. And it would make it easier for me,
rather than trying to remember what was the
resolution. Why don't we look at it and you
can read it for the record, or I can read it.

Q. Do you recall what date that would
have occurred on?

A. The meeting -- it was in Arizona, in
Tucson, and it would have been, I believe, in
late June '80. I can, again, research the
file and see if it appears anywhere.

Q. I'm presently looking through some
of the documents which were delivered to me
from the lawyers.

MS. STURM: Here we go.

THE WITNESS: This is the appointment of
the committee, June 29, 1980. If you care for
me to read the resolution passed by the
council, I will do so.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right. That's not
necessary right now.


(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 2)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I direct your
attention to Ayala Exhibit 2, which is a
letter dated December 29, 1980 to professor
Bush from yourself. Did you send Professor
Bush this letter?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the occasion on which
you sent him this letter?

A. The appointment of the committee
that I have been commissioned to appoint by
the council of the Society.


MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, in this
letter, Exhibit 2, it states that, "President
Ayala proposes that a committee be established
to study the current anti-evolutionary
movement in the country."

Why did you propose that?

A. Because there was, in my perception,
an anti-evolutionary movement in the country.

Q. And this proposal occurred on June
29 of 1980?

A. Yes, at the meeting of the council.

Q. Was there any formal proposal that
you made at that time that has been reduced to

A. I think this is a copy from the
record as it exists.

Q. You did not at that time present to
them a paper on the anti-evolutionary movement
in the country --

A. No.

Q. -- with the proposal.

What evidence do you see of an
anti-evolutionary mood in the country, or did
you see in June of 1980?

A. A number of laws being introduced --
a number of bills, I think is a better term --


being introduced in various legislatures,
either for interfering with the teaching of
evolution or encouraging the teaching of
religion as part of science, or religious
beliefs are taken to contradict the
evolutionary principles; reports in newspapers
to that effect; evidence that on occasion
groups of activists were trying to interfere
with teachers in local schools and such.

Q. I think the first evidence that you
mentioned were that bills had been introduced
which prohibited the teaching of evolution in

A. Interfere with the teaching of
evolution, something to that effect.

Q. Are you aware of any bill which has
been introduced which prohibits the teaching
of evolution?

MS. STURM: For the record, I think what
Dr. Ayala said was interfere with the teaching
of evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I didn't
understand him.

Q. To your knowledge, have there been
any bills passed -- or introduced, excuse me --
which would prohibit the teaching of evolution


in schools?

A. In the United States?

Q. Yes.

A. Anytime?

Q. Well, recently -- in, say, the last
five years -- which would give rise to your
concern over the current anti-evolutionary

A. That would prohibit the teaching of

Q. Yes.

A. Not directly.

Q. Why did you feel there was a need
for a committee to combat what you perceived
as an anti-evolutionary movement?

A. Because scientists like to go about
their business of doing research and teaching,
and find it difficult to allocate time to
courses that may be meritorious socially, or
educationally at large, or politically; and
they are unlikely to get involved unless they
are somehow encouraged to do so, like with the
appointment of a committee.

Q. How did you select the members of
the committee?

MS. STURM: Perhaps you could divide the


question up. It's not been established that
Dr. Ayala did select the members of the

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll be glad to.

Q. I think -- doesn't your letter
reflect that you are requesting Professor Bush,
in this instance, to serve on a committee?

A. Yes.

Q. On the Education Committee of the
Society for the Study of Evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to this time, had the society
had an education committee?

A. I believe so, some years earlier.

Q. But this was the first time in
several years that such a committee had an
institution within the organization; is that

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you select these individuals to
serve on the committee?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you select them?

A. I looked for scientists who would be

Q. In what?


A. In biology, in general, and the
relevant issues of science, and who would be
articulate and that might be likely to want to

Q. Did you make any effort to have any
adherence of Creation Science on this
committee at all?

A. Do you mean a member?

Q. Yes.

A. No. I don't know of any member of
the Society for the Study of Evolution that
adheres to Creation Science, although they may

Q. You further state in Exhibit 2, on
page two, that one of the charges given to the
committee is to -- " collect, evaluate,
and make available to the members of the
society documents and other information
distributed and used by the so-called
creationists in their efforts to thwart the
teaching of evolution in public schools."

