1 THE WITNESS: Shall I try to explain this?
2 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, a teleological explanation, for
4 example, one would contrast this with a regular causal
5 explanation. For example, if I knocked a book on the
6 floor, you might say "What caused the book to fall to the
7 floor." In which case, you are also talking about what
8 happened that made it fall.
9 A teleological explanation is often done in terms of
10 design. For example, in a sense of, "Well, what purpose
11 or what end does this glass serve." In other words, why
12 is the glass here," something along those sort of lines.
13 Sort of things that were being talked about yesterday
15 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
16 Q And is it possible to have both a religious and sort
17 of theological concept of teleology and a nonreligious or
18 nontheological concept?
19 A It's possible. I mean, not impossible. I mean,
20 there have been both concepts.
21 Q How would you distinguish the two?
22 A Well, I would say the theological one is where, for
23 example, you explain the nature of the world in terms of
24 God's design, the sorts of things I find in 4(a), where
25 one tries to understand why the world is, as it is because
that's what God intended and that was God's end.
1 A (Continuing)
2 A non-theological one would be the kind, I think, the
3 kind of understanding that evolutionists, Darwinian
4 evolutionists, for example, who says, "What end does the
5 hand serve." In this case, they are looking at it as a
6 product of natural selection and looking at its value in a
7 sort of struggle for existence in selection.
8 Q So some modern biologists do consider themselves to
9 be teleologists?
10 A Let me put it this way. Some certain philosophers
11 think that biologists are teleologists.
12 Q Do they always use the term "teleology"?
13 A The philosophers or scientists?
14 Q The philosophers in describing this concept?
15 A Not always. In other words, sometimes used as
16 teleonomy, but I personally like the word teleology.
17 Q Is this word, teleonomy, used to show that they are
18 using the concept of teleology in its non-theological,
19 nonreligious sense?
20 A I would think that's probably true, yes.
21 Q In other words, they are trying to overcome a
22 problem of semantics?
23 A Well, they are trying to set themselves up against
24 their predecessors. Scientists like to do this.
25 Q Do you consider Thomas Coon's book, The Structure of
1 Q (Continuing) Scientific Revolutions, to be
2 recognized as an authority in either the history or
3 philosophy of science?
4 A Well, we don't have authorities in the philosophy of
5 science. You know, they are all pretty independent
6 types. I would certainly say that Thomas Coon's book is
7 considered a very important book. I think it's a very
8 important book.
9 Q In your book, The Philosophy of Biology, you state
10 that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is true
11 beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?
12 A Right.
13 Q And you further state that the falsity of its rivals
14 is beyond a reasonable doubt?
15 A Right.
16 Q Is not the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory a
17 rival to some degree to the modern synthesis theory?
18 A I'm not sure that it's a rival in the sense that I
19 was talking about it in the book, quite honestly. I dealt
20 with a number of alternatives, and punctuated equilibrium
21 theory certainly wasn't one of those which was there to be
22 considered when the book was written.
23 What I was saying was things like the original
24 Lamarckism, you know, are false beyond a reasonable
25 doubt. It certainly holds to that.
1 A (Continuing)
2 What I also said was that the importance of selection,
3 mutation, so on, are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
4 Q Again, to my question, is not the punctuated
5 equilibrium theory a rival, contrasting to the modern
6 synthesis theory which you think has been proven beyond a
7 reasonable doubt?
8 A Well, that's a nice point. I think some people
9 would think of it as such. I don't personally think of it
10 as such, and I'm glad to find that a lot of evolutionists
11 like Ayala doesn't think of it as such.
12 Q Others do, do they not?
13 A Well, quite often I think some of the people who put
14 it up like to think of it as a rival. But, you know,
15 we're still— I mean, the punctuated equilibria theory is
16 a very new theory. We're still working on the sort of
17 conceptual links between it and the original theory.
18 And I think it's going to take us awhile yet to decide
19 whether we are dealing with rivals or complements or
21 But of course, let me add that in no sense does this at
22 any point throw any doubt upon evolution itself. We are
23 talking just about causes.
24 Q Is defining a science a task which falls to
25 philosophers rather than to scientists themselves?
1 A Well, it falls to people acting as philosophers.
2 Scientists can certainly act as philosophers.
3 Q So is science a question of philosophy?
4 A It's a philosophical question.
5 Q Do philosophers uniformly agree on what is science?
6 A I think that basically we would agree, yes.
7 Q They would not agree entirely, would they?
8 A Well, philosophers never agree entirely. Do lawyers?
9 Q Do you think that in the society with a commonly
10 held religious belief that religion could properly be
11 taught in the public schools?
12 A Try that one on me again.
13 Q Do you think in a society with a commonly held
14 religion that religion could properly be taught in the
15 public schools?
16 A Yes. I think that for example, in medieval Europe
17 where, in fact, everybody is a Catholic, I see no reason
18 not to teach it in the public schools.
19 Of course, that has absolutely no relevance to us here
20 today. We are talking about America and we are talking
21 about Arkansas.
22 Q Is part of your opposition to creation science, and
23 more specifically to Act 590, based on your belief that
24 it's just a foot in the door, as you view it, for the
25 fundamentalist religious groups?
1 A Yes, I think I would. It's part of my belief. I
2 mean, I think it's important to oppose Act 590 in its own
3 right. I think it's wrong, dreadfully wrong. But
4 certainly I do see it as a thin end of a very large wedge,
6 Q And you see it as some sort of wedge which includes
7 attacks on homosexuality on women and on other races,
8 don't you?
9 A Insofar as it spreads a very natural literalistic
10 reading of the Bible, which as you know and I know
11 certainly says some pretty strong things about, say,
12 homosexuals, for example, certainly, yes, I can see it as
13 a thin end of a very big wedge, yes.
14 Q But Act 590 has absolutely nothing to say on those
15 subjects, does it?
16 A Well, I didn't say that it did. I mean, my point
17 simply is that if you allow this, this is the thin end of
18 the wedge. You don't talk about all the wedge when you
19 are trying to shove the tip in.
