1 A No.

2 Q In fact, you teach theories you don't agree with?

3 A Let me quality that. I teach in a private

4 university, at the university level only. I have never

5 taught in the public schools, and I really do not want to

6 comment—I cannot comment on the question of academic

7 freedom in the public school context. There is nothing

8 either in anything I have studied or my own personal

9 experience that would allow me to do that with any

10 confidence.

11 Q But in teaching concepts, many times a university

12 like Cornell would be similar to any public institution,

13 would it not?

14 A I teach mostly graduate students over the age of

15 twenty. I would imagine, having never taught but having

16 had teenage kids myself, there must be some difference in

17 the way one teaches.

18 Q Do you think the evolution model of origins should

19 be subject to criticism?

20 A I think all science should be subject to criticism.

21 It's fundamental.

22 Q You are using it in its nonreligious sense, I take

23 it?

24 Yes. That's an unintended pun. Excuse me.

25 Q Do you object to the creationist or creation science


1 Q (Continuing) position of origins being discussed in

2 a humanities or social science class?

3 A I have no objection do the history of religious

4 theory being taught in a history course.

5 Q Don't you believe it is possible for a scientist to

6 do superb scientific work, and then someone else label it

7 as religion?

8 A Do I think—What was the double negative?

9 Q Do you think it is possible for a scientist to do

10 superb scientific work and for someone else to label that

11 as religion?

12 A Well, it depends on the nature—You are putting such

13 a loaded word on `superb'. On what criteria are you using

14 the word `superb'? I mean, what's `superb'? I can't

15 answer the question because of the way it's framed.

16 Q Do you recall during your deposition when I asked

17 you a question to that effect, and you said, quote, I can

18 very well conceive of a first rate scientist doing superb

19 science, and somebody else comes along and says, "No, I

20 think that is a religion"?

21 A Yes. I believe that was at the end of six hours of

22 grilling in a hot room at LaGuardia Airport, and I think

23 by that time I am really not sure what I said, but that's

24 all right.

25 Q Would you say that you, in writing your book on


1 Q (Continuing) Science-Textbook Controversies, ever

2 made a scientific judgment about the validity of

3 creationism or evolution theories?

4 A Have I ever made a scientific judgment on the basis

5 of biological science—Its validity in terms of—I have

6 not, no. I am not a biologist.

7 Q But isn't it true that you actually began with the

8 presupposition that creation-science was not science and

9 was religion?

10 A Yes.

11 Q So you did make a judgment, did you not?

12 A It is not a scientific judgment in the sense that—

13 Yes, I did make a judgment.

14 Q The organizations you mentioned, ICR and some of the

15 other acronyms, do you have any personal knowledge as to

16 whether any of those groups had any input in drafting Act

17 590?

18 A I gather there was an effort on the part of ICR to

19 have an input. I don't know whether Ellwanger or any of

20 his people actually talked —No, I don't know. I don't

21 know the specifics of the relationships that went into

22 drafting that legislation. It's very clear from the

23 language that Ellwanger had certainly read material by

24 Bird and had certainly read the material in ICR. Whether

25 he had personal contact with the individuals who wrote


1 A (Continuing) those articles, I don't know.

2 Q So in other words—I am not sure I understand your

3 testimony. In terms of what happened here in Arkansas in

4 1981 as opposed to what you were studying back in 1977,

5 A No, no, no, no. You asked about Act 590.

6 Q I am asking about 590. I am asking about the passage

7 of 590.

8 A Okay. In the passage of 590—In the drafting of

9 590, it is completely evident to me from looking at the

10 text that Ellwanger had drafted it or whoever had drafted

11 it had seen creationist material from the California

12 creationists.

13 Q So you think from looking at it—

14 A Whether he talked to the people there, I don't know

15 whether he actually was on the telephone or met with those

16 people. I don't know the personal relationship. I know

17 that he would have had to have seen the documents and used

18 them because they are almost word for word.

19 Q What you are doing there—I asked you a question, do

20 you have any personal knowledge. You are trying to, on

21 the basis off comparison and somewhat conjecture you are

22 trying to-say what you think happened; isn't that correct?

23 A No, no, no. Personal knowledge can come from

24 reading.

25 MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the argumentative nature


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) of the question. I believe

2 she answered it.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: I asked her if she had any personal

4 knowledge.

5 THE COURT: I thought she had answered it. I gather

6 she does not.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

8 Q You will agree you are not qualified as an expert to

9 make a decision as to whether creation-science is a valid

10 scientific model?

11 A I would rather that the discussions of the

12 scientific content be left to biologists who are much more

13 competent than I am. They will be here in droves, so I

14 think I would rather leave all the scientific questions to

15 them.

16 Q I am not asking you a question as to whether you

17 would. I am asking you a question—perhaps you didn't

18 hear—that you would agree that you are not competent to

19 make a decision—You are not qualified as a scientific

20 expert to make a decision as to whether creation-science

21 is valid science?

22 A That's right.

23 Q According to your studies, is it not true that what

24 constitutes science can be either a question of

25 philosophy, sociology, or history, depending upon whose


1 Q (Continuing) study you look at?

2 A Say that again.

3 Q According to your studies, is it not true that what

4 constitutes science, depending upon whose study you look

5 at, is a question of philosophy, sociology or history?

6 A Have I ever said that? I don't, I really don't

7 understand your question.

8 Q Let me refer you back to your deposition where I

9 asked you this question: "Is it correct to say that what

10 constitutes science is a philosophical question", and you

11 gave me this answer: "Well, it depends on whose study.

12 It can be a philosophical, a sociological question or a

13 historical question".

14 What was the context of that, because I really don't

15 understand what I said at the moment?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, from what page

17 is he reading?

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Page 89.

19 THE WITNESS: What was the context of the—What were

20 we talking about at that point?

21 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

22 Q I was asking you what constitutes science.

23 A All right. Science constitutes a body of knowledge

24 and a set of procedures that are widely accepted by the

25 scientific community at a given time. In terms of


1 A (Continuing) historical, this may change, in terms

2 of history, but at this point, at any given point in time

3 it is the body of knowledge that exists and a set of

4 procedures that are widely accepted by a scientific

5 community.

6 Q In other words, if you told me that answer on

7 November 22, 1981, you are now changing that answer as to

8 what constitutes science?

9 A I don't think it contradicts what I said there. I

10 said that there are historical— I mean, I think if you

11 asked that question as to what constituted science in the

12 nineteenth century or the eighteenth century, the body of

13 knowledge and the set of procedures at that time might

14 have been somewhat different, yes. Certainly the body of

15 knowledge would have been different than two hundred years

16 ago.