A. Yes. I take it the question is
whether this is part of my --

Q. This is part of the letter, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what instances you


are aware of where they have sought to thwart
the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A. Yes. By way of example, the bills
introduced in various legislatures; attempts
in California, for example, by some groups to
have the framework of education either
formulated and changed so as to forbid the
teaching of evolution or -- and others like it.

Q. Further, in your letter, next to the
last paragraph on page two, you state
"Perhaps we have been too apathetic and have
ignored the political realities of the world
we live in."

Do you see this issue of Creation Science
and Evolution Science as being a political

A. Very much so.

Q. Do you know personally each of the
members of the committee that you asked to

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know before you appointed
each of them that they would be considered

A. Yes.

Q. What work has the committee done


subsequent to your December 29, 1980 letter?
Could you describe it for me in detail?

And if you would like to refer to any
letters, if that would assist you --

A. Relatively little. And I'm sure
it's all in the record of my correspondence.

To the best of my recollection, a couple
of communications from the chairman urging
members to contribute ideas of materials, and
a few letters from members contributing either
ideas or some materials.

Q. And who is chairman of the committee?

A. Professor John A. Moore, Department
of Biology, University of California,

Q. Did you participate in a conference
on Science Education and Biblical
Fundamentalism sponsored by the National
Association of Biology Teachers?

A. No.

Q. Have you played any role with the
National Association of Biology Teachers
becoming a party plaintiff in this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any discussions with
any officers of National Association of


Biology Teachers --

A. I'm not quite clear who the officers
are. I believe I have sometime sent a copy of
my correspondence to one member of that.

Q. Who would that be?

A. I believe William Mayer is a member
of that, an officer of...


Q. I'd like to show you what I'd like
to have marked as an Exhibit 3, please.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 3)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Directing your
attention to Exhibit No. 3, which appears to
be a press release on the letterhead of the
National Association of Biology Teachers,
would you agree that this came from your
correspondence file?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. You believe so, fine.

Do you know how you received a copy of


A. Yes. In the mails, I'm sure.

Q. Have you had any contact with the
National Association of Biology Teachers about
this conference?

A. No.

Q. On page -- well, the pages aren't
numbered -- on the third page, the last
paragraph states that:

"Creationism is the belief that the
world living things were supernaturally
created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,
that nearly all life was destroyed in a
later worldwide flood which laid down all
fossil beds and sedimentary, rocks that
animal and plant 'kinds' were separately
created, and that humans were especially
created and shared evolutionary history
with other animals. People who believe
that the Bible is literally true want to
see creationism taught in pulic schools
whenever evolution is taught."

Q. Is that first sentence, in your
mind, a fair summary of Creation Science, as
you understand it?

A. Well, the statement does not say
this is the belief of Creation Science but



Q. All right. Is that a fair statement
of creationism or Creation Science, either or

A. I think of some form of creationism,

Q. Do you differentiate between
creationism and Creation Science?

A. Probably Creation Science, too, some
forms of it, I think that is a a fair

Q. And is your opposition to the
introduction of Creation Science in the public
schools based upon an understanding that this
is what creation scientists would like to have
introduced into the public school?

A. No.

MS. STURM: Are you limiting the witness
to this understanding --

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just trying to
inquire as to whether this statement from the
National Association of Biology Teachers is a
statement of what he considers Creation
Science to be.

A. One form of it.

Q. So, other than receipt of this


correspondence, you have no knowledge of this
conference or of any position taken by the
National Association of Biology Teachers?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. And you appointed, I think you said,
the members of the education committee of the
Society for the Study of Evolution, but you
are also a member of that committee, are you

A. Yes.

Q. Have you had any meetings of that

A. No.

Q. Are any meetings planned?

A. In the specific or precise manner,
not to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's have this marked as
Ayala Exhibit 4.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 4)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, can you
identify, first of all, Exhibit 4?


