UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
————————x
REV. BILL McLEAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs.-against-
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al.,
Defendant.
————————x
Deposition of STEPHEN JAY GOULD, held at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Esqs., 919 Third Avenue, New York, New York, on the 27th day of November, 1981, at 9:30 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Notice, before Helaine J. Dribben, a Notary Public of the State of New York.
APPEARANCES:
BRUCE J. ENNIS, ESQ.
-and-
SUSAN STORM, ESQ.
Assistant Directors for Affiliate Program American Civil Liberties Union
132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036
STEVE CLARK, ESQ. Attorney General State of Arkansas Justice Building Little Rock, Arkansas
-and-
DAVID L. WILLIAMS, ESQ., Of Counsel SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, ESQS.
919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022
BY STEVEN BARNES, ESQ.
-and-
DAVID KLASFELD, ESQ., Of Counsel
3
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties herein, that filing and sealing be and the same are hereby waived.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that all objections, except as to the form of the question, shall be reserved to the time of the trial.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the within deposition may be signed and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer an oath, with the same force and effect as if signed and sworn to before the Court.
4
STEPHEN JAY GOULD, called
as a witness, having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q. Could you state your name, please?
A. Stephen Jay Gould.
MR. ENNIS: Bruce J. Ennis, appearing for Dr. Gould. Steve Barnes also appearing for Dr. Gould.
Q. Have you brought any documents with you today?
MR. ENNIS: Yes we have. In addition to the 3 books we have produced, ONTOGENY and PHYLOGENY, THE PANDA'S THUMB and THE ORIGIN, A VIEW OF LIFE, we are also producing several documents.
You previously received a curriculum vitae for Dr. Gould, but I would like to give you an updated
current version of that CV, together with a complete scientific bibliography of the many articles written by
Dr. Gould. We are also producing various file
5
folders which break down by categories relevant to your request for production of documents, additional correspondence, and documents that were in Dr. Gould's possession.
And we are in addition producing articles written by Dr. Gould which bear specifically on the subject of creationism or creation-science and subjects directly relevant to this lawsuit.
Finally, I would like to state for the record that we would like to at least mention to you that there is one article written in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, which Dr. Gould may have occasion to refer to in the course of his testimony, but for which I do not have a copy. It's called THE CEPHALOPODS IN THE CREATION and THE UNIVERSAL CREATION, and it's written by John Woodmorappe.
In the Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 15, September 1978. I will give you this copy now, but I do not have an extra. If you would like to make one, I would appreciate if you will return the original.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I would like to
6
have a copy made of this.
MR. ENNIS: I would also like to state for the record that we made a diligent effort at Harvard Wednesday to try and find our Creation Society literature on which Dr. Gould might rely in his testimony. We have not been able to determine for certain which things he will be relying on, but he has read many books by creationists, and if you would like we can state them for the record because he may -
A. Yes. The main ones would be Gish's EVOLUTION THE FOSSILS SAY NO. THE GENESIS FLOOD by Whitcomb and Morris: FOSSILS KEYED TO THE PRESENT, by Bliss, Parker and Gish. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, by Henry Morris.
I am not saying I won't read some others before the trial, but these are the ones I have read so far. In fact, the only major creations works I own.
MR. ENNIS: I would like to say for the record that I now understand that you have a copy of
another book written by Dr. Gould entitled EVER SINCE DARWIN. And that will complete our document
production in response to your request.
7
I would like to state for the record that Dr. Gould has written literally hundreds of articles in his professional career and all of them to some extent or another have something to do with evolution. We have not produced all of those articles because he does not have copies of most of them, and had reprints of virtually none of them. But we have made an effort to reproduce all articles that deal with creation-science or anything related to this case.
We have also produced a list of publications, and if on looking at that list there appear to be any additional publications in that list which you think might be relevant, we will be happy to try and get copies of those as well. We made an effort to screen through and I think we complied in good faith with your request.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. ENNIS: We are going to have the standard stipulation reserving all objections except as to form until the trial. We will not waive the signing of the deposition, however. Anything else you would like to add, David?
MR. WILLIAMS: No. Its my
8
understanding though, concerning the details, that the original will be forwarded directly to Dr. Gould; is that right? For his signature.
MR. ENNIS: We will have to figure out. what's the quicker way to do that since he's going to be out of the country.
MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. WILLIAMS: In our off the record discussion, I think we have agreed that the original of the deposition transcript will be sent to Dr. Gould either tomorrow or Sunday by Federal Express or some other overnight delivery service. He will then read it and make any necessary corrections before he leaves the country on Wednesday of next week. Will return it by Express Mail or some other overnight means of delivery to Skadden, Arps, who will conform their copy to any changes made. They will in turn send the original signed and corrected to the Attorney General's Office, Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, to my attention.
Q. Dr. Gould, where are you currently employed?
9
A. Harvard University.
Q. And your position at Harvard?
A. Professor of geology.
Q. Are you tenured?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you receive your tenure?
A. 1971, July 1 - sorry, July 1, 1973.
Q. Your attorneys - the attorneys for the plaintiff, have they explained to you the purposes of a deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you testified before in any case?
A. Never.
Q. Ever had a deposition taken before?
A. No.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes.
Q. What Is your wife's name?
A. Debra Lee, maiden name, Lee.
Q. Is she employed?
A. She's a self-employed artist and illustrator.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. Two boys.
10
Q. Ages, please?
A. One 8 and one is going to be 12 next Thursday.
Q. Where are they in school?
A. My youngest son is in the local public school called the Agassiz School, my older boy is seriously learning disabled is in a special school called League School in Newton
Q. Your 8-year old will be in the second grade?
A. Third grade
Q. Would he have any courses yet in which they discuss the subject of origins?
A. I wish he did, but the state of public education in Massachusetts is such that there is no science at all in public schools now, which is a scandal or other reasons.
Q. Why is there no science in the public schools of Massachusetts?
A. There is in some schools. There was a science specialist, but he was released for lack of funds. I don't say the teacher doesn't occasionally discuss some scientific subjects.
Q. To your knowledge, has the subject of
11
evolution ever been discussed in your son's class?
A. I am it wasn't.
Q. Are you a member of any organized religious faith?
A. Not a formal member.
Q. Informal member?
A. I identify myself as Jewish faith. Not a paying member of any temple or synagogue.
Q. Do you observe any Jewish holidays?
A. In my own way. I fast on Yom Kippur, and that's difficult for a fatso like me.
Q. Have you ever been a member of a synagogue?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever studied what the Jewish faith says about the origins of man and life in the world?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you study that?
A. Informally, personally.
Q. What is your understanding of their position on the origin of the world?
A. As with virtually all matters among Jews there are as many opinions as there are
12
individuals.
Q. Are there some individuals, if not viable groups, within the Jewish faith who subscribe to literal interpretation of Genesis?
A. There are, but it's definitely a minority position.
Q. What is your personal belief as to the existence of a God?
A. Difficult question because it depends so much on a matter of definition. If you ask me whether I think there's a male figure with a beard sitting in the clouds, I certainly don't. But if one were to define God as the source of order in the universe, I might be tempted to say yes.
Q. You might be tempted to. Is that your -
A. I reserve judgment, because that's an issue far too difficult for the human mind to answer.
Q. So to the extent that you would consider the possibility of a God, you would define it as a source of order in the universe?
A. No. I didn't quite say that.
Q. I just want to understand what your
13
position is.
A. I said if one were to define God that way, I might be willing to give my assent.
Q. What is your present opinion as to the existence of a God?
A. It's again a definitional question. If one chooses to -
Q. Define God.
MR. ENNIS: If you can. If the witness has a definition.
A. No, I really don't. It means too many different things to too many people.
Q. That's why I am trying to ask you what it means to you, because I understand that it can be given different meanings.
A. No, I really can't. Mysteries have no definitions.
Q. Would you characterize yourself as an agnostic, an atheist, deist, sir, or any of the other labels which have arisen to put people in nice pigeon holes?
A. The problem with academics is we tend to perhaps traversely and certainly ardently to value
our personal approaches so much that we
14
really decline to impose any label upon ourselves, and therefore I have always resisted such characterizations. As the literal meaning of the word, and agnostic is one of them, is unsure. In the literal meaning of course I am, in the vernacular agnostic, and have done many things. Let us say I regard the issues too difficult for either my mind or anyone else's to solve.
Q. To the extent that any of those are a label concerning your position on the existence or lack of existence on a God, would agnostic be the closest that you are aware of?
A. When something is close it's not necessarily good enough. I will certainly admit that agnostic is certainly a closer word than creationist. But any word is so far from my personal beliefs that I decline to be labeled by the terms.
