Testimony of Professor Dorothy Nelkin
Testimony of Professor Dorothy Nelkin, Professor of Sociology, Cornell University, NY (Plaintiffs Witness) - transcript paragraph formatted version.
MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiff calls Professor Dorothy Nelkin. Mr. Dewey Crawford will handle the direct examination.
called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. CRAWFORD:
Q: Professor Nelkin, would you state your full name for the record, please?
A: Dorothy Nelkin.
Q: By whom are you presently employed?
A: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Q: Who position do you hold there?
A: I'm a professor in the Department of Sociology and in a program called Science Technology and Society.
Q: I'm going to ask that Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-Nine be passed to Professor Nelkin, and when that arrives, Professor Nelkin, I'm going to ask you if you can identify that as being your curriculum vitae?
A: (Examining same) Yes.
Q: Your career pattern has been a little bit unusual as
Q: (Continuing) far as academics, has it not, as far as obtaining your present academic position?
A: (Nodding affirmatively) Yes, it has. I think women often have unusual, women particularly in my generation often have unusual career patterns. I did not obtain a Ph.D., but instead worked my way into the profession by writing books and by getting some recognition on the basis of work. And Cornell was an open enough academic community to accept that as a reasonable equivalent.
Q: You are a full tenured professor at Cornell, are you not?
A: Yes. I have been since 1977. I have been a professor there since 1973 or something.
Q: And you have also been elected by your colleagues in the sociological profession as president of your academic society in sociology?
A: I was. I'm past president of the society called the Social Studies of Science. But that is rotating. I am no longer in the position.
MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I would like to have Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-Nine for identification received into evidence as Professor Nelkin's curriculum vitae.
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
Q: Professor Nelkin, will you tell us briefly what your area of research and scholarship is?
A: Yes. I tend to focus my research on the social implications of science and technology. I study the questions of science and public participation and the relationship between science and the public. I have been particularly interested in my research on the way lay groups, lay groups can be used by— The way science becomes a source of legitimation, a source of credibility for many groups with other kinds of causes.
Q: Do you have any particular means or methods of approaching these subjects?
A: Well, I find it very useful to study conflicts, to study controversies, as a means of understanding what people really want, what their demands are, how they articulate these demands. And I have focused my work on controversy.
Q: Controversies involving science and technology?
A: Always involving some aspect of science or technology or both.
Q: Can you give us some examples of such disputes that you have studied or written about?
A: Well, I've worked on a lot, I've written a lot on technological siting disputes, like the siting of airports
A: (Continuing) or nuclear power plants. I've written
A: great deal on the nuclear debate, both in this country and in western Europe. I've studied the recombinant DNA dispute, a little bit on Laetrile dispute, again focusing on issues of expertise and the way people use experts and use science as a way to deal with these issues.
Q: Can you explain the methods which sociologists use in, drawing conclusions about controversies or the movements?
A: Well, sociologists use a great number of methods. My own method is to do extensive interviewing, but I start always by collecting the material of any group, or, not only of any group, but surrounding the issue that I am studying. I try to bury myself in the literature, whether it's legal literature, whether it's the documents produced by various groups, to really understand the issues. And after that I do extensive in-depth interviewing with people representing all sides of the controversy. I seldom concentrate on any one group. I try to understand their relationship to society. It's called, in its logical terms, extended case analysis.
Q: All right. Did you conduct such a study of the creation science movement?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Would you tell me how you came to do that and when you did that?
A: I became interested in creation science movement around 1973-74, and started collecting material at that time, but then really began to pursue it as a full time research endeavor, I think it was '74 or '75. I, again, collected a lot of material that was written by the creationists, to try to understand and try to get myself under their skins, so to speak, to try to understand what they were thinking, what their concerns were, the diversity of their concerns. And then, also, I tried to look at a lot of other material from teachers, from scientists, from people in the California school. I focused primarily in California at that time, because that's where there was a lot of activity going on. After that, I went around and interviewed people. I interviewed at the Institute for Creation Research, several Morrises, Duane Gish, Lester Lane. I hung around here and talked to some students and some other people. I also went to the Creation Science Research Center and interviewed the Segraves. In addition, I also talked to teachers in various parts of the country, to educators, to school superintendents, people on the California school board, the revolutionists, Mr. Mayer of the Bible Science Curriculum Center, and
A: (Continuing) others, to try to understand the full dimensions of the dispute and to understand its dynamics.
Q: This work was not undertaken in connection with any lawsuit or consulting role for any organization, was it?
