I

  1                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
  2                      HARRISBURG DIVISION

  3                           TAMMY KITZMILLER, et a].,           CASE NO.
                                                                    Plaintiffs           4:04-CV-02688
  4                                                                          vs.
                            DOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT,            Harrisburg, PA
  5                                                             Defendant            5 October 2005
9:00 a.m.

6

  7           TRANSCRIPT OF CIVIL BENCH TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
                            TRIAL DAY 6, MORNING SESSION
  8                       BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN E. JONES, III
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
  9
              APPEARANCES:
10
              For       the Plaintiffs:
11                        EricJ. Rothschild, Esq.
                            Thomas B. Schmidt, III, Esq.
12                        Stephen G. Harvey, Esq.
                            Pepper Hamilton, L.L.P.
13                        3000 Two Logan Square
                            18th & Arch Streets
14                        Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
                            (215) 380-1992
15
              For       the Defendant:
16
                            Patrick Gillen, Esq.
17                        Robert J. Muise, Esq.
                            Richard Thompson, Esq.
18                        The Thomas More Law Center
                            24 Franklin Lloyd Wright Drive
19                        P.O. Box 393
                            Ann Arbor, MI 48106
20                        (734) 930-7145

21          Court Reporter:

22                       Wesley J. Armstrong, RMR
                           Official Court Reporter
23                       U.S. Courthouse
                           228 Walnut Street
24                       Harrisburg, PA 17108
                           (717) 542-5569

25





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

2


1 APPEARANCES (Continued)

  2          For the American Civil Liberties Union:


3                           Witold J. Walczak, Esq.

American Civil Liberties Union

4                           313 Atwood Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

5                           (412) 681-7864


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                                                   3

  1                                       INDEX
                                          Kitzmiller vs. Dover Schools
  2                                       4: 04-CV-2688
                                          Trial Day 6, Morning Session
  3                                       5 October 2005

 

4

                                                                 PROCEEDI NGS

   5                                                                                                                                                              Page

   6                                                            PLAINTIFF WITNESSES

   7            Dr.        Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.:
   8            EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS:

   9            Direct by Mr. Rothschild                                                                                                              4
                 Cross by Mr. Muise                                                                                                                    22
 10            Redirect by Mr. Rothschild                                                                                                        70

 

11

EXAMINATION ON EXPERT OPINION:

12

Direct examination by Mr. Rothschild                                                                                      76

13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                                                 4

  1                                                        PROCEEDINGS

  2                        THE COURT: Be seated, please. We welcome
  3          you      all back for the continuation of the

 

4             Kitzmiller et a]. versus Dover Area School

   5            District. et a]. trial. We remain                                                                   in the
   6            plaintiff’s case, and you may call                                                               your next

 

7                witness.


8                                 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Good morning, Your Honor.


9                The plaintiffs call Dr. Barbara Forrest.


10                               (Dr. Barbara Forrest was called to testify


11              and was sworn by the courtroom deputy.)

 12                             COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please be seated.                                                  State


13              your name and spell your name for the record.


14                               THE WITNESS: Barbara Forrest.


15              B-A-R-B-A-R-A, F-O-R-R-E-S-T.


16                               DIRECT EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS


17                               BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:


18                    Q. Good morning, Dr. Forrest.


19                    A. Good morning.


20                    Q. Where do you live?


21                    A. I live in Holden, Louisiana.


22                    Q. Are you marri ed?


23                A. Yes.


24                Q. And do you have children?


25                A. I do.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

5

 

1                  Q. How many?


2                  A. I haveason 25, and another son who is 20.


3                  Q. What do you do for a living?


4                  A. I’m a professor of philosophy at

  5          Southeastern Louisiana University.

 

6                  Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit P-348?

  7          Dr. Forrest, is P-348 a copy of your curriculum

  8          vitae?

 

9                  A. Yes, it is.


10                Q. And is it an accurate representation of

11          your education, professional experience, and

12          accomplishments?

 

13                A. Yes.


14                Q. What subjects do you teach at Southeastern

15          Louisiana?

 

16                A. I teach philosophy 301 and philosophy 302,

17          which are introductory courses.                                            I teach

18          philosophy 310, critical thinking.                                                I teach

19          philosophy 315, the philosophy of history.

20          Philosophy 417, intellectual history.                                                    I teach

21          an independent studies course, philosophy 418.

22          I teach history 630, which is a graduate seminar

23          in the history of western thought, and I teach

24          western civilization.

 

25                Q. Do you have a doctorate degree?





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                6
  1               A.  I do.
  2               Q.  And where did you take that degree?
  3               A.  Tulane University.
  4               Q.  Did you write a dissertation?
  5               A.  Yes.
  6               Q.  What was that dissertation about?
  7               A.  It was the study of the influence of Sidney
8 Hook’s naturalism on his philosophy of
9 education.
10               Q.  And before we go into that, are you a
11 doctor of philosophy?
12               A.  Yes.
13               Q.  Who is Sidney Hook?
14               A.  Sidney Hook was a very prominent American
15 philosopher in the 20th century.
16               Q.  And
-- I’m sorry?
17               A.  And a close disciple to John Dewey.
18               Q.  Do you subscribe to any particular school
19 of philosophy or approach to philosophy?
20               A.  Yes.
21               Q.  And what is that?
22               A.  I place myself in the tradition of John
23 Dewey and Sidney Hook, which is called pragmatic
24 naturalism.
25               Q.  And what do you mean by that, pragmatic

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

7

 

1 naturalism?


2                  A. Well, we’ll take the pragmatic part first.

  3          That reflects an American school of philosophy,

  4          pragmatism, and for Dewey and Hook as they

  5          understand it, it means that an idea is tested

  6          by whether it helps us resolve a situation of

  7          doubt or uncertainty or helps us resolve a,

  8          solve a practical problem, and one of the things

  9          that they noted was that the patterns of inquiry

10          that are part of the everyday process of

11          answering questions, resolving uncertainty, or

12          solving problems, really matched the processes

13          that are used in science.


14                         So those patterns of inquiry were not

15          invented in science, but they were used very

16          effectively, very systematically in science.

17          Those patterns of inquiry call upon the

18          cognitive faculties that human beings have,

19          and because they do, those faculties don’t reach

20          beyond the natural world into the supernatural

21          world.             So the conclusions that we reach about

22          the world are naturalistic, hence the pragmatic

23          naturalism part.


24                Q. And for Wes’s benefit I’m going to ask that

25          you slow down a little bit.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

8


1                  A. Thank you.


2                  Q. How does that approach of pragmatic

  3          naturalism figure into scholarly research?

  4                A. Into my scholarly research?                                        One of the

  5          things that pragmatic naturalism emphasizes

  6          very strongly is that conclusions about the

  7          world must be grounded in data, and the same

  8          applies to public policy issues.                                             One of the

  9          things that Sidney Hook for example stressed

10          strongly is that when philosophers become

11          involved in public policy issues they must

12          know the facts.                       So that it really does stress

13          the use of empirical data and being very

14          careful about the acquisition of that data.


15                Q. Are you familiar with the term

16          philosophical naturalism?


17                A. Yes.


18                Q. What does that mean?


19                A. Philosophical naturalism is a comprehensive

20          understanding of reality which excludes the

21          supernatural.                      It is one which looks at the

22          natural world as the entirety of what exists.


23                Q. And are you familiar with the term

24          methodological naturalism?


25                A. Yes.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

9


1                  Q. What does that mean?


2                  A. Methodological naturalism is really another

  3          term for scientific method.                                     It’s a regulative

  4          principle.                   It’s a procedural protocol that

  5          scientists use.                         It means very simply that they

  6          look for natural explanations for natural

  7          phenomena.


8                  Q. Is philosophical naturalism part of the

  9          scientific method?


10                A. No, it’s not.


11                Q. Have you focused your academic research on

12          any particular subject?


13                A. Yes.


14                Q. And what is that?


15                A. I have focused my research on issues

16          surrounding evolution, the teaching of

17          evolution, and the creationism issue.


18                Q. When you use the term creationism, what

19          do you mean?


20                A. Creationism means a number of things.

21          First and foremost it means rejection of

22          evolutionary theory in favor of special creation

23          by a supernatural deity.                                  It also involves a

24          rejection of the established methodologies of

25          science, and this is all





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

10

 

1 for religious reason.


2                  Q. And when you say the established rules o

  3          science, are you referring to methodological

  4          naturalism?

  5                A. Yes.             The naturalistic methodology that I

  6          just explained.


7                  Q. Is there only one type of creationism or

  8          are there multiple kinds?


9                  A. There are multiple kinds.


10                Q. Can you describe the types of creationism?


11                A. Well, the oldest kind is young earth

12          creationism.


13                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, I’m going to object.

14          He’s asking questions of explanation, she’s

15          obviously offering her opinions now on this

16          case, and we obviously want to voir dire her

17          about her ability to offer opinions, and this is

18          going into really the heart of what her opinions

19          are, the various forms of creationism and so

20          forth.


21                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I’m not going

22          to go into opinions in detail, but I think to

23          ground us, she’s using terminology and I think

24          it’s important even for the voir dire and for

25          your fact finding on Dr. Forrest’s





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

11

 

1 qualifications to understand what we’re talking

  2          about here.


3                           MR. MUISE: Again, Your Honor, it’s a very

  4          fine line here between what the definition and

  5          what she’s actually offering in terms of what

  6          an opinion is.                     If we would disagree with what

  7          obviously her “definitions,” they’re really

  8          sliding into opinions at this point.


