Depositions

Depositions

Depositions are pre-trial questioning sessions done by attorneys to get some idea of what their opponents witnesses are going to say when and if they are called in court to testify. This allows time for each side to prepare whatever strategy they might have in court for dealing with what the witness is going to say. For example attorneys often look for inconsistencies between the statements given by the witnesses in their deposition and those they make in open court.

In this case what is particularly important about the depositions taken prior to McLean v. Arkansas is that those we have taken from the defendants witnesses are currently the closest thing available to their actual courtroom testimonies. Also of interest are the depositions taken by witnesses who were, for whatever reason, never called in court to testify.

Plaintiff

* Transcript of deposition of Reverend William S. McLean, plaintiff, taken on October 2, 1981 by David L. Williams (Deputy Attorney General, Arkansas).

Plaintiffs' Witnesses

* Transcript of deposition of Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks, taken on December 2, 1981 by Rick Campbell (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of Father F. Bruce Vawter, taken on November 21, 1981 by Rick Campbell (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of George Mish Marsden, taken on November 21, 1981 by Rick Campbell (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of Dorothy Nelkin, taken on November 22, 1981 by David L. Williams (Deputy Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of Langdon Gilkey, taken on November 25, 1981 by Rick Campbell (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of Michael E. Ruse, taken on November 23, 1981 by David L. Williams (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
*Transcript of deposition of Senator James L. Holsted, taken on August 13, 1981 by Robert Cearley (attorney for the Plaintiff). Senator Holsted was the sponsor of Act 590 and was called by the plaintiffs as a hostile witness.
* Transcript of deposition of Francisco J. Ayala - Day One, taken on November 18, 1981 by David L. Williams (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two, taken on November 20, 1981 by David L. Williams (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of G. Brent Dalrymple, taken on December 3, 1981 by David L. Williams (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of Stephen Jay Gould, taken on November 27, 1981 by David L. Williams.
* Transcript of deposition of Dennis Glasgow, taken on December 2, 1981 by Callis Childs (Assistant Attorney General, Arkansas).
* Transcript of deposition of William V. Mayer, taken on November 23, 1981 by Steve Clark (Attorney General, Arkansas).

Defendants' Witnesses

* Transcript of deposition of Norman Geisler, taken on November 14, 1981 by Anthony Siano (Plaintiff attorney). Thanks to the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville for supplying a copy of this deposition from their special collections.
* Transcript of deposition of W. Scott Morrow, taken on November 22, 1981 by David Klasfeld and Laurie R. Ferber (attorneys for the Plaintiff).
*Transcript of deposition of Jim Townley, taken on November 14, 1981 by Robert Cearley and Laurie R. Ferber (attorneys for the Plaintiff).
*Transcript of deposition of Wayne Frair, taken on November 25, 1981 by Thomas M. Lahiff.
* Transcript of deposition of Margaret Helder, taken on November 17, 1981 by Stephen G. Wolfe (Plaintiff attorney).
* Transcript of deposition of Donald E. Chittick, taken on November 18, 1981 by Thomas M. Lahiff (Plaintiff attorney).
* Transcript of deposition of Ariel Roth, taken on November 16, 1981 by Stephen G. Wolfe (Plaintiff attorney).
* Transcript of deposition of Harold G. Coffin, taken on November 16, 1981 by David Klasfeld (Plaintiff attorney).
* Transcript of deposition of Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe, taken on December 15, 1981 by David Klasfeld (Plaintiff attorney).
* Transcript of deposition of Robert V. Gentry, taken on November 24, 1981 by Stephen G. Wolfe. This includes a number of papers most of which seem to be correspondence between Gentry and various scientific and govt. organizations.
* Transcript of deposition of Garth Russell Akridge, taken on November 25, 1981 by David Klasfeld (Plaintiff attorney). Despite having been deposed Akridge did not testify at the trial.
* Transcript of deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter, taken on November 25, 1981 by Stephen G. Wolfe (Plaintiff attorney). Despite having been deposed Hinderliter did not testify at the trial.

Note: More transcripts of depositions are extant and will be added as the project is able to acquire them.

Deposition of Reverend William S. McLean

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

REV. BILL McLEAN, et al., )
)
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
)
VS. ) LR-C-81-322
)
)
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al., )
ARKANSAS BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
)
)
DEFENDANTS. )
*************************************)

----------

THE DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM S. McLEAN,
TAKEN IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS.

----------

APPEARANCES:

CEARLY, GITCHEL, MITCHELL &
BRYANT, PA., 1014 W. 3rd Street,
P. O. Box 1510, Little Rock,
Arkansas, 72203, by MS. JOAN
VEHIK.

and

KAPLAN, HOLLINGSWORTH, BREWER &
BILHEIMER, PA., Tower Building
Suite 955, Little Rock, Arkansas,

and

2

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER,
& FLOM, 919 Third Avenue, New
York, 10022, by MR. GARY E.
CRAWFORD,

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

***********

MR. DAVID WILLIAMS, Deputy Attorney
General, and MR. RICK CAMPBELL,
Assistant Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General, Justice
Building, Little Rock, Arkansas,
Attorneys for the Defendants.

----------

The deposition of the witness was taken before me,
Terry G. Jackson, a Notary Public within and for Pulaski
County, State of Arkansas, duly commissioned and acting,
on Friday, October 2, 1981, beginning at the hour of 2:10
o'clock, p.m., at the offices of Cearly, Gitchel, Mitchell &
Bryant, 1014 W. 3rd Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
pursuant to notice and agreement of counsel, taken at
instance of the defendants in the above styled cause, pending
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division.

----------

3

THEREUPON, the following proceedings were had, to-wit:

STIPULATION

It is stipulated and agreed, by and between counsel
for the respective parties, that the deposition of the
witness may be taken at this time and place, by agreement
of counsel; that all formalities as to the taking of said
deposition are waived including presentation, reading and
subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc.;
that all objections as to competency, relevancy and materi-
ality are expressly reserved and may be raised if and when
said deposition, or any part thereof, is offered at the trial
of the cause.

----------

THEREUPON,

WILLIAM S. McLEAN,

having first been duly sworn by the undersigned Notary
Public to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, testified as follows, to-wit:

4

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Please state your name.

A William S. McLean.

Q And it's Rev. McLean, is that correct?

A Right.

Q What church are you affiliated with?

A I am affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church
in the U.S.A., and the Presbyterian Church in the United
States. By virtue of the Union Presbytery, we now are
affiliated because of overlapping areas with two
denominations.

Q Are you currently a pastor of a church?

A No. I am currently the Presbytery Executive for the
Presbytery of Arkansas.

Q Would you explain to me what the dutes of that include?

A I guess if we were Episcopalian they would call me a
bishop, it is really the chief executive, administrative
pastorial officer for a grouping of one hundred and
four (104) congregations in our judicatory unit that
we call the Presbytery.

Q Does that cover the entire geographic state of Arkansas?

A Only the northern two-thirds.

Q First of all, let's go into your educational background.
Just briefly, could you give me, first of all, where

5

you attended high school.

A Lenoir High School in Lenoir, North Carolina. One year
at Darlington Preparatoy School in Rome, Georgia. Four
years at Davidson College, North Carolina. Four years
at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia.

Q What degree do you have from Davidson, first of all?

A I have a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.
I have a Bachelor of Theology and a Master of Theology
from Union Seminary.

Q Did you have any particular concentration in your
Bachelor of Science degree?

A I was in college not knowing what I wanted to do, and I
majored really in Business Administration, took a minor
in history, and did some economics.

Q Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said -- you have a
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration?

A Right.

Q So, you don't have a science degree?

A No.

Q Have you taken -- did you take any science courses,
yourself?

A I took biology in high school and physics in college.

Q Is that the extent of it?

A That's the limit.

Q All right. Have you been with the Presbyterian Church

6

throughout your ministry?

A Yes.

Q How long have you been in Arkansas?

A I graduated from seminary in 1952 and went to McGee,
Arkansas in '52, and I have been in Arkansas ever since.

Q Could you please tell me the churches after McGee?

A Four (4) years at McGee, eight (8) years as the pastor
of the First Presbyterian Church, Texarkana, Arkansas.
Ten (10) years as pastor of Pulaski Heights here in
Little Rock. And since October, '74, I have been the
Presbytery Executive.

Q Could you give me an idea of how you came to be involved
in this case as a Plaintiff?

A I was on a trip to South Carolina the week in which the
Act was effected. After coming back, I received a
phone call, I believe, from Bishop Hicks' secretary
telling me that some were interested in becoming
Plaintiffs, and I said in answer to the inquiry that, yes,
I would be very much interested in joining in.

Q All right. When is the first time that you were aware
that what is now Act 590 had been proposed in the
Arkansas State Legislature?

A I really do not recall. I was aware that it was in the
mill, but in terms of a time line, I don't have that.

Q Were you aware of it as having been proposed prior to it's

7

passage?

A Yes.

Q Had you met with Bishop Hicks or anyone else about the
matter prior to it's passage?

A No.

Q So, you had an awareness from reading the newspaper?

A Right.

Q Did you try to make any personal action regarding the
passage of the bill?

A No, because I was out of town during the week of the
hearing.

Q Rev. McLean, I would like to ask you if you could give
me the names of some widely known theologians whose
views would be most compatible with your's, or similar
to your own?

A I have been helped and guided by the writings of Carl
Barth. Reinhold Neibhur has been a tremendous help.
And I would say as a Presbyterian a lot of us key back
on John Calvin as one who had some pretty good thoughts.

Q Could you characterize your own theological viewpoint
for us?

A In reference to what?

Q Just a succinct statement of your own theological view-
point.

A Well, I would say that I am consistent with the reformed

8

tradition, which starts out with the absolute sovereignty
of God, a purpose for man, the fact of the need for
redemption, redemption becoming effective in the
incarnation applied to us by grace but received by
faith, and this faith is to permeate all that we do
as a part of the church and the total life.

Q When you speak of the reformed tradition, do you connect
that to any particular date or event when the reform
tradition began in your mind?

A No. In my life?

Q No. In your mind.

A Actually, when I say the reformed tradition, of course,
at the time of the Protestant reformation under the
leadership of Martin Luther and John Calvin. And I
don't see that as the starting point. I see that as
a reforming process where they took the best of the past
and tried to screen out some of the abuses of the church,
and put together a different viewpoint in terms of the
meaning of the church, and the life of those in the
church.

Q At Union Theological Seminary, you said that you have your
Masters from there?

A Yes.

Q I'm not that familiar with seminaries. In receiving
your Bachelor degree, would there be some fairly well

9

standard program which you would have to complete in
order to receive a Bachelors?

A At that time, they called it the Bachelor of Theology.
The Master of Divinity now has a three (3) year program.
I stayed on and did one year and got my Masters in
Theology there.

Q The Bachelor program, would that have been a fairly
standarized program which you would have to follow?

A Correct.

Q The Masters, the extra year that you did, would that have
also been standarized, or did you have some discretion
in the courses you chose?

A I chose my area of study and did work under one particular
professor.

Q What area of study would that be?

A Doctrine of Salvation and the Pauline Epistles.

Q Did you have to write a Master's thesis?

A Yes.

Q What was the subject of your thesis?

A Gosh, that was so long. I think it was called Salvation
as Deliverance.

Q As succinctly as possible, could you describe what you
consider salvation to include, to mean?

A To me, salvation is the assurance that in the grace of
God we are accepted as one of his children, despite our

10

own human failures. To me as a Christian, it involves
believing that there was a mediation of Christ. To me
It's not something that awaits future rewards in some
future life after death, but it is the beginning of
eternal life now, in terms of a new dimension because
of what we feel and know and experience as Christians.
It means that though we all fear death, we don't have
the same fears that others might, because it's a
transition but the same sort of existence with God.

Q Is your view of salvation, does it include a kind of
life after death?

A Yes.

Q Could the term fundamentalist, in your own mind, be
properly applied to you?

A You know, everything comes from a framework of reference.
In terms of the fundamentals of the Christian faith,
I could call myself a fundamentalist. In terms of the
use that has been applied to it in recent years, I
perhaps would not qualify.

Q Well, could you enlarge upon what you see the use to have
been in recent years?

A I guess really the real water shed is the interpretation
of scripture. I think that more than any other issue
or area has been the dividing line.

Q Could you give me an idea by what bench mark you would

11

look at the interpretation of someone's view on that
and decide on the modern day or the current day usage
of the word fundamentalist that would apply to them?

A Let me say, I don't want to stereotype everyone that
might be accused of being a fundamentalist, but speaking
broadly, I would think that a fundamentalist would
believe that if any portion of the written word were
proven to be untruthful in any sense of the word, why
then, the whole framework of faith would perhaps start
to crumble.

Q Does this relate to what I've heard termed the Doctrine
of Biblical Inerrancy?

A Yes.

Q So, that would be a standard in your own mind that you
would apply to --

A Yes.

Q Applying this to yourself, how would you come out. If
the standards applied to you, what is your own opinion
of that doctrine or that belief?

A Our standards say that the Bible is the word of God and
the rule for the practice of faith in life, and it does
not go into inerrancy at all. And that is very satis-
factory to me.

Q So, do you have a position on inerrancy yourself?

A Oh, yes.

12

Q What is your position on that?

A Well, I think that in terms of the way in which the Bible
has evolved, it has human authorship, there are errors,
but no errors that in any way threaten or even gnaw
away at my own faith in terms of the major truths about
God and man and relationships of life, which I consider
to be fundamental.

Q What is your own view as to the inspiration of the Bible?

A I think that the Lord, working through the presence of
the Holy Spirit, inspired folk of old to make record of
those things which seemed to be important, first of all,
in the life Israel as they achieved a sense as a people
of God. I think inspiration, of course, caused those
folks that were involved in the life and ministry of
Jesus to make records in terms of their experience and
writing letters to share their experience. And that the
Spirit was at work making these things significant.

Q So, in terms of the inspiration, could you be more
specific as to whether you feel that the general subject
areas covered, words written, are exactly what was
inspired?

A Run that by again.

Q Okay. What I'm really asking you, simply, could you be a
bit more specific. You've talked in general terms that
You believe that the scriptures are inspired by the Holy

13

Spirit, as you put it, in writing. In writing, first of
all, to the problems of the nation of Israel. And then
you enlarged upon that a little bit. But I want to know
more specifically your own position as to the degree of
inspiration and the degree to which God controlled or
didn't control the writing of the scriptures.

A Well, I'm trying to think of how I can enlarge upon what
I've already said. For instance, as Paul wrote the letters,
I don't think Paul was put into a trance and all of the
sudden became a mechanical first century robot for the
Holy Spirit to write those words. I think the Spirit
was working in his life in a way that he didn't realize,
like I hope it works in our lives today. And I think
what came out in terms of sharing his convictions, the
church looked upon it and said this was Spirit inspired.
I think the historians of Israel wanted to keep these
important accounts alive, and I think the hand of God
was working in it. But to say that the hand of God made
every jot and tittle absolutely correct is not in my
theory of inspiration.

Q So, would it be fair to say that you consider the fact
that these individuals wrote -- the fact that they put
down, pencil to paper if you will, what they did, it
was generally inspired, but as to what was specifically
wrote, they wrote from their own personal experience?

14

A Their own personal experience cognizant of a working of
the Lord in their life. It was not someone sitting down
to write a thesis. I think they felt a peculiar, unique
calling.

Q I'm really not trying to be difficult but I'm really
trying to understand just what your own personal belief
is. When you use the word divinely inspired, I mean,
that conjures up images of everything from the robot,
which you now have excluded, to just the fact that
unconsciously these people felt a need to write something
maybe. And there is a wide range in there. So, if you
can be more specific, I would like to ask you to be.
Could you maybe give me an example of how -- of what --
based upon your own knowledge and personal belief,
believe one of these books might have been written?

A Well, the example of Matthew, the experience he had in
terms of being related to the Lord, felt that these facts
and -- how we see the Spirit working in his life. I
don't know to what extent he was aware as to what he
was actually doing. He felt compelled to put this down
as best he knew it. And to me, the Doctrine of
Inspiration is far more involved than just what was
happening at the moment. It involves the church and the
church's judgment on the validity of it and the church's
acceptance and what it meant in the life of the church.

15

Q But there you're talking about the councils which accepted
these. You consider that to be a part of the Doctrine
of Inspiration, as you view it?

A Yes.

Q For example, when you speak of Matthew writing those
things down, or perhaps when Paul wrote some of his
letters, could you conceive, could it be possible for
someone of present day to be inspired in the same sense
with divine inspiration to write something?

A Not in the same sense, no.

Q How would those be different?

A Once again, I think it's tied in by the doctrine of the
church. When the church said the canon is closed, this is
it -- I think a lot of inspired writings have occurred
since then, but I think the Holy Spirit worked with the
church council to say this is the central corpus in terms
of holy writ.

Q What is your view of the Genesis account of creation?

A I feel that the Genesis account of creation is a
theological affirmation that God created all that is
and that man was the very highest creation for a purpose
which comes out in the phrase, "In the image of God".
I think the story is a theological affirmation.

Q Okay. To me that is kind of vague. It's an affirmation
of what?

16

A Of theological truth.

Q All right.

A I think I've just finished, you know, relating the
truths that I feel it affirms.

Q Let me ask you some more specifics then. Do you believe
that God created the heavens and the earth?

A You'll have to say a little bit more about that.

Q Well, taking that statement first of all. Do you believe
that God created the heaves and the earth?

A I would have to put it in a little different framework.

Q All right.

A I would have to say that God is sovereign and everything
that has come about has been under his sovereignty.

Q So, you would not use the term created yourself in
viewing the heavens and the earth and the world as we
know it coming into being?

A Yes, I would use it, but I would have to footnote it.

Q By what process do you think god used in trying to
bring the world as we know it into being?

A Well, frankly, I don't know. I think that everything
that has evolved in terms of bringing the world to this
point is the work of God.

Q Would you -- do you think that God in bringing man about
as we know him -- I guess the first question, obviously,
do you believe that God was responsible for bringing man

17

about as we know him today?

A Oh, yes.

Q The second question then is, what method do you think
God used?

A I do not know.

Q Do you have a belief?

A Let me say that my belief is, I am willing to leave open
to study, perceptive to the best findings of people in
the disciplines of science and anthropology and all,
and look at them critically and say we are always in the
process of finding truth, whatever that truth ultimately
is; God is sovereign and God is in control and behind the
process.

Q So, you would then, as I understand your last statement,
consider God to have brought about man as we know him
through what you know was the scientific method?

A Let me say that I do not know that I know absolutely
the scientific method whereby that came about.

Q I'm not asking you to tell me with one hundred percent
sureness that you know that it was through this method.
I'm just asking for your own personal belief. That's
all I really want to know.

A All right. State that again.

Q Okay. From your earlier statement, would it be fair to
say that God brought man about as we know him through

18

what you would consider to be a scientific process,
including evolution?

A Well, we have put the term scientific process on to the
exploration that has taken place to try to uncover
certain facts. I'm not sure that that would be my
affirmation. I'm just saying, however he came about
in terms of the creation of man that God is the one who
is ultimately in control and responsible, and has created
all those things that have brought this about.

Q Do you have a personal belief as to the manner in which
God created man?

A I have a pretty open door there. Let me say that I do not
believe that it was a seven (7) day process. That is
not at all consistent with my own framework of Biblical
interpretation.

Q That is not consistent with your framework?

A No.

Q How is that inconsistent with your framework of Biblical
interpretation.

A Because I do not believe that Genesis I and II contain
either science or actual history. I think it contains a
theological affirmation that God did it.

Q All right.

A And let me go ahead and say, you know, if it took four
million years, God still did it, and that doesn't bother

19

me one bit. I know of the final product, and I think the
final product we saw primarily in the early part of the
Old Testament.

Q Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. You say
that your belief is that a seven day period was not
used, is inconsistent with your own Biblical framework.

A No. I do not believe in the literal seven day period.
Is that clear?

Q I understand that. Your statement, at least implied,
or I inferred from it, that somehow you believe that the
seven day period from a Biblical text was what was in
fact used.

A I don't think I implied that.

Q Okay. If you didn't mean to, that's fine. I just want
to clarify that. Now, I was asking you the question
as to what means you believe God brought about -- used,
excuse me, to bring about man. And I asked you a
question which we digressed from and I would like to
return to that question. By what means did God bring
about man?

A Let me say that God is the one who is in control and
always has been. I think that all of the laws and
principles that govern our lives in the universe are
His, or maybe Her's. And I really don't struggle with
how that came about. I am satisfied with the fact that

20

man evolved to the point that we now know and experience.

Q I understand your answer. I understand that you say that
it's not a great struggle for you. But with all respect,
I still don't think I've gotten an answer to my question.
What means do you believe -- if you believe any, that
God used to bring about man as we know him?

A I feel that it is not at all inconsistent with my
theology and Biblical interpretations to feel that there
was a long period of evolution of some sort. I do not
call myself a Darwinian or anything else. I just feel
that science has put before us too many basic research
facts in terms of the age of the world, and the development
of the whole universe. And I feel that there was some
evolving -- I even hesitate to use the word evolution,
because before you know it you're pegged. But I think
there was some evolving process whereby all of the
sudden man came into awareness of this unique relationship
with God. And how long it took, how it happened, the
process, you know, I have no idea at all.

MR. CRAWFORD:

Let me interrupt just a second. Would you like a
drink of water or something?

MR. WILLIAMS:

Let's go off the record.

(Off Record)

21

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q So, it would be your belief that some evolving was
utilized by God to bring man to where he is today?

A Yes. Consistent with the laws of his universe.

Q And that evolving that you speak of, in your own mind.
might it include some change or, I guess the word
man evolving from lower forms of life? From other
forms of animals?

A It could.

Q That would not be inconsistent with your religious
beliefs?

A No, it would not.

Q In the general framework of evolution, that would not be
inconsistent with your religious beliefs, as I understand
what you're saying.

A Right.

Q Do you have a belief as to when creation occurred?
As to when man as we know him came into existence?

A No idea at all.

Q Do you have a belief as to who wrote Genesis?

A I think it was several historians that wrote certain
things in terms of the early experiences of mankind
coming into a consciousness of God, and that these
different writings were put together by some later
scribe or author into the collection we have now.

22

I think there is a good chance that there was a many as
maybe four (4) authors.

Q I think you have earlier spoke of Carl Barth. Could you
give me your own opinion of what you think of the
writings of Carl Barth?

A Well, I think Barth was instrumental in turning around
some trends that were getting the church in his era
and on the European scene a bit removed from the
centrality of the Bible as a central witness for
Christian faith and life. And I think Carl Barth's
major thesis was the word of God. Jesus Christ being
the central word of God, the word made flesh, the
written word being the other witness, and the third
portion of that, is that in a sense, though it's not
on the same level with creation that under the Biblical
authorship he says there is a unique sense in which
the word is reenacted in the worship experience of the
church. Not just what the preacher says, but the way
in which the Bible is interpretated and received. I
think that's the thing about Carl Barth that was --

Q Significant for you?

A Yes.

Q Did you say that Barth took some of the central focus
away from the scriptures? Is that what you said?

A No. He put it in.

23

Q Oh, all right.

A He was the one that pulled the church back toward the
Bible, as the church, at least in certain parts of
Germany, was drifting away from seeing the importance
of scriptures in the heart and life of the church.

Q What had they been drifting to, if they had been drifting
to anything before Barth began his writings and had the
effect that it did?

A Oh, I wouldn't say they'd been drifting into deep heresy.
I think it was more a proneness on the part of the
church to begin with the existential experience of man
and work from there to God. Barth did not deny any
of their findings. He said, "You're at the wrong starting
point".

Q Could you also tell me what you think of the writings of
Reinhold Neibhur? The impact that he's had on you?

A Yes. I think Reinhold Neibhur, in my own view of his
writings and life, did a beautiful job of maintaining
scriptural, theological integrity and dragging the
church out of an isolated cubbyhole and saying, "Look
here, you don't live in a monastery. You live in a
world. And the church has a real responsibility to be a
part of and witness to the world".

Q So, I take it that he had -- his writings had a signifi-
cant impact upon your own theological beliefs?

24

A Very much.

Q What about Emil Brunner?

A I'm not real conversant on Brunner. I think that he
certainly was a very significant theologian. I have read
some of his books, Man In Revolt. I'm trying to think
of the other.

Q Did that have any impact upon your own theological belief?

A Yes, I'm sure. But let me say, I haven't read Brunner
since seminary, and I don't want to jump back in 1949
and describe my experiences them.

Q Okay. What of Paul Tillich?

A I think Paul Tillich, though he would not be one that I
would say I can line my theology with, I think he has
made a good contribution in terms of wrestling with the
problems of existence. What does it mean to be a man?
That sort of thing. Of course, he's no longer with us,
but he was one of the existential theologians, which I
can follow a long way, but not all the way.

Q How far can you follow? Where do you have to depart?

A Tillich got a little hazy in terms of some of the things
that I feel are basic. I think he tried to make too
little of the resurrection and this sort of thing.

Q What is your opinion of the theological writings of
Graff? Are you familiar with him?

A I'm going to have to pass on that one.

25

Q Okay. What about Wellhousen?

A Yes. I think Wellhousen made a big contribution in
terms of understanding the real dynamics of the scriptures,
especially the Old testament. It was his hypothesis
that caused people to see that these books that had
been described real simplistically, the one author,
you know, where it's totally different, is in similar
style in the word used for God, is trying to put, you
know, the writings of the editor of the Gazette over
against the poetry of Shakespeare. They realized that
all of the sudden, you know, these things don't match.
And you've got to realize that they're telling the same
story. But to say that the same person wrote them is
absolute foolishness.

Q Would his writings be consistent with your own
theological beliefs?

A Let me say that I'm not sure that I've read all that
much of Wellhousen. I have read about him, and I think
most of his works were in German.

Q Were they translated very much, do you know, to English?

A In the Old Testament courses at seminary, we may have had
books that expounded his theories.

Q All right. To the extent that you had those books and
understood them, would the exposition of his theories
be consistent with your own theological beliefs?

26

A You know, not having read all of Wellhousen, what I was
taught in terms of a key to understanding the Old
Testament, yes, it made sense. I don't know all he's
wrote. He might have written a lot of things which I
have no idea about and would completely disagree with.

Q That's fair. I understand that. What of Harry Scribner
Ames?

A I do not know him.

Q Excuse me. Edward Scribner Ames.

A No.

Q William Newton Clark?

A I guess I've been some place.

Q What about George A. Cole?

A No.

Q Harry Emerson Faustic?

A Yes. Most people have heard of Faustic.

Q All right. What is your opinion of his writings?

A Actually, his writings are primarily, you know, the
publishing of his sermons. I feel he is a man of a great
spirit. I'm not sure that I would agree with all of his
theology, but I can't even document that.

Q Have you done much reading of his sermons or any other
writings?

A I guess I've read two or three of his books, and then he
has a devotional book. I forget the name of it. But

27

that's been very meaningful to me.

Q Do you use the devotional book very often?

A I haven't in years, no. But I used to.

Q What of Schailer Matthews?

A I'll pass on that.

Q You're not aware of anyone by that name? A theological
writer?

A I may have heard a few comments.

Q Okay. Walter Rauschenbuseh?

A Yes. I know a little bit about Rauschenbuseh.

Q What is your opinion of his writings?

A I feel that he made a very significant contribution.
Some of his theological principles, I do not think,
would be consent with mine. But I think that he wrote
at a time in which people needed to be reminded once
again of the importance of the individual. The social
implications of the gospel. So, though I would not say
that our theologies align perfectly, I'm sure he wouldn't
mind if I said that. It wouldn't threaten him at all.
I feel he made a good contribution in terms of trying
to awaken the conscience of the church.

Q Your theologies would not align perfectly. Would they
align somewhat less than perfectly?

A I think the point at which they would align pretty close,
would be his concern for human beings. The feeling that

28

the church was losing a concern for human beings. He
saw in the ministry of Christ an absolute concern for
individuals, especially those that have sufferings and
hurts. I don't know even how to describe his theological
stance. I've been told that at that time he was considered
liberal. I don't even know what that means.

Q What of Earnest Troeltsch?

A Oh, I have read something of him in seminary, but I don't
remember enough about it to even comment on it.

Q Schielmarker?

A He was one of the ones that was really concerned with
the human situation to such an extent that people felt
that he was forgetting and he was more keying in on
human existence than in devine reality. And I guess he
was one of the ones that Carl Barth sort of reacted to.
Not that Carl Barth, once again, denied the findings of
Schielmarker. He would say that we've got to make sure
that our findings are rooted in certain convictions
about a transcending God.

Q Would his theology then tend to be more consistent or
inconsistent with your own?

A Once again, I did not read Schielmarker to analyze his
theology. I read it to open up my own sensitivity to
human beings.

Q So, can you make a judgment as to whether it's consistent

29

or inconsistent?

A Consistent in terms of the care and the love of God for
individuals. What his theology of the trinity or
resurrection or eternal life, I have no idea.

Q What about Bultman?

A Rudolph Bultman, yes, I've read some of his works.

Q Could you characterize it for me?

A Of course, everyone is a theologian in a sense. Even
you are. Sometimes we're bad and sometimes we're good.
But Bultman, I think, would be looked at more as a
New Testament scholar than a theologian. I find his
writings insightful. I don't agree with all he says.

Q But do you agree with some of what he says?

A Bultman tried to get the church to take an honest look
at the New Testament, and I think he made his contribution
there. He went far to far in terms of my own convictions
in terms of his demythologizing of the New Testament.

Q What was that term again?

A Demythologizing.

Q Okay. Not demon.

A Right.

Q Could you describe what demythologizing of the New
Testament is?

A Oh, basically he said, and here is where I can't quite
get into him, that there are certain segments of the New

30

Testament that are a myth. Now, please understand,
Americans usually go up into orbit when you hear myth.
Myth doesn't mean a lie or something. Myth is -- a
better word would be parable. But sometimes a myth
is a vehicle for containing more truth than a literal
account. so, Bultman's approach for those things that
caused him too much difficulty were in his vocabulary
they were myths. And you demythologized and got the
truth from the myth, and you separated that in terms of
myth from the historical fact of the incarnation, and
there you could have a consistent New Testament approach.

Q Would he attach less weight to the myths than to the
historical facts?

A Oh, I think he would put weight on both.

Q Equal balanced treatment, if you will?

A Well, example, one myth very evident is when Christ
told the parable of the prodigal son. You know, that's
myth. And it's as important vehicle of truth as historical
fact about the life of Christ.

Q I understand that that's a parable. I thought I under-
stood you to say that some of the things which were
recorded, for example, some of the things that Christ
or the Apostles might have done were in fact myths.

A I think Bultman would say, and I don't know for sure
that this is one, but this is just an example, the thing

31

of walking on the water, was a myth. Not that it was a
lie in terms of how we view it, but this was the early
church's way of saying, here is somebody that is super,
period. Bultman was saying to people who were dropping
away, "You don't have to believe that's literally true
in order to have faith." Here is a New Testament church
saying, here is one so great that he could hold out his
hand and still the storm and walk across the water.

Q Do you have a belief yourself as to whether those things
are historically accurate?

A You know, that's the type thing I agonized over in
seminary. It doesn't bother me now. I can accept them
as truth. If somebody is searching for truth and says
this is a bunch of baloney and I cannot be a Christian,
I believe I can say, well, here is a route where you can
be and we can sit in the same boat. I don't put myself
over against.

Q I understand that, but do you have a personal belief
as whether it's true or not? Not what you would tell
one of your parishioners, if you will, as to whether they
had to believe it, but your own personal belief.

