Testimony of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould - Page 3
Q: Have you also been active in other efforts, or at least involved in other efforts to oppose the teaching of creation science?
A: Mostly in my personal writings and studies, though there was a brief committee, a committee of brief life set up by the American Society of Naturalists, which is another organization of professional evolutionists., I was president pro tem through the death of the president and, therefore, it fell my lot to appoint that committee.
Q: And you are motivated to oppose creation science in your professional concern as a scientist, is that correct, Doctor Gould?
Q: Do you have any political motivation in opposition creation science?
A: As Aristotle said, man is a political animal. I think everything one does is partly in the context of one's larger views.
Q: Are you aware that one of plaintiffs' other witnesses, Doctor Ruse, has termed you a Marxist biologist whose theory does not qualify as, quote, science, close quote?
A: I've heard rumors to the effect about the first statement. I don't know if the second one is juxtaposed
A: (Continuing) or not. It doesn't sound like something Michael would say, but then I wasn't here when he said it.
Q: have you ever written an article for Science for the People about creationism?
Q: And what is Science for the People?
A: Science for the People is a magazine published in Boston by scientists concerned with social issues, with views to the left of center.
Q: Their political views are to the left of center?
Q: Did you not say in that article that creationism is part of a program of the evangelical right in America, and this movement considered peripheral a decade ago has become central in Reaganland?
A: Yes, I think that's correct. A somewhat abbreviated assessment of what's happening in this nation today.
Q: And did you not also state in this article and at least one other that the Arkansas law requires equal time for creation science in science classrooms?
A: We discussed that in the deposition, Mr. Williams, and I think I agreed at that time that the law says balanced treatment and that perhaps I was incorrect in
A: (Continuing) calling it equal time. Although I don't really know what balanced treatment means. But perhaps I did misstate that. And I think I also added I have been wrong many times before.
Q: And you relate creation science, do you not, to be a link with anti-ERA, anti-abortion, and militant anti-Communism?
A: Yes, I think that it's programmed for various evangelical groups that are part of the creation science movement who support it. There are aspects of their political program that include those.
I don't, by any means, think that's the entire story, nor is it in any sense the only reasons for my opposition to creation science. Indeed, the primary motivation in my opposition, which by far predates ever hearing the name of Jerry Falwell and others, is the lack of scientific nature for it with respect to my profession, which is evolutionary biologist.
Q: Could you identify— Well, let me have this marked, if I might, as Defendants' Exhibit Two. Can you identify the article I'm showing you?
A: This is the one.
Q: Which one is that?
A: The one from Science for the People.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, we'd like to have this
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) submitted as Defendants' Exhibit Two.
THE COURT It will be received.
Q: You have called or termed evolution to be a fact, have you not?
A: I have. It is also a theory.
Q: But in your writing at the conclusion, that evolution is a fact, the evidence that you rely on is largely inference; is it not?
A: I said in the Discovery article in which I made that claim that there were three primary ways whereby scientists are confident that evolution is a fact. Two of them were direct, and only one indirect. I do think the indirect category has the most persuasive evidence. First, the direct evidence is that small scale evolution as we've observed for over a hundred years. Secondly, the direct evidence, that fossils, when, despite the imperfections of the record, we have transitional forms. And third, the very large class of indirect evidence which encompasses such subjects as biogeography, vestigal organs, homologies, embryologies, et cetera.
Q: And in talking about the evolution that we have observed, as you termed it, evolution in action, in the last one hundred years, how much evolution have we observed in the last one hundred years?
A: About as much as one could reasonably hope to observe in such a short space of time.
Q: And in your deposition did you not tell me that was literally nothing?
A: I certainly didn't. Literally nothing? I don't quite understand the context. I mean, it doesn't produce new orders of animals. But you wouldn't expect that. It's not nothing; it's the amount of steady change. Do we have a corrected copy of the deposition?
Q: I have never received a correct copy.
A: Given my breakneck speed of talking, to which the court reporter has so correctly objected, many things in the original deposition do not come across correctly.
MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, the only copy of Doctor Gould's deposition that I have in my possession is a copy of it that has not yet been corrected by the witness. I believe that the only copy that was corrected by the witness was delivered directly to the Attorney General's office.
MR. WILLIAMS: We have yet to receive it, your Honor. It was to be delivered, but we have yet to receive it, unfortunately.
