A: (Continuing [Covered] groups, but they
are something [Covered] ague or something
like tha [Covered] eague, whatever,
the Bible Cr [Covered]of groups.
I might say [Covered]the question.
Q: Would you [Covered]tion, sir.
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would object, since there is a proper form to present a deposition to a witness, and I would suggest to Mr. Campbell that he might ask the witness if he recalls the particular question and answer. I would object to this method of questioning my witness, and particularly approaching it in this way.
THE COURT: Why don't you follow the procedure.
MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)
Q: Professor Marsden, do you recall my asking you the question, "Just so we can get this straight, and I don't want to go back and repeat what we've talked about in terms of your expertise, but will you be talking about contemporary Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalism as it exists today, or will you be narrowing your testimony to Fundamentalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century, 1920 or 1930." And do you recall your answer to that?
A: No, I don't.
Q: (Reading) "I think, I guess I'll be emphasizing
Q: (Continuing) Fundamentalism up to 1920 or 1930. Perhaps— It depends on what I'm asked, I guess. But suggesting there might be some connection with what is going on today, but not presenting myself as an expert on what is going on today, in that sense, or as a strong a sense as I would from a historical source of things." Do you recall that statement?
A: Clearly at the time you were asking the question, I was a bit off the guard. What I said was, they will be emphasizing Fundamentalism of the Twenties or Thirties. Perhaps, it depends on what I'm asked, I'm not as much an expert on Fundamentalism today as I am in the past. Not in as strong a sense. So I meant to be qualifying it. At that time I wasn't clear what was being asked of me or expected of me. I'm willing to present myself as an expert an Fundamentalism up to the 1930's, and to a somewhat lesser degree, I must confess, at least somewhat of an expert on Fundamentalism since then. There are degrees of being experts.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, we would move to limit Professor Marsden's expertise up to 1930 in the area of Fundamentalism.
THE COURT: It's overruled.
(Continuing) BY MR. SIANO:
Q: Professor Marsden, you have continued to study Fundamentalism right up until today, haven't you?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: And from your perspective as a church's authority, isn't that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Now, did you, because your book stops at 1930, stop to your research at 1930?
A: No, I did not stop my research at 1930.
Q: Now, did I engage your services in 1981 as an expert?
A: Yes, you did.
Q: And as to what subject matter?
A: On the history of Fundamentalism.
Q: Any particular other topic?
A: The history of Fundamentalism as it relates particularly to Act 590.
Q: Professor, could I ask you to describe for me the circumstances of the development of the movement which we describe as Fundamentalism in America?
A: Fundamentalism is a movement that began as a coalition primarily
among evangelical Protestants in the late nineteenth century. The distinguishing
A: (Continuing) Fundamentalists that distinguishes them from related religious movements is their militancy in opposition to what they called at the time Modernism, which meant certain ideas that were pervasive in modern secular culture, and equally to certain modern esthesiologies that they saw as incorporating the secular ideas into Christianity. So the militancy in opposition to Modernism became the distinguishing factor that brought together concerned to evangelicalists from a variety of other traditions.
Q: Did this movement of Fundamentalism have any other goals?
A: Yes. It had what it would describe as positive goals of evangelization, converting people to Christianity.
Q: And that's how you would define that term "evangelization"?
A: That's correct.
Q: Would you also describe it as spreading the faith?
A: Yes. Certainly.
Q: Could you describe furthers the development of Fundamentalism again, starting in the mid-nineteenth century?
A: Sure. One has to go back to about a hundred years ago and imagine
the condition of America at that time, which was a nation pervaded by a
A: (Continuing) ethos. Protestant evangelicalism had a special
position in America because of its being here first, primarily, and the
revivalism of the nineteenth century. For instance, in the public schools
in the mid and latter nineteenth century, it was characteristic to use
McGuffey's Readers. And in McGuffey's Readers, there were explicit Protestant
principles taught. There were lessons like, "The Bible - The Greatest of
All Books" or "My Mother's Bible," or "Observance of the Sabbath Rewarded."