A My own belief is, that with God, nothing is impossible.
And I don't go around applying that to all these various
little things. I can accept it as an account of the
power of God, and it doesn't even really bother me.

32

Q So, what I understand you to be saying is you don't
believe that's necessarily literally true.

A I think it very well could be literally true. I don't
want to be put in that box, because if I'm talking with
a college student and I said this is literally true,
then all of the sudden I've fenced him out.

Q Right.

A I'm saying that I can ride both horses.

Q It can be literally true and it cannot, and it doesn't
really matter to you?

A Right.

Q Could your own theology in your mind be fairly character-
ized as neoorthodox?

A Yes. That's a pretty broad umbrella.

Q Well, I want to give you an opportunity to -- if it's
to contrast yourself to a neoorthodox, if there are
differences.

A Once again, when you say that, neoorthodoxy covers
Brunner and Barth who had a lot of debate about the
nature of the word of God. And it includes Tillich
and -- maybe Tillich, and the Neibhur brothers, Reinhold
and Richard Neibhur. You have such a broad umbrella.
Neoorthodoxy is basically a term that the church uses
to say that there was a stern orthodoxy back in -- a
few centuries ago that was really winding, and the church

33

broke away and tried to get away from any sort of
legalism or binding theological affirmation, and neo-
orthodoxy means that we're trying to get back the
certain fundamental things in terms of the word of God,
the meaning of life. And to say that I am neoorthodox --
that's the ship I'm in, but by golly, there are a lot
of the members in the crew that are very different.
But neoorthodoxy is generally the church going back in
the direction of trying to honor the fact of a
transcendent God, and the importance of the Bible, and
the call of the church to be a reall witness. To that
extent, I am neoorthodox.

Q Would you consider your theology to be liberal or
modernist?

A I consider my theology to be conservative.

Q Would you consider yourself to be an Evangelical?

A Very much so.

Q A conservative Evangelical?

A Now once again, we're using terms that we've got to be
real careful about.

Q Well -- answer my question first, and then I'll give you
a chance to define it. Do you consider yourself to be a
conservative Evangelical?

A I would ask what you mean by that before I answer.

Q Well, I'm going to let you define the term for me.

34

A That's what I wanted to do. I am conservative in that
I really feel that my theology is in conformity with
the reformed Presbyterian tradition, and it is in
conformity with the revealed truths of God and man that
we see in scripture. And to me conservatism is accepting
that. I have some friends that would call me a liberal.
But I deny that. I think that I am a conservative
theologian. A liberal is one that says the resurrection
didn't occur. It was in the minds of the church. That's
a liberal.

Evangelical is a term that I sour of resist, having
been jerked away by certain groups. Evangelical comes
basically from a word that means the gospel. And our
desire to share the gospel. As such, I am a conservative
Evangelical. But I am not with those groups that call
themselves conservative Evangelicals, and thereby try
to cut me out.

Q Have you had a chance to read Act 590?

A Yes.

Q Would that be consistent with your own religious beliefs?

MR. CRAWFORD:

What part of Act 590?

MR. WILLIAMS:

Act 590 itself.

35

MR. CRAWFORD:

I don't understand the question. The existence
of Act 590?

A Would you mind me looking at it.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Certainly.

(Counsel hands document to witness)

A Okay. Now, what about Act 590.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Well, the call within Act 590 that evolution science
and creation science be given balanced treatment. Is
that consistent with your own theological belief?

A I don't know.

Q Could you tell me how it's inconsistent?

A Well, my theology is not just the church words I use
about trinity and eternal life, grace, justification.
My theology concerns the whole of my being and all that
I am. I think that's the only valid theology. And
I guess I have three major concerns that I can say come
within the spectrum of my theology that deals with human
relations and dignity of people. And this morning, you
don't mind, I wrote it out, because I thought brevity
and accuracy might be of help.

Q All right.

A I do not feel that a state legislative body should be

36

engaged in the passing of legislation which dictates
the content of public school curriculum. To me that's
a theological affirmation in terms of my -- Two,
it's a breach of academic freedom to instruct a teacher
to give balanced treatment to a particular theory which
has not been a part of his or her academic training, and
in which he or she believes to be untrue. Three, I
believe that creation science is rooted in a particular
approach to Biblical interpretation and theological
perspective. It would be impossible to teach in a
classroom setting without becoming involved in religious
issues and viewpoints. Because of this, I feel that
Act 590 would violate the religious establishment clause
of the First Amendment.

Q Could I see that?

(Witness hands document to counsel)

MR. WILLIAMS:

I would like to mark this as McLean Exhibit #1,
and make this an exhibit to your deposition.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit #1, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 94 .)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q You said that you wrote this out this morning?

A Yes.

Q Would this be, in your mind, a fair summary of your

37

concerns over Act 590?

A Yes.

Q Could you tell me, based upon your theology, why you feel
a state legislative body should not be engaged in the
passing of legislation which dictates the content of
public school curriculum?

A Well, as I said before I read that, my theology covers
the whole sphere of relationships, ethical relationships,
and I don't know that I even want to, in the long run,
say that that is a theological statement. I'm saying
that all I am comes under the umbrella of my theological
orientation. Thus, as a theologian, I think that is
just a breach of the assigned duties of the state
legislature.

Q I'm interested in your statement that your own theology
is all that you are. How far would you go with that?
For example, would you consider your beliefs on certain --
a preference for one office seeker, a politician, over
another. Would that be part of your own theology, giving
your own definition?

A Not technically. I think my theological orientation would
dictate my choices. And I think there is a difference
between what you've asked and what I said.

Q All right. What is the difference between that part of
your theology and your choice being dictated by your

38

theological orientation? That is the difference, as I
understand it, between the two.

A Yes.

Q Could you explain to me what that difference is?

A Well, you know, I would say that sometimes it might not
be called in my own mind a theological issue. I think
that in terms of say the candidates, or if I felt that
there were issues involved which have to do with
integrity, welfare of human beings in the nation, that
to me would become a theological choice.

Q Would your own decision on issues be resolved by your
own theological orientation?

A In terms of my understanding the theology, yes.

Q All right.

A And let me say at this point. We have mentioned this
several times. Theology can be seen -- you know, we have
our Westminster confession of faith. That is our formal
statement of creed in the Presbyterian church, plus
other affirmations. What I'm trying to say is, I think
that your theology is lived out in all that you are and
do. So, therefore, you can't state in one situation
that I am a theologian and in another situation I am not.
Sometimes it might be neutral. But you're still
operating out of your theological perspective in all that
you are, do and say.

39

Q Could you define then theology?

A Theology comes from two words, theo and logos, our
knowledge of God, and therefore, in this discipline what
this knowledge of God has to say about who we are and
what we're about.

Q Would it be fair to characterize theology then generally
as your frame of reference, whatever belief you might
hold?

A No. That question does not catch what I'm saying. My
theology is a way in which I respond to a frame of
reference in my belief of a transcedent God, and the
scriptures and everything else. My theology -- I can
make a lot of mistakes, and therefore, I become off
course. I think what you were saying was what
Schielmarker was doing. And I think Carl Barth's
theology of the word is what called the church back,
which is what causes neoorthodoxy to mean so much to
me.

Q Do you consider this document, the sentiments expressed
on here, to be a theological statement?

A No. I consider it to be a result in my theological
orientation. You know, let me say, there are other
disciplines, areas of ethics and all, but I think
theology is the overall, in terms of my own frame of
reference, theology is your own conviction that gives you

40

your direction in terms of your decision about what is
right and wrong. So, though that would not be a form of
theological statement, that comes as a result of my
theological orientation.

Q Would you consider atheism to be a religion or to be a
theology?

A I have several answers to that, and I'm not sure you want
them all.

Q Well, try a few of them on me. Give me a summary of your
answers.

A All right. Let me say, it is not Christian theology.
There is a school of thought that says it's impossible
not to have a theology because everyone is a worshiper
of something, whether it's the dollar or power or what
have you. So, atheism is, in a sense a theology,
because it's not a Christian theology, it's not a
Buddhist theology, it's now a Jewish theology. I don't
really quite buy that. So, as a Christian theologian,
atheism, no, is not a theology.

Q Not in the same sense that Christian theology is a
theology?

A Right.

Q Would you consider atheism to be a religion?

A I do not believe so. I'm not sure what you mean by
religion, but as I hear your question, I don't think so.

41

Q If you were going to characterize atheism, if it's not
a religion and it's not a theology, is there some other
term you would use? Could you characterize it as a
value system or --

A Probably a philosophical orientation.

Q What besides the fact that atheism does not recognize
the existence of God would differentiate it from
a theology?

A Well, the answer to that is so obvious, I'm not really
sure what you're asking. If your philosophical orienta-
tion is that there is no God, well then, from there on
in they have a philosophical framework. I have a
Christian theological framework. And we're on two
pretty different trails.

Q All right. But in terms of your unwillingness to
classify it as a theology, is that not caused by the
fact that atheism necessarily denies the existence of a
God?

A Yes.

Q Do you feel it's appropriate for some legislative body
besides a state legislative body to be engaged in the
passing of legislation which dictates the content of
public school curriculum?

A Well, of course, I think there are certain area in the
whole educational set up, and I don't understand all of

42

it, and someone has to set a curriculum. Let me say, my
wife is a Texan, and she reminded me that in Texas, and I
think in Arkansas too, there is a legislative mandate
that you study Texas history. That's one thing. It
doesn't say how you teach it, et cetera, et cetera. This
is a course. The differentiation in terms of my statement
there is that by act of a legislature, you are telling
what to teach in terms of content and theory. And that's
where I think -- it's really in terms of what I would call
the ethics of it. I don't think they have a right to
do that.

Q So, then, if in the same vein that Arkansas requires that
Arkansas history be taught, but does not tell them how --
exactly how it must be taught, if the Arkansas Legislature
required that creation science be taught, but did not
tell them, you would have no objection?

A I have every objection in the world.

Q Okay.

A To say, to teach Arkansas history is one thing. But to
say to teach creation science, that's another thing.

Q Well, let's say that Act 590 merely provided that creation
science be taught. Then in terms of your example,
they would be consistent, would they not, the teaching
of Arkansas history and the teaching of creation science.

A Not at all. I have a conviction after about two months

43

of real heavy reading that there is no way, absolutely
no way, that you can teach creation science without
getting into theological and biblical interpretation
issues; and therefore, you are into religious matters.

Q Would you tell me what you've read in the last two
months which led you to this conclusion?

A I've read books and articles and things that you have in
the file there.

Q Some of which I have here?

A Right. I've gone back to my interpreter's dictionary of
the Bible, and commentary on Genesis written by the
way -- I have five commentaries. I bought one written
in 1904 by a conservative Englishman, and he would turn
over in his grave with this law. I went over and I know
that the material has not been decided upon. But I spent
a considerable hours looking at what has been sent thus
far to the Department of Education.

Q What did you see that had been sent in? Is that in
this? (indicating)

A That's in there, yes. As I say, I'm not big on that,
I was just curious.

Q Is this what you were talking about? (indicating)

A No. I just have some summary notes.

Q What did you look at? Do you recall?

A Oh, primarily the booklets for teachers and students,

44

edited by Seagraves.

Q Are you aware of whether that's been approved for use
under this law?

A No. You were asking what I had read though.

Q I understand that. But I just wanted to follow that up.
I have what I am going to mark as McLean Exhibit #2,
a two page document.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 2, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 95 .)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q I would like for you to look at this document and tell me
if you can identify it.

(Counsel hands document to witness)

A Let me say, I took some notes and wrote down and
brought it along. I think if it's going to be a
document, I would like the privilege of looking over
it and making sure. I was over in the corner of the
educational building and I was trying to dictate with
my cassette. My secretary typed it.

Q You have not had a chance to proof that, is that what
you're saying?

(Witness reviews document)

A These are notes I took, impressions of the books they
had.

45

Q While I'm thinking about it, would you give me a list
of the books you've read in the last two months that
you said led you to this conclusion?

A Well, actually, I think the primary -- you know, it's
far more than reasoning. It's a conviction I've had all
along about the separation of church and state, and what
happens when the classroom in public schools gets into
religious matters. I think I brought along these three
and an article from other areas, you know, I think it
brought it into focus.

Q Do the other books that you have with you, I believe in
your portfolio attache there, did those influence you
in this way also?

A Oh, these books have been a part of my, you know,
theological training all along. I just went back down
through and checked --

Q Just give me the names and authors of the books you
have there.

A One is the Book of Genesis by S. R. Driver, Westminster
Commentary --

Q Is that the 1904 book that you mentioned?

A Uh-huh (affirmative). The other one, Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible
, and it's by a lot of editors,
articles on creation and et cetera. I just went back and
checked base in terms of where I am and where those folks

46

that are recognized as scholars today.

Q I note that in your summary or comments here that you
have performed in Exhibit 2 of the books which you reviewed,
you make several references to Biblical passages in
these books. Isn't that correct?

A Yes.

Q Are you aware that that would in fact violate Act 590?

A Yes. I'm aware that no choice has been made. It might
not even be these. I'm aware of the pamphlets that may
be put in, but also for some reason, they state in his
basic book ,which seems to be the overall viewpoint of
Seagraves, regardless as to what the textbooks under
his editorship do or do not say.

Q Are you aware if this is the only source for material
to comply with Act 590?

A I do not know what sources there are.

Q I'll show you a document which will be McLean Exhibit #3.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 3, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 96 ).

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q I'll ask you to look at this and tell me if you can
identify it.

(Counsel hands document to witness)

A Yes. Let me say, I haven't looked into this real closely.
These are current books on biology.

47

Q You haven't personally reviewed this as to whether you
would have any objection, theological or otherwise --

A Well, let me say that the one thing that came to my
mind or I guess maybe caught my attention, was through
the title "creation". They say that evolution denies
the creative powers of God. I know a lot of convinced
evolutionists who are very, very convinced that it's
all under the umbrella of the creative power of God.
So, therefore, statements like that do catch my eye.

Q All right. Now, that reference which you make under
"Creationists Say", which is part of a book entitled
Biology, An Inquiry Into the Nature of Life, you under-
stand that that's not being presented as fact, but it's
being presented as the creationists' position.

A Uh-huh (affirmative).

Q I would like to have you look at that again, this page.
Have you had a chance to look at this page out of this
text? (indicating) Other than that last statement?

A I have read through the page. I'm not sure what your
question is.

Q So, you have read it? That's my question.

A Yes.

Q Do you have any objections to that page?

MR. CRAWFORD:

I'm going to enter an objection at this point. As

48

to the witness answering that question, he is not a
lawyer, and whether or not there are legal objections to
that page, is something which he doesn't know. I'll
just leave the objection at that.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Well, I'm not asking for your conclusion as a lawyer.
I'm asking you as a person if you have any objections
to that?

A In what way?

Q Well, do you feel that that material presented on that
page could be presented without violating your own
theological framework which caused you to have the
concerns about Act 590?

A I would have to see the textbook and the chapter and
everything else.

Q I'm asking you just to the extent as far as that page
goes.

MR. CRAWFORD:

The witness has stated that he's unable to answer
that question without seeing the whole book.

MR. WILLIAMS:

I understand that, but I'm asking just looking at
that page.

MR. CRAWFORD:

But the witness has said that he's unable to make

49

an evaluation based on looking at one page.

MR. WILLIAMS:

I'm not asking him to evaluate the entire page.
I'm asking -- I mean the entire book. I'm asking him to
evaluate this one page in isolation.

A In isolation I would say that getting into the discussion
of "Creationists Say", you will get into a discussion
of theology and Biblical interpretation, which to me
would be offensive.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q All right. Do you think that evolution should not be
criticized in the classroom?

A I don't think I understand your question.

Q Well, do you believe in a scientific theory being
presented and then having criticism of that theory
also presented?

A Allow me to answer this way. If I have a student in a
science classroom, I think the academic enterprise says
you are free to criticize or question anything which
remains a theory.

Q Looking at that page again, could you please identify
for me that portion of the page which you feel involves
religion?

A I think the total impact of it would involve religion.
Statement two says, "Since no one was present at the

50

creation, neither creation nor evolution is provable."
That statement in itself would cause -- the thing about
creation science is that it causes a person to jump back
either consciously or subconsciously to an interpretation
of Genesis. And though I see this indirectly, I see
it as consistent with what I have voiced in three
there.

Q In terms of discussing evolution in a classroom, don't
you think that could also indirectly cause someone to
jump back to consider creation and to consider Genesis?

A I don't think it has to.

Q This document includes such things -- in what Creationists
Say, it includes such things as radioactive dating,
Lyell's theory of slow change, dating of rock strata,
the fossils, animal phyla, transitional forms, mutation,
species, I mean, all of these things are discussed.
Do you consider those to evoke some sort of religious
response?

A Not the way you read it, but I am still talking about
the total impact of the total statement.

Q Then in terms of your own framework, you completed
theological seminary what year?

A 1951. I did my graduate work in 1952.

Q That's approximately thirty (30) years ago. Since that
time you have been involved actively in the ministry?

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Reverend William S. McLean - Page 2

51

A Right.

Q During that thirty years, you have heard the word
creation, I'm sure, used many times, and you have used
the word yourself in sermons, have you not?

A Oh, yes.

Q In all those thirty years when you used the term
creation, it necessarily had a religious connotation to
you, did it not?

A You say all the times. That's a rather encompassing
statement.

Q Well, okay. You could talk about, I suppose, creating
a work of art. You may have used that term. But
generally, when you talk about the term creation in a
sense of origins of life, the origins of man and this
earth, and life as we know it, in those thirty years
that would have had a religious connotation for you.

A In relation to Genesis and theology, yes.

Q And when you think of the term creation now, in terms of
it's relation to the origins of life, it necessarily
has a religious connotation to you, does it not?

A Yes.

Q So, if you had a competent scientist with credentials
as a scientist tell you that there was scientific
evidence to support the theory of creation science,
because of your thirty years dealing with it as a

52

religious doctrine, you would have some difficulty with
doing that, would you not?

A Difficulty in doing what?

Q In accepting that. In changing the thirty years of a
religious connotation and trying to accept the new
meaning. That it might have some scientific connotation.

A I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

Q Well, my point is this. The thing that I'm struggling
with is that you say that the whole effect of this is
religious, the overall effect. But you're dealing --
we have to speak from our frame of reference, you would
agree, would you not?

A What I'm saying is --

Q But I want to make sure that you understand my point.
You speak from your frame of reference, as I do.

A Yeah.

Q And that your frame of reference for the word creation
for at least thirty years, and seminary before that,
and undergraduate before that, has been a religious
connotation.

A Yes. In terms as God as the creator. But I want the
theology of God as creator to be taught in my home
and in my church and not in the public school classroom.
And I'm saying the whole thing when you get into it,
there is no way to avoid getting into theological and

53

Biblical interpretative issues.

Q What you are saying, as I understand it, is that if you
presented these scientific evidences, and we will assume
for the moment that they are scientific evidences to
support the theory of creation --

A I cannot assume that.

Q Okay. Well, that will be one of the issues in this
trial, obviously.

A Well, I'd rather let the scientists do that.

Q All right.

A I have read several things that I feel are not competent
scientists, and I cannot assume that. I can't even
talk from that point of view.

A Any discussion of origins which uses the term creation
would be in your estimation inherently religious?
Is that not correct?

A (Affirmative nod)

Q The court reporter can't record your nodding.

MR. CRAWFORD:

He's just saying, answer orally.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q You did nod yes, did you not?

A Ask the question again, please.

Q Would any -- is it not true that any discussion of the
theory of origin which mentions the term creation be in

64

your estimation inherently religious?

A Yes, and in particular when it is followed with the
term Creator with a capital C.

Q The theory of creation science, if it should happen to be
consistent with some of the doctrine of religious
creation, as found in Genesis, that in your mind causes
violation to your own theological framework and the
concerns that you have in your Exhibit #1. Correct?

A Let me repeat what I think I have said or inferred.
Genesis is not a scientific account of creation.

Q I understand your statement on that. But if it happened
to be consistent with it -- if a scientific theory
happens to be consistent with something which is stated
in the Bible, that causes you problems, doesn't it?

A Well, my theology of Genesis is that a sovereign God
is ultimately responsible for creation. And I think
the challenge of the science classroom is to explore
scientifically all the things we can get, and then the
church can say theologically to the extent that this is
truth, and truth is continually evolving. God did it.
God is sovereign. Don't worry about it and don't try to
go back and read literally Genesis I, which has two
creation accounts and get yourself all screwed up in your
faith. Geneses I, II and III are theological affirma-
tions. God did it no matter how long or what process.

55

Q All right. I don't think that's really responsive to my
question. That being, that if a scientific theory on the
origin of life coincides or is consistent with the
account of creation in Genesis, that that causes you
some concern about the possible violation of separation
of church and state -- excuse me, that causes you concern
about the mixing of science and religion, or a religion
masquerading as science.

A Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS:

Let's take a short break here.

(THEREUPON,
A short recess was held after which time the
deposition was resumed.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Going back to your major concerns. As a result of our
discussion --

A Let me say, number three would be double starred.

Q That's the real major thrust?

A Yeah.

Q All right. Let me just mention number one first of all
again. Can we now modify this to the extent that the
content of the public school curriculum being dictated
by the legislative body is not of itself one of your
concerns with Act 590, but just the particular curriculum

56

being dealt with here?

A No, I would say that would be a general principle. I
think that we have a process whereby you have a Board of
Education and a school board and the whole thing. And
I do not feel, and to me it might sound strange, I think
of ethical conviction which is the first cousin to
theology. I do not feel that the State Legislators
ought to sit up there and tell public schools teachers
what to teach. I don't think they're trained for that.
I think it's a bad scene. And I think if you start it,
you can get into all sorts of things. We might even
get into the Germany of the 1930's.

Q Are you aware that there are other things which are
dictated to be contained within the curriculum by the
Arkansas Legislature, other than Arkansas History?

A I am really -- no, I'm not aware.

Q Such things as drug education or alcohol education,
Fire Prevention Week. Do those cause you the same
sort of concern?

A No. But to me it's not the same. They have never made
a law for a teacher to teach Fire Prevention when the
teacher thinks the school ought to be burned down.
You're passing a law in which I know very few -- well, I
don't know all the biology teachers, I know some. The
ones I know feel that their academic freedom is being

57

breached. So, I think there's a whole realm of
difference in terms of state history and all.

Q Let's look at number two, or one (b). You think it's a
breach of academic freedom to instruct a teacher to give
balanced treatment to a particular theory which has not
been a part of his or her academic training, and which
he or she believes to be untrue. First of all, would
you consider this still to be a breach of academic
freedom is the local school board took this action?

A Yes, I would.

Q What if the department head of a particular -- the
biology department made this decision in planning the
curriculum for the biology department?

A I would be very much against it. But I haven't seen
that arising from any educational resources. It is
arising in state houses throughout the country.

Q But as it relates to generally requiring a teacher to
give balanced treatment to a particular theory --

A I missed out on that.

Q Okay. Your statement is that it's a breach of academic
freedom to instruct a teacher to give balanced treatment
to a particular theory. And then you qualify that by
saying, which has not been a part of his or her academic
training, and which he or she believes to be untrue.
Let me give you an example of something else besides

58

science. If a teacher has not studied math. Do you
think it would be a breach of academic freedom for a
teacher who had not had that as part of his or her
academic freedom to teach that?

A I do not see the relation of the question.

Q Well, as I understand your objection, part of your
objection is your concern with the general principle
that it's a breach of academic freedom to require
teachers to give balanced treatment to a particular
theory which has not been a part of his or her academic
freedom.

A I am assuming that the teacher is teaching the discipline
of his or her training.

Q All right.

A My wife teaches English at Central High. If they would
ask her to teach math, she might do it, but she would
not do it except on the basis of the educational process
that teaches what math is and how you teach it. And
she would probably go back up Conway and get it and come
back and teach math. If she was going to be called upon
to do biology, she would go back to some accredited
school and learn biology and teach it according to those
guidelines. That's what I'm referring to. But that
statement is a teacher who was trained to be a science
or biology teacher, has got a Bachelor's, a Master's,

59

or whatever, and then the creation science law comes
along and there is nothing in their background and
training that says there is anything to this. To the
contrary, it says it's untrue. And they are told by the
State Legislature to teach something that they feel to be
untrue.

Q To be untrue as a matter of fact, or to be untrue as a
matter of theory?

A Fact and theory.

Q What if you have a biology teacher who, based upon
readings in the area, feels that the theory of evolution
is untrue, and believes that the theory in creation
science is true?

A I would have to have a pretty good knowledge of the
person. And my own particular feeling is that this type
switch about would be based either consciously or
subconsciosly on a spin off on a particular Biblical
interpretation or theological stance, and I could not
accept it.

Q That's what your inclination would be. That's what you
would expect to find. But if in good faith this teacher
believed that creation science is true and evolution is
untrue, would you then give your seal of approval, if you
will, to them teaching creation science?

A Personally, no.

60

Q So, can we then modify your statement to, when you say
which he or she believes to be untrue, as long as it --
and after that, as long as it is consistent with your
own beliefs as to what is true and untrue? Isn't that
what you have effect done?

A I'm not sure that that's exactly what I have done. I
think that my own beliefs in the whole area match up
my own convictions about the origin of creation science
and my own respect for the discipline of science in the
field of biology, and the integrity in terms of the
findings in the biology of man. You match those two
things together and it just doesn't mix. So, I would
hesitate to put myself up as judge as to what is true
science. But I think you add those two together and
you will find something which to me is unacceptable.

Q My point is that on the one hand you are, as I understand
it, -- when a teacher is saying, "I think creation science
is bunk, and I believe evolution is the accepted or
preferable theory by which life came into being", that
you would say to that teacher that because they believe
that, they should be allowed to teach it. On the other
hand --

A As a matter of academic freedom.

Q As a matter of academic freedom.

A But as a matter of -- what separation of church and

61

state perhaps.

Q But I'm understanding that -- I understand that's implicit,
I think, when Mr. Crawford uses the term academic freedom.
On the other hand, when the teacher believes in good faith
that creation science is correct and evolution science
is the much less preferable or is not correct, and they
believe that to be true, then you would deny them the
freedom to teach that. Is that not correct?

A I would question their credentials in science.

Q Okay. But --

A And if my child was in that classroom, I would make that
question known. Because once again, you can't teach
creation science without getting into theology and
Biblical interpretations. There is no way in the world
that I can see.

Q You're trying to conjure up and think about how it could
be done, and you can't conceive of it. Is that correct?

A (Affirmative nod)

Q You are aware that that is what Act 590 requires. And
to my knowledge, and please correct me if you have some
different knowledge, that has never been attempted to
teach creation science absent --

A Well, of course --

Q -- any religious reference.

A I think it's calling on something that's impossible to do.

62

I think the statement about protecting religious and
independence and all, I think that statement is one of
those paragraphs, I think it's just a flip flop. I think
it's saying something and it doesn't validate it at all.

Q Well, you have a belief that it can be done, but we have
no data, if you will, that it can be done, that you're
aware of?

A No, because it has never been tried.

Q What of a teacher --

A But once again, you wouldn't call this empirical data
but creation science, the whole rise in this movement
stems in a theological orientation and Biblical
interpretation. And in one of these books, it says
that Seagraves say, unapologetically, that's what we're
about, to propound this theoretical position. And I
just do not see how -- I think in the classroom of science
they teach the findings of science that they have learned
at the University of Arkansas, or Harvard or anywhere
else, and I think creation science is an intrusion that
is not really from the field of science per se. I think
it's an intrusion that is based upon theological concepts
and Biblical interpreted practices. And I don't think
there is anyway you can teach it and get away from that.

Q Are you aware in the science community, generally, as
to whether there is any bias against anything which smacks

63

of religion, either directly or indirectly?

A You'll have to explain your question. What do you mean
by a science community, and what do you mean by bias?
Are you talking about the classroom scene, their
training, their thesis, their home life, their church
life. That's very vague.

Q In terms of -- well, do you know what those terms mean
when I speak of the science community? Do you have a
meaning for that term in your own mind?

A You asked the question. You better explain to me what
you mean.

Q Well, are you not aware that science professionals --
some science professionals look askance at anything
which might be related to religion because it is
unscientific in their own mind?

A Are you telling me that that's a fact?

Q I'm asking you, are you aware of that fact?

A Not as a broad generality, no. I know a lot of
scientists who are very devout people in terms of
religion.

Q In terms of trying to teach something which a particular
teacher believes to be untrue, are you aware that there
are, for example, alternative or -- not alternative but
several theories of economics? For example, there is
Keynesian economics. We heard a lot lately about something

64

called Supply-side economics.

A Oh, I studied that in college, but don't ask me to
define them.

Q All right. But because an economist believes that one
theory is true and the other is untrue, and one will
help the economy and one will hurt it, do you think
that they should not be allowed to teach those that they
do not believe in as being true?

A No.

Q So, that would be a modification from your statement
here?

A Let me say, that statement there refers to Act 590. To
me the great difference in this is that you teach
different theories of economic and that's one thing.
You get into a religious thing, and all of the sudden
you're getting into the heart and soul of the life of
the church. My denomination has said, there is absolutely
no inconsistency with evolution and our thelogical
heritage. Everything I read about creation science
says that you choose one or the other. And that puts
us in a position where it's not the same thing as teach-
ing the different theories of economics. You are teach-
ing theories that enter into the vital issues of church
life and belief and practice. And my children can be
taught any number of economic theories and they will

65

probably have a hard time getting along no matter which
they believe. But when you get into matters of religion,
as far as the Presbyterian church is concerned, we cannot
enter into religious teachings in the public classrooms.

Q Is the establishment clause of the first religion a
theological belief on your part?

A You know, we have gone over this several times, and I
don't know what this is going to sound like. I have
told you that I have a systematic theology. When I
was examined to become a member of the Presbyterian
church, like a Bar examination, I stated that, and it
had nothing to do with what you're talking about now.
I have a theological framework which is a formal
theological framework. But I think that all of my major
decisions come under that and I'm motivated by it.
So, no, this is not my formal theology, but yes, this is
a result of my theological convictions. And that's
about as clear as I can be about it. You have not
understood it, I'm afraid.

Q Do you think it's -- well, if in a science classroom
you're teaching only about evolution, and some inquiring
student raises his hand and says, "Teacher, I remember
reading something about that God created man and all
that, and Genesis says that God created the earth, and
did it in seven days", how would the teacher have to

66

respond to that in your opinion?

A I would expect the teacher with scientific integrity
to say, "My friend, that is a religions question. Go
ask your parents or your pastor. I am teaching the
findings of my educational process at the University of
Arkansas, major in biology. We didn't learn a cotton
picking thing about that".

Q But the point is, even in teaching evolution can bring
up the question of creation, can it not?

A But teaching science creation is based upon it. That's
the difference. That's the vital difference.

Q But you're not aware of what scientific evidence there
is to support the theory of creation science are you?

A To the extent that I give validity to some pretty good
names in science, you know -- I don't want to say much
about science. If I want to find out something about an
area that I'm not acquainted with, I'll try to get
some information that I feel to be trustworthy, but
there are too many people coming up say that creation
science is not science. And if I have to choose the
field in which I play, that is it, one hundred percent.

Q So, you're relying upon what other people have told you
in the field?

A Well, let me say, it's not a blind reliance. I have had
enough, and have been to enough museums and have talked

67

to enough Christians scientists to know that the affirma-
tion of creation ten thousand years ago is the type
thing that if my child started learning about it, they
might have a crisis of faith and a denial of faith
when they learn some other facts that seem to be pretty
well colaborated in a college science course. So, it's
not just a blind trust. You know, when I read in some
of these textbooks I referred to about references to the
Noah's flood, my blood runs cold. Because if you want
me to read about Noah's flood, if you've got three hours,
I can go through that there and I think maybe we'd find
some inconsistences that sort of blow your mind. So, --

Q One of the definitions given to creation science in Act
590 is that it includes scientific evidences and related
inferences that indicate the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of all
living kinds from a single organism. When you hear that --

A Who wrote that?