20 Q We are dealing here with the law, Doctor Ruse. And
21 is it not true that part of your reason for being against
22 the law is what you think might happen in the future if
23 this law should be upheld?
24 A Certainly. But as I said earlier, my opposition to
1 A (Continuing) the law is independent in its own
3 Q I understand that.
4 Who is Peter Medawar?
5 A I think he's a Nobel Prize winner, a biologist or
6 biochemist. Lives in England.
7 Q Is it not true that he has stated and as you quote
8 in your book that there are philosophical or
9 methodological objection to evolutionary theory; it is
10 too difficult to imagine or envision an evolutionary
11 episode which could not be explained by the formula of
13 A Medawar as opposed to Darwinism. But of course,
14 that does not mean in any sense that Medawar opposes
15 evolutionary theory in the sense of general evolution per
17 Q But isn't what Medawar is saying there is what we
18 talked about this morning, that Darwinism can accommodate
19 any sort of evidence?
20 A But you are doing what we talked about this
21 morning. You are confusing the causes with the fact of
23 Yes, Medawar was certainly uncomfortable, let's put it
24 that way. I don't know where he stands today. I know
25 that Popper has drawn back, but Medawar was certainly
uncomfortable with the mechanism of neo-Darwinism.
1 A (Continuing)
2 But to the best of my knowledge, Medawar has never, ever
3 denied evolution.
4 Q Is Medawar a creation scientist?
5 A I said to the best of my knowledge, Medawar has
6 never, ever denied evolution.
7 Q Do you consider the Natural History Branch of the
8 British Museum to be a creation science organization?
9 A Of course, I don't.
10 Q Is it true that this museum has had a display which
11 portrays creation science as an alternative to Darwinism?
12 A Well, of course, this is hearsay. I guess we are
13 allowed to introduce this, but my understanding is, yes, I
14 read it in the "New Scientist." I've certainly been told
15 about this, yes. I think it was a shocking thing to do,
17 Q That's your personal opinion?
18 A That certainly is. It goes to show that this is a
19 real problem we've got in Arkansas, in Canada and, alas,
20 in England, too.
21 Q Whether it's a problem depends on one's perspective,
22 does it not, Doctor Ruse?
23 A I don't think so, no. I think the problems can be
24 objectively identified. That it smells of problems.
25 Q Do scientists, after doing a degree, a lot of work
1 Q (Continuing) in an area, sometimes, become
2 emotionally attached to a theory?
3 A Scientists are human beings. I'm sure they do.
4 Q And might they also be intellectually attached to a
6 A Individual scientists, certainly. But not
7 necessarily the scientific community. I mean, Louie
8 Agassiz that we talked about earlier was emotionally
9 attached to his position, but the scientific community
11 Q Had not, you written that Darwinian evolutionary
12 theory is something which you can love and cherish?
13 A Me, personally, yes, I do indeed. I think it's a
14 wonderful theory.
15 Q Also, have you not advocated that the subject of
16 creation science is a battle which you must fight?
17 A That is why I'm here.
18 Q And how long have you been writing on Darwinism
20 A Oh, altogether, fifteen years. I mean, quite
21 frankly, some of my early stuff was done when I was a
22 graduate student. I mean, I don't know whether you'd call
23 that writing.
24 Q Doctor Ruse, in an article entitled "Darwin's
25 Legacy", did you state—
1 MR. NOVIK: What page?
2 MR. WILLIAMS: 55.
3 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
4 Q —did you state, first of all, that Christianity and
5 other forms of theism and deism are not the only world
6 religions today; that in many parts of the world there is
7 a powerful new rival?
8 A Marxism.
9 Q And then you write at some length, do you not, about
10 Marxism, particularly as it is affected by evolutionary
11 thought, as it affects that thought?
12 A Right. I'm talking, of course, in the context, very
13 much the context of discovery there as opposed to the
14 context of justification.
15 In other words, what I'm saying is that certain
16 scientists have tried to blend their position with
17 Marxism, and certainly extra scientific ideas have been
18 importantly influential in leading people to certain
19 scientific theories.
20 I am not at all saying, for example, that evolutionary
21 theory is Marxist.
22 Q I understand that. Back to the point you just
23 mentioned, science is really not concerned, then, is it,
24 where a theory comes from or a model comes from? The more
25 important question is, does the data fit the model?
1 A Well, more important to whom? Certainly, to the
2 scientist, of course, is a question of you get the ideas
3 and then you put them in a public arena, and how do they
5 For example, Copernicus was a Pythagorean, but we accept
6 Copernicus' theory, not because we are Pythagoreans and
7 Sun worshipers, but because Copernicus' theory works a lot
8 better than the Ptolemaic system does.
9 Q Do you consider Marxism to be a religion?
10 A In a sense. We talked about this in the deposi-
11 tion. As I said, religion is one of these very difficult
12 terms to define.
13 I would have said if you are going to define religion
14 just in terms of belief in a creator, then obviously not.
15 But if you are going to talk of religion in some sort of
16 ultimate concern, some sort of organization, something
17 like this, then, as I said, I'm happy to talk about
18 Marxism as a religion.
19 Q In your article at page 57, do you not state, "But
20 cutting right through to the present and quietly
21 admittedly basing my comments solely on a small group of
22 Marxist biologists working in the West, what I want to
23 point out here is that just like Christians, we find that
24 the Marxists try to modify and adapt Darwinism to their
25 own ends and within their own patterns. I refer
1 Q (Continuing) specifically to such work as is being
2 done by the Marxist biologist, Stephen J. Gould,
3 particularly his paleontology hypothesis of punctuated
4 equilibria introduced and briefly discussed early in this
6 A I say those words. I certainly do not in any sense
7 imply that punctuated equilibria is a Marxist theory. In
8 fact, the co-founder who is sitting over there would be
9 horrified to think that it is.
10 What I am saying is that Gould as a Marxist, from what I
11 can read and what he has done, has probably been led to
12 make certain hypotheses and claims which he finds
13 certainly empathetic to his Marxism.
14 I do not want to claim that punctuated equilibria is
15 Marxist, per se, and I certainly don't want to claim that
16 only and all Marxists could accept punctuated equilibria.