And these sorts of doctrines were the standard American doctrine equated
often with being a good American. Now, it's in that context that there
are a number of shocks that hit this Evangelical ethos in America.. And
they combined social factors of change with very spectacular intellectual
changes that hit here roughly at the same time, in the period from about
1870 through 1900. The social changes were those associated with vast immigration,
the tremendous growth of the cities, and the shift of the center of gravity
toward the cities from the countryside, and the general increase of pluralism
in an Industrial society. In that context of social change then hit also
higher criticism of the Bible, which had been developing in Germany since
about 1800. And then more or less at the
A: (Continuing) same time, here comes Darwinism, which was taken
by some people, at least, to be an implicit attack on the veracity of the
Bible. Those factors converged, and different religious people, different
Protestants reacted in different ways. And there were a group of them who
decided that the best defense was to take a strong stand at the most secure
position, which was a defense of the literal interpretation of the Bible;
concede nothing to modern thought, defend the Bible at every point. Those
people who did that and who did it militantly, in opposition to other religious
groups and the secularists, began to feed into the coalition that came
to be known as Fundamentalism. There were, in this development, several
traits of the Fundamentalist, emergence of the Fundamentalist movement.
There were several sub-movements. One important one was the emergency of
a theology, basically an interpretation of prophecy called dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is relevant to this case in this respect: That its hermeneutical
principle, that is, its principle of interpreting the Bible is the principle,
literal when possible. And many Fundamentalists became dispensationists.
Not all. But dispensationalism was symptomatic of a tendency
A: (Continuing) of people to say, in the late nineteenth century, the literal interpretation of the Bible is the best defense against modern thought. Sometimes also, though not as much as usually is imagined, opposition to Darwinism became a tenet of these people who were defending literal interpretation. Particularly in the South in the late nineteenth century, Darwinism began to be a symbol of secularism, though this didn't spread to the North until a somewhat later date.
Q: Did it in fact spread to the North at a later date?
A: Yes, it did. It gradually developed in the North, or there were advocates saying that Darwinism was necessarily antagonistic to Christianity right from the start. I would say most Bible believing evangelicals in, say, 1870, 1880, would have said Darwinism and literal or conservative Biblical interpretations are to some degree compatible. Not fully compatible, but given certain amendments to one or the other, you could make them compatible. It's not until the period basically following World War II that it becomes a large scale factor in Fundamentalism in the North to oppose evolutions.
Q: Did you say World War II?
A: I'm sorry. If I did, I meant to say World War I
Q: Focusing on the period following World War I, did
Q: (Continuing) the Fundamentalist assault on evolution come to the forefront at that time?
A: That's correct. What happens is, before World War I, as I was
saying, Fundamentalists sometimes emphasized opposition to evolution. But
it was World War I that rather dramatically brings us to the fore. And
it involved — the story is, very briefly — during World War I there was
a tremendous propaganda effort against Germany. And the war was considered
to be the war to save civilization from barbarism. The war would make the
world safe for democracy. In that context, American propaganda emphasized
that the reason why Germany had turned to barbarism was the evolutionary
philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and that might be the right philosophy,
as they said, was what accounted for Germany's losing its Protestant Christian
heritage. The birthplace of Protestantism now turned to barbarism. Well,
Fundamentalists picked this up, people like Bryan picked this up and said
the same thing could happen here. And after World War I there was period
much like the period today, where there was a sense of general unease for
the progress of American civilization. There was a sense that something
had gone wrong; a rather indefinite sense, not a real disaster, much like
the 1980's, it seems to me. And in that context, that
A: (Continuing) saying evolution is a problem was something that became convincing to a wide variety of people. So out of that World War I concern for the progress of civilization, evolution began to emerge as a symbol of the Fundamentalists fight against secularism.
Q: Could you describe for me how the Fundamentalists waged this campaign against evolution in this country?
A: Primarily by working for legislation in the public schools by getting state legislatures to pass acts banning the teaching of evolution in the public schools. They also worked within universities and colleges sometimes to try to prevent the teaching of evolution, and sometimes within their own schools they made them. Now, usually for the first time anti-evolution became a test of whether you were in or out.
Q: Were Fundamentalists also pursuing this goal of evangelization that you described earlier in your testimony at this time?
A: Certainly. That's correct.
Q: Was there a model of origins put forward by Fundamentalists during the 1920's?
A: Yes, there was. During the 1920's, Fundamentalists made it
very clear that the only adequate source for knowing about the
A: (Continuing) questions of the origin of the universe or the origins of the human race was the Bible. The Bible alone was, after all, one of the hallmarks of the whole Protestant heritage that they were defending. The Bible alone was the source of knowing about evolution. And God was the only person who was there, and so forth.
Q: I'm sorry?
A: God alone was the only source for knowing about creation. And God was the only person there. And so to learn about it, we have to read about that in the Bible. There were one or two people, two at least, who were at that time trying to marshal scientific evidence to fit a very conservative reading of the Bible. A man named G.M. Price, and another man named Harry Rimer were the primary defenders of pitting scientific investigation into this literal interpretation.