Q I'm reading from Act 590.

A That's what I'm saying? Did these legislatures study for
five weeks and determine that that's true?

Q Well, that's another part of this case which we had
discussed. Please understand, I'm not trying to be
antagonistic. I'm merely trying to ask you some questions.
But I'm asking you the questions now. When you hear that

68

statement, does that necessarily implicate religion
to you?

A Read it again, sir.

Q All right. Creation science includes the scientific
evidences and related inferences that indicate the
insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a
single organism.

A You know, I cannot answer that question. If you will
read all six then I will give you my answer.

Q Well, I'm asking you just about that one now.

A I cannot answer that.

Q So, it does not?

A I'm giving no answer. It's kind of like being asked
does an all American guard make a winning football team.
My answer is, what surrounds that guard? So, I'm not
answering that question. I'll answer when you read all
six and I put them together.

Q My question is, does that alone -- I'm not trying to be
difficult, but I'm just asking you to look at that one
thing. Does that implicate religion in your own mind?

A In the framework of the total, yes.

Q But you're relating to the total and not taking it
separately.

A I cannot relate it to any other but the total. The

69

total Act is what we're considering.

Q All right.

MR. CRAWFORD:

Let's take a break just a moment.

(THEREUPON,
A short recess was held after which time the
deposition was resumed. During said recess, Mr. Crawford
excused himself from the remainder of the deposition.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Rev. McLean, I have several documents that you have here,
and I'm going to ask you to identify them. First of
all, this document which I will mark as McLean Exhibit #4.
This is an Article entitled, "God and Evolution: The
'Creation Science' Issue. I'm going to surmise that it
came from the Arkansas Gazette. Is that correct?

A Correct.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean Exhibit No. 4, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 97 .)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q What is your opinion of this article and why did you clip
this article?

A You know, when this thing became a fact, I just started
keeping a file. And frankly, I would have to take
fifteen minutes to read that article. I just kept them

70

all for information.

Q You don't recall this being particularly -- by Jay
McDaniel, as to whether that was --

A I just did it, as I recall, I thought it was a good
article and I wasn't sure that he was speaking to all
the issues that I was concerned about.

Q So, would you agree or disagree or could you say?

A I think basically for myself, agreed.

Q Now, this will be McLean Exhibit # 5, it's an article by
Isaac Asimov, concerning the Evolutionary Theory and
Creationism.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 5, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 98 .)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Do you recall your opinion concerning that article?

A You know, this I just filed it for the sake of interest.
I'd rather not say one way or the other.

Q You don't have an opinion as to whether you agree or
disagree?

A I found basically that it was helpful, but I would not
want to go on record saying that I agree or disagree.

Q What about Creationism and Evolution, The Real Issues,
by N. Patrick Murray and Neal D. Buffaloe?

A Very good.

71

Q You would agree with this?

A Yes, sir.

Q You would find this compatible with your own belief?

A Right.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit #6, and is
attached hereto under separate
cover.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q I have two documents here which I will mark as #7 and #8,
Creation/Evolution. What are these?

A A friend of mine wrote me and said that this institute
in Buffalo had been doing a series of studies on it,
and I have read them. I think if you would ask me
generally, I would find that they were helpful, and that
my position agrees with them. If you ask if I agreed
with them specifically, I would beg the question.

(Said documents were so marked as
McLean's Exhibit #7 and #8, and
are appended hereto and appear
under separate cover.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Okay. Do you know -- it says here that Creation/Evolution
is a nonprofit publication dedicated to promoting
evolutionary science. Do these magazines generally take
a view of favoring evolution science over creation
science?

72

A Let me look at them.

(Counsel hands documents to witness)

Q If you don't know, that's fine. I'm just trying to
understand what --

A Yes. That is my understanding that this is basically
their point of view.

Q So, you understand this to be essentially a pro-
evolution publication?

A Yes.

Q Any articles in here that you recall reading which
particularly struck you?

A No. Once again, I was reading this primarily to read
from someone -- doing it not from the theological
perspective but from a scientific perspective. I just
found it to be helpful.

Q All right. I'll mark this as McLean Exhibit #9, and
it is a document marked Resolution.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 9, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 102.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Could you identify this document?

A Yes. Three Presbyterian ministers in the Little Rock
area are Plaintiffs. At the last meeting in June
just an on the floor resolution from the commission, and

73

let me say that I am not in this to represent the
church. I'm in as an individual. But the church court
went on record as approving the actions of these three
individuals. It's sort of a supportive thing. It has
no meat or meaning, except it indicates where I am.

Q This is McLean Exhibit #10, and it's a letter dated
May 29, 1981, to the Honorable Frank White, Governor
of the State of Arkansas, from you. And attached to
that appears to be a previous letter from Governor White
to you.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit #10, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 103.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q What was the occasion that you wrote this letter?

A We have an outfit up in Clarksville, the Ozarks Area
Mission that's done a very valuable services. Frank
White very much appreciated and recognized the good that
the Ozarks Area Mission was doing, and wrote a letter
saying that he was so pleased. His final sentence was,
If I can ever do anything to help you, please call on
me". I wrote a letter to question capital punishment
and 590. He did not honor that by responding. I think
maybe he was a bit insincere when he said, "If there's
ever anything that I can do for you".

74

Q Then McLean Exhibit #11 is something which appears to be
entitled, "Evolution and the Bible", and it also has
minutes of the General Assembly.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 11, and is
appended hereto and appears
on page 104 .)

A That is a statement by the General Assembly, 1969,
Presbyterian, U.S., stating in effect that there is
nothing -- well, you have the final phrase there. You
can probably read it yourself. There is nothing
contradictory about holding the basic tenets of
Christian faith and holding some evolutionary theory.
That would be the official position of the Presbyterian
church. The General Assembly is our highest judicatory.

Q I notice down here in the footnotes the mention of the
General Assembly of 1886 in the case of Rev. James
Woodrow. This was the earlier position of the Presbyter-
ian church?

A Yes.

Q All right. And the position in 1886 included the
following, that Adam and Eve were created by an immediate
act of Almighty Power --

A This wipes all that out. Theologically, in terms of
Biblical interpretation, we were in error.

Q Well, then, up to and including 1969, was it the

75

position of the Presbyterian church, that part to which
you affiliate yourself with, that in fact Adam and Eve
were created by an immediate act of the Almighty Power?

A That first case was a General Assembly trial, and it was
not a mandate. It was on the judicial records. But as
long as I have been in the ministry and my father before
me, there was nothing in the church that made evolution
a heresy. Someone, in a certain context said, you know,
this is the only thing we have on our whole records
about evolution. Let's get it off. So, they appointed
a study committee. So, this is an act of the General
Assembly. The other was a trial by a commission.

Q Well, I note here that one of the things said that the
General Assembly of 1886, in reply to a number of over-
tures concerning evolution, answered, and then it gives
that position.

A Okay.

Q That would not be a trial would it?

A No. You're right. I did not read that far.

Q So, in terms of the weight which you would now give to
the 1967 General Assembly, the statement on evolution and
the Bible, the previous 1886 statement, up to 1967,
would be entitled to the same weight that this is now
entitled. Am I correct?

A Technically. What happened was, it no longer became an

76

issue.

Q All right. This is McLean #12, and it's an article from
the New Republic, by Niles Eldredge.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 12, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 105 .)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q What is your opinion of this article?

A Once again, no real approval, but I think it makes a
pretty good case. That creationism isn't science.

Q And then finally, McLean Exhibit #13, what did you say
this was?

A That is from the textbook, The Mighty Acts of God, by
Dr. Arnold D. Rhodes, which has been for a long time a
part of Presbyterian curriculum. That's the section
that just sort of gives some insight into what we
feel to be a valid interpretation of the creation story
or Genesis.

Q This is how Presbyterians would view the book of Genesis?

A This is how our official approved literature --

Q All right. Very good. I appreciate the difference.

(Said document was so marked as
McLean's Exhibit No. 13, and is
appended hereto and appears on
page 106.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Are you familiar with a Presbyterian minister by the name

77

of Richard Halverson?

A Say more about him. I may be familiar.

Q Well, he is now the chaplin for the United States Senate.

A Oh, I know of him by name.

Q You don't know anything about his own theological views
or beliefs?

A No.

Q You don't know whether you would be compatiable?

A No.

Q Would you agree that there might be individuals within
the Presbyterian church, who minister in the Presbyterian
church, who would hold a different view surrounding
this controversy than you do?

A You know, you're asking a question there that I can only
answer in one way. I don't remember meeting a minister
in the Presbyterian church in the past twenty-five (25)
years who would disagree with where I am now. Maybe
there are a few lay people, but I don't recall any.

Q I guess my question is, not have you ever met anyone,
but would the church discipline a minister or someone
who felt differently on this? Within the Presbyterian
faith, would a minister be entitled to believe that
creation science had a valid scientific basis?

A That's a very hypothetical question.

Q I know there are different branches of the Presbyterian

78

church.

A I'm talking about the one I'm in.

Q All right. That's what I'm talking about also.

A If someone started teaching or preaching creation science,
nothing probably would be done about it, unless someone
was offended by it and brought charges. Therefore, we have
a process by determining, and I don't know how the outcome
would be. They would say certainly, this is not in
consistency with where your church is. What they would
say or do, I have no idea.

But let me give you this answer. In terms of the
Presbyterian seminaries in both systems, there is no
one who can graduate that believes that.

Q I'm sorry. I did not hear that answer. Could you say
that again?

A In the Presbyterian seminaries of our system, I don't
believe anybody would graduate who feels that. Anyone
that feels that strongly is coming from the type
quarter, and I've seen it happen, that they say, "This
ain't true as to the Good Book,and I'm quitting".
Usually you're ordained as a Presbyterian minister
because you are comfortable with our tradition and our
Biblical interpretations.

Q To become a Presbyterian minister, do you have to come
from a Presbyterian seminary?

79

A No.

Q Are you aware of Fuller Theological Seminary?

A Yes.

Q Where is that?

A It's in California. I am aware of it because we had a
sad experience in accepting someone from Fuller, name
to be unmentioned. And he completely bombed out,
because he was laboring in another century.

Q When you say another century, which century was he
laboring in?

A Well, I better quit now, because I'm talking about
things that refer to relationships with a pastor.

Q All right. I really don't recall the names of some
of these, but isn't there a Gordon Cromwell in
Philadelphia?

A Yes.

Q How would you view that seminary?

A If at all possible, I would encourage our candidates
to go to Princeton or Union or McCormick or Austin.

Q That really was not my question. How would you view
the seminary Gordon Cromwell as --

A As an adequate preparation for the Presbyterian ministery.

Q Would it tend to be more conservative than some of the
others you mentioned?

A They try to be all things to all people. So, therefore,

80

a minister doesn't get training in terms of particular
Presbyterian emphasis in theology and tradition, and
view of the sacrements, plus the fact, they are prone
to be more conservative in Biblical interpretation.

Q Are they supported by any one denomination or faith
that you're aware of?

A I don't know are they are supported. I think it's an
interdenominational seminary.

Q If Act 590 should go into effect, could you tell me what
personal harm you think you would suffer, if any?

A Would you explain that?

Q Well, I'm really just wanting to know how you are going
to be adversely effected, if at all, if Act 590 goes into
effect.

A What do you mean by personally?

Q Well, I mean, I don't know what effects you personally,
so I can't give you a definition to that term. I'm
asking you how it would effect you personally?

A Oh, gosh, I can answer that in several ways. For one
thing, it would effect me the same way, when in South
Carolina I heard about it, I was terribly embarrassed,
especially when it was spread over the headlines how
our dear Governor didn't read it before signing it.

Q That embarrassed you?

A That personally effected me. I was very ashamed of

81

Arkansas. Just like I was ashamed of Arkansas in '57.

Q Okay.

A It would effect me because I think it would, as an
executive officer of the Presbyterian church, I think
we have to think very seriously about what steps we
would take. In that in the classroom, things are going
to be occurring that violate what our church is trying
to teach. And I think personally we'd have to gear
up to see -- I don't say what would be done, but I can
say there's a good chance that we would have to very
seriously consider --

Q Could you relate to me how this would violate what the
church is trying to teach?

A Well, everything I have read, in terms of creation
science in those sample textbooks, and I know they're
not the textbooks, say, "Man, you've got to make a
choice". Our church has said that there is nothing
contradictory between some theory of evolution and the
sovereignty of God, as long as you believe that God did
it. They are teaching -- and this comes out of everyone,
ten thousand years is the earliest possible date.

Q That's your belief. The act says a relatively recent
inception of the earth and living kinds, whatever that
is.

Q Well, let me say, that is what I have read about creation

82

science. It could set up a framework of reference
whereby if they really found out that maybe something
was happening a million years ago, you have a crisis
of faith that's really uncalled for. But primarily,
going back to point three, I don't see how it can be
taught without engaging in a public school classroom,
with who knows as teacher, the discussion of theology
and Biblical interpretation.

Q Well, your concern in that regard goes to whether
we can expect professional competence from our
teachers, in terms of excluding religious matters?

A No. No. Just the opposite. I know teachers who are
professionally competent in their field, and I want them
teaching my child math or English or what have you, but
I don't want them to touch issues of Biblical inter-
pretation and theology.

Q The act requires that only scientific evidence and
inferences therefrom specifically be taught, and that's
all you can teach.

A I don't think, you know, in reading one paragraph of that
Act, it's talking about that, but I don't see, as I've
said several times, how you can teach it without getting
into that in which it is rooted, and that is a particular
viewpoint of Biblical interpretation and theology. That
is what brought the whole thing to the surface.

83

Q Again, we're getting into an area where that's your
opinion.

A Right.

Q But --

A But we can only have opinions now.

Q Well, we can have some facts, hopefully, concerning the
scientific evidence. But in terms of teaching the
scientific evidence, if you teach scientific evidence
that does not implicate teaching -- whatever it might
be, that does not or should not implicate necessarily
religion, should it?

A Once again, I don't see how you can teach creation
science without getting into religion.

Q I'm not talking about creation science. I'm talking
about teaching scientific evidence for anything,
concerning any theory.

A Right. Stay in scientific evidence but not creation
science.

Q That's my question at this point. If you teach scientific
evidence, that should not implicate necessarily religion,
should it?

A I do not think it should.

Q Do you believe --

A Because in my own view of science, the classroom is where
you talk about science. And when you get into Creator

84

with a capital C, then you're out of that ballpark.

Q Well, do you believe that only one theory of origin
should be taught?

A I think every theory of origin that comes into their
academic training, as long as it does not deal with
theology in a science classroom, ought to be taught.

Q So, if a biology teacher had training in creation
science, then they could teach it?

A No. Because I would have to, as a citizen, question
whether or not that was true science, and whether or not
my child was still not being subjected to theology.
I cannot accept creation science as a science. That's
one of the reasons why my name is on the Plaintiff list.

Q I understand your position. Are you -- you are aware, are
you not, that much of what we learn in school is
necessarily rooted in some sort of religious tradition
or consistent with a religious tradition? Laws
against stealing, against murder, that they are rooted
in that?

A I'm very glad that's true. Yes, I'm aware of that.

Q And merely because those are consistent with religion,
you don't want them excluded from our schools, do
you?

A I think the process is entirely different there. I can't
even answer that question. You shall not steal, kill,

85

transgress, that's not just Christian ethics, that is a
common denominator of human decency and all religions.
So, therefore, that is something that is roofed in our
society, and I don't see that we have these on there
because the church has said that you've got to put that
on your statute books. I think that arises out of the
American culture, which is a combination of a lot of
things. Creation science arises out of pressure from a
group that has a theological, Biblical interpretative
stance, and I see no relationship in your question.

Q What about teaching about a creator in a science course
at all? Do you think that's possible?

A I do not, because you have to get into your own view
of who and what that creator is and everything else.
I think they ought to teach science and --

Q And no reference should be made to the creator?

A Not at all.

Q Have you ever read Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species?

A No, I haven't.

Q Are you aware that he, in concluding that book, he states
that the first few forms of life, having had life
breathed into their body by the Creator. He used that
term himself.

A I was not aware of that.

Q If that is true, which it is, would you want to exclude

86

Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species from the
classroom?

A No. As long as you quote that as Darwin.

Q Well, so, if Darwin says it, it's okay, but if someone --
a creation scientist uses the word creator, it's not
okay?

A Let me back up and put the context to this. We are
in a different ballgame since the rise of the pressure
of creation science. It's an entirely different ballpark.
I find it even hard to answer questions in the same way.
I think they have put sort of an onus on things that
would have been very natural and normal.

Q So, in other words, what I hear you saying, I think, is
that this is such a political question that it has kind
of altered your view of how you can relate the questions
about the creator generally. Is that what you're
saying?

A Yes, I think that's true. I hadn't thought about it,
but you know, once again, Charles Darwin's statement --
I didn't even know he said that. I'm proud of him for it.
That is all right. But it is not the type statement that
gets into the type discussion that I see of necessity
would arise out of all the factors that I see entwined
in creation science. You know, a person in the classroom
might be teaching evolution and mention creator and go on,

87

but I don't think it would cause near the rumpus that
a teacher would have because the State Legislature says
that I have to give balanced treatment. Therefore, we
get into what is balanced treatment, how do I treat
this in which I don't believe. And it gives it such a
spotlight. An evolutionist in a classroom could say
creator and slide by. But now you have balanced time
and what is creation science and who is this capital
C, Creator? I think the Act makes it -- I think the Act
makes it more difficult to deal with. I think this
Act is going to spotlight it in such a way that you're
going to have a division that makes it impossible to have
freedom. I think the Act will just do a lot of things
that are counter to what it is proposed to do. I think
instead of making academic freedom, it's going to tighten
up on it.

Q If a teacher -- if there was no law covering creation
science and a teacher wanted to teach it, would you defend
their right to teach it as a matter of free speech?

MS. VEHIK:

Wouldn't you consider that a legal question. Not
being a lawyer, I'm afraid that he doesn't have that
ability. I'll have to object to that question.

MR. WILLIAMS:

My question does not go to the nature of a legal

88

conclusion, but just to his own personal philosophy.

A I would have objections, because I think freedom of
speech is something we bend around. I've been to football
games and some drunk behind me is using free speech and
I want to hit him in the mouth because my wife is beside
me. That's a rather dramatic illustration of free speech.
Free speech in the classroom can injure my own child's
relationship to the Presbyterian church. If you teach
biology without any reference to God, which I think
science creationism is rooted in, you can teach anything
you want to and let the church sew it together theolo-
gically. But there is no way you can approach from
this point of view, creation science, and not have a
theological and Biblical interpretative outgrowth of
classroom discussion.

Q If you have an indepth of evolution and you try to trace
back the origins of life, back from life to nonlife,
there is that -- if you will pardon the term, leap
of faith which must be made, that at some point, matter
evolved from nonlife to life. Is that not a natural
point for students to ask about who made that? Was that
the creator? Was that God?

A Yeah. He could say, "In my own personal opinion, yes,
but this is not a part of our classroom material. Go
to your church to find out how they put theological

89

handles on this." But see, creation science gives you a
whole packet of material that doesn't let you give it that
way. In three of those textbooks, if that's a sample
of them, I saw references to Noah's flood as having some
great impact on the progress of mankind. If that is the
direction, you have some builtin perimeters that cause
freedom of the type discussion we're talking about to
cease.

Q In large part, your views on this subject from your
statements, Rev. McLean, seem to have been influenced
by these books that you have looked at that Seagraves
published.

A No. I don't thing they influenced me at all. My views
have been with me for twenty (20) years. This is just
an instance where my views have become concretized in
something I see as being opposite my views. Seagraves
hasn't changed my views at all. he hasn't influenced my
views.

Q He hasn't made you a bit more vehement in your opposition?

A Yes. Because I see what this could do to our public
school system and to our state.

Q So you were considering books which would violate the
Act itself? You know that they would violate the Act?

A Excuse me?

Q You were looking at books which have influenced you in

90

your position and books which you know from reading the
Act yourself would violate Act 590?

A I don't know that. That's my fear. I think that the
books could go in under 590, but I don't think there is
anyway you could teach them without violating what
Act 590 says.

Q Well, you're obviously a very intelligent individual,
you've read Act 590, and you know, do you not, that it
specifically prohibits reference to religious writings?
Does not permit instruction of any religious doctrine
or materials, and treatment is to be limited to the
scientific evidences for each model, and must not
include any religious instruction or references to
religious writings. And those books contain numerous
references to religious writings and would violate the
Act?

A No. The textbooks do not necessarily. They use
creator with a capital C. Seagraves, in one book, he
gives his thesis and then he does a clever job of
editing, but still with the capital C, Creator, et al,
and of course, the part you're reading me from Act 590
is one reason why I'm so against it. I don't think that
it is possible to teach creation science and conform
with those guidelines.

Q Your own review of the book points at several times where

91

scriptures, Psalms, Genesis, other scriptures are
referenced.

A I think these are supplementary books. These are the
books -- I don't know, but if I were Seagraves, I would
not have considered myself to smart sending them to
Arkansas. But he did and they had them down there.
As I see it, starting here, there is a series of eight
books, and I might not have notes on all of them. These
are supportive things that somehow or another he was
foolish enough to send. And he's editor and he very
cleverly keeps the obvious out, but in his basic book
he tells right here what is his purpose. Once again,
we don't know which curriculum they are going to choose.
But the guy who has edited has let it be known why he
is doing it.

Q When you talk about a creator and creation, wouldn't
you agree that in evolution that the laws of nature, if
you will, the forces of nature are the evolver. Would
you agree with that?

A I think that the laws and the forces of nature are set
into process by an omnipotent God. You know, in a
classroom, a teacher could say that end then say, "in
terms of how God did this and when and where, ask these
questions of your parents or your church".

Q You think they couldn't do the same thing with creation

92

science? If they asked the question, "Isn't the
creator God?" and you couldn't say, "Go to your parents
and ask them. Go to your church and ask them"?

A No, because you are into an area of curriculum which
is predicated on Biblical interpretations, and sooner or
later that is going to come out just as sure as we are
sitting here.

Q And you make that statement as you have several times,
and you overlook the basic fact that Act 590 allows
teachings only in scientific evidences and the inferences
therefrom. I mean --

A I'm saying that's the great inconsistency.

Q Because in your thirty years of experience in considering
creation, you can't conceive of how that can be done,
although that's what is required to be done?

A Yes. And I think -- well, no I don't.

Q I don't understand the answer then.

A Well, I started to say something and you didn't ask me
that question. Excuse me.

Q But you don't think it can be done?

A I don't think it can be done.

MR. WILLIAMS:

All right. That's all the questions I have.

(Witness Excused) (Signature Waived)

93

THEREUPON,

The taking of the deposition was completed at the
hour of 5:05 p.m., on Friday, October 2, 1981.

---------

Deposition of Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks

                                No. LR-C-81-322
 
 
REV. WILLIAM McLEAN, et al      *
                       Plaintiffs            *   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                               *
VS                                           *   EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                               *
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE   *   WESTERN DIVISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al        *
                       Defendants        *
                                               *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
        ORAL DEPOSITION OF BISHOP KENNETH W. HICKS
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES:

                 MR. PHIL KAPLAN, ESQ., Kaplan, Hollingsworth,
                         Brewer & Bilheimer, 950 Tower Building,
                         Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
                                          AND
                 MS. JOAN VEHIK, Esq., Cearley, Gitchel, Mitchell
                         & Roachell, 1014 West Third, Little Rock
                         Arkansas 72201
                                          For the Plaintiffs

                 MR. RICK CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney General, and
                 MR. DUB ELROD, Assistant Attorney General, Justice
                         Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
                                          For the Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                 ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF BISHOP KENNETH W. HICKS,
a witness produced on behalf of the Defendants, taken in the
above styled and numbered cause on the 2nd day of December,
1981 before Laura D. Bushman, a Notary Public in and for
Pulaski County, Arkansas at the office of Ms. Joan Vehik,
1014 West Third, Little Rock, Arkansas at 11:25 a.m.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                 LAURA BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
                         1100 N. University, Suite 223
                         Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
                                   (501) 664-7357

2

                                   INDEX
TOPIC                                                          PAGE

Witness Sworn in: Bishop K. W. Hicks                3
Direct Examination by MR. CAMPBELL                 3
       Hicks Exhibit #1 marked for the record      60
           [Exhibit found on page 63.]
       Hicks Exhibit #2 marked for the record      61
           [Exhibit found on page 64.]
Witness Signature page                                  65
       Correction page                                      66
Certificate                                                      67

3

                          DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CAMPBELL:

Q. Good morning, Bishop Hicks.

A. Good morning.

Q. My name is Rick Campbell and I am one the attorneys
representing the State Board of Education in the
litigation which is entitled McLean V. State Board
of Education. I am here this morning to discuss with you
a little bit about what your proposed testimony will be
at trial, to find out a little bit about your background
since the Plaintiffs have indicated that you will be
called as a witness in the case. If at any time you
would like to take a break to go to the restroom or get a
drink or anything, just let me know. There will be no
problem with that at all. Would you please state your
name and address?

A. Kenneth W. Hicks. **** ***** *******, ******
****, ******* *****.

Q. Are you married, Bishop Hicks?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. I have two children, two daughters. Would you like
their names?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. One daughter is Linda, Linda Diane and the other

4

daughter is Deborah Dawn Swenson, S-w-e-n-s-o-n. Q. Were
they educated in the public schools?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did they attend schools?

A. As a minister I moved on occasion. So their
grade school education -- well, their high school
education took place at several different places. But in
the public schools of Nebraska. The oldest daughter
is a graduate of Norfolk Nebraska High School. The
youngest is a graduate of Kearney, Nebraska High School.

They did their college work -- the
oldest daughter did hers at Kearney, K-e-a-r-n-e-y, State
College in Kearney, Nebraska. She got a Master's degree
from Nebraska University. The youngest daughter did her
college work at Kearney State College and the University
of Nebraska.

Q. Where are you presently employed?

A. I'm a Bishop of the United Methodist Church
of Arkansas, the Arkansas area as we call it. And
I reside in Little Rock. My office is in Little Rock.

Q. What are your responsibilities as Bishop of the
United Methodist Church?

A. My responsibilities are the general oversight of
the Churches of our denomination in Arkansas of which
there are approximately 750 to 800. I'm not sure just how

5

many. That oversight includes the appointing of ministers
to those Churches to serve as pastors. Also in the State of
Arkansas my role is to assist in providing leadership,
coordination and counsel in the entire life of our
denominational structure and thrust.

Beyond Arkansas, part of my
responsibility is that of what we call in our
denomination that of General Superintendency, which means
that in addition to being Bishop of Arkansas, I'm really
also a Bishop of our entire Church with responsibilities
from time to time beyond the limits of Arkansas.

Q. In your capacity providing leadership, coordination
and counsel to the United Methodist Churches in Arkansas,
have you developed a position, a United Methodist Church
position on Act 590?

A. No, sir. In our denomination the General
Conference of our Church speaks in a legal way for
our denomination. That is a representative meeting that
meets every four years and the total product of that is a
book of Church law that we call "The Discipline." And within
that are certain documents of historical background, our
social principles as well as details of Church law. This
product of this document is the official position of our
Church.

Beyond that, as a Bishop of the Church, my

6

role would be to interpret issues as best as I see them in
the light of our heritage and history and doctrine. But I
have not developed, nor would I really have the privilege of
establishing a doctrine or an official position on this
issue.

Q. As a Bishop in interpreting issues in light
of Church history or Church tradition, have you developed
a position on Act 590?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has this been disseminated to all the other United
Methodist Churches in Arkansas?

A. My views have been disseminated in various ways
throughout our Churches, through our Church paper, "The
Arkansas Methodist", and some of that got into the --
at least the Arkansas Gazette. I did not submit that to
the "Letters to the Editor", but apparently somebody
did. I have -- I don't recall that I have made any
addresses on the creation-science bill, per se. Last annual
conference time I made a series -- I presented a series of
devotionals on the meaning of the creation accounts in
Genesis. The basic material for these had been prepared
some years ago. And that was the basis of the material that
I used.

Q. You mentioned the last annual conference. How is that
different from these four year conferences?

7

A. Yes, sir. In Arkansas we have in our parlance there
are two what we call annual conferences. Now that is a
geographic area as well as an occasion. There is a North
Arkansas Annual Conference and the southern part
of Arkansas, roughly, is the Little Rock annual
conference. But there is a session annually that we call
the annual conference session of each of these bodies.
And this is a time when business is conducted and
ministers are ordained and persons are received into
various relationships within the goals and objectives of
that body.

Q. Would positions be developed at these annual
conferences or would they be developed, as you suggested
earlier, at this conference held every four years?

A. A position on social issues?

Q. Uh-huh.

A. The annual conferences do have the privilege
of submitting resolutions for the consideration of that
body. And that is an action that comes out of an agency
of that annual conference or a person in that annual
conference session. But again, that becomes the action
of that body of people. It is not an action that speaks
for all the United Methodists of that agency.

Now, as verses the four year
experience, the General Conference, that does become -- the

8

action of that does become the official position of the
United Methodist Church. What we do at the annual
conference by way of social position becomes the position of
that annual conference and is submitted to the people for
their consideration.

Q. To your knowledge, has there been a resolution
presented to an annual conference in Arkansas concerning
the teaching of creation-science in public schools?

A. I wish I had looked this up beforehand. It seems
to me that one of the annual conferences did take some
action regarding that and the other one did not. And I
can't recall the accuracy of that. I could find that out
rather quickly for you if you desire.

Q. Do you know about when this position would have
been taken?

A. Yes. This would have been in -- the Little Rock
Annual Conference met beginning on Memorial day until I
think it was Thursday of that week. The North Arkansas
Conference met about two weeks later.

Q. Do you recall generally what the substance was of
the position taken by the conference?

A. The -- if there was a position -- and as I said, it
does seem to me that there was in one or the other
of them -- it was a position upholding the stance that --
against creation-science. The creation-science bill. But I

9

have to repeat that I'm not sure that that was done, which
would also be my way of saying this was certainly not a
priority within the agenda of either of the annual
conferences.

Q. Would any interpretation of issues which you made
carry the weight of the United Methodist Church or
would it simply be your own position?

A. So far as I am concerned and understand my role
and the law of our Church, this would be my position because
our general conference, our general Church hasn't made any
kind of disposition of this issue. Our last meeting was
April of 1980 of that body.

Q. Before you became the Bishop of the United
Methodist Church in Arkansas, where were you employed?

A. I was a pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church,
Grand Island, Nebraska for approximately three and a
quarter years. And at that time the body met that
elects Bishops and I was elected. Prior to that I was
for five years a District Superintendent in the Nebraska
Annual Conference. And prior to that for years as
a pastor.

Q. Before you became the Bishop of the United
Methodist Church in Arkansas, had you ever had any
experience with the teaching of creation-science in
public schools?

10

A. No.

Q. Where did you graduate from high school, Bishop
Hicks?

A. Iola High School, Iola, Kansas.

Q. Did you study origins in high school?

A. I took -- I had very little science in high school. I
don't recall that we did study origin. My -- the only
science subject that I remember was chemistry. There might
have been some others, but I'm not sure.

Q. Where did you attend college?

A. I attended college and graduated from a small
Church related college at York, Nebraska called York
College at that time. It was a college of the
United Bretheren Church, a denomination in which I was
reared. Since those days that denomination merged
with another denomination and then that combined
denomination merged with the Methodist Church in 1968. I
joined the Methodist Church, however, in 1946 and became
a member and minister at that time.

