1 (December 7, 1981)
2 (1:30 p.m.)
3 MR. SIANO: I'd like to approach the bench, your
5 MR. WILLIAMS: There is a small point to clarify.
6 (Bench Discussion)
7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in connection with Mr.
8 Marsden's testimony, there was some question about these
9 labels. In connection with discovery, we obtained copies
10 of these documents from the organizations themselves.
11 Those are the documents which have the labels.
12 The books that Professor Marsden brought with him from
13 Grand Rapids do not have the labels. I offer to stipulate
14 with my adversary just to that. I have asked whether Mr.
15 Williams is willing to do that, and he is unwilling to do
16 that. I think that would be a more efficient way to
17 address this particular narrow issue.
18 MR. WILLIAMS: All I am saying is, they chose the
19 books they wanted to bring in. Those are the ones they
20 brought in.
21 THE COURT: Why don't you stipulate that the books
22 he brought from Grand Rapids didn't have the labels? Is
23 Marsden not available?
24 MR. SIANO: He is here, your Honor. I guess we
25 will have to put him on the stand.
1 THE COURT: Well, bring him and let him testify as
2 to those.
3 Will that satisfy you?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: I am not disputing it occurred. I am
5 just saying they brought the books they wanted to use. If
6 they think it is that relevant, they could have brought
7 these in in the first place.
8 THE COURT: Will you stipulate to that?
9 MR. WILLIAMS: I will stipulate to it.
10 THE COURT: Okay, fine.
11 MR. SIANO: I will state it for the record, and you
12 can state whether you agree. Thank you, Judge.
14 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, parties have agreed that
15 copies of the books which Professor Marsden brought from
16 Grand Rapids, titled Troubled Waters of Evolution, by
17 Henry Morris, Studies of the Bible and Science, by Henry
18 Morris, and Evolution: The Fossils Say No, do not have
19 any disclaimatory labels in them. The books which the
20 Plaintiffs obtained in discovery from the creation science
21 organizations in this case, i.e., The Troubled Waters of
22 Evolution, Studies of the Bible and Science, both by
23 Henry Morris, are the copies of those books which have
24 labels, and as so stipulated by the parties.
25 THE COURT: Call your next witness.
1 MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiff calls Professor Dorothy
2 Nelkin. Mr. Dewey Crawford will handle the direct
6 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having
7 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and
8 testified as follows:
11 BY MR. CRAWFORD:
12 Q Professor Nelkin, would you state your full name for
13 the record, please?
14 A Dorothy Nelkin.
15 Q By whom are you presently employed?
16 A Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
17 Q Who position do you hold there?
18 A I'm a professor in the Department of Sociology and
19 in a program called Science Technology and Society.
20 Q I'm going to ask that Plaintiff's Exhibit
21 Ninety-Nine be passed to Professor Nelkin, and when that
22 arrives, Professor Nelkin, I'm going to ask you if you can
23 identify that as being your curriculum vitae?
24 (Examining same) Yes.
25 Q Your career pattern has been a little bit unusual as
1 Q (Continuing) far as academics, has it not, as far
2 as obtaining your present academic position?
3 A (Nodding affirmatively) Yes, it has. I think women
4 often have unusual, women particularly in my generation
5 often have unusual career patterns.
6 I did not obtain a Ph.D., but instead worked my way into
7 the profession by writing books and by getting some
8 recognition on the basis of work. And Cornell was an open
9 enough academic community to accept that as a reasonable
11 Q You are a full tenured professor at Cornell, are you
13 A Yes. I have been since 1977. I have been a
14 professor there since 1973 or something.
15 Q And you have also been elected by your colleagues in
16 the sociological profession as president of your academic
17 society in sociology?
18 A I was. I'm past president of the society called the
19 Social Studies of Science. But that is rotating. I am no
20 longer in the position.
21 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I would like to have
22 Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-nine for identification
23 received into evidence as Professor Nelkin's curriculum
25 THE COURT: It will be received.
1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
2 Q Professor Nelkin, will you tell us briefly what your
3 area of research and scholarship is?
4 A Yes. I tend to focus my research on the social
5 implications of science and technology. I study the
6 questions of science and public participation and the
7 relationship between science and the public.
8 I have been particularly interested in my research on
9 the way lay groups, lay groups can be used by— The way
10 science becomes a source of legitimation, a source of
11 credibility for many groups with other kinds of causes.
12 Q Do you have any particular means or methods of
13 approaching these subjects?
14 A Well, I find it very useful to study conflicts, to
15 study controversies, as a means of understanding what
16 people really want, what their demands are, how they
17 articulate these demands. And I have focused my work on
19 Q Controversies involving science and technology?
20 A Always involving some aspect of science or
21 technology or both.
22 Q Can you give us some examples of such disputes that
23 you have studied or written about?
24 A Well, I've worked on a lot, I've written a lot on
25 technological siting disputes, like the siting of airports
1 A (Continuing) or nuclear power plants. I've written
2 a great deal on the nuclear debate, both in this country
3 and in western Europe.
4 I've studied the recombinant DNA dispute, a little bit
5 on Laetrile dispute, again focusing on issues of expertise
6 and the way people use experts and use science as a way to
7 deal with these issues.
8 Q Can you explain the methods which sociologists use
9 in, drawing conclusions about controversies or the
11 A Well, sociologists use a great number of methods.
12 My own method is to do extensive interviewing, but I start
13 always by collecting the material of any group, or, not
14 only of any group, but surrounding the issue that I am
15 studying. I try to bury myself in the literature, whether
16 it's legal literature, whether it's the documents produced
17 by various groups, to really understand the issues. And
18 after that I do extensive in-depth interviewing with
19 people representing all sides of the controversy.
20 I seldom concentrate on any one group. I try to
21 understand their relationship to society. it's called, in
22 its logical terms, extended case analysis.
23 Q All right. Did you conduct such a study of the
24 creation science movement?
25 A Yes, I did.
1 Q Would you tell me how you came to do that and when
2 you did that?
3 A I became interested in creation science movement
4 around 1973-74, and started collecting material at that
5 time, but then really began to pursue it as a full time
6 research endeavor, I think it was '74 or '75.