17 Q You have looked at science and you have to

18 understand science to write about it, to some degree,

19 don't you?

20 A I understand methodology, the approach to science.

21 I do not understand all the technical details of it.

22 Q To the best of your knowledge, based on your study,

23 are theories of origin testable?

24 A A science is not defined only in those terms.

25 Q I am asking you the question now: Are theories of


1 Q (Continuing) origin testable, to the best of your

2 knowledge?

3 A To the best of my knowledge, they are not directly

4 testable by observation.

5 Q Is evolution based on the presupposition of no

6 creator?

7 A It is based on the presupposition that there are

8 natural processes at work. It is totally irrelevant as to

9 whether —Nobody would ever ask that question.

10 Q I asked it on November 22nd. I asked you this

11 question on your deposition on page 94: "Is evolution

12 based on the presupposition of no creator?" Answer:

13 "Yes. Evolution theory is based on the supposition that

14 there is no creator who at a given period of time has

15 created the world, close quote. Do you recall giving that

16 answer?

17 A Okay, yeah, I suppose I did give that answer but,

18 possibly, I guess I was confused. There is really no

19 presupposition. It's almost irrelevant, but I think, yes,

20 if you ask biologists whether they presuppose underlying

21 evolution theory that there was a creator that created the

22 universe in six days, they would say no. They would

23 assume that does not exist.

24 Q But at the time you gave this answer, that was

25 correct to the best of your knowledge, was it not?


1 A I guess, yes.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, may I pass the

3 witness a copy of the deposition? She was asked to

4 elaborate on the answer.

5 THE WITNESS: I would like to see it in context.

6 Again, it's page 146 of 147 pages.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking you the question that

8 was asked there, Ms. Nelkin.

9 THE WITNESS: And I said, "I think the existence or

10 non-existence" — I am reading from the-same thing you are

11 reading — "is not relevant."

12 MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to ask, your Honor—I

13 asked her about the specific question, and she said she

14 gave it. Now if Mr. Crawford wants to bring up anything

15 else on redirect, I think that's entirely appropriate.

16 THE WITNESS: I did not give—

17 THE COURT: Wait a minute.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to Mr. Crawford

19 referring Ms. Nelkin to a page in the deposition which I

20 did not refer to. If he wants to bring it up on

21 redirect, I think that's certainly appropriate.

22 THE COURT: Well, it doesn't make any different when

23 it's brought up if it's convenient. We are not trying it

24 before a jury.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that, your Honor.


1 MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, may the witness continue?

2 THE WITNESS: May I ask my lawyer a question?

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Just answer the question.

4 THE COURT: I think it's probably best, Mr.

5 Williams, if you go ahead and ask the questions, and she

6 can answer those. Then, Mr. Crawford, you will get a

7 chance to ask her some questions.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

10 Q Is the presupposition of no creator subject to being

11 tested, to your knowledge?

12 A No, it's not subject to being tested.

13 Q Is that presupposition based an a priori assumption?

14 A The presupposition there is a creator?

15 Q That there is no creator in evolution.

16 A As I said in my deposition, it's totally

17 irrelevant. It would not even come up.

18 Q I am asking a question. Is that presupposition of

19 no creator in evolution based on any a priori assumption?

20 A Ask it again carefully at this point.

21 Q Is the presupposition of no creator in evolution

22 based on an a priori assumption?

23 A Some scientists that I know do believe in God and

24 others do not.

25 Q I am not asking you that question. I am asking you


1 Q (Continuing) if the presupposition of no creator in

2 evolution theory is based on an a priori assumption?

3 A But there is no creator. It's a tautology.

4 Q I am asking you a question. Is it based on an a

5 priori assumption, Ms. Nelkin?

6 A Yes, I guess it's an a priori assumption. If one

7 believes there is no creator, then one believes there is

8 no creator.

9 Q To the extent that there may be some scientific

10 evidence in support of the creation-science model of

11 origins, would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

12 A That's a big if.

13 Q But I am asking you if there is.

14 A My own belief is that it is fundamentally a religion.

15 Q I didn't ask you if it was a religion.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would ask that the

17 witness be instructed to answer my question.

18 THE WITNESS: My belief is that it is a

19 contradiction in terms. It's very hard to answer a

20 question in which I believe there is a contradiction of

21 terms. It's too hypothetical for me to be able to answer.

22 Q On November 22, when I asked you that question—On

23 page 95, I asked you this question: "If there were some

24 scientific evidence in support of the creation-science

25 theory of origins, would you favor its discussion in the


1 Q (Continuing) classroom?" You gave me this answer:

2 "If there were really valid material, again that is not an

3 effort to prove the existence of God, of course."

4 Is that the correct question and answer?

5 A That is in the testimony, and after reading that I

6 was kind of appalled at being led into saying that.

7 Q Did I drive you to say it?

8 A No, but again that was pretty fatiguing

9 circumstances and one gets clearly sloppy at that time.

10 I don't believe, again, that it's relevant. It's too

11 hypothetical when you are talking about religion.

12 Q Do you recall when I took your deposition I told you

13 if you didn't understand any question I asked, please tell

14 me and I would rephrase it?

15 A Yes. That is why I am being careful to do so now.

16 Q Do you agree with the creation-scientists who say

17 that evolution is not a fact but a theory?

18 A Evolution is a theory, yes.

19 Q Do you think that religion can be based on science?

20 A No. I think it is a separate domain, a separate

21 domain of belief.

22 Q Let me refer you to page 102 of your deposition

23 where I asked this question: "Can religion be based on

24 science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think people have a lot of

25 faith in science." And you continue.


1 A I said no, based on faith I didn't say yes. At

2 least in the copy I've got. Is there a discrepancy in the

3 copies?

4 Q Would you look at the next line, line 21 and 22?

5 A Question: "Do you think religion can be based on

6 science?" Answer: "No, based on faith. " Question: "Can

7 religion be based on science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think

8 people have a lot of faith in science."

9 Q So did you not tell me in answer to my question that

10 yes, religion can be based on science?

11 A There are a number of typographical errors that have

12 come through in this. I can't believe that inconsistency.

13 The first thing, I said no, it's based on faith, and

14 then the second, I said yes. Apparently, the same

15 question, at least, as it was typed. But I said, "Yes, I

16 think people have a lot of faith in science, not as a way

17 to justify it. I believe people who have religious

18 beliefs should not have to justify them in terms of

19 science, and if they do justify them in terms of science

20 it is a way to gain a wider credibility and to try to act

21 as missionaries and convert others to those beliefs."

