Testimony of Dr. Langon Gilkey - Page 3
A: (Continuing) that had been going on. But I will be quite happy to talk about the creative leaps of imagination. Now, the issue of testing is a little different than a leaping, let's say.
MR. CAMPBELL: I understand. I have no further questions. Thank you, sir.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q: Doctor Gilkey, what is your understanding of the meaning of the word `secular'?
MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor. That's not in the scope of direct.
THE COURT: That's overruled.
MR. SIANO: It's not outside the scope of cross. Let me rephrase the question.
Q: Because a concept is secular, is it necessarily atheistic?
A: Not at all, not at all. The separation of church and state legally specifies what one might call the secular world. It is a world of the law, a world of government, a world of our vocations that are not grounded in, established by authoritatively ruled by in any way religious doctrines or religious authority. Now, that world is a world of American experience generally since the founding of the Constitution and by no
A: (Continuing) means is it irreligious. So, that, now, I've testified and I've got to emphasize the fact that inherently science has a secular character. It cannot be appealed to a supernatural cause.
In this sense it is a secular endeavor. Now, that doesn't mean it is atheistic, and that is why empirically there are scientists who are believers in God and there are scientists who are not believers in God. I suspect, though this is speculating, that those believing or not believing is based on other grounds than their science. In this sense if evolution is a secular theory, and I believe it is, this doesn't mean at all and historically it has not meant, that it was an atheistic theory. In fact, two of the closest friends of Darwin argue with him at this point, Asa Gray and Wallace did. And there have been a number of theistic evolutionists.
MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: May this witness be excused?
MR. SIANO: Yes, your Honor.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: We will reconvene at 9:00 a.m.
tomorrow. Court will be in recess.
(Thereupon, Court was in recess at
VOLUME II INDEX
Witness: On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:
MICHAEL E. RUSE
Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 244
Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 301
Redirect Examination by Mr. Novik Page 369
Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 376
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaplan Page 379
Cross Examination by Mr. Williams: Page 405
GARY B. DALRYMPLE
Direct Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 406
VOLUME II - EXHIBIT INDEX
EXHIBIT OFFERED RECEIVED
Plaintiffs' No. 94 245 245
Plaintiffs' No. 98 407 407
Plaintiffs' No. 86 442 442
(December 8, 1981)
THE COURT: Mr. Williams, I have gone over the Motion in Limine and the brief. Do you have anything else you'd like to say in connection with that?
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think the Motion is largely self-explanatory. I would just reiterate that the legislature has not seen fit to try to define what a scientific theory is. Therefore, it does not fall to this Court to have to find that either. And on this ground we think that the evidence on that point should be properly excluded.
THE COURT: Perhaps you are right about that, that I won't be called upon to decide whether or not this is science, but as I understand the thrust of the plaintiffs' case, they first undertake to try to prove the
Act is, or the definitions in the Act, what is set out in Section 4(a), is not science but religion. And I can't very well tell them they can't put on evidence of that. I don't know whether they can actually sustained that position or not.
MR. WILLIAMS: The point that I wanted to make in the Motion in Limine is that what the Act says, that the scientific evidence for both creation-science and evolution-science are to be taught, it never tries to
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) elevate or state that either is a scientific theory, as such. So that really is the only purview of the issue in this case, and it really is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I will deny the Motion in Limine.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, one other preliminary matter that I would like to bring up now. Yesterday— This may already be in the record, but to make sure that it is, I want to move into the record those portions of Mrs. Nelkin's deposition that I quoted to her yesterday to the degree that they were inconsistent with her earlier testimony.
This is pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 801 of the Rules of Evidence.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. Do you— I don't quite understand. Did you read the parts that you wanted to yesterday?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. The parts which I read into the record.
THE COURT: Well, they will be in the record anyway.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I want to make sure they are going in as evidence and simply not for the purpose of impeachment.
Counsel for plaintiffs yesterday made an assertion at
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) one time that some of the quotes being read from the deposition could only go to impeach the witness.
THE COURT: I think he was complaining about the method of using the deposition and not whether or not it— Once it's in the record, it's in there.
MR. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to make sure. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cearley, are you ready to call your next?
MR. CEARLEY: Yes, sir. Michael Ruse will be the first witness, your Honor, and Mr. Jack Novik will handle the direct examination of the witness.
MICHAEL E. RUSE,
called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. NOVIK:
Q: Would you state your full name for the record?
A Michael Escott Ruse.
Q: Have you been sworn?
A: I have.
Q: What is your address? Where do you live?