7 I, again, collected a lot of material that was written
8 by the creationists, to try to understand and try to get
9 myself under their skins, so to speak, to try to
10 understand what they were thinking, what their concerns
11 were, the diversity of their concerns. And then, also, I
12 tried to look at a lot of other material from teachers,
13 from scientists, from people in the California school.
14 I focused primarily in California at that time, because
15 that's where there was a lot of activity going on.
16 After that, I went around and interviewed people. I
17 interviewed at the Institute for Creation Research,
18 several Morrises, Duane Gish, Lester Lane. I hung around
19 here and talked to some students and some other people.
20 I also went to the Creation Science Research Center and
21 interviewed the Segraves.
22 In addition, I also talked to teachers in various parts
23 of the country, to educators, to school superintendents,
24 People on the California school board, the revolutionists,
25 Mr. Mayer of the Bible Science Curriculum Center, and
1 A (Continuing) others, to try to understand the full
2 dimensions of the dispute and to understand its dynamics.
3 Q This work was not undertaken in connection with any
4 lawsuit or consulting role for any organization, was it?
5 A No, no. It came strictly out of my own curiosity,
6 to understand how a movement that seemed to represent
7 something which most scientists have assumed was long
8 dormant, since 1925. How and why this had revived. Why
9 did it all of a sudden begin to have some apparent
10 political salience. Why this should re-emerge at this
11 particular point in time.
12 What were the ideas being expressed at the time by the
13 creationists themselves which would bring this kind of
14 activity to the fore once more.
15 Q Did you start off with any particular sympathies or
16 feelings about the movement one way or the other?
17 A Well, in some sense I did, because I thought it was
18 kind of strange, as I mentioned, that this should all of a
19 sudden in an age where science has a wide credibility,
20 where scientific events seem to have been relatively well
21 accepted, it seemed strange that this kind of challenge to
22 contemporary science should arise.
23 On the other hand, I started out — and I think this is
24 evidenced in my other work — with some sense of sympathy
25 for people who are challenging science and who feel that
1 A (Continuing) their values are somehow disturbed by
2 scientific research.
3 And I started out with some genuine sense of sympathy
4 for people who are concerned about their young and are
5 concerned about the values being taught in school.
6 Q After completing your study, did you publish your
8 A Yes. I published it in the book called, Science
9 Textbook Controversies: The Politics of Equal Time,
10 published by M. I. T. Press in 1977, was the first edition
11 and it was in paperback in 1978.
12 Q Did you also write several articles for magazines?
13 A Yes. Really based on the same material that is in
14 the book.
15 Q As a result of your study, did you form any opinions
16 about creation science?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Would you tell us, from a reasonable degree of
19 scholarly certainty, what those opinions are?
20 A Yes. Very briefly, there were several different
21 conclusions. First of all, I found that the science of
22 creationists, I felt on the basis of my interviews, to be
23 part of a broader fundamentalist movement, which is
24 essentially opposed to modernism and to science as part of
25 modernism. And they are opposed to it primarily for
1 A (Continuing) religious and social reasons.
2 And they were attempting to try to use, as some of the
3 other groups had, science as a way to legitimate what they
4 were saying, using science as a kind of political resource
5 to legitimizes and give credibility to their own views
6 concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible;
7 Also, I found that one of the reasons underlying the
8 whole of their activities were concerns about a growing
9 secularism in society and a concern that this was going to
10 cut down on the constituency would destroy the values of
11 their young and have their youths. It was a very normal
12 concern that their youths were going off in some direction
13 that they themselves felt very uncomfortable with.
14 Q Could you elaborate for me on what you mean when you
15 say they were using science to legitimize their religious
17 A Yes. Science generally has had a lot of salience in
18 society. It has an image of neutrality, of objectivity.
19 It is widely used by a lot of groups. I mean, after all
20 the transcendental meditationists call themselves the
21 Science of Creative Intelligence. When I looked at the
22 Laetrile people, they used scientific evidence to document
23 the applicancy of apricot pits.
24 Every group that I have studied tends to draw scientific
25 knowledge, scientific evidence, tries to incorporate them
1 A (Continuing) into them, even if their concerns are
2 religious or social or have to do with freedom of choice.
3 They tend to be a translation of these values into
4 scientific and technical terms.
5 It seems to be a ubiquitous tendency in our society,
6 and I think the creationists, as well, are doing this.
7 This is a propagandistic kind of activity in my mind.
8 Q What do creation scientists find objectionable in
10 A Well, there are several feelings that run through.
11 One which is very, very strong is a concern about science
12 representing some sort of flux, some sort of change; a
13 great deal of uncertainty. And, as you know, in our
14 society there is a great deal of concern about uncertainty
15 at the present point.
16 Order is a very fundamental value to the scientist, and
17 A scientist's order is a question of design creates a
18 sense of order.
19 Second of all, there is a profound concern about
20 immorality and concern about creating a moral environment,
21 and an association with the evolution theory and the
22 relationships between man and animals is a sore spot of
24 Q Have you selected, at my request, a illustrative
25 statement from creation scientists which shows that point?
1 A Yeah. I have a couple of quotes. One from Wendell
2 Bird, who is an attorney who writes.
3 Q Who does he work for?
4 A He's a member of the Institute of Creation
5 Research. And in an argument about evolution in public
6 schools, what creationists can do, he writes, "Christians
7 are commanded to be lights for a crooked and perverse
8 nation, and are to stand against the devil with the armour
9 of God. Christians have a responsibility to ensure light
10 and to oppose evil in the public school system, because
11 our country is shaped powerfully by the public school
12 curriculum and our tax dollars finance public education."
13 Q Is that a part of an article describing how
14 Creationists can get creation science in the public
16 A Well, the subtitle above that is, "The
17 Responsibility: Creationists Should Request Instruction
18 in Scientific Creationism."