22 The question may have been distorted or I may have

23 interpreted it the second time in a different way.

24 Q On page 103, you continued, I asked you the question

25 again: "Do you think it would be possible to base a


1 (Continuing) religion on science?" Answer: —

2 A And I said it would be inappropriate. It would be

3 possible—Anything is possible, but I said it would be

4 inappropriate.

5 Q So your answer there was that religion can be based

6 on science; isn't that correct?

7 A No, my first answer was—

8 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, the testimony

9 has been brought out and your Honor can draw your own

10 conclusions about it. This is going on at some length.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

12 Q Do you think religion can be based on evolution?

13 A No. I would like to separate the two domains.

14 Q Do you recall that I asked you about that and you

15 said that there were some minor religions that you think

16 might be based on evolution?

17 A I thought you asked me whether it should be.

18 Q Could be?

19 A Yeah, I think that there's lots of people who can

20 make and use science in any way they choose, and there are

21 religions who do base themselves on—Transcendental

22 meditation, for example, calls itself a science of

23 scientific intelligence, yes. There are a lot of

24 religions that claim to base themselves on science, yep.

25 but that doesn't mean I am saying it's appropriate.


1 Q I understand you are not putting your imprimatur or

2 saying that's a correct thing to do, but you are just

3 acknowledging that it has, in fact occurred.

4 Do you think a teacher has a right as a matter of

5 academic freedom to profess his or her professional

6 judgment in the classroom?

7 A Again, I would rather—There is a whole section on

8 this, I believe, on academic freedom, and I would rather

9 have that kind of question delayed to that section of the

10 trial.

11 Q Attorneys for the plaintiffs have made that

12 objection, and it's been overruled. So I would like you,

13 if you could, to answer my question.

14 A You are saying at the college level at which I

15 teach—Yes, we are allowed to interject our own opinions

16 in classrooms, yes.

17 Q Do you think if a teacher has reviewed the data in a

18 field and has done so in a responsible fashion, and has

19 concluded there is support for the theory of creation

20 science, that that teacher should be free to discuss it in

21 the classroom?

22 A At the public school level, no. In biology class,

23 no.

24 Q I asked you that question, and you gave me this

25 answer: "I guess so, but I would say he or she had not


1 (Continuing) done his homework very well."

2 But you did say, "I guess so", so that they should as a

3 matter of academic freedom be able to teach that; isn't

4 that correct?

5 A Well, I hadn't thought that through very well at

6 that time. A lot of these questions came rapid fire over

7 six hours.

8 Q Your research on creation-science, you say, as I

9 understand it, that creationists argue that Genesis is not

10 religious dogma but an inerrant scientific hypothesis

11 capable of evaluation on scientific procedures; is that

12 correct?

13 A Say that again. Creationists—

14 Q —that Genesis is not religious dogma but an

15 inerrant scientific hypothesis capable of evaluation on

16 scientific procedures.

17 A That evolution theory is not scientific? No, it's

18 not scientific dogma.

19 Q No, no.

20 A All right, repeat the whole question right from the

21 beginning.

22 Q Has your research shown that creationists argue that

23 Genesis is not religious dogma but an inerrant scientific

24 hypothesis capable of evaluation on scientific procedures?

25 A That's what creationists claim, yes.


1 Q Does Act 590 allow Genesis to be used in the

2 classroom?

3 A Yes. Not—If it's scientifically—Apparently, —It

4 is based on the assumption that one can create textbooks

5 that will document the scientific validity of that.

6 Q Could you show me in Act 590 where it says they can

7 use Genesis?

8 A In their definitions, they don't use the word

9 `Genesis' but they essentially lay out the definitions of

10 creation-science based on Genesis.

11 Q That's your opinion; is that correct?

12 A That's my opinion, yes.

13 Q Have you read Section 2, which prohibits any

14 religious instruction or any reference to religious

15 writings?

16 A Yes, but I find the whole thing so internally

17 contradictory that I have real problems with it.

18 Q Do you consider Genesis to be a religious writing?

19 A Yes.

20 Q One of the studies quoted - in your book, or

21 referenced, says that, "Groups committed to particular

22 assumptions tend to suppress dissent evidence and

23 criticism, only encourages increasing activities in

24 support of the existing beliefs." Do you recall that?

25 A Yes, I recall that.


1 Q Do you recall where that came from?

2 A It came in the analysis. It referred back to how

3 creationists could consistently ignore things like the

4 evidence in evolution theory by radiocarbon dating. It

5 seemed to me it was a very interesting example of the

6 hypothesis developed by the psychologist, Festinger, about

7 how you can't continually suppress evidence.

8 Q Let me make sure. That finding was actually made by

9 Festinger. Did Festinger relate that to creation

10 scientists?

11 A No, he did that with respect to another group. But

12 the point of his argument was to establish a general

13 principle of how a group, because of certain social

14 reinforcement and other kinds of reasons are able to

15 essentially rationalize evidence that contradicts their

16 beliefs.

17 Q That statement would be true for, perhaps, a lot of

18 groups, not just creationist scientists; isn't that right?

19 A Certainly.

20 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether textbook

21 publishers, if this Act should be upheld or similar acts

22 should be upheld, would publish texts in conformity with

23 this Act, that being balanced treatment, treating the

24 scientific evidences for both evolution and

25 creation-science?


1 A No. I don't think there should be balanced

2 treatment.

3 Q No, I am not asking if there should, but whether

4 textbook publishers would publish texts to comply with the

5 Act?

6 A Oh, I think some of them would if the act were

7 passed in states where there is a big textbook market.

8 There is money in it.

9 Q And while you are a sociologist, that is properly

10 considered a form of science, is it not?

11 A There is some argument about that.

12 Q Do you consider yourself to be a scientist of a type?

13 A Of a type, of a kind.

14 Q I am asking you the question, do you?

15 A Yeah.

16 Q And as a scientist you want, to be as accurate as

17 possible, isn't that right?

18 A I try very hard to be.

19 Q Your book that you wrote, page 19, said that, "In

20 Arkansas, Governor Faubus defended anti-evolution

21 legislation throughout the Sixties"?

22 A Yes.

23 Q On what basis did you make that conclusion?

24 A You are asking about the evidence that I dredged up

25 some five or six years ago, and I don't remember the exact


1 A (Continuing) nature of the evidence.

2 Q How many times did Governor Faubus make any

3 statement in support of anti-evolution legislation in the

4 1960's?

5 A I don't remember. It was not a central part of my

6 book.

7 Q But you did make the assertion that he defended it

8 throughout the 1960's; isn't that correct?