Q: Did all Fundamentalists derive this scientific constructive origins from the literal interpretation of Genesis at that time?
A: Yes, they did, though there are degrees of literalism. One
of the interesting factors is that, William Jennings Bryan, at the time
of the Scopes trial, was a Biblical literalist. But as many Biblical literalists
were at that time, he was convinced that the days referred to in Genesis
One could be long periods of
A: (Continuing) time. For instance, " God rested on the seventh day." He did not just rest for twenty-four hours, he rested for a longer period of time, so the days of creation could be longer. Bryan said at the trial, `It seems to me just as easy to believe that God created the world in six million years, six hundred million years, whatever you want, as to believe he created it in six days.' The length of creation at that time wasn't considered to be a necessary tenet of literalism. It is only since then that a certain group of Fundamentalists has made that into a special test.
Q: So what you're saying, then, Professor, is the interpretation of the Biblical account of origins became even more literalistically interpreted by Fundamentalists after 1920?
A: That's correct. What happened was that opposition to evolution
became more and more a symbol and a test of being in or out of the true
Fundamental faith. And so in that sort of context was the tendency to drive
out middle positions. And what the history of the development of Fundamentalism
and evolution is the history of driving out the middle positions until
you end up with only two positions: One, creationism, and everything else
in the world, any others view, is some species of
A: (Continuing) compromise with evolution.
Q: That mental process, from a church historian's point of view, could you describe that as dualism?
A: Well, it ends up with a very dualistic outlook, yes.
Q: Thank you. What happened to this Fundamentalist movement particularly focused on the— focusing on origins between the 1930's and up until about the 1950's?
A: During the 1930's, Fundamentalism after the Scopes trial tended to be a rebuilding, forming independent groups and churches and so forth, and working, shoring up its own resources. And by about the 1940's and `50's, there begins to be a very perceptible split within the Fundamentalist movement. The split is a split that is called, the one party, the more moderate party came to be known as neo-evangelicalism. On the other hand, the Fundamentalists who wanted to preserve the Fundamentalist division became more and more hard line, more and more insisting on the classic tenets of Fundamentalist faith.
Q: Did the more moderate view have an opposite number, if I might use that expression, in the area of scientific investigation?
A: Yes. The more moderate view involved people who continued to
say that, as has been done since the
A: (Continuing) inception of Darwinism, that there were ways of being faithful to the infallibility of the Bible, even the inerrancy of the Bible, that did not necessarily rule out all process in God's way of creating; that it's a false choice between evolutionism on the one hand and creationism on the other hand. And many of the neo-evangelicals in the 1950's and since then have emphasized that, particularly in an organization known as the American Scientific Affiliation.
Q: As a church historian, Professor Marsden, do you see any essential similarity between the Fundamentalism of the late 1920's and Fundamentalism today?
A: There's a great deal of, both similarity and continuity. The
main contours of the movement are the same. That is, militant opposition
to what was called modernism, what has now come to be called more likely
secular-humanism, continues to be the glue that brings together a coalition.
On the periphery of the movement, of course, there is some variety. Any
movement that has been around as long as Fundamentalism has some change.
For instance, the hardening of the categories kind of phenomenon just described
tends to be one of the changes that has taken place since the 1920's. In
many respects, there is a striking similarity.
Q: Is there any similarity between the Fundamentalist movement of the 1920's and Fundamentalism today, with reference to the view of the factual inerrancy of the Genesis account of creation?
A: Yes, there is. There continues to be an emphasis on Genesis and the literal interpretation of Genesis as the primary source of our knowledge about the origins. And as I said, more emphasis on this being a young earth, a twenty-four hour day, six day creation.
Q: Now, at the time that Fundamentalist Christians were coping with modernism as you described it from a historical perspective, were other groups in America to coping in different ways?
A: That's correct. There's a whole spectrum of opinion among Christians relating to the question of origins, evolution, and the like. And in that spectrum, you name it, you can find any variety of relating Christianity to science.
Q: Is there any particular number of points which defined Fundamentalism from a historical perspective?
A: No, there's not. Fundamentalists emphasized certain fundamentals
of the faith. That has something to do with the origin of the term "Fundamentalism".
Views like the virgin birth were defended as fundamentals of Christianity.
A: (Continuing) It used to be thought that there were just five fundamentals around with which the movement had coalesced. In fact, that turned out to be an error made by the first historian of the movement, a man named Stewart Cole in 1931. Some years ago, about ten years ago, that was discovered to be a sort of mythology, that there were five points of Fundamentalism. In fact, sometimes there were fourteen points, sometimes there were five, sometimes there were seven; sometimes there were different numbers for different groups. There were some groups that didn't even have a list.