THE COURT Let's move on.
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
Q: On page 106 of your deposition I asked you this
Q: (Continuing) question: "How much do you think we've been able to observe about evolution?" And you gave this answer, "As much as we can really be expected to in the time scale of a hundred years, which is nothing, since the publication of The Origin of the Species.
A: I'm sorry. I mean, which is very little time. That's clearly an incorrect statement. Indeed, what you're quoting is, of course, inconsistent with the first statement. It's unlikely that that's what I really meant. I said, as much as we can expect to observe. If I said, "which is nothing", I meant that a hundred years is so little time it doesn't amount to very much. It's remarkable we've observed as much as we have. But that would be corrected in the corrected copy when you get it. I'm sorry.
Q: In terms of the evidence, the physical evidence we have observed, you do mention in this article The Peppered Moths, which has been referred to before in this courtroom. Now I want to see if I understand how you view this. Did these moths change color?
A: Evolution changes gene frequencies within populations. What happened in the case of the peppered moths is that before industrial soot blackened the trees around Manchester, that the moths which exist in two different forms, depending on which state of the gene they
A: (Continuing) have, basically peppered and black, with very few black ones, almost all the moths in the population were peppered, when industrial soot blackened the trees in England, there was very strong selection for the first time against peppered moths, which had been virtually invisible against the lighter trees. And there was then for the first time an advantage to the black moths, as we call them, black moths, a few of them. And within fifty years the population consisted almost entirely of black moths, and that's natural selection.
Q: But did the peppered moths reproduce into black moths?
A: No. What happened was what the theory of natural selection predicts would happen, namely, that from a spectrum of variability, which included the peppered moths and black moths, the gene frequencies changed, indeed, the gene from black moths — the gene that produces black colors, excuse me, increased markedly and frequently within the population until virtually all moths were black.
Q: And in 1850, we had two types of moths, black and peppered?
A: Yes. Very, very deep black. Almost all-
Q: And today we have two types of moths, black and peppered?
A: Almost all black. That's what evolution is, natural selection of change of gene frequency.
Q: Were there any new species generated through this process?
A: Not in the case of the peppered moths. There are species that have been generated in other ways.
Q: I think you stated earlier that your second and third reasons, besides evolution in action, in which your primary example was the peppered moths—
A: No, I had other examples, the evolution of the D.D.T. resistance, which is the incorporation of new mutation in various forms and the production of new species of plants due to conflict.
Q: All right.
A: But yes, I mentioned the peppered moths as a prominent—
Q: But your second and third reasons do rely on inference, do they not?
A: The second reason I regard as reasonably direct, mainly temporal sequences of fossils. I guess insofar as we don't have a time machine that would take us back two hundred million years, it's not direct visual observation. But to me we are often seeing pretty largely the evolutionary sequences that develop. I think the second category is somewhere in between the direct, visual
A: (Continuing) observation and the more inferential character. But the third, I might say, the inference is as good a method in science as direct observation. It's not very often that, in fact, we reject conclusions merely through direct vision or sight.
Nobody has ever seen an atom or an electron or gravity, for that matter.
Q: But inference is a process of essentially logic, is it not, of looking at what we have now and trying to—
A: And drawing out what conclusions we can from it after inference is as inescapable as visual observations.
Q: Is there any subjectivity in arriving at an inference?
A: We do see subjectivity, and lack of certainty is, indeed, never certainty in science. I think it's notorious how often even eye witness testimony can be fallible. There just is no certainty in science. I don't think that well documented inferences necessarily is any way secure in certain forms of eye—
THE COURT Excuse me. Do you mind speaking into the microphone. Some of us are having a problem—
A: Yes. Sorry.
Q: You've been offered as an expert also, Doctor Gould, on the history of evolutionary theory or evolutionary thought, I think.
Q: As an expert on that area, would you want to be aware of any challenges to evolutionary theory?
Q: Have you read and studied, for example, a book an individual named Kirka called The Implications of Evolution?
A: Since you called it to my attention, I have indeed read it. I've got it right here.
Q: Does Kirka develop a general theory of evolution?
A: He developed something he calls a general theory of evolution. He is not an anti-evolutionist.
Q: He is not an anti-evolutionist?