9 A (Nodding affirmatively.)

10 Q You don't know now—

11 A I don't remember how many times or what— I don't

12 remember the exact reference, the exact data, from which I

13 drew that argument. That was researched a long time ago.

14 Q Isn't it typical or normal when you are relying on—

15 First of all, in the 1960's did you come to Arkansas and

16 examine this question?

17 A No. The focus of my research was —When one does

18 research, one focuses on a certain aspect of a subject and

19 not—try to build up from secondary sources a lot of the

20 surrounding material. If one had to do primary research

21 on every aspect of a book, there would be no studies done.

22 Q But you did not footnote, did you, giving any

23 authority for that assertion that you made?

24 A I don't remember if there is a footnote. Is there

25 no footnote on there? I don't remember whether there is or


1 A (Continuing) not.

2 Q Ms. Nelkin, I would like to show you this book. Is

3 this a copy of your book?

A Yes. It's a copy of the first hardback edition, yes.

5 Q Directing your attention to page 70, do you not

6 state that, "Other Bible schools, such as Bob Jones

7 University in Arkansas, teach courses—"

8 A Which is not in Arkansas. That got changed

9 immediately to South Carolina in the second edition. Yes,

10 there are occasionally small mistakes that are made that,

11 hopefully, get corrected right away. As you know, during

12 the deposition my copy of the book did not have Arkansas

13 and yours did.

14 Q But there is Arkansas in here so at some point you

15 must have written Arkansas to get it in here; isn't that

16 correct?

17 A Yes, I am sure. It was a mistake and it was

18 corrected right away. Unfortunately, past the point where

19 it could be corrected on the first edition.

20 Q In other words, the two things in your book

21 specifically about Arkansas, one is in error and one you

22 have no authority for; isn't that correct?

23 A No. I didn't say I had no authority for it. I said

24 I cannot remember where I got the material on Arkansas.

25 The error, certainly by saying Bob Jones University is in


1 A (Continuing) Arkansas, that was just an error.

2 There were also some spelling errors that I found

3 afterwards.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. No further questions.

5 THE COURT: Court will be in recess until 3:25 p.m.

6 If you would— Do you have any re-direct?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know, your Honor. If you

8 would, give me just a moment.

9 THE COURT: If you do, just have the witness take

10 the seat in the witness stand.

11 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

12 from 3:10 p.m. until 3:25 p.m.)

13 MR. CRAWFORD: I have no more questions. I would

14 like to introduce plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for

15 identification, which she was interrogated about and is

16 now marked as an exhibit. I would ask that it be received.

17 THE COURT: Fine, it will be received.

18 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit

19 Number 1 received in evidence.)

20 MR. CRAWFORD: Also, for the record, your Honor, the

21 Bird resolution which she referred to and I was unable to

22 find, it turns out it had already been admitted as part of

23 Exhibit 83, pages 131 to 135. That has already been

24 admitted.

25 THE COURT: Are you ready to call your next witness.


1 MR. SIANO: Yes. Plaintiffs call Professor Langdon

2 Gilkey.

3 Thereupon,



5 a witness called on behalf of the plaintiffs, after having

6 been first duly sworn or affirmed, testified as follows:




9 Q Will you state your name for the record?

10 A Langdon Brown Gilkey.

11 Q Address?

12 A 5713 South Harper Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

13 Q What is your present occupation and place of

14 employment, please?

15 A I am a professor of theology at the Divinity School

16 of the University of Chicago.

17 MR. SIANO: I offer into evidence Plaintiffs'

18 Exhibit Number 90, Doctor Gilkey's resume.

19 THE COURT: That will be received.

20 (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 90

21 received in evidence.)

22 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

23 Q Doctor Gilkey, can you give us some background on

24 your area of research and scholarship at the University of

25 Chicago?


1 A My main responsibility is to teach protestant

2 theology, but I have taught the historical, that is to

3 say, the history of Christian theology. I teach a number

4 of protestant theologians of various sorts, both

5 contemporary and ones who preceded us.

6 I teach a history of the development of modern theology

7 since the middle of the eighteenth century. I've been

8 particularly interested in the relations of religion and

9 culture, not as a sociologist or historian, but as a

10 theologian; the relations of religion to science, the

11 relations of religion to politics; relations of religion

12 or the Western religions to the ideas of history, and so

13 forth.

14 I teach courses on those subjects, as well as courses on

15 particular theologians.

16 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would offer Doctor Gilkey

17 as an expert in the field of theology.

18 THE COURT: Any voir dire?

19 MR. CAMPBELL: No voir dire.

20 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

21 Q Doctor Gilkey, did I engage your services in 1981 as

22 an expert?

23 A Yes.

24 Q With respect to what subject matter?

25 A With respect to, first of all, the Act 590 and to


1 A (Continuing) the relation of that act to the

2 general subject matter of religion, and to the subject

3 matter of Christian theology and particularly the subject

4 matter of the doctrine or idea of creation.

5 Q Have you written any books or periodicals on the

6 topic of creation?

7 A My thesis and my first book was on the subject of

8 creation, a book called Maker of Heaven and Earth. I have

9 subsequently found myself reinterested in that subject

10 over and over again since creation remains with us,

11 fortunately. So it keeps arising.

12 In the context of science it has come up repeatedly,

13 needless to say. And I have written some articles on that

14 subject and now find myself involved in it again.

15 Q Doctor Gilkey, getting to your area of expertise,

16 would you please describe for us what is religion?

17 A Definitions of religion are famous for being

18 difficult to produce. That everybody will agree with.

19 That is partly because of the wide variety of religions

20 and partly because, obviously, there is a certain

21 perspective on defining religion.

22 I will offer one here that is on the basis of my own

23 study and reflection, and I propose it as an adequate

24 one. People may disagree with it but I will be willing to

25 discuss that matter.


1 A (Continuing)

2 I will propose that religion involves three different

3 elements or aspects. First of all, in order for anything

4 to be called a religion has these three. Anything that we

5 ordinarily call a religion does illustrate these three.

6 First of all, a view of reality, especially of ultimate

7 reality; a view that emphasizes, first, the basic problem

8 of human existence—for example, death or sin, or rebirth

9 in some religions. Secondly, and perhaps most important,

10 has an answer to that fundamental problem, an answer that

11 is very clearly connected with what is regarded as

12 ultimate reality.

13 These answers are expressed in a number of ways,

14 depending on the kind of religion we are talking about.

15 They can be expressed in myths or stories at certain

16 levels.

17 They can be expressed in what are called truths, for

18 example, in Buddhism. They can be expressed in teaching,

19 they can be expressed in doctrines, and, finally, in

20 dogmas.