Q. You say that mysteries have no definition. What do you mean by that, that the existence of God is a mystery?
A. However we define it, we know so little that the subject is beyond our comprehension.
Q. Beyond our intellectual comprehension?
15
A. That's the only way I know to comprehend. To comprehend literally, that doesn't mean that we don't have other sources of feeling, et cetera.
Q. Do you think that a religious person can be a competent scientist?
A. Of course. The empirical record proves it. There are thousands upon thousands of religious people who are competent scientists.
Q. Do you think that a religious person who might be characterized as a fundamentalist can be a competent scientist?
A. Depends on what they do. If the science that they do has no bearing upon their belief in the literal interpretation of scripture, then the answer might be yes. If, for example, they worked on the mechanism of the heart, and were only interested in how it functions as a machine, never ask questions about how it got there, how it arose, I imagine that one could.
Q. Do you think that a person who might be characterized as a fundamentalist on religious issues
could be an adequate scientist in studying evolution and the subject of origins generally?
16
A. Insofar as at least in my understanding the basis of creationism is a belief that God or some supernatural force placed creatures on earth by an act of miraculous creation, and insofar as a miraculous creation is a suspension of natural laws and insofar as science deals with natural laws only, the answer would be no. Except with one qualification. If for example a creation scientist can find himself in my profession, for example, merely to describing fossils, I suspect since that's a purely empirical endeavor, it could be done.
Q. My question, though, I am not sure if I was perhaps as clear as I might be, is if someone is a "religious fundamentalist" and is a scientist studying origins, if they look at all the scientific data and attempt to analyze it, in the most competent scientific manner that they know, would they be any less a competent scientist because of their religious beliefs?
A. Could you define fundamentalist for me?
Q. I admit the term does not admit of an easy definition for me. It is a term bandied about in this
lawsuit, more by the plaintiffs than
17
the defendants, I might say. Let's take one step back and just replace the term fundamentalist with one who has an article of faith, believes in the literal account of Genesis, his article of faith I said.
A. Science of course by definition doesn't deal in articles of faith. So insofar as articles of faith involve empirical claims, as a literal belief in Genesis does, such a person could not be by the usual definitions a scientist.
Q. How does Genesis necessarily involve an article of faith as empirical data, is that what you said?
A. That was your definition.
Q. I am saying as an article of faith — let me rephrase the question. If a scientist believes in Genesis literally as an article of faith and then studies it, studies not it, but the subject of origins generally as a scientist, can he not believe in one as an article of faith, Genesis as an article of faith and then study the scientific evidence without being biased or tainted in your own mind?
A. You mean of course the literal
18
interpretation of Genesis. I believe that Genesis is an inspired account in a different way, and very great literature as well. Sorry, I missed the thread of your question.
Q. What I heard you say earlier indicated to me that you understand that a scientist who believed as an article of faith in the literal account of Genesis could not be a competent scientist to study the subject of origins and theories of origins.
A. If they insisted a priori and an unreviseable belief that the literal story of Genesis had to be true, then since the empirical evidence is so overwhelmingly against certain aspects of the Genesis story, particularly the creation of all life in 6 days and 24 hours, that could not be because that belief has been falsified.
Q. That is the key, isn't it, as to whether they will try to establish or come to their work with a priori conviction?
A. That could not be altered.
Q. If they had this religious belief but they were able to put that aside and look at the
19
data as a scientist there is no reason why they —
A. That's a contradiction in terms, they couldn't. If they really are biblical literalists committed to it, then the scientific data puts to the contrary.
Q. Are you aware that even among biblical literalists that they don't necessarily believe that week of Genesis was a week of 24-hour days?
A. The bill as I understand it, demands that they are not 24-hour day, then the creation of the earth is so recent then it is equally falsified by the evidence that we have.
Q. We will get into the bill in a moment. I have been handed this morning either revised or updated curriculum vitae. Does this vitae include all of your employment since you received your Bachelor's Degree?
A. Yes, it does. It's been a dull life. I have just been at Harvard since I got my Ph.D.
Q. What courses do you teach in geology at Harvard?
A. I teach several courses. I teach either year a large course in the core curriculum, which is the
general education program for the
20
college which is called science B-16, which is an overview of the history of the earth and life. In addition, I teach, though not every year and in varying intervals, a number of more technical courses in paleontology, evolutionary theory, and the history of evolutionary and geological thought.
Q. You received your Bachelor's Degree in geology at Antioch in 1963?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you have any subspecialty in your study of geology?
A. Antioch is a strange school. It doesn't really recognize formal majors. I took a fair number of courses in biology as well, with a major in geology.
Q. Did you bypass the Master's Degree? I don't see that listed.
A. Yes. It's customary. At least many schools that are Ph.D. oriented to either have an honorary master's that you really get after having taken a certain number of courses or to dispense with it all together. I may even have it, I don't remember.
Q. And your Ph.D. was in what?
21
A. In geology, with a specialty in paleontology, 1967, Columbia University.
Q. Describe for me briefly how you would define paleontology?
A. Paleontology is the study of fossils. Simple as that, all aspects thereof.
Q. Who was your major advisor at Columbia?
A. My major advisor was Norman Newell, a curator of fossil invertebrates at the Museum of Natural History.
Q. Have you ever taught a course on creation-science?
A. I couldn't. There is no such thing.
Q. Have you ever discussed the subject of creation-science in your classroom?
A. Only in brief allusions in my science B-16 course.
Q. Do you recall what your brief allusions would consist of?
A. They were negative.
Q. I would expect that, but do you recall the content?
A. I in fact will give — come up to Harvard next week. I am going to give 2 lectures
22
on Monday and Wednesday, which is the first lecture I will give on the subject. They mainly consisted on attempts to show that by the definitions of science, creationism did not qualify.
Q. Are you aware of any schools where the subject of creation-science - I am talking about schools which are post secondary schools, colleges, universities, where creation-science has been taught?
A. I know that it is in the abstract, but have never talked with anyone who teaches such a course. I did in Dayton, Tennessee, meet the president of Bryan College, and I believe, though I am not certain, that they teach creationism there.
Q. Do you know if it's being taught in any other colleges or universities say on the east coast, what would be some of the more major colleges?
A. I'm not aware that it is.
Q. Would you be surprised if it is?
A. Yes — depending on how it's taught, I would not be surprised if it were considered in sociology
courses an issue of the day. I simply
23
don't know.
Q. Where did you graduate from high school?
A. Jamaica High School. It's a public high school in New York, in Queens. Not on the island of.
Q. What science courses did you take there?
A. The standard very poor offerings that existed before the Sputnik went up. I had in junior high school, a year of general science, and then a year of biology, a year of physics, and a year of chemistry, plus mathematics of course. No calculus.
Q. Did you study theories of origins in high school?
A. Ever so briefly.
Q. What do you recall about your study?
A. Virtually nothing. Evolution was treated in a week or so at the end of the course. That being, by the way, a legacy of the Scopes trial and the textbooks which still exist not many years later.
Q. How did you arrive at the conclusion that that was a legacy of the Scopes trial?
A. Because the book we used was Moon,
24
Mann, and Otto. And we know since that book was around since 1920 that, although the early editions included much evolution, the post-Scopes trial ones did not.
Q. Are you aware that there were other texts which were available which perhaps had a more thorough discussion of evolution?
A. No idea. I was a little child.
Q. Was the creation model or any symbols there of origins treated in your high school courses?
A. No. But there was very little evolution either.
Q. In undergraduate school at Antioch, what courses on theories of origins would you have taken?
A. Theories of origins is a bad term, because we don't really deal with origins in the study of evolution. If you ask me in evolution, the answer is a fair number. I guess I only had one formal course entitled "Evolution," but I had since age ten or 11 made a personal study of the subject.
Q. What books had you read from age ten
25
and 11 that you can recall and that would have been influential?
A. The first book and most influential one was George Simpson's, THE MEANING of EVOLUTION.
Q. When did you read that book?
A. Let us say I attempted to read it at age 11. I doubt in rereading it later that I understood much of it then.
Q. Any other particular influential books in this area?
A. I like Roy Chapman Andrews' ALL ABOUT DINOSAURS, but I doubt very much that it said much about processes of change.
Q. In undergraduate school, did you receive any instruction in creation-science, model of origins or anything similar thereto?
A. Only from personal study. I always had an interest In the subject.
Q. And in your postgraduate studies, did you have any study of the creation-science model of origins, or anything similar to it?