17 In fact, my understanding is that a lot of Marxists
18 don't like this.
19 Q Please understand, what I understand you are saying
20 here, in fact, what you state is, for example, with
21 reference to Gould, that he is strongly committed to an
22 ideological commitment to Marxism in his science. And you
23 have previously equated Marxism with a religion. Is that
24 not correct?
25 A No. You know, you are twisting my words here. I'm
1 A (Continuing) saying, "Look, here's a guy who, to
2 the best of my knowledge" — and, goodness, you are going
3 to be able to ask him tomorrow yourself — "here's a guy
4 who has got strong philosophical" — if you want to call
5 them religious beliefs, I am prepared to do this — "who
6 certainly would like to see the aspects of these in the
7 world," certainly using his philosophy, his religion to
8 look at the world just as Darwin did, incidentally, and
9 just as Copernicus did.
10 And I see, you know, nothing strange about this. I see
11 nothing worrying about this. Once you've got your theory,
12 then, of course, it's got to be evaluated and is indeed
13 being evaluated by independent objective criteria, and
14 there's nothing Marxist about that.
15 Q What you are saying is that these Marxist biologists
16 are conforming their science to some degree to their
17 politics or if you consider politics religion?
18 A No, I'm not. I don't like the word "conforming".
19 You know, we can go around on this all day. I don't like
20 the word "conforming".
21 What I'm saying is that some of their ideas are
22 important in their context of discovering plus for formulating
23 their ideas.
24 But as I say, you know, you could take Darwin, for
1 A (Continuing) example. Darwin was a deist, no doubt
2 about it. The only reason why Darwin became an evolution-
3 ist is because it fitted best with his religious ideas.
4 Copernicus was a Platonist.
5 Q Have you not said that Gould, for example, pushes
6 his scientific positions for three Marxist related reasons?
7 A What he does is, he pushes the ideas to get them out
8 on the table. This is the sort of thing he likes. Of
9 course, you do. You sharpen your ideas. Copernicus
10 pushed his ideas.
11 It doesn't mean to say that Gould is going to be a
12 punctuated equilibrist because he's a Marxist. It doesn't
13 mean to say that Eldridge or anybody else is going to be a
14 punctuated equilibrist because they are Marxists.
15 What it means is that probably Gould pushes these sorts
16 of ideas. You see, again the context of discovery, the
17 context of justification.
18 People discover things. People come up with ideas for
19 all sorts of crazy reasons and all sorts of good reasons.
20 But once you've got them out, as it were, within the
21 scientific community, then they've got to be accepted
22 because of the way that they stand up, do they lead to
23 predictions. I mean, does punctuated equilibria lead to
24 predictions that are predictions within the fossil record.
25 Q Doctor Ruse, but you have previously stated, I
1 Q (Continuing) think, and would agree that this idea
2 of punctuated equilibria, this debate that you see in the
3 evolutionary community is a healthy debate?
4 A I do indeed.
5 Q And they are not challenged — "they" being the
6 punctuated equilibrists — have not challenged evolution
7 over all, have they? Just merely the mechanism?
8 A Right.
9 Q But their challenge as you have stated in these
10 writings states that it has come from a motivation based
11 on Marxism which you have identified as religion, doesn't
13 A Motivation. See, here we go again. What is
15 Q Is that correct? Is that what you have said?
16 A Well, if you read the passage, I'm quite sure I said
17 those words, but you are deliberately refusing to
18 understand what I'm saying.
19 Q And then on the other hand, you simply, because
20 someone challenges evolution, the theory of evolution
21 itself, and you feel they are doing it based on religious
22 reasons, and you are someone who is an adherent of
23 Darwinian thought, you object to that. Is that not
25 A Look, you are twisting my words. The challenge is
1 A (Continuing) being done on an evidentiary basis,
2 that is, moving into the context of justification. In
3 that paper and other papers I'm talking about a context of
4 discovery. What I'm saying is that when scientists
5 discover things, often they have different sorts of
7 But whether or not one is to accept punctuated
8 equilibria has nothing at all to do with Gould's personal
9 philosophy, personal religion.
10 It's the fossil record. It's what we find out there
11 that counts.
12 Q You call it a healthy' debate, but you also state
13 that this fails as science. This—
14 A What, fails as science?
15 Q This Marxist version of evolutionism, as you term it.
16 A Well, I say it fails, as science. But what I'm
17 saying is I don't think it's true, but I don't think it's
18 true or false because of Marxism.
19 I personally don't accept it because I don't think
20 they've made the case on the fossil record. Now, Gould
21 thinks that he has. We can argue that one.
22 But when I talk about its failing as a science, I do not
23 mean it is now nonscientific. What I mean is that I don't
24 think as a scientific hypothesis that it will fly.
25 But as I say, Marxism is a red herring here.
1 Q I'm merely referring you to—
2 A What I was doing, I was talking about the context of
3 discovery. And if you want to talk about that, I'm
4 prepared to do so.
5 Q Well, you've said that the Marxism version of
6 evolution has failed as science, but that's healthy. But
7 creation science fails as science and that's unhealthy?
8 A Well, you see, you are putting words into what you
9 want me to say. Marxist version of evolutionary theory.
10 What I'm saying is, one prominent evolutionist is a
11 Marxist. That led him, I think that encouraged him to try
12 out certain ideas.
13 But I don't think that punctuated equilibria theory is
14 Marxist, per se. I certainly don't think the judgment is
15 going to get into evidentiary level.
16 Q Now, you are not a scientist yourself?
17 A No, I'm not a scientist. No. I'm a historian and
18 philosopher of science which I would say encompasses a
19 great deal of other areas in philosophy.
20 Q The discovery basis you mentioned, if a creation
21 scientist believes in a sudden creation, should that not
22 be advanced and then fail or succeed on its merits of
23 scientific evidence?
24 A No. Because we are not talking about scientific
25 theory here. We are talking about religion. As a
1 A (Continuing) philosopher I can distinguish between
2 science and religion. We are not talking about the
3 context of discovery here.
4 And as I say, in any case, creation science isn't
5 science. It's religion.