9                           THE COURT: I think that given the hybrid

10          nature of this proposed expert that some inquiry

11          into this areas is probably necessary.                                                    I’ll

12          overrule the objection as it relates to that

13          particular question, which is on young earth

14          creationism, Mr. Muise, but certainly that

15          would not estop additional objections if you

16          feel that the witness is getting too deeply

17          into those areas.


18                         It think it’s essential to the plaintiff’s

19          examination in the voir dire statement of this

20          witness to get into some of those areas.                                                     So

21          it’s certainly a, it’s an appropriate objection

22          under the circumstances, but I don’t think that

23          she’s far enough into the area that I find an

24          objection needs to be sustained.                                           So we’ll

25          overrule the objection.                                We need to proceed.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                  12
  1          I don’t know that the question was answered.
  2          Wes,    do you want to read back, or do you recall
  3          the       question?
  4                       MR. ROTHSCHILD. If you could read back the
  5          question, Wes, that would be great.
  6                       THE COURT: Thank you, Wes.
  7                       (The record was read by the reporter.)
  8                       THE WITNESS: Would you like me to start
  9          over with that answer?
10                       THE COURT: You may. You can start, my
11          recollection now is that you were, the objection
12          was     rendered mid-answer, so you can restart.
13          All      right?
14                       THE WITNESS: There is young earth
15          creationism, which is the view that the earth
16          is six to ten thousand years old. There’s also
17          old      earth creationism, which is the view that
18          the       earth is several billion years old.
19                       BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
20           Q.       As part of your study of evolution and
21          creationism have you studied the subject of
22          intelligent design?
23           A.       Yes.
24           Q.       And are you familiar with intelligent
25          design being described as a movement?

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

13

 

1                  A. Yes.


2                  Q. And who describes it that way?


3                  A. The proponents of intelligent design, its

  4          leaders have described it as a movement.


5                  Q. And as you understand how they’re using the

  6          term, what do they mean by the term movement?


7                  A. It’s an organized effort that centers

  8          around the execution of a particular program

  9          that they have.


10                Q. Are you familiar with other scientific

11          topics or theories being described as a

12          movement?            Is there a chemistry movement or

13          a germ theory movement?


14                A. I’ve never heard it described as such, no.


15                Q. How do you study a movement?

16                A. You look at everything they do.                                             I’ve

17          looked at their writings, the things that they

18          themselves have written.                               You look at interviews

19          that have been done with them.                                        I’ve looked at

20          speeches that they’ve given.                                      I’ve listened to

21          speeches.               I’ve read articles about them.                                            I’ve

22          have even looked at their conference

23          proceedings.                  You look at everything.


24                Q. Do you have specialized knowledge about

25          the history and nature of the intelligent





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

14

 

1 design movement?


2                  A. Yes.


3                  Q. And how did you acquire that knowledge?


4                  A. By doing research into the movement’s

  5          activities, looking at all of their activities,

  6          looking at what they have written, all of the

  7          stuff, the things that I just mentioned.


8                  Q. Do you discriminate or distinguish between

  9          primary sources and secondary sources in doing

10          your work?

11                A. Yes.             There is a difference.


12                Q. And explain to us how you use the terms

13          primary source and secondary source.


14                A. Well, in scholarship, a primary source is

15          something written by let’s say the person that

16          you’re studying, a book or an article that’s

17          been written by a person.                                   Secondary sources

18          are sources that are about those people or

19          about their work, articles.


20                Q. And is it common in your academic

21          discipline to use both kinds of sources to

22          study whatever topic you’re studying?

23                A. Yes.             That’s standard procedure.


24                Q. And have you in fact done that in your

25          study of the intelligent design movement?





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

15

 

1                  A. Yes.


2                  Q. Have you interviewed members of the

  3          intelligent design movement?


4                  A. Directly no.


5                  Q. And why not?


6                  A. I wanted to study the movement and

  7          understand it by looking at the way they

  8          explain it to their intended audiences.                                                       I

  9          wanted to see how they themselves explain

10          it when they’re actually addressing their

11          audience.


12                Q. For how long have you done research on

13          the subject of intelligent design?


14                A. Going on now if you count the two scholarly

15          articles I published in 1999, 2000, going on now

16          about eight years.


17                Q. And in addition to those articles have you

18          written a book on the subject of intelligent

19          design?


20                A. Yes, I’ve written a book.

21                Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 630?                                                    Is

22          this the cover page of the book you wrote on

23          the subject of intelligent design?


24                A. Yes.


25                Q. That’s called Creationism’s Trojan Horse:





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

16

 

1 The Wedge of Intelligent Design?


2                      A. Yes.


3                  Q. You’re obviously listed as the first

  4          author. The second author there, Paul Gross,

  5          who is he?


6                  A. Paul R. Gross, my co-author, is a

  7          scientist.


8                  Q. Who is this book published by?


9                  A. Oxford University Press, 2004.


10                Q. And is that a leading academic press?


11                A. It’s one of the world’s leading academic

12          presses, yes.


13                Q. The title includes the term “the wedge,”

14          the wedge of intelligent design.                                            Why did you

15          use that word?


16                A. That’s a word that the intelligent design

17          leaders themselves use.                                  It’s a word they use to

18          describe their movement which is guided by a

19          document called the Wedge Strategy.                                         So it’s a

20          term that they coined.


21                Q. And who coined, do you know who coined the

22          term?

23                A. The wedge?                 Yes.        Phillip Johnson.


24                Q. Who is Phillip Johnson?


25                A. Phillip Johnson is the de facto leader of





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

17

 

1 group. He’s the gentleman that brought the

  2          other members of the group together.                                              He’s also

  3          the advisor for the Center for Science and

  4          Culture.

  5                Q. What is Mr. Johnson’s background?                                          Is he a

  6          scientist?

  7                A. No.            He’s retired now, but he was a law

  8          professor at the University of California at

  9          Berkley.


10                Q. And you referred to the Center for Science

11          and Culture.                  What is that?


12                A. That was an organization that was

13          established in 1996 under the auspices of The

14          Discovery Institute.                               In 1996 it was actually

15          called the Center for the Renewal of Science and

16          Culture.               That is the organization in which the

17          strategy of the intelligent design movement is

18          being formally carried out.


19                Q. And you referred to a document, what is

20          that document called?


21                A. It’s a document called The Wedge Strategy.


22                Q. And who wrote that?


23                A. Members of the intelligent design movement.

24          It’s a tactical document that they, in which

25          they outline their goals and their activities.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

18

 

1                  Q. Does it have any connection with The

  2          Discovery Institute?

  3                A. Well, yes.                     It was written under the

  4          auspices, it was written, it’s a formal

  5          statement of the strategy of The Center for

  6          the Renewal of Science and Culture.


7                  Q. And we’ll go into that later after the

  8          voir dire.                   Can you tell us what Creationism’s

  9            Trojan Horse is about?


10                    A. The book actually looks at the way the

 11            intelligent design movement is, or The Center

 12            for the Renewal of Science and Culture, now

 13            called the Center for Science and Culture, looks

 14            at the way they’re executing the Wedge Strategy,

 15            looks at all of the activities that they have

 16            engaged to execute the various phases of the

 17            strategy.                     The book also does, my co-author does

 18            some scientific critique in the book, and we

 19            also analyze the movement and explain the

 20            significance of these activities.


21                    Q. How did you go about researching that book?


22                    A. I went about researching the book by

 23            looking at all of, every piece of written

 24            information I could find that would explain

 25            what this movement is about.                                                     I did a great deal





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

19

 

1 of, spent three and a half years doing empi ri cal

  2          research.


3                  Q. Using primary sources and secondary

  4          sources?


5                  A. Both, yes.


6                  Q. Did your research include anything relating

  7          to scientific production?


8                  A. Yes, it did.


9                  Q. What did you do?


10                A. I wanted to find out if there were any

11          articles in peer reviewed scientific journals

12          using intelligent design as a biological theory.

13          So I searched the scientific databases where

14          those articles would be indexed.


15                Q. What conclusions did you reach in

16          Creationism’s Trojan Horse?


17                    A. That intelligent design --

 18                        MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor.                                      He’s

19          specifically asking for the conclusions, which I

20          believe would be a direct question going to her

21          opinion that she’s going to be offering in this

22          case.


23                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, this is about

24          her scholarly work, writing Creationism’s Trojan

 25            Horse ,not about her opinions in this case,





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

20

 

1 although they will be very similar.


2                           THE COURT: Well, I think that probably

  3          now crosses the line and exceeds appropriate

  4          voir dire.                  I think it’s sufficient for

  5          qualifications to get into her scholarly works,

  6          the methodology that she utilized in compiling

  7          the scholarly work, time spent for example, but

  8          I think a question which touches on the ultimate

  9          issue, which that was, likely now indicates that

10          Mr. Muise objection is well founded.                                              So I’ll

11          sustain the objection on that question.


12                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Thank you, Your Honor.


13                         BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:


14                Q. Have you done -- besides Creationism’s

 15            Trojan Horse have you done other writing on

 16            intelligent design?


17                    A. Yes.


18                    Q. And are those reflected on your curriculum

 19            vitae?


20                    A. Yes, they’re there.


21                    Q. Do you have expertise in philosophical

22          issues relating to naturalism?