19 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
20 the reference to that document. There has been no
21 authentication of that article. I have not seen it. If
22 it is an exhibit, it has not been referred to as one as
24 Further, I want to enter an objection to this line of
25 inquiry on the grounds, again, of relevancy. This witness
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) is painting with a very broad
2 brush that all of these things have occurred. I don't
3 think there has been a sufficient showing that a
4 sufficient study has been made to, first of all, make
5 these conclusions; secondly, to relate to this lawsuit
6 that we are concerned with here today.
7 THE COURT: I don't know how many objections that
8 amounts to. Let's take them one at a time. I think what
9 she's reading from is part of the plaintiffs' pre-trial
10 appendix to the brief. I've read it somewhere else when I
11 was reading some material for the trial, and I think it's
12 in that.
13 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, it's Exhibit
14 Eighty-three for identification. It's an excerpt from a
15 periodical which ICR publishes called Impact. It's a
16 self-authenticating document under federal rules covering
17 newspapers and periodicals. It's also information on
18 which Professor Nelkin has, in part, formed her
19 conclusions and comes in as material forming the basis of
20 an expert's opinion and is also admissible for that reason.
21 THE COURT: I agree with that. But he is saying he
22 hasn't seen the document. I think it is in information
23 that has been furnished, at least, to me.
24 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we provided them with all
25 copies of exhibits that were marked for identification.
1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) It's page 126 of Exhibit for
2 Identification Eighty-three, which was served on the
3 Attorney General's office.
4 THE COURT: in response to the other objection, I
5 think the material is relevant. I think she is qualified
6 to express opinions as an expert.
7 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.
8 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
9 Q We're not going to belabor the point. There was a
10 second vocation I think you selected?
11 A Yes. In my interviews I found that the creationists
12 were relating evolution theories to everything, from
13 Communism to sexual promiscuity to the decline of the
14 family, and at that time to streaking.
15 Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism writes, "The
16 results of two generations of this evolutionary
17 indoctrination have been devastating. Secularized schools
18 have begotten a secularized society. The child is the
19 father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is
20 merely an evolved beast, the man he becomes will behave as
21 a beast, either aggressively struggling for supremacy
22 himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders."
23 I think that essentially documents what we have found or
24 I have found in my own research.
25 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would like to move
1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) that Exhibit Eighty-three,
2 from which she previously read, and Exhibit Seventy-six,
3 which have both been marked for identification, be
4 received into evidence.
5 THE COURT: They will be received. And Mr.
6 Williams, I will note your objection to those two
8 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honor.
9 A The third thing that comes through is the concern
10 about secularism and implication for the literal
11 interpretation, that this would essentially defy the
12 literal interpretation of Genesis and consequently it
13 in a loss of faith. And this comes through very clearly
14 in a quote from Robert Kofahl in the Handy Dandy Evolution
15 Refuter. That's Exhibit Eighty-eight, I think.
16 Q It's page 141.
17 Would you read the quotation you selected from the Handy
18 Dandy Evolution Refuter, Professor Nelkin?
19 A "The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen
20 hundred years—"
21 Q Professor, excuse me. Would you slow down a little
22 bit? People are having trouble understanding you.
23 A Okay. Let me skip down a little so it won't take so
25 "But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a
1 A (Continuing) sinner must believe what the Bible
2 says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God
3 and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything,
4 therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible
5 as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the
6 Savior whom they must know or perish. Supposedly
7 scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the
8 Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus
9 hinder them from coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ
10 for salvation."
11 I think that's the essence of the quote.
12 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would ask that Exhibit
13 Eighty-eight marked for identification be received into
15 MR. WILLIAMS: I object on the same grounds, your
17 THE COURT: I will receive Exhibit Eighty-eight, but
18 I don't understand how that relates to the creation
19 science theory. Is that the product of the Institute, or
20 one of—
21 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
22 Q Would you tell us who published the Handy Dandy
23 Evolution Refuter? Which organization does this come
24 from, Professor Nelkin?
25 A It's published by Beta Books in San Diego, and it
1 A (Continuing) is, I believe, if I remember right,
2 Kofahl is a member, is or was a member of the Institute
3 for Creation Research. And I make a strong association
4 between the Institute for Creation Research, which has
5 been a primary organization among scientific creationists
6 and Act 590.
7 Q I'm going to explore that point with you in just a
8 moment, Professor Nelkin.
9 Your testimony is that that book is by a prominent
10 spokesman of the creation science movement?
11 A Yes.
12 Q How do creation scientists respond to the concerns
13 that you've just articulated?
14 A Well, first of all, their aim and their intention,
15 as far as I could discern, was really to convince people
16 to essentially believe their beliefs, convergent in the
17 sense of convergence of ideas. They want people to
18 believe their definition of reality. And in order to do
19 that, they really felt it was incumbent upon them in
20 today's age to call into question scientific ideas and to
21 give their own ideas a sense of scientific credibility.
22 How they do that is partly, mostly through negative
23 argument, to try to undermine, to try to present arguments
24 that would undermine evolution theories. And to argue
25 therefore, if you can undermine evolution theories, then
1 A (Continuing) the creationism appeared as the only
3 Their methods of research, however, to somebody who were
4 very familiar with scientific methods of research don't
5 quite fit. They, first of all, start with a priori
6 assumption. Rather than keeping an open mind about the
7 evidence, they really use evidence in order to prove what
8 they would like to prove.
9 Q Professor Nelkin, have you studied ordinary
11 A Yeah. I don't know if you want a quote on the way
12 they approach things on their a priori assumptions or
13 not. Would that be useful to you?
14 Q Certainly, go ahead. Identify what you are reading
16 A Oh, yeah. This from, again, from Henry Morris.
17 Scientific Creationism is the name of the book. It is
18 Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California.
19 Q I believe that is Exhibit 76.
20 A The exhibit is 76, yes. "It should be emphasized
21 that this order is followed, not because of scientific
22 data are considered more reliable than Biblical doctrine.
23 To the contrary, it is precisely because Biblical
24 revolution is absolutely authoritative and persistent that
25 the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the
1 A (Continuing) same testimony as that of the
3 "There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of
4 science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is
5 no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any
6 aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a
7 verdict in favor of evolution." Very straightforward
9 MR. CRAWFORD: I would ask that that be received in
11 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object again.