6 Q Do you agree with John Stuart Neill that, "If all
7 mankind, minus one, were of one opinion and only one
8 person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no
9 more justified silencing that one person that, had he had
10 the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
11 A Well, the subject is so strange that— You can't
12 shout "Fire" in a loud crowded cinema. Yes, I do,
13 right. I think it's a wonderful statement.
14 But of course, silencing somebody is different from not
15 allowing the teaching of religion in the science classroom.
16 Q Teaching religion in the science classroom is your
17 conclusion, is that correct?
18 A Right.
19 Q And Marxism is a religion in your mind?
20 A I certainly would not want Marxism—
21 THE COURT: Let's don't go through that again. He
22 is not going to admit what you want him to.
23 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm glad I've got one
24 philosophical convert here.
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
2 Q Do you feel that the concept of a creator is an
3 inherently religious concept?
4 A Yes, I do.
5 Q So that the Creator should not be interjected into
6 the science classroom?
7 A Well, I mean, let's be reasonable about this. I
8 mean, for example, if you've got a biology class going,
9 and one of the kids asks you about, say, what's going on
10 in Arkansas at the moment, I wouldn't say, "Gosh, don't
11 talk about that. Wait until we get outside." No.
12 But I'd certainly say, "Look, if you want to talk about
13 this religion, then, you know, maybe we could wait until a
14 break," or something like that. Sure.
15 Q Does not The Origin of the Species conclude with a
16 reference to a creator and state that there is a grandeur
17 in this view of life with its several powers, having been
18 originally breathed by the Creator — with a capital C, I
19 might add — into a few forms or into one?
20 Does Darwin not call upon a creator in his book on The
21 Origin of the Species?
22 A Listen, before we—
23 Q Does he?
24 A Okay. Before we start on that, just pedantic, could
25 we get Darwin's book right. It's The Origin of Species.
1 A (Continuing) You said The Origin of the Species, if
2 we're going to be at this for two weeks—
3 Q Does he call upon a creator?
4 A Darwin certainly says that. But as I've said to you
5 a couple of weeks ago, Darwin later on modified what he
6 says and says, "Look, I'm talking metaphorically."
7 Q But would this subject, this book be appropriate for
8 consideration, in a science classroom?
9 A I certainly wouldn't want to use The Origin of
10 Species today in a science classroom. I'd certainly use
11 it in a historical context.
12 Q Or History of Science?
13 A Surely. Yes, I do indeed. It's one of the set
14 books in my course.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions, your
17 THE COURT: Mr. Novik?
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. NOVIK:
20 Q Doctor Ruse, you are a Canadian citizen?
21 A I am indeed.
22 Q Does Canada have a constitution?
23 A Well, ask me in a week or two. I think we might be
24 getting one.
1 Q Does Canada have a First Amendment?
2 A I'm afraid not.
3 Q Is there anything in Canada that prohibits the
4 teaching of religion in the public schools?
5 A I think it's a provincial situation.
6 Q That means it's up to each province?
7 A Yes. In fact, some provinces insist on it.
8 Q Doctor Ruse, I would like you to look at the statute
9 again, please, particularly Section 4(b). Section 4(b)
10 refers to scientific evidences.
11 What are those scientific evidences for?
12 A They are meaningless outside the context of the
14 Q In the statute, Doctor Ruse, what is the theory that
15 those scientific evidences are for?
16 A Are we looking at 4(b) now?
17 Q Yes.
18 A Well, as I said, I don't see a real theory here.
19 Q It says scientific evidences for—
20 A Well, a theory of evolution.
21 Q Now, if you will look up at 4(a), it says scientific
22 evidences for—
23 A Well, it's the theory of creation.
24 Q Doctor Ruse—
25 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object for the
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) record. It doesn't say
2 "theory" in either place.
3 THE WITNESS: No. But I said I can't understand it
4 without using the concept theory.
5 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)
6 Q In 4(b), what scientific theory supports the
7 scientific evidences and inferences referred to?
8 A I'm sorry. Give that again?
9 Q In 4(b), what theory supports the scientific
10 evidences and inferences referred to? -
11 A I take it they are talking about the things covered
12 in 1 through 6.
13 Q What theory is that?
14 A Part of it is the evolutionary theory.
15 Q And in 4(a), what theory unifies the scientific
16 evidences and inferences referred to?
17 A Creation science theory.
18 Q Mr. Williams referred you to 4(a)(2), the
19 insufficiency of mutation and natural selection. What
20 theory does 4(a)(2) support?
21 A I take it, it's creation theory. As I say, it's
22 sort of funny because in another level, I think it's
23 supposed to be about creation theory, but in another
24 level, it seems to me to support evolutionary theory.
25 Q But it's in the statute as a support for creation
1 Q (Continuing) theory, is that correct?
2 A That seems to be, you know, a bit of a mixup.
3 Q When the statute speaks of insufficiency in 4(a)(2),
4 is that insufficiency because of natural processes?
5 A I suppose not. I suppose supernatural processes
6 would be presupposed.
7 Q When the statute speaks of insufficiency in 4(a)(2),
8 is that because of the act of a creator?
9 A Yes. Supernatural—
10 MR. WILLIAMS: I will object. I think it's
11 conjecture on the part of the witness. He's saying why
12 the statute speaks to this and why it does not. I think
13 it is conjecture on his part.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure I agree. I am
16 THE COURT: That's overruled. Go ahead.
17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)
18 Q Mr. Williams took you through the statute, and I'd
19 like to do the same.
20 When in 4(a)(3), the statutes speaks of limited changes,
21 what theory is that evidence meant to support?
22 A Creation theory.
23 Q And in 4(a)(4) when the statutes speaks of separate
24 ancestry for man and apes, what theory is that meant to
1 A The creation theory.
2 Q And in 4(a-)(5) when the statute speaks of earth's
3 geology, what theory is that meant to support?
4 A Creation theory.
5 Q And in 4(a)(6) when the statute speaks of the age of
6 the earth, what theory is that meant to support?
7 A Creation theory.
8 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at the statute, what are
10 A I just don't know. Evidences don't mean anything
11 outside of scientific theory. That is meaningless and
12 it's misleading.