23                A. Yes, I’ve done some work in that.


24                Q. Do you have expertise in the history and

25          nature of the intelligent design movement,





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

21

 

1 including its creationist roots?


2                  A. Yes.


3                  Q. Did you write an expert report in this

  4          case?


5                  A. Yes.


6                  Q. How many expert reports did you write?


7                  A. I wrote the expert witness report, and

  8          I wrote a supplement to that report.


9                  Q. What was the first expert report about?


10                A. It really very closely mirrors the research

11          I have done, for example the research I did on

12          book, it’s a summary of actually what the, the

13          work I did on the book.                                  It talks about the

14          nature of the intelligent design movement.


15                Q. And what kind of materials did you rely

16          upon in preparing your first report?


17                A. I relied mostly on the materials, the same

18          materials I used in writing the book, and also

19          some materials on file in the archives at the

20          National Center for Science Education.


21                Q. What was the second report about?


22                A. The supplementary report is about the

23          textbook Of Pandas and People.


24                    Q. And what materials did you rely upon to

 25            prepare that report?





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                  22
  1           A.       I relied on materials that were issued
  2          under subpoena from the Foundation For Thought
  3          And     Ethics supplied to me by the legal team.
  4           Q.       And Matt, if you could pull up Exhibit 347?
  5          Is that the first page of your first expert
  6          report?
  7           A.       Yes, it is.
  8           Q.       And Matt, if you could pull up Exhibit 349,
  9          is that the first page of your supplemental
10          expert report?
11           A.       Yes.
12                       MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, at this time
13          I’d      like to move to qualify Barbara Forrest as
14          an expert in philosophical issues relating to
15          naturalism and the history and nature of the
16          intelligent design movement, including its
17          creationist roots.
18                       THE COURT: All right, Mr. Muise, you may
19          question on qualifications.
20                       MR. MUISE: Thank you, Your Honor.
21                       CROSS EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS
22                       BY MR. MUISE:
23           Q.       Good morning, Dr. Forrest.
24           A.       Good morning.
25           Q.       You’re not an expert in science, correct?

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                                                 23

  1                A.   No,     I’m not a scientist.
  2                Q.   And you have no formal scientific trai ni ng?
  3                A.   No.
  4                Q.   You    have no training in biochemistry?
  5                A.   No.
  6                Q.   You    have no training in microbiology?
  7                A.   No.
  8                Q.   You’re not trained as a biologist?
  9                A.   No,     I’m not a biologist.

 

10                Q. So it would be true to say that you

11          don’t know whether Darwin’s theory of evolution

12          has provided a detailed testable rigorous

13          explanation for the origin of new complex

14          biological systems, would that be accurate?


15                A. Actually that is the kind of knowledge that

16          any person that has some understanding of

17          science would know, an educated person would

18          know that that is an established theory.


19                Q. But with regard to my question, do you know

20          whether or not Darwin’s theory of evolution

21          has provided a detailed testable rigorous

22          explanation for the origin of new complex

23          biological features?


24                A. As my understanding is, yes, it has.


25                Q. Do you know whether the theory of





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

24

 

1 evolution, in particular natural selection,

  2          can explain the existence of the genetic code?


3                  A. Excuse me, repeat the question, please?

  4                Q. Sure.               Do you know whether the theory of

  5          evolution, in particular natural selection, can

  6          explain the existence of the genetic code?


7                  A. My understanding is that natural selection

  8          does offer some explanation for that.                                                   I could

  9          not give you the explanation as a scientist

10          would give it to you of course.


11                Q. Do you know whether the theory of

12          evolution, in particular natural selection,

13          can explain the development of the pathways

14          for the construction of the flagellum?


15                A. As I understand it there is work being done

16          on that as of now, yes.                                   It does offer some

17          explanation.


18                Q. Do you know whether the theory of

19          evolution, in particular natural selection,

20          can explain the existence of defensive apparatus

21          such as the blood clotting system and the

22          immunity system?


23                A. All of those things are being addressed,

24          yes.


25                Q. You have no particular scientific expertise





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

25

 

1 to be able to address those questions, is that

  2          correct?


3                  A. No, sir, that’s not my area of expertise,

  4          no.


5                  Q. So it would be fair to say that you’re not

  6          qualified to give an opinion as to whether the

  7          bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex,

  8          meaning whether or not it can be produced by

  9          a step-by-step Darwinian process?


10                A. That’s not my area of expertise.


11                Q. And it would also be true that you wouldn’t

12          be qualified to -- I’ll repeat that question.

13          Is it also fair to say that you’re not qualified

14          to give an opinion as to whether the blood

15          clotting cascade is irreducibly compl ex?


16                A. That’s not my area of expertise.


17                Q. And you’re also not qualified to give

18          an opinion as to whether the immune system

19          is irreducibly complex, is that correct?


20                A. That is not my area of expertise.


21                Q. So, ma’am, you’re not qualified to give

22          an opinion as to whether the claims made by

23          intelligent design advocates such as Michael

24          Behe are scientific, is that correct?


25                A. I have relied on the work of established





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                  26
  1          scientists such as my co-author Paul Gross,
  2          and      they have a tremendous amount of expertise,
  3          and      that is what I have relied upon.
  4           Q.       But in terms of your particular expertise,
  5          you’re not qualified to give that opinion, is
  6          that correct?
  7           A.       No, sir, and I have never claimed to be.
  8           Q.       Ma’am, you’re not an expert in religion?
  9           A.       No.
10           Q.       You’re not an expert in the philosophy of
11          science?
12           A.       I’m not a philosopher of science.
13           Q.       You’re not an expert in the philosophy of
14          education?
15           A.       No. That’s not the area that I practice in
16          as a philosopher, no. Although I did do quite a
17          bit       of work on my dissertation with respect to
18          Sidney Hook about that.
19           Q.       Ma’am, you’re not a mathematician?
20           A.       No.
21           Q.       You’re not a probability theorist?
22           A.       No.
23           Q.       You do not possess formal training in
24          mathematics, is that correct?
25           A.       No.

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                  27
  1           Q.       You have no
- -
       
2           A.       Well, college math.
  3           Q.       Certainly. And you have no doctorate in
  4          mathematics, is that correct?
  5           A.       No, my Ph.D. is in philosophy.
  6           Q.       So, ma’am, you’re not qualified to give an
  7          opinion as to whether Dr. Dembski ‘s claim of
  8          complex specified information is valid, isn’t
  9          that correct?
10           A.       That is not my area of expertise and I have
11          not      offered opinions on that.
12           Q.       Ma’am, this is a concept that he wrote
13          about in a book published by Cambridge
14          University Press, correct?
15           A.       The Design Inference,
yes.
 16             Q.         So you’re familiar with
The Design
 
17            Inference?
 
18             A.         Yes, I know that he’s written that book,
 19            uh-huh.
 20             Q.         And Cambridge University Press is similar
 21            to like the Oxford University Press is a peer
 22            reviewing academic press?
23           A.       Yes.
24           Q.       And again the book that Dr. Dembski wrote,
25          The Design Inference,
explains his ideas of

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

28

 

1 complex specified information, correct?


2                  A. Well, Dr. Dembski has written that that

  3          book does not address the implications of design

  4          theory for biology, so -- but that book is a

  5          highly technical book that is not within my

  6          area of expertise.


7                  Q. And that book does discuss the concept

  8          of complex specified information, correct?


9                  A. Yes, I believe it does.


10                Q. I want to explore your understanding of

11          intelligent design as it relates to the opinions

12          you intend to proffer in this court.                                                    Ma’am, is

13          it your understanding that intelligent design

14          requires adherence to the claim that the earth

15          is six to ten thousand years old?


16                A. No, it doesn’t require that, although there

17          are young earth creationists integrally involved

18          in the intelligent design movement.


19                Q. But again your answer is intelligent design

20          does not require adherence to that tenet?


21                A. No, they themselves do not make that a

22          requirement.


23                Q. Is it your understanding that intelligent

24          design does not require adherence to the six day

25          creation event that is a literal reading of the





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

29

 

1 account in the Book of Genesis?

  2                A. No, it does not require that.                                               Intelligent

  3          design is a broader type of creationism.


4                  Q. But it doesn’t require a literal reading of

  5          the Book of Genesis, correct?


6                  A. It does not.


7                  Q. In fact, it doesn’t require a literal

  8          reading of any scripture, correct?


9                  A. It does not require a literal reading of

10          scripture, but it is based on scripture.


11                Q. Is it your understanding that intelligent

12          design requires adherence to the flood geology

13          point of view advance by creationists?


14                A. It’s my understanding that it does not

15          require that.


16                Q. Is it your understanding that intelligent

17          design requires the action of a supernatural

18          creator?


19                A. Yes, it is my understanding that it does

20          require that.


21                Q. Is that an assumption that you based your

22          opinions on?

23                A. No, it’s not an assumption.                                         It’s based on

24          statements made by the movement’s leaders.


25                Q. But your understanding that it requires





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

30

 

1 the actions of a supernatural creator forms a

  2          foundation for the opinions you intend to offer

  3          in this case, right?

  4                A. Yes.             Based on the statements of the

  5          movement’s leaders themselves.


6                  Q. Now, ma’am, you spoke about during your

  7          initial examination by Mr. Rothschild this

  8          concept of methodological naturalism, correct?


9                  A. Yes.


10                Q. And methodological naturalism is a

11          convention that’s imposed upon scientific

12          inquiry, is it not?