Q: Could I perhaps borrow that for a moment?
Q: Kirka says there are seven basic assumptions in the theory of evolution, does he not?
A: Yes. That may be six or seven. I remember that list.
Q: Does he find any of those assumptions to be beyond question?
A: The book is primarily a critique of the notion that all-
Q: I'm sorry. I-
A: You'll have to show me the list. I gave you the one copy I had.
Q: I'll be glad to show you the book. I asked you did he find any proof for any of those assumptions?
A: Let me review the list of assumptions. What page are you on? Do you remember where they were?
Q: I think they're throughout the book.
A: I see the assumptions. Shall I read them?
A: The assumptions all have to do with a particular path of history, along with nonliving things that gave rise to living material. Two, spontaneous generation occurred only once. Three, the viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated. Four, the protozoa gave rise to metazoa, from single cell to multi-cell creatures. Fifth, that various invertebrate following are interrelated. Sixth, that invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates. And seventh, that invertebrate fish gave rise to amphibian, amphibian to reptiles, and reptiles to birds and mammals.
So you see, the set of statements is about the actual path for the history of life. His book calls into question particularly the second one. His main argument appears that is quite consistent with the evidence as we have it, that life might have originated more than one
A: (Continuing) time on earth. But it's not a critique of whether or not evolution is the mechanism whereby changes in the history of life have occurred. It is disputing the particular pathways. At one point he argues, for example, that it may be true that the metazoa, that is the multi-cellular animals, arose not from protozoa, single-celled animals, but perhaps from single-celled creatures that we call plants, which by the way is an outmoded system of classification.
Q: Would you say that Kirka is not an anti-evolutionist, in your opinion?
A: He is not an anti-evolutionist. He says in the last page that he accepts, he calls it a special theory of evolution, namely the mechanics of the process of change is evolutionary.
He is disputing, and I don't agree with him in all cases, he is disputing our assurance in knowing the actual pathways of change.
Q: Does he also talk about that there are certain misconceptions and half truths in evolutionary theory?
A: Oh, there are, yes. We feel like it is important for scientists to analyze them and be critical.
Q: Would you recognize this book as being something of, to the degree that it talks about it, an authority or authoritative work on evolution?
A: It was written in 1960, and I would say much of it is now outdated. I think even in the context of 1960 it's not a book that I regard as particularly strong of the book that were made different assessments of. I would certainly include it within the traditions of science.
Q: Doctor Gould, if you would, I would like for you to, in the conclusion, read, beginning, "Most students..."
A: Sure. The whole thing?
A: That's a lot. "Most students become acquainted with many of the current concepts of biology while still at school, and at an age when most people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then, when they come to study the subject in more detail, they have in their minds several half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation." I might say I don't agree with that. I think we teach a lot of pap, and having taught is one of the reasons why my associates and I developed punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to the gradualism that I can have no justification is a universal incident.
To continue with Kirka, "In addition, with the uniform pattern of education, most students tend to have the same sort of educational background, and so in conversation and discussion they accept common fallacies and agree on
A: (Continuing) matters based on these fallacies. It would seem good principle to encourage the study of scientific heresies. There is always the danger-" I might say I agree with that, too.
"There is always the danger that a reader might be seduced by one of these heresies, but the danger is neither as great nor as serious as the danger of having scientists brought up in a tight mental straight jacket, or taking them so quickly through a subject that they have no time to analyze and digest the material and study it. "Careful perusal of the heresies will also indicate the facts in favor of the currently accepted doctrines, and if the evidence against a theory is overwhelming and that there is no other satisfactory theory to take its place, we should just have to say that we do not yet know the answer."
My interpretation of that paragraph is—
Q: You have now finished reading that part now, have you not?
A: I have.
Q: I don't want to cut you off.
A: That's fine. I'm sorry. You only asked me to read it, not give you an exegesis.
Q: Do you think it would good, then— I think you said you agree with that portion where it said to
Q: (Continuing) encourage the study of scientific heresy? It would be a good idea?
A: Yes. But note the phrase "scientific heresies".
Q: Yes. Well, would it heresy to propose, perhaps, a new idea of what is science?
A: A new idea of what is science? It's almost a definitional matter, isn't it? It isn't an argument about substance, it's an argument about words and their meanings. No, I wouldn't call that part of an heretical framework.