A: No, no. It came strictly out of my own curiosity, to understand how a movement that seemed to represent something which most scientists have assumed was long dormant, since 1925. How and why this had revived. Why did it all of a sudden begin to have some apparent political salience. Why this should reemerge at this particular point in time. What were the ideas being expressed at the time by the creationists themselves which would bring this kind of activity to the fore once more.
Q: Did you start off with any particular sympathies or feelings about the movement one way or the other?
A: Well, in some sense I did, because I thought it was kind of strange, as I mentioned, that this should all of a sudden in an age where science has a wide credibility, where scientific events seem to have been relatively well accepted, it seemed strange that this kind of challenge to contemporary science should arise. On the other hand, I started out — and I think this is evidenced in my other work — with some sense of sympathy for people who are challenging science and who feel that
A: (Continuing) their values are somehow disturbed by scientific research. And I started out with some genuine sense of sympathy for people who are concerned about their young and are concerned about the values being taught in school.
Q: After completing your study, did you publish your conclusions?
A: Yes. I published it in the book called, Science Textbook Controversies: The Politics of Equal Time, published by M. I. T. Press in 1977, was the first edition and it was in paperback in 1978.
Q: Did you also write several articles for magazines?
A: Yes. Really based on the same material that is in the book.
Q: As a result of your study, did you form any opinions about creation science?
Q: Would you tell us, from a reasonable degree of scholarly certainty, what those opinions are?
A: Yes. Very briefly, there were several different conclusions. First of all, I found that the science of creationists, I felt on the basis of my interviews, to be part of a broader Fundamentalist movement, which is essentially opposed to modernism and to science as part of modernism. And they are opposed to it primarily for
A: (Continuing) religious and social reasons. And they were attempting to try to use, as some of the other groups had, science as a way to legitimate what they were saying, using science as a kind of political resource to legitimizes and give credibility to their own views concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible; Also, I found that one of the reasons underlying the whole of their activities were concerns about a growing secularism in society and a concern that this was going to cut down on the constituency would destroy the values of their young and have their youths— It was a very normal concern that their youths were going off in some direction that they themselves felt very uncomfortable with.
Q: Could you elaborate for me on what you mean when you say they were using science to legitimize their religious views?
A: Yes. Science generally has had a lot of salience in society. It has an image of neutrality, of objectivity. It is widely used by a lot of groups. I mean, after all the transcendental meditationists call themselves the Science of Creative Intelligence. When I looked at the Laetrile people, they used scientific evidence to document the applicancy of apricot pits. Every group that I have studied tends to draw scientific knowledge, scientific evidence, tries to incorporate them
A: (Continuing) into them, even if their concerns are religious or social or have to do with freedom of choice. They tend to be a translation of these values into scientific and technical terms. It seems to be a ubiquitous tendency in our society, and I think the creationists, as well, are doing this. This is a propagandistic kind of activity in my mind.
Q: What do creation scientists find objectionable in science?
A: Well, there are several feelings that run through. One which is very, very strong is a concern about science representing some sort of flux, some sort of change; a great deal of uncertainty. And, as you know, in our society there is a great deal of concern about uncertainty at the present point. Order is a very fundamental value to the scientist, and a scientist's order is a question of design creates a sense of order. Second of all, there is a profound concern about immorality and concern about creating a moral environment, and an association with the evolution theory and the relationships between man and animals is a sore spot of immorality.
Q: Have you selected, at my request, a illustrative statement from creation scientists which shows that point?
A: Yeah. I have a couple of quotes. One from Wendell Bird, who is an attorney who writes—
Q: Who does he work for?
A: He's a member of the Institute of Creation Research. And in an argument about evolution in public schools, what creationists can do, he writes, "Christians are commanded to be lights for a crooked and perverse nation, and are to stand against the devil with the armour of God. Christians have a responsibility to ensure light and to oppose evil in the public school system, because our country is shaped powerfully by the public school curriculum and our tax dollars finance public education."
Q: Is that a part of an article describing how Creationists can get creation science in the public schools?
A: Well, the subtitle above that is, "The Responsibility: Creationists Should Request Instruction in Scientific Creationism."
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the reference to that document. There has been no authentication of that article. I have not seen it. If it is an exhibit, it has not been referred to as one as such. Further, I want to enter an objection to this line of inquiry on the grounds, again, of relevancy. This witness
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) is painting with a very broad brush that all of these things have occurred. I don't think there has been a sufficient showing that a sufficient study has been made to, first of all, make these conclusions; secondly, to relate to this lawsuit that we are concerned with here today.
THE COURT: I don't know how many objections that amounts to. Let's take them one at a time. I think what she's reading from is part of the plaintiffs' pretrial appendix to the brief. I've read it somewhere else when I was reading some material for the trial, and I think it's in that.
MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, it's Exhibit Eighty-three for identification. It's an excerpt from a periodical which ICR publishes called Impact. It's a self-authenticating document under federal rules covering newspapers and periodicals. It's also information on which Professor Nelkin has, in part, formed her conclusions and comes in as material forming the basis of an expert's opinion and is also admissible for that reason.
THE COURT: I agree with that. But he is saying he hasn't seen the document. I think it is in information that has been furnished, at least, to me.
MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we provided them with all copies of exhibits that were marked for identification.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) It's page 126 of Exhibit for Identification Eighty-three, which was served on the Attorney General's office.
THE COURT: in response to the other objection, I think the material is relevant. I think she is qualified to express opinions as an expert.
MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
Q: We're not going to belabor the point. There was a second vocation I think you selected?
A: Yes. In my interviews I found that the creationists were relating evolution theories to everything, from Communism to sexual promiscuity to the decline of the family, and at that time to streaking. Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism writes, "The results of two generations of this evolutionary indoctrination have been devastating. Secularized schools have begotten a secularized society. The child is the father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is merely an evolved beast, the man he becomes will behave as a beast, either aggressively struggling for supremacy himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders." I think that essentially documents what we have found or I have found in my own research.
MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would like to move
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) that Exhibit Eighty-three, from which she previously read, and Exhibit Seventy-six, which have both been marked for identification, be received into evidence.
THE COURT: They will be received. And Mr. Williams, I will note your objection to those two documents.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honor.
A: The third thing that comes through is the concern about secularism and implication for the literal interpretation, that this would essentially defy the literal interpretation of Genesis and consequently it in a loss of faith. And this comes through very clearly in a quote from Robert Kofahl in the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. That's Exhibit Eighty-eight, I think.
Q: It's page 141. Would you read the quotation you selected from the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Professor Nelkin?
A: "The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen hundred years—"
Q: Professor, excuse me. Would you slow down a little bit? People are having trouble understanding you.
A: Okay. Let me skip down a little so it won't take so long. "But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a
A: (Continuing) sinner must believe what the Bible says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything, therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the Savior whom they must know or perish. Supposedly scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus hinder them from coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ for salvation." I think that's the essence of the quote.
MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would ask that Exhibit Eighty-eight marked for identification be received into evidence.
MR. WILLIAMS: I object on the same grounds, your Honor.
THE COURT: I will receive Exhibit Eighty-eight, but I don't understand how that relates to the creation science theory. Is that the product of the Institute, or one of—
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
Q: Would you tell us who published the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter? Which organization does this come from, Professor Nelkin?
A: It's published by Beta Books in San Diego, and it
A: (Continuing) is, I believe, if I remember right, Kofahl is a member, is or was a member of the Institute for Creation Research. And I make a strong association between the Institute for Creation Research, which has been a primary organization among scientific creationists and Act 590.
Q: I'm going to explore that point with you in just a moment, Professor Nelkin. Your testimony is that that book is by a prominent spokesman of the creation science movement?
Q: How do creation scientists respond to the concerns that you've just articulated?
A: Well, first of all, their aim and their intention, as far as I could discern, was really to convince people to essentially believe their beliefs, convergent in the sense of convergence of ideas. They want people to believe their definition of reality. And in order to do that, they really felt it was incumbent upon them in today's age to call into question scientific ideas and to give their own ideas a sense of scientific credibility. How they do that is partly, mostly through negative argument, to try to undermine, to try to present arguments that would undermine evolution theories. And to argue therefore, if you can undermine evolution theories, then
A: (Continuing) the creationism appeared as the only alternative. Their methods of research, however, to somebody who were very familiar with scientific methods of research don't quite fit. They, first of all, start with a priori assumption. Rather than keeping an open mind about the evidence, they really use evidence in order to prove what they would like to prove.
Q: Professor Nelkin, have you studied ordinary scientists?
A: Yeah. I don't know if you want a quote on the way they approach things on their a priori assumptions or not. Would that be useful to you?
Q: Certainly, go ahead. Identify what you are reading from.
A: Oh, yeah. This from, again, from Henry Morris. Scientific Creationism is the name of the book. It is Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California.
Q: I believe that is Exhibit 76.
A: The exhibit is 76, yes. "It should be emphasized that this order is followed, not because of scientific data are considered more reliable than Biblical doctrine. To the contrary, it is precisely because Biblical revolution is absolutely authoritative and persistent that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the
A: (Continuing) same testimony as that of the scripture." "There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a verdict in favor of evolution." Very straightforward statement.
MR. CRAWFORD: I would ask that that be received in evidence.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object again.