13                A. No, it’s not a convention that is imposed

14          upon scientific inquiry.                                  Methodological

15          naturalism is a methodology.                                     It’s a way of

16          addresses scientific questions.                                          It reflects the

17          practice of science that has been successfully

18          established over a period of centuries.                                                       It’s

19          not imposed upon science.                                 It reflects the

20          successful practice of science.


21                Q. Well, you would agree it places limits

22          on scientific expl orati on?


23                A. It does place limits on what science can

24          address, that’s correct.


25                Q. Should scientist be allowed to follow the





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

31

 

1 evidence where it leads or should they be

  2          constrained to follow the evidence only where

  3          materialism allows?


4                  A. Science by its nature and on the basis of

  5          its successful practice cannot address questions

  6          of the supernatural , and that’s because the

  7          cognitive faculties that humans have will not

  8          take us beyond the reach of those faculties.

  9          And so science is really an intellectually

10          quite humble process.                            It does not address

11          supernatural claims.                              It has no methodology by

12          which to do that.


13                Q. And are you aware of a claim advanced by

14          Nobel laureate Francis Crick called “Directed

15          Panspermia”?


16                A. Yes.


17                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

18          This line of questioning is going well outside

19          what would be relevant to qualifications.


20                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, she’s testified

21          about the methodological naturalism, and I’m

22          just trying to make a searching inquiry as to

23          her understanding of methodological naturalism,

24          and its application in this case is how it’s

25          going to relate to her follow on opinions that





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

32

 

1 I’m sure Mr. Rothschild is going to try to

  2          elicit.


3                           MR. ROTHSCHILD: I think what Mr. Muise is

  4          doing is getting into a discussion of whether

  5          methodological naturalism is a valid

  6          methodology, is a representative methodology

  7          science or not.                        It’s a perfectly appropriate

  8          question for him to ask Dr. Forrest as were

  9          asked of Dr. Pennock, but I’m not sure whether

10          this is getting us in terms of qualification.


11                         THE COURT: How does that go, Mr. Muise, to

12          whether or not she’s an expert in the area --


13                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, I think it also goes

14          to the reliability of her follow on opinions

15          that are going to be addressed by this witness.


16                         THE COURT: I don’t think it goes to

17          reliability.                     No, I don’t think it’s close

18          enough to the stated purpose of the witness,

19          at least in part, which is an expert in

20          methodological naturalism.                                    I think we’re going

21          to get afield of that with the question.                                                         If

22          she’s otherwise qualified it’s certainly a

23          proper question on cross by you, but I’ll

24          sustain the objection.


25                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Thank you, Your Honor.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

33

 

1                           MR. MUISE: I have one more question along

  2          this line, Your Honor, but I think it goes to

  3          sort of the assumption that’s going to be the

  4          basis for her opinion that I just wanted to

  5          elicit at this point.


6                           THE COURT: Well, we’ll see.


7                           BY MR. MUISE:


8                  Q. Ma’am, is it your understanding that

  9          there’s no dispute amongst philosophers of

10          science as to whether methodological naturalism

11          is a proper limitation imposed upon scientific

12          inquiry?


13                A. There may be some dispute among

14          philosophers of science, but there is really,

15          that’s not a question in dispute among the

16          people who do the science, the scientists

17          themselves.               That is the way they do science.

18          It reflects the established, the successful

19          practice of science by the scientists

20          themselves.


21                Q. So using methodological naturalism then as

22          a procedural approach to science as opposed to

23          just necessarily a philosophical approach to

24          science?

25                A. It’s not a philosophical approach.                                                   It’s





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

34

 

1 just a fancy term for scientific method. That’s

  2          all it is.


3                  Q. Do you believe it’s improper for academics

  4          such as scientists and philosopher of science

  5          to challenge the popular convention of

  6          methodological naturalism?


7                  A. People are certainly free to discuss it

  8          in any way they choose.                              The fact is that it

  9          reflects the only workable procedure that

10          science has at the moment.


11                Q. Ma’am, you consider yourself to be a

12          secular humanist, is that correct?


13                A. I’m affiliated with the secular humanist

14          organization.                      I don’t usually put a label on

15          myself in that way.


16                Q. Is methodological naturalism consistent

17          with your world view as a secular humanist?


18                A. Yes, it very much reflects what I explained

19          about the pragmatic naturalism of the people

20          John Dewey and Sidney Hook, in whose tradition

21          I place myself.


22                Q. Do you see the theory evolution as a

23          necessary feature of secular humanism?


24                A. It’s not a necessary feature of secular

25          humanism.           The theory of evolution is something





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

35

 

1 that virtually all secular humanists endorse

  2          because they have a great deal of respect for

  3          the practice of science.


4                  Q. You mentioned in your testimony this

  5          concept of philosophical naturalism.


6                  A. Yes.


7                  Q. Is philosophical naturalism consistent

  8          with methodological naturalism?


9                  A. Could you explain what you mean by

10          consistent, please?                           Consistent with?


11                Q. Are they related in any way?

12                A. They are not the same thing.                                          One can,

13          for example a scientist uses the naturalistic

14          methodology of science.                             That does not commit

15          the scientist to the world view of philosophical

16          naturalism.                    Philosophical naturalism takes you

17          beyond scientific method.


18                Q. So for example Dr. Miller, the fact he

19          testified that he does not, or that he rejects

20          philosophical naturalism would be consistent

21          with the way you just answered --


22                A. Oh, correct.


23                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

24          This is going again well beyond the

25          qualifications.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

36

 

1                           THE COURT: Well, she answered the question.

  2          I’ll overrule the objection and let the answer

  3          stand.


4                  Q. Ma’am, does the fact that methodological

  5          naturalism might coincide with your secular

  6          humanist world view, would that discredit

  7          methodological naturalism from consideration

  8          by scientists?


9                  A. When you say that methodological naturalism

10          coincides with the world view of secular

11          humanism, if I could explain something about

12          that?           Methodological naturalism is used by

13          every human being every day.                                   Every human being

14          who has to solve a problem, answer a question,

15          uses it every day.                             It’s completely

16          noncontroversial, and so it coincides with just

17          about any philosophical position that one might

18          take on the nature of reality.                                             It does not

19          logically entail philosophical naturalism.


20                Q. Ma’am, you testified I believe that your

21          area of expertise is in the nature and strategy

22          of the intelligent design creationist movement,

23          correct?


24                A. That is the subject of my book and a good

25          deal of my published work, yes.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

37

 

1                  Q. Now, you call it intelligent design

  2          creationists, correct?


3                  A. Right, yes.


4                  Q. Now, describing it as creationists, is that

  5          your way to discredit the science of intelligent

  6          design without actually addressing the scientist

  7          claim?

  8                A. Not at all.                         I use that term because the

  9          leaders, the movement’s own leaders have used

10             it.       They have used the term creationist

11          themselves.


12                Q. You do not address the scientific claims

13          of intelligent design in your report, correct?


14                A. No, I didn’t address the scientific claims

15          in the report.                        My book does cover that because

16          my co-author is a scientist himself.


17                Q. Well, you’re going to be testifying today

18          pursuant to your report, is that correct?


19                A. My testimony today is connected to my

20          report, yes.


21                Q. Now, we heard testimony in this case

22          demonstrating that the term evolution can have

23          different meanings.                             It can simply mean change

24          over time or it could also refer to the theory

25          of evolution, for example natural selection.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

38

 

1 Does that comport with your general

  2          understanding of - -


3                  A. There are various facets to evolutionary

  4          theory.


5                  Q. Now, isn’t it also true that the term

  6          creation has more than one meaning?


7                  A. Yes.


8                  Q. Could creationism --


9                  A. Excuse me, if I could correct that, there

10          are different types of creationism.


11                Q. Well, would you agree that creationism can

12          simply mean an innovative design capable of

13          bringing about biological compl exi ty?


14                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

15          Mr. Muise cut off his line of questioning on

16          my direct examination because it got into

17          opinion testimony.                           Now he’s cross examining

18          on the meaning of creationism, and I don’t see

19          how this goes to qualifications.


20                         THE COURT: Mr. Muise?


21                         MR. MUISE: Again, Your Honor, she used the

22          term intelligent design creation, and this is

23          really going to go to the foundation of the

24          opinions that she’s going to be offering.                                                        I

25          think it is related.                                It’s one thing to elicit





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

39

 

1 the opinions of creationism. It’s another thing

  2          for her to describe what her understanding of

  3          that term is and whether or not she considered

  4          those various understandings in the opinions

  5          that she’s going to be offering.


6                           THE COURT: Well, let’s look at it this way.

  7          Mr. Rothschild introduced her as an expert on

  8          the methodology, on methodological naturalism.

  9          We have covered that area.                                 Also the history and

10          nature of intelligent design, of the intelligent

11          design movement, including its creationism

12          origin.             Now, if you want to ask what that

13          means, ask it that way I think, rather than get

14          into -- I think the nature of the objection is

15          there are various types of creationism.


16                         I think the question likely traipses over

17          into appropriate cross examination if she’s

18          qualified as an expert.                                    I’ll allow you to press

19          on creationism as she uses it and as she defines

20             it.       As it relates to her expert report I think

21          arguably that’s within qualifications.                                                      I’ll

22          sustain the objection to that particular

23          question.                So you’ll have to rephrase it.