Q: Isn't what Kirka is saying there, as you understand it, that if you have these scientific heresies to be studied, even though they may be terribly minority opinions, that through this clash of ideas, opposing ideas, that the students can better understand the predominate scientific thought, and when they do work themselves, they can come to it with a fresh appraisal and a fresh outlook?
A: Yes, and I agree with that. Remember the scientific heresy he is teaching in this book is the notion that life may have arisen from non-life on earth more than once. It's a scientific heresy. I repeat, not one that is outside science.
Q: There is nothing which insulates scientists from being dogmatic and elitist, is there?
A: Nothing— I didn't understand the question.
Q: Are scientists not at times dogmatic and elitist?
A: Scientists are human beings. Some people are dogmatic and elitist. And it is my regret that sometimes scientists are, too, some individuals. I think that among folks I've known, scientists as a group are generally more free from those attitudes than some people, but they are human beings.
Q: Have you not also described science or scientists as perhaps to appear, at least, as, quote, the new priesthood, close quote?
A: You'd have to read me the quotation. There is that tendency sometimes. As in the television ads where a scientist comes on in a white coat and says, `drink this brand of orange juice because it's better for you.'
Q: I think you earlier stated that as far as you know, there is no new evidence and no new idea for creation science in the past one hundred years; is that true?
A: I think I said since William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial I have seen no new arguments from the creationists.
Q: The metaphor that I think you used earlier this morning on the fossil record, that it's like a book where you have only certain pages, and of the pages you have, you have only certain words, and of the words you have,
Q: (Continuing) you have only certain letters-
Q: If you had a book like that, do you think you could read it coherently if it were as sparse as that in its outline?
A: It depends on what criteria and inference I had before me for filling in bits and pieces.
Q: But if you have that criteria, you have to fill in, do you not, in order to make sense, to make a coherent whole out of the book?
A: There are different ways that scientists fill in. What I was referring to in the metaphor of the book is the geological record in any one spot.
Now, suppose you had a thousand copies of the Iliad and each one only had a few letters, but it was a different few letters in each copy. You could, by gathering together the thousand copies, piece together a more coherent version that you might even be able to read completely. You might not still have every letter. That's pretty much what you do in geology. In any one spot the record is as poor, as Lyell describes it, but by bringing together the evidence from many spots, you can get a much more complete story.
Q: Were you not describing this book to be the entire fossil record?
A: I meant to describe it as the record of only one place.
Q: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
A: I meant to describe it as the record of only one person. Realize, please, that many fossils are geographically very limited in their extent, and so, therefore, there is a limited number of places. The record of any particular fossil is likely to be that way. But the entire larger scale record of the history of life would be pieced together much better.
Q: Do you consider the use of the word `creator' to be an inherently religious word or religious concept?
A: It's a word that has so many different vernacular meanings that it's not inherently so. Indeed Darwin uses it himself once or twice, in a metaphorical sense, not to mean supernatural disruption of natural law. Einstein used it in metaphorical senses.
Q: You wrote a part of a biology textbook, did you not?
A: Yes, I did. It's called A View of Life.
Q: A View of Life?
Q: What part did you write?
A: I wrote the concluding chapters, five or six of them, on evolutionary theory and its implications.
Q: Do you— First of all let me ask you, do you
Q: (Continuing) consider the origins of life to be part of the theory of evolution?
A: It's not part of the theory of evolution as studied by—
Q: Is it part of evolutionary biology?
A: It's part of biology. It happened to come into chapters that I wrote, and I think you'll see four pages I wrote on the subject of the history and the treatment of that subject in recent biology textbooks.
Q: But in treating evolutionary biology, you treated the origin of the first life, did you not?
A: I would say those chapters are about evolutionary biology and about the whole field we call whole animal biology. There are other subjects treated in those chapters, particularly in the last chapter on the ecology, that are not themselves part of evolutionary biology.
Q: And in this book, you state at page 689, "Two broad and fascinating questions arise from this scenario for the origin of life. First, given a primordial soup was a complex joining together of organic molecules to form life an inevitable result or a lucky accident."
Q: Do you consider those two parts of that question to be scientific theories or to be testable of scientific theories?