12 THE COURT: You don't need to restate the grounds of
13 to the objection.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like to add one
15 other thing. I think the point does need to be made, and
16 I am sure the Court is aware of this, but ICR, any group,
17 is not on trial.
18 What we are trying is the constitutionality of this Act.
19 At this point, I have not seen evidence going to whether
20 this Act is constitutional or not.
21 There has been a lot of so-called background, which is
22 totally irrelevant from a legal perspective. What does
23 the Act require? That is what we are concerned about.
24 What does the Act on its face require? The Act has not
25 even been implemented yet.
1 MR. WILLLIAMS: (Continuing)
2 What they are, in effect, saying, as I understand it is,
3 the Act can't be implemented because of some of these
4 problems with some of the writings. The Act hasn't been
5 implemented yet and they can't challenge it except as to
6 its constitutionality on its face.
7 THE COURT: I appreciate the argument you are
8 making. I read it in the Brief, and I make the same
9 ruling on it.
10 I think, in order to save a lot of time and to save a
11 lot of effort on your part, if you would just tell me you
12 object on the ground that it is not relevant or on the
13 grounds previously stated, that will help. You don't need
14 to make an argument each time.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, your Honor.
16 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
17 Q Let me address that point. I think the record
18 already reflects that many of the publications of the
19 Institute for Creation Research are published in two
20 editions; is that correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Is Evolution: The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish
23 an illustration of that?
24 A Yes. There seems to be one for public schools and
25 one for general public.
1 Q I think the Attorney General's office has already
2 made the point that when we asked the ICR for those
3 documents and they produced them to us, they put—
4 MR.WILLIAMS: I object to that characterization. I
5 never made that point. I made the stipulation in response
6 to a request.
7 THE COURT: Wait just a second. He is going to
8 withdraw that statement.
9 Go ahead and just ask her the question.
10 MR.CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
11 Q You are familiar with the way scientists operate?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Are you familiar with any other set of texts which
14 carry labels in them designating whether it is religious
15 or science?
16 A No, I have never heard of it before. I can't
17 imagine that just simply semantic changes in books which
18 really carry the same message would really make any
is difference, and I have never seen any scientific books
20 which are written several in editions except for efforts
21 to popularize them. But that does not try to say that one
22 is scientific and one is not.
23 Q Let me turn now and ask you some specific questions
24 about the scientific-creation roots. You heard Professor
25 Marsden testify earlier today?
1 A Yes.
2 Q Did you hear him mention the American Scientific
4 A Yes.
5 Q Could you give us a brief description of the
6 creation-science groups and their development?
7 A Okay. The American Scientific Affiliation was
8 developed, I believe, in 1941 or the early 1940's. At
9 that time, most of the creationists, as I understand, were
10 members of that affiliation. They began to split with it
11 in the late 1950's, early 1960's, because it was really
12 not fundamentalist enough with respect particularly to
14 There were several things that occurred at that period.
15 First was the public concern about science education,
16 about the lag of the United States behind the Soviets, the
17 Russians. In particular, that was evidenced by Sputnik,
18 and that caused the National Science Foundation to develop
19 a whole series of federal programs in physics and in
20 biology, which attempted to create science textbooks for
21 the public schools that were more in tune with the latest
22 developments in contemporary science.
23 There was a Darwin centennial in 1959 in which a big
24 case was made to the fact that in biology textbooks in
25 particular there was an extraordinary lag between what was
1 A (Continuing) known within the scientific community
2 and how this was portrayed in the public schools.
3 On the basis of that, the Biology Science Curriculum
4 Study was developed and created books more in keeping with
5 contemporary and well accepted research.
6 So then you began to have public school textbooks in the
7 early Sixties which were developing evolution theories.
8 There were several other things. The Supreme Court
9 ruling in 1963 on prayer in schools was an issue which
10 irritated a number of people.
11 In California, and that's where a lot of the action is
12 at this time or was at that time, Max Rafferty was very
13 concerned about godlessness in the school system.
14 Q Who is Max Rafferty?
15 A Max Rafferty was Superintendent of Schools for the
16 State of California at that time, a fundamentalist, and
17 extremely concerned about the lack of religion in the
18 public schools. He used words like `godlessness' and
19 `secularism' and was very concerned, so he had a little
20 form of political support.
21 At the same time the creationists began, Henry Morris,
22 in particular, began to write books that began to have a
23 dissemination among certain groups.
24 At that time, also, the Creation Research Society split
25 away from the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, to
1 A (Continuing) form their own group. I believe it
2 was in 1963. They had an oath, which I don't have with me.
3 Q Is this a copy of that?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Let me pass you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for
6 identification which, along with the other exhibits for
7 identification, have been provided to the Attorney
8 General's office, and I will ask you, please, if you can
9 identify that.
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time, if I might,
11 I would just like to make an objection on the grounds of
12 hearsay. All this that this witness is testifying to is
13 to hearsay.
14 THE COURT: Okay, sir. I will note that objection.
15 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
16 Q Did you identify Exhibit 115?
17 A I can't defend myself against hearsay.
18 Q If you would, please, just describe for us what
19 Exhibit 115 is.
20 A Exhibit 115 is a brochure from the Creation Research
21 Society, a Xerox of a brochure, with a brief history of
22 the organization organized in 1963, firmly committed to
23 scientific special creation.
24 Q Is there an oath which Creation Research Society
25 members must take?
1 A There is a position statement, and then on the
2 application form, to become a voting member you have to
3 have a degree in some recognized area of science.
4 In addition, all members must subscribe to the
5 following: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and
6 because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its
7 assertions are historically and scientifically true in all
8 of the original autographs. To the student of nature,
9 this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a
10 factual presentation of simple-historical truths.
11 Second, "All basic types of living things, including
12 man, were made by direct creative acts of God during
13 Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever
14 biological changes have occurred since Creation have
15 accomplished only changes within the original created
17 Third, "The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly
18 referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical
19 event, worldwide in its extent and effects.