24                         MR. MUISE: If I may, Your Honor, in part

25          with your explanation, the point I just wanted





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

40

 

1 to make is that she didn’t use this, she doesn’t

  2          define it this way.                             So it is sort of, it’s

  3          contrary to you said it would be okay to ask

  4          her what she meant by creationism.                                              My point is

  5          to say she didn’t consider this definition of

  6          creation, which is sort of the alternative way

  7          of asking the same question that you’ve just

  8          referred to.


9                           THE COURT: What definition?


10                         MR. MUISE: The one that I used, Your Honor,

11          an innovative design capable of bringing about

12          biological complexity.


13                         THE COURT: Well, if she didn’t use that,

14          again to question her in that way is appropriate

15          cross, assuming that she’s admitted.                                               I say that

16          again.              It’s how she uses it, not how she didn’t

17          use it, that’s at issue as it relates to her

18          credentials in my view.


19                         MR. MUISE: Then we’ll save that one for

20          cross then, Your Honor.


21                         BY MR. MUISE:


22                Q. Dr. Forrest, you claim to be an expert on

23          the so-called Wedge Strategy, correct?


24                A. That’s the subject that I did research on

25          for three and a half years, yes.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

41

 

1                  Q. And this is reflected in the document The

  2            Wedge Strategy, is that correct?


3                      A. That’s the title of the document.


4                      Q. Now, is it true that that document was

   5            purportedly stolen from the office of Discovery

   6            Institute?


7                      A. According to Dr. Meyer that’s what

   8            happened.


9                      Q. Did you ever talk to Dr. Meyer about that?


10                    A. No.


11                    Q. And this document was a fund raising

 12            proposal by Discovery Institute, correct?


13                    A. That’s the way they have described it.


14                    Q. Now, I believe you answered a question to,

 15            you answered one of Mr. Rothschild’s questions

 16            indicating that you have never interviewed

 17            personally any Discovery Institute employee or

 18            fellow regarding the nature and strategy of this

 19            intelligent design movement that you’re going to

 20            be testifying about, is that correct?


21                    A. No, I did not.


22                    Q. Have you personally interviewed any

 23            Discovery Institute employee or fellow regarding

 24            any of the claims in your report or what you re

 25            going to testify about today?





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

42

 

1                  A. No.


2                  Q. Now, in your report you rely heavily on

  3          this so-called Wedge Document.                                   Yet you do not

  4          rely on Discover Institute’s statement in a

  5          document that they drafted called The Wedge

  6            Document: So What?, which explain the genesis

   7            and the nature of the purpose of the Wedge

   8            Document, is that accurate?


9                      A. That document was drawn up after my book

 10            was published.                             That was produced quite a

 11            while after I did my work.


12                    Q. And that was produced though before you

 13            wrote your report, correct?


14                    A. Before, yes, before I wrote the report.


15                    Q. So what is the methodological criteria you

 16            use to rely heavily on Discovery Institute’s

 17            Wedge Document, but then to disregard Discovery

 18            Institute’s own explanation of what the nature

 19            and purpose of this document is?


20                    A. The Discovery Institute, or the Center for

 21            the Renewal of Science and Culture has provided

 22            a wealth of written material that I have

 23            consulted.                       I wanted to, if I was going to use

 24            that document as a reference point in my

 25            research I needed to authenticate it, and I





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

43

 

1 wanted to find authentication of the document

  2          independently of what the people at the

  3          Discovery Institute might actually say to me

  4          if I had interviewed them.                                    So I found

  5          independent verification of its authenticity

  6          on their own web site.


7                  Q. But again, ma’am, my question is you did

  8          not rely at all on the Discovery Institute’s own

  9          published written explanation of what the Wedge

10          Document actually is, which would be a primary

11          source document based on your testimony,

12          correct?


13                A. That information came considerably after

14          I had completed my research for the book.                                                    I

15          needed independent verification that the

16          document was authentic, and I found it in

17          text on their web site.


18                Q. But, ma’am, the explanation came after

19          you wrote your report in which the --

 20                        THE COURT: I get the point.                                   Let’s move on.


21                Q. Now, ma’am, as we know you prepared an

22          expert report and a supplemental report for this

23          particular case which is going to serve as the

24          basis for your testimony, is that accurate?


25                A. Correct.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

44

 

1                  Q. And again it’s the report that’s serving

  2          as the basis of your testimony?


3                  A. Yes.


4                  Q. Not your book?


5                  A. The report, which reflects my book

  6          actually.


7                  Q. With the exception that we just went

  8          through?


9                  A. Right.


10                Q. Now, I believe you testified on direct that

11          your testimony, your report and your testimony

12          are based in large part on statements that were

13          made by people that you claim to be leaders of

14          the intelligent design movement?


15                A. They’re not people that I claim to be

16          leaders.                They are leaders, and they provided

17          a wealth of written material for me to use.


18                Q. And I believe you stated that you consider

19          those statements to be the best evidence of the

20          nature of the intelligent design movement?


21                A. I would take those statements that they

22          make and the materials they produced to explain

23          what they’re doing to be the best evidence of

24          what they’re doing, yes.


25                Q. Except their explanation of Wedge Document,





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

45

 

1 correct?


2                  A. Which was written only in response to

  3          chapter 2 of my book.


4                  Q. Now, I believe your report, and I believe

  5          you also testified here, you indicated that

  6          primary data consists of statements by not only

  7          the Wedge leaders, but their allies and

  8          supporters, is that correct?


9                  A. Well, primary data would be statements by

10          the Wedge leaders themselves, things that they

11          have written.                  That would be what I would

12          consider primary data.                                Things that are stated

13          by their allies and supporters I would consider

14          secondary data.


15                Q. And you relied on that secondary data to

16          form your opinions that you’re going to offer

17          in this case?


18                A. I relied both on primary and secondary

19          sources.


20                Q. And your focus on these allies and

21          supporters was the focus on the religious

22          alliances and association of members of

23          the intelligent design, correct?


24                A. That’s correct.


25                Q. So is it your opinion that because





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

46

 

1 intelligent design proponents associate with

  2          religious organizations that this shows that

  3          the scientific claims that they’ve made aren’t

  4          science?


5                           MR. ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor.

  6          Again this has nothing to do with

  7          qualifications.                        It’s perfectly appropriate

  8          cross examination of the opinions that

  9          Dr. Forrest is going to deliver, but we’re

10          spending a lot of time here doing just that

11          which Mr. Muise or Mr. Thompson will have the

12          opportunity to do after I have asked her about

13          her opinion.


14                         THE COURT: The operative word I think

15          in your question was opinion that may be

16          troublesome.                  But I’ll let you speak to it,

17          Mr. Muise.


18                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, as we intend to show

19          during this voi r dire that she selectively takes

20          statements and focuses on certain alliances to

21          the exclusion of all the scientific evidence,

22          all the scientific work, to reach her subjective

23          conclusion, and I’m just going through to

24          demonstrate that her methodology is

25          fundamentally flawed.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

47

 

1                           THE COURT: Well, an expert’s conclusion is

  2          necessarily subjective.                                 Can we all agree on

  3          that?

  4                        MR. MUISE: To some point, Your Honor.                                       I

  5          mean, that’s the whole point of the Daubert is

  6          to understand that there’s some sort of a

  7          methodology that is a reliable methodology that

  8          is a reliable methodology that you’re going to

  9          apply.


10                         THE COURT: Well, even if I open the gate

11          under Daubert for an expert, that expert is

12          testifying in a subjective fashion, isn’t it?

13          Or she?


14                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, if you have a

15          historian who for example only looks at

16          statements from Southerners and they conclude

17          that the South won the Civil War, I think you

18          could say that there’s a problem with the

19          reliability of that testimony.


20                         THE COURT: Admittedly there is a somewhat

21          indistinct line here, and I understand that

22          you’re trying not to cross the line.                                                   This is

23          a hybrid expert.                         This expert I think we can all

24          agree doesn’t fit within the express criteria in

25          Daubert.               You’d have to struggle to go through





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

48

 

1 the multipart test and to apply it to this

  2          particular expert.                          However, some of your

  3          questions go to weight quite clearly, and it

  4          is undoubtedly going to be your purpose during

  5          cross examination, if the witness is admitted,

  6          to talk about what’s not included or what is

  7          misunderstood or was never considered as it

  8          relates to her report.


9                           Now, it does cross the line on

10          qualifications as it gets to the comprehensive

11          nature of what she looked at and didn’t look at,

12          and I would ask that you restrict your questions

13          to that.                 Now, you have questioned her in that

14          area for example.                          The subsequent statement

15          which quite clearly at least from the court’s

16          standpoint came out after her book as it related

17          to the Wedge Strategy, I think that that’s

18          appropriate for the purpose of credentials and

19          for the purpose of voir dire, but I think your

20          most recent question did cross that admittedly

21          indistinct line, and I’ll sustain the objection.


22                         BY MR. MUISE:


23                Q. Ma’am, again looking at the data that you

24          relied on, is it true that the data with regard

25          to the associations was focused on associations





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

49

 

1 with religious organizations and religious

  2          affiliations?


3                  A. Those are not their only associations.

  4          Those are important ones, but those are not

  5          the only ones, and I did look at some others.

  6          For example, they formed associations with

  7          members of parts of education for example.

  8          So there are others.                               The religious ones are

  9          important.                They’re not the only ones.


10                Q. And the focus for the purpose of your

11          opinions was the focus on those religious

12          organizations, is that correct?