Q. Did you take any science courses in college?

A. Yes, sir. Zoology is the one I recall. The worst.

Q. Do you recall studying origins in zoology?

A. Yes, in a general way, I do. There were references
to beginnings and to the different stages of development
apparently in certain species, et cetera.

11

Q. Do you recall whether a conflict ever developed
concerning evolution in the zoology class that you took?

A. No, there was never any conflict.

Q. Are you a member of any professional associations?

A. No. I can't think of any that I am a member of.
By professional associations, you mean other than
institutional boards and things like that?

Q. Right.

A. No, I can't think of any that I am a member of.

Q. Are you a member of the Society for the Study
of Evolution?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of the Committed of Correspondence
in Chicago, Illinois?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of the group called CARE which is
Concerned Arkansans for Responsible Education?

A. No.

Q. Are you on the mailing list of any organization
which has a position on whether or not creation-science
should be taught in the public schools?

A. I can't recall that I am on any regular mailing list.

12

Now, as is indicated in the material, from time to time a
publication will be sent me. But I am not aware that I'm on
any regular mailing list that has as its major concern this
area at all.

Q. These publications which are sent to you, are they
sent to you directly from the organizations or are
they sent to you from individuals?

A. Both. They'll come -- many interested individuals
will send me things that they read and picked up. Now
and again there will be something that will come as a
sample that may be a subscription is desired of. And now
and again there will be a mailing that would come from
some professional or educational agency of some sort
that I presume is put out as a policy paper by some
interested group.

Q. Bishop Hicks, the Plaintiffs have listed you on a
witness list and suggested you would testify concerning
your reasons for the opposition to the teaching of
creation-science and your unsuccessful attempt to testify
before the Arkansas Legislature in opposition to Act
590. I would like to discuss each of those topics
with you and just generally let me ask you what will be
the subject matter of your testimony concerning the reasons
for your opposition to the teaching of creation- science?

A. I think the general subject matter will be based,

13

first of all, on the belief that this bill represents a
transgression of the First Amendment and the separation of
Church and State. And my basis for my rationale for this
has to do with the conviction that in order for the
creation-science curriculum to be installed or put in place,
it will be necessary for the State to prescribe limits,
bounds, definitions that will indicate how a teacher is to
be prepared for the teaching of this when the teacher is
prepared for the teaching of this. And I believe that that
represents a responsibility as being assumed by the State
that the State does not have under the First Amendment.

I believe also that the matter that the
data or the content of the creation-science thrust cannot
be taught without ultimate reference either to a Creator
and the nature of that Creator or to the Biblical data
from which the bulk of our culture would draw in their
understanding of the creation. And I believe that is
in effect mixing apples and oranges. My contention
is that the material in the Scriptures represents data
of faith, faith statements, theological statements, the-
why, the meaning of creation, but does not represent an
enlightened account of the how of creation and was not
intended to.

I have read some on the issue in behalf of
creation-science in this material. As a matter of fact,

14

there is some material in there from the Institute of
Creation Research, I believe it is called, in California,
which as I understand is a prominent distributor of
material, curriculum materials for creation-science. There
is one document in there that lists the tenets of
creation-science. One listing has to do with Biblical
creation-science. Another listing has to do with just
scientific creationism, which would be as the material
indicates would be the stance if you are in a setting where
the Bible could not be referred to. But those tenets of
just scientific creationism that they hold to repeat where
numerous frequency, make reference to the Creator, to the
nature of the Creator and to a description of the Creator
that, if not in detail, describes -- at least by implication
describes a literal account of the first two Chapters of
Genesis. So for those reasons, there are some of the
reasons I believe that this bill is a contradiction of the
First Amendment. But I also believe that it is ambiguous
and that it is not only confused, but that it is confusing.

Q. Are there any other reasons that you are opposed
to it?

A. Well, beyond this, I don't know just how far one
really wants to go or whether these are other reasons or
not. But I believe as I indicated earlier so very deeply
that what is being attempted here would be, you know, it

15

would be using religion and a religious orientation in a
context that is not intended by the religious literature.
And an analogy might be that I see what would be done in
this as what might be done if an auto mechanic's tools were
used in surgery and a surgeon's tools were used to work on
cars. The outcome would definitely have limitations.

And so this again, you know, I feel --
this bill, I believe, puts limitations on free inquiry
which is what public education, I believe, is all about.
And it also takes for granted presuppositions about what
is appropriately creationist. So these represent the
substance, I think, of my positions.

Q. Are there any other reasons that you oppose the
bill?

A. Any other reasons do not come to mind at this
time.

Q. Would you expect that these will be the reasons that
you will testify to at trial?

A. I think so, yes. These will be the basic reasons.
These are the kinds of things I've been trying to work
through in my own mind as I've dealt with this matter. I
might throw in one more. I indicated that I feel that the
bill, for the reasons that I gave, is ambiguous. There is
also reference within the bill to some terms. I forget just
how the terminology goes, but theological liberalism,

16

humanism. There is even a reference in there to Atheistic
Churches, which is a phrase that I'm not familiar with at
all, is an Atheistic Church. Again, the State eventually
assumes the right to decide what is theological liberalism,
what is humanism. And seems to place so much import on the
rejection or the diminishing of those terms that the State
obviously plans or intends to have the power and the right
to decide what the definition of those will be. And this
further I think represents the confusion and the ambiguity
of this bill. And that further magnifies the State stepping
into an arena that is not prescribed by the Constitution.

Q. You mentioned that one of your reasons for opposing
the teaching of creation-science in the classroom was
that the State must prescribe limits, bounds and
definitions of how creation-science would be presented.
What's wrong with that?

A. I think that those limits and bounds have inherently
at the core of them religious orientation, decisions
or definitions that are -- that have Biblical orientation
that is not unanimously agreed upon by any means. What I'm
really suggesting here is that those limits are basically
theological definitions, theological limits, value limits
that are religiously oriented. And my -- it may not be made
clear as to how those limits, how those definitions, how the
content of that is to be -- who is going to be the authority

17

for saying that here is the limit that beyond which a
teacher must not cross without being into the area that is
forbidden by the bill. Or here is the line at which a
teacher is prepared to teach objectively creation-science as
well as evolution. So it is again -- these are limits and
these are standards, these are policies that are inherently
theological and philosophical in nature, I believe.

And first of all, I don't believe the
State has the privilege of setting those. Secondly, the
State hasn't indicated how it plans to do so.

Q. Why do you think that creation-science has a religious
orientation?

A. Well, what I -- it seems to me to be plain that
what creation-science is advocating is attempting to
address a point of view that apparently the proponents
of creation-science believes does not have religious
orientation. Therefore, they are couching a -- this
couches an attempt to teach science by the very title
itself from the standpoint of a Creator or a supernatural
kind of beginning. So that is my first reason.

Secondly is that all of the material I
have to say without exception -- I have not read widely
in the area of creation-science I admin. The material I
have read has the premise of having the ultimate aim
of teaching science in a way that will conform to Biblical

18

literalism. And the people that I have talked to or the
people that have talked to me who are for creation-science
have -- I believe I could say honestly without exception
-- used as a rationale for their belief in behalf of this
bill, that a religious orientation or a view of God or a
reference to God certainly ought to be -- have its place
within the classroom. So the overall exposure that I have
had to it seems to have that as a basic presupposition.

Q. Do you view the terms Creator and creation as
inherently religious terms?

A. I do. I do basically. So without feeling that that
has to be the case. But, you know, these terms have
been brought into place with regard to this bill as
over against a view of science that is not at all
religiously oriented and purports to be. So my
assumption really has to be that it is being thought
that creation-science, that creationism implies a
Creator. What material, again, I have read on
creation-science does really imply that rather specifically.

Q. Well, do you think that your feeling that the
terms Creator or creation may be inherently religious are
due to your own academic and professional training
in the ministry as opposed to some other reason?

A. I'm not quite clear I guess in regard to my own
mind. I'm sure that my own background does have a very

19

evident application here. No doubt with that. Again, I
guess I see the creation-science, the creation-science bill
was brought to pass as an alternative. And there is no way
that I can believe that it is intended that this bill is
going to be a bill that is intended to be devoid of a
devinely defined creative force or power. Otherwise we are
basically back in the ballpark of pure science.

Q. Why couldn't creation-science as you understand it
be taught as pure science?

A. I think it cannot be taught as pure science because
I see no way how the option of the creative act, by
whatever that may mean to the proponents of this bill,
I don't see how the option of presenting the creative bill
verses the option of just open conjecture and theorizing
along the evolution lines, I see nothing new that would
be brought into the situation that would be valid without
reference to a new ingredient, an added ingredient
namely that they are -- behind the Creative act that there
would have to be a creative intention by a Creator.

Q. What's wrong with that?

A. Well, then someone is going to have to be prepared,
it seems to me, to pursue the nature of that Creator with
those who are making the inquiry, with the pupils in
other words. Or the alternative would be that once
the act of creation by a Creator is thrown out, that

20

discussion of that would have to be cut off. And
no inquiry would be allowed by the provision of the law
itself. I can't understand how creation-science could be
taught in an open educational setting without the
possibility of a pupil asking, "Well what or who is the
Creator?" And at that point, by the nature of the
law itself, the discussion would have to end.

And I note within the bill itself that
the methodology that seems to be propounded by the bill
for teaching creation-science is a lecture methodology.
That's mentioned at least twice in the bill. Which
presupposes a limited kind of -- certainly a scientific
inquiry. Not an exchange. Not really inquiry, by
the dissemination of information. And that, again,
spells -- at least spells limits on the openness of this
whole enterprise.

Q. Well, do you think that "what or who" questions are
never asked when evolution is presented in the classroom?

A. I really don't know. I have no idea. I imagine they
are. I would think that they probably would be asked
sometimes. The reason that I would assume that is because
of the culture -- of our culture that has enough religious
clout or religious input into the formation of lives that it
is logical that it probably would be asked at times.

Q. Well, if the questions will be asked sometime when

21

teaching evolution, what's wrong with them being asked
if you are teaching creation-science?

A. It seems to me that if they are asked and the answer,
you know, is in the realm that these are theological and
these are philosophical data from here on, then you
have, you know, you have a premise, you have a bridge to
enable scientific inquiry to know that there is an
area where science can be pursued. There is an area
where, you know, the values and faith kinds of
imaginations or considerations -- those belong in a realm
that is not in the overall scientific pursuit.

And my concern here is this matter is
that it seems to me that the basic premise -- one basic
premise at least of the creation-science bill is that
somehow this theological and philosophical data can be
inserted into the process of the inquiring into our origins
and beginnings and so on.

Q. Well, if it could be presented in a scientific manner,
would you still oppose its being taught?

A. It is difficult to respond to that because I don't
believe it can be. That's a theoretical outcome that I
don't believe is possible. So I can't really respond to
that adequately.

Q. Again, why don't you think that's possible?

A. Who don't I think that's possible? The reason I don't

22

think it is possible is that -- and your question I
believe was -- I was thinking and I should have been
listening. The question that you asked me was why cannot --
state it again for me.

Q. Why is it not possible for creation-science to be
taught in a scientific manner?

A. The reason that it is not possible for
creation-science to be taught in a scientific manner is
that the basic presuppositions of creation-science are
several fold. but among those are that a Creator is a
beginner of the process, which immediately places the
whole discussion on a theological and philosophical
plane. And secondly, that the moment that the process
gets over on that plane, then the discussion has to
change from scientific data over to the nature of Creator or
the nature of this great supernatural act. The whole thing
of -- well, I'll just stop at that point I guess.

Q. What you are saying is -- and I don't want to
mischaracterize your testimony at all -- once a Creator
is mentioned or referred to, then we are out of the
realm of science and into the realm of theology?

A. Seems to me that if it is pursued, that it would be
in the realm of theology and philosophy.

Q. What if it was not pursued?

A. Well then there would have to be -- if, you know,

23

the legal provisions were followed to the letter, then I
would assume what would have to be done for a teacher or
somebody to say, "Well, this is an area about which
there is a great deal of opinion and there are varied
points of view. This is not an area that we pursue in
the public school science class." Something to that
effect I would suppose.

Q. Why couldn't a teacher do that?

A. I think the teacher not only could do that, but
would have to do that.

Q. Under Act 590?

A. Yeah. Uh-huh.

Q. Is it your understanding that publications which
you have looked at from the Institute for Creation
Research are the publications that will be used in the
public schools of Arkansas?

A. No, I have no basis to think that at all. Again, this
is one of those mailings that came to me voluntarily and
that's the only reason I happen to have it in my
possession. And I understand that it is a reliable center
or a prominent center from which creation-science material
emanates.

Q. But it is your understanding that the State would be free
to seek its own publications?

A. Yes.

24

Q. You mentioned that Act 590 was ambiguous. In what
ways do you find it ambiguous?

A. I think it is ambiguous in the -- for one thing in
what it would require by way of the orientation and
preparation of instructors who -- science teachers, for
instance, who have been taught within a framework of
a discipline that is outside of the provision of this
bill. I think it is ambiguous in terms of what an
instructor or instructors or School Boards, School Districts
would have to undergo by way of preparing for the
implementation of the creation-science material or data.

That is one reason that I think the
bill is ambiguous. And it does not say, in other words,
what the consequences are to teachers or to pupils. It
does not indicate what kind of preparation a teacher
would have to undergo or what would constitute the
arrival at the preparation satisfactory -- satisfactorily.
It is ambiguous in those areas.

I think it is ambiguous in another area
in its assumption, some of its assumptions. Namely that
the teaching of an evolutionary process which is really
not described -- as I have read the bill, evolution is
not described. But the assumption is that the
evolutionary process is counter in all cases to a belief
in a Creator. And that the creative process and the

25

reality of the Creator have nothing in common with each
other. I think that's a religious assumption that
is being made. A theological assumption that is
being made.

It is also ambiguous in the terms of
the terminology that I used earlier which seems to be, by
the very tone of the terminology of the phrases that
refer to theological liberalism, humanism, atheism
and the one -- the reference that indicates Atheistic
Churches. That seems to carry the tone of importance, it
seemed to me, of heaviness within the bill that says to me
that until those things are described -- if these are
important to the State or important to the legislature as
they obviously are -- that there needs to be more of a
clarification of what is intended and who is included and
who is left out of those terminologies.

Q. Why couldn't the preparation of materials which would
be used in presenting creation-science in the public schools
of Arkansas be left up to the professional judgment of
teachers and educators without the State having to mandate
that?

A. Well, I think one -- there is called into question
the criteria and the credentials by which teachers,
school boards, others who make the selection of
curriculum -- it is called into question the credentials

26

by which those groups have the background, have the
training, have the rationale for making a sound
determination of scientific material, creation-science
material.

Q. The second topic which the Plaintiffs have indicated
that you will be testifying to at trial is your
unsuccessful attempt to testify before the Arkansas
Legislature in opposition to Act 590. I would like to
discuss that with you for a few minutes. First let me ask
you when did you first learn that a bill requiring the
teaching of creation-science would be proposed in the
Arkansas Legislature?

A. You know, I wish that I could pinpoint that for you
and I cannot. The nature of my work is that I am in and
out of the State a great deal. And some days before it
came to a time of decision I was aware that this was
somewhere in the process. And by some days, you know, I'm
just pulling out something here like ten days, two weeks in
advance. Something of that sort. And I was aware that
something like this was in the process. And I frankly --
what little I know about it at the time, somehow or other
caused me to think that it wasn't as far along and that
there wasn't as serious an effort in this endeavor as there
apparently was. And then my duties took me hither and yon
and I lost personal contact with it.

27

On the day -- again I don't have the
date, but it would have been -- at least it would have
been the date that it was passed in committee. At least
it would have been that date and I'm not sure whether it
was the date that it was really adopted by the
legislature or not. I learned early in the morning that it
was going to be at least in the committee that day, and I
think that's the stage at which I learned about it. And I
had committments already that day that did not allow me to
go up to the Capitol personally.

I asked Reverend George Tanner, who is
counsel director, which is a person that coordinates the
programatic thrust of the Little Rock Annual Conference,
if he would be able to go up and represent me.

I had conversation by phone with
somebody at the State House and I don't know who it was. It
was -- and I'm very sorry about that that I can't detail
this better. It was -- well, I can't say at this time
whether it was a legislator -- whether it was a Senator's
staff person or not. But I had contact with the Capitol by
phone. And they indicated that it would be in the committee
discussion at such and such time. Reverent Tanner went up
and his report back to me was that, "I attempted to speak on
your behalf and no provision was allowed for this." And he
indicated that there was a great deal of confusion in the

28

Chamber and that there was considerable evidence of people
who were proponents of the bill and persons who were very
vigorous and he described the climate of rather aggressive
persons who were not conducive to allowing open
discussions. But that -- and despite the fact that he
attempted to at least give some personal word from me, this
was not possible in the few minutes that was allowed for the
discussion at all.

And that is the -- is the extent
-- at that time that was the last of my attempts to
intrude or to give some input into the situation after I
learned that it had been passed. And can you tell me if
it was -- was it adopted that day, the same day it came
out of committee?

MR.KAPLAN: I don't know. It was either
the same day or the next day, but I've forgotten.

A. And so I gave up on it partly because of the press
of my responsibilities.

Q. Do you recall who it was that told you that the bill
was going to be introduced in the legislature?

A. No. No. No, I don't recall that.

Q. But you think that you learned of it sometime
during 1981?

A. Oh, yes. Yes. Uh-huh.

Q. Did you contact anyone when you first learned of

29

the bill possibly being introduced in the legislature
concerning your feelings about the bill?

A. I made a couple of phone calls and I cannot tell you
to whom I made them. This was a hurried kind of
transmission of information to me. And I think in both --
in the two or tree instances I asked the secretary to get in
touch with the person she had been informed I ought to be in
touch with. I pressed that as far as I could go. And I
can't tell you who those persons were. I think in all cases
they were not directly -- were not legislators, but were
staff persons.

Q. Do you recall whether this could have been January or
February?

A. Oh, that would have been very close to the time
of the adoption of the bill. Within a day or two prior to
the adoption of the bill.

Q. That was the first time you had ever done anything
concerning the bill?

A. Yes, right. Yeah.

MR.KAPLAN: Can we go off the record for a
second?

[Off the record discussion.]

Q. Why were you concerned with this bill being
introduced into the legislature?

A. I was concerned because basically -- because of the

30

-- my first initial concern was that I perceived this as
a transgression of the First Amendment. That this was
going to result in a mixture of Church and State that I
did not think was appropriate.

Q. Do you recall the substance of any of the telephone
conversations which you or your secretary may have made
concerning the creation-science bill?

A. The substance of them was a statement of my
position. And for the persons that I was talking to,
that I would appreciate it if the person that I was
trying to reach, the Senator or the Representative as
the case would have been, might know of my point of
view. And I asked that that be transmitted to that
person. That was the substance.

Q. Do you recall who you were trying to transmit your
message to?

A. I don't recall that. I don't recall that.

Q. Were they your local legislators or were they
friends of yours or --

A. No. These would have been persons that I
understood were directly related to this in some way or
was in charge of, you know, guiding this into committee
and that sort of thing. They were not friends, they were
not -- basically names that had been given me as being
persons that I should get in touch with.

31

Q. Who gave you those names?

A. These names came -- I don't know who these people were
actually by name. But these are people who know of my
concern, left word with the secretary that "At such and such
a time, this is on this kind of timeline. And so if the
Bishop wants to respond, he should call so and so at this
number." It was that kind of information.

Q. How would they have known of your concern in this
area?

A. Well, these could have been people in our conference
and area staff. These could have been people there who
-- sometimes radios going or people who read something in
the paper that I hadn't read. They would have been that
type of person.

Q. How would they have known that you were concerned
about it?

A. Oh, through informal discussions as occurs every
now and then as we gathered for various kinds of meetings.
And sometimes if there is something that's hot, an
issue around that's getting a lot of attention, why we
make kind of comparison notes on it or exchange views
on it as we go in to get a cup of coffee in the morning.

Q. Well, when do you think you first discussed your
views with anyone concerning the teaching of
creation-science in the public schools?

32

A. That is very difficult to say. It would have been --
this particular subject would have been very close to the
time that the bill was enacted. Within these prior days.

Q. Within a week?

A. Probably within a week, yes. I think, though, that
the persons around whom I associate a lot, you know, in
our professional jobs down there at our headquarters,
that these would have been persons who would probably
have known my general attitude and general position in
this area.

Q. So prior to a week before the bill was enacted,
you had not had any involvement in --

A. I don't believe so. I think not. I think not.

Q. You had not talked to any legislators about it
prior to the week before its enactment?

A. No, I'm confident I did not.

Q. You did not talk to any employees of the
legislature prior to the week it was enacted?

A. No, assuming that it was in the committee
discussion a day or two prior to its enactment, I know I
would have not talked to employees of the legislature
earlier than that.

Q. Which committee was this that you are talking about?

A. I don't know that. It was whatever committee was
dealing with it, and I frankly don't know.

33

Q. Do you know if it was in the House or the Senate?

A. This would -- I believe that this would -- I believe
this would have been the House.

Q. Had you been contacted by any individuals or
groups prior to a week before the enactment of the
creation-science bill concerning your views?

A. No, no.

Q. Have you made attempts in the past to testify before a
legislative committee?

A. Only, only -- there has only been one occasion
which was approximately three or four years ago. And the
incident had to do with a -- the consideration of a
proposed tax measure on Church property. And I was -- I
did appear before a committee that was chaired, I
believe, by Dr. -- the optometrist. I can't think of what
his name was. Prominent in legislature at the time from
Pine Bluff. You can't help me with that can you?

Q. No.

A. That's the only time I've appeared before a
legislative body.

Q. Were there others who appeared before the
legislative body at that time?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. On both sides of the issue?

MS. VEHIK: I'm going to object to these

34

questions. I don't see any relevance.

Q. But on either side of the issue or both sides of
the issue?

A. I frankly don't know whether both sides were
discussed. But we were -- at that time our side was
given an opportunity to assert an opinion.

Q. How did you know that that particular tax bill was
going to be before the legislative committee on that day?

A. I can't say. I don't recall how that word came to me.

Q. How was it that you decided you would testify?

A. There was a small group of interested persons.
Somebody did call me and said, "If we could have the
opportunity to make a statement, would you be willing to
go?" And I indicated that I would on this issue. And I
can't recall who that was.

Q. Do you recall the length of time between when you were
first contacted by the person asking whether you would
testify and the time you did testify?

A. I think it was the same day. I think it was before
noon and testimony took place, our appearance took place
approximately -- not far from the noon hour. Maybe 12:30,
1:00, 1:30, something like that.

Q. Did you personally make any arrangements to testify
or was that done for you?

A. No, that was done for me. I didn't personally do

35

it.

Q. How long did your testimony --

MS. VEHIK: I would like to note
my continuing objection to this line of questions and
that they are not particularly relevant to the testimony
that the Bishop will give during the trial.

Q. Excuse us, Bishop Hicks. This is just some things
that lawyers have to do back and forth. How long was
your testimony at that hearing?

A. It was very brief, very brief. Probably only a minute
in time.

Q. Do you know how long the committee heard testimony
on the tax measure?

A. No, I have no idea.

Q. Did you leave immediately after your testimony?

A. Very shortly. Within thirty minutes.

Q. Do you know whether all bills which are considered by
the General Assembly are subject to committee hearings?

A. My technical knowledge of the legislative process
is minimal. And I frankly don't know. My assumption is
that, though there may be exceptions, that surely most
of them do go through a committee process.

Q. Do you know whether or not there are limitations
placed on the lengths of time a hearing will last
generally?

36

A. No. I don't know that.

Q. You mentioned that someone contacted you by
telephone concerning the hearing date on Act 590 -- what
later became Act 590. Do you know who that someone
was?

A. No, there were several sources. And at the time I
made no attempt to remember and I did not -- I made no
attempt to record it and I frankly don't know. Somehow
or other, word was coming to me from more than one source
that this is pretty far along and, you know, "If you are
going to do anything, that it's got to be done shortly."
And these -- I could say and would say that these, you
know, were persons of -- I think in all cases of my --
of my professional commonality and not -- were not persons
of a -- of a legislative orientation that were seeking any
strength that I could bring one way or other. They are
persons who shared mutual concerns as me.

Q. Do you recall the length of time between that
telephone conversation alerting you to the committee hearing
and the date of the hearing?

A. The time when I was aware of it was the same day.
It was that morning that I was aware that it was going
to be discussed in committee. It seemed to me that word
was that 9:30 or something like that this will be on the
docket and there was no way that I could get loose at

37

that time. But it was that same morning.

Q. Prior to that day, had you prepared remarks
concerning your position on --

A. No.

Q. -- the model bill?

A. No.

Q. After you were contacted by telephone, but before the
scheduled time of the hearing, did you prepare remarks?

A. No.

Q. Did you go to the Capitol that morning yourself?

A. No, I didn't go to the Capitol that morning
myself. My committments wouldn't allow me to do it. And
I asked Reverend George Tanner to go in my stead.

Q. Prior to -- excuse me. Go ahead.

A. I was going to say the context of that request
was for him to, you know, register on my behalf, in any
manner that he could, my opposition to this bill and my
concern about it.

Q. Prior to the telephone call which you received that
morning telling you of the committee hearing, had you
discussed your concerns about the bill with Reverend
Tanner?

A. I can't say for sure. If I did, it would have been
in a casual way that one might discuss a news item with
which one has some difference of opinion. And if there

38

was a discussion, it would have been within that context.

Q. What amount of time passed between the time that you
received the telephone call telling you of the committee
hearing and the time you first contacted Reverend Tanner
about appearing before the committee?

A. Probably twenty minutes.

Q. Why did you contact Reverend Tanner as opposed to
some other person?

A. Well, he was available for one thing. And I think he
was the first one that I had -- if he had not been able
to, I would have gone on to another person. And that
little sequence in there is something like, you know,
getting to the office about 8:30, learning of this.
Probably making a -- probably within there making a phone
call to affirm the time. Getting to -- and discovering that
I couldn't do it myself. Getting Reverend Tanner because I
know that he only had about fifteen minutes or so to get up
to the Capitol. He said, "I'll just drop everything and
go."

Q. How long did your conversation last with Reverend
Tanner?

A. Oh, it would have been two or three minutes.

Q. And what did you tell Reverend Tanner to say?

A. That -- I can't recall the conversation verbatim.
But the gist of it would have been to ask him if he would

39

go in my behalf to register, in whatever manner he
could, my opposition to this bill. And I know -- I did
know enough, you know, of his position to know that I was
not asking him to do something contrary to his position.
And therefore, I was comfortable in just leaving it in
that way, knowing that if he had the opportunity to speak
that he would make appropriate remarks.

Q. Do you know whether Reverend Tanner ever spoke
to the legislature or at the legislative hearing?

A. I think he never had the opportunity. That was
my understanding that he did not have the opportunity,
though he requested. And from whom he requested, I don't
know. But he did endeavor to get to speak and was told that
there would not be an opportunity for him to speak.

Q That request would have been made when he arrived at
the Capitol?

A. Right. Right.

Q. When did you learn that Reverend Tanner did not get to
speak to the legislative committee?

A. That afternoon sometime. Probably the middle
of the afternoon.

Q. Who did you learn that from?

A. From him.

Q. All right. What did he tell you?

A. He indicated that there was no opportunity given

40

for persons such as himself to speak. That there was
a great deal of confusion and it seemed to be a very
hurried occasion.

Q. What do you mean by the phrase "persons such as
himself"?

A. Persons such as himself speaking? Well, persons
who were there to voice opposition to it. That it was
my recollection that he indicated that there was no one
on that occasion that was given the opportunity to speak
against the bill.

Q. Did he tell you whether or not Representative Wilson
spoke against the bill at that hearing?

A. I don't recall that he indicated that to me.

Q. Did he indicate to you that persons testified in favor
of the bill?

A. The -- you know, this is -- this is a recollection
that I had no idea that I would be asked to call up. And
I frankly cannot recall whether he said -- whether he
said that persons testified in favor of it. His overall
impression to me was that the opportunity for outside
input, that is people who are outside the committee, that
there was very little or no -- well, let me say it this
way. There was virtually no opportunity given for very
much input from anybody except within the committee
itself.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks - Page 2

41

Q. Did he indicate that there were a great number
of people there?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he indicate how long the hearing itself lasted?

A. No. No, he didn't. He didn't indicate that to
me. Now he may have. I don't recall that he did.

Q. When you found out that he was not able to present
your views to the committee hearing, what did you do?

A. I don't believe I had any -- I didn't take any
course of action at all. You know, I probably expressed
personal indignation and that's all.

Q. did you make an attempt that afternoon or any
time after that to contact any legislators concerning
the bill?

A. No. No, I did not. By the time -- by the time I
was free enough to get back in touch with Reverend Tanner
later that afternoon, the information I had was that it
had advanced too far. Then I didn't see that I could
make any kind of difference.

Q. Did you contact anyone concerning your feelings
about the bill between the hearing date and the
date that it was finally enacted by the legislature?

A. Any legislator?

Q. Anyone in particular?

A. No, I think not.

42

Q. Did you contact any legislators after the bill
was enacted?

A. The -- let's see. I don't recall that I did. The
only contact that I recall was sometime after the -- some
maybe be even months after the enactment of the bill when
I did write a letter to Senator Holstead. In fact, I
think there is a copy in there expressing really a mutual
appreciation of him as a person since he is a member of my
denomination, member of a local Church within this
community. And I wanted him to understand that the fact
that we were at opposite ends on this issue did not diminish
my appreciation of him as a person, as a Christian.

Q. Did you contact any other legislators after the
bill was adopted?

A. Not to my recollection. I think not.

Q. Did you ever contact the Governer after the bill
was adopted and signed by him?

A. No. No. No, I did not.

Q. When did you first learn that a lawsuit challenging
Act 590 would be filed?

A. I can't put a date to that. I can't even -- I
can't even put an approximate date to it except it would
have been within -- within some, you know, may be two
weeks of the time that the lawsuit was actually filed.
And I can't -- I really can't vouch to that. But it

43

was sometime approximately approaching the time that it
was filed that I knew there was some consideration
being given to this.

Q. Do you know who contacted you about that?

A. That contact would have been Sandra Kurjiaka. I
believe, that would have been the source of my
knowledge.

Q. Do you recall what Ms. Kurjiaka told you?

A. No. There had been -- there was common discussion
of this I think and it may be that I had some discussion
with somebody -- with somebody on the ACLU staff prior to
the announcement of the decision to do this, to proceed
with the suit. And my -- the nature of my -- it seems
to me that there was a prior conversation that I had with
somebody other than Sandra. But I can't vouch to that
because by the time I know that the decision by ACLU to
proceed with the suit was done, was made I know I had
indicated -- I had had occasion to indicate that the -- my
feeling that this would be an action that I would
appreciate. And would be a means by which this issue could
be tested. And in a manner that I, or anyone else that I
knew that might be interested in this as I was, would have
the means to proceed on. And so it was -- there was some
assurance, I recall on my part, that this would be pleasing
to me if this kind of procedure could be arranged.

44

Q. Do you recall who that somebody else was that
contacted you?

A. No, I don't know.

Q. When did you learn that you would be a witness at the
trial?

A. Just a few weeks ago. I don't know how long ago
really. Time passes so fast. But five, six, seven weeks
ago.

Q. Who contacted you and told you that?

A. You know there is a -- as I've indicated, there is
a great deal of time -- in fact, most of the time I
am not in my office. And my secretary relates
information to me. And I -- in the hurry of things, many
times I don't concentrate on who it was. But I take the
information and I really can't say -- I don't know whether
it was Bob Cearley's office, ACLU's office. I don't know
where that information came from.