A. Not formally, again.
Q. What was the subject of your Ph.D. dissertation that you wrote?
26
A. THE EVOLUTION FOSSIL LAND SNAILS FROM BERMUDA.
Q. Was that published?
A. Yes, it was. It's item 20 on that list if I remember correctly, a very long and complex title.
Q. When was the first time you heard the term creation-science?
A. I just don't know.
Q. Approximately?
A. The problem is I don't know whether — I certainly am aware of literal beliefs in Genesis. I have read a lot about the Scopes trial as a teenager. I just don't know whether the term was used then. I don't think so, but I don't know.
Q. In response to our request for documents you brought with you this morning some various documents I want to ask you some questions about.
First of all, labeled in a folder entitled American Society of Naturalists, Committee on Creationism,
there is a memo and two or three letters. Do you recall what the occasion was that you received this?
27
A. Yes. I became president of the American Society of Naturalists by the death of the man who should have served. I was not so elected. I was vice president. And one of the items of business was the establishment of a committee within the society to study the creationist challenge, and I as president participated in the setting up of such a committee asking Bruce Wallace to be its chairman. That committee functioned sporadically, made the report that you have, and more or less merged with a still ongoing committee for which you have a folder of documents and of which I am a member of the Society for the Study of Evolution. I might say that the Society for the Study of Evolution of the American Society of Naturalists are the two major professional societies of evolutionists.
Q. So you appointed Bruce Wallace to chair the committee; is that correct?
A. Bruce Wallace is too eminent a man. One doesn't appoint him, one begs him to do it.
Q. You were responsible?
A. I asked him, yes.
28
Q. When did the American Society of Naturalists decide to set up a committee on creationism?
A. My memory for dates is terrible.
Q. Approximately?
A. It was 1978 or '79 or 1980. It was at the annual meeting.
Q. Is there any resolution or any other written documentation concerning the reasons why this committee was set up?
A. If so, I don't have them. As I remember, Walter Bock, was a professor of biology at Columbia, wrote to the president of the society asking or recommending that such a committee be established. I had that letter at one time. I don't now, because I passed on my entire files. As I said, I was only president pro tem.
Q. What do you recall as the reasons motivating this committee being established?
A. We evolutionists believe that what you call creation-science is a contradiction in terms and is
not science. We were alarmed at its spread in various secondary schools across the nation and set up
a committee to look into ways whereby
29
evolutionary biologists might raise questions and oppose this spread.
Q. Was a charge given to this committee?
A. Only to report back the following year as to what they thought effective tactics might be. Let me not say that. What they thought the appropriate stands of professional evolutionary biologists might be.
Q. It was clear at the outset, was it not, that the overall purpose would be to symbol creationism?
A. Oh, yes, indeed. I presume that's not an issue. Sorry if I was pussyfooting.
Q. What is the Voice of Reason?
A. The Voice of Reason about which I confess I know not a great deal, is an organization brought to
my acquaintance by Morris Goodman, who is an evolutionary biologist at Wayne State University in
Detroit, which has at least one of its charges combating creationism. Dr. Goodman asked if I would sign
the statement of purpose and become a member of I don't know if it's the board of advisers or just a list
of signatories. I read the list and signed them.
30
Q. These subscribe to this document entitled the Voice of Reason with several subtopics, the American Tradition and another subtopic of the Secular Stage.
MR. ENNIS: Is your question did he by signing subscribe to the entire document or just the statement on creation-science?
MR. WILLIAMS: My question is, there is a two page document there which his name I think the fourth page is listed as on the national board of advisers.
A. As always in signing documents, I do not guarantee that I accede to every nuance of every word, but the resolution section which is the guts of the document I signed because I do indeed support it.
Q. What have been the functions or activities of the Voice of Reason to date?
A. I don't know.
Q. When did you agree to sign on as a member of the National Advisory Board?
A. I think it was last spring, spring of 1981 that is. But I would not commit myself to that. Plus or
minus 8 months, which is the
31
academician's statistical fluctuation.
Q. Looking at the National Advisory Board I notice it includes people like Isaac Asimov, Francisco Ayala, Guy Bush, and there are people on the list. Would it be fair to say that all these people would be evolutionists?
A. I am sure they are all evolutionists. Yes, it would.
Q. These other documents that you have provided from the Voice of Reason which include some really outstanding works of art, have you read those before?
A. I have glanced through them.
Q. I notice on one page it says "It is our heritage to continually construct a wall of separation between church and state."
A. The only thing wrong with that is the split infinitive.
Q. But do you agree that's part of our heritage, to have a wall of separation between church and state?
A. I thought that's what the first amendment says, not in quite that graphic language. The best for
the protection of religion, as well
32
as everything else.
Q. Has this been published, to your knowledge, any of this information in any other form?
A. I don't know.
Q. It would appear to be perhaps the draft of some sort of pamphlet or something?
A. It did come in a bound pamphlet form. No, that art does not hold a shadow to Michelangelo. I think Michelangelo today would have been an evolutionist.
Q. Does this group have any meetings that —
A. I don't know.
Q. You have not attended any personally. By the way, did anybody ever ask you if you do this last Tuesday?
A. No. I am sorry. I don't like being here either. I want to be with my family.
Q. But you were never contacted to check and see if you could have done this Tuesday?
A. I couldn't have, I had to teach. I don't really remember if we did, since I had a class in the morning,
I couldn't have in any case.
33
As I understand it, I am here at your request, not at my personal desire.
Q. I understand that. What involvement have you had with the so-called Committees of Correspondence?
A. No personal involvement. I merely submitted those documents since they were sent to me. I tried to give you whatever literature I had from any formally constituted anti-creationist group.
Q. Are you aware of the purpose of Committees of Correspondence?
A. In a loose sort of way, yes. I have spoken very briefly to Stanley Weinberg in the State of Iowa, whom I understand is their leader, and I know the head of Massachusetts branch, Laurie Godfrey, but have had no formal ties with them.
Q. You haven't done any work or any writings yourself?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why you were sent this material?
A. I imagine they have a mailing list that
34
Includes evolutionists of notoriety. I guess I classify - I qualify as such.
Q. I think you said earlier that you are a member of the Society for the Study of Evolution's education committee. What is your understanding of the purpose of the education committee?
A. To study the creationist challenge and devise means of meeting it.
Q. Again, the purpose is to oppose it, correct?
A. Oh, yes, indeed.
MR. ENNIS: Can I ask you to clarify your question by what you mean oppose it, do you mean oppose the teaching of it in public schools or oppose it more generally?
A. You can't oppose what parents do in their house or what churches do in their buildings. That's no concern of ours.
Q. I notice in some of the correspondence on the committee, education committee of the Society for the Study of Evolution the term the anti-evolutionist is often used. Do you use that term in reference to the creation scientist?
A. I usually call them creationists. They
35
are not creation scientists, because in my view they are not scientists, and they are people opposed to evolution. So I myself use the term creationist.
Q. Do you use the term anti-evolutionist?
A. I haven't, I don't think. But it would not be an inappropriate term.
Q. What duties or activities have you undertaken on the education committee?
A. I attended a meeting at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution held in Iowa this June or July, and beyond that I have been a fairly passive member, merely receiving documents, although I did send out one mailing in which I merely sent copies of the two of the articles that you have to all members of the committee in response to a request that we circulate among ourselves those writings that we have.
Q. What articles did you send?
A. The piece from DISCOVER MAGAZINE, and the natural history column entitled a visit to Dayton, both of which you have.
Q. There is a file with some
36
correspondence in it titled the "National Academy of Sciences."
A. The National Academy of Sciences has a committee. How active or how it's constituted I don't know. It was preparing a draft statement on creationism. I was contacted by Dr. Maxine Singer, and asked to check its wording and make any comments. I suggested a very few alterations, mainly stylistic.
Other than that, they did hold a meeting in Washington, I was invited to attend it but was unable to because I had classes that day. That is the extent of my involvement with them.
Q. Have you had any other — you may have said something on this, perhaps I didn't hear — but other than this reviewing this draft of a statement on creationism, have you had any other involvement with the National Academy of Science's opposition to creation?
A. Not other than being invited to this meeting and being unable to attend.
Q. In the final folder that I have in front of me presently is a National Association of Biology
Teachers, which contains apparently some
37
correspondence.
A. Yes. I have had no official contact with them. That like the Committee of Correspondence information that came to me and knowing that the NABT is active in the anti- creationist front, I thought I would supply those documents. I should, however, mention that I did at the annual meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers held in Boston and now again it's plus or minus a year, it was either this year's or last year's meeting, give an address on creationism.