20 Fourth, "Finally, we are an organization of Christian
21 men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and
22 Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and
23 Eve as ones man and one woman, and their subsequent fall
24 into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of
25 a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come
1 A (Continuing) only through accepting Jesus Christ as
2 our savior."
3 That is the oath or what members have to subscribe to in
4 the ISCRS.
5 Q Is that a leading creation-science organization?
6 A Yes, although it did split once again. These groups
7 tend to split over certain issues. There was a leadership
8 dispute and the CSRC, the Creation Science Research Center
9 then formed in the late Sixties, and that became, by and
10 large, a publishing organization.
11 Then there was a copyright dispute and there was also a
12 dispute over strategy, and it split once more. Henry
13 Morris formed the ICR. It's like the government with all
14 these acronyms. The Institute for Creation Research,
15 which went to Christian Heritage College, which was a new
16 organization in El Cajon, California, supported by the
17 Scott Memorial Baptist Church, and it became the research
18 institute, the research arm and teaching arm also, in the
19 scientific area of Christian Heritage College, which at
20 that time its president was Tim LaHay.
21 Q Could you tell us, please, if there are other
22 organizations that come to mind?
23 A The Bible Science Association is another one and
24 that's been much more of a mass based organization, which
25 serves as a means to disseminate a lot of the material.
1 A (Continuing) Most of the documents, most of the
2 lectures, most of the activities of the people in the ICR,
3 which is now the most active organization, are the
4 lecturers in almost entirely Bible colleges and other
5 religious organizations, and also their writings are
6 published primarily through religious sources.
7 Q Are those the leading national organizations
8 dedicated to promoting creation-science?
9 A Those, at this moment, are the leading
10 Organizations. I think they have subgroups in various
11 states, but these are the leading major national
12 organizations, yes.
13 Q You told us you conducted your study in I think you
14 said around '74 or '75?
15 A '76, yes. '75-'76 was the main part of it, yes.
16 Q Have you had occasion to update your research since
17 that time?
18 A Well, when one does research like that and moves on
19 to other things, what one does is to continually collect
20 material and stick it in the file. I don't really have
21 time to look at it terribly carefully. I was called on
22 the Sacramento case. Was it a year ago—January. The
23 attorney general there had called me. I could not
24 participate in it because I was off to France on
25 sabbatical. But I did have — Again, as it began to come
1 A (Continuing) up, I began to review the material I
2 had collected in the meantime. And then obviously knowing
3 that this was coming up, I have been intensively immersed
4 in material recently. So, I feel pretty up to date.
5 Q Has anything in the material you have reviewed
6 recently changed your conclusions?
7 A No. It has only reinforced it. The only difference
8 I seek really, is it seems to me that in some sense the
9 creationists are a little more politically astute. They
10 have changed — The effort to completely separate, which I
11 really can't quite encompass, I can't quite understand how
12 they can do this, the effort to completely separate
13 biblical creationism from scientific creationism is
14 demarcated just a little bit. There seems to be some
15 conflict within the organization, and I think that is
16 reflected in this split, a conflict within the
17 organization about how to maintain an appeal to a
18 basically religious constituents on the one hand, and gain
19 scientific credibility on the other.
20 I seem to read in their literature at this point a sense
21 of contradiction as they are pulled in two directions.
22 MR. CRAWFORD: I think I failed to offer into
23 evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification. It's
24 the Creation Research Society oath, and I ask that that be
1 THE COURT: That will be received.
2 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like my objection
3 made on the grounds previously stated, plus no
5 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)
6 Q Did you, based on your interviews, were you able to
7 create a composite picture of the creation-science leaders
8 based on the research?
9 A Well, it's not really a composite picture in any
10 kind of technical or statistical sense. However, I was
11 told an awful lot of times that these were people who were
12 brought up in fundamentalist families. They were bright
13 kids who went off to college and got trained as
14 scientists. They continually had some trouble reconciling
15 what they were learning with the fundamentalist
16 background. Resorted often to a theistic evolution,
17 essentially saying that God was responsible for change.
18 But, then, somewhere later, felt kind of uncomfortable
19 with all of this and turned to creationism when that
20 alternative occurred. They were attracted to this as a
21 way to reconcile their own self doubts. This is a story I
22 heard again and again in my interviews.
23 Recently got reconfirmed in something that I read by
24 Gary Parker where he says that God told him this
25 essentially. God essentially changed his mind and opened
1 A (Continuing) up new kinds of possibilities with the
2 science in creationism, so the internal conflict didn't
3 really register.
4 Q Professor Nelkin, have you read Act 590?
5 A Yes, I have read Act 590.
6 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether Act 590
7 reflects a connection with the creation-science
8 organizations which you've just described?
9 A Yes, in a couple of ways. Going through, it looked
10 awfully familiar, a lot of it. An awful lot of it seems
11 to have come almost word by word, except in a somewhat
12 different order, from a resolution that was written up, a
13 model resolution that was written by—Was it Wendell
14 Bird—Bird from Institution of Creation Research.
15 In checking over that, the wording was almost
16 identical. The order of the items was somewhat different.
17 In terms of the definition of creationism, it is the
18 kind of definition of creationism I have seen again and
19 again in creationist writings. The same items appear,
20 slightly different wording, but they are fundamentally no
21 different than the statements that come out of the
22 organizations, such as the Institution for Creation
24 Q Could I ask that Exhibit 106 for identification be
25 passed to you, and ask if you can identify that as being
1 Q (Continuing) the Resolution that you referred to.
2 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I think I've got the
3 wrong exhibit number. If I may, on re-direct, I will put
4 that in through her, and I think that will save some time.
5 No more questions.
7 BY MR. WILLIAMS:
8 Q Ms. Nelkin, isn't it true that your predominant area
9 of study into the creation-science movement, as you have
10 termed it, came from approximately 1973 up through 1977?
11 A Yes, my primary time in which I was studying that
12 movement, yes.
13 Q And since 1977, say, one of your average weeks, how
14 much time have you spent in studying creation-science?
15 A Very little on a regular basis until very recently,
16 and then it's been full-time again.