Q: Did you find that Fundamentalism was embraced only by Protestants in this country?
A: No. It's a coalition at the heart of which are evangelical Protestants, primarily in the revivalist tradition. But that coalition has brought into it people from other groups, Catholics, Mormons, even sometimes conservative Jews, Seventh Day Adventists. Certainly all sorts of people might come into the Fundamentalist movement as they become militantly opposed to some aspect of modern religion.
In the course of your studies as a religious historian, are
you familiar with the phrase "religious apologetics"?
Q: Do you have a definition which you might make reference to at this point of that phrase?
A: Religious apologetics is simply an attempt to defend the faith against its critics.
Q: Were the Fundamentalists in the historical period you made reference to engaged in religious apologetics in the arena of science and education?
A: Yes. Certainly.
Q: Was that the reference you made earlier to the scientific works of Mr. Price and Mr. Rimer?
A: Right. They would be the best examples of doing that.
Q: Are you familiar with what might be described as creation science?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Are you familiar with the organizations that presently promote creation science?
Q: Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty as to whether the groups involved in the creation science movement are part of the Fundamentalist movement?
A: Yes, they certainly are.
Is that your opinion?
A: That's my opinion, yes.
Q: Upon what do you base that opinion, sir?
A: Well, I base that opinion on my research into the history of Fundamentalism, looking at documents published by such groups and seeing the convergence of their views with Fundamentalist views.
Q: And have you examined these creation science groups in the ordinary course of your scholarship?
Q: In other words, without particular reference to my engagement of you as an expert?
A: To some degree, yes.
Q: And also to some degree with reference to my asking you to look at creation science?
A: Yes. Certainly.
Q: Does the creation science movement today contain any elements found in the Fundamentalist movement as you have described it historically?
A: The creation science movement today does contain elements that
are strikingly and typically Fundamentalist. One is the creation science
movement, from its inception, has emphasized the divine creation and literalistic
interpretation of the Bible, which tends to be a leading trait of Fundamentalism,
and necessarily opposed to all forms of evolutionalism.
A: (Continuing) So, for instance, if you look at a book like Henry Morris' The Troubled Waters of Evolution—
Q: Professor Marsden, would having that book facilitate your testimony in this connection?
A: Yes, it would.
Q: You were about to make reference to one of those, Professor. Could you, before you begin to read, identify the book by author, title, and page?
A: This is a book by Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, published by C.L.P. Publishers, San Diego, California. Copyright 1974. I am going to refer to page 10.
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, at this point I would state for the record that Professor Marsden has brought this book with him, and I would like to see if we have got a document, Exhibit Number Four, at this time. If I may have a moment to do that. You brought those books with you, didn't you?
A: Well, yes, I did. Actually I brought my copies. These are copies of the same books.
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, we are going to offer a record designation
to the pages to which Professor Marsden makes reference. We will insert
in the blank exhibit numbers that are in the record at this point as Exhibit
Number Thirty, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, by Henry
MR. SIANO: (Continuing) Morris, and provide copies to counsel for the defendants at this point.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, in I might interject, it would assist us greatly if we could have a copy of that book now to look at, so we can prepare our cross examination. Without that, I think we would be prejudiced.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy?
MR. SIANO: There are only two.
THE COURT: Fine. You can look at my copy.
MR. SIANO: (Continuing)
Q: You were about to make reference to those, Professor?
A: Yes. One characteristic of Fundamentalism has been to emphasize,
as you described it, the dualistic position. That is, that there are only
two positions, they say, that are positions. There is the position of creationism
now defined as twenty-four hour a day creationism, virtually, at least,
and everything else, which is evolution. So in this book by Morris, he
says this on page 10, "Sometimes, evolution is described as God's method
of creation, in an attempt to make it more palatable to die-hard creationists,
but this device has never been satisfactory, either to evolutionists or
A: (Continuing) Now, Morris, the origin of that sort of sentiment, you trace in Morris' own thoughts of this—
Q: Are these books all in? You may make reference to that in Exhibit Number Thirty-One at this point.