Q. Is there a transcript of that address?
A. I think there is.
Q. Is it included in these materials?
A. I don't own it, but it could be, if such exists it would be a cassette tape and could be obtained by contacting Wayne Moyer, who is head of the national association.
MR. ENNIS: Let me say for the record that in Boston on Wednesday we did ask Dr. Gould if there
were any transcripts of any of the addresses or speeches he had given on the subjects covered by your
request to produce documents which
38
were in his possession, and the answer is that there are not or to the extent there are, they are included in those document requests. There may have been other brief appearances on radio shows or other speaking engagements, but he does not have any transcripts of those in his possession.
Q. To the best of your recollection, would your talk or speech on creation-science given to the National Association of Biology Teachers contain any information different than what is included in your writings?
A. It was longer, so evidently there would be more words, but I think the content of it covered, particularly the article that you are holding now.
Q. You're referencing the DISCOVER article?
A. Yes.
Q. Have any of the other organizations that you are a member of or have been involved with besides the ones we have gone through taken an official position on creation-science?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. How about the AAAS, are you aware of it?
39
A. I don't think they have, but I don't know for certain. The AAAS, of course, is such a large organization. One is a member to receive the magazine SCIENCE and I am not aware of their official position.
Q. Are you a fellow of —
A. That's an honorary title.
Q. What does it mean?
A. It means that with your document, and 75 cents you can take a ride on the New York subway.
Q. Are you voted on?
A. Yes. You get a little psuedo parchment document in the mail that says you're a fellow and you put it on your CV.
Q. Is that a mark of distinction within the scientific community?
A. It is said to be. I do not regard it as a particularly distinguishing mark thereof.
Q. Do you recall making a remark previously in a speech or a presentation or perhaps at a
so-called debate, I don't know if it was a debate or not, on creation-science, that creation-science was not an
issue anywhere in the world except in the United States?
40
A. I have said things like that but not quite in those terms.
Q. What is your position on that?
A. That so far as I know, that in no other western nation - I don't know what's happening in China or Sri Lanka — That in no other Western nation though. I know there are individual creationists and even in England a few societies, but that this is not a major political issue.
Q. Are you aware of as to creation-science or some form of creation model is taught in Canada?
A. I guess I always consider chauvinistic, one tends to consider Canada as an extension of the United States. After all, Montreal almost got into the World Series this year. Yes, I think there's a creationist movement in Canada, and I guess I was lumping Canada with the United States.
Q. Are you aware whether creation-science is taught in the public schools in Canada?
A. I don't know.
Q. And you say this is really not an issue, as I understand it, anywhere but in the United States and Canada?
A. As far as I know it is not a major
41
political issue that commands media attention.
Q. Now you have said not a political issue. Is it an issue in the scientific community?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that the, if I have the term right, the Museum of Natural History in London had an exhibit in which creation-science or something similar thereto was presented as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution?
A. I am afraid that's a misinterpretation of what was done at the British Museum of Natural History. There was a fairly cautionary put up in one of the exhibit halls that spoke about alternatives, but it was not an equal time exhibit.
Q. But which said that creation-science, if we can use that term, in the general sense at this point, was an alternative theory to evolution?
A. I have the copy of the wording. I don't believe that that's an accurate representation of it. I don't have it with me.
Q. Could you produce that?
A. I could produce it insofar as it is an editorial in NATURE MAGAZINE that talks about this. I believe
I have a copy of it and can produce it.
42
MR. WILLIAMS: If you can produce that, I would appreciate it.
THE WITNESS: However, it was an editorial in NATURE MAGAZINE, which is a fairly common magazine.
Q. If I can have just have a cite.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would like this marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1 to the Gould deposition an article from the May 1981 DISCOVER MAGAZINE entitled "Evolution as Fact and Theory."
(Whereupon, document above referred to was marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1 for identification, as of this date.)
Q. In Exhibit 1, on page 34, the second paragraph you state that "The arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions." And then you go on to state that "The creationists have not a single new fact or argument."
Upon what do you base your belief that the creationists do not have any new facts or arguments?
A. Reading their literature and being aware of what was used in the 1920's in the Scopes
43
trial, and the literature of that time, particularly by George McCready Price, who was the leader of the creationists in the 20's and 30's.
Q. Could you describe for me the literature that you are talking about, particularly with reference to George McCready Price? I am talking about George McCready Price. What arguments did he forward?
A. I haven't read this material for a while, but they were mainly including what Bryan and others presented at the Scopes trial, primarily arguments about the presumed young age of the earth and gaps in fossil record, et cetera.
Q. Did he talk about the second law of thermodynamics?
A. Who remembers, but —
Q. Do you recall that?
A. I don't remember. It's a pseudo argument. When I say not a single new fact or argument, a
literal meaning of argument to me is something that has, I suppose argument is anything that anyone
says, there are new words that weren't used before. By "argument," I mean something that has
integral substance.
44
Q. If your statement that the creationists have not a single new fact or argument, if that were not true would your opinion change any on the subject of creation-science?
MR. ENNIS: I didn't understand that question.
THE WITNESS: I didn't either.
Q. One of the first statements that you make in this article is that the creationist have not offered any new facts or new arguments, as I take it —
A. I mean arguments of substance.
Q. I understand that. But if there are in fact new facts since 1925 in the Scopes trial or new arguments, and arguments of substance as you term those, would your opinions be different?
MR. ENNIS: About what?
Q. Your opinions on creation-science as a science.
MR. ENNIS: I don't mean to be obstructive here, but I still don't understand it. It seems to me
what you're asking is if in fact there were scientific evidence for creation would you then have a different view.
45
MR. WILLIAMS: I think the witness' article begins on the premise that there are or there is no new evidence.
A. The main premise of the article is that —
MR. ENNIS: I am sorry. If you can answer the question, I have no objection to your answering the question.
A. I still don't really understand it but the main premise of the article of course is that there is nothing going forth. The main point is not a historical one as to when arguments arose. Like any scientist, when an argument that we haven't heard arises we have to assess it. I am unaware, and I have read a fair amount of creationist literature, of anything that I find in the slightest persuasive.
Q. You use the term creationist literature. What do you include within that term?
A. Here I am using the sentence of those who support the literal interpretation of Genesis as an infallible guide to interpreting the history of life in the earth.
Q. I don't understand your definition or
46
characterization of creationist literature. You seem to be describing it with reference to the beliefs of the writers, rather than to the implications of the writings.
A. I think that is what the creationist movement represents, and I think the bill specifies that when it talks about the age of the earth and the flood. So it's that body of literature by Gish, Henry Morris and others I regard as the main body of creationist literature.
Q. Have you read Act 590?
A. Yes.
Q. I would like to ask you if you could to look at it again for a moment. And looking at section 4-A, which is the definition of creation-science, before asking you questions about that, from your other testimony I think it's fair to say that you view creation-science as nothing more than a literal interpretation of Genesis under the guise of science?
A. Let me say that creation-science is to me a contradiction of terms. Because creation, in my
understanding, refers to the suspension of natural law by some power to place creatures upon
47
this earth.
Q. First of all, let me ask you then, where in the act is creation-science or creation defined or described in such a way that it necessarily includes the suspension of natural laws?
A. Point one, sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
Q. Now that is one part of what creation-science may include. It says, does it not, that creation-science is the scientific evidences for creation and inferences there from. Is that correct?
A. Not exactly in those words. Creation-science includes the scientific evidence and related inferences that indicate, yes.
Q. Is there anything in that sentence which necessarily requires the suspension of natural laws?
A. In vernacular definition, the production of things from nothing is to me miraculous.
Q. In that first sentence.
A. I think so because to me the term
48
creation-science, defining creation as I do, implicitly refers to miraculous suspension. That's the way I define the miracle of creation.
Q. A miraculous suspension of natural laws?
A. Yes.
Q. That is how you define creation-science?
A. That's the core claim of creation-science as I understand it is the suspension of natural law to place on this earth by the fiat act of a supernatural Creator the kinds of life.
Q. Do you feel like you are familiar with the account of creation given in Genesis?
A. I have read Genesis. I don't know all the exogenical traditions, of course.
Q. Looking at 4-A1, could you tell me if that language is in Genesis?
A. I read Genesis different from creationists. To me it's an allegorical tale of great literary power.
Q. My question is, I think according to your earlier statement that creation-science is derived from
a literal reading of Genesis, is that right?
49
A. As I understand it.
Q. I want you to just look at 4-A1, which says, "the sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Is that in Genesis?