13                A. As the movement describes itself in looking

14          at the associations which they themselves have

15          cultivated, that was information that I needed

16          to examine and to include in my research and my

17          writing.                It’s an important part of what they

18          do, and it actually is a stated part of their

19          strategy to form those associations.


20                Q. Now, ma’am, it’s true this Wedge Document

21          serves as the foundation for a majority of your

22          opinions, is that correct?

23                A. It’s a reference point.                                      It’s a reference

24          point for my work.                           It certainly is not the

25          entire foundation of it, but it’s an important





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

50

 

1 reference point.


2                  Q. You have no evidence that the board members

  3          of the Dover area school district had any

  4          knowledge of this Wedge Document, is that

  5          correct?


6                  A. I have no evidence of that.


7                  Q. And in your deposition you were asked

  8          whether you believe that the people who prepared

  9          the policy at issue in this case were acting

10          under the guidance of the so-called intelligent

11          design movement, and you answered, “I have no

12          way to know.”                  Is that correct?

13                A. That’s correct.                           I have no knowledge that

14          they were acting in that fashion.


15                Q. Ma’am, you’re a member of the National

16          Center for Science Education?


17                A. I’m on their board of directors and I’m

18          also a member.


19                Q. And member of the ACLU?


20                A. Correct.


21                Q. You’re a member of the National Advisory

22          Council of Americans United for the Separation

23          of Church and State?


24                A. Yes, that’s correct.


25                Q. And you’re a member of the New Orleans





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

51

 

1 Secular Humanist Association?


2                  A. That’s correct.


3                  Q. And that association is affiliated with the

  4          Council of Secular Humanists?


5                  A. That’s correct.


6                  Q. Now, ma’am, you said your opinions are

  7          going to be based in large part on this primary

  8          source data, which I believe you described as

  9          statements of certain proponents of the

10          intelligent design?


11                A. The writings of the proponents of

12          intelligent design.


13                Q. Now, prominent scientists have made

14          non-scientific claims about Darwin’s theory

15          of evolution.                     That’s true, correct?


16                A. Could you give me an example of that,

17          please?

18                Q. Certainly.                   Richard Dawkins, you know who

19          he is, correct?


20                A. Yes.


21                Q. A prominent biologist and Darwinian

22          supporter?


23                A. Yes.


24                Q. Wrote a book called The Blind Watchmaker?


25                    A. Yes.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                 52
  1           Q.       And you cite this book in your report,
  2          correct?
  3           A.       Yes. I cite many things in my report.
  4          I’m     sure it’s in there somewhere.
  5           Q.       I believe it’s actually on page 17 at
  6          footnote 63?
  7           A.       Yes, I have a couple of hundred footnotes.
  8           Q.       And in your report you claim this book is
  9          “considered a classic popular explanation of
10          evolution theory.”
11           A.       Yes, it is.
12           Q.       Now, in this book Dawkins claims that,
13          “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
14          fulfilled atheist.” Are you aware of that?
15           A.       Yes, he does make that statement.
16           Q.       Are you aware that the Council for Secular
17          Humanists gives out an award for the humanist of
18          the year?
19           A.       Humanist of the year? Yes, it’s an award
20          they give out.
21           Q.       And richard Dawkins received that award in
22          1996?
23           A.       I’m not specifically aware of that, but
--
 
24           Q.       You’re aware that in his acceptance speech
25          he stated, “Faith is one of the world’s great

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

53

 

1 evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but

  2          harder to eradicate.”


3                  A. I don’t have any knowledge of that speech.


4                  Q. Do you agree with that statement?


5                  A. Would you repeat it, please?


6                  Q. “Faith is one of world’s great evils,

  7          comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder

  8          to eradicate.


9                  A. No, I don’t agree with that.


10                Q. Do you know who Stephen J. Gould, the late

11          Stephen J. Gould was?


12                A. Yes, a very well known paleontologist.


13                Q. From Harvard University?

14                A. Right.               He’s deceased.

15                Q. Correct.                  And he claimed, “Biology took

16          away our status as paragons created in the image

17          of God,” and, “Before Darwin we thought that a

18          benevolent God had created them.”                                         Are you aware

19          that he made those claims?


20                A. Yes.


21                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I’m going to

22          object to this line of questioning.                                                    It has

23          nothing to do with qualifications.


24                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, again it’s going to

25          go to the methodology that she’s applying in





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

54

 

1 this case. She’s saying she’s rely on primary

  2          statements of individuals, of intelligent design

  3          movement leaders to reach her opinion.


4                           MR. ROTHSCHILD: I’m sure the --


5                           THE COURT: Let Mr. Muise finish.


6                           MR. MUISE: I’m going to demonstrate that

  7          you’ve got supporters of the Darwinian theory of

  8          evolution making non-scientific claims, but that

  9          does not go to the scientific nature of the

10          underlying claims that they’re making.                                                   It goes

11          to the heart of what she -- what they’re trying

12          to propose her and offer as an expert, it goes

13          right to the heart of the methodology that she’s

14          applying in this case.


15                         THE COURT: Well, the essential point that

16          you’re attempting to make I assume by your

17          questioning is that things were left out.


18                         MR. MUISE: Not necessarily that things were

19          let out, but that the whole methodology is

20          unreliable that she’s applying here.


21                         THE COURT: Well, why was it unreliable?

22          Because there were certain things, areas,

23          quotations, treatises that were not considered

24          or were left out of the analysis?                                               Isn’t that

25          the point that you’re trying to make?





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

55

 

1                           MR. MUISE: Well, I think the point is to

  2          show the fallacy of --


3                           THE COURT: But you didn’t answer my

  4          question.              You are attempting to show it appears

  5          by your questions that the witness, the proposed

  6          expert witness does not cite or therefore

  7          presumably didn’t consider certain statements

  8          that are not in her report or certain activities

  9          by individuals you’re naming in your cross

10          examination.                  Isn’t that what you’re doing?


11                         MR. MUISE: I am asking those questions,

12          Your Honor, to set up the question regarding the

13          methodology that she employed.                                     So it’s sort of

14          a necessary predicate to get to the question

15          regarding the methodology that she employed in

16          this case.


17                         THE COURT: I think we’re going to make

18          this unduly difficult, and this could go on

19          endlessly.                   Let’s break it down again.                                   Do

20          you or do you not controvert at this stage

21          that the witness is an expert on methodological

22          naturalism?


23                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, I would say no.

24          In fact, she stated specifically she’s not an

25          expert in the philosophy of science.                                                This deals





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

56

  1          directly with that.                             She said it’s a method

  2          employed by scientists.                               She is not trained as

  3          a scientist.                      She has no scientific claims.                                        She

  4          is using this as imposing some sort of broader

  5          world view, and you can look specifically at how

  6          she’s approaching her attack of intelligent

  7          design is on the non-scientific claims made by

  8          scientists, and she doesn’t even address any

  9          of the scientific claims. So with terms of

10          methodology, she’s a philosopher.                                          She’s not

11          a philosopher of science and she’s not a

12          scientist.                  Methodological naturalism is a

13          philosophy imposed on science.


14                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor?


15                         THE COURT: Let’s take just that portion

16          of it.


17                         MR. ROTHSCHILD: Her dissertation is about

18          she’s a naturalist and she is intimately

19          familiar with pragmatic naturalism and

20          philosophical naturalism and mythocological

21          naturalism.                 She is not trained as a philosopher

22          of science, but interpreting these areas are at

23          the core of her work.                               It’s what she writes

24          about.             If you examine her curriculum vitae,

25          she has written on this subject, not just about





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

57

 

1 creationism and intelligent design, but about

  2          the issues of naturalism generally.


3                           THE COURT: Well, here’s -- and then the

  4          further purpose stated by Mr. Rothschild is the

  5          history as I said earlier and nature of the

  6          intelligent design movement, including its

  7          creationism origins.                              Now, if I understand your

  8          question, Mr. Muise, correctly, and I’m not sure

  9          that I do, but your concern, you don’t want her

10          qualified at all, I recognize that, but your

11          particular concern goes to her bona fides as

12          they relate to a scientific background.                                                     Is that

13          a fair statement?


14                         MR. MUISE: That’s part of it, Your Honor,

15          because she does make claims in her report.                                                       I’m

16          not sure how she’s going to say initially she

17          doesn’t believe intelligent design is science,

18          but yet she has no scientific knowledge for

19          that.


20                         THE COURT: I understand.


21                         MR. MUISE: The other point is that, I mean

22          this is going to cause the court to really go

23          off after red herrings.                                   She’s focusing on

24          non-scientific claims, and as I was intending to

25          bring out further as Dr. Miller testified,





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

58

 

1 sci enti sts often make non-scientific claims.

  2          That does not undermine the science that they’re

  3          doing, and that’s the point I’m making by

  4          bringing up Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould,

  5          and the others that I’m going to bring up, and

  6          it’s a fundamental flaw.

  7                        There’s two flaws.                        There’s the fallacy of

  8          the ad hominem which is going to apply here and

   9            the fallacy of the genetic that she’s going to

 10            apply here, and that methodology has no basis

 11            for the issues in this case.                                                           She’s doing ad

 12            hominem attacks against certain members.                                                                        She

 13            excludes altogether their scientific writings,

 14            and to present this to this court so that it can

 15            make a determination whether intelligent design

 16            is science or not, Your Honor, I lust think it

 17            is not expert opinion that is worthy of any of

 18            the issues that are in this case.