A: There is a second book called, by Henry M. Morris again, called, Studies in the Bible and Science, which is a collection of essays by Morris published by Presbyterian and Reform Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1966, copyright. In 1963, Morris delivered an address at the American Scientific Affiliation around the same time, I think, as the emergence of the Creation Research Society, and the theme of the address was "No Compromise". That's a characteristic Fundamentalist emphasis, you're either with us or you're with Satan. And Morris said that in just so many words. On page 102—
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I object to the last comment, certainly, concerning a statement. Perhaps I misunderstood, but if he is making reference to a speech that was given that he does not have, that would violate the best evidence rule and I would move to strike that.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm sorry. This is a quotation from
that speech. This is a collection of essays.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the objection, Your Honor.
A: He says this— Well, he's referring to another point there. He says, "And this should be true more than anywhere else in connection with the philosophy of evolution, since as been pointed out above" — And he has just argued this at some length — "as has been pointed out above, this philosophy", that is evolution, "is really the foundation—" The philosophy of evolution is really the foundation, "of the very rebellion of Satan himself and of every evil system which he has devised since that time to oppose the sovereignty and grace of God in this universe." So there you have it. On the one side is evolution and every evil philosophy on the side of Satan, or you can have creationism. No middle ground.
Q: Do creation scientists today, as you understand them, share any common characteristics of early Fundamentalists in insisting that the Bible is the source of their creation science models?
A: That's correct. Often in creation science literature it is
stressed that the Bible is the only source for finding out about origins.
For instance, here is another book by Duane T. Gish, called Evolution:
The Fossils Say No. This book is
A: (Continuing) published by Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California copyrighted, the first edition, 1972. In this book, Mr. Gish, on page 42, makes a characteristic statement in his definition of creation. He says, "By creation we mean the bringing into being of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden or fiat creation," — and this is the key — "described in the first two chapters of Genesis." That's just the very definition of creation in many creation science publications. Henry Morris says this even more strongly in a book, The Studies in the Bible of Science.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would have to interject at this point an objection. This has absolutely, without question, no relevance to Act 590. We're talking now about a statement where someone said that creation is as described in Genesis. This Act specifically prohibits any mention to Genesis. I fail to see what relevance it has. Obviously, it cannot go to the legislative intent. These people did not pass Act 590; the Arkansas Legislature did. We have an Act which is specific, and we should look at the Act. This is irrelevant.
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in addition to the
MR. SIANO: (Continuing) memorandum that the Plaintiffs submitted earlier this morning on the question of relevance, I will speak briefly to that point, if your Honor feels it appropriate at this time.
THE COURT: I think maybe you should. And incidentally, the memorandum was never given to me. I've never read it.
MR. SIANO: Excuse me, your Honor. I think it was conveyed to a member of the Court's staff earlier this morning.
THE COURT: Well, the first I heard of it was when we were getting ready to walk in the courtroom this morning. I haven't read it.
MR. SIANO: In that case, I'll be a little more detailed. I'm
sorry about the time it will take. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence, your Honor, the test of relevance is a logical test. It's
a test as to whether the proper evidence has a tendency in logic to make
the point being proposed more likely to have occurred; or the point being
opposed less likely to have occurred. Now, in this case it is the point
to be made by the Plaintiffs that the entire body of writings of the creation
science movement display their purpose as being religious. And that this
purpose, this religious purpose,
MR. SIANO: (Continuing) is intrinsic in the writings of the creation science movement. And that we believe that this is relevant, your Honor, logically likely to make the fact finder conclude that the term, creation science, is, in fact, a religious apologetic, in that all the writings advance a religious thought. Furthermore, the defendants' witnesses have stated in their depositions that the gentlemen, particularly referred to in this case as to this witness, Mr. Morris and Mr. Gish, are authorities on the topic of creation science. And that, therefore, we believe what is being put before the Court are these relevant sections of these books which bear upon the question of religious purpose, or argue quite strenuously in opposition to the defendants' position that creation science is, in fact, science, and not a religious apologetic. And it is offered for that purpose, and that is why we're offering these writings, to show the religious purpose and intent of the creation science movement.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the plaintiffs cannot overcome the
section of the Act which specifically prohibits any religious instruction.
Merely because someone calls it creation science somewhere out in the world
does not mean it complies with Act 590, just as
MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) evolution may have been abused in the past for some doctrine which it does not fairly characterize. So it is irrelevant to the question at hand.
THE COURT: Well, I'll have to wait and see what the witnesses say about how much they relied on Mr. Gish and MR. Morris and other writers in that connection. If the people the creation scientists are relying upon are people who write in terms of religious writings, I think that would be relevant.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think our point is that to the extent that there are writings out there which have religious references and talk about creation science, they cannot be used under Act 590. It is specifically prohibited.