21 Q That is the first element?

22 A That is the first element. The second element is

23 that there is a way of life and then a mode of behavior

24 that is involved. Generally, it finds its source in what

25 is regarded as ultimate reality, to which every person in


1 A (Continuing) the religion submits themselves,

2 assents, promises to participate in. Obviously, how much

3 they do or how little is a different matter, but that is

4 part of it.

5 Q Let me ask you, do creeds form a part of this ethic?

6 A Some religions have creeds, some don't, but that's

7 not universal. I suggest that every religion has

8 something like that. They may call it teachings, truths,

9 this, that and the other, and some religions will have

10 definite creeds. That comes more under Number 1, so to

11 speak, with regard to their view of reality.

12 Q What is the third element?

13 A The third element is the community, a community

14 structured in a quite definite way with differences of

15 authority, differences of responsibility, a community that

16 meets at particular times, and as a part of a way of life

17 comes into some kind of relationship with what is regarded

18 as ultimate reality.

19 This may be meditative; it may be esthetic; it may be

20 what we call in our tradition worship. It may be prayer;

21 it may be this, that and the other. There are all kinds

22 of ways.

23 Q You used the phrase "our tradition", I take it you

24 are speaking of Western religion?

25 A I am speaking there of religions of the West and, in


1 A (Continuing) particularly, of Christianity, though the

2 word `worship', of course, applies to many other types of

3 religion, but if one said, `What do we do to come into

4 contact with God', we think immediately of worship and

5 prayer.

6 Q Is there an additional element to religion when you focus

7 on Western religion?

8 A Well, one of the essential elements of Western religions,

9 and I am thinking here particularly of Judaism, Christianity

10 and Islam, if you wish to call that Western, is that they

11 are monotheistic.

12 The meaning, the functional meaning of monotheism is that

13 everything relative to the religion focuses on God.

14 Q Monotheistic is one god?

15 A One god, that's right, and focuses on God and one God.

16 That is to say, God is the ultimate reality; God is the

17 source of the ethic; God is that power that legitimates the

18 community.

19 Q Could you describe for me in a little more detail how

20 Western religion is related to God and God related to

21 Western religion?

22 A Well, as I say, God here in Western religion is regarded

23 as the source of ultimate reality; that is, God dominates

24 the view of reality and of ultimate reality as the creator,

25 as the divine source of all that is.


1 A (Continuing) God is the source of the revelation on which

2 the religion is based; God is the source of the law which

3 those within the religion support or wish to follow; God is

4 the source of the salvation that is the answer to the

5 deepest human problem.

6 And the deepest human problem in our tradition is regarded

7 as separation from God.

8 Q Would it be fair to say that in Western religions what has

9 to do with God is religions and all that has to do with

10 religion has to do with God?

11 A Yes. All that is religious, the meaning on monotheism,

12 `Thou shalt worship no other God', all that is religious is

13 related to God. Correspondingly, what is related to God is

14 religious.

15 Now, this includes not only the acts of God in revealing

16 himself or in saying, but also very specifically the acts of

17 God in creating and preserving the universe.

18 For this reason, it is quite appropriate that the first book

19 of our scriptures has within it as its first part a story of

20 the creation of the whole visible universe by God. And the

21 first article of the traditional Christian creed, the

22 Apostles Creed, reads, "I believe in God, the Father

23 Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth", stating this point

24 as well.

25 Q You described the first book of our scripture. Are


1 (Continuing) you referring to the Genesis Book in

2 the Old Testament?

3 A I am referring to the Genesis Book in the Old

4 Testament. It is the first book of the Christian

5 scripture and it is also the first book, of course, of the

6 Hebrew Scripture, the Torah.

7 Q Is it your testimony, sir, that a creative being is

8 necessarily a god in Western tradition?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor. He is leading

10 the witness. He has not said that before. I don't think

11 he has indicated or alluded to that.

12 MR. SIANO: I will rephrase my question.

13 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

14 Q Do you, sir, have an opinion, to a reasonable degree

15 of professional certainty, as to whether or not a creative

16 being is necessarily a god?

17 A A creator is certainly a god; that is, a being that

18 brings the universe into existence.

19 Q Why, sir, is a proposition that relates to God or to

20 creator a religious concept?

21 A Well, as I've said, in the Western tradition all

22 that relates to God has to do with religion and vice

23 versa. Secondly, the idea of a creator, that is, one who

24 brings the world into existence, fashions it, creates a

25 system of causes within which we find ourselves, is a


1 A (Continuing) being who transcends that system of

2 cause, is not a finite cause, is not merely a part of

3 nature— This has been very deep in the traditions of

4 both Judaism and Christianity—transcends both nature and

5 the human society and human history, and as its founder,

6 in this sense this is a transcendent, a supernatural

7 being, such a being is God.

8 Q Would the source of our understanding of creator

9 also relate to this religious character?

10 A The idea of a creator, particularly the idea of a

11 creator out of nothing, has its source in the religious

12 traditions of Judaism, subsequently of Christianity, and

13 then subsequently to that of Islam. And the form of the

14 concept has its source there.

15 In fact, one might say this is where all of our ideas

16 about what God is or who God is comes from this book and

17 subsequently from that to this tradition.

18 Q Do Western notions of God differ significantly from

19 anyone else's, any other group's notion of God as the

20 creator?

21 A They differ very significantly. Of course, it is

22 obvious and we all know that the word `god', that is to

23 say the words which we would translate `god' into that

24 English word are not confined to the Jewish, Christian,

25 Islamic traditions, the People of the Book. But the idea


1 A (Continuing) of a creator out of nothing, the idea

2 of a creator at an absolute beginning is a unique

3 conception confined to that tradition.

4 There are many creators. There are creators in Hindu

5 mythology and religion. There are creators in Chinese and

6 Japanese traditions. There, of course, were creators in

7 the Babylonian tradition, the Greek tradition, and so

8 forth. None of them have quite that character. That is

9 characteristic of our tradition and has its ultimate

10 source in Genesis.

11 Q Does whether or not this creator is named god, is

12 that relevant to whether it is a religious concept?

13 A No. As I say, if one specifies a creator being one

14 who has supernatural power, intelligence, will, and those

15 are both involved in the concept of design; that is, the

16 power to bring it into being and the will and the

17 intelligence to shape it into our world, such a conception

18 is what we mean by god and a large part of what we mean by

19 god. It is not all of what we mean by god in our

20 tradition, but if you say this much you are talking about

21 a deity and, therefore, this conception is that of a deity.