Q. Have you discussed what you will be testifying to
with any attorney involved in this litigation?

MS. VEHIK: I'm going to have to object to
that. That's attorney client privilege.

MR. CAMPBELL: I didn't ask the
substance. I just asked whether or not he had discussed
it.

MS. VEHIK: Okay.

45

A. I have discussed the trial with -- do -- do you
need to know with whom? With an attorney, yes.

Q. Who did you talk to?

A. Phil Kaplan.

Q. When was that conversation?

A. It was this week, a couple of days ago I believe.
I forget which day.

Q. How long did that conversation last?

A. Oh, an hour or so. Probably about an hour.

Q. Where did it take place?

A. In my office.

Q. Other then your reasons for opposing the teaching
of creation-science and your unsuccessful attempt to testify
before the Arkansas Legislature in opposition to Act 590
which the Plaintiffs told us you would be testifying to,
will you be testifying to any other matters of trial?

A. On any other matter of trial outside of this
litigation? Not that I am aware of, no.

Q. Outside of these two things. Outside of your
opposition to the teaching of creation-science and
outside of your unsuccessful attempt to testify before
the General Assembly. Will you be testifying to anything
else?

A. I can't think of anything else that I would be
testifying about.

46

Q. Recognizing that you are not going to be testifying to
this at trial. But what is your opinion as to the origin of
the universe?

A. Well, I believe that it has a divine origin. I
believe in the faith data, faith statement that's
presented in the book of Genesis, "In the beginning
God created...." That does not -- for me that does not
require that I circumscribe God in terms of how he
did it or how it was done -- he or she -- or anything
of that sort. But I do believe that God created the
heavens and the earth. I believe it was created with
intention. I believe that it was created with order in mind
and I believe it was created with purpose, With ongoing
purpose. Yeah.

Q. Again, recognizing you are not going to be
testifying to this at trial. But what is your opinion on
the origin of man?

A. Well, for me personally I am open -- I believe that
humanity, as with all other forms of life, was created by
God. I am open to the manner in which that was done. In
terms of it having been done instantaneously, if it could
be verified some day that it was that way, you know,
that's okay with me. If it took ten million years to do
it, that does not bother me at all. In fact, I think it
would be kind of neat if God did it that way. This, you

47

know, one of the concerns that I have is that I see the
whole process being circumscribed here too much to fit a
literal view of the Biblical accounts. And when the
educational process has to come out in support of the
Bible, then I think that it's turned around. I don't
believe it ought to have to do that.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to read Act 590?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What does "balanced treatment" mean to you?

A. Balanced treatment should mean the presentation
of data of both types that would be equal in authority,
equal in validity. I really haven't thought about it beyond
that. To the extent that that's possible, uh-huh.

Q. What does the phrase "prohibition against religious
instruction" mean to you?

A. Prohibition against religious instruction to me
would mean that the insertion of a divine authority of a
described nature, or the insertion of a Scriptural
authority by which that divinity is described is -- is
material that is -- that is theological and philosophical
and belongs to the orientation of a fellowship of people
that might agree on a particular point of view. And I think
the phrase "to prohibit", that would mean to prohibit or
prevent a particular view from being inserted into the arena
or discussion.

48

Q. Did you see anything in Act 590 which, in your
opinion, would prohibit a teacher from expressing his or
her professional opinion on the relative merits or
demerits of creation-science or evolution-science?

A. That would prevent a teacher from expressing? I
really need to think about that a bit. That would
prevent -- I think that as I have looked at the bill and
have studied it, I don't think that there is anything,
you know, to prevent the teacher from presenting it. My
contention is that I don't think it can be presented on
the creation side. I don't think it can be presented
and I guess that would be a prohibition. And you see the
contradiction comes in that there shall be balanced
treatment. And yet the provision requires that the
treatment of creationism shall be void of reference to
Bible, religion, God and so on.

My contention is that the
creation-science point of view could not end up being
balanced because it is not only forbidden by the bill, it is
forbidden by the First Amendment. I believe that
creation-science cannot be taught without some kind of
reference to a form of deity or to a Scriptural source by
which one gains an understanding of that Creator. That's
part of the contradiction or part of the ambiguity that I
see in it.

49

Q. Then is it your opinion that an atheist could not
be a creation-scientist?

A. I can't imagine how -- I can't imagine how one could.
One might -- one might be an atheist presumably and teach
printed material. Just passing it on through a lecture
method. But to consider that as reliable data or as data
that has some basis of validity, I can't see how an
atheist could deal with that.

Q. Section 4.(a) of Act 590 defines creation-science.
And it states that, "Creation-science means the
scientific inferences" -- excuse me. "the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific
evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific
evidences and related inferences that indicate...." and then
it lists six items. I would like to ask you about each of
those items and then ask you how those items are consistent
or inconsistent with the Genesis account of creation. Item
(1) is the "Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and
life from nothing." How is it consistent or inconsistent
with the Genesis account of creation?

A. It is consistent with a literal translation or a
literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis.
The issue there would be was the first chapter of Genesis
written with that intention of it being a literal laying
out of the order of creation, which I think the best

50

Biblical evidence indicates that was not the intention.
That this was -- that the happenings on the various days
as indicated in the first chapter of Genesis are pegged,
so to speak, upon which the greater idea could be hung.
Namely that this whole thing came from God. And that
God did it in an orderly manner. That it occurred
through a process.

So, you know, from my point of view, it
is -- yeah, it is consistent literally with the book
of Genesis. But I don't think that a literal
interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is the only
authoritative way of looking at the creation account.

Q. (2) is "the insufficiency of mutation and natural
selection in bringing about development of all living
kinds from a single organism." How is that consistent or
inconsistent with the Genesis account of creation?

A. Well, you think that and I must admin that I
don't know that sentence too well. The phrase at the
end of it, of a single organism, I think -- "the
insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a
single organism." Whatever it is saying, it seems to me
that that is beginning to say what the creative process
is and is not. And I think we have to be open enough in
our understanding or in our search for truth that whether

51

it began from a single organism or from multiple
organisms, let's pursue each of these points of view.

And that whichever direction the
pursuit of that origin search takes, if our understanding
of God is great enough, you know, the deity is not going
to be threatened and faith does not have to be threatened.

But the moment you begin to try to implant upon a
document that was written, the best information seems to
indicate, oh, approximately -- let's say 500 B.C. in an era
that was not a scientific era by minds who were not
scientifically oriented minds. By minds that were poetic,
imaginative, deeply religious. They were not minds that
cared about scientific detail. And I see this sentence as
beginning to place restrictions, you know, on what the book
of Genesis or the Genesis account has to mean.

To state it another way, I don't believe
that the Genesis account describes all that there is to know
about God. On the other hand, I don't see the definition
of God or the nature of God as being a pursuit that is
applicable to the scientific methodology. This is the
thing that concerns me is that when you are talking about
divine origins, then you are talking another field. You
are talking theology. You are talking philosophy. You
are talking ideas. But in terms of pulling up pieces of
data, you are not in that field.

52

And this is where I'm really troubled
in the second statement that it seems to -- there is an
insufficiency of mutation and natural selection springing
from a single organisms. So what? Single organism,
multiple organisms, which just revealed more about my lack
of scientific knowledge than anything else.

Q. Well, how is that consistent with Genesis?

A. How is the sentence consistent with Genesis? I
don't know that it is consistent with Genesis. And if it
is a premise, you know, that defines creation-science, I
would probably have to say that it is not consistent with
Genesis. I think that this is -- as I understand this, and
I have to admin that I'm not really sure what that means --
I don't think it is consistent with Genesis in the larger
view of Genesis which I happen to hold to.

Q. And how is it consistent with the literal reading
of Genesis?

A. Well, it is apparently disagreeing with anything
that is related to natural selection. It is disagreeing,
you know, from even the possibility that things do spring
from a single organism. And my conviction is until we
know that is the case, let's pursue it. Let's pursue the
possibilities of the process of natural selection. I can't
see anything wrong with that. There is something wrong with
it, of course, if one's view of God has to be limited to the

53

data -- to the literal data that is in Genesis. And as I've
indicated, I don't think that Genesis was written with that
kind of limit in mind and particularly when you couple the
first chapter of Genesis with the other account of creation
that, begins in Genesis two four which apparently was
written at an earlier time by perhaps 4- or 500 years.

You've got two separate pieces of
material that really in no way relate or are consistent
with one another except to confirm the idea that creation
came from divine beginnings, there was a realization
-- in fact, I think it is in the second chapter that there
came a time, so to speak, when the two human beings were
aware of their nakedness. Well, there must have been a time
that they existed when they weren't aware of their
nakedness.

There is nothing wrong with that.
That is expanding the grandeur of divinity it seems to me
rather than inhibiting it as I see the creation-science
approach doing.

Q. Would it be fair to say that the definition of
creation-science as it appears in Section 4.(a) of Act 590
is, in your opinion, based upon a literal reading of the
book of Genesis?

A. This is the way I understand it. The way I take
it; yes, sir.

54

Q. And that would include (3) which is "Changes only
within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants
and animal;" (4) "Separate ancestry for man and apes;"
(5) "Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism,
including the occurrence of a worldwide flood;" and (6) "A
relatively recent inception of the earth and living
kinds."

A. Yeah, and you see I don't necessarily -- I don't
necessarily quarrel with the possibility that some of these
things might indeed be the way it ultimately turns out.
My quarrel with it is with limiting inquiry to the
presupposition that this is where it has to turn out.

For instance, separate ancestry for man
and apes. Well, I personally believe that man and apes
-- that man is man and that apes are apes and that
chickens are chickens. That's the way I feel about it.
Now if somehow some evidence comes along, as it does
from time to time on a theoretical basis, that there was
a commonality back here somewhere, that there was a
commonality of being, and then eventually there was some
separation took place. For me personally -- I just say for
me personally -- I have no problem with that at all. And
particularly if it turns out, you know, that that's
verifiable. If that's verifiable, then that becomes the
part of the data of life. But by all means, we need to deal

55

with it and not shut it out it seems to me. We mustn't shut
out inquiry. We must not shut out investigating it just
because Genesis does not happen to pick up on that.

Q. Why do you think we are limiting inquiry under
Act 590 when both creation-science and evolution-science
can be presented in the classroom?

A. Well, it -- I've tried to indicate that I believe that
creation-science, even within the definitions that are
in 4.(a), you know, that that already sets forth some
"givens" that creation-science has in mind. And the
fact seems to be that the understanding of deity and the
understanding of scriptural truth must be protected at all
costs. And therefore, the process of putting
creation-science in place has to prepare the science
teachers or somebody -- another facilty in the school system
or something -- has to prepare them for dealing with this
indoctrinational material, with material that is accepted on
face value, which is faith material but it is accepted as
belief.

Well, those who have come through the
educational process to prepare themselves as science
teachers somehow or other have to be retooled. Whose
description of reality and creation realty is to be
superimposed? Whose description of the creative origin,
whatever that's defined as, is going to be the one that

56

is used? And here, then, is where I see all of the
religions of the world -- their various views of
creation.

And I see this, you know, saying either
that we are going to have to get over a substantial
amount of the scientific time to the discussion of
religions or else we are going to have to block those
out. And the State will decide what that creation look
will be like, how it will be circumscribed, how it will
be defined, what would be the attributes of it. And
that can't be done. That really can't be done under under
the First Amendment or it cannot be done by a mixing of two
fields that are as unrelated in their disciplines as science
and religion are.

Q. You mentioned that creation-science as it is defined
in section 4.(a) carries with it certain "givens." And
if I'm misstating you, please let me know. Is it your
opinion that the definition of evolution-science in section
4.(b) has no givens, carries no givens with it?

A. Yeah, it does have givens. But I find those
givens in evolution-science as being non-dogmatic. Much
more so than I do than the paragraph above. For
instance, the "emergence of naturalistic processes of the
universe from disordered matter and emergence of life
from non-life." Okay. The agenda, it seems to me it has

57

to be, then, that out of that disordered matter to try to
put into some formula or into some order that at least
represents the theory. It is a pursuit. It is an
inquiry. Whereas up here I see more of the closed system
under creation-science being presented. "The sudden
creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing."
That seems to be a given. It can't be -- isn't supposed
to be meddled with.

Q. Recognizing you are not going to be testifying about
this at trial, but in your opinion, how would you define
"academic freedom"?

A. Well first of all, I've never been called upon to
do it before. And so what I will say will be very
preliminary and very unprofound. But academic freedom it
seems to me includes the opportunity to investigate any
piece of data that might, in any way, apply to knowledge
about a given object or given situation. Academic freedom
it seems to me would have presupposing in it. The
opportunity to move out in an attempt to see if any of those
pieces of data were true or real, were verifiable. And to
see if the process of putting data together to reach a given
end, to see if it can be repeated. And to have that
opportunity to make that pursuit no matter where it might
lead or what might be disproved of it as a result of it or
approved as a result of it. That, I think, is at least a

58

part of what I would think of as academic freedom.

Q. Do you think that the presentation of divergent
views can aid in the learning process?

A. I believe that they do -- that they can indeed
stimulate and contribute to the learning process if
they are divergent enough.

Q. How would you define "religion"?

A. Amazingly enough, as close to it as I am, I don't
know when I've ever done that before, either. But
religion I believe would at least include a set of
beliefs, ideas, and values which together formulate a code
of ethics and a view of divine reality.

Now one could turn that around, I
realize, and say that religion is a set of values, insights,
beliefs about a divine reality, which when translated into
life forms becomes a code of ethics. I'll have to work on
that one.

Q. Do you always see some type of divine reality being
involved in religion? In other words, is a deity
necessary for religion?

A. My understanding of religion would -- I believe
would make that a given.

Q. Have you prepared any documents or any papers
concerning what you would expect to testify to at trial?

A. No, sir. No, I haven't. I believe everything that

59

I have written and read or had printed up from anything
I've said is right there.

Q. In your meeting with Mr. Kaplan, did you provide to
him --

MS. VEHIK: Objection.

Q. -- any type of written statement as to what your
proposed testimony would be at trial?

A. Any kind of written statement as to what my -- no.

Q. Bishop Hicks, I'm looking at some of the documents
which you brought with you to this morning's deposition.
First I have in my hand a letter addressed to Senator
Holstead, dated June 5, 1981 and signed by you. Is this the
letter which you referred to earlier in the deposition as
stressing your appreciation to Senator Holstead for his
efforts as a citizen, concerned citizen?

A. Yes.

Q. What caused you to write Senator Holstead a letter?

A. That came out of simply a pastoral concern that I
had that here was -- see, at the beginning of every
regular session of legislature -- since I have been
here I have had a breakfast at which we invite the United
Methodist legislators, members of the assembly, to a
breakfast that I host and come with their pastors if they
can. Jim Holstead has been there. I've appreciated him
as a person. As this took on -- as this took on the

60

connotations that it did, I felt a responsibility as
a pastor to assure him that I separate the issue and my
esteem for him. I just wanted him to know that.

Q. I have here, I would like to be marked as Hicks
Exhibit #1 which appears to be a memorandum to members of
the Interfaith Denominational Executives Roundtable from
Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks. Can you tell me who the
memorandum was written to and what its purpose was?

[Thereupon Hicks Exhibit #1 was marked
for the record.]

A. Let's see. This would have been -- the members of the
Interfaith Denomination Executives Roundtable is a group of
denominational executives of Arkansas. Typical of these are
Bishop of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of the Episcopal
Church, the head of the Presbyterian denomination, Rabbi
Palnick represents the Jewish community. Typical of that
kind of person. And currently I am president of that body.

And this was a memo that obviously I
sent to them indicating that, in the course of
conversation with the ACLU that, you know, that this kind
of relationship might be helpful. And this statement
was submitted for their consideration to see whether
they would join in this position or not.

Q. Did they ultimately join in that position?

A. Many of them have. The -- oh, with regard to just

61

as members of Interfaith Denomination of Executives
Roundtable, yes. I cannot and I don't have, you know, a
verification of who did not. To my knowledge, there was
nobody who refused. I'm just not sure whether everybody
responded. Many of these persons, of course, are in the
list of Plaintiffs.

Q. I have what I would like to be marked as Hicks
Exhibit #2 a letter dated July 20, 1981 addressed to you
from Bill Briant.

[Thereupon Hicks Exhibit #2 was marked for
the record.]

MS. VEHIK: I'm sorry. Can we go off the
record? We're having an emergency.

[Short break.]

Q. Who is Mr. Briant? That's B-r-i-a-n-t.

A. Bill Briant is one of our United Methodist
pastors. He is currently pastor of the Mountain View
United Methodist Church, which is out on West Tenth.
Prior to the delay of the trial -- I forget what the
earlier date was. Well, this indicates that this was
done at least in July -- Bill had occasion to be in my
office. And at that time there had been -- I had been
approached to be on the Phil Donahue show as this
indicates. And Bill indicated in the course of visiting
about this that, "I took quite a bit of science in

62

college. I have some ideas about this. If you think it
would be helpful to you in working up your own attitude
and background about this, I'd be glad to work up
something." And I invited him to do so and that is the
source of this.

Q. Bishop Hicks, I have no further questions. I
appreciate your courtesy in being with us today. Thank
you very much.

[Thereupon the taking of the above
deposition was concluded at 1:50 p.m.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Deposition of Father Francis Bruce Vawter

                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                   WESTERN DIVISION

REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et al  )
                                              )
                        Plaintiffs          )
                                              )
                    vs                       )      Civil Action No:
                                              )        LR-C-81-322
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al     )
                                              )
                        Defendants      )

The deposition of FRANCIS BRUCE VAWTER, called
by the Defendants for examination, taken pursuant to
the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure of the United States District Courts
pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before
VICTOR J. LA COURSIERE, a Notary Public within and
for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and a
Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, taken
at Suite 607, 343 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois, on the 21st day of November, A.D., 1981,
at approximately 9:30 a.m.

2

APPEARANCES:

MESSRS. ANTHONY J. SIANO and RALPH J. MARRA, JR.,
Attorneys at Law, of the law firm of,
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM,
919 Third Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10022
Phone: (212) 371-6000
Appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs;

MR. RICK CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney General,
Trial Division
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas Phone: 501/371-2007
Appeared on behalf of the Defendants

----------------

MR. CAMPBELL: Swear the witness, please.

(WHEREUPON, the witness was sworn
by the Court Reporter)

MR. SIANO: Mr. Campbell, at this time, the
Plaintiffs turn over a response to document request
dated November 13, 1981.

Those documents in the witness's
files which are responsive to the request are limited
in the following way: Those writings of the witness,
which are otherwise published writings and recited
on the curriculum vitae have not been produced
since in some cases the witness may not have copies

3

of the writings themselves, and they are accurately
reported in the C.V.

Furthermore, to the extent that
in this particular case this witness's entire career
is directed toward the topic of religion, generically,
we have produced those documents which are relevant
to the matter of Creation Science Statute in
Arkansas.

And the request is further limited
by Rule 26 in that the lawyers' work product has not
been turned over, and otherwise, the request has been
fully complied with.

MR. CAMPBELL: What would you define lawyers'
work product as?

MR. SIANO: I define lawyers' work product the
same way the Supreme Court has in Upjohn and in the
various cases preceding, and Rule 26 indicates
what trial preparation materials are, and that's the
way we define it.

MR. CAMPBELL: Would you include in that trial
materials or preparation materials prepared by a
witness?

MR. SIANO: To the extent that the materials
demonstrate the operation of the lawyers' view of the

4

case and as otherwise described in 26, we include
those materials.

It will not include materials
within that matters which just happen to be the
operation of the intellect of the witness, if that is
what you're suggesting, to the extent that there is
an interaction between the witness and the lawyer.
That is not a matter of trial strategy that would
be included in my understanding of what a work
product is.

MR. CAMPBELL: With regard to the witness's
writings, would writings--

MR. SIANO: When I said writings earlier and
what's not been turned over, I mean published
writings; so if someone has published a book and
that book is available in the library, it may or may
not be available to the witness. We haven't included
that in what we've turned over, if it's publicly
available; And as a matter of course, these materials
are not available to the witness, and we think that
the request is overly broad in the sense it would
require a witness to comb through his life's work
to find everything he's ever written on the topic
of religion.

5

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand. I am hoping
that the same leeway would be accorded to the
defendants.

MR. SIANO: Again, I don't represent any of
the witnesses other than the witnesses that I
present to you.

I indicated to you this is the
nature of my response to your request for
production as required by the rules.

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand that.

Good morning, Father Vawter.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

MR. CAMPBELL: My name is Rick Campbell. I
apologize for this dialogue.

THE WITNESS: Not at all.

MR. CAMPBELL: Perhaps this concerns the
legal ramifications or aspects of this case as opposed
to your particular direct testimony.

I represent the State Board of
Education of Arkansas.

As you know, a lawsuit has been
filed challenging the constitutionality of an Act
recently passed by the Arkansaw legislature which
would require the teaching of Creation Science along

6

Evolution Science in the public schools of our state.

You have been listed as a witness
on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this litigation.
Today, I would simply like to ask you a few questions
concerning your background and what your expected
testimony would be at trial.

A deposition is a very normal
procedure in any type of litigation, and, certainly,
we do not view this particular deposition as any
more significant or less significant than any other
case. Hopefully, you will be comfortable with it,
and know that we are not trying to particularly pick
on you.

At any time, if you would like to
take a break or get some water or go to the restroom,
please just feel free to so state, and we will
certainly do that.

7

FRANCIS BRUCE VAWTER,
called as a witness by the Defendants, having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY: MR. CAMPBELL

Q Give me your full name and address, if you
would?

A Francis Bruce Vawter; **** ***** *******,
*******, ********, *****.

Q Are you a member of any organized religious
faith?

A I am a Roman Catholic priest belonging to
the religious community which is called The Congregation
of the Mission, or more familiarly known as The
Vincentian Fathers.

Q For how long have you been a priest?

A Since 1946.

Q Where are you presently employed?

A DePaul University.

Q In what capacity?

A I am Chairman of the Department of Religious
Studies, and also, Professor in that department.

Q What are your duties as Chairman of the

8

Department of Religious Studies?

A Mainly, the Chairman's job is supposed to
be academic. More and more nowadays, it's becoming
administrative, but, basically, it's to direct the
program; understanding "the program," means in
that context whatever is carried on in the various
departments of the University in directing this,
and getting people assigned to the right places
at the right time so that they don't overlap
in all of that administrative nonsense, and
acquitting yourself of the budgetary responsibilities--
well, it's what you would call a middleclass
manager, I suppose, in any sort of business
operation.

Q What is Religious Studies?

A Well, Religious Studies--we changed that.
We originally began as the Department of Theology
which is a more straightforward term, I suppose.

A few years back, we changed the
Department of Religious Studies because we had--
we changed the name to that, because we had begun
to grow into a broader area than simply theology of
a particular tradition; and since we now encompass
the history of religions, sociology of religion,

9

and philosophy of religion, various things of that
kind, the term, "Religious Studies," is a much more
appropriate one.

It's really the history of mankind's
experience with a religious dimension from the
beginning and what the implications of that are now.

Q Besides the history, sociology, and
philosophy of religion, what other areas would the
Department of Religious Studies include?

A Well, we have a strong concentration in
biblical studies, ethics, and then, the study of
the systematic theology, if you would call it
that. That is the way people have systemized their
thinking about religion through various periods of
time. Those are the three main areas, I would think.

Q You mentioned you were a Professor
in the Department of Religious Studies. What do
you teach?

A Old Testament, almost exclusively.

Q What does the teaching of the Old Testament
include?

A Well, teaching of the Old Testament includes
an awful lot of things. It includes the Old Testament
Books themselves as literature, and it includes the

10

background--historical and ethnological background--
and all of the related disciplines that have in
the last century or so, or two centuries, been
contributing to the scientific study of the
biblical works, such as, archaeology, "epochgraphy,"
and so forth, or the study of ancient writing.

Q What way would science relate to the
study of the Old Testament?

MR. SIANO: Excuse me?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q In what way would science--
you mentioned a moment ago that there was a relation-
ship between science and the Old Testament. In what
way is that brought out in your classes?

THE WITNESS: A No, what I probably said was
scientific study of the--

MR. SIANO: Yes.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A I am using that
term in a--not in a technical sense of dealing with
any of the positive sciences, but rather, scientific
meaning that you're working under logical and
empirical controls, that you are not simply fantasizing,
but rather, that you are depending upon the rules
of evidence, and so forth, which I understand to be
a scientific method. Science, as such, would not come

11

into my work unless there were such a thing as some
scientificly established conclusion--science in the
narrow sense here now, the positive sciences--that
would cause me a problem, that would conflict with
what I'm doing; then, I would have to take it into
account; but, otherwise, I have nothing to do directly
with science in that sense.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Have you ever run across
a situation where science has caused you to
reevaluate or look at an area in your studies?

MR. SIANO: Objection.

MR. CAMPBELL: He mentioned in a way that
science has or might cause him to have to examine a
particular part of his study. I was just asking
him what particular science.

MR. SIANO: If you want to ask him what sciences
first. When I heard the answer, I heard positive
sciences and not focused on a particular one.
Then, I heard your question, and you said, science
without picking one. Maybe you want to pick one and
maybe you don't. but that was the basis for my
objection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What sciences--I think you
mentioned archaeology as one, but what sciences would

12

you normally have any type of interaction with
with regard to your studies?

A Well, actually, I don't think archaeology
is any more of a science than biblical exegesis is.
It uses the scientific method, but it boils down to
being an art more than anything else.

But, well, yes, archaeology certainly
would be something that if you take, for example,
something we're not dealing with here and now,
that the Book of Joshua describes the conquest
of a certain place in Palestine, namely, Jericho,
at a certain point of time that we otherwise can
fairly well lock in on as preparing such and such
an occasion, and the archaeologist shows the place
didn't exist at that time, then, you've got a
problem with the Book of Joshua. That's where
it would have some conflict such as that.

Q How would you define the scientific method?

A Scientific method, as I understand it,
is to deal with, first of all, establishing facts
by whatever availability you have to establish the
fact, and, then, to make logical inductions from
those facts to arrive at conclusions and to control
your experimentation. That's what I mean by the

13

process of arriving at the inductive process or
arriving at conclusions; control that by every
available means to insure that it is going to
be objective.

Q Have you taught any other courses besides
the Old Testament at DePaul?

A I've taught general biblical survey
courses, and I've taught some New Testament courses,
particularly, relating to the prior tradition that
underlies the New Testament documents.

Q Obviously, in your teaching the Old Testa-
ment, you would teach about the Book of Genesis. Have
you ever taught a course strictly on the Book of
Genesis?

A Yes, I am concluding one right now; a graduate
course in Genesis, Theology of History.

I taught it, I suppose, practically all
my life as a teacher.

Q Before assuming your duties at DePaul, where
were you employed?

THE WITNESS: Let me refresh my own memory.

MR. SIANO: Mr. Campbell, you have a C.V. in
that file; do you want to take a look at it?

MR. CAMPBELL: Right, I believe I saw it.

14

(WHEREUPON, the document was handed
to the witness)

THE WITNESS: A How many of these appointments
do you want?

Most immediately before coming to DePaul,
I was at Kenrick Theological Seminary in St. Louis;
then, I was in St. Thomas Seminary, in Denver, prior
to that.

Prior to that again, back to Kendrick
Seminary, and that's about the limit of my academic
appointments on a permanent basis.

I've had some summer appointments,
and I have had some visiting professorships, but I have
been at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago,
Vanderbilt, Nashville, and also, at the Biblical
Institute in Rome.

Q Were you generally teaching in the same areas
in the Old Testament?

A Generally, yes.

Q Have you ever taught a course specifically
on origins as opposed to the Book of Genesis?

A You mean the origins of the universe and--

Q Yes?

A No, I have never.

15

Q Where did you graduate from high school,
Father Vawter?

A Pascal High School, Fort Worth, Texas.

Q Do you recall studying origins in high
school?

A I don't think so.

Q You don't recall or you don't think you
studied it?

A I do not recall, and I don't think I did.

Q Where did you attend undergraduate school?

A My college you mean?

Q Yes?

A At St. Thomas Seminary in Denver, Colorado.

Q Did you take any science courses in college?

A Yes, we had a course in biology. It's about
the only one I can recall.

Q Did you study origins in your class in
biology?

A Yes, that was part of the course, I'm sure
of that.

Q Do you recall how it was presented by any
chance?

A Well, fairly well, yes. I would think that
I can remember more the person who taught it than I can

16

the actual class presentation, but I would say that
it was presented from an evolutionary standpoint.

Q Was the creation model of origins ever
presented in--

MR. SIANO: I object; I don't know what you
mean by, "creation model."

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you understand what I mean
by, "creation of model of origins?"

THE WITNESS: A Actually, no, because, to
my knowledge, that's new terminology.

Q Was any other approach to origins discussed
in the classroom besides the evolution approach?

A I don't know if that's a--mind you, now,
that the place this is being taught--back in the 30s--is
in a Roman Catholic Seminary to educate clergy.

Now, if you want to suggest that there
was any conflict in the mind of people that were
thinking about evolutionary background to the origin
of this all and religion, I assure you there wasn't.

I mean, I don't think the question is--
when you say, "another model or another way of
presenting it," I don't think there was any feeling
on the part of anybody that there was any incompatibility
in presenting it in an evolutionary structure, and at

17

the same time, conceding that the whole thing is
not by random decision, but it was a guided or a
designed thing, and, therefore, it would not be a
question of another model, but rather, evolution
would be considered more of the process by which
this came to be which would not conflict with the
fact it came to be at the behest of a creator.

Q Where did you attend your post-graduate
school?

A In Rome at what is now called the Pontifical
University of St. Thomas, and at the Pontifical
Biblical Institute where I got my doctorate.

Q In your post-graduate education, did you
ever study --or were you ever required to take any
science courses?

A No. I have had no science in my post-
graduate work.

Q What did you receive your doctorate in?

A In sacred scripture at the Biblical Institute,
in the Old Testament, precisely; and the dissertation
was entitled, "Social Justice in the Pre-Exilic
Province."

Q Outside of your receiving your doctorate,
have you received any additional training or schooling?

18

A I had a Fulbright Grand for post-doctoral
research in Germany in 1967-68, and that's the only
formal thing I've done in my post-graduate work.

Q What did you study in Germany?

A I was mainly interested in the New Testa-
ment at that time, but, in general, I simply had
what we conveniently call an academa sabbatical.

Q Are you a member of any professional
associations?

A Oh, yes, goodness knows, far many more
than I am active in. I have a list in my curriculum
here; about ten of them: Catholic Biblical Association;
Society of Biblical Literature; International
Organization for the Study of the Old Testament;
society for Old Testament Study; Catholic Theological
Society; American-Oriental Society; American School
of Oriental Research; C.tholic Commission on Cultural
and Intellectual Affairs; Chicago Society's Society
of Biblical Research, which is meeting today at my
institution; and the Society of New Testament Studies.

Q These societies have generally common
purposes or are there different purposes in each one?

A Well, they're fairly common purposes, yes.
They're all through the scientific study of religion.

19

That would be the common denominator, I would think.

Q Again, when we're talking about the
scientific study of religion, it would just be
utilizing the scientific method?

A Yes.

Q Do you hold a position in any of these
organizations?

A In the past, I have been president of
the Catholic Biblical Association. I have been
a member on the council on the Society of biblical
literature.

At the present time, I am part of the
executive board of the Catholic Biblical Association
still, and that's--I think that would be--yes, I
have been president also of the Chicago Society
of Biblical Research.