13 Q Are evidences facts or data or observations?
14 A Well, evidences can be facts, observations, data.
15 It doesn't make it scientific.
16 Q I was about to ask you whether evidences are
18 A We are thinking like one at the moment, Mr. Novik.
19 Q I take it your answer is no?
20 A No.
21 Q When does evidence assume scientific significance?
22 A Only when you bind it together within a scientific
23 theory or a scientific hypothesis. Until that point—
24 THE COURT: That's all right. I've listened to that
25 earlier today. You don't need to go over it again.
1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)
2 Q Can science have evidence divorced from a theory?
3 A No.
4 Q Can a science have an inference divorced from a
6 A No.
7 Q Have you ever seen anyone attempt to divorce an
8 evidence from its theory?
9 A Scientific creationists.
10 Q What is the effect of talking about data without
11 connecting it to its theory?
12 A Well, it's meaningless.
13 Q Can you teach science by only teaching evidences?
14 A No.
15 Q Can you teach science by only teaching inferences?
16 A No.
17 Q Do you have an opinion about why creation science
18 tries to speak about its scientific evidences and
19 inferences divorced from its theory?
20 A Because it's phony. It's religion. It's trying to
21 pretend it's something that it isn't.
22 Q And even though some evidence may look scientific,
23 is the theory of creation science scientific?
24 A No.
25 Q And even though some inferences may look scientific,
1 Q (Continuing) does it support a scientific theory of
3 A No.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Your Honor, I want to
5 object on the grounds, first of all, it's leading, and I
6 think it's— I think we've been over this before.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.
8 MR. NOVIK: I have no further questions.
9 THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Williams?
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Nothing, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: We will reconvene at 1:30.
12 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30
14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I would like to be permitted
15 to recall Doctor Ruse very briefly.
16 For the record, although plaintiffs do not believe that
17 evolution or the scientific merit of evolution is in
18 issue, the Court has permitted the defendants to raise
19 that question. And for the limited purpose of responding,
20 I'd like to ask Doctor Ruse a few questions.
23 was recalled for further examination, and testified as
2 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)
3 Q Doctor Ruse, is evolution based on natural law?
4 A Yes, it is.
5 Q Is evolution explanatory?
6 A Yes, it is.
7 Q Is evolution testable?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Is evolution tentative?
10 A Yes.
11 Q In your professional opinion as a philosopher of
12 science, is evolution science?
13 A Yes.
14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions
15 of the witness.
16 In the course of the witness' direct examination, he
17 referred to a number of documents, Exhibit 74 and 75, 78
18 and 84 for identification. I move they be admitted into
20 THE COURT: They will be received.
21 MR. NOVIK: Thank you very much. No further
24 BY MR. WILLIAMS:
25 Q You stated that evolution was a fact?
1 A I have in my book, yes.
2 Q What is a tentative fact?
3 A Tentative fact?
4 Q Yes.
5 A I think it's the question of the approach that
6 somebody takes to it. One holds something tentatively.
7 But it's a fact that I have a heart. If you ask me my
8 justification or something like this, of course,
9 ultimately I have to say, logically I cannot logically
10 prove it as I do in mathematics.
11 But I can simply say the fact that I have a heart. And
12 you have a heart, too, Mr. Williams.
13 Q The fact of evolution, you have testified to, has
14 been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
15 A Beyond reasonable doubt.
16 Q But yet you say you think it's still tentative? Is
17 that your answer?
18 A I'm using the word "tentative" here today in the
19 sense that it's not logically proven. There are some
20 things which, you know, I think it would be very difficult
21 to imagine, but I'm not saying logically I couldn't
22 imagine it, very difficult to imagine that it wouldn't be
24 I mean, I find it very difficult to imagine that neither
25 of us have got hearts.
1 A (Continuing)
2 On the other hand, I've never seen one, or rather,
3 haven't seen yours and I haven't seen mine.
4 So in that sense I'm talking about it being a fact, that
5 it's something I'm quite sure is true, but in that
6 tentative sense, if you like the logical sense, it's
8 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.
9 (Witness excused)
3 called in behalf of the Plaintiffs herein, after having
4 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and
5 testified as follows:
7 BY MR. KAPLAN:
8 Q Tell us your name and your address, please?
9 A James Leon Holsted. 4900 Edgemere Drive, North
10 Little Rock.
11 Q What is your business or occupation, Mr. Holsted?
12 A Independent businessman in North Little Rock, real
13 estate business and other investments.
14 Q Mr. Holsted, are you currently a member of the
15 Arkansas Senate?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Can you tell me for how long you have been a member?
18 A I'm concluding my first term. It was a four year
20 Q This last session, then, would have been your second
22 A Correct.
23 Q Are you familiar with the piece of legislation that
24 became Act 590 of 1981?
25 A Yes, sir.
1 Q Who introduced that bill in the Senate of Arkansas?
2 A I did.
3 Q Can you tell me what your first contact was with the
4 legislation that became Act 590?
5 A I received a copy of a model piece of legislation in
6 the mail from a constituent.
7 Q And was that constituent Carl Hunt?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q What did you do with it when you received it?
10 A Looked it over. I'd been contacted by him to see if
11 I'd be interested in introducing that piece of legis-
12 lation. I didn't know anything about it, so I asked him
13 to send me some background information. And I think he
14 sent me a copy of the bill. I'm not certain if he sent
15 one or Larry Fisher sent me one. It was between those two
16 that I believe I got a copy of the bill.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, defendants would object
18 to this line of inquiry. I think that we have already
19 essentially agreed to stipulations as to legislative
20 history, as such, that is relevant, when it was
21 introduced, how many votes it had, the hearing. And
22 anything else Senator Holsted might have to say as to
23 intent, personal motivation, that this is irrelevant to
24 the question of determining legislative intent as we've
25 argued in our brief, that the testimony of a legislator
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) given, particularly after
2 enactment of the bill, are not probative, certainly of
3 what a legislator might have thought, and clearly not as
4 to what the legislature intended. We are dealing with one
5 hundred thirty-five members and not one member in
6 determining legislative intent.