22 Q Can you translate the meaning of the phrase "ex

23 nihilo" for me?

24 A Yes. The phrase "ex nihilo" appeared in the first

25 centuries—Actually, as far as I know, at the end of the


1 A (Continuing) second century—in the Christian

2 tradition. It came as an interpretation on the meaning or

3 the implication of the Genesis account, of a number of

4 Psalms and some references in the New Testament where the

5 word `creation' was used and where the idea of making was

6 used. This was what it meant. It means that God created

7 the world out of nothing, not out of God, not out of

8 matter, but out of nothing. That is to say, everything

9 was produced by God. That is the fundamental meaning. It

10 means, also, an absolute beginning.

11 Q Is it your opinion, sir, that the phrase "creatio ex

12 nihilo" is a religious concept?

13 A Yes. In the first place because it refers to God.

14 And I have made that point as clearly as possible that

15 what refers to God, particularly in our tradition, is

16 religious. Propositions of that sort are religious

17 propositions.

18 Secondly, one might make the argument, and I am prepared

19 to do so, that of all statements about God, that is the

20 most religious. What I mean by that is that by various

21 definitions there are not other actions there; all other

22 actors are brought into existence by this act. There are

23 no other forces at work.

24 For example, in the concept of the incarnation, there

25 is, let us say, Mary present already; there is a needy


1 A (Continuing) human race, and so forth and so on.

2 God acts, but there are other actors on the scene. The

3 same with the Last Judgment, the same with other doctrines

4 or teachings of the Christian religion.

5 However, creator, God is the only actor. One is only

6 talking about God at this point. The only agent is the

7 divine. In this sense it is the paradigmatic religious

8 statement.

9 Q I show you what has been previously admitted as

10 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29, Act 590 of 1981. I ask you, sir,

11 have you ever seen that statute before?

12 A Yes.

13 Q In fact, I conveyed the statute to you?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And asked you examine it; is that correct?

16 A Yes.

17 Q I ask you, to a reasonable degree of professional

18 certainty, do you have an opinion as to whether the

19 creation-science model as set forth in Section 4 (a) of

20 Act 590 is a statement of religion?

21 A I find it unquestionably a statement of religion.

22 Q What is the basis for that opinion?

23 A The basis for that is that, with the possible

24 exception of Number 2, that is to say, the insufficiency

25 of mutation in natural selection, which is predominantly a


1 A (Continuing) negative statement, the other

2 statements, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, imply, entail, necessitate a

3 deity as the agent involved in what is being said. The

4 sudden creation of the universe from nothing requires

5 there be a being there who preceives the universe, though

6 the word `preceives' is interesting at this point, who

7 preceives the universe, who is self-sufficient, who is

8 necessary, who is eternal and who has a design, an

9 intelligent design, in mind and the power, above all, to

10 do that.

11 The conception of species, kinds of plants and animals

12 created at the beginning means that they were not evolved

13 from anything else or created from anything else but

14 created by a precedent creator.

15 Separate ancestry of man and apes, as has been pointed

16 out, has the same implication.

17 If the Flood is regarded as the catastrophe referred to,

18 the Flood has a divine origin. That is to say, if the

19 meaning of the word `catastrophe' is forces and causes far

20 beyond any normal, natural causes, then number 5 implies

21 the same.

22 Now, mind you, that depends on what is meant by the word

23 `catastrophism'. We could talk about Saint Helens as a

24 catastrophe. That is not what I'm referring to.

25 Something quite beyond the ordinary causality or the


1 A (Continuing) recurring causality of our experience

2 with the universe.

3 Q You don't find a definition of catastrophism

4 anywhere in that section, do you?

5 A Right, but I suspect from the history of these

6 ideas, that it has the reference that I've implied, though

7 I am not sure.

8 A relatively recent inception of the earth certainly

9 requires a divine creator.

10 Q Are you aware—Your testimony earlier was that a

11 creative force is necessarily a deity of some kind. Is

12 that a fair statement?

13 A I would think that the moment you say "force"—I

14 think I said "being"—I think that when you say "a

15 creative force"—that I am not necessarily maintaining

16 that this involves a deity or is involved in religion,

17 though creative forces have the kind of attractiveness,

18 let us say, that we begin to get religious about. So I

19 don't want to exclude creative forces from religion.

20 For example, in a good number of so-called primitive

21 religions, the creative force of fertility was certainly

22 an object of very intent religious belief and of religious

23 interest.

24 Q So you, are saying `a creative being' then?

25 A I would rather put it this way. Not all creative


1 A (Continuing) forces can be regarded as religious.

2 A good number of them, in fact, have been regarded as

3 religious.

4 A creative being, that is, a being who brings things

5 into being, who shapes the universe as we know it, is a

6 religious concept, has appeared in that. And I might say

7 that the reason the study by people, as has been pointed

8 out in this courtroom, in a religious context is that that

9 is where it is. It doesn't appear anywhere else.

10 It comes up in all kinds of ways in human history. Such

11 kinds of concepts always involve with deities, always

12 involve with what we call religion.

13 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I have placed before the

14 witness, but I will not mark as an exhibit unless my

15 adversaries feel it is necessary, the Defendants' Proposed

16 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

17 I direct Doctor Gilkey's attention to Proposed Finding

18 Number 35.

19 Q I will ask you if you will please read that.

20 A "Creation science does propose the existence of a

21 creator to the same degree that evolution science

22 presupposes the existence of no creator." I would dispute

23 that, but that is neither here nor there.

24 "As used in the context of creation-science as defined

25 by Section 4 of Act 590, the terms or concepts of


1 A (Continuing) `creation' and `creator' are not

2 inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense,

3 the term `creator' means only some entity with power,

4 intelligence and a sense of design."

5 "Creation science does not require a creator who has a

6 personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion,

7 justice and so on which are ordinarily attributed to a

8 deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not

9 require that the creator still be in existence."

10 Q Doctor Gilkey, I would like to ask you, as a

11 theologian, are you aware of a concept—As a religious

12 premise, are you aware of the concept of a creator-deity

13 who was not also not loving, compassionate and just?

14 A There are a number of them, of course. In many—

15 Q If I might, sir, in Christianity particularly.

16 A Right. Well, I was going to back up just a moment.

17 That is to say, there are a number of polytheistic faiths

18 which have spoken of a creator deity, who may or may not

19 be the deity who saves.