THE COURT: You don't need to restate the grounds of to the objection.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like to add one other thing. I think the point does need to be made, and I am sure the Court is aware of this, but ICR, any group, is not on trial. What we are trying is the constitutionality of this Act. At this point, I have not seen evidence going to whether this Act is constitutional or not. There has been a lot of so-called background, which is totally irrelevant from a legal perspective. What does the Act require? That is what we are concerned about. What does the Act on its face require? The Act has not even been implemented yet.
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) What they are, in effect, saying, as I understand it is, the Act can't be implemented because of some of these problems with some of the writings. The Act hasn't been implemented yet and they can't challenge it except as to its constitutionality on its face.
THE COURT: I appreciate the argument you are making. I read it in the Brief, and I make the same ruling on it. I think, in order to save a lot of time and to save a lot of effort on your part, if you would just tell me you object on the ground that it is not relevant or on the grounds previously stated, that will help. You don't need to make an argument each time.
MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, your Honor.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
Q: Let me address that point. I think the record already reflects that many of the publications of the Institute for Creation Research are published in two editions; is that correct?
Q: Is Evolution: The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish an illustration of that?
A: Yes. There seems to be one for public schools and one for general public.
Q: I think the Attorney General's office has already made the point that when we asked the ICR for those documents and they produced them to us, they put—
MR.WILLIAMS: I object to that characterization. I never made that point. I made the stipulation in response to a request.
THE COURT: Wait just a second. He is going to withdraw that statement. Go ahead and just ask her the question.
Q: You are familiar with the way scientists operate?
Q: Are you familiar with any other set of texts which carry labels in them designating whether it is religious or science?
A: No, I have never heard of it before. I can't imagine that just simply semantic changes in books which really carry the same message would really make any difference, and I have never seen any scientific books which are written several in editions except for efforts to popularize them. But that does not try to say that one is scientific and one is not.
Q: Let me turn now and ask you some specific questions about the scientific-creation roots. You heard Professor Marsden testify earlier today?
Q: Did you hear him mention the American Scientific Affiliation?
Q: Could you give us a brief description of the creation-science groups and their development?
A: Okay. The American Scientific Affiliation was developed, I believe, in 1941 or the early 1940's. At that time, most of the creationists, as I understand, were members of that affiliation. They began to split with it in the late 1950's, early 1960's, because it was really not Fundamentalist enough with respect particularly to science. There were several things that occurred at that period. First was the public concern about science education, about the lag of the United States behind the Soviets, the Russians. In particular, that was evidenced by Sputnik, and that caused the National Science Foundation to develop a whole series of federal programs in physics and in biology, which attempted to create science textbooks for the public schools that were more in tune with the latest developments in contemporary science. There was a Darwin centennial in 1959 in which a big case was made to the fact that in biology textbooks in particular there was an extraordinary lag between what was
A: (Continuing) known within the scientific community and how this was portrayed in the public schools. On the basis of that, the Biology Science Curriculum Study was developed and created books more in keeping with contemporary and well accepted research. So then you began to have public school textbooks in the early Sixties which were developing evolution theories. There were several other things. The Supreme Court ruling in 1963 on prayer in schools was an issue which irritated a number of people. In California, and that's where a lot of the action is at this time or was at that time, Max Rafferty was very concerned about godlessness in the school system.
Q: Who is Max Rafferty?
A: Max Rafferty was Superintendent of Schools for the State of California at that time, a Fundamentalist, and extremely concerned about the lack of religion in the public schools. He used words like `godlessness' and `secularism' and was very concerned, so he had a little form of political support. At the same time the creationists began, Henry Morris, in particular, began to write books that began to have a dissemination among certain groups. At that time, also, the Creation Research Society split away from the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, to
A: (Continuing) form their own group. I believe it was in 1963. They had an oath, which I don't have with me.
Q: Is this a copy of that?
Q: Let me pass you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification which, along with the other exhibits for identification, have been provided to the Attorney General's office, and I will ask you, please, if you can identify that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time, if I might, I would just like to make an objection on the grounds of hearsay. All this that this witness is testifying to is to hearsay.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. I will note that objection.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
Q: Did you identify Exhibit 115?
A: I can't defend myself against hearsay.
Q: If you would, please, just describe for us what Exhibit 115 is.
A: Exhibit 115 is a brochure from the Creation Research Society, a Xerox of a brochure, with a brief history of the organization organized in 1963, firmly committed to scientific special creation.
Q: Is there an oath which Creation Research Society members must take?