7 We have an act which is quite clear on its face as to
8 what the intent is, and it is not ambiguous as to its
9 intent. Therefore, we would object on the grounds of
11 THE COURT: Since the Arkansas Legislature does not
12 make a record of its legislative process such as Congress
13 does so we can find out what the legislators thought about
14 it and what the arguments were on the floor and that sort
15 of thing, I think it's appropriate that he testify about
16 the process the bill went through as it was passed.
17 Very frankly, I'm not so sure about what his personal
18 intentions were and that sort of thing, but if I use any
19 of that evidence as part of the decision, I'll make a note
20 of that and note your objection so the objection will be
22 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)
23 Q Did you also receive, prior to the enactment of the
24 bill, some materials from various creation science
25 organizations and groups?
1 A Prior to the enactment, I received some materials;
2 not prior to the introduction.
3 Q So between the time that you first introduced it in
4 the Senate and the time it was finally passed, can you
5 tell me the groups from which you received such materials?
6 A No. I received some preliminary materials from Mr.
7 Hunt. And then I was inundated through the mails as more
8 publicity came out about the legislation. I stuck it
9 aside. I didn't have time to read everything that came
10 in. I didn't really pay any attention to most of it.
11 Q You did have some communications from the Institute
12 for Creation Research, did you not?
13 A That was one of them that sent some material, yes.
14 Q And particularly, did you receive letters from Mr.
15 Gish and communications from Mr. Gish?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And from Mr. Morris?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And from Mr. Wysong?
20 A Yes. I believe I did from him, also.
21 Q And from Mr. Bliss?
22 A Yes. I recall those names. I'm not sure what kind
23 of materials I received from them other than some
24 preliminary letters.
25 Q And did you receive information from Creation
Science Research Center in San Diego, also, the Segraves
1 Q (Continuing) institution?
2 A Yes.
3 Q All those before the bill was actually enacted?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Do you recall how long before the introduction of
6 the bill you did actually receive the bill?
7 A Approximately two to three weeks, the best of my
8 recollection. I looked at it a couple of weeks, I think,
9 before I introduced it.
10 Q What did you do with it when you received it?
11 A Looked at it. I read some of the materials that Mr.
12 Hunt gave me, thumbed through it, and looked at that
14 Read the legislation to see if I could introduce that bill
15 and stand up before the Senate and try to pass it.
16 Q Did you give it to any Arkansas body in the
17 legislature or associate with a legislator in an attempt
18 to put it into final form?
19 A I gave it to the Legislative Council to draft it
20 when I did decide to introduce it, yes. It had to be
21 drafted in the form we introduce them in Arkansas.
22 Q Senator, I'm going to show you a document which has
23 been marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs'
24 Exhibit Number 33 and ask you if that is the bill you
25 received from your constituent, Mr. Hunt, and which you
transmitted to the Legislative Council?
1 A Yes. This appears to be, but those marks on it
2 were— This is not, exactly the same one, but a close
3 facsimile to the one I received from him.
4 Q You mean, it's a photocopy of the one?
5 A Yes. And I think— Let me see if all the
6 sections— Yes.
7 MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer number 33.
8 THE COURT: It will be received.
9 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing.)
10 Q Can you tell me whether, when the Legislative
11 Council concluded its work on the model bill which had
12 been transmitted to you, whether there were any changes?
13 A I seem to recall that they took out the short title
14 provision in it. And I think that was basically the only
16 Q In other words, by the time it got to be introduced
17 in the Arkansas Senate, except for some very, very minor
18 changes, particularly with regard to the title, it was
20 A Correct.
21 Q And can you tell me if you learned, either then or
22 subsequently, who the author of that bill was?
23 A I learned after the passage of the bill and signing
24 of the Act where the legislation came from or who the
25 author was.
1 Q And did it come from Paul Ellwanger?
2 A That is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.
3 Q And do you know how you learned that it came from
4 Mr. Ellwanger?
5 A I don't have any idea who told me. I can't remember.
6 You know, I talked with so many people about it, so many
7 people said that, I don't recall the first one who said it.
8 Q You learned at least from sufficient numbers of
9 persons to satisfy yourself that it did come from Mr.
11 A That's correct.
12 Q Now, we have entered into some stipulations with
13 regard to the actual dates and the mechanism by which the
14 bill went from Senate Bill 42 to Act 590. But I would
15 like briefly to discuss with you something about the
16 hearing process.
17 Were there any hearings before the Senate?
18 A We had what you might consider a hearing when we
19 discussed it on the Senate floor.
20 Q There were no committee hearings at any rate in the
22 A No.
23 Q And can you tell us approximately how long the
24 debate before the full Senate was?
25 A Probably fifteen to thirty minutes.
1 Q You told us in your deposition that Senators Hendren
2 and Howell spoke in favor of the bill. Were there any
3 other Senators who spoke in favor of the bill?
4 A I don't recall anyone else speaking in favor of the
6 Q Was there anyone in opposition to the bill?
7 A I was trying to remember. I think some people spoke
8 in opposition in the manner of asking questions when
9 someone was speaking for the bill.
10 Do you understand? That's the way you try to oppose a
11 piece of legislation. Many times you ask questions about
12 it from the floor, but don't actually come down to the
13 podium and speak about it.
14 And there were quite a few questions asked, but I don't
15 remember anyone taking the floor and actively speaking
16 against the bill.
17 Q Do you recall how many votes there were against the
18 bill in the Senate?
19 A No, sir, I have forgotten. It's a matter of record
20 that we can find out. It passed, though.
21 Q Do you recall how long the actual debate was?
22 A Fifteen to thirty minutes, to the best of my
24 Q I'm sorry. I had forgotten that I'd asked you that.
25 Was there a prior announcement other than the morning
1 Q (Continuing) calendar that indicated that Senate
2 Bill 482 was going to be debated that day?
3 A No more than we do on any other piece of legis-
4 lation. In fact, sometimes the authors don't even know
5 when their legislation is going to come up for a vote.
6 Now, we discussed it in the quiet room that day. And I
7 remember quite a few of the Senators meeting in there, and
8 I told them I was going to try to get it up for a vote.
9 But I didn't know if I was even going to be able to get
10 it up for a vote, or not.