17 Q Until how recently?
18 A I picked it up for a couple of weeks in January, a
19 year ago. Then I picked it up, the material up again—Had
20 a lot of it on hand so that it was not hard to get
21 at—about three or four weeks ago.
22 Q But even during that time you weren't spending
23 full-time, were you?
24 A I was also teaching my classes. Researchers in
25 universities don't have full time for research. We do
1 A (Continuing) other things. But in another sense,
2 also I've been teaching about the dispute, looking at the
3 controversy in my classes each year, so I've kept up on
4 the material to do that.
5 Q As a matter of fact, when you wrote your book in
6 1977, at that point, really, your research effectively
7 ended, didn't it?
8 A For the purposes of what I was writing then, yes.
9 Since then, I have resumed it.
10 Q For the purposes of testifying in two lawsuits?
11 A No. One lawsuit. I did not testify in the other
12 lawsuit because I was in Paris at the time it was held.
13 Q But you did look at it at times because of the
15 A I looked at it, the material because of that, yes,
16 and for the purpose of testifying in this lawsuit, and
17 also because of considerable interest, again, because of
18 the lawsuit. So, I've taken it up again, yes.
19 Q When you began studying what you call the science
20 textbook controversy— First of all, the question of the
21 science textbook controversies includes something more in
22 your mind than merely creation-science, does it not?
23 A When I was studying those controversies, there was a
24 simultaneous dispute going on called "The Man, a Course of
25 study" dispute, which raised a lot of the same issues.
1 A (Continuing) So, I used that, as well as another
3 Q What was "The Man, a Course of Study" dispute?
4 A It was a social science curriculum developed by the
5 National Science Foundation do teach at the younger school
6 level. I think it was fifth and sixth grades.
7 Q Describe, if you would, the general approach of "The
8 Man, a Course of Study.
9 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I don't
10 understand the relevance of this. Professor Nelkin's book
11 was called The Scientific Textbook Controversies. She
12 studied two controversies; one over creationism and one
13 over some humanities textbooks that were also
14 controversial at that time.
15 It is a second controversy. If your Honor wants to hear
16 it, fine, but I really don't see the materiality of it.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, there are two purposes.
18 First of all, in Plaintiffs ` Exhibit 1 for identification,
19 an article by Ms. Nelkin, this is gone into in some
20 depth. There appears to be, to some degree, an effort to
21 kind of intertwine the two controversies. I want to make
22 clear that they are not intertwined.
23 Second, in "Man, A Course of Study", there were some
24 concepts studied which were highly controversial. They
25 were formulated by some scientists from the National
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Science Foundation, funding,
2 at least. Fifth and sixth graders were studying such
3 questions about what is human about human beings and they
4 were studying animal behavior and how it related to humans.
5 The concepts, even Ms. Nelkin has admitted, were highly
6 controversial and somewhat problematic. There has been an
7 argument made by the plaintiffs in this case that you
8 shouldn't force on high school students this false ploy
9 between what they see as religion and science, that high
10 school students are too impressionable.
11 I would points out that if fifth and sixth graders are
12 not too impressionable to look at these issues in the view
13 of the scientists, who Ms. Nelkin I think acknowledges
14 competent scientists, neither should high school students
15 be too impressionable to look at the facts on both sides
16 of the question of origins.
17 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, it seems very collateral
18 to me.
19 THE COURT: I think it would be easier just to
20 listen to the testimony. I think, really, the relevance
21 of that is kind of remote but if you want to go into that,
22 that's fine.
23 MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think it will take that long,
24 your Honor.
25 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question? I
1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) couldn't follow your line of
3 MR. WILLIAMS: That was a statement. That was not a
4 question. Let, me ask you the question now.
5 THE WITNESS: All right.
6 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
7 Q "The Man, A Course of Study", could you just give me
8 a brief sketch of the sort of issues that were being
9 present to fifth and sixth graders in that curriculum?
10 A This is an effort to teach students about values.
11 It did have an evolutionary component because it made
12 assumptions that there, were genetic relationships between
13 man and animals, and it looked at animal behavior. It was
14 widely considered to be an interesting course.
15 Its methodology was somewhat controversial because it
16 allowed—It was not rote teaching. It was teaching which
17 involved a lot of participation, a lot of discussion by
19 Some of the major concerns came up about whether this
20 was an appropriate methodology through which to teach
21 students or whether children should be simply told by
22 their teachers what is right and what is wrong. That was
23 a controversial aspect of that dispute.
24 Q And the scientists who formulated that based on your
25 studies felt this would be an appropriate course of study
1 Q (Continuing) for fifth and sixth graders; is that correct?
2 A Yes.
3 Q They didn't feel that fifth and sixth graders were
4 too impressionable to handle these questions; is that
6 A No. I think it was the assumption that fifth and
7 sixth graders are pretty intelligent and thoughtful human
8 beings and could, yes, deal with it.
9 Q The controversy over "Man, A Course of Study", do
10 you know whether—Well, first of all—that course was ever
11 protested in Arkansas?
12 A I don't remember. It was protested in a number of
13 states. Arkansas could have been one of them, but I
14 really don't remember whether Arkansas was, in fact a
15 state in which it was protested.
16 Q Isn't it true that you don't necessarily see "Man, A
17 Course of Study" in the creation-science movement, as you
18 have termed it, to be one and the same? Those are
19 interrelated in terms of the same people were involved?
20 A There is some overlapping in the people involved in
21 the two studies. John Conlan, for example, the
22 representative, got involved and was also very supportive
23 of the creationist movement. And his aide, I can't
24 remember, a British guy, also got involved. Yes, there
25 was some relationship. The Galbraiths in Texas also got
1 A (Continuing) very agitated about that, similarly
2 agitated about the teaching of the evolution theory. Yes,
3 there were some connections.
4 Q The groups you previously identified as being the
5 leading creation-science groups, did any of them take a
6 formal position on "Man, A Course of Study", to the best
7 of your knowledge?