A. It's a document that is entitled
"Countering the Creationists," and it says
"For discussion at the meeting of the ad hoc
Committee on Creationism National Academy of
Sciences, October 19th, 1981."

Q. Did you attend a meeting on that
date on this subject?

A. No.

Q. How did you come to have a copy of

A. Came in the mail. I am not -- I
cannot tell precisely.

Q. You did not solicit a copy of this?

A. No.

Q. Have you read this document --

A. Yes. At least cursorarily at some

Q. Can you state whether you agree with
the content of this document?

A. I'll have to read it again.

Q. All right. That's all right.

Let me direct your attention in the
second paragraph to one statement that, quote,
"The climate of the times suggests that the
problem will be with us for a very long time,"
close quote.


Do you agree with that statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Directing your attention to page six,
it states that "Something like the National
consortium will be needed to," and then it
lists several items, including, quote, "Monitor
the individual performances, select the more
promising models and approaches, and make
these available to teacher at large.

Do you know what's meant by "Monitoring
the individual performances"?

MS. STURM: Just let me object, because
the witness has stated that he doesn't know
how the document was formulated, and he is
only giving his opinion about his
interpretation of that language. But --

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

A. May I read it to myself?

Q. Certainly.

A. (Reviews document)

I cannot figure it out, what is meant.

Q. Okay. Well, I won't ask
you to try to divine what John Moore had in
mind when he said that, then.

Have you heard of an incident, in trying
to monitor what you view as the anti-evolution






obligation of those who would be responsible
to look at the qualifications of that teacher
to teach the subject of biology.

I believe that that a degree by itself
does not establish a person as knowledgeable.

Q. If the appropriate authorities
looked at their qualifications or the manner
in which they were teaching -- and by
"appropriate authorities" I am referring to,
for example, a local school board who would
have authority over a public school -- and
determine that they should not be teaching it,
and prohibit them from doing so, would that,
in your opinion, be an abridgement of that
teacher's academic freedom?

I'm talking about in a non-legal sense.

MS. STURM: Okay.

A. If they were done on the basis, that
the person did not have appropriate knowledge
of the field, I would think that would be no

If they were done on any other basis I
think there would be an abridgement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In your own mind, do
you have some standard by which you could
measure a teacher's knowledge as to whether




Creation Science, would you think that would
be appropriate or inappropriate as a principal
of academic freedom?

A. Let me make my statement repeating
the question, to make sure I understand it.

If it were established that this person
had good knowledge and understanding of the
relevant fields of biology, and this person
still would want to -- would think that could
reflect -- let me strike that.

Read me the first part, and I'll continue.

(Record read)

If it were established that this person
had appropriate knowledge of the relevant
fields of biology, and this person would be
teaching according to such knowledge, I think
this person should be tolerated to teach,
should be allowed.

Q. Is it true that two scientists can
look at the same data and come up with
different conclusions?

A. To some sets of data, yes. To all,
I think that is not possible.

Q. But there is a degree of
interpretation and subjectivity in
interpreting scientific data, is it there?


MS. STURM: Objection. There are two
questions. There is interpretation and


A. In some sets of data, yes, and some
degree of subjectivity, yes.

Q. Would you agree that in studying
generally biology and the data that there is
some degree of interpretation involved?

A. In some cases, in some areas, in
some data, yes; in others not.

Q. All right. Do you have a well-
defined line that you could articulate?

A. I could only articulate by reference
to specific cases.

Q. Could you give me one example where
you think there is subjectivity --

A. There is subjectivity?

Q. -- in interpreting the data?

A. You said there is a degree of
interpretation -- I'm sorry, this is not for
the record. I want to clarify that you are
shifting the term --

MS. STURM: It would be helpful if
counsel would continue to use one term and
give the witness an opportunity to answer as

Transcript continued on next page