A. I don't think it is. Other people do. Remember, any part of the Bible can be read in many different ways.
Q. 2 says, "the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about investment of all living kinds from a single organism," is that in Genesis?
A. I'm not aware of that Genesis speaks of mutation. I don't see how it could.
Q. 3 is, "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals" does Genesis say that only the kinds have only fixed or — does Genesis say that the living kinds changed only within fixed limits?
A. My answer is really the same to all of these.
MR. ENNIS: Are you asking the witness what his interpretation of Genesis is, or are you asking
the witness of his understanding of what the interpretation of Genesis advanced by creation
50
scientists is?
MR. WILLIAMS: From his earlier testimony I think he said that he had studied the Genesis account of creation. Genesis account of —
MR. ENNIS: I believe his testimony was that he had read the Genesis account of creation, but I don't believe he said he had studied or studied it or read it recently.
THE WITNESS: I said that I am aware that there are many exogenical traditions of it. I certainly know what the words say, but there are so many different interpretations. There is no book that has been more interpretive in a variety of ways than the Bible. There are 100 different interpretations, as you know. I don't quite see what you are getting at.
Q. Your statement I think earlier was that creation-science, besides the point that you think it's a contradiction in terms, that it is also merely a literal account of Genesis, is that correct?
A. It depends upon the claim that Genesis read literally represents the facts of nature. Specifically
in points 5 and 6. And if you
51
allowed a little play, that wouldn't change very much.
Q. Where in Genesis, for example, does it state that there has been a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds?
A. Again, I don't believe that it does.
Q. I know, but if you interpret it literally, where does it say that?
A. One calculates the genealogies, starting with Adam, and gets an age.
Q. Is that in Genesis, to your knowledge?
A. It's not all in Genesis. You might have to proceed through some of the begat sections of Chronicles and some of the other books, but that's how it's been done.
Q. Where in Genesis is separate ancestry from man and apes?
A. My answer is going to be the same to every one of these questions. That represents one possible interpretation.
Q. That's an interpretation, but it is not necessarily in there, is it?
A. It can't necessarily be in there since so many people who regard Genesis as an
[Page 52 is missing - MvADP Editor.]
53
which is a widely circulated publication which would support the theory of creation-science?
A. Could you define the theory of creation-science for me in this context?
Q. Creation-science, let's at this point confine ourselves to the definition given in Act 590, since that's the issue at hand.
A. But you see it's an odd definition. One of the points it makes under definition I regard as inappropriate there. It says 2 kinds. That's a caricature of what evolutionists say. I don't believe the mutation and natural selection is sufficient, but that is surely not part of creation-science.
So If you confine the definition to this set of 6 points, then the answer is yes, but only because the definitions are so poor. Of course there's literature that says mutation and natural selection is insufficient. I forget what its called in logic, but to say that the acceptance of what anybody says is the definition of any one part of it commits one to the definition is false.
(Recess taken.)
54
Q. Your statements concerning your position and conclusion that creation-science cannot be science, could you tell me again why you believe that creation-science is not?
A. Because its core belief requires that natural law be suspended for the sudden or flat introduction of basic kinds onto the earth, and science is defined as an enterprise based on natural law. The suspension there of not being science.
Q. Does the role or the definition and use of the term "kinds," is that precluded from being science?
A. What I said doesn't apply to the word kind. I mean kind to me is a very vague term, the likes of which I don't know. But the fiat introduction of any kind of life, be it a species a genesis or kingdom.
Q. Do you feel that we know all that there is to know about the natural law?
A. Goodness, if we knew everything that there was about the world I guess we would pack up and play golf for the rest of our lives.
Q. So there is more to learn?
55
A. By definition in science, there is always more to learn. What a dull world if there weren't.
Q. Do you think that it would be scientific for a scientist to look at the origin of life or some organism and try to determine whether the origination of that life or organism was possible under the laws of nature?
A. Science, like any other enterprise, has boundaries. Science is that enterprise that attempts to describe and interpret the facts of the world under natural law, therefore attempts to study the origins of things under the laws of nature, and part of science.
Q. So the study of the limits of the laws of nature would be part of science?
A. The limits are not — the limits are not — limits have to do more with definitions of the enterprise, not with the facts of nature. Therefore, nothing about morality is part of science. Natural law doesn't deal with morality. But anything about the facts of nature come under the heading of natural law as we understand it.
Q. What was the last statement? I didn't
56
hear it.
A. That the fact of nature as we understand it comes under the province of natural law.
Q. You use the term as we understand them.
A. Science is always tentative.
Q. If a scientist might resort to some scientific method and concluded that the origin of the first life could not have been by chance or by just the laws of nature operating, could that be scientific?
A. First of all, let me say that I have no professional opinion on the question of the origin of life is not what evolution deals with. So I am not going to be able to go very deeply into technical questions. But domain of science does not include things that don't have to do with natural law. I don't know what else one can say. And therefore, for instance, does not allow one to speak on questions of morality.
Q. Define evolution.
A. Evolution is the study of changes at several levels, either within local populations or from species
to species that occur once life is on
57
earth.
Q. Could you restate that? I really want your precise definition of what you consider evolution.
A. The science of evolutionary biology, that's really what I will call it, is the science that studies history of changes that life has undergone, both within populations and between species once it arose.
Q. Between species and what that arose?
A. Within populations. That's not a very elegant definition. The substance is there.
Q. According to your understanding of creation-science, does it deny the presence of evolution or the occurrence?
A. It denies the sufficiency of it to account for the living world as we know it. What literature I have read does not deny that a limited amount of evolution can occur.
Q. The evolution, these are common layman's terms, I mean the evolution of, for example deposition —
MR. ENNIS: I am happy to let the witness answer that question but in view of your
58
earlier questions when you ask him his understanding of creation-science, does it allow some evolution to occur, are you talking about creation-science literature or as defined in Act 590?
MR. WILLIAMS: I want to talk about it in terms of the act unless otherwise specified.
MR. ENNIS: That's why I wanted to clarify that.
A. The act says you've got to believe in changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds.
Q. That could be fairly characterized as evolution?
A. Oh, yes, but the theory of evolution maintains that the whole pattern of life as we see it is a process of change by natural law. Evolution would not be satisfied by any means by the statement that only poodles and chihuahuas can be derived from the basic dog.
Q. But the creation science definition in Act 590 does include evolution to a degree.
A. But that's not evolution as we understand it. It's only a little bit of a change.
59
That's not what the theory of evolution is fundamentally about. Just as, for example — never mind.
Q. You were going to say as for example. You make statements like in negotiations lawyers can't let them try?
A. Nineteenth Century creationists believed in a certain amount of natural selection but they used it only as a device for getting rid of extremely deformed individuals. But they weren't Darwinians. Quite the opposite. So in other words, it's not being an evolutionist to believe point 3.
Q. When you define evolution and discuss the changes that life has undergone between species, is it a necessary part of evolutionary theory that all species are related in some fashion?
A. Genealogically, yes.
Q. And that if you go back far enough there will be a common ancestor?
A. Yes, there are common ancestors. It's not impossible that if life arose from chemical constituents of
the earth's atmosphere and oceans,
60
that it might have done so twice, but yes, it's a claim of common ancestry, sure.
Q. So it is part of the theory of evolution, scientific theory of evolution as opposed to social evolution, that all organisms do have a common ancestor?
A. Again I qualify that. It's a claim of theory of evolution that all evolution are connected by ties of genealogy. It is not inconceivable, that life, if it arose from nonlife, could have made that transition a few times. However, it is probable that all life actually had a single common ancestry. In any case, even if there were say a few origins of the lowest level, changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals I think would be excluded. By no stretching of the term kind could a bacterium and human be placed as the same kind.
Q. So while it is not inconceivable that there were more than one — that there was more than
one instance of life from nonlife, is it the prevailing view in the theory of evolution that life evolved
from nonlife only once from that
61
organism?
A. That's a very unimportant issue. I don't even know whether it's the prevailing view or not. It's not what we deal with. We have in the fossil record going back to 3 and a half billion years forms that we believe are the ancestor of all others. Those are the forms of very simple bacteria.
Q. Where do you believe those forms of life came from?
A. Again, I have to reiterate what I said, that is as an evolutionary biologist we do not deal — I do not have expertise at all on the issue of origins. It's curious, if I may make aside comments, how in a way the professional evolutionary biologists are within the linguistic limits of the debate placed counter to what is called creationism.
An evolutionary biologists as professionals deal with changes in life once life arises. One would have
to know a lot more chemistry, for example, than I know to talk about the origins of life from nonlife. I
just don't have a professional opinion in that area.