THE COURT: I appreciate that, yes, sir. But I don't think the writers can call it religion for one purpose and science for another, if that's what they have done in these writings. And they underpin it with religious writings, then I don't think they can just take the hat off and say, "Well, we're talking about science now." I think that's the point the Plaintiffs are trying to make.
MR. WILLIAMS: That may be true, But I just wanted to make the
point, your Honor, that these individuals are—
THE COURT: I appreciate the point that you're making. They can't teach out of the book in school. I understand that, and they wouldn't be used in school, or even those viewpoints wouldn't be used in school necessarily. I think the evidence is admissible and relevant.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. SIANO: (Continuing)
Q: Professor Marsden, you have in front of you a copy of Exhibit Twenty-Nine in evidence, Act. 590 of 1981. You have, in fact, seen that Act before, have you not?
A: That is correct.
Q: Do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether the definition of creation science as set forth in Section 4(a) of Act 590 is a statement of Fundamentalist belief?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: As a professional opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty, could you state what that opinion is?
A: Yes. The striking thing to me about reading this Act is that
when reading it, as a historian one is quite aware of the variety of opinions
that there have been on relating science to the Bible. There are numbers
of things that might plausibly be called creation science in the sense
of using science to confirm or to agree with the Bible in some way or another.
A: (Continuing) This Act singles out and gives preferential treatment to just one such view, one that is very easily identifiable as a characteristically Fundamentalist view.
Q: Now, is there an interpretation of Genesis from a Fundamentalist perspective that coincides with subdivision 1 of Section 4(a), "Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing"?
A: Yes. The anti-evolutionism characteristics of Fundamentalist would emphasize the word "sudden".
Q: And is there an interpretation, a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis that coincides with point 2 of Section 4(a), "Insufficiency of mutation and national selection in bringing about the development of all living kinds from a single organism"?
A: Yes. The word "kinds" is a word that appears in Genesis One several times and which is characteristic of Fundamentalist talk about the subject.
Q: Now, is there a Fundamentalist view of Genesis that coincides with point 3 of Section 4(a), "Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals"?
A: Yes. Genesis One repeatedly says that they brought forth after
their kind. And that's interpreted by Fundamentalists to mean that you
can't change from one
A: (Continuing) kind or species to another.
Q: Is there an interpretation of Fundamentalist view of Genesis that coincides with point 4 of Section 4(a), "Separate ancestry for man and apes"?
A: Yes. That's an elaboration of the previous point, that different kinds don't change into each other.
Q: Is there a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis that coincides with point 5 of Section 4 a, "Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood"?
A: Yes. Point 5 is particularly characteristic of a branch of Fundamentalism that is the one that is associated with what is now widely called creation science that emphasizes flood geology, as it's called, and catastrophism as a way of explaining the fossil evidence.
Q: That flood that Fundamentalists talk about, is that the Noachian flood?
Q: Is there an interpretation in the Fundamentalist view of Genesis that coincides with point 6 of Section 4(a), "A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds"?
A: Yes. That again is characteristic of a particular subbranch
of Fundamentalism which emphasizes the twenty-four hour day creationism,
and therefore quite a
A: ( Continuing ) young earth.
Q: Professor Marsden, are there other sections of Act 590 of 1981 that in your professional opinion reflect aspects of Fundamentalism in America as you know it?
A: Yes, there are.
Q: I'll ask you to focus first on Section 4(b) and the subdivisions therein, please.
A: Yes. Without going through—
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed the question.
Q: Can I ask you, Professor, to focus now on Section 4(b).
A: Yes. In Section 4(b), without going through the details of it, the general characterization of evolution science there is one that makes evolution science, it seems to me, virtually necessarily a wholly naturalistic process. And it's one that is written as the inverse of the special flood geology kind of science of 4(a).
Q: In other words, that's establishing a dualist definition in this action?
A: That's correct.
Q: I'll direct your attention to Section 6. Are there any particular points in Section 6 that reflect typical literalist Fundamentalism as you understand it?
A: Right. There's a striking one here in Section 6,
A: (Continuing) the third line, where — this is the legislative purpose, the declaration of purpose. One of the purposes is to insure neutrality toward students' diverse religious conviction. Now, it seems to me that the only way that you can suppose that presenting just two positions, or giving a privileged position to just two positions, amounted to neutrality, was if you thought there were only two positions. If you thought there were fifteen positions, you wouldn't say this is ensuring neutrality by giving a privileged position to just one. So this reflects the kind of Fundamentalist thinking that I quoted from the books, particular the book by Henry Morris.
MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.