Do any of these organizations, to your knowledge,
have a position whether or not Creation Science
should be taught in the public schools?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q Do any of them have a position whether or
not Evolution Science should be taught in public
schools?

MR. SIANO: I object to the use of that phrase,

20

unless you want to define it. Are you using a phrase
that's used in the statute?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

MR. SIANO: All right; ask a specific question.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do they have a position of
whether or not Evolutionary Science should be taught
in public schools?

THE WITNESS: A No, there isn't--that really
doesn't fall under the purview of any of these
associations.

Q Are you a member of any other organizations
or societies other than those listed here?

A Professional, you mean?

Q Professional or personal?

A I have been a member of various things at
various times. I am not too sure whether some of
the things, I am still a member or not, such as,
World Federalists, and that sort of thing. I con-
tributed to that. ACLU, at one time, I contributed
to, and the Democratic Party, and so on, but that's
all rather--you couldn't find a doctrinaire pattern,
I don't think.

Q Are you a member of the Society for the
Study of Evolution?

21

A No.

Q Are you a member of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science?

A No.

Q Do you subscribe to any professional
publications?

A Yes, I am the editor of an abstracting or
bibligraphical service which we publish three times
a year of, "Abstractions." As a result of that,
I subscribe to probably about three hundred journals.

Q Do any of these journals concern themselves
with the teaching of Evolution Science in the
classroom--public school classroom?

A Well, they concern themselves with the
question--some of them, yes.

Q And which ones would concern themselves
with the question?

A Generally, what we would call fundamentalists'
publications. Just offhand, I would think--there's
one called, Themelios, and that's a fundamentalist
publication.

There's a journal of Evangelical
Theological Society which is fundamentalist. And
there's a couple from around the world: one in

22

Australia, and one in South Africa, as I recall. I
can't recall--but anyway, those are the ones that
are generally concerned with matters of that nature.
They see from their religious standpoint that there
is a conflict between evolution and the biblical
word, and they have a problem where other people do
not.

Q Do any of the publications have a position
whether or not Evolution Science should be taught?

MR. SIANO: Again, you're using that phrase
as it's used in the statute?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: A Specifically, I can't think
of any offhand, but that is a kind of a new vocabulary
talking about Creation Science as opposed to Evolution
Science; that's something I have only encountered in
the last couple years, actually; and I don't know
that that has been represented in the literature that
I've read.

Q Outside of some of the literature that you
mentioned where the issue had been raised, where else
have you encountered Creation Science?

MR. SIANO: I object to the form of the question,
but he can answer it.

23

THE WITNESS: A Only recently, I suppose, when
word got around of their being an issue made of it
in Arkansas and Louisiana. Actually, that's about
the first time that it came home to me that such a
think would have been raised as an issue.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q When did you first get word
of the Arkansas and Louisiana Legislation?

A I can't tell you exactly, but I am sure I
read it in the newspaper, but I couldn't tell you
exactly when.

Q In 1981?

A Probably so, yes.

Q You mentioned earlier that in teaching the
Old Testament and the Book of Genesis, in particular,
the question of origins of the universe, man, life,
is discussed; have you ever had a student ask you
whether or not you saw any conflict between the account
of the origin of the universe as suggested in
Genesis I and II and your religious faith?

A Oh, yes, sure.

Q Obviously, this is the area or your expertise,
but could you generally tell me what your response
would be to a student who made that inquiry?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object to the form

24

of the question. Are you speaking hypothetically
or are you asking for Father Vawter to recapitulate
whatever he might recall in a particular context?

MR. CAMPBELL: Just generally hypothetically.

THE WITNESS: A What I would answer in such
a case?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Yes?

A That Genesis is not concerned with the
process of how things came to be; that Genesis
is concerned with professing who the author of
creation is; and that the process is something for
us to discover as best we can from the empirical
evidence, whatever it may be, That all of this is
due to a guiding hand or to a benign spirit; that's
the religious message that Genesis wants to transmit,
and, therefore, they're talking about two different
things: science, in that sense, and Genesis.

Q In discussing Genesis in the classroom,
do you specifically talk about Evolution Science or
is it more general, as you suggested a moment ago,
just processes?

A Sometimes specifically, sometimes not.
The course I am teaching right now--the last session
of which would be next Monday--is a--actually, I've

25

taken up that question specifically simply because
of the interest that's been generated in me during
the past several months with regard to this so-called
creationism idea. That would be a specific subject
dealt with. I prayerfully hope they confidently
prepared the person who was supposed to make the
guidance of the seminar. I've given him a good
bibliography that he works on.

Q In discussing Genesis I and II, are there
any particular authorities that you rely upon?

A Yes, all my predecessors and all the
commentators and the accumulated wisdom, such as it
is, that's been amassed in the last couple hundred
years in the scientific study of the scriptures.

Q Are there any particular predecessors
or commentators that you are most in respect of?

A The greatest of all who will probably never
be surpassed is Hermann Gunkel, G-u-n-k-e-l. His
work, for some reason or other, was never translated
into English, but nothing has ever been written that
surpasses it--turn of the century.

Q Of this last century?

A Yes, 1900s; but the most modern commentator
is also German, Klaus Westermann, W-e-s-t-e-r-m-a-n-n,

26

whose commentary is not yet completed. He is still
working on it, but he will be the modern Gunkel, I
suppose.

Q Are there others whose work you parti-
cularly respect?

A Yes, there's a couple of Jewish commen-
tators: Cassuto is one, C-a-s-s-u-t-o, and then,
J-a-k-o-b, "Beno" Jakob. His work was--unfortunately,
I never saw much like--because it's the period just
about the time the Nazis came into Germany, and it
was suppressed. He was a Jewish scholar.

But I could sit here all morning and give
you names of various other commentators on Genesis,
which I have certainly used, but I would say those
are more formative of my immediate thought on
Genesis than anybody else.

Q What was the position of Mr. Gunkel with
regards to the origin of the universe and man?

A I don't suppose he had any on that. He
would be dealing specifically with the literary
forms of Genesis itself as to what they are and what
these chronicles of that sort of thing in Genesis
are trying to communicate. As far as to what the
scientific realities are concerned, I don't think

27

he had any particular views, or probably should say that
he did share the common views of most people, but I
don't think--there's nothing professionally he would
have.

Q What are you talking about when you say
"the common views of most people," what does that
mean?

A "The common views of most people," just like
most people without knowing it are Aristotelian
in their thinking, "Genalt" realism; and most
people without thinking about it much probably
entertain the idea all these scientists can't be
wrong, and it's fairly--the way they tell it is the
way it is, or at least, approximately the way it is,
otherwise, we couldn't have gotten on the moon, and
all that stuff.

Q Do you know whether Mr. Westermann had any
particular opinion on the origin of the universe or
man?

A I don't know of any.

Q What about Mr. Cassuto?

A No.

Q Mr. Jakob?

A No. These men are not scientists. Their

28

(Only the left side Page 28 was copied)

opinion is worth no mo

Q With regard
we just talked about--
your study of their wo
there was a guiding ha
earlier, involved in t
and man?

MR. SIANO; I ob
question. If you want
of the scholarship of
to me to be perhaps a

MR. CAMPBELL: W
back, please?

(WHERE
read b

THE WITNESS: A
could tell or not. Wha
to the best of their ab
author of Genesis was s
agree with what the aut
not, that is--ordinaril
tries to keep that out
does put it in, it's pu
opinion, but particular

29

of the person, theoretically, at least, should be
kept separate from what he is presenting as his
judgement as to the meaning of a given text, unless
he wants to make an "excursis," on it, but I really
cannot--you could not tell, I don't think, from
those people what their personal religious convictions
would be.

Q With regard to their interpretation as
to what the author of Genesis was trying to say about
the origin of the universe and man, is there a general
statement which could summarize those--

A A general statement which could summarize
what?

Q Their feelings about what the author was
trying to say about the origin of the universe?

A In general, I think, setting aside individual
points of specificity, I think you could say they
would be in agreement.

Q With the position you originally talked
about?

A Yes.

Q Have you written any papers, articles, or
books, specifically dealing with Genesis I and II?

A Oh, yes, dealing with Genesis I and II, I've

30

written a couple books. When you say "specifically
dealing with," they're not exclusively dealing with,
but they've included that, certainly.

Q Which books were those?

A The book I wrote back in 1956, I think,
entitled, "The Path through Genesis," -- I think that
was the date of the damned thing -- and then, most
recently, I have updated the book published by
Doubleday in 1977 on Genesis.

Q Have you written any articles concerning
just origins set out in Genesis I and II?

A I probably have, but I don't think I've
done anything specifically on that subject. I brought
it into various generic treatments of various things
like sin, the scriptural idea of sin, and that sort
of thing, but I don't think anything specifically
just dealing with that exclusively. I can't remember
anything that I've done.

"The Ways of God," for example, that
I wrote, the idea of the creative word of God would
be in there, but nothing specifically that I can
recall on Genesis I and II.

Q With regard to sin, which you just mentioned
a moment ago, wouldn't that have to do more with the

31

Fall of Man?

A Yes, probably Genesis III, yes; that would
have been brought in there.

Q Would your opinion on the origin of the
universe be the same as the origin of man, life,
plants, animals?

MR. SIANO: I object to that question. It's
very broad. I am not even sure what that's about,
in what sense?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you understand what I am
asking, Father Vawter?

MR. SIANO: His personal opinion? I don't
know exactly what the content of the question is.
I am having difficulty with it.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you understand what I am
asking?

THE WITNESS: A No; I probably would if you
tell me what you're getting at.

Q You mentioned earlier that Genesis is
concerned with the how or the process as opposed to--

A Not concerned with the process.

Q Excuse me, I'm sorry, it's concerned with--
it's not concerned with the how or the process, but
it is more concerned with the author of creation--

32

A Yes.

Q --what I am asking you is whether or not
that would be your opinion on not only the creation
of man but the creation of the universe and the
creation of plants and animals; do you ever get
involved, in other words, with a process or the how
in your--

A What you're looking for is if there is any
difference in the process by which humankind came
in existence as opposed to a process by which the
rest of creation came?

Q Yes, sir?

A No, I don't think there's any.

Q We have discussed the scientific method of
inquiry; in using the scientific method of inquiry
hypothetically speaking, if a scientist could confirm
your view of origins, would you reject that science?

MR. SIANO: I'm going to object to the question.

First of all, I don't know what science
we're talking about, and I don't know what your view
of origins is in the context of this question,
and you're also asking the witness to speculate.

I think that last part is probably
incurable. You go ahead and try to reframe the question.

33

MR. CAMPBELL: All right.

Q Did you understand what my question was?

THE WITNESS: A No.

It's pretty much the same reasons
that Tony was talking about here. My view of origins
is an ambiguity.

Q What I am really speaking of is again--I'll
be speaking always from the Genesis approach which
you mentioned to me, who the author of creation is
as opposed to the process or the how. I was just
generally trying to summarize what I considered to
be your view of origins, in other words, in that
respect, as to who the author is.

What I was asking is whether or not
if someone hypothetically speaking were utilizing
the scientific method which you already defined
earlier in the deposition?

A Yes, well, I have sort of a philosophical
reluctance to believe that a think like that could
happen. The positive sciences, by definition,
are dealing with the intra mundane. They don't go
beyond it. If they go off beyond it, then, they're
in an area of metaphysics or beyond the scientific;
therefore, philosophically, I doubt that there would

34

be any possibility of such a demonstration.

I come from a religious tradition
which --philosophical religious tradition--which,
actually, since the 13th Century, at least, has
professed that you cannot prove the fact of
creation in time, and that that is a matter that
has to be accepted on faith.

So, I would have a reluctance to
believe that would be possible that that's the--
that would be the way that I would approach the
hypothesis.

Q Philosophically speaking, could you
prove the existence of God outside of the Bible?

A In the sense that people understand God,
I don't think so, no. I think you can prove that
there--or at least, if you cannot prove, you at
least can make it reasonable that there is a design
somewhere, that there is a hand at the tiller,
but in the sense of a Judeao-Christian tradition
of a personal, loving God, no, I don't think so.

Q Obviously, this is the $64,000 question
with regard to religion, but how would you define
God if you had to but a definition there?

A Well, I wouldn't want to add mine to the

35

many terrible ones that have been--

MR. SIANO: Are you asking for Father Vawter's
personal definition? I don't know that he's been
qualified, exactly, by you or by anyone with respect
to this particular question. It's an observation
more than anything else.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Would your personal opinion
of a definition of God differ from your personal
opinion of Him?

THE WITNESS: A Would my--

Q Professional opinion of God differ from your
personal opinion of who God is?

A No, I don't think so.

Q How would you define God?

A Well, as I said, it's hard to define that
which is so essential, but Paul Tillich, T-i-l-l-i-c-h,
his definition of God was the ground of our being. He
is that which or that who affords a rationale to the
world in which we find ourselves and gives us the
basis for our relation to the universe and to our
fellow beings. Without getting into confessional
language, that's about the best I could do.

Q Very good. Have you ever testified before
in a court of law?

36

A No.

Q Have you ever had your deposition taken
before?

A Yes, sort of. I, in a French court--what
they call the Process Verbale--I was driving down
a narrow street on the French Riviera and pushed a
girl off of her motorcycle, and she had a strawberry
on her hip, and we had to have testimony in court,
but that's it.

I was released without any recrimina-
tions.

Q Father Vawter, I know you have had opportunity
to discuss this case, at least somewhat, with Mr. Siano
and others.

Could you summarize the general subject
matter of your testimony at trial?

A What I understand I am being asked to do
is simply to offer an expert opinion as to what the
Genesis teaching or the Genesis--yes, of teaching
of creation is, and that is a religious profession
which I myself strongly suspect is the sole source
of what is now being called Creationism or--in other
words, this is supposed to support--evidence of science
is supposed to support some particular thesis; that

37

the thesis is supposedly that which is being
extracted from the 1st Chapter of Genesis, and my
opinion is that that thesis has been incorrectly
extracted, and that, therefore, what's being proposed
as Creation Science is really a religious belief
which is being supposedly bolstered by certain
scientific data.

Q Who do you have the opinion that Creation
Science is a religious belief?

A Because, as I understand it, the various
details of it, that is, when they talk about a
creation, and a fairly recent creation--as ions
go in the scientific world--and the worldwide flood
ant that sort of thing, when they put all those
things together, I can't but believe that this is
a reading of the first eleven chapters of Genesis,
and then, it's now being --the thesis is now being
proposed that science will confirm all of this,
but those first eleven chapters of Genesis are
religious doctrine, That's why I feel that is the
hidden agenda of Creationism, as far as I can see it.

Q We were talking earlier about archaeology
and the locations of a particular city. If the Bible
suggested the location of a particular city, would it

38

not be proper for, say, an archaeologist to attempt
to find it at that particular location?

A Sure, in practice, that's what they've
tried to do. It's the same as any other--when
Schleiman (phonetic spelling) discovered Troy, he
didn't go back digging in the backyard of Indiana;
he went to where the Homeric legions said where
Troy was, and he found out not only one Troy, but
he found a whole many Troys; and the same way
with biblical archaeology; they take the indications
from the Bible and look for the--most logically
where it took place that the Bible is telling
where it is. It's an historical source, after all,
in some respects; and then, they can either say that
the Bible was a trustworthy witness here or that
it left them in the lurch when the evidence comes in.

Q If there were such a thing as a creation
scientist--and I am not suggesting that there is--why
would it not be just as valid for him to pick up
different inferences from the Bible and seek to prove
those?

MR. SIANO: I'm going to object. The question
is speculative.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm asking him--

39

MR. SIANO: No, no; that's a speculative
question; it over-specs, and it's not really
discipline; it's not really anything. First of all,
no such thing as a creation scientist exists, although
that might be a matter of some dispute.

Secondly, I don't know what you're
suggesting this hypothetical scientist is doing
in his hypothetical existence.

I am suggesting to you that you rephrase
the question.

I don't want an answer to a question such
as this cluttering the record.

MR. CAMPBELL: Your objection is noted,
Mr. Siano.

Q Father Vawter, did you understand what
I was asking?

THE WITNESS: A Not really. I don't know
what a creation scientist would be. You mean a person
who believes that--or a scientist who believes in
creation, or a person who believes that creation can
be proved by science, or what?

Q I think creation scientist is a very broad-
term scientist, and as I mentioned, it would be
difficult to say anyone is a creation scientist.

40

If a paleontologist was going to look
at the study of the age of the earth, would it be
just as logical for him to start with some particular
fact in the Bible--and I am not trying to narrow you
down at all--to determine the--

A I see what you're getting at.

MR. SIANO: I'm going to object to the question
again; are you asking method questions now, or what?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q We talked about earlier,
Father Vawter, individuals looking at the Bible,
particularly, for Troy, you would not dig in Indiana;
I am simply asking you whether or not a paleontologist
might look at some notation in the Bible, a historical
fact in the Bible, and seek to prove some particular
theory that he was working on?

MR. SIANO: Are you asking this witness should
a paleontologist be foreclosed from looking at the
Bible? I think that's a very different question
from should an archaeologist start with the Bible
in his studies.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, do you under-
stand what I am asking?

THE WITNESS: A I think so, yes.

Q Would you answer the question, please, sir?

41

A I don't think he should be foreclosed from--
first of all, if a person starts out with a belief
in a religious fact that is found in the Bible, I
don't see any reason why he should not be--why he
should be inhibited from seeking to establish that as best
as he can from positive empirical evidence, no.

The only thing that I would reserve,
I would think there, is just the limitations of what
the evidence can be. There are certain affirmations
that are made in the biblical record that is simply
not within that gamut of evidentiary procedure.
It's not going to be forthcoming.

Q You mentioned that Creation Science is a
religious belief which is bolstered by scientific
data or seeking to be?

A Seeking to be, yes.

Q What scientific data are you aware of that
is trying to bolster Creation Science?

A Only in a vague way, just a few things
that I've read in passing of trying to convey the
idea that the fossil evidence is of a sudden
explosion into the universe of created things, and
I have no capacity whatsoever for judging the value
of those assertions one way or the other, but that's

42

what I have in mind that they're using argument of
that kind to bolster the notion which they take
essentially from the Bible.

Q In addition to your opinion that Creation
Science is a religious belief which is seeking to
be bolstered by scientific data, will you be
testifying to any other opinion?

MR. SIANO: Other than what he's already
testified to in this deposition?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. SIANO: All right.

THE WITNESS: A No scientific opinion whatsoever.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Right, but I mean it will
just essentially -- will there be any other opinions
offered from your background from a religious stand-
point other than Creation Science is a religious belief
which is seeking to be bolstered by scientific data?

A No, I cannot--that's about the only area
that I am being asked to speak to, I think, is the
fact that I have a certain acquaintance with the
creation doctrine itself as it is in the Bible, and
what the background of it is in the ancient Near East
and the rest of it. Beyond that, no.

Q What analysis will you be providing to the

43

court on this opinion, or concerning this opinion?

A Analysis precisely of what?

Q Of Creation Science being a religious
belief which is seeking to be bolstered by scientific
data?

A Simply from reading the Act and listening
to the defenses that have been made of it or not
made of it specifically, but I mean, along the same
line of thinking that the people who profess this
are those who share in the Judaeo-Christian tradition
of the creation as described in the --or as they
think is described, at least, in the Book of Genesis,
and as has been traditionally or as they think has
been traditionally interpreted in the Judaeo-Christian
circles, so much so, that it is the given for which
the scientific evidence is supposed to supply the
props.

When the Act speaks about supporting
creation, what is it that it's supporting? It's
supporting a given there, and the given comes out of
the Book of Genesis, which is why I can't understand
why they talk -- well, it's true, you can talk -- they
say that this should be taught without the use of any
religious documents, and so forth, but that's the

44

unspoken document. That "support," there is a key
word; it's a give-away word of what your unmentioned
textbook is which is Genesis I and II, particularly, I.

Q Have you prepared any documents or a report
with regard to --

A With regard to this?

Q Essentially, yes, sir, with regard to
this litigation?

A Only the statement that I sent to Mr. Siano
as a general summary of what my analysis of the Act
was, and I viewed it as an attempt to support a
religious position by alleged scientific evidence.

Q Had you talked to Mr. Siano before you
prepared that report?

A Only by telephone, and he simply asked me--
am I recalling accurately or--

MR. SIANO: I think I came up to see you.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A Maybe you did,
that's right, and then, you asked me to prepare it.
I am the worst chronicler of my own life.

Yes, he came out to see me, and asked
me to draw up such a statement.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q When was his visit out there
with you, do you know?

45

A I can tell from the letter which was--

MR. SIANO: I think it was September, early
September.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A I believe so,
and I am trying to find the letter itself that I
sent. Maybe I put it in here.

No, somewhere in that time frame, I'm
sure, yes.

MR. SIANO: Yes, it was approximately the second
week in September.

THE WITNESS: Okay. You have the tail end of
it there.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q How long was your visit with
Mr. Siano?

MR. SIANO: You mean Mr. Siano's visit with
Professor Vawter.

THE WITNESS: A Let's see, that's the cabdriver
that let you down in the Loop, and you made your way
north again?

MR. SIANO: That's right.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A I suppose what
we were--an hour or so?

MR. SIANO: Closer to two, I think.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A All right; I said

46

I'm not a good chronicler.

Couple hours, probably, would be right,
yes.

Q Had you seen a copy of Act 590 of 1981,
State of Arkansaw?

A Yes, that had been sent to me before.

Q What did you tell Mr. Siano at that time
your feelings were about Act 590?

A Well, substantially what I have just told
you, and substantially what I put in my statement
he asked me to draw up.

My initial letter was to--when that
material was sent to me, I said, "I think the
Plaintiffs in the case are on solid ground," but
what this is is an establishment of a religious
point of view--belief--which is, I think they're
on solid ground challenging that as a violation
of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

MR. SIANO: Are you finished?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SIANO: Off the record.

(WHEREUPON, a short discussion
ensued off the record)

MR. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.

47

And why did you feel that Act 590 was an
establishment of religion, as you understand it?

MR. SIANO: Objection, it's been asked and
answered.

If you're asking for reasons other than
the ones he's already articulated, but if you ask him
to articulate the basis for what he's going to
testify again, I think he's already answered those
questions.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q In your answer, you mentioned
a moment ago about the establishment of religion;
I really wanted to know what you consider to be an
establishment of religion?

THE WITNESS: A Well, I don't want to be taken
up on the technicality of the use of the word,
"establishment." As I understand it, from a layman's
point of view, it constitutes the establishment of
a religion in the sense that it violates the 1st
Amendment in the sense that there would be a force of
civil law used to implement the propagation of
specifically a religious belief, and the fact is, a
sectarian belief. Even though it's a large sect,
it would still be sectarian, and that was in violation
of the Constitution as it has been interpreted.

48

MR. SIANO: I'll state for the record, of course,
that Professor Vawter is not a lawyer.

THE WITNESS: You bet you. In fact, I would
like that to be very plain.

MR. CAMPBELL: I have no objection to that,
Father Vawter.

Q You talked about a religious belief
or sectarian belief that may establish a religious
belief or sectarian belief; what religious belief
or sectarian belief do you think that it may
establish?

THE WITNESS: A What we generically describe
as the Judaeo-Christian creation beliefs.

Q And what is that?

A I suppose what the vast majority of the
American people would--that is, those who have any
sense at all of a belief in God would subscribe to
the idea that He is also the Creator God, and,
therefore, the source for the specifics of
what is involved in creation, probably nine
times out of ten would think of the Bible.

That's their background. Not an organized
thing, but simply a cultural belief.

Q How long did you spend preparing the document

49

or the report which you sent to Mr. Siano?

A Oh, not--immediately not very much time.
It was just a summation of my ideas that had been
in my mind, I suppose, for years. It was simply an
immediate response to them.

Q You had this meeting with him in early
September, when did you send in the report?

A Shortly--it must have been within a week
afterwards.

Q Did you send him any other reports or
documents?

A No, I don't think so.

Q How long is that report?

A About a page and a half, I think.

Q Is a copy of that report included in the
document itself which you provided to me this morning?

MR. SIANO: No, it is not.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you have a copy of that
report with you, Father Vawter?

THE WITNESS: A Yes, I do. I have a carbon
copy made of it.

Q Would you provide that to me?

MR. SIANO: I've already told you, Mr. Campbell,
we are retaining things which demonstrated the operation

50

of the lawyer's preparation for trial pursuant to
Rule 26, under claim of work product.

I think your inquiry has clearly
demonstrated in this case that that is exactly the
source of that document which is responsive to my
communications and my explication to Father Vawter
of my view of the case, and it was in response thereto
that generated that.

MR. CAMPBELL: Excuse me, Father Vawter, while
we have a dialogue between us for a moment.

Mr. Siano, I understand your definition
of work product. I will take note of that, and
certainly, it's up to the judge at some later point.

I do think that the work he sent to
you which he described in his testimony about his
immediate thoughts in his mind and have been in his
mind for years, I believe under Rule 26, inasmuch as
Father Vawter is an expert, that we would be entitled
to that information. But certainly, we can leave that
up to the judge at a later time.

MR. SIANO: You can quote me parts of his
testimony, and I can quote you parts of his testimony.
That's not very fruitful use of our time, and I have
not frustrated your inquiry in any respect, and therefore,

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Father Francis Bruce Vawter - Page 2

51

whatever record you have both as to the substance
of his testimony--which is the purpose of this
deposition--and his conversations with me certainly
has not been impeded in any way. That's not the
problem.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, have you
prepared any exhibits, or have you prepared any
exhibits for use at trial?

MR. SIANO: Two questions; that's a compound
question; objection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Have you prepared any exhibits
for trial?

THE WITNESS: A No.

Q Will you prepare any exhibits between now
and the day of the trial?

MR. SIANO: Objection; that's speculative.

MR. CAMPBELL: You may answer the question.

MR. SIANO: No, not a speculative question, he
won't answer.

It's impossible for him to answer a
question about what he will do.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Are you planning to prepare
any exhibits at this time for trial?

THE WITNESS: A No.

52

Q Father Vawter, are you familiar with the
term, "fundamentalism?"

A Yes.

Q Do you have an opinion what it's definition
is?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object now, and I
suggest to you, Mr. Campbell, that you will probably
make this witness your own if you take him into areas
about which he is not going to testify at trial as
he has described those areas of testimony, and as
our notice of this witness's proposed area of testimony
exists.

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand.

Q How would you define fundamentalism?

A It got its name from the American religious
experience, specifically, Baptist religions experience,
I think, when they laid down certain landmarks that
they call the fundaments, the foundations that could
not be denied--that's what it really amounts to nowadays -
one of which was the total inerrancy of the Bible, and
that is what it's generally equated with nowadays;
that's the so-called Bible religion, that's
fundamentalism. Whatever is in the Good Book is true,
no matter what it happens to be concerned with as

53

a science or history, or whatever, and that's the
landmark that cannot be ignored.

Q Are there any other landmarks that you
would think would be found?

A Oh, the--well, nowadays, I think that is
the hallmark because certain things would be derived
from that; the Fundamentalists' interpretation
of the Scriptures would lead to certain conclusions
that would have to be defended, but--

Q What would be some of those conclusions
you can think of offhand?

A You're asking me for not my own beliefs
now.

Q I understand that.

A Well, one of them would be, I suppose, the
subject we are dealing with here; Creation is
described in the first Book of Genesis, and therefore,
creation must have happened that way, and it must have
been six days of creation, and if you're not going to
be able to get away with six days, then, six days
has to become something else, but still you're going
to have to make the text there correspond with some
kind of reality that you're otherwise forced to by
evidence. That would be, as far as this matter is

54

concerned, the main one, I suppose.

Q Would there be any others even outside
of this matter?

A Oh, yes, sure.

The fact that man is a fallen creature
and in need of redemption, depending on your Funda-
mentalist. It can also be Jewish Fundamentalists,
too, who stop at the Old Testament, and with the
Christian Fundamentalists, keep up with the chronicle
and, therefore, there are other aspects of the
details of the Life of Jesus, and the fact of His
fulfilment of the Old Testament prophesies, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera.

It would take you all morning to
complete the catalog here.

Q Have you had an opportunity to read Act 590?

A I did read it, yes.

Q When did you first read it?

A After it was sent to me by Mr. Siano and
Company.

MR. SIANO: Just for the record, "and Company,"
would probably like to see it, "Company and Siano."

THE WITNESS: Those lists of lawyers names
always grab me: Fink, Fink, Fink, and Mumblestein.

55

MR. CAMPBELL: Q When was the last time you had
an opportunity to examine that Act 590?

MR. SIANO: You mean before today?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Did you read it this morning?

THE WITNESS: A No, I haven't looked at it
recently.

Q Are you familiar with it enough for me to
ask you a couple questions about it?

A I would hope so.

Q Do you want to take a few minutes to look
at it again?

A I have a copy of it here somewhere.

Yes, I have it here; okay.

Q What does balance treatment mean to you?

A You mean in terms of what the Act says?

Q Yes, sir?

A That you would--

MR. SIANO: I object to this line of question.
I don't see the relevancy of it, and I think it's
an improper line. What his understanding of balance
treatment is is totally irrelevant to this case.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may go ahead and answer
the question, Father Vawter?

THE WITNESS: A In terms of this Act, I assume

56

what they're saying is if you're going to teach
evolution that you should give equal time --using
that phrase--to teaching the Creation Science, as they
call it, which I think is a begging of terminology,
but anyway, that's what I think that term in the Act
means.

Q You'll see in Section 2 that the first
sentence is, "Prohibition against religious
instruction," what does that mean to you?

A Well, what it says is that this should not
be taught as a religious belief. I think that's
contradictory, and very self-contradictory, in so far
as creation is a religious belief or it comes out
of religion.

Q Turning now to Section 4, which is the
Definition of Section Act 590; looking at Section 4A
which is the definition of Creation Science--

A Yes.

Q --the section reads, "A Creation Science
means a scientific evidence is for creation and
inferences from those scientific evidences; Creation
Science includes scientific evidences and related
inferences that indicate--" and it lists six things.

What I would like to do is read each

57

of these six things to you, and then, ask you how
each may or may not be consistent with the Genesis
account of origins.

First, "The sudden creation of the
universe, energy, and life from nothing?"

A Yes, well, to say that Genesis actually
teaches creation from nothing is--I don't think
that can be proved one way or the other. Personally,
I don't believe Genesis says any such thing, but
traditionally, Genesis has been understood to say
such a thing, "In the beginning, God created
the heavens and the earth." Nothing there is not
in the text, obviously, and that's just an
inference, but how you could teach that scientifically
is a complete puzzle and bewilderment to me since
science can only deal with what is palpable to the
senses, and the idea of creation from nothing
scientifically speaking is an absurdity.

Q All right; "the insufficiency of mutation
and natural selection in bringing about development
of all living kinds from a single organism."

A I don't think Genesis has anything to say
one way or the other of such a thing. It's a matter
of observed evidence which Genesis simply didn't have.

58

Q "Changes only within fixed limits or
originally created kinds of plants and animals."

A Again, the same thing. It's not a matter
Genesis is concerned with.

Q "Separate ancestry for man and apes."

A Similar. The author of Genesis took
it for granted that man began with a separate
creation, but that's not part of the message. I
suppose most people prior to Darwin taught in those
terms, but it's not part of the message of the Book.

Q 5th, "Explanation of the earth's geology
by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a
worldwide flood."

A Genesis' Chapters 8 and 9 is dealing
with a worldwide flood, of course, and that's where
the--as far as I can see--creationists are getting
that idea. It's a kind of Near Eastern bit of folk-
lore, and whether the evidence of geology confirms
a thing of nature, of course, is not in Genesis,
however.