20 In a monotheistic faith, of course, this is impossible.

21 Actually, it is interesting to me that this conception of

22 a creator being who is not the god who saves—I would say

23 the creator being is inevitably a deity—but a creator

24 being who is not the god who saves has appeared within

25 Christian history as its first and most dangerous major


1 A (Continuing) heresy.

2 Now, I am hoping that was intended by counsel here, but

3 this was the Marcionic heresy and the Gnostic heresy,

4 which the church with great vehemence reacted against in

5 the first two centuries.

6 Q Would you spell the names of them?

7 A Yes. Marcion is Capital M-a-r-c-i-o-n. The

8 Gnostic, capital G-n-o-s-t-i-c. Both of them were not

9 very friendly to the Old Testament for various reasons,

10 wished Christianity not be associated with it, presented a

picture of malevolent or, at least, not very benevolent,

12 deity who created the world and of another god who came in

13 to save it.

14 The main thrust of the earliest theology of the church

15 and the source of the so-called Apostles' Creed in a

16 Hundred and Fifty, which is the first example of it that

17 is known, was to combat this and to say that the god we

18 worship is the maker of heaven and earth, and the god who

19 made heaven and earth is the father of the being who saved

20 us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Thus, comes out, "I believe in

21 God, the Father, the maker of heaven and earth and in his

22 son, Jesus Christ, our Lord."

23 Q So what you are saying then, Doctor Gilkey, is that

24 as a result of these two heresies, Marcion and Gnostic

25 heresies, the Christian church developed what we now know


1 Q (Continuing) as the Apostles' Creed?

2 A It is pretty clear that there was a teaching summary

3 that was used quite consistently, probably from Eighty,

4 Ninety and so forth, on. This became more and more

5 consistent because there are hints of it in the earliest

6 documents at the turn of the century.

7 As far as we know, it was formulated into a creed at

8 Rome against Marcions to say, `No, we do not believe in

9 two gods, a creator god is distinct from a saving god. We

10 do believe in one god.' They regarded that, of course, as

11 within the Jewish tradition. They regarded it as the

12 Christian way of speaking of that, and so that became the

13 thrust of that creed. That is the main article of the

14 creed.

15 Q Is it, none the less, your view, Doctor Gilkey, that

16 the concept of these two heresies are, none the less,

17 religious concepts?

18 A Oh, yes, absolutely.

19 Q Directing your, attention to Section 4 (a) of Act 590

20 again, do you, in fact, there have a model of creation if

21 you extract from that-the concept of the creator?

22 A As I have indicated, each one, with the exception of

23 2—

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think we have to object

25 to that question. I think that calls for, at least, a


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) legal if not a scientific

2 conclusion as to whether you have a model of origin in the

3 scientific sense, and this witness is testifying only as a

4 religious expert as to whether there would be a coherent

5 scientific model.

6 MR. SIANO: I don't think I quite understand the

7 nature of the objection. Let me speak to both sides of

8 what I think I hear.

9 It is the plaintiffs' argument, your Honor, that the

10 model of origins being proposed as scientific creationism

11 is, in fact, a religious model from Genesis.

12 We propose to have the witness testify on whether or not

13 this model exists without the deity. And the witness has

14 already testified that a deity is an inherently religious

15 concept.

16 I think he is entitled to testify whether, without the

17 deity, there is a model of any kind.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Model of religious origin, perhaps,

19 but he is not competent to testify as to whether it's a

20 scientific model of origins because, as I understand it,

21 he has not been qualified as an expert on science. I

22 think the term is somewhat ambiguous. He is talking about

23 a model of origins. He needs to make clear whether he is

24 talking scientific or religious.

25 THE COURT: Are you talking about a religious model


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) of origins?

2 MR. SIANO: Let me ask a few more questions and see

3 if it clears up the problem.

4 Q Doctor Gilkey, Section 4 (a) sets forth what it

5 describes as a creation-science model. In your view, is

6 that a religious model or a scientific model?

7 A My view is that, for various reasons which I will be

8 willing to spell out, but as will quickly be pointed out,

9 and which my expertise is slightly less than what I like

10 to talk about, this is not the scientific model at all. I

11 am willing to talk about that.

12 As I have indicated, I think there is no question but

13 that the model in 4 (a) is a religious model. I have

14 already testified to that effect.

15 The question as I understand it now is, is there a model

16 there that is not a religious model, and I think that is a

17 legitimate question considering what I have just said. It

18 follows up from that.

19 And I would like to argue that there is simply no idea

20 there at all without the figure and the agency of a

21 supernatural being. - In this sense, there is no

22 explanation. There is a claim that it can be shown that

23 the universe appeared suddenly. There is the claim that

24 species are fixed and change only within those fixed

25 limits.


1 A (Continuing) There is the claim for the separate

2 ancestry of man and of ape. There is the claim for the

3 explanation of the earth formed by catastrophism, and a

4 relatively recent inception of the earth.

5 These are all, so to speak, claims. I don't think they

6 are true but that's neither here nor there. They are

7 claims, but they are not a theory.

8 In order for there to be a theory, in each case, as I've

9 said, there must be an agent. The moment you have the

10 agent, you have deity. If there is no deity, there is no

11 theory. If there is a theory, it is religious.

12 Q Doctor Gilkey, have you written on the topic of the

13 difference between religion and science?

14 A I have.

15 Q Could you describe to me briefly what the nature of

16 those writings have been?

17 A I have written several articles on this subject. I

18 have written a book called Religion and the Scientific

19 Future on the interrelations of religion and science.

20 Q Could you, therefore, state for me in your

21 professional opinion what the differences between

22 religious theories and scientific theories are?

23 THE COURT: Wait a second. I am making a couple of

24 notes and I would like to finish these before we go any

25 further.


1 Q Doctor Gilkey, can you state for us, please, in your

2 professional opinion what the differences are between

3 religions theories and scientific theories?

4 A Well, let me begin by saying that I think that all

5 theories which purport to explain or seek to explain, and

6 that is he general use of the word `theory' that I presume

7 we are using here—all theories do have certain things in

8 common. They appeal to certain types of experiences and

9 certain kinds of facts. They ask certain types of

10 questions and they appeal to certain authorities or

11 criteria.

12 Thus, they have a certain structure. That is, they go

13 by the rules of the road. They have in what in some

14 parlances are called canons. That is to say, rules of

15 procedure. I would like to suggest that while both

16 religious theories and scientific theories have this

17 general structure in common, they differ very much with

18 regard to the experiences and facts that they appeal to,

19 to the kinds of questions they ask, the kinds of

20 authorities they appeal to and, therefore, to their own

21 structure.

22 And I would like to make some comments at the end, the

23 experiences and facts that science has, so to speak, in

24 its own consensus come to agree this is what we appeal to

25 are first of all, observations or sensory experiences.