62
Q. I am not trying to have you explain to me exactly how life emerged from nonlife, but is that not part of the general theory of evolution that life did emerge from nonlife?
A. It's not what evolutionary biologists study.
Q. You're limiting it to evolutionary biologists?
A. The theory of evolution as I studied it is a biological discipline that talks about the evolution of life once it arises. The term evolution has been around — the word evolution has been around in many usages for a very long time. Spencer applied it to the evolution of societies. Evolution was a vernacular word, and I don't deal with all those other meanings.
Q. But it does have other meanings, doesn't it?
A. All sorts of words have vernacular meanings that are wider than their technical ones, and
people engaged in the technical studies don't necessarily know. Significance has a definition in statistics, but
a statistician needn't know whether things —
63
Q. In your study then as an evolutionary biologist, how far back would you say —
A. I go back 3 and a half billion years to the first life on earth.
Q. What's that first evidence that you are aware of?
A. The first evidence is bacteria from the fig tree Zimbabwe. And maybe somewhere else in Africa.
Q. And while perhaps not from that precise bit of bacteria that you are aware of, is it not true that bacteria are the oldest life is according to evolutionary thought presumed to be the ancestors for all subsequent life?
A. That's correct: Yes, the later life arose from.
Q. What within the scientific community, not necessarily within evolutionary biology, who would take us back farther, as a group or a subdiscipline?
A. Those biochemists that were interested. That's not all biochemists.
Q. Is there such a thing as an evolution biochemist?
64
A. That are biochemists who study how life may have arisen from nonlife. I don't know what they call themselves.
Q. What is the theory as to how life arose from nonlife?
A. Again, I didn't even take organic chemistry in college, so I am speaking largely as a layman here. But the general feeling as I understand it —
MR. ENNIS: You can answer the question the extent that you have knowledge or opinion.
A. Is that life arose by natural processes and natural law.
Q. From nonlife?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct to say it was essentially a chemical reaction?
A. Awfully complex set of chemical reactions. As you know we can make from the constituents of the earth's atmosphere a lot of fairly complex organics, including amino acids. That's not life.
Q. Then within the, if I could refer to it, as the school of evolutionary thought, as opposed
65
to just evolutionary biology or paleontology?
A. Again, I don't mean to be instructional early. But professional boundaries are very guarded in academia and it's not regarded happily when, people make pronouncements in areas they don't really understand. I don't know what you mean. If it includes the evolution of society, then I disclaim. Darwinian theory, for example, is not the only biological evolutionary theory — there is about genetic change in DNA and its consequences.
Therefore, when we talk about the evolution of society one can only speak by analogy. When we talk about those biochemical changes before the development of DNA, it again can only be by analogy. I don't really know what else to say.
Q. Do you consider yourself an evolutionary biologist?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Perhaps I am being hampered by semantics here. But as a paleontologist you study fossils?
A. Yes.
66
Q. Do you study the molecules of DNA and genetics as a paleontologist?
A. Only on very rare occasions when you get soft parts preserved.
Q. Have you made the study of the — I am just curious, sir as to what your area of expertise is?
A. My area of expertise is fossils. When I said DNA and consequences? No. I need to study DNA when I study the symmetry of the hand.
Q. I think we have established that within the general framework of evolution, and we are talking only about evolution of life here, not society and that sort of thing, that it is believed that life emerged from nonlife, these complex chemical reactions?
A. No. I didn't say that. I said that that is not what my profession of evolutionary biology deals with.
Q. I understand that. You're a professor of — you have a Ph. D. in a field which is obviously in
geology and I am sure that you are aware of what are the other parts —
67
A. I said that. I have to insist that it's not part of evolutionary biology. As I said to you.
Q. A part of evolution generally.
A. It is not part of what I define as the field of evolution. It is a part of science, to be sure. It's not my part of science.
Q. I understand that. I can appreciate that, that you would prefer to limit yourself to the area where you are really concentrated. But my question is, as you understand it, where did the matter, the nonlife come from?
A. Oh, that's not even a scientific question. If you want to go back that far. Science itself doesn't deal in ultimate origins. I am sorry, I thought you were giving me the chemical constituents of the earth. You asked me where matter came from, how can science deals with that question. I have no opinion on that. That is the mystery of mysteries.
Q. If I asked you where the matter on this planet came from, does science say anything about that?
A. Science has theories of how solar
68
systems form, sure. That's a very different issue from ultimately where the matter of universe came from.
Q. What are some of the theories of where the matter on this planet came from?
A. Again, I disclaim any formal expertise. I am not unaware of the scientific American level of what people say. But as I understand it the most popular view refers to the origin of planets along with the sun from the condensation of a primordial cloud of dust and gas. I have a very rudimentary knowledge of physics and chemistry.
Q. That's commonly referred to as the big bang; is that correct?
A. Oh, no. The big bang refers to again. As I said it, to a time when all the matter of the visible universe may have been together in a single place and there is dispersion after an explosion from that place, the condensation of the solar system is a later event. You have to talk to the cosmologists if you want the latest word on those issues.
Q. Let me see if I understand you. So you feel natural origin of the first matter is not a
69
scientific question?
A. How could one answer a question like that?
Q. Is the origin of the first matter then necessarily a religious question?
A. That again depends on definitions of religion. I don't think all unanswerable questions are by definition part of religion. From the parts of our own mental structure, I at least could only conceive of two answers. Either that matter — both of which involve a concept of eternity with which our poor minds can't deal. One is that matter was around forever, and two, that some other force was around forever that made matter at some point. We have no answers. I don't know how we get them. To me it is not necessarily a religious question. It's just a question unanswerable.
Q. But it's a nonscientific question?
A. Yes.
Q. And you can think — you can't think of any other alternatives to either that matter always existed
or that something always existed which created the matter?
70
A. I can't think of any other alternative. There may be. Certainly not in my subdivision.
Q. Do you think it is inappropriate to discuss in a public science classroom, for example, where that matter came from?
A. I don't know how you could. I defer to my attorney here.
MR. ENNIS: Just when you ask him if he thinks it's inappropriate, do you mean inappropriate asking for a legal conclusion whether it's unlawful?
MR. WILLIAMS: No; personally, in his opinion as a science professor.
THE WITNESS: I would never include it in a curriculum, because we have nothing to say about it. Suppose a student asked me a question about it, I would give my personal opinion as in any other subject.
Q. So if the student asked a question about it, you would give your honest opinion?
A. I would basically say why I didn't think it was science, a question that science can answer, it
doesn't mean that he wouldn't have a discussion about it.
71
Q. Could you tell me in kind of a nontechnical sense since I am a layman to science, upon what you base your opinion that the bacteria which we know of to be 3 and a half billion years old or something similar is the ancestor for all subsequent forces of life?
A. It's primary, based on the biochemical similarities that you create all forms of life. DNA of modern, bacteria which seem to be not significantly different from the old ones is the same stuff that of which we are made.
Q. Is there anything about the similarities which necessarily dictates that there is a common ancestry?
A. The only sensible story I can tell based on it.
Q. - It's the only sensible story.
A. I could tell another tale that isn't science. But I wouldn't be able to falsify it. I couldn't think of an observation that could run against it.
Q. But in trying to view the origin or the evolution of life 3 and a half billion years ago, can you think
of an observation which would run
72
against?
A. That in principle would run against?
Q. Yes. Run against this concept that —
A. Do you mean an actual observation that does run against or an observation in principle that might?
Q. First of all, are there any, to your knowledge?
A. Observations that run against?
Q. Yes.
A. There may be some that people have claimed have. But I know of none that in my interpretation does. If you ask me can I conceive of one, sure.
Q. Would you give me one?
A. Species it turned out, which I didn't, but it could have, when people started studying
biochemical similarities, that based on DNA sequences or amino acid sequences, that humans were as closely
related to bacteria and yeast as to chimpanzees. I have a real hard time reconciling that with notions of
descent. It didn't work out that way. Biochemical taxonomies bear a marked resemblance to conventional ones.
73
Q. So what you are saying is because biochemically we are closer to a chimpanzee than to a bacteria, then and I assume is the chimpanzee closer to the bacteria than we are?
A. No, no. We are both so far, it's hard to say.
Q. But because we are closer to the chimpanzee than we are to a bacteria that there has been this common ancestry at some point?
A. That's not what I said. Your question was there any statement that can falsify evolution and I gave you which the converse doesn't necessarily hold. I can think of no other reasonable interpretation of that fact.