BY MR. CAMPBELL:
Q: Professor Marsden, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the books which are introduced. I'm sorry, but I did not get all the exhibit numbers. The Morris book, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, that's Exhibit Thirty-One, is that correct?
A: I believe that's correct, or Thirty.
Thirty. The Morris book on The Bible and Science.
Q: And finally, the Gish book, Evolution: The Fossils Say No.
A: Seventy-eight, I believe.
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, for the record I'll state that there are two editions to that book, and we believe it's Seventy-eight. The other is Seventy-seven. I believe we questioned him out of Seventy-eight.
Q: Professor Marsden, where did you get these books?
A: Where did I get the books?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: Well the fact of the matter is that I brought these three books with me on the airplane. My attorney said— One of them is a library book, and they said, "We have the same book." Let's use our copy.
Q: Where did you get these books that you brought with you?
A: The ones I brought with me, a couple were in my personal library, and the other one was in Calvin College library.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, may I approach the witness.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)
According to plaintiff's Exhibit Number Thirty,
Q: (Continuing) which is the Morris book, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, would you please read to me the inside cover of that book, please?
A: The inside cover has pasted in this statement, "This book is not designed or appropriate for public school use and should not be used in public schools in any way." It continues in smaller print, "Books for public schools discuss scientific evidence as supports creation science or evolution science. This book instead discusses religious concepts or materials that support Creationist religion or evolutionist religion, and such religious material should not be used in public schools."
Q: I'd like you to examine Plaintiff's Exhibit Thirty-one, which is the Morris book, The Bible and Science, and tell the Court whether or not that same disclaimer appears in that book?
A: Yes. The same disclaimer is in this book. I don't know whether it's relevant. I don't think these are in my copies.
Q: I appreciate that. Exhibit Number Seventy-eight, which is the Gish book, is a similar disclaimer in there?
A: Yes. Same thing.
Q: What research have your done on Fundamentalism in Arkansas in 1981?
A: What research have I done on it?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: In Arkansas, particularly?
Q: In 1981?
A: This is the first time I've been to Arkansas, was yesterday afternoon, in 1981. I have tried to keep up with this case, primarily, and I followed Fundamentalism in the country in a general way in 1981.
Q: Would it be fair to say that you have not done any research on Fundamentalism in Arkansas in 1981?
A: No, I wouldn't say so, because since being asked to testify, I have considered this law and Fundamentalism as it relates to that law, and talked to numbers of people about that. So I have done some research.
Q: Fundamentalism is a coalition of various movements, isn't it?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Can you distinguish Fundamentalism as it existed up to 1925 from contemporary Fundamentalism?
A: The core of the movement is the same, its militancy and opposition to modernism or secular humanism. There are some differences. For instance, today Fundamentalism has a much more mass media aspect. I think that has changed some of the emphases that are associated with the movement.
Is it your opinion that Act 590 is exclusively a
Q: (Continuing) product of Fundamentalism?
A: No, not exclusively Fundamentalist.
Q: Do Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation?
A: Many Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation, yes.
Q: Do you see the words, "Six day creation", in Act 590?
A: The words, "Six day creation", are avoided in Act 590.
Q: You said they are what?
A: They are avoided in Act 590. That's a conclusion. I do not see them.
Q: Fundamentalists have historically opposed the teaching evolution in the school room, haven't they?
Q: Act 590 permits evolution to be taught in the school room, doesn't it?
A: That's correct.
Q: Can you separate a religious creator from scientific creation?
A: From scientific creation as defined in this Act?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: No.. It seems to me that the very word, "creation", entails "creator".
You have always studied a creator in a religious
Q: (Continuing) context, haven't you?
A: Well, creator is used in all sorts of contexts.
Q: But you've always studied it in a religious context, haven't you?
A: Not necessarily, no.
Q: How else have you studied creator?
A: Well, I've studied— Do you mean— Creator of what, in what sense?
Q: Have you studied the concept of Creator always in a religious context?
A: No. I've studied— For instance, creator might be used in the sense of the Creation of the American Republic, which is the title of a book. And the creators of the American Republic would be the people like Thomas Jefferson. So creator in itself has all sorts of meanings.
Q: You have never studied a creator in a scientific concept have you, or as a scientific concept?
A: Studied a creator as a scientific concept? I have studied a lot of the relationship between a creator and scientific concepts.
Q: But you are not a scientist, are you?
A: I'm a historian, and historians have to do a lot of history of science to some extent.
But you are not trained a scientist, are you?
A: I'm not trained as a scientist, no.