8 A I don't believe so, but I am not sure. I don't
10 Q In your article entitled Science-Textbook
11 Controversies, which has been previously admitted as
12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, you state that,
13 referring to textbooks published by the Biological Science
14 Curricula Study Committee, you said, quote, All three
15 reflected the fact that modern biological research is
16 based on evolutionary assumptions, close quote?
17 A Yes.
18 Q So, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that
19 somehow creation-science was based on some sort of a
20 priori assumptions. Is not evolution also based on some a
21 priori assumptions?
22 A What is the beginning part again?
23 Q You were talking about three textbooks. Three
24 textbooks were developed, each emphasizing a different
25 aspect of current biological research. Molecular biology,
1 A (Continuing) data and to understand.
2 Q Let me ask, you, in Exhibit 1 you state that
3 creation-scientists believe, quote, that all basic types of
4 living things, including man, were made by a direct
5 creative act of God during the creation week."
6 A Yes.
7 Q Can you tell me where does creation-science, as it
8 is defined in Act 590, say that all living things were
9 created in one week.
10 A Act 590 denies—
11 Q I am asking if you can tell me where.
12 A I think it does not state that exactly in that way,
13 and it does not also want to use the word "God", but I
14 find it very difficult to distinguish the notion of a
15 creator and world by design without— I mean, I think that
16 is the semantic equivalent.
17 Q But you studied this, not from you own personal
18 opinion but you studied it as a social science, did you
20 A Yes.
21 Q So I want to ask you, not your personal opinion but
22 what you have been able to determine from studying this
24 A My opinion is based on what I studied.
25 Q But where in Act 590 does it state that man was
1 Q (Continuing) created within one week?
2 A It does not go into that kind of detail.
3 Q Where in Act 590 does it say that, quote, God, close
4 quote, did the creating?
5 A No, Act 590 does not go into the absolute details.
6 Q It doesn't say that, does it?
7 A No.
8 Q You further state in Exhibit 1 that many
9 nonscientists believe that science is authoritative, exact
10 and definitive?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And, further, that few textbooks are careful to
13 stress the distinction between facts and interpretation?
14 A Yes.
15 Q —Or to suggest that intuition and speculation
16 actually guide the development of scientific concepts?
17 A (Nodding affirmatively)
18 Q First of all, that's an acknowledgment by you, is it
19 not, that things such as intuition and speculation do lead
20 to scientific concepts?
21 A I think there is a great deal of speculation in
22 science, and then it's tested, systematically tested;
23 approached with skepticism and tested, yes.
24 Q Can't the shortcomings you have pinpointed on
25 textbooks lead to false impression that what are
1 Q (Continuing) scientific theories are facts?
2 A I think there is a lot of room for improvement in
3 science popularization. I've written a great deal about
4 this. I think it's a very difficult thing to do to convey
5 both the subtlety and the complexity of science and yet
6 convey it at a level at which it can be understood and
7 which the innuendoes and the procedures and the kinds of
8 insights that go into science are conveyed. It's a major
9 challenge to the scientific community.
10 Q Who was Julian Huxley?
11 A Julian Huxley was a biologist in the nineteenth
13 Q Would it be fair to say he was a proponent of
15 A Well, and he and other people have used—There are a
16 lot of people who have used evolution theory for
17 purposes—special purposes. I am not sure scientists can
18 do anything about that. Scientific theories are amenable
19 to being exploited and used.
20 Q So evolutionary theory can be abused?
21 A Every science and every religious theory can be
22 abused by the public if somebody cares to do so, yes.
23 Q As you understand or what you know about Julian
24 Huxley, was he someone who adopted or adhered to the
25 theory of evolution?
1 A I believe so.
2 Q Are you aware that he called the concept of
3 evolution a naturalistic religion?
4 A (Nodding affirmatively)
5 Q So, at least, Huxley saw some sort of religion being
6 based on evolution, did he not?
7 A There were a lot of nineteenth century scientists
8 who really looked to religion as a way to document the
9 existence of God, yes. That was characteristic of a lot
10 of Darwin's contemporaries and, in fact, his
11 contemporaries in the scientific community were—had a lot
12 of problems with Darwinian theory, yes. In the nineteenth
13 century, definitely.
14 Q In your article that I just quoted from, is not one
15 of you conclusions, "that questions which have normally
16 been resolved by professional consensus are being brought
17 into the political arena"?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Is your conclusion not further that, "The processes
20 resulting in democratic values such as freedom of choice,
21 equality and fairness enter into science policy"?
22 A Yes, and when it comes to the determination of
23 scientific theory—
24 Q I am asking if that is your conclusion?
25 A No, because you are taking it out of context.
1 Q I don't want to take it out of context. Let me read
2 you the quote.
3 MR. CRAWFORD: What are you reading?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit 1, page 30, the last sentence.
5 Q "As questions that are normally resolved by
6 professional consensus are brought into the political
7 arena, and as democratic values such as freedom of choice,
8 equality and fairness enter into science policy, the
9 consequences of such resistance to science may be
10 painful." First of all, is that correct?
11 A Yes. I want to underline the word `policy'. I
12 don't want that to be shown in the record to say science .
13 Q I think I read `policy', did I not?
14 A But I want to emphasize that.
15 Q You didn't emphasize it in your article.
16 MR. CRAWFORD: If Mr. Williams intends to
17 interrogate Professor Nelkin at some length about this
18 article, I would like to give her a copy of it for her
20 MR. WILLIAMS: I've just finished my questioning on
21 the article, Mr. Crawford.
22 THE WITNESS: May I add a point to that, because I
23 think it,- again, is out of context. I do not think that
24 values of democracy and fairness enter the judgment as to
25 what is valid scientific theory.
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
2 Q But they do into valid science policy?
3 A Into science policy, where money should be allocated
4 for science, et cetera. But into theories of science,
5 science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy.
6 Achievement, bodies of knowledge, an acceptable set of
7 procedures, these are the things that define science, not
8 democracy, not audience applause.
9 Q I want to refer you now to Exhibit 2 for
10 identification of the plaintiffs' case. This is your
11 article entitled, "Science, Rationality and the
12 Creation/Evolution Dispute".
13 Do you not state in this article that an argument that,
14 quote, science is natural, close quote; it is simply not
15 convincing on historical grounds?