Q. Do you think that all scientific evidence on theories of origin should be taught in the classroom?
A. One of these is a question of definition. What do you mean by theories of origin?
Q. I am talking about theories of origin of man, of life, and of the universe.
A. See, because again, we talked about theories of the origin of matter. I already said
74
that that kind of ultimate question really isn't a scientific one. We don't teach that. If you confine your questions about origins to those subjects with which science deals, then it's almost tautological. If you confine it to the objects, subjects with which science deals, then yes, all scientific evidence should be taught. Let me back-track. I don't mean that any claim ever made in history that is testable, after all there are testable claims that have been made, that have been falsified, and those needn't be taught. One need not teach that the earth might be flat. One need not teach that the sun goes around the earth. Those are scientific claims in the sense that they are testable. They were tested and found wanting.
Q. If there is scientific evidence which would — if there is scientific evidence for creation, do you think it should be taught?
A. There can't be. No, I can't because it's a definitional point again insofar as creation deals with
miraculous suspension of law as we were discussing before. And that isn't science. There cannot be such.
75
Q. For example, under Act 590, one of the portions of the definition of creation-science indicates a relatively recent inception of the earth. Now, would you agree that, first of all there is evidence as to the age of the earth?
A. Yes. And it all points to the falsity of part 6.
Q. But if there should be evidence which points to a relatively recent inception of the earth, do you think that should be discussed? Scientifically, that is?
A. No. If there were real evidence, yes. If there were real evidence that the sun went around the earth, it should be taught. The fact that some people claim it, which some people do, the very fact empirically that some people have that claim doesn't mean it should be taught. I am aware that people make that claim, but that doesn't mean it should be taught.
Q. I am not asking you to adopt that as being necessarily scientific. I am really asking if there is
scientific evidence for that statement, or that contention of a relatively recent inception of the earth —
76
A. But it has to be real evidence, it can't just someone's say so. Yes, that's a testable claim, and it's been tested and found false. If any new evidence came around, one would discuss it. But I am aware of none.
Q. If there is scientific evidence on the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about I think you said something to the effect of all living kinds from a single organism, do you think that should be discussed in a public school science classroom?
A. That to me is one of the ways in which the bill is very poorly written, because to me it is not part
of creation-science to claim the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection. I think most
evolutionists think that mutation and natural selection are insufficient. I happen in my own personal views think
they are a little more insufficient than other people. But even the most orthodox Darwinians, Mr.
Ayala, would argue that genetic drift plays some role. To me that's an example of how the bill is badly
written. For purposes of convenience, I think that we can refer to it as creation-science, and
77
that's what the bill speaks of. I think it might be a bit clearer.
Q. In your article in DISCOVER MAGAZINE, you discuss or differentiate between a theory and a fact.
A. Yes.
Q. What do you consider a theory to be?
A. To me a theory is a set of ideas that attempts to interpret and explain the facts of the world.
Q. If you take facts from the facts you derive or you get or hypothesize theories; is that correct?
A. It's a little more complicated than that. Because not all theories that anyone has ever tried arise as mere inductions from facts. Theories are tested by studying the facts of the world.
Q. Would you say that the fact that the earth is not flat is a theory?
A. No. It's a fact.
Q. At one point it was a theory, wasn't it?
A. Oh, no, it was always a fact. We just didn't always know it.
78
Q. But it was offered as a theory, and then in some way that was measured?
A. Indeed, it was offered as a fact. No. It was offered as a fact and people were wrong. No. Theories are not facts. Theories are structures of ideas that interpret and explain facts. I am aware that in the American vernacular the theory is used differently to mean imperfect fact. It is not what it means to a scientist.
Q. When you use the term American vernacular, are you talking exclusive of the scientific communities?
A. Since scientists always use the vernacular they mix the two on occasion also.
Q. So this concept at the present time of differentiating between a theory and facts is one which may not be commonly held by the scientific community?
A. I am not saying it's never transgressed. I think it is commonly held.
Q. When is the difference between a theory and a scientific theory?
A. That really has to do with incommensurate things, namely again vernacular and scientific
79
usages. A scientist shouldn't use the term accept to mean scientific theory. In the vernacular we say I have a theory about why the Yankees lost last month. That's not the way a scientist would use the term.
Q. When you talk about evolution as being both a fact and a theory, as I understand what you are saying, and let me see if I can briefly summarize it, what you're talking about there is the concept on the first hand that evolution is a fact because we can observe certain changes, and it's a theory in the sense —
A. Can I stop you?
Q. It's a theory in the sense that from these observed changes we can try to extrapolate the larger changes which have occurred over time which we cannot observe?
A. No, that is not a correct characterization.
Q. Correct it for me.
A. Sure. The facts of evolution of which we by no means know all of them, are merely the path ways
of evolution, the ones we know and the ones we don't know. The ones we don't know are
80
not yet in our vocabulary, but when we know them they will be the facts. The theory of evolution is how you interpret the causes of those connections. The processes, the ways by which those connections were established, whether by natural selection, whether by some other mechanism. The distinction is not between those genealogical connections we know and those we don't know. It's rather between the mere information which is the tree of life, and the modes of explanation for why that came about. The second being the theory. Darwin made that distinction all the time.
Q. Also on the first page of your article, there is, I think an aside concerning President Reagan's remark that you devoutly hope that his remark was campaign rhetoric. I thought you didn't use devout in a religious sense?
A. Oh, no. Just meaning very much hope.
Q. Devout to some people it does have a religious connotation?
A. Yes. But you will admit it also has a vernacular connotation.
Q. I have a hard problem trying to really differentiate between a fact and theory. You
81
define fact to be confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Now, if that is what a fact is —
A. That's all it can be because science doesn't deal in certainty.
Q. Can a theory then not rise to the level of being a fact?
A. No. It doesn't mean it can't be right, but that's just not what a fact is. Theories are ideas that interpret and explain facts. They are just something else, they don't arise to the level.
Q. In your definition of the fact you kind of describe it without saying what it is. It has been confirmed to such a degree?
A. It's a piece of the world. This is a cup, I can describe what it's made out of. There is not a theory about cups. Facts are data, what the world is made out of. Theories are ways in which we interpret and explain how they operate, why they are here, et cetera. How they got here. Their ultimate why's we don't deal with.
Q. Are creation-science and to use Bill's term evolution science incompatible?
A. Yes.
82
Q. If there were, assuming arguendo, there were a creator at some point, which created that first — that bacteria on the fig tree, and from there life evolves, would they not be compatible?
A. That's not what the bill says.
Q. I understand that. I am asking if there are incompatible?
A. Yes. There is a part of it that is incompatible.
Q. What is that part?
A. The fiat creation of the bacterium. Because that also involves the suspension of law. If you take Newton's law view of God that God is a clockwinder who sets up the laws of the universe, then let it run, is the universe. But again, I point out this act does not permit that version of creation.
Q. But again, you have to look at the definition, and if you look at that definition it says that —
A. But it says separate ancestor man and apes. And if you have a bacterium there would not be separate ancestry.
Q. I take it that you read those A, B — 1
83
through 6 under 4-A there to be an all, inclusive definition of creation-science?
A. It doesn't have to be all inclusive, but I take it they at least include these or it wouldn't be law.
Q. I am just asking how you are reading it.
A. My vernacular as a nonlawyer reading is that if it says these 6 are there, they are certainly part of it, and several of them are directly contradicted by the scenario that you just gave me.
Q. That would be nonetheless an act of creation?
A. What would?
Q. A creator, whatever that might be.
A. Making the bacteria.
MR. ENNIS: Are you asking the witness if there are other religious interpretations of Genesis that are not inconsistent with evolutionary theory?
MR. WILLIAMS: No. I never asked that.
MR. ENNIS: It sounded like what you are asking.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think it presupposes
84
your whole theory of the case.
MR. ENNIS: If you would like to ask the witness that, we would be happy to answer.
Q. Are you aware of any scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?
A. How do you define the theory of evolution?
Q. I want to take it in its broad scientific sense. Including not only what you have described as the change within populations or between species, but also going back to that emergence of life from nonlife.
A. I don't define it that way.
Q. But are you aware of any scientific alternatives to all, or a portion of the theory?
A. Again, I don't understand that. Scientific alternatives, any one of the particular proposals, there is
a proposal called Darwin's or the strict version of Darwin's theory argues that natural selection is about
all there is as an agent of evolutionary change. There are scientific alternatives to that. There have
been others historically— Lamarckism was the most prominent— but those are all within science.