11 Q Prior to your own introduction of Senate Bill 482,
12 had you conducted a review of the biology texts then
13 currently in use in any of the school districts in
15 A I looked at the text used in North Little Rock and
16 visited with the gentleman that bought text books for the
17 North Little Rock school system to get his ideas of what
18 was being used around the state. He's pretty familiar
19 with what was being taught around the state.
20 Q And had you had some previous acquaintance with him?
21 A Yes. He's a friend of mine.
22 Q A parent of your legislative assistant, is that
24 A Yes.
25 Q Now, what did you discover upon your review of those biology
1 A The only theory being presented in the school
2 systems for the origin of life was the evolutionary theory.
3 Q That's the only theory you found present in those
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Did you discuss with this gentleman— Mr. Dyer, I
7 think, his name was?
8 A Correct.
8 Q —whether any other alternatives or any other
10 theories were under discussion in the North Little Rock
11 public schools?
12 A Yes. I asked him if he knew of anything being
13 taught anywhere in the state, as well as in North Little
15 Q And did he respond negatively to that?
16 A He responded that he didn't know of anything else
17 being taught.
18 Q Was this lack of anything other than evolution
19 theory being under discussion or being taught one of the
20 primary motivations for your introduction of this piece of
22 A Well, I felt like, that was the only way the
23 legislation could pass. If anything else was being
24 taught, there was no need for the legislation.
25 Q The bill passed the Senate and went to the House, is
1 Q (Continuing) that correct?
2 A Yes.
3 Q There was a committee meeting before which this bill
4 was discussed in the House, is that correct?
5 A Correct.
6 Q And that discussion took place one morning, and you
7 yourself were present?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q And do you recall that the committee met for
10 approximately thirty minutes, fifteen minutes on this bill
11 and approximately fifteen on another bill?
12 A I think they limited the debate to ten minutes a
13 side on this.
14 Q And do you recall the individuals who spoke on
15 behalf of the legislation in the House?
16 A Myself and Cliff Hoofman.
17 Q Cliff Hoofman is a member of the Arkansas House?
18 A He was the one that was handling it in the House for
19 me. And I believe Larry Fisher spoke for the bill.
20 Q And do you recall the individuals who spoke against
21 the legislation in the House committee?
22 A Mike Wilson, who is a member of the House, and a
23 representative of the Arkansas Education Association. I
24 don't recall if there was a third one. I thought there
25 was a third one, but I don't recall who spoke against it.
1 Q And then the bill was enacted in July and signed by
2 the governor and became Act 590?
3 A It went to the House floor first.
4 Q Right. I'm sorry.
5 A Then was debated on the House floor, and then it
6 went to the governor's office.
7 Q Do you recall the length of time it was debated on
8 the House floor?
9 A Seemed like all afternoon. They would pass it, and
10 they would try to repeal the vote, rescind the vote, do
11 something else with it and table it. It was quite a bit
12 of parliamentary movement going on at that time.
13 Q Did you witness part of it, or was it reported to
15 A It was reported to me. I was back in the Senate.
16 Q Prior to your putting the bill up in the Senate, or,
17 indeed, at any time during the entire legislative process,
18 did you have any discussions with the Department of
19 Education regarding this matter, the bill?
20 A No.
21 Q Did you have any discussion with any teacher
23 A No.
24 Q Did you have any discussion with individual science
25 teachers or curriculum coordinators regarding the bill,
other than Mr. Fisher?
1 A No, not really.
2 Q You did have some material, though, that had been
3 submitted to you during this process where it was going
4 through the legislative mill?
5 A Correct.
6 Q And you have supplied some of those or, at least,
7 copies of virtually everything that you had to us, is that
9 A I think I did. A big box of stuff.
10 Q Did you ever ask the Attorney General for an opinion
11 regarding the constitutionality of the bill?
12 A No. We were in the closing days of the session.
13 Had a week, maybe a week and a half when I started the
14 process. There would have never been time to get an
15 opinion out of his office on the constitutionality of that
17 Q Was one of the materials that you had received in
18 our packet an indication that Attorneys General in other
19 states had indicated some considerable doubts about the
20 constitutionality of the bill?
21 A Probably I did, but that's not unusual. I think
22 everybody, when they want to try to defeat a bill on the
23 floor of the Senate, will get up and say it's unconsti-
25 The only way you can determine whether it's
1 A (Continuing) unconstitutional or not is through
2 this process; not any other way.
3 Q Do you recall that there was a letter from a number
4 of creation science proponents to the Attorney General of
5 South Carolina questioning the Attorney General's opinion
6 which said that the bill was unconstitutional?
7 A I may have had one. I didn't think that was very
8 relevant. You get letters like that all day long that say
9 all kinds of different things.
10 Q I just want to show you the materials that you
11 submitted to us and ask you do you recall that this letter
12 from John Whitehead, Randall Byrd, and a Chief Judge
13 Braswell Dean to the Honorable Richard Riddon,
14 R-i-d-d-o-n, deals with the Attorney General's opinion in
15 South Carolina?
16 A I remember seeing that.
17 Q This did not prompt you to make further inquiry
18 about the constitutionality of the legislation, however,
19 is that correct?
20 A No sir. As I've' stated before— Maybe I didn't
21 state this. But the Attorney' General's opinion is just an
23 And while it's a well researched opinion and he tries to
24 give the best opinion he feels like will be held up in a
25 court of law, it's just an opinion.
Q Do you recall whether any of the sections were
1 Q (Continuing) amended from the time 482 was first
2 introduced until it became 590?
3 A No, sir, they were not amended.
4 Q We've talked about your feeling regarding the lack
5 of anything but evolution being taught as a motivator in
6 the introduction of the bill.
7 Were there other motivations for you in the introduction
8 of the bill?
9 A Not really.
10 Q Were your own individual deep religious convictions
11 part of the motivation in introducing the bill?
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to again object on
13 the grounds of relevance, particularly on this point. I
14 think the cases are quite clear that the motive even
15 Epperson itself— Epperson says—
16 THE COURT: I'll make that same ruling. I'll let
17 that evidence go in. If I use that evidence. If I use
18 that evidence in the decision, I will make a note of it.