A: There is a position statement, and then on the application form, to become a voting member you have to have a degree in some recognized area of science. In addition, all members must subscribe to the following: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple-historical truths. Second, "All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds." Third, "The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effects. Fourth, "Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as ones man and one woman, and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come
A: (Continuing) only through accepting Jesus Christ as our savior." That is the oath or what members have to subscribe to in the ISCRS.
Q: Is that a leading creation-science organization?
A: Yes, although it did split once again. These groups tend to split over certain issues. There was a leadership dispute and the CSRC, the Creation Science Research Center then formed in the late Sixties, and that became, by and large, a publishing organization. Then there was a copyright dispute and there was also a dispute over strategy, and it split once more. Henry Morris formed the ICR. It's like the government with all these acronyms. The Institute for Creation Research, which went to Christian Heritage College, which was a new organization in El Cajon, California, supported by the Scott Memorial Baptist Church, and it became the research institute, the research arm and teaching arm also, in the scientific area of Christian Heritage College, which at that time its president was Tim LaHaye.
Q: Could you tell us, please, if there are other organizations that come to mind?
A: The Bible Science Association is another one and that's been much more of a mass based organization, which serves as a means to disseminate a lot of the material.
A: (Continuing) Most of the documents, most of the lectures, most of the activities of the people in the ICR, which is now the most active organization, are the lecturers in almost entirely Bible colleges and other religious organizations, and also their writings are published primarily through religious sources.
Q: Are those the leading national organizations dedicated to promoting creation-science?
A: Those, at this moment, are the leading Organizations. I think they have subgroups in various states, but these are the leading major national organizations, yes.
Q: You told us you conducted your study in I think you said around '74 or '75?
A: '76, yes. '75-'76 was the main part of it, yes.
Q: Have you had occasion to update your research since that time?
A: Well, when one does research like that and moves on to other things, what one does is to continually collect material and stick it in the file. I don't really have time to look at it terribly carefully. I was called on the Sacramento case. Was it a year ago—January. The attorney general there had called me. I could not participate in it because I was off to France on sabbatical. But I did have — Again, as it began to come
A: (Continuing) up, I began to review the material I had collected in the meantime. And then obviously knowing that this was coming up, I have been intensively immersed in material recently. So, I feel pretty up to date.
Q: Has anything in the material you have reviewed recently changed your conclusions?
A: No. It has only reinforced it. The only difference I seek really, is it seems to me that in some sense the creationists are a little more politically astute. They have changed — The effort to completely separate, which I really can't quite encompass, I can't quite understand how they can do this, the effort to completely separate biblical creationism from scientific creationism is demarcated just a little bit. There seems to be some conflict within the organization, and I think that is reflected in this split, a conflict within the organization about how to maintain an appeal to a basically religious constituents on the one hand, and gain scientific credibility on the other. I seem to read in their literature at this point a sense of contradiction as they are pulled in two directions.
MR. CRAWFORD: I think I failed to offer into evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification. It's the Creation Research Society oath, and I ask that that be received.
THE COURT: That will be received.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like my objection made on the grounds previously stated, plus no authentication.
MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
Q: Did you, based on your interviews, were you able to create a composite picture of the creation-science leaders based on the research?
A: Well, it's not really a composite picture in any kind of technical or statistical sense. However, I was told an awful lot of times that these were people who were brought up in Fundamentalist families. They were bright kids who went off to college, and got trained as scientists. They continually had some trouble reconciling what they were learning with the Fundamentalist background. Resorted often to a theistic evolution, essentially saying that God was responsible for change. But, then, somewhere later, felt kind of uncomfortable with all of this and turned to creationism when that alternative occurred. They were attracted to this as a way to reconcile their own self doubts. This is a story I heard again and again in my interviews. Recently got reconfirmed in something that I read by Gary Parker where he says that God told him this essentially. God essentially changed his mind and opened
A: (Continuing) up new kinds of possibilities with the science in creationism, so the internal conflict didn't really register.
Q: Professor Nelkin, have you read Act 590?
A: Yes, I have read Act 590.
Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether Act 590 reflects a connection with the creation-science organizations which you've just described?
A: Yes, in a couple of ways. Going through, it looked awfully familiar, a lot of it. An awful lot of it seems to have come almost word by word, except in a somewhat different order, from a resolution that was written up, a model resolution that was written by—Was it Wendell Bird—Bird from Institution of Creation Research. In checking over that, the wording was almost identical. The order of the items was somewhat different. In terms of the definition of creationism, it is the kind of definition of creationism I have seen again and again in creationist writings. The same items appear, slightly different wording, but they are fundamentally no different than the statements that come out of the organizations, such as the Institution for Creation Research.
Q: Could I ask that Exhibit 106 for identification be passed to you, and ask if you can identify that as being