A: Yes. Those are two alternate views that have been proposed. Again, I disclaim— That is a very short section or a few pages on something I don't know a lot about. I'm sure Mr. Morris will come back and give much more—
Q: Did you write this?
A: Oh, yes. Because I'm aware that any textbook writer, of course, is compelled in treating an entire field to deal, at least, summarily with subjects that are not directly within the realm of their expertise. And in so doing, you summarize what the prevailing opinions in the scientific community are. And those, if I understand the literature, are the two major views. One, that the origin of life was virtually chemically inevitable, and one that each step in the sequence is fairly chancy, but given the immense age of the earth, it was bound to happen.
Q: You further asked the question, "Is life on our planet the product of a single origin?"
A: Yes. That's Kirka's question.
Q: Is that testable?
A: Yes. By inference. It's going to be very difficult to get a—
Q: By inference?
A: Most of science's testables are by inference.
A: (Continuing) There is no way we can go back and look, but what you do is you study the detail of nature biochemical similarities in all forms of life. And from our knowledge of chemistry, which mine is so meager I wouldn't dare to go further, you make assessments of the probability that such great similarities could arise independently more than once. But it is, again, not—
Q: But using those similarities, are they not subject to more than one interpretation, Doctor Gould?
A: I gave both interpretations in the book.
So it's an either/or question?
A: I guess so, as a matter of definition, either it arose once or it arose more than once, or didn't arise at all.
Q: And there's no way we can really accurately know how if it arose once or more than once, is there?
A: Well, I really don't know. You'd have to ask my chemical friends. There may be ways of obtaining pretty fair certainty based on biochemical similarities, but I really don't know that subject. That's why, as I said, I've listed both possibilities.
Q: This textbook was written for what level?
A: Introductory college.
Q: You further state that as to some of the questions of the ordering of life, quote, "Biologists have been—"
THE COURT Would you tell me what page?
MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. Page 710.
Q: "That biologists have been proceeding in this manner for more than a century, making inferences about organic programs by peering through a glass darkly at their translated products. More work with the same methods may never yield satisfactory answers. After all, a century of concentrated effort has failed to find them."
A: I don't know the content of that quotation.
MR. ENNIS: Excuse me. I haven't found that on page 170.
MR. WILLIAMS: (Indicating) Let me show you.
MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, do you mind if I present the entire book to the witness?
THE COURT No.
A: Could I read the sentences that come after that?
Q: First of all, those are your words I previously read, are they not?
A: Yes. But on 711 is the continuation.
Q: If you'd like to see it, I'd be glad for you to.
A: Yes. What I said, the question here is not the origin of life, but the interrelationships of the various phyla of animals, of organisms in general.
A: (Continuing) It's been a persistent problem in biology for two hundred years, that although many schemes have been proposed, there is no satisfactory resolution. I argue in the chapter that we have been unable to resolve them because the evidence of morphology is inadequate; there just isn't enough of it. And then I go on to say, with the possibility of doing sequencing with DNA, we may be able to get firm answers.
As I said, every century has been— See, more work with the same methods may never yield satisfactory answers. After all, centuries of concentrated efforts have failed to find them. And then I point out there are now new methods that will, I hope, resolve them.
It's a hard problem, about the origin of life.
Q: Did you write the summary of these chapters that you wrote, as well?
A: The ones called "Coding?" Yes.
Q: Now, where it says "Summary" at the end of the chapter, after the "Coding".
A: What page are you on?
Q: We can take any chapter, but we can look at 711.
Q: The first sentence of the summary states, quote, Life arose naturally from chemical constituents of the
Q: (Continuing) earth's original atmosphere and ocean, close quote.
And you earlier stated that after a century of work on the subject you were discussing in this chapter, there are no satisfactory answers.
Q: But yet you have given an answer, have you not?
A: No. The century of work is on a different question, the interrelationships of the phyla of animals, how are mollusks related to arthropods and et cetera.
Q: On what do you base your conclusion that you know enough to state here that life arose naturally?
A: It's the best judgment in the scientific community. In summary statements on the last page, you need to summarize the work of an entire chapter. The discussion is much more abbreviated than the actual commentary itself within the chapter.
Q: But you didn't state that most scientists think, you said, "Life arose naturally," without qualification, isn't that correct?
A: That's what it says. That is the best judgment of the scientific community. It is subject to alteration, as is every statement in science. Undoubtedly, subsequent editions of this textbook will change much that is in it.
