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