It is simply part of the primeval
history.

Q Finally, six, "A relatively recent conception
of the earth and living kinds."

59

A I am sure the authors of Genesis had no
idea what the vast antiquity of the world is, and
took it for granted it was fairly recent, and I
suppose, people did again until fairly recent times
when the fossil evidence began to show up, and so
on, but teaching that as a point of doctrine, no.
That's just a general assumption.

Q As a teacher and after having read this
Act, do you see anything in Act 590 which would
prohibit a teacher from expressing his or her pro-
fessional opinion concerning the relative strengths
of either Evolution Science or Creation Science?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object to that
line of questioning. It is not relevant and it is
beyond the scope of his expertise.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may answer the question,
Father Vawter.

THE WITNESS: A I don't see anything in the Act
that says one way or the other. It says that--if you
require, however, a person to teach a Creation Science
as so-called in balance with Evolution Science
so-called, you could be requiring a person to do
something contrary to his intellectual integrity, and
if he had to propose something that he thought was

60

completely irrelevant to a scientific discussion
of the matter as though it were to be given equal
time, I think that would certainly--I find it very
difficult to imagine how a person could adjust
psychologically to such an enactment, and then,
have to live with his academic integrity.

Q How would you define academic freedom?

MR. SIANO: I object. You're going into a
line of inquiry, Mr. Campbell, that doesn't relate to
this witness's testimony. I don't know why you're
wasting his time.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may answer, Father Vawter.

THE WITNESS: A Academic freedom is the
assurance that the professor or teacher has that he
will not be inhibited from expressing whatever matters
are germane to his presentation according to his
best and responsible accountancy for those. He is
subject to all the other rules that other people
are subject to with regard to not shouting, "Fire,"
in a crowded theatre, and that sort of thing, but
that he's not going to be inhibited by prior censor-
ship which is not of his own conscientious making.

Q Do you think academic freedom guarantees
a teacher the right to teach without qualification

61

whatever he or she wanted to teach in the classroom?

MR. SIANO: Objection. You're asking for
a legal conclusion.

THE WITNESS: A Obviously not.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you think that academic
freedom could ever be limited?

MR. SIANO: You're asking for a legal conclusion.

MR. CAMPBELL: I am asking for his personal
opinion.

MR. SIANO: Then, his personal opinion is
irrelevant.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may answer the question,
Father; I'm sorry for this.

THE WITNESS: A Oh, certainly, it can be,
by agreement. The AAUP, the American Association of
University Professors, has always acknowledged that
academic freedom could be limited providing that
the terms are spelled out by the hiring institution
beforehand and agreed to by the person at the time
of his engagement. Certainly, it can be, but it cannot--
I don't think it's in accordance with the dignity
of the profession that it be inhibited without a
person's consent.

Q In your opinion, should a classroom be open

62

to all academic discussion?

A All germane academic discussion, yes.

Q In your opinion, should a teacher be free
to evaluate the validity of subjects discussed in the
classroom?

A Yes, certainly.

Q As an educator--I understand that you're
not going to be testifying as an educator--but as
an educator, do you think that the presentation of
divergent views in the classroom can lead to a better
appreciation by a student of the subject matter
discussed?

A Theoretically, yes; if they're respectable
views.

Q In your opinion, is Evolution Science
contrary to the religious or philosophical views
of some people?

MR. SIANO: Objection; first of all, I don't
know what the definition of Evolution Science is;
secondly, I want to know what religious views and
which people; otherwise, he's not going to answer
this question; and he may not answer it anyway
because it is not relevant to his area of testimony.
I want to know what all those terms mean since they

63

have very specialized meanings in the context of this
case. Some of them are unknown to any of us.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, Evolution
Science is also defined in Act 590, the list of six
characteristics which it may include. I am wondering--

MR. SIANO: Wait a minute; Mr. Campbell, I would
like my objections spoken to, and if you're suggesting
to me for the first time on behalf of the State of
Arkansas that the statute doesn't include all of
those as the four corners of whatever Evolution
Science is, I would like you to take that position
on behalf of your client, the State of Arkansas.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, do you see
the definition of Evolution Science in Section 4 of
590?

MR. SIANO: Is that the way you define that
term in the context of your question, Mr. Campbell?
That's the only definition that the statute has; now, if
you have a different one that you want to talk about,
I want you to put that on the record, because I find
it interesting to the case, not so much in the context
of this question, but we have not defined Evolution
Science here today other than my referring to this
document.

64

MR. CAMPBELL: That is the definition that I'm
referring to.

MR. SIANO: So now we have that definition:
"Whose religious beliefs and what religious beliefs"
are we talking about?

MR. CAMPBELL: That's what I am seeking to
elicit from Father Vawter.

MR. SIANO: Your question was, "Is Evolution
Science, as defined in the statute, offensive to some
peoples' religious beliefs?"

Are you asking him, "Is there some
possible circumstance under which the definition of
Evolution Science might possibly offend somebody's
religious beliefs?"

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

MR. SIANO: That's speculative, and he's not
going to answer that. That's exactly what I thought
you were saying.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, do you know--
off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued off
the record)

MR. SIANO: If you want to define a religious
belief, Mr. Campbell, and ask this witness in his personal

65

opinion, "Does your definition of Evolution Science
offend that opinion?" I think that's still
speculative; it's very hypothetical.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, in looking
at the definition of Evolution Science in Section 4
of 590--

THE WITNESS: A I see the definition, yes.
I don't accept it. I mean, it doesn't mean anything
to me, because as defined here, this is a loaded
definition which, of course, is putting it in
opposition to the idea of creation. I don't accept
that premise; and using loaded terms like "naturalistic
processes," and the "Uniformitarianism," whatever
that means, that's not playing with a full deck, so
I don't accept that definition.

If you're asking me whether evolution--
the concept of evolution conflicts with a religious
belief in creation, I would say, "No, it does not."

Q Father Vawter, how would you define religion?

MR. SIANO: Again, I object to that line of
inquiry--off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued
off the record)

MR. SIANO: Back on the record. I object to this

66

question.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may answer, Father Vawter.

MR. SIANO: You want his personal definition
now; not an expert witness's opinion, or is Father
Vawter your witness for the purpose of eliciting his
opinion?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, how would you
define religion personally?

THE WITNESS: A Well, it's the accumulation
of your felt convictions and beliefs about the meaning
of life and your function in the world in relation
to the rest of the world and in relation to the
cause of it all which we call, God.

Q Is religion an expanding concept, in your
personal opinion; are there absolutes in religion?

MR. SIANO: I object to the question. I don't
understand the question. It's vague.

I would ask that the question be
rephrased.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Does religion, as you defined
it, have any absolutes?

THE WITNESS: A Well, you find that one person's
absolute is another person's relative. I more and more
believe there aren't any absolutes including that last

67

statement I just make, but that is a matter
of such ill definition and such inevitably personal
coloration that is going to be attached to any
attempt of an answer of that kind, I really prefer
to let that one go by.

Q You used the word, "sectarian," earlier,
what does sectarian mean?

MR. SIANO: I object to that question as being
beyond the scope of the witness's testimony.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may answer, Father Vawter.

THE WITNESS: A What was the context in which
I used it?

Q I believe you were talking about--it could
have been your definition of fundamentalist that
you were talking about sectarian beliefs.

MR. SIANO: I think you used it more broadly
in the concept of Judaeo-Christian beliefs.

THE WITNESS: A Possibly it was in that context
of saying that in general it supports the Judaeo-
Christian beliefs.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q That's right--

A (Continuing) And I said even sectarian,
which would be a particular definition of that or a
particular aspect of that Judaeo-Christian tradition,

68

because, obviously, Judaeo-Christian is a very broad
encompassing thing, but within that, there are people
who are fundamentalists, and people who are not,
and people who are in between, and all that sort of
thing.

I think that's the way I was using
sectarian there.

Q So sectarian, as I understand it, would just
be a grouping or a group?

A Yes, one particular group.

MR. CAMPBELL: Off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued
off the record)

MC. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.

Q Father Vawter, when you were defining
fundamentalism, you mentioned the one landmark, I
believe, was the inerrancy of the Bible; what does
inerrancy of the Bible mean to you?

THE WITNESS: A What it means to me is quite
different than what it would mean to--I don't even
use the term, as far as my own personal belief is
concerned anymore. The word, "Inerrancy," means
in the traditional sense, I suppose, that whatever
the Bible says in so many words has to be true.

69

It's based on the assumption that the
Bible is the word of God, and God cannot lie, and
therefore, it's true, no matter what it's dealing
with; whether it's religion or science or history,
or anything else, it still has to be true.

That's a position I do not subscribe to,
but that's what I suppose traditionally it's been
understood to be, and that's why people have tried
to make all sorts of harmonizations and arguments
from now to eternity to try to reconcile when the
Bible was obviously saying something that was not
so, and trying to reconcile that with what they knew
was so. It's a concept of Scriptural integrity,
I think, that should be given up.

Q And if you did not subscribe to Bible
inerrancy, is there a label or a term as to what you
would subscribe to?

A I would say the Scriptural authority. I
accept the definition that the Second Vatican Council
of the Roman Catholic Church--not definition, but
rather, description they gave in the treatment of the
subject which formulated that what God has put into
the Sacred Scriptures those things which are--I accept
truly those things which pertain to salvation, which

70

is a far cry from saying that matters of biology,
or history, or such like, have to be true because
they're in the Bible, but Biblical authority which
contains the truths necessary for salvation.

Q Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

MR. SIANO: Objection. Mr. Campbell, you
mean as a personal matter?

MR. CAMPBELL: As a personal matter.

MR. SIANO: That question is irrelevant, and
I think it's improper.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You may answer, Father Vawter.

MR. SIANO: No, I really think that's an improper
line of inquiry. Now, I am willing to give you a
reasonable amount of latitude, but I think this is
an unreasonable amount of latitude.

Are you suggesting that this is somehow
an impeachment question or a credibility question?

MR. CAMPBELL: I am not suggesting anything.

MR. SIANO: Then, I will not let you inquire
as to his personal beliefs. His personal belief
structure, unless it bears on his ability to testify
as a witness, is not relevant to this case, and you
know that.

MR. CAMPBELL: Excuse me, Father Vawter.

71

MR. Siano, as I understand the very liberal
rules of discovery, we are entitled to seek the
opinions of individuals whether or not those opinions
would be relevant at trial as long as under any
conceivable set of circumstances, it might lead
to relevant information, and what I would suggest
to Father Vawter, it may or may not be leading to
relevant information in your opinion.

MR. SIANO: I would like you to explicate for
me and state it on the record--and the test is
relevant evidence or calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant evidence -- please tell me how
this is calculated to lead to relevant evidence. If
you can make a showing of relevancy under that
standard, which I agree with you is a very liberal
standard, I will allow you to inquire. Just give me
a showing of relevance.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Mr. Siano, I owe you no duty
whatsoever to give you a showing of relevance at this
time.

You've made your objection to relevance,
Mr. Siano; now, I'd like to proceed so we can let the
witness leave.

MR. SIANO: No; I think that you are intruding

72

into personal matters --

MR. CAMPBELL: Are you instructing the witness
not to answer the question?

MR. SIANO: I suggest that it's an improper
question.

MR. CAMPBELL: Are you instructing the witness
not to answer?

MR. SIANO: I am telling you it's not a proper
question. I think it's highly improper, and this
is beyond the pale, when you're talking about somebody's
personal belief system.

What you're telling me, Mr. Campbell,
is you can't give me a showing of relevance.

I would have thought you would have
thought through a question like that before you asked
it.

Now, if you've got something and you
think it's calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant evidence, then, I am willing to listen to
your explanation of whether it is calculated to
lead to discovery, but you just don't seem to be able
to say that; and I don't think anybody in good faith
could.

MR. CAMPBELL: Are you instructing the witness

73

not to answer that question?

MR. SIANO: I'm not instructing anybody not to
do anything, Mr. Campbell.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Father Vawter, do you believe
in the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

THE WITNESS: A I accept the Apostle's Creed
that he was born of a Virgin, Mary.

Q Father Vawter, you mentioned that at trial
your opinion would be that Creation Science, as it is
defined in Act 590, is a religious belief which is
seeking to be bolstered by scientific data?

MR. SIANO: I'm going to object to the character-
ization of what he said he was going to testify to.
You can ask him the question without phrasing.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q You also mentioned earlier
that the story of the flood was described in the Genesis
account of history?

MR. SIANO: Objection to the characterization
of the testimony.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q To your knowledge, are there
other religions outside of the Judaeo-Christian
religion which we've discussed that present a flood
story?

THE WITNESS: A Oh, yes. There are many, but

74

in the specific form in which it is found in the
stories of Genesis. It is quite obviously related
to the very distinct literary background there of the
Mesopotamian flood story, which we have numerous
examples, some of which-- in fact, this is probably
the place where Genesis is closest --the story as
told by Genesis is closest to the cognate literatures
of Mesopotamia, sometimes down to rather minute
details.

It's a common cultural story, in other
words, which has been however given a distinct form
in Genesis in relation to the rest of the stories
that are told in Genesis of creation and the relation
of man to creation, and subsequently, the idea of the
flood being a wiping out and starting over a new
creation, so to speak. All of that is distinct to
Genesis.

Q In your work concerning Genesis and the
different epochs, do you have an opinion as to why
the flood story is important to these cultures or
regions?

A Well, yes, but it's important to Genesis
for one reason. It's important to the other cultures
for other reasons.

75

For Genesis, it was a piece of folklore
that the author had for man's dignity which he wanted
to fit into what otherwise would be an impossible
thing, namely, to describe the primeval history of
mankind; so he took this, and he worked it in,
and made a theological -- used it for a theological
purpose by showing this as it were the--first of all,
creation comes about in the 1st Chapter of Genesis
which is the ordering of all things.

The flood is represented as the chaos
coming back again in the world, and then, God once
again starts off creation; so it serves a theological
purpose for the author of Genesis which it did not
have in the mythologies of the other religions. It
was just again a piece of remembered lore that they
made with what they would, simply, as poetry for that
matter, and a piece of literature.

Q Would the fact that it was a part of the lore
in several different cultures lend any credence, in
your opinion, as to its actually occurring?

A Well, there's no doubt that something
occurred, and that it occurred in the literal inter-
pretation of what occurred, now, that's impossible.

I have yet to understand how you could have

76

a--of course, this story came out of Mesopotanian
culture where survival was in this arid land that
was enclosed by the two rivers and transacted by
these various canals, and when the thing would over-
flood, you had a flood, of course; and you could
cover the whole of the known earth; but these people
knew nothing about the surface of the earth; they
knew nothing about the laws of cause and effect
with regard to the harmony of the balance of nature;
where all this water would come from and where all
it would go to after the flood was over--those
were such impossible things that they would never
have occurred to ancient people of which the Biblical
author is one.

So to say that something occurred is
obvious. You wouldn't have those stories if they
didn't come out with just nothing, but to say that
what occurred was a worldwide flood, no, that's an
impossibility.

Q You mentioned in the Genesis account that
the flood was an opportunity for a new creation or
another creation, I think you said--

A Yes.

Q --a new order, I suppose? What would the--

77

A That's theology.

Q How would you characterize the new order
or the new creation after the flood?

A Precisely. It's a recreation. That's a
theological notion that is based on the old idea
that there was a time when people lived in an idyllic
past, and that there was harmony in nature, and people
lived forever and forever, like in the 5th Chapter
of Genesis where you've got people living
the age of Methuslah of 900 and some odd years, and
so on. That was all wiped out, and then, it started
again with a more realistic notion of what life on
earth really is. That's theology though; that's not--
there is no historical records for that, or anything
of that nature. It's just simply taking an ancient
idea and theologizing on it, and then, weaving your
narrative out of those materials.

Q From a theological standpoint, why was a
flood necessary?

A I don't think it's why the flood was
necessary; from a theological standpoint, it's to
explain why it happened. The given was that there
had been this great catastrophe. So, why did it take
place, and theology is to explain that.

78

Q In your opinion, why did it take place?

MR. SIANO: As a theologian now? His inter-
pretation of what the Biblical author is suggesting
or as separate and apart from his analysis of the
Bible?

I would like a frame of reference to
this question.

MR. CAMPBELL: He has studied, obviously; and
he has written a great deal on the Book of Genesis;
certainly, I believe that he would qualify, as you
suggested, Mr. Siano, as an authority on Genesis.
I am just asking him as an authority on Genesis, why
was it necessary?

MR. SIANO: As a matter of Biblical interpret-
ation focusing on Genesis?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

MR. SIANO: All right.

THE WITNESS: A What Genesis means is that God
made the world good; something happened which was not
God's doing; therefore, it must be the doing of man,
so-called the Fall of Man. The world became corrupt;
therefore, the flood was to erase this corrupt world
and start all over again with the sons of Noah in the
9th Chapter of Genesis.

That's the basic outline of what he's
following. As I say, he's taking over some ancient
ideas there and giving a peculiar theological twist
to them.

Q When you speak of the author of Genesis,
who are you referring to?

A I don't really know.

MR. SIANO: You're back in the area of Father
Vawter's expertise now, as a matter of Biblical
interpretation?

MR. CAMPBELL: Of Genesis, yes.

MR. SIANO: All right, I just wanted to make
sure we'll stay in that area for a while. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: A I don't know. Nobody knows the
author of practically any of the Biblical works; and
that depends on what you mean by "author," because the
man who eventually put all the things together may have
been the one that had less to do with it than the ones
who were responsible for the transmission of the various
components; so that's just a convenient term that we
use when we say, "the author of," where you are not
committing yourself to any particular idea with regard
to who or when.

Q You're suggesting that parts of it could have

80

been written by many different people, and then, put
together--compiled, so to speak--at some other time.

A Right.

Q Are there distinguishing characteristics
which can be attributed to the different people or
groups which put together the information which was
eventually compiled into the Genesis account?

A Yes, I think most people would agree on
that, but they would still disagree with regard
to some of the specifics; but they would agree, yes,
that there are strata in the Book which lend themselves
to such analysis on the basis of the various constants
of themes, or constants of vocabulary, or what not,
that shows those were individual source material
that had been coalesced by the final editor or
whatever he used to be called--the author.

Q Would those characteristics give you any
indication, even a very broad one, as to the time
which they could have been?

A They would to me, but it's a question
which is very much under dispute right now in Biblical
circles as to the oldest source--what has generally
been thought as the oldest of them--the so-called
Jasors (phonetic spelling)l it's very much under

81

debate right now as to what the relative antiquity
of that is as a literary production, but I suppose,
the consensus still is that that is the oldest of
the cource materials. It goes back probably to the
10th Century, during the days of David and Solomon;
Solomon, in particular.

Q Then, what would be a second source and
approximate date?

A Well, the principle other source would be
the so-called Pesors (phonetic spelling), which would
be in the 6th Century. Then, there is a debate as
to whether there is an intermediate source there
which some call "Esors" (phonetic spelling) which may
or may not have been independent, or simply may be
an amplification of the other. It's a very hotly
debated question nowadays as to what the exact process
or composition of the Genesis as part of the
"Pentatoch,"(phonetic spelling) but, basically, at
least, those two sources would be acknowledged as the
principle ones.

Q Why was Genesis compiled, in your opinion?

A Well, it's the introduction to what could
be called a great national epoch. The story goes on
to include the story of Israel's formation, and Egypt,

82

and the Exodus, and the conquest of Palestine; and
Genesis is the introduction to all of this; but
Genesis was written as a--first of all, to give the
history of the ancestors which you have in Chapter 12
on.

And then, as preface to that was the
primeval history. Before Israel ever was and before the
ancestry ever was, there was a history of man
itself--origin of man--and so it's an introduction
to an introduction, actually.

Q In your perspective that Genesis would be
an introduction to an introduction, would it be more
proper to say that the Book is simply man's attempt
to introduce the world as he knows it to himself
and to others?

A Yes, to interpret the world as he knows it,
as he believes it to be. Yes, surely.

Q Would it be necessary at all for the author
to have been devinely inspired?

A Well, you're in another area here now, what
one means by inspiration. No, I don't think it would
have been necessary, if you're understanding me
correctly and I'm understanding you correctly that
it's a--to write such a thing would not require

83

inspiration in that sense. To write, however, what
he wrote requires whit I would call not inspiration,
but rather, revelation. That is, he is depending--
what he's introducing is a story which can only
come about--about which could be known only by
devine revelation, namely, that Israel was the
chosen of God. Who can tell you that except God,
and that is the basis or the fundament on which
this whole structure is being raised, so the
presuppositions are certainly those of religious
faith.

Once the presuppositions are granted,
then, you can--what you call inspiration is Biblical
inspiration but not be--depending on your definition
again would not be necessary, no.

Just as I can write a commentary on
the Apostle's Creed, I don't need inspiration to do
that. I simply write, and what I am commenting on is
something that comes from faith.

Q In your study of Genesis, do you have an
opinion as to whether or not the Book or the author--
I don't mean to separate the two, I mean together--
were devinely inspired or devinely revealed?

A Not revealed. Inspired, yes. Revealed is

84

one thing.

I think there is something to the
traditional document of Biblical inspiration. I don't
know exactly what it is. Although I've written a book
on it, I still don't know exactly what we're talking
about, but I think there is something that distinguishes
that literature from other literature, and traditionally,
we call that inspiration. That's a good enough term
for it, but precisely what it is, I don't know.

But that does not mean that these words
are whispered into the ear of the writer by Almighty
God. That is something else entirely.

Q Have you ever pondered how the author might
have been inspired?

A Frequently, but no result.

Q We talked about Genesis being man's attempt
to explain the world as he saw it to himself as one
possible explanation of it.

With regard to religion, why is a creation
story necessary?

A That's a very good question, because many
religions get along without a notion of creation, and
apparently, the Biblical idea of creation came relatively
late in development.

85

The thing that gave rise to Biblical
religion was the experience of salvation, liberation
from slavery. It was only later that the creation
theology sort of came in; so to answer your question
whether it's necessary, I dare say religion could
get along without a--as a matter of fact, however,
we did pick up one, and a fairly developed one
which we have been handed--which has been handed
down in tradition, but it was--but to say it was
absolutely necessary--it's a common phenomenon
with religions throughout the world that there is some
kind of creation idea; but on the other hand, some
religions get along without it, as I said, and it
could have been that way with Biblical religion
except it didn't happen that way.

Q Does the Catholic Church have a position
on creation?

A Oh, yes; it's part of the essence of the
creedal statements; yes.

Q What is that position?

A Simply that. That God is the Creator of
all things, visible and invisible.

Q Does it stop there or does it go into the
process?

86

A No, process is for speculation.

Q What is a myth?

A Well, it depends on who answers the
question. There are more definitions of myth,
I suppose, than practically anything else.

If you ask an anthropologist what myth
is--of course, the average person on the street, I
suppose, if you ask him what a myth is, he'd tell
you it's a made-up thing which doesn't correspond
to reality, but if you ask an anthropologist what
myth is he will tell you it is an attempt to express
one's felt beliefs and what makes that person tick
in concert with the universe, and so on.

It's an attempt to express what other-
wise--in a sort of poetical or abstract language,
what otherwise would simply be inexpressible. In
one sense of the word, any talk about anything that
is outside of our sense perception is myth, because
you really cannot control the categories in which you
label things unless they come under the control of
your senses; and when you extrapolate from that into
something outside of that, as in a metaphysical sense
or in a sense of a Creator God, or what have you, then,
you're dealing in myth in that sense of the word; and

87

you use whatever language you have available to
you to do that: poetic language, frequently, or
approximations, or simply symbolic language, and
that's myth.

Q Are there myths found in Genesis?

A In that sense of the word, yes.

Q Can you name a few of them?

A The creation story itself is a myth in that
sense. Nobody witnessed creation, and if that has
not fallen under the sense control of somebody, there
is no possibility of talking about it except in
mythological language; so you tell a story which
professes what you believe to have taken place even
though you know the story you're telling is not a blow-
by-blow description of what took place, but it is
simply a poetic way of saying what did take place.

Q How would you distinguish a myth from an
epoch?

A Well, epochs can be myths or contain myths.
The great Babylonian epoch of the flood is also a myth.
Epoch is generally--I think we use the term generally
when we're making it more specific, as a sustained
generally poetic chronicle of various great happenings,
but those great happenings can, obviously, be in

88

mythological perspective.

Q Are there epochs as opposed to myths in
Genesis?

A I don't see the opposition there. I think
there's both. You have both epoch and myth, and they
overlap, I think.

Q You mentioned the Mesopotania flood story;
are there creation stories in other religions?

A Oh, yes, there are all sorts of creation
stories; nothing quite like you have in Genesis--at
least, to my knowledge, there isn't, but there are
all sorts of --as I said earlier, the creation seems
to be a preoccupation with religious-minded people
in trying to account for the existence for the world
in which they live, so creation sort of naturally
follows from their speculation even though, as I
stated again, some religions get along without such
speculation; but, yes, the creation story as such
is very common to primitive peoples including the
American Indians who have their own creation story.
There's an infinite variety of them.

Q What are some religions that do not have
a creation story?

A I think Buddhism, for example, gets along

89

without that.

Some primitive religions--I'm not all that
familiar with the religions of mankind, but I have
a notion that some of the--like the primitives,
the Aborigines of Australia, do not include creation
in their religious beliefs.

Q Does the Genesis story give us any indication
as to where God came from?

A No, God is just presupposed.

Q I suppose that would be true for matter
itself?

A That can be debated.

MR. SIANO: Is that a question?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Does the Genesis story give
us any indication as to the origin of matter?

THE WITNESS: A My personal view of what the
Genesis idea of creation is does not -- he is not
giving us the origin of matter. It is also presupposed
traditionally or generally; Genesis has been interpreted
as teaching creation in that philosophical sense of
the word--the origin of matter--but I personally don't
believe it has anything to do with it, but you can find
people who are quite respectable in Biblical scholarship
who do believe that it does, that Genesis does say that

90

or does teach that.

Q In the witness list which was provided to
us by the Plaintiffs, there was a description as to
what your testimony would be; there is a statement
that Father Vawter will testify as to the differentiation
among Christian and Judaic sects in their approach in
the treatment of Genesis?

A Yes.

Q What would be the differentiation among the
Christian and Judaic sects in their approach and treat-
ment of Genesis?

A Well, actually, it wouldn't be so much from
the sect--I mean a definable sect, as such--but from
a definable mind set, I would say, that you have the
literalistic interpretation which is going to be given
by literalistic people no matter what their particular
denomination might be; and they have what I would call
more critical interpretation which would be given by
more critical people, but what this so-called Creation
Science rests upon, I believe, is a literalistic
interpretation of the Genesis story; namely, that
whatever is described there must have happened just
exactly the way it is described, or without allowing
for poetic license or allowing for symbolism, et cetera,

91

or if you can't get away with quite that, you have to
settle that it couldn't have been just exactly that
way; then, you have to explain it away by invoking
something else like, say, six days of creation don't
mean really six days but that they were six ions
or something of that nature, and that's literalistic
reading of the text; and I think that's what lies
on the basis of this Creation Science so-called.
They're trying to bolster support of that literalistic
view of the reading of the Genesis story. That's
where the flood comes in and all that stuff.

Q Will you be relying upon any particular
authorities to give you a perspective as to what a
literalist would believe about Genesis I and II?

A Well, I read the current literature. I edit
a journal which surveys many, many journals in the
Biblical studies, particularly, Old Testament studies;
and I come across, therefore, the literalistic points
of view which are frequently expressed. I think
I mentioned earlier a couple journals are of that
persuasion.

Q I am just wondering if there would be a
classic definition of what a literalist would believe?

A I would doubt it. You would have to ask a

92

literalist.

Q Briefly, I'll take a look at these documents
you brought this morning.

Are these in any particular order,
Mr. Siano?

MR. SIANO: No.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Looking at the copy of what
appears to be Number 95 of Impact, which I assume
is a magazine or publication of some type, dated
May 1981?

THE WITNESS: A They sent that to me.

Q And who's, "they?"

A Mr. Siano and Company, or the Company
and Mr. Siano.

MR. SIANO: Thank you.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q When did they send this to
you?

THE WITNESS: A At the same time they sent
me the rest of that material there.

Q Is that the rest of the material, or all
the material in the file?

A Yes.

Q And what date was that?

A What did we agree on was the date?

93

MR. SIANO: This material antedates that.
You were sent the material sometime ago, just so I
can represent for the record.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A Yes, 8/16/81,
date of delivery, 4:20 p.m., initialed by, "S."
It's amazing how this came through the way it did.
I've had very bad experience with the postal service.

MR. CAMPBELL: Would you mark this as Vawter
Exhibit Number 1, for the record.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
Vawter's Exhibit Number 1, for
identification)

Q Would this be some of the material which
you read to determine what a literalist might believe
about origins?

THE WITNESS: A Yes.

Q Looking at now this document which is Number 96
of Impact Magazine, entitled, "Summary of the Scientific
Evidence for Creation," and I would like to have this
marked as Vawter Exhibit 2.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
Vawter's Exhibit Number 2, for
identification)

THE WITNESS: A Yes, it's a continuation of that,

94

Q Have you read that?

A Yes.

Q Would it be fair to say Vawter's Exhibit
Number 2 is other material which you've read to
determine what a literalist might believe about
creation?

A Yes, what a so-called Creation Scientist
would believe about the evidence.

Q I have an article here, "The Threat of
Creationism," by Isaac Asimov. I would like to have
this marked as Vauter's Exhibit Number 3, for
identification.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
Vauter's Exhibit Number 3, for
identification)

Have you had an opportunity to read this
article?

A Yes.

Q Do you have an opinion as to Mr. Asimov's
writing this particular article, Vawter's Exhibit
Number 3?

A An opinion as to?

Q The contents of this writing?

A Ok, I think he's a very good debunker, and

95

that's what he's doing. He's a better writer of
scientific fiction than he is of science, I think,
but he is well-qualified, I am sure, in scientific
circles.

Q What is the gist of the "Threat of
Creationism?"

A Precisely what I said. It's a debunking
of the attempt to harmonize the unharmonizable
which is a nonscientific perspective of the
universe with scientific data that has been provided
by the sciences within the last couple centuries,
and the tragedy that results therefrom: disservice
both to religion and to science.

MR. CAMPBELL: I have here a document which I
would like to have marked as Vawter's Exhibit Number 5,
which is entitled, "The Doctrine of Special Creation,"
by Richard P. Aulie; it appears to have been published
in the American Biology Teacher, April 1972.

THE WITNESS: A Yes, I read it. I don't recall
the contents of it right now. I would have to re-read
it again, in other words?

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
Vawter Exhibit Number 5, for
identification)

96

MR. CAMPBELL: Finally, I have a document
which I would like to be marked as Vawter's Exhibit
Number 6, which is an article entitled, "Creationism
isn't Science," by Niles Eldredge.

A Yes, again, I remember reading it when
it was sent to me. I would not recall the contents
right now.

(WHEREUPON, said document was
marked Vawter's Exhibit Number 6
for identification)

Q Could you characterize the article?

A Well, the title gives it away, but other
than that, I would not want to draw on. My recollec-
tions are too faint.

MR. CAMPBELL: Father Vawter, that's all I have.

MR. SIANO: I have a couple questions.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY: MR. SIANO

Q Father Vawter, you testified on direct as
to your view of Act 590, Section 4A, do you recall
answering Mr. Campbell's questions?

A Yes, I think so.

Q I'd like to ask you some questions in the
same respect. Is it your professional opinion, sir,

97

that the Genesis Creation account is congruent in
a literalist sense with Act 590's definition of
Creation Science?