Q: In discussing Act 590 this morning, did you testify
Q: (Continuing) to the effect that you didn't think there was any such thing as a dual model or two model approach to origin; that that was something that creation scientists have thought up?
A: I stated that— It depends on what you mean by `dual model.' I don't think there is any dual model within science, but it includes belief that some divine power sustains the laws of nature to do things to the universe, to create things out of nothing. That is not science.
So yes, within science there could be no dual model like that.
Q: Are you aware of any possibility of how things originated other than by natural processes or by some sort of creator intervening?
A: By `things', do you mean the ultimate origin of the universe, or—
Q: How life—
A: Well, it either arose through natural law or through the suspension of it. Science deals with natural law.
Q: So you would not want any sort of dual or two model approach mentioned in a science classroom? You think that is some sort of false dichotomy, as I understand it?
A: Science questions deal with science. Science is
A: (Continuing) about natural law explanations of phenomenon and could be falsified and would be tentative.
Q: I understand you think it could be falsified, but you wouldn't want a dual model approach, as I understand your testimony, on Act 590, is that correct?
A: Not in which one of the models is outside the definitions of science and not subject to tests or revision.
Q: And do you not state, 572 of that text, where you introduce part E, quote, Biologists have described more than a million species of living organisms, and at least this many still await discovery. Why are there so many kinds of organisms, and why are they so varied yet evidently organized into groups of similar forms. These ancient questions have two potential resolutions. Either all species were created as we find them and the relationships among them reflect the creator's opinion about how the world should have been organized, or all species have descended naturally, from a common ancestor, and true relationships among them reflect patterns of genealogical proximity of an evolutionary tree, close quote.
A: Yes. Despite the historical introduction, which is a two page introduction to the five parts of the textbook, are historical commentaries, if you read the other four,
A: (Continuing) you'll see that is so. And what I'm stating is merely the fact of what in history has been the two explanations.
Q: But you don't say that these ancient questions had two essential resolutions, you said they have.
A: That's true, isn't it? I mean, it is true that there are two possibilities. One of them has been falsified, perhaps. And as in any thing, you can use that linguistic mode of statement. I can state the earth is either round or flat. I guess there are other possibilities there.
Q: Was that a metaphor for reference to the creator there?
A: Where is the creator?
Q: In that quote.
A: Creator of all things? No, no. That is a statement of what, in true history of biology — as I repeat, all five of these introductions are two page historical introductions to the subject matters - that is a statement of what in history have been two patterns. I didn't go on right in the beginning of the chapter on the next page, that's what I said before, to say why we're convinced that true correct explanations that we say, that evolution is a fact.
Q: You further go on, on page 576, do you not, and
Q: (Continuing) talk about adaptation, you mention the fact that pro-creationist adaptation reflects the wisdom of God and the harmony of his world. Exquisite adaptation is the closest thing to perfection that organisms display and perfection need not need a history. It's an adaptation as the best design that we can imagine that might have been created as we find it.
A: You are making, again, a historical comment. Within true context of the chapter you can see that the entire chapter is built on why that is not an adequate explanation for life. But as a historian would attempt to write textbooks, it has a heavy historical flavor, but tempered throughout the various chapters of this book you will find various comments about what people have believed in the past. But if you read the chapter, particularly that statement about evolution and facts, those are to see that the entire context of the chapter is to point out why we do not accept that explanation.
Q: So the question as you understand it, is not that these questions had two resolutions, or they still have one to two resolutions; is that correct?
A: That's a statement of logic. And they have two that one can think of, and one of those is excluded by science. That's what the chapter is about. You can't deny historically that before 1859 the notion that all
A: (Continuing) forms of life were created as we find them was the usual opinion. That's merely a historical fact; there have been two. It's also a historical fact or we wouldn't be in this room, and many people in this country still believe that.
But sociological fact and science are different phenomenon.
Q: Perhaps whether those are historical facts is what this trial is about, Doctor Gould.
MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions.
THE COURT Any redirect?
MR. ENNIS: We have no further questions.
THE COURT You may be excused.
called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. CEARLEY:
Q: Will you state your name and occupation, please, for the record?
A: I am Dennis R. Glasgow, and I am Supervisor of Science in Little Rock schools.