1 A (Continuing) They are, therefore, repeatable and

2 shareable. They are in that sense quite public. Anybody

3 who wishes to look at them and has the ability and

4 training so to do can do so. These are objective facts in

5 that sense, and experiences are somewhat the same.

6 I would say that most religions, and certainly our

7 traditions, when they appeal to those kinds of facts

8 appeal to those facts rather as a whole to the world as a

9 whole, as illustrating order or seemingly to a purpose or

10 goodness, and so forth. So, they can appeal to those

11 kinds of facts. That isn't quite so public, because

12 someone might say, "It's very disorderly to me," and so

13 on. It's not quite so public.

14 But also religions appeal to what we call inner facts,

15 facts about experience of guilt, facts of being, facts of

16 anxiety, death, and the experience of the release from

17 those anxieties or miseries, or what have you.

18 These are public in the sense that they are shared by

19 the community but they are not public at all in that

20 sense. They are not objective in that sense.

21 The kinds of questions that they ask are significantly

22 different, it seems to me. That is to say, science tends

23 to ask `how' questions. What kinds of things are there?

24 What kinds of relations do they have? What sort of

25 processes are there? Can we find any laws within those


1 A (Continuing) processes? Can we set up a set of

2 invariable relations if P then Q, if this, then that.

3 This is the kind of question. These are `how' questions,

4 process questions, if you will.

5 Religion asks, might ask some of these questions, but

6 basically it is asking `why' questions. It is asking

7 questions of meaning. Why is the world here? Why am I

8 here? Who am I? What am I called to do? What is it my

9 task in life to be? Where are we going? How are we to

10 understand the presence of evil? These are quite

11 significantly different kinds of questions.

12 Correspondingly, science appeals to the authority, and

13 this is decisive, of logical coherence and experimental

14 adequacy. It also appeals through coherence with other

15 established views and to some things that are called

16 fruitlessnesses. There is also a sense of elegance.

17 Now, when you work that out in terms of its cash value,

18 you have, as has been said before, the consensus of the

19 scientific community on these matters. And there almost

20 always is a consensus of the community making such a

21 judgment.

22 This is an earned authority. It is not granted by some

23 other power. It is earned by expertise, by training, by

24 excellence at work. Religions generally appeal to

25 revelation of some sort, not always to the same sort, but


1 A (Continuing) some manifestation of the divine or

2 some place where the divine is encountered.

3 For example, in Buddhism, what is called the higher

4 consciousness might be a very important authority.

5 Subsequently to that, of course, are those who mediate

6 that authority, to the interpreters of the Book, to the

7 spokesman for the church, for the community, to those who

8 have an intimate and direct and unique relationship to God.

9 It can take all kinds of forms—To a particular kind of

10 religious experience and so on. Notice these are not in

11 that way public. They are not generally earned. They are

12 given; they are granted.

13 Q The authority in Christianity, is there one

14 particular reference or source of authority?

15 A Well, of course, this has been the subject of a good

16 deal of friendly debate. That is to say, this was an

17 issue with the Gnostics we were speaking of, whether the

18 apostolic churches—The scriptures were not then

19 canonized, but whether the apostolic churches were the

20 authority or just anybody.

21 Later it came to be agreed the scriptures, the apostolic

22 scriptures, and they were given authority because they

23 were believed to be written by the Apostles, the apostolic

24 scriptures and the apostolic church were the dual and not

25 separable authorities.


1 A (Continuing)

2 By the time one gets to the Reformation, there is a real

3 argument over this. Are both tradition and authority an

4 ascription authority or solely scriptural, that is,

5 scripture alone, which, of course, was the Lutheran and

6 then the Calvinist position, and has been a basis for

7 Protestantism. So that in each case the authority

8 appealed to is regarded as the place where the divine is

9 in some way manifesting itself or is speaking, and that is

10 the basis of the authority.

11 Q Does modern protestant Christianity include the

12 Bible as the scriptural source of authority?

13 A I would say it better.

14 Q Is that a yes answer?

15 A That is a yes answer.

16 Q As a religious source of authority, do the concepts

17 inspiration and revelation also form a part of it?

18 A Yes, and there is a good deal of debate about what

19 they mean. Revelation is a fairly consistent word

20 throughout the history of Christian, and I think I could

21 say Jewish, thinking.

22 The meaning of inspiration has varied a good deal.

23 Now, we were talking about the kinds of questions. I

24 wanted to go on and talk about the kinds of theories.

25 In science, theories are generally laws; that is to say,


1 A (Continuing) universal, necessary, automatic,

2 impersonal, "if P then Q" kinds of statements.

3 One of the most basic rules of scientific inquiry is

4 that no non-natural or historical cause, that is, no

5 supernatural cause, may be appealed to.

6 Thus one could say, I would rather take the canon as the

7 scientific inquiry. It's not a presupposition; it's a

8 canon; it's a rule of the road.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will have to interject

10 an objection on the grounds that this witness has not been

11 qualified as an expert on science. He is qualified as a

12 theologian. His testimony has gone at some length now,

13 and I thought it was going to be brief. Therefore, I

14 would have to object to this line of testimony and move to

15 strike the previous testimony to the extent he is

16 discussing what is science.

17 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, the witness has written on

18 the differences between science and religion, and speaks

19 as a philosopher on this topic. His resume so reflects

20 those topics.

21 THE COURT: That's what I recall. I think he is

22 qualified to offer his opinion.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: He is offered only as a theologian,

24 your Honor, by the plaintiffs.

25 MR. SIANO: I might broaden that offer if that


1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) might give Mr. Williams some

2 comfort, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Go ahead.

4 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

5 Q You were taking about theories.

6 A Yes. It reflects, as I said, a universal necessary

7 concept of law or separate and variable relations. It

8 does not and cannot, and I think this is also true in the

9 discipline of history and, perhaps, of the law, cannot

10 appeal to a supernatural cause in its explanations.

11 It is verified by a particular shamble, objective,

12 sensory kind of experiment and has its origin in that, or

13 as better put falsified. Non-falsifiable by those.

14 And where religious theories concern God in our

15 tradition they use a quite different kin of language, a

16 symbolic language, about God. They invoke personal

17 causes, intentions, will. God created the world with a

18 design, God created the world in order that it be good,

19 God created the world out of compassion or out of love,

20 and so forth and so on. These are familiar ways of

21 speaking of these kinds of acts.

22 Above all, perhaps most important, they have to do,

23 religious theories have to do with the relation of God to

24 the finite world and to human beings.

25 If they specify only relations between persons or only