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 inde