19 MR. WILLIAMS: For purposes of efficiency, I would
20 like the record to reflect my objection as continuing to
21 this line of inquiry.
22 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
23 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)
24 Q Were your own individual deeply held religious
25 convictions a significant motivation in your introduction
of this legislation?
1 A Certainly it would have to be compatible with what I
2 believe in. I'm not going to introduce legislation that I
3 can't stand before the Senate and present as something I
4 can't believe in.
5 Q Well, even in addition to it being compatible, is it
6 not true that you said contemporaneous with the intro-
7 duction of the legislation that you introduced the
8 legislation because of your deeply held religious
10 A Did I say that? Are you stating I said that?
11 Q I'm asking you is it not true that you said that
12 contemporaneous with, at the same time, that you
13 introduced the bill?
14 We are talking about that same time span while the bill
15 is going through the legislative process and immediately
16 after its enactment.
17 Did you not say that the motivating or, at least, a
18 significant motivating factor in the introduction of the
19 legislation was your own deeply held religious conviction?
20 A I probably said that at one time or another during
21 the course of the legislation.
22 Q Indeed, as late as yesterday, did you not say that
23 God had spoken to you at the time and told you to sponsor
24 the bill?
25 A No. I can't believe somebody said I said that. I
1 A (Continuing) didn't say that.
2 Q You didn't say that?
3 A No. I've been misquoted so many times, and I
4 definitely remember yesterday. A week ago would be
5 difficult, but I definitely remember yesterday.
6 Q Do you yourself hold to a literal interpretation of
7 the Bible?
8 A Yes, I do.
9 Q You are Methodist, are you not?
10 A That is correct.
11 Q Did you not say that at the time of the enactment of
12 the bill that the bill favors the views of Biblical
14 A Yes. I was asked did this favor some particular
15 view over another. And I said perhaps it does.
16 Q And that the view that was favored was the view of
17 the Biblical literalists, is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did you not also say contemporaneous with the
20 enactment of the bill that the strongest supporters of Act
21 590 would be those holding to a fundamentalist view of
23 A Correct.
24 Q Did you not say also contemporaneous with the
25 enactment of the bill, and do you not now believe that
1 Q (Continuing) creation science presupposes the
2 existence of a creator?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Did you not say that this bill's reference to
5 creation means a divine creator?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q Now, if— I'm going to ask you to tell me now from
8 your own view of this legislation as the person who
9 shepherded it through—
10 THE COURT: Wait a second. Where did he say he made
11 the last two statements?
12 Q Did you not say that publicly to the press and to
13 anyone else who asked you?
14 A Yes.
15 THE COURT: Not on the Senate floor, anyway?
16 MR. KAPLAN: No, not on the Senate floor.
17 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)
18 Q These press accounts, however, were contemporaneous
19 with the legislative process, were they not?
20 A No.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
22 that question.
23 A No, they were not.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact not in evidence.
25 think it's contrary to what actually occurred.
1 MR. KAPLAN: I am not certain where we are now. Let
2 me just ask a new question.
3 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)
4 Q Is it your view that this bill, which presupposes a
5 divine creator complies with the First Amendment of the
6 Constitution because it doesn't teach one particular view
7 of religion?
8 A Right.
9 Q That is, Methodist over Baptist or Catholic over Jew?
10 A Right. It doesn't mention any particular god.
11 Q And is it your view that it is not religion because
12 there is a specific prohibition against using religious
13 writings? Indeed, one could not bring Genesis into the
14 classroom under this particular legislation?
15 A Correct.
16 Q And that is your view of why this is not in conflict
17 with the First Amendment?
18 A Correct. My layman's view, you have to understand.
19 Q Let me briefly discuss with you some of the specific
20 portions of the bill. There is in the introduction to the
21 bill an injunction or a rationale for the enactment with
22 regard to and states as follows, "To prohibit religious
23 instruction concerning origins."
24 Prior to the enactment, were you aware of any
25 instruction, religious instruction regarding origins in
1 Q (Continuing) the public schools?
2 A No, I wasn't.
3 Q Let, me ask you, as far as you are concerned, what
4 that phrase means, to prohibit religious instruction
5 concerning origins?
6 A To not allow anybody to use Genesis in the classroom.
7 Q Isn't that what you are concerned about here?
8 A And any other religious writings, no matter if it
9 would be Genesis or whatever, of any other religion.
10 If you're planning on going down through every one of
11 those parts of the bill, I can save you some time on that.
12 Q No, I'm not going to do every one. The Judge
13 wouldn't let me anyway. I want to ask you just about a
14 few more.
15 A Okay.
16 Q I want to ask you about balance and what balance
17 means to you?
18 A Balance to me means equal emphasis. I don't think
19 you measure balance by the amount of time, but it does
20 mean equal emphasis from one subject matter to another.
21 Q Does it also, within your constellation of balance
22 and how you view balance, mean that a teacher could not
23 say, "Okay,' we're going to spend our ten minutes here or
24 however much is necessary to balance," and then say, "But
25 I disclaim any view of creation science; I don't like it?"
1 A A teacher could do that and there would be no way of
2 getting around it. But I believe in the professionalism
3 of the teachers we have in Arkansas, and I believe that
4 professional ethics would not allow him to do that.
5 Q Do you believe if a district— Is it your view that
6 if a district said, "Now, look, we want balanced treatment
7 and we don't want any comment," that a teacher could be
8 terminated because of the teachers failure and refusal to
9 avoid these disclaimers?
10 A I think if a school district, wanted to do that and
11 school board, that's completely under their right to do
12 that. If a teacher doesn't teach English and she's
13 supposed to be teaching English, they can terminate her
14 for that.
15 Q Do you know, whether there was any inquiry other than
16 what already existed in the bill with regard, to the
17 legislative findings as they appear in the bill?
18 A No, sir.
19 Q That's there was no inquiry other than what was
20 already written down here?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q And indeed, there was no legislative discussion
23 about that isn't that correct?
24 A About what?
25 Q About findings other—