19                              THE COURT: Mr. Rothschild is eager to

 20            respond.

 21                             MR. ROTHSCHILD: I am, Your Honor.                                                  We are

 22            not suggesting that Dr. Forrest is here to

 23            address the purported scientific claims of

 24            intelligent design.                                        We put together a very

 25            complementary expert team which includes





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

59

  1          scientists, scientist philosophers, as well as

  2          theologians and experts on teachings, and

  3          someone who has studied the intellect, the

  4          intelligent design movement.


5                           The core question here, the question of

  6          whether intelligent design is science, is a very

  7          important question in this trial, but the core

  8          question is is intelligent design a religious

  9          proposition, and it is on that sublect that

10          Dr. Forrest is extremely qualified based on all

11          the empirical research she has done.                                               If we were

12          to suggest that she could answer Professor

13          Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity,

14          Mr. Muise would rightfully cross examine her

15          and have her disqualified on that sublect.

16          That’s not what she’s here to do.


17                         THE COURT: Well, I believe that Mr. Muise’s

18          concern as I read the report, that the report

19          may cross into the scientific realm and may

20          transcend the stated qualifications of this

21          expert based on her co-author for example, based

22          on the examination of other individuals.                                                     I

23          think that that’s a valid concern as stated by

24          him.        Now, I see this witness I will tell you

25          based on what I have thus far perceived as a





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

60

  1          proper expert on methodological naturalism,

  2          despite Mr. Muise’s objection.


3                           I don’t think that it’s essential to

  4          that that she be qualified generally in the

  5          scientific area.                           I think that her credentials

  6          and experience would allow her to testify in

  7          that area as an expert.                                 The stated purpose, the

  8          history and nature of the intelligent design

  9          movement, and having read the report obviously

10          I think is a proper area for her to testify in.


11                         I’m not going to prevent further

12          questioning on this, but I’ll tell you based on

13          what I have seen that I think it is, that she’s

14          certainly qualified to do that by her scholarly

15          work by the time spent studying the intelligent

16          design movement.                     Now, within that area there

17          may be portions of the report and they may

18          generate testimony that is objectionable, and

19          I am not preventing objections in those

20          particular areas, and in particular as they

21          relate to science.


22                         So that would not disqualify her generally

23          as an expert, and to move this along, if I admit

24          her generally so that she can give a historical

25          panoply, that is certainly well within the realm





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

61

 

1 of possibility that we’ll get objections as they

  2          relate to areas that are not necessarily

  3          historical in nature.                              And the questions that

  4          you asked with respect to the areas not

  5          considered, it’s very difficult on voir dire

  6          as it relates to an expert and, you know, I

  7          view this expert not necessarily as a scientific

  8          “expert” but as I’ve used the term hybrid on a

  9          couple of different occasions to some degree,

10          this witness is a historian.


11                         I find that she may aid the court, but it

12          certainly goes to weight and it’s certainly

13          appropriate cross examination concerning what

14          she did not consider, and I think we’re now

15          going a little bit afield and you’re getting

16          into that.                     I think that that allows to admit

17          her for these purposes and to not inhibit the

18          defense on cross examination, as it goes to what

19          was considered and not considered, strikes an

20          appropriate balance, and we ought not get unduly

21          hung up here on the qualifications stage.

22                        This is a bench trial.                                     I understand that

23          I’m going to hear additional testimony.                                                      I

24          understand in particular I’m going to hear

25          testimony from the defense on the scientific





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

62

 

1 claims as they relate to intelligent design.

  2          So the gate keeping function of Daubert as you

  3          well know, although it’s not limited by its

  4          terms to jury trials, but it is much more

  5          important, and you’ll have to trust that the

  6          court can separate this out.


7                           So you can proceed with your voir dire

  8          questioning, but those are my general thoughts

  9          on this witness.                         I do understand your concern,

10          but I don’t see those concerns as being

11          sufficient that I would prevent this witness

12          from testifying.                         Now, I’ll rule explicitly

13          after you finish your voir dire, but I hope that

14          gives you some guidance, and you may proceed.


15                         MR. MUISE: Thank you, Your Honor, and if

16          I may well, note Mr. Rothschild mentioned about

17          her testimony regarding religion, and as she

18          testified in voir dire she does not have

19          expertise in religion.                                   So that’s another

20          area that she has identified she doesn’t have

21          expertise.


22                         THE COURT: Well, that may allow for

23          parti cul arly precise and clinical either

24          objections or points to be made on cross

25          examination, but again I don’t think it





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

63

 

1 generally disqualifies her.


2                           MR. MUISE: Your Honor, if I may indulge

  3          the court in one further inquiry, because the

  4          other component as you know that we have a lot

  5          of concern with is the 703 issue that’s

  6          associated with her testimony, and all of these

  7          statements, which is the reason for the line of

  8          inquiry that I was pursuing with regard to

  9          non-scientific claims by sci enti sts with a

10          different world view no doubt is that her

11          testimony, there’s not way to unravel all

12          those statements that she has put in her expert

13          report to show which are the ones that are

14          inappropriate and which are the ones that might

15          very well be appropriate to whatever the inquiry

16            is.


17                         THE COURT: Well, what makes them

18          inappropriate?


19                         MR. MUISE: Well, You have hearsay on top

20          of hearsay.                 You have the fact that she’s, you

21          know, just disregarding, one of the main things

22          is the sources that she has chosen, which is

23          some of the questions are going to get into,

24          articles written by Dr. Dembski , he holds three

25          Ph.D.’s, a theologian, a philosopher, a





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

64

 

1 mathematician. She cites from the philosophy,

  2          theology, but not from the math, and concludes

  3          look, it’s philosophy and theology, it’s not

  4          science.                But there’s no way to unravel those --


5                           THE COURT: Well, you’re getting into the ad

  6            hominem attack issue that you raised earlier.

   7            You wouldn’t gainsay that some hearsay may be

   8            admissible under 703 as part of an expert

   9            report, would you?


10                              MR. MUISE: No, and I perfectly understand

 11            that it is as long as it’s proper.


12                              THE COURT: What’s proper?


13                              MR. MUISE: Proper is one that would

 14            demonstrate some measure of reliability and

 15            trustworthiness to actually support the claim

 16            that the witness wants to testify to.


17                              THE COURT: And the whole purpose of my

 18            ruling on the motion in limine is to allow you

 19            to reserve an objection as it relates to any

 20            particular statement that’s made.                                                                Now, it may

 21            be torturous to go through it that way, but

 22            that’s the only way I know how to do it.                                                                            So

 23            I can’t, I’m not going to give a blanket

 24            prohibition and say that hearsay is inadmissible

 25            generally.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

65

 

1                           On the other hand there may be a statement

  2          that for example, and I’m not saying it would

  3          be, but hearsay on hearsay, or that it would be

  4          taken out of context or particularly unreliable,

  5          you’ve got the opportunity to press on that or

  6          to object.                  So I’m not preventing you from doing

  7          that by admitting her.                                  The purpose of admitting

  8          her as an expert does not mean to tie this up

  9          again, or to attempt to tie it up, that part and

10          parcel every portion of this report can come in

11          in testimony.


12                         It by no means indicates that, and you

13          reserve any well placed exceptions, but we’re

14          going to be all morning on qualifications if

15          we’re not careful.                            I think to some degree you

16          see where I’m going, and I think that this is

17          it’s a difficult area for counsel, it’s a

18          difficult area for the court, because this is

19          not, if there is such a thing as a typical

20          expert, this is not a typical expert.                                                        This is

21          an area that is blazing new territory, and we’re

22          going to have to do the best we can with it, and

23          I think the best way is to admit this witness

24          for the purposes stated, however to allow the

25          defense abundant latitude to object if it gets





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

66

 

1 into, as her testimony gets into particular

  2          portions of the report.


3                           MR. MUISE: Your Honor, I don’t know if

  4          we’re reaching the point in time in the morning

  5          where it might be appropriate for a break,

  6          because I wouldn’t mind to have a moment to

  7          consult with co-counsel, and may we just cut

  8          off the voir dire and then proceed with --


9                           THE COURT: I think that’s probably well

10          taken.             Why don’t we do that, and then I’ll

11          hear you -- well, I’ll allow you to -- well,

12          I’ll give you some limited opportunity to

13          complete your voir dire when we come back, but

14          I want to move through it.                                    I think we’ve got

15          to cut to the chase here.                                    We’ve been at this a

16          while.            We’ll take about a 20-minute break.

17          I’ll give you limited opportunity for additional

18          voir dire, I’ll hear your objections if you have

19          additional objections, and then we’ll make a

20          determination on the record with respect to

21          admitting this witness and her testimony for

22          the purpose stated by Mr. Rothschild.                                                  So we’ll

23          be on break for about 20 minutes.


24                         MR. MUISE: Thank you, Your Honor.

25                          (Recess taken at 10:12 a.m.                                   Court resumed





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

67

 

1 at 10:41 a.m.)

  2                        THE COURT: Be seated, please.                                 We’re back

  3          on the record.                       Mr. Muise, do you have

  4          additional questions on voir dire?


5                           MR. MUISE: We have a few more, Your Honor,

  6          and we’re going to be wrapping up it in short

  7          order.


8                           THE COURT: All right.


9                           BY MR. MUISE:


10                Q. Ma’am, based on what you testified to

11          earlier this morning, it’s clear the testimony

12          you intend to offer this afternoon is going to

13          be based in large part on statements made by

14          certain intelligent design proponents, is that

15          accurate?