16 A Yes. The argument the scientists make, I think, is
17 a defensive one that exaggerates the total neutrality and
18 objectivity of science, and it allows people to abuse
19 science by having, by taking political recourse to that
21 Q In fact, you go on to say that "Neutral—"
22 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I am sorry to keep
23 intruding, but if he could just identify where he is
25 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 12 of the article.
1 Q That, in fact, "Neutral, apolitical criteria have
2 very little meaning in the context of science education";
3 isn't that right?
4 A Historically, yes.
5 Q You state, do you not, that in discussing, at the
6 top of page 15, the conflict between creation science and
7 evolution, you state, quote, "As each side defends its
8 position and criticizes the other, their arguments are
9 strikingly similar. Indeed, the debate often sounds like
10 a battle between two dogmatic groups as the anti-dogmatic
11 norms of science fade with the effort to convey the
12 validity of a scientific theory. At times, in the course
13 of the dispute, it becomes difficult to distinguish
14 science from politics and ideology, a fact which only
15 reinforces creationist claims"?
16 A Yes, because the dispute has taken—
17 Q First of all, let me ask you a question about that.
18 A Sure.
19 Q What you are saying here, is it not, is that there
20 is a parallel between the arguments made by the
21 creationists and the evolutionists?
22 A Yes. What I'm saying, though, in a larger sense is
23 that scientists have not, because they have been somewhat
24 isolated from such political challenges, are not very
25 experienced in dealing with such challenges, and I think
1 A (Continuing) that is a real problem in this day and
3 So that when they tend to get confronted by a great
4 number of attacks, they tend to respond very, I feel, much
5 too defensively and instead of just sticking to their
6 guns, essentially fall into the trap of creating parallel
8 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this has been previously
9 marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 2. Unless the
10 plaintiffs have some intention of offering it into
11 evidence, I would like to offer it into evidence as a
12 defendant's exhibit.
13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no objection.
14 THE COURT: It will be received.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
16 Q Ms. Nelkin, are you aware that some scientific
17 journals have established a policy of refusing any
18 consideration of any articles on creation science?
19 A I am not aware it is policy. I know there's been
20 problems in peer reviewing them.
21 Q Let me refer you back to Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs'
22 Exhibit 1—Excuse me. Do you recall an article you wrote
23 on "Creation vs. Evolution: The Politics of Science
25 A Yes.
1 Q Do you recall in that article you discussed the fact
2 that the National Association of Biology Teachers, their
3 journal stopped publishing any creationist articles by
4 November of 1972?
5 A Yes. It was deluged with articles that stated from
6 preconceptions that simply—
7 Q I am not asking where they came from. I am asking
8 if you are aware whether, in fact, they stopped accepting
10 A Yes, I remember the article and the debate at that
12 Q Thank you very much.
13 Ms. Nelkin, you do not believe in the existence of a
14 God, do you?
15 A No.
16 Q But you believe that a religious person can be a
17 competent scientist, don't you?
18 A Certainly.
19 Q in your study of science, have you come to a
20 conclusion that we now have a purity of science so that
21 society no longer affects science and the scientific
23 A Do I believe that?
24 Q In your studies, have you come to that conclusion?
25 A That the purity of science no longer—No, I have not
1 A (Continuing) come to that conclusion.
2 Q As a matter of fact, would you say the opposite is
3 true, that society to some degree does tend to affect
5 A That is not the opposite, but to some degree there
6 is, yes, certainly.
7 Q You also have looked, have you not, at the way
8 courts have generally handled scientific questions?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you have some doubts personally about the
11 ability of a court to handle a scientific question, don't
13 A That is a very complicated question to answer
14 briefly. I think there is a tendency for a lot of
15 technical questions that come to the court to be
16 translated into scientific and technical terms; that a lot
17 of these cases, Vermont Yankee, for example, for one
18 thing, have become very difficult in terms of the ability
19 of the courts to gain sufficient technical competence to
20 make judgments as to whether, in fact, the agencies are
21 doing their jobs.
22 I am very familiar with the Bazelon-Levanthal argument
23 as to the extent to which courts should be buttressing
24 their technical competence or whether they should simply
25 refer these cases back to the agencies that do have the
1 A (Continuing) technical competence or to the
2 legislature to handle them.
3 I have generally come out on the latter side, the
4 Bazelon side to this, that the practical notion of
5 training lawyers to be both scientists and lawyers at the
6 same time, and judges also, to have them technically
7 competent in all fields that are going to come before
8 them, really doesn't work out very well.
9 Q So you've come up on the side of referring it back
10 to the administrative agency or the legislature where it
11 came from?
12 MR. CRAWFORD: I object.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: That was her testimony, I believe.
14 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard the word `legislature' that I
15 had not heard before.
16 THE WITNESS: That was in the Vermont Yankee case.
17 I don't think that applies to every —I certainly don't
18 think it applies to this case, but I'm looking at the
19 Vermont Yankee case in particular.
20 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Ms. Nelkin. First of all,
21 we have an objection. Your Honor, if I could ask the
23 MR. CRAWFORD: I heard what she said.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
2 Q Do you think academic freedom includes necessarily
3 the freedom to teach anything an individual wants to teach
4 at any particular time?
5 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I am going to
6 object. We have not tendered Professor Nelkin as an
7 expert on academic freedom. We tendered her as an expert
8 on sociology of science and controversies involving
9 science. I think to take her into the field of academic
10 freedom and areas in which she doesn't necessarily claim
11 expertise is inappropriate.
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, she is a professor at
13 Cornell University. I am not asking her for a legal
14 judgment; I am asking her as a member of the academic
16 THE COURT: That's fine. That's overruled.
17 THE WITNESS: So the question is, do I think—
18 Would you repeat the question, please?
19 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
20 Q Do you think that academic freedom includes
21 necessarily the freedom to teach anything that an
22 individual wants to teach at any particular time?
23 A No.
24 Q Do you think that a teacher has to agree with a
25 theory before they can effectively teach it?