Q: All Fundamentalists don't hold to the six part definition of creation science in Act 590, do they?
A: That's correct. Not all Fundamentalists would hold to that view. But of course, that's—
Q: Thank you. Fundamentalists view sanctification in different ways, don't they?
A: Yes, they do.
Q: Fundamentalists view free will in different ways, don't they?
A: They are sub groups within the movement on all these points.
Q: Fundamentalists view dispensationalism in different ways, don't they?
A: There are subgroups on that, too.
Q: Fundamentalists view revivalism in different ways, don't they?
A: There are subgroups on that, too. Correct.
Q: Fundamentalists view creation science in different ways don't they?
A: There are subgroups in their views that, too.
Q: Act 590 prohibits any religious instruction or references to religious materials, doesn't it?
A: That's what it says, yes.
Q: From a historical perspective, hasn't Fundamentalism embraced or championed the scientific method of inquiry?
A: It has talked a great deal about championing the scientific method of inquiry. It is typical Fundamentalists to say the facts of science versus the theory of evolution, for instance.
MR. CAMPBELL: I have no further questions.
MR. SIANO: Very briefly, Your Honor.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q: These books that you brought with you, these are your own copies, aren't they?
A: None of the books in this courtroom is my copy. I brought— I have in my hotel room across the street three copies of these books. And since you had these, we decided to use these.
Q: The ones that you brought with you from Grand Rapids didn't have these little labels in them, did they?
A: I wouldn't swear to that. I'm pretty sure. I'm sure this one doesn't.
Q: The Bible and Science, that one doesn't have any label in it? You're certain of that, under oath?
A: Well, I am— I am ninety-nine percent sure. I'd
A: (Continuing) be willing to bet.
Q: So as far as you can remember, the books you got in the ordinary course of business didn't have these labels in them?
A: I certainly didn't notice it on the particular three I had.
MR. SIANO: I'd say for the record, Your Honor, the books we got, we got in the document production from the organizations themselves, and that's where we got the labels.
MR. SIANO: (Continuing):
Q: You identified Calvin College. Could you just tell me what Calvin College is, since I didn't ask you about that, sir?
A: Yes. Calvin College is the college of the Christian Reform Church, which is the Dutch equivalent of a Presbyterian Church.
Q: It is, in fact, evangelical?
A: Calvin College is an evangelical in what is called reformed credo-denomination. It's a conservative Christian basically.
MR. SIANO: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You can't step down. Thank you. This would probably
be a good time to break for lunch. We'll reconvene at 1:30 P.M..
(December 7, 1981) (1:30 P.M..) MR. SIANO: I'd like to approach the bench, your Honor.
MR. WILLIAMS: There is a small point to clarify. (Bench Discussion )
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in connection with Mr. Marsden's testimony, there was some question about these labels. In connection with discovery, we obtained copies of these documents from the organizations themselves. Those are the documents which have the labels. The books that Professor Marsden brought with him from Grand Rapids do not have the labels. I offer to stipulate with my adversary just to that. I have asked whether Mr. Williams is willing to do that, and he is unwilling to do that. I think that would be a more efficient way to address this particular narrow issue.
MR. WILLIAMS: All I am saying is, they chose the books they wanted to bring in. Those are the ones they brought in.
THE COURT: Why don't you stipulate that the books he brought from Grand Rapids didn't have the labels? Is Marsden not available?
MR. SIANO: He is here, your Honor. I guess we will have to put
him on the stand.
THE COURT: Well, bring him and let him testify as to those. Will that satisfy you?
MR. WILLIAMS: I am not disputing it occurred. I am just saying they brought the books they wanted to use. If they think it is that relevant, they could have brought these in in the first place.
THE COURT: Will you stipulate to that?
MR. WILLIAMS: I will stipulate to it.
THE COURT: Okay, fine.
MR. SIANO: I will state it for the record, and you can state whether you agree. Thank you, Judge.
(End of Bench Discussion)
MR. SIANO: Your Honor, parties have agreed that copies of the books which Professor Marsden brought from Grand Rapids, titled Troubled Waters of Evolution, by Henry Morris, Studies of the Bible and Science, by Henry Morris, and Evolution: The Fossils Say No, do not have any disclamatory labels in them. The books which the Plaintiffs obtained in discovery from the creation science organizations in this case, i.e., The Troubled Waters of Evolution, Studies of the Bible and Science, both by Henry Morris, are the copies of those books which have labels, and as so stipulated by the parties.
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
Continue to Dorothy Nelkin's testimony
Return to McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project Home