16                A. It’s based on my consultation of their

17          writings and things about them in which they

18          are quoted.


19                Q. Ma’am, do you agree with Dr. Miller’s

20          testimony that not everything a scientists

21          says is science?


22                A. Scientists make lots of statements

23          sometimes when they’re speaking not as

24          scientists, but as just people.


25                Q. In the testimony you intend to offer this





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

68

 

1 morning and this afternoon, ma’am, how will this

  2          court know when you’re referring to scientific

  3          claims made by intelligent design and

  4          phil osophi cal or theol ogi cal claims made

  5          intelligent design proponents?


6                  A. That sounds like it would depend on the

  7          question.              The question would have to specify

  8          and then I would have to specify.


9                  Q. Isn’t it true in your report you’ve made no

10          effort to distinguish these sorts of claims?


11                A. I’m not exactly sure, I’m sorry, what

12          you’re asking me.


13                Q. Well, isn’t it clear in your report, and

14          I’m assuming then your subsequent testimony

15          today, does not make clear the distinction

16          between religious motivations of some

17          intelligent design proponents, the religious

18          implications of intelligent design, and

19          intelligent design as science, isn’t that

20          correct?


21                A. I look at the nature of intelligent design

22          in the intelligent design movement.                                              That

23          includes a number of things.                                      It includes most

24          basically the substance of the movement itself,

25          the essence of what it is, but also involves





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

69

 

1 motivations of the people who are carrying out

  2          this movement and the goals that they have.                                                       So

  3          I look at all of it, most basically the nature

  4          of intelligent design and the movement that’s

  5          being used to carry it out.


6                  Q. But you don’t address the scientific claims

  7          of intelligent design, for example irreducible

  8          complexity or complex specified information, is

  9          that correct?


10                A. That’s not what I was called upon to do in

11          my report.


12                Q. So is it accurate to say your focus is on

13          the phil osophi cal and theol ogi cal claims made by

14          intelligent design proponents?

15                A. Yes.               If I may say, in my book we do look

16          at the scientific claim.                                       My co-author is a

17          scientist, so I have some source of expertise

18          to draw from whenever I need to address that,

19          but that’s not my primary area.


20                Q. Again, ma’am, you’re testifying as to your

21          report, not your book, correct?


22                A. Right.


23                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, we have no further

24          questions, and we move to exclude this witness

25          from testifying as an expert in this case.





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

                                                70
  1                      MR. ROTHSCHILD: Could I ask one question on
  2          redirect of voir dire?
  3                      THE COURT: You can, and then we’ll hear
  4          argument on qualifications. Go ahead.
  5                      REDIRECT EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS
  6                      BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
  7           Q.      Dr. Forrest, is it your view, your opinion,
  8          that     intelligent design is at its core a
  9          phil osophi cal and theol ogi cal claim?
10           A.      It is my view that at its core intelligent
11          design is a religious belief.
12                      MR. ROTHSCHILD: No further questions on
13          voir     dire, Your Honor.
14                      THE COURT: Any recross on qualifications?
15                      MR. MUISE: No, Your Honor.
16                      THE COURT: All right. So you object to the
17          expert’s testimony for the purposes stated by
18          Mr. Rothschild, and we stated and restated those
19          purposes. So there’s no need to do that at this
20          point. I’ll allow you to expand on that
21          argument if you like.
22                      MR. MUISE: Your Honor, this last question
23          that     he just proposed to her she said during the
24          voir     dire when I asked her if she had any
25          expertise in religion, she said no. She has

 

 

 

 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

71

 

1 apparently tracked the nature and the history

  2          of this so-called intelligent design movement.

  3          She can’t address the scientific claims of this.

  4          The issue at the heart of this case is whether

  5          or not intelligent design is science.


6                           THE COURT: As framed by you.


7                           MR. MUISE: Well, Your Honor, I think their

  8          claim that it’s not science.                                         She’s made no

  9          efforts to address the science component of it,

10          because she can’t.                        She has no expertise.                                She

11          has focused on the philosophical and theological

12          claims of proponents of intelligent design.


13                         THE COURT: Well, the problem with that is

14          that it is an issue to be sure, but another

15          issue, and I understand that they work hand

16          in glove in some cases, these issues, is the

17          religious underpinnings of, or the alleged

18          religious underpinnings of the intelligent

19          design movement as cast by the witness.                                                Why

20          isn’t she competent to testify as to that?


21                         MR. MUISE: Your Honor, again the religious

22          underpinnings of William Dembski, who’s a

23          theologian and a philosopher in addition to a

24          mathematician, is no more relevant than the

25          interrelated underpinnings of Richard Dawkins





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

72

 

1 to say whether or not evolution is --


2                           THE COURT: I might agree with that, but

  3          that goes to what I said earlier, Mr. Muise,

  4          which is that you may have objections as they

  5          relate to specific portions of her testimony,

  6          and I restate, because I think it needs to be

  7          restated, that nothing that I do in terms of

  8          admitting this expert, assuming that I admit

  9          her, would prevent you from doing that. But

10          to parse out portions of a report that may be

11          objectionable in that way doesn’t help you in

12          terms of her admissibility generally as an

13          expert.           We’re talking about two different

14          things.              So what other arguments do you want to

15          make on that point?


16                         MR. MUISE: Again, Your Honor, as

17          indicated from the last question, just the

18          interrelationship, there’s no way to separate

19          out those objectionable claims from what she’s

20          going to be testifying to.                                       That is in part and

21          parcel of what she’s going to be opining is

22          relying on those sorts of objectionable claims,

23          these philosophical and theological statements

24          of proponents.


25                         And so the fact that they’re so





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

73

 

1 intertwined, there’s no way that this court or

  2          even us sitting here when she makes a particular

  3          claim can parse out what is the basis, the

  4          material that she’s relying on to make that

  5          claim, and those materials are objectionable

  6          and undermine the reliability, and if I may just

  7          make one other - -


8                           THE COURT: Well, the materials themselves

  9          may constitute hearsay.                              We’ve already been down

10          that path.                  703 doesn’t exclude hearsay.                                     In an

11          effort to be fair I said the materials had to

12          be brought in in part so that we can assure

13          ourselves that you’re given the fair opportunity

14          to discern whether or not, and I’m fairly

15          certain you did this beforehand, and so it’s

16          principally for my benefit to see whether or not

17          the statements are taken out of context, which

18          would be one way to measure that, particularly

19          when you’re parsing out, using that word again,

20          a particular statement, and I’m perfectly

21          willing to do that on an objection from you.

22          But to say that this witness, who is engaged

23          in a scholarly exercise and has produced a

24          published work, that she can’t testify generally

25          subject to well placed objection on the history





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

74

 

1 of intelligent design as it arose, I’m having

  2          difficulty seeing why she can’t.


3                           MR. MUISE: And just a couple of more points

  4          to that, Your Honor.                             With regard to the

  5          context, that was the point of some of my last

  6          questions, because if the context is a

  7          phil osophi cal or a theol ogi cal claim made by a

  8          proponent, that is the context that makes it

  9          irrelevant, and that’s the point.


10                         THE COURT: Do you mean as to their personal

11          beliefs?


12                         MR. MUISE: That’s correct, Your Honor.


13                         THE COURT: Well, and it has to be tied to

14          the -- we’re talking in the abstract.                                                       A mere

15          statement of faith by a particular individual

16          standing alone, not tied in some way to an

17          analysis of the, not just an analysis but not

18          tied to that individual’s work or works,

19          treatises, published works as they relate to

20          intelligent design, that may be indeed

21          objectionable.                       I’m not preventing that.

22          And this report may have instances of that.

23          But again I don’t think it disqualifies the

24          witness as an expert.


25                         MR. MUISE: Just two last -- well, it’s





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

75

 

1 related, but one last point I guess, Your Honor,

  2          is that as she testified there’s no evidence

  3          that anyone in the school board knew anything

  4          about this Wedge Document which forms the

  5          foundation of her opinion, nor that any person

  6          on the Dover area school district was aware of

  7          or operating under the guidance of this

  8          conspiratorial intelligent design movement

  9          that’s somewhere operating out there.


10                         THE COURT: But that’s weight and relevance.

11          That’s not expert qualifications, is it?


12                         MR. MUISE: Well, again, Your Honor, I think

13          it’s more than just the qualifications.                                                      There’s

14          a reliability question that’s associated with

15          this 703 --


16                         THE COURT: No, the purpose then would

17          be effect, I think, from the plaintiff’s

18          standpoint.                 Having admitted the testimony,

19          you of course can argue that for the effect

20          prong perhaps, for example, and not the purpose

21          prong, and the failure to tie the matters

22          testified to to the individual school board

23          members makes the testimony irrelevant and that

24          it shouldn’t be considered by the court.                                                      But

25          we’re not there, and we’re not in your case and





U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA

76

 

1 I don’t think that that goes to qualifications.

  2          So you’re morphing your qualifications argument

  3          into a relevancy argument, and I don’t think

  4          that’s appropriate at this point.

  5                        MR. MUISE: Thank you.                       No further argument,

  6          Your Honor.


7                           THE COURT: I’m going to admit the expert

  8          then, again subject to timely objections by

  9          the defense, for the purpose stated by

10          Mr. Rothschild, which is an expert on

11          methodological naturalism and the history

12