85
Q. But those are not different than evolution, they are simply —
A. They are different mechanisms of evolution. But they all accept the facts.
Q. Are there any scientific alternatives to evolution?
A. But that' s what scientific alternative is. Lamarckism is a scientific alternative as an explanation of evolution. Scientific — oh, you mean to evolution itself. Again —
MR. ENNIS: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I think half of it.
MR. ENNIS: I would rather you not answer the question unless you're sure you understand what it is. I am happy to have you answer the question that you understand.
Q. Are there any scientific alternatives to evolution?
MR. ENNIS: You mean to the fact of evolution, theories of different mechanisms to explain it?
Q. The theory aspects of evolution.
A. You see, that's where the problems are.
86
Insofar as evolution is a fact, there are no known alternatives. It's just a fact of the world. We could be wrong, of course. We can always be wrong. Whether there are alternative theories, of course there are, but they are all evolutionary theories. I don't know how else to answer.
MR. BARNES: You're asking if there is a scientific theory that incorporates a view of the world that excludes evolution?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think —
THE WITNESS: I don't see how there could be. If that's what you are asking, the answer has to be no. There can't be scientific theory that denies the facts of the world.
Q. Are you aware of any scientific alternatives to the evolutionary view of the emergence of life from nonlife?
MR. ENNIS: I object to the question because it assumes that the emergence of life from nonlife is part of evolutionary theory and the witness has testified that it is not.
MR. WILLIAMS: He has testified that under the general umbrella of evolutionary theory that is part
of it.
87
THE WITNESS: No, I denied that. I thought I said that there are vernacular usages that to me more middle things than clarify. I would not, for instance, allow views on the evolution of society to be encased within evolutionary theory.
Q. I am talking about the evolution of organisms. Is part of the theory of evolution of organisms a theory that life did emerge from nonlife?
A. That's not what I studied.
Q. I am not asking what you studied.
A. I said that it was a common opinion of my colleagues that that was so.
Q. Are you aware of any scientific alternatives to that aspects.
A. People have made other proposals and it doesn't make them scientific.
Q. In your opinion that are scientific.
A. That's not my area. I can't testify to it any more than I can about different theories about the evolution of society about which I know nothing and am dubious in any case.
Q. One of the criticisms that I have read
88
and heard leveled at creation-science has been that it essentially is anti-evolution, that it seeks to criticize evolution. Do you agree with that?
A. As I define evolution, indeed. The claim for a separate ancestry for man and apes contradict evolutionary theory as I understand it, as to do many of the other statements in these six points.
Q. When you quote — was it one of Darwin's basic objectives to try to disprove or not to disprove but to criticize the theory that species had been separately created?
A. Yes, of course.
MR. KLASFELD: I think the point that Mr. Williams is making is that there has been criticism of creation-science that as a science is limited only to criticizing evolution and not offering alternative theories of its own, and I think his question was are you aware of that —
THE WITNESS: Yes. It has offered no alternative scientific theories.
MR. WILLIAMS: I want to ask that one attorney handle the objections or questions or
89
statements or whatever they might be, all right.
MR. ENNIS: That's fair.
Q. I think you have answered my question in the affirmative that one of the main purposes of Darwin in his writings and research was to show that these — to criticize, if you will, the theory that each species had been separately created.
A. Yes.
Q. So he started out in a sense trying to criticize a previously-held theory, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In the history of scientific theories and scientific thought, have theories arisen or began as merely criticizing an existing theory, do you understand that question?
A. Certainly, and I also see exactly where you are driving. But remember that Darwin not only
criticized what came before, but offered a whole mode of explanation that was scientific as to why he proposed
an alternative. No, in fact Darwin looked at it historically did not do that at all. He developed the theory
of natural selection in 1838 largely before he developed most
90
of the criticisms of fact.
Q. That was not my question. In the history of scientific thought have not many theories arisen at least in their genesis, if I can use that term, to criticism of other theories?
A. But not without proposing some scientific alternative.
Q. But you would agree with my —
A. No, I wouldn't. Because the answer is not without proposing some scientific alternative.
Q. What do you define as a scientific theory?
A. Whatever I said five minutes before.
Q. We were talking about — you said a theory in your article is a structure of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
A. Right. I will stand by that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let's take a short break.
(Recess taken.)
Q. Look at section 4-B of Act 590 please, which is the definition of evolution science.
A. Right.
Q. Evolution science is defined in Act 590, Dr. Gould, to mean the scientific evidences for
91
evolution, and inferences from those scientific evidences in that it lists several things that it does include. As formulated in Act 590, would you say that evolution science is a theory or a fact?
A. First of all, let me say that some of the statements in 4-B are absurd from the point of anybody's definition of evolution, whether it be fact or theory. For example, point 2, the sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds.
As I testified before, I know of no evolutionist who regards mutation and natural selection as
utterly efficient to do that. And five, "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence
by uniformitarianism," which is in its strict definition is held by no geologist, so therefore I find it — let
me say for the record that I find it hard to answer that question because of the definitions here. But
therefore I guess I can't. I can only reiterate what I said, that the fact of evolution is simply the bare
bones statement that organisms are connected by ties of
92
descent and evolutionary theory — and the theory of evolution are the proposals about mechanisms and processes that explain how the tree of life got to be where it is.
Q. Is the theory of evolution as you have articulated it testable?
A. Sure. Theories of evolution.
Q. Right, theories.
A. They have to be, or they are not science.
Q. Are they falsifiable?
A. That's part of the definition of testable.
Q. Are they observable?
A. Depends on what you mean by observable. Very, very little of science deals in absolutely direct visual observation. I am looking at you now.
Q. So is observability part of a definition of a science?
A. Not direct visual observation, because whoever saw an atom.
Q. What is meant by that term as you understand it?
93
A. I don't know. You have to tell me what you mean by it.
Q. Did Popper use that term?
A. I don't know.
Q. You know who Carl Popper is?
A. Sure.
Q. Do you recall his writings on philosophy of science?
A. In the distant past, one has read a lot of them. I am still vaguely aware of some of what he says. But I am not going to commit myself.
Q. You don't know whether he used the observability as a criteria of science?
A. Read me a quotation and I will tell you what I think it says.
Q. What about predictability?
A. Are we talking about Popper or me now?
Q. Yes.
A. You will have to read me what Popper says. He is no God of course.
Q. Would you agree with Popper's definition of what is a scientific theory?
A. I don't know. You have to read it to me.
94
Q. You are not familiar enough with it to be able to converse?
A. He has written that many works (indicating) and he has also changed his mind on a lot of it. If you read me a definition, I will tell you what I think it says.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let's take a quick lunch break.
(Luncheon recess: 12:30 p.m.)
95
AFTERNOON SESSION
12:50 p.m.
STEPHEN JAY GOULD, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
EXAMINATION (cont'd.)
BY MR. WILLIAMS:
Q. Are you aware that Popper in his autobiography, which is entitled UNENDED QUEST, says, "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program— a possible framework for testable scientific theories"?
A. Are you aware that he has modified that view since then?
Q. First of all, you are aware that he wrote that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is his modification as you understand it?
A. I forgot the quotation.
Q. Could you paraphrase what you think he said?
A. That he now regards it as testable.
96
Q. When did he modify that, roughly?
A. I don't know the date of the statement, but it was published in SCIENCE MAGAZINE, Nature or THE SCIENCES. And it was last year, but I am not sure that was the original statement. It was quite recent.
Q. Is science concerned where theories come from?
A. Sociology is. Scientists are interested in it as human beings, but the distinction that scientists and that philosophers make between context and logic of theories are different things.
Q. Scientists, as I understand it — correct me if you think this is wrong —
A. I mean the theory could come to one in a dream, as long as it's testable.
Q. The source of a theory is not really the important thing?
A. Yes. Source is important. One wants to know about it, one wants to understand what kind of an activity science is.
Q. You said earlier you thought theory of evolution was testable.
97
A. There is no theory of evolution. There are a variety of theories. To be scientific theories they must be testable, they must be falsifiable.
Q. There are a variety of theories?
A. Yes.
Q. But if there is a thread which runs through all of those theories
A. That thread being the common acceptance of the fact that what they are trying to explain is the fact of evolution, yes.
Q. And can that commonalty itself be tested?
A. It has been. If the commonalty is merely the basis, the factual basis that they are trying to explain, yes.
Q. I don't know if you answered this question or if I asked it before. Would the evolution or emergence of life from nonlife be testable?
A. You keep pushing me on that one. I am going to disclaim again. It's not my subject, I am not going
to tell you about the evolution of science, I don't know anything about it. The
98
things I don't know about I can't tell you about.
Q. Well, you are a historian of science, aren't you?
A. Yes.