A Congruent?

Q Yes; they're the same literalistic reading
of Genesis in Act 590?

A A literalistic reading of Genesis, I think,
is the underpinning of what is a presupposition of
Act 590.

Q Are you aware of any other creation account
or text which tracks the elements of creation as
recited by Act 590 other than the Genesis account?

A Not precisely as it is there, no.

Q When you indicated to Mr. Campbell that
it was your opinion that Genesis didn't talk about
the things that Act 590 recites in Section 4A, you
were giving your professional opinion as you read
Genesis, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q A literalistic reading of Act 590, Section 4A--
strike that-- A literalistic reading of the Genesis
account in comparison to Act 590, Section 4A, however,
would be different, then, would it not?

A Yes.

98

Q And the elements of the Genesis account
reflected by a literalistic reading of Genesis,
would they be reflected in Section 4A?

A Yes.

MR. CAMPBELL: I object to this line of
questioning; you are leading your own witness.

MR. SIANO: This is cross-examination. This
is one of those quaint questions. It comes up when
you're asking the direct. I am only trying to clarity
the testimony so I won't misinterpret what's there,
and I do at the earliest possible opportunity.

Q Do you understand my question?

THE WITNESS: A Yes, I do.

Q Could you answer it?

A I think a literalistic reading of Genesis
is the only thing that the Act could have as its
presupposition; there is, to my knowledge, no other
creation belief that has been formulated in that way,
and my own personal view is I don't believe that
Genesis actually means some of those things that
is in that literalistic view, but nevertheless, that
literalistic view prevailed an awful long time, and
it still prevails in the minds of many people.

Q And that's what you were discussing when

99

Mr. Campbell asked you if your view of Section 4A
was your professional view?

A Yes.

Q Is the creation story a part of the Judaeo-
Christian religion?

A Very much so.

Q Is it some view of the Genesis account
of creation which is the creation story?

A Creation is mentioned elsewhere in the
Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures, but
what is generally presupposed is the creation story
of Genesis.

MR. SIANO: I have no further questions.

MR. CAMPBELL: That's all, Father Vawter.

Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

100

STATE OF ILLINOIS  )
                             )SS
COUNTY OF C O O K)

I, VICTOR J. LA COURSIERE, a notary public
within and for the County of Cook and State of
Illinois, do hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit,
on the 21st day of November, A.D., 1981, personally
appeared before me at Suite 607, 343 South Dearborn
Street, in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and
State of Illinois, FRANCIS BRUCE VAWTER, a witness
produced by the Plaintiffs, in a certain cause now
pending and undetermined in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas,
Western District, wherein REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et
al, are the Plaintiffs, and BOARD OF EDUCATION,
et al, are the Defendants, Case Number LR-C-81-322.

I further certify that the said FRANCIS BRUCE
VAWTER, was by me first duly sworn to testify the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in
the cause aforesaid, that the testimony then given
by said witness was reported stenographically by me,
in the presence of the said witness, and afterwards
transcribed into typewriting, and the foregoing is
a true and correct transcript of the testimony given
by said witness as aforesaid.

101

I further certify the signature of the witness
to the foregoing deposition was reserved.

I further certify that the taking of this
deposition was in pursuance of notice, and that there
were present at the taking of this deposition,
MESSRS. ANTHONY J. SIANO and RALPH J. MARRA, JR.,
on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and MR. RICK CAMPBELL,
Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the
Defendants.

I further certify that I am not Counsel for nor
in any way related to any of the parties to this
suit, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome
thereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed my notarial seal this 22nd day of
November, A.D., 1981

____________________________________
Notary Public
County of Cook - State of Illinois

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

May 22nd, 1984
__________________________

102

                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                   WESTERN DIVISION

REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et al  )
                                              )
                        Plaintiffs          )
                                              )
                    vs                       )
                                              )      Civil Action No:
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al,    )        LR-C-81-32
                                              )
                        Defendants      )

This is to certify that I have read the
transcript of my deposition taken in the above-entitled
cause, and that the foregoing transcript accurately
states the questions asked and the answers given by me.

__________________________________
Signature of Deponent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
BEFORE ME THIS________
DAY OF __________A.D., 1981.

___________________________
Notary Public

Deposition of George Mish Marsden

                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                        WESTERN DIVISION

REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et al     )
                                                 )
                         Plaintiffs             )
                                                 )
                      vs                        )
                                                 )      Civil Action No:
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al        )      LR-C-81-322
                                                 )
                         Defendants        )

The deposition of GEORGE MISH MARSDEN,
called by the Defendants for examination, taken
pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure of the United States District Courts
pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before
VICTOR J. LA COURSIERE, a Notary Public within and
for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and a
Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, taken
at Suite 607, 343 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois, on the 21st day of November, A.D., 1981,
at approximately 1:30, p.m.

2

APPEARANCES:

MESSRS. ANTHONY J. SIANO and RALPH J. MARRA, JR.
Attorneys at Law, of the law firm of,
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM,
919 Third Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10022 Ph: (212) 371-6000
Appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs;

MR. RICK CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney General,
Trial Division
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas Phone: 501/371-2007
Appeared on behalf of the Defendants

-----------------------

MR. SIANO: Let the record show this
deposition is taken for the purposes of discovery;
all objections subject to the form are preserved
until the time of trial; the witness reserves the
right to read and sign the deposition; we waive
filing; and we are willing to waive signing in front
of this Notary Public, is that right?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

MR. SIANO: Also, at this time, we are
turning over documents in response to the State of
Arkansas document request, dated November 13, 1981;
and the same observations are made as this morning
to Father Vawter's production of documents -- off the

3

record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued
off the record)

MR. CAMPBELL: Dr. Marsden, my name is Rick
Campbell; I am an Assistant Attorney General represen-
ting the Board of Education, State of Arkansas, in
this litigation.

As you know, the Arkansas General Assembly
passed what has been referred to as Act 590 of 1981,
which requires the teaching of Creation Science
along with Evolution Science in the public schools
in the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiffs in this action have listed
you as a witness on their behalf in this litigation;
I am simply here today to ask you a few questions
concerning your background and your probably testimony
at trial.

If any time you need to take a break or
go to the restroom or would like some coffee, let me
know, and we can take a break for that purpose.

4

GEORGE MISH MARSDEN,
called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY: MR. CAMPBELL

Q Would you please state your full name
and address for the record?

A George Mish Marsden; and my address is
**** ****** *********, ***** ******, ********.

Q Are you married?

A Yes.

Q Do you have any children?

A Two children.

Q Are they in school?

A Yes.

Q Where are they enrolled?

A They're enrolled at Oakdale Christian
School.

Q Where is Oakdale Christian School?

A In Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Q Is that -- what grades are they in?

A Grade 6 and 4.

5

Q Do you know whether or not they have
studied the subject of origins in their class work?

A I don't know in any detail whether they
have. I am not very clear on what they've learned
on that at this point.

Q I understand.

MR. SIANO: Some point along the line, I am
going to object to relevancy; we are going pretty far
afield.

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand.

Q Are you a member of an organized
religious faith?

THE WITNESS: A Yes; I am a member of the
Christian Reform Church.

Q Would you describe what the Christian
Reform Church is?

A Christian Reform Church is a -- well,
it's very much like the Presbyterian Church of Dutch
origin. It's a creedal denomination whose doctrines
are officially based on several reformation creeds.
It's a church of maybe 250,000 members in the United
States and Canada.

Q Do you know any of the creeds of the church
that you could--

6

A Well, the three--what are called the three
forms of unity which is the names of the creeds are
the Heidelberg Catechism, the Beltic Confession, and
the Canons of Dork; they are essentially Calvanistic
creeds. (Phonetic spellings)

Q How long have you been a member of the
Christian Reform Church?

A About 12 years.

Q And prior to that?

A I was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church.

Q Does the Christian Reform Church have a
position on the origin of the universe?

A I don't know.

Q Would the church have a position on the
origin of man?

A I don't know what is said at the church.

Q Have you studied the origin of the universe
in your church?

A I haven't studied it in any formal sense.

Q Has it been discussed?

A I think so, yes.

MR. SIANO: Mr. Campbell, I would like to renew
the objection I made earlier today in connection with

7

personal positions on these topics. I have let you
inquire quite readily today, but you might want to
trade that and get to the issues of the case.

MR. CAMPBELL: Professor Marsden, periodically
throughout your deposition, there will be some verbal
exchange between Mr. Siano and myself. Certainly, it
has nothing to do with you personally, so I don't
want you to take it that way.

THE WITNESS: I understand.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you recall any specific
discussions concerning the origin of the universe?

THE WITNESS: A Nothing specific. It's a
subject that from time to time is discussed in various
ways.

It would be hard to say that there's
one certain typical Christian Reform discussion of it.
It also would be hard to say what the boundaries of
the church are.

I mean, I have talked to Christian
Reform people about the subject from time to time, but
it would be hard to specify any one particular time.

Q Where are you presently employed?

A At Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

8

Q What type of institution is Calvin College?

A Calvin College is a college of the Christian
Reform Church. It's run by a Board of Trustees who
are subordinate to the synod of the Christian Reform
Church, which is the highest ruling body of the church,
and it is supported with church funds.

Q In what capacity are you employed there?

A I am a Professor of History.

Q Any particular courses in History that
you teach?

A I teach American Intellectual History;
American Religious History; American Colonial History;
I teach a course in Christianity Learning and Culture;
and I teach a History of Western Civilization.

Q What is American Intellectual History?

A It's a history of the development of
American thought in its cultural relationships.

Q In your American Religions History class,
do you ever discuss the subject of origins?

A Yes.

Q In what manner?

A Well, I talk about the Scope Trial, for
instance; and I report what happened at the Scope

9

Trial; and I am a student of American Fundamentalism,
so I give some background for the development of
understanding fundamentalist views on that.

Q Prior to your employment at Calvin
College, where were you employed?

A My only employment was Assistant Instruc-
tor at Yale University.

Q Did you have teaching responsibilities
in that capacity?

A Yes, I led discussions, actually.

Q I notice that you received the Younger
Humanist Fellowship from the National Endowment of
Humanities from 1971-72?

A That's correct.

Q What is that?

A The National Endowment for the Humanities
grant fellowships for research to scholars, and they
provide roughly enough funds to take a year off to
research a particular topic.

Q In this instance, you were studying Funda-
mentalism in American culture?

A That's correct.

Q What is the National Endowment for the
Humanities?

10

A It's a government-financed endowment
to support scholarships.

Q Where did you graduate from high school?

A Middletown High School, Middletown,
Pennsylvania.

Q Did you take any science courses when you
were there?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall which ones?

A Yes, I took general science; I took biology;
I took physics; and I took chemistry.

Q Was the subject of origins ever brought
up in any of these classes?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall in what way?

A Not very well, I couldn't characterize
it in any interesting way.

Q Act 590 defines Creation Science and
Evolution Science. As Evolution Science is defined
in Act 590, was Evolution Science discussed in your
high school curriculum?

MR. SIANO: Before going further, I would
like him to have the Act before him.

MR. CAMPBELL: Okay; look at that definition.

11

THE WITNESS: A Yes, I note the definition.
I recall something on that order,
yes, was discussed.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Was Creation Science as it
is defined in that Act 590 ever discussed in your high
school curriculum?

A I think so. It was discussed in class--I'm
not sure. It might have been brought up by the students,
for instance.

Well, now, I should correct that.
No, it wasn't, not in the sense that it is in Act 590.

Q What do you mean, "Not in the sense that
it is in Act 590?"

A Well, in the sense that the subject of
creation was discussed. It was discussed in the
sense that creation was defined in Act 590; but that
particular brand of creationism was not discussed.

Q What brand was? I am just trying to get
a feel for it.

A Well, in the general sense that there
might be a Creator, but if you have all those demands
like catastrophism, that sort of thing, as far as I
know, was not even known at that time.

12

Q Were did you attend college?

A Haverford College.

Q Where is that located?

A Haverford, Pennsylvania.

Q Did you take any science courses at
Haverford?

A Well, my science requirement was fulfilled
in clinical psychology--no, laboratory psychology
courses is what it should be called.

Q After college, you went to the seminary?

A Correct.

Q Which one was that?

A Westminster Theological Seminary, in
Philadelphia.

Q While at Westminster, was the subject
of origins ever discussed?

A Yes.

Q In what way?

A Again, it's one of those questions that's
very hard to characterize, because it was discussed
in a variety of ways, but more specifically, it was
discussed in several courses in the Old Testament,
and questions as to how the Old Testament should be

13

understood. Primarily, it was the questions that
were discussed--not so much--well, that in relation to
the science questions, but the questions were more
questions of Biblical interpretation.

Q Was the subject of evolution ever
mentioned?

A Yes.

Q Would it be fair to say--and I am not
trying to put words in your mouth at all--but if
we're talking about evolution, would its counterpart
be creation or what would be the counterpart of
evolution in your mind?

MR. SIANO: Objection. I don't know what
counterpart means in that context.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Well, is there an opposite,
in your own mind, to evolution?

THE WITNESS: A No. There is certainly nothing
entailed in evolution that excludes creationism
logically, nor does creationism logically exclude
evolution.

Q So any discussion of origins would include,
in your mind, or could include a discussion of both
creationism and evolution?

A Yes, I'd say any discussion would include.

14

Q After you left Westminster, where did
you attend school?

A I finished my work--my PHD work at
Yale University.

Q Did you go to a different school after
Westminster or--

A What happened was I went -- out of college,
I went to Westminster for one year; went to Yale for
one year, then, back to Westminster for two years,
and I went back to Yale for two years.

Q What did you receive your PHD in at
Yale?

A American Studies.

Q What is that, generally?

A It's basically the study of American
History, and Culture, and Literature, but primarily,
History. My emphasis was American Religious History.

Q Have you received any other training or
attended any other unversities outside of those you
have just mentioned?

A I don't think so.

Q Are you licensed to teach at Calvin College?

A Licensed, no.

15

Q Are you a member of any professional
societies?

A I am a member of the American Historical
Association; American Society of Church History;
and Conference on Faith and History.

Q What was the second one you named; I'm
sorry?

A American Society for Church History.

Q How long have you been a member of the
American Historical Association?

A I guess since about 1963.

Q What is the purpose of that organization?

A To promote the study of American History.

Q How long have you been a member of
the American Society for Church History?

A About since 1963.

Q What is the purpose of that organization?

A To promote the study of American Church
History.

Q How long have you been a member of the
Conference of Faith and History?

A Since about 1967, I guess.

Q What is the purpose of that association?

A It's an organization of historians who

16

characterize themselves as Evangelical, primarily.

Q You would characterize yourself as
Evangelical?

A Yes.

Q What is an Evangelical?

A Evangelical is -- well, as I am using it
here would be basically someone who regards the Bible
as an authority and emphasizes the work of Christ
for the salvation of humanity and, also, emphasizes--
well, i think that just that would be enough to
get Evangelical, moreorless. I could refine that if
it makes any difference.

Q You said that it somewhat regards the
Bible as an authority; what does that mean; authority
for what?

A Authority for faith in practice; that
the Bible is the best guide that we have to God's
Will for humanity.

Q Do you hold a position in any of these
organizations?

A No.

Q Have you ever held one?

A No.

Q In light of the controversy which surrounds

17

Act 590 in academic and professional circles, have
any of the organizations which you belong to taken
any position on whether or not Creation Science,
as it is defined in 590, should be taught in the
public schools?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object to the
predicate portion of the question. You can answer
the question whether any organizations you belong
to have taken a position without reference to
whether you understand or appreciate whatever the
controversy is.

THE WITNESS: A The answer is no.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Are you a member of the
American Civil Liberties Union?

A No.

Q Are you a member of the Society for the
Study of Evolution?

A No.

Q Are you a member of the American Society
for the Advancement of Science?

A No.

Q Do you subscribe to any professional
publications?

A Yes; to the American Historical Review;

18

PAGE IS MISSING

19

Q Do you recall the names of any of those
organizations which have sent you this material?

A No, I don't recall any, really.

Q Are you on the mailing list of the
Institute for Creation Science?

A I don't think so.

Q How about the Creation Research Society?

A I don't think so.

Q You mentioned that in your American
Religious History course that you had discussed
the subject of origins there?

A Yes.

Q Particularly, as it related to the
Scope Trial?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever go into the merits of
evolution in any of these discussions?

MR. SIANO: I don't understand the question.

THE WITNESS: I don't either, clearly.

MR. SIANO: Are you asking, "Professor
Marsden, do you think evolution is a good idea?" as
if you could stop that theory?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q I mean, was there a dis-
cussion -- was there ever a discussion in a class of

20

evolution inconsistent, Dr. Marsden, with, "What
I have always been taught as--?"

THE WITNESS: A Yes, I'm sure that's come
up; sure.

Q Without thinking of a particular conver-
sation you may have had with someone, do you recall
generally what your response would be if someone
had phrased that type of question to you?

A Well, I think it depends on what you mean
by evolution. Biological evolution comes in many
varieties; and some varieties are theistic and
pro-creationist; and some are non-theistic
and anti-creationist; of course, it makes a big
different which one you're talking about.

Q What is a theistic evolutionist?

A Well, there are a variety of theistic
evolutionists, but, it's basically someone who
says that the evolution of one species to another
might well be God's way of creating.

Q What would be a non-theistic evolutionist?

A A non-theistic evolutionist would say
that evolutionary theory excludes any supernatural
or providential control over the processes.

Q In discussing theistic evolution, had you

21

relied upon any particular authorities that would
define what that is or how that would work?

A Well, I read lots of things about it;
it's a subject that's been discussed in many, many
varieties over the years; so it would be hard to
say that there is any one authority that I'd have
depended on in that subject.

Q Is there any one authority more than any
other you would respect or look to for guidance
in that area?

A Not that I can think of. I studied the
whole history of that subject; there's a vast number
of things that has been written on the subject.

Q Who would individuals studying the same
areas that you studied look to as leading authorities
in this area? I am not saying any one would be any--

A When you say "this area," what area do
you mean?

Q Theistic evolution.

A I studied the history of it. For instance,
there's a good history that just came out of Cambridge
University Press by a man named James Moore, called
the Post-Darwinian Controversy in England and America
from 1865 to 1900. That describes in great detail the

22

many ways in which Christians accommodated themselves
to Darwinism.

Q Are there particular authorities which
you have read which would discuss non-theistic
evolution?

MR. SIANO: For the record, Professor Marsden
talked about the context in which he has studied
this doctrine from an historical perspective; your
questions appear to me to be directed more to
the substantive scientific approach.

MR. CAMPBELL: I don't mean to imply that.

Q Generally, if you're discussing it
from an historical standpoint, would you look to
a certain authority or authorities, and say, "This
gives me my perspective in what these issues are
involved here?"

THE WITNESS: A Non-theistic evolution now,
no--I mean, there's not one that stands out that
would be the thing that people took to in that area.

Again, there's a whole spectrum of
positions, and it's hard to single one, and say, "This is
theistic evolution; this is non-theistic," because
within those, there's lots of varieties.

Q That intrigues me. What different varieties

23

would there be in theistic evolution?

A Well, as I say, there's a spectrum of
beliefs; for instance, there are--one of the
early theistic evolutionists is "Ether"(phonetic) Gray,
Evangelical Professor at Harvard, in the 1860s,
and corresponded with Darwin.

He defended Darwin's views in America,
accepted natural selection, but said it was all done
in god's providential care. There was a purpose and
direction in it. That would be a Darwinistic-
theistic evolutionist.

Now, there can be like a "Neal N.
Marthian" (phonetic) version of evolution which is
some other theory of why species change, basically,
from acquiring -- so there are fusions of Christian
teaching with almost any theory of why evolutionary
development or how it takes place that comes down
the line.

There have been Christians who have said,
"This is compatible with Christian teaching, Biblical
teaching, for reasons X-Y-Z."

You have a whole spectrum of people who
say that man evolved from lower species; and people
who say there's evolution among species but doesn't

24

carry up to man.

Some have a more limited version
of change, and so forth.

MR. SIANO: Off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued off
the record)

MR. SIANO: Back on the record.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Dr. Marsden, have you ever
written any papers or articles or books on the
subject of origins?

THE WITNESS: A I've written a book called
Fundamentalism in American Culture, in which I
discussed the science-religion in late 19th and early
20th Century.

I've also written some articles
that alluded to that whole problem of Christianity
and Christian response to Darwinism.

Q Do you recall the names of those articles?

A In none of these is the subject discussed
very sensitively. This last article on the vitae
here, "Everyone wants to be His Own Interpreter:
the Bible, Science, and Authority, in mid-19th Century
America," I talk mainly about pre-Darwinian in

25

response to science; then, I end up mentioning some-
thing about the Darwinist controversy.

I don't think there is anything
that really deals with it very extensively. Since
this case came up, I've been working on that
subject, and I've been working on an article on
that subject.

Q Obviously, you haven't completed the
work on the article, but can you tell us the scope
of the article?

A It's basically repeating things that I
said in my book; and also, putting that together,
some things I talked about, "19th Century Evangelical
Views of Science before Darwinism came along,"
which was briefly that they believed that science
was the best friend of Christianty, and far from
being a warfare between science and religion, they
thought the two supported each other; and basically,
what I say in the articles and in my book when I
talk about the subject is that Darwinism came
as a blow to that set of assumptions. One of the
assumptions was that science--modern science--
supported the argument from design. That is, the
design in the universe was one of the proofs of God.

26

And here, Darwinism came along and
presented another plausible interpretation of how
the design got there.

And so, Evangelicals were not well
prepared to deal with that. Intellectually, they
had accepted science so fully that they didn't have
a way to critique Darwinism and look at its first
principle; so there was a tendency to go to
extreme solutions; and there are some schools of
thought that discredit Darwinism entirely.

Q As a religious historian, that would be
a fair characterization of your--

A Or historian of religion, and religious
historian, too, for that matter.

Q As an historian of religion, do you have
an opinion as to the origin of the universe?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object to that.
That question doesn't follow from the premise
that's established. I don't know whether he qualifies
as an expert with regard to origins, as an expert
in that sense.

MR. CAMPBELL: I am not trying to draw from
your expert opinion on whatever your expertise would
be in. I am not going to try to define that at this

27

point.

Q All I'm trying to say is as an historian
of religion--or is it a fair question--I can even
ask you that: Would a religious historian have
an opinion on the origin of the universe?

THE WITNESS: A I have an opinion, not
strictly because I'm a religious historian.

Q What is your opinion?

A I believe that God created the universe.
How he did it, I am not really in a position to say.

Q I understand.

Would that be the same for the
creation of man and life on the earth?

A Yes.

Q I understand you are not a scientist. From
what you know about general science, do you think
that science precludes the origin of the universe
and man and life as you just described it?

A That science does?

Q Yes?

A I don't understand that exactly, but no,
I don't see how it could preclude it.

Q The Plaintiffs have again listed you as a

28

witness in this case; do you know at this point in
time what the general subject matter of your testimony
at trial will be?

A I think it will be essentially on the
History of fundamentalism in America.

Q Would there be any particular facts or
opinions that you will be seeking to present to the
court concerning the history of fundamentalism in
America?

MR. SIANO: You mean the substance of his
testimony?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: A Well, maybe you want to
phrase that again, if that's what you want.

MR. SIANO: Why don't you ask him what the
substance of his testimony will be?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you know at this time
more of the details of what you will be discussing
with regard to the history of fundamentalism in
America?

THE WITNESS: A Basically, just to say that
fundamentalism is a movement that has been developing
in America since at least the 19th Century.

29

I studied the period mainly up to
1925 or 1930, and I guess important to that is my
definition of fundamentalism, which is militantly
and anti-modernist Evangelical protestantism;
and fundamentalists emphasize the authority of
the Bible, typically emphasize the literal inter-
pretation of the Bible and certain fundamental
doctrines that they consider to be tests of the
Christian faith. For instance, the substitutionary
atonement of Jesus or His resurrection from the dead.

And fundamentalism arose as a
coalition of people from various groups, mainly,
protestant, who were alarmed for one reason or
other at the trend of secularization in the culture
or within the churches themselves, and it's a
militant opposition to those, and becomes by 1920
quite an identifiable movement with a name.

Q I will ask you to define fundamentalism?

A I think I just did.

Q Excuse me, go ahead and finish.

A In the last statement, that was what I
was trying to do, and say it's militantly--and
whatever I said--anti-modernist Evangelical protestan-
tism.

30

Q Would you say that fundamentalism, as
you've just defined it, has stayed the same from
its beginning--and I realize you can't give a precise
date on this--until the present day?

A Some elements have stayed the same, and
some have changed to some degree. It's a coalition
of various movements, so you can't nail it down
quite as precisely as you could, say, the Mormons.

Q All right; would it be fair to character-
ize fundamentalism as it originally existed as
traditional fundamentalism, and the fundamentalism
in which the elements had changed, which you just
mentioned a moment ago?

A No, that's not what I meant. I meant--
see, by the definition of fundamentalism as militant,
there are some people who become militant, and then,
become less militant. You can be sort of more or
less fundamentalist, and not being a religious
movement that has a denomination or organizational--
one organizational structure, it's not always clear
when people are in and out so you might have more--
for instance, it used to be there were more Presby-
terians who were fundamentalist than there are today;
but what a fundamentalist is has a fair amount of

31

continuity in it in both times, so there was some
change there because of some continuity; but there's
an identifiable movement that you can say, "This
movement has direct continuity with--fundamentalism
of today has direct continuity with what was happening
in, say, 1925."

Q In what respects is that true?

A Well, the militant opposition to modernism,
or now, more often called secular humanism, though
that was true in the 1920s, too. Sometimes it's re-
ferred to as secular humanism. There's continuity.
There's continuity in the opposition to biological
evolution.

There's some discontinuity there, too,
but there's enough continuity to say, "This is an
extension of the same movement, or the same moved."

Q What authority will you be principally
relying upon in testifying as to the history of
fundamentalism in America?

A That's hard to state precisely. As I
said, I've researched that for ten years; I have
file cabinets filled with things, and that's just
a distillation of libraries of things that have gone
through one way or another.

32

Q Were there others in the field before
yourself who attempted to--

A Yes.

Q Who were some of those individuals?

A Ernest Sandeen, S-a-n-d-e-e-n, McAlister
College; C. Allyn Russell, Boston University;
George Dower (phonetic spelling), Bob Jones Univer-
sity; those are the main ones that I recall offhand.
There might be some other important ones.

Q How will you relate the history of
fundamentalism in America to Act 590 of 1981?

A Well, Act 590 sounds very much like a
certain species of fundamentalist document. It's
not a product exclusively of fundamentalists,
but it's obviously influenced by fundamentalism
or by the source of things which are typical of
fundamentalists; and particularly, for instance,
Act 590 reflects a literal interpretation of Genesis I,
and in some degree or other, literalness has been
characteristic of fundamentalism; and Act 590 also
reflects the fundamentalists' tendency to equate
evolution with an atheistic-naturalistic evolution
as opposed to evolution that would include any room
for theism or providence.

33

That's been a tendency of fundamentalism
and a growing tendency of fundamentalism to make that
equation.

Q When you said that Act 590 sounds like a
certain species of fundamentalism, which species
are you referring to?

A A particularly literalistic species is
that fundamentalists virtually all tend to be
Biblical literalists, but there can be degrees of
literalism, and this degree of literalism is one
in which the days of Genesis I appear to be 24-hour
days; at least, the conclusion that the earth
has to be relatively young seems to come from that;
and that's a kind of fundamentalism.

There are some other fundamentalists
who might have longer days, and therefore, have an
older--like the anti-evolutionists--but those sorts
of fundamentalists are not--don't seem to be represented
quite as well in Act 590.

Q Do these different species of fundamentalism
have names, or do they just--

A No.

Q One can never evolve into a different type?

34

MR. SIANO: You probably should use the word,
"kind."

THE WITNESS: A They do change at times.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q If you had to summarize--
and perhaps you mentioned it--but if you would have
to summarize your testimony at trial, what would that
be today?

A It's more or less along the line of what
I just said, that I would describe the history of
fundamentalism, that there is such a movement, but
I don't think it's a matter of dispute; and that
this movement has long included among its concerns--
and tack on biological evolution--and those sorts of
concerns are reflected in Act 590, I would say.

Q Have you prepared a document or report
of any type concerning your opinion in this case?

A Yes, I wrote up a little statement on
fundamentalism, and I sent it to the lawyers here;
and then, they sent back a witness sheet, and I sent
back some amendments to that witness sheet.

Q When was that?

A Within the last month, I would say.

Q How long of a document is the document

35

prepared on fundamentalism?

A It's six or seven pages.

Q Have you prepared any other documents or
reports concerning fundamentalism and the subject
matter of your testimony at trial?

A Well, yes; as I mentioned before, I'm
working on an article on fundamentalists' views
of science that I have. It's not completed yet.

Q Have you prepared any other document
which you provided Mr. Siano or any other attorneys
in the case?

A He's seen the draft of that article which
I just mentioned.

MR. SIANO: For the record, as I stated, it's
in the pile of documents there that have been
produced in this case, as is the report that Professor
Marsden described.

Off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued
off the record)

MR. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.

Q Professor Marsden, I notice in some of
the documents that you produced today, there is a
number of articles from Arkansas newspapers; when did

36

you get those?

A They were sent to me by Mr. Siano.

Q Outside of the documents which we
were referring to, a moment ago, on fundamentalism
and the new article that you're preparing at the
present time--a draft of that--have you prepared
any other report for purposes of this litigation?

A No, I don't think so.

Q Are you planning at this time to present
any--or to prepare any exhibits for your presentation
at the trial?

A No. Not that I plan to.

MR. CAMPBELL: Off the record for a moment.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued
off the record)

MR. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.

Q Dr. Marsden, have you had an opportunity
to read Act 590 of 1981?

THE WITNESS: A Yes.

Q When was the first time that you read it?

A I think around early September.

Q How did you receive it?

A How did I receive it, and what was my opinion
of it--oh, where did I get it from--Mr. Siano sent it to

37

me.

Q When was the last time you read the bill?

A I read parts of it last night.

Q Professor, to refresh your recollection
for a moment--

A Sure. Is there a copy of this that belongs
to me?

MR. SIANO: What, the Act?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SIANO: I think it's probably in what
he shuffled up there; It's in back of the complaint.
You will get it back.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What does balance treatment
mean to you?

MR. SIANO: I object. It's irrelevant.
It's asking for a personal view, but you may answer.

THE WITNESS: A You mean as it appears in the
Act?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Yes, sir.

A Well, it says in the Act somewhere what
it means, I think. Essentially, what balance treatment
means in the Act is what it means in the Act, but I
interpret it as meaning that Evolution Science so-
called and Creation Science so-called would receive,

38

over the long-haul, roughly equal treatment if either
one were to be treated.

Q You notice in Section 2, Act 590, the
statement, "Prohibition against religious instruction, "
what does that mean to you?

MR. SIANO: I'll object to personal views,
but I'll let him answer.

THE WITNESS: A Well, it means to me that
there's an attempt here to get around the fact that
religious instruction is entailed by teaching Creation
Science; and it's entailed just by the fact that
the word "creation" entails the Creator, and the
belief in a Creator is a religious view.

What it means would be that there
would be an attempt to suppress what is the real
origin of this model.

Q But if you heard the phrase, "Prohibition
against religious instruction," how would you take
that to mean?

MR. SIANO: Objection; in what context do you
mean; just if somebody walks up to you on the street
and would ask that, is that what you mean?

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Somebody walked up to you
on the street, and asked you that?

39

MR. SIANO: I don't know what the relevance
of that is. It's either Act 590 or it's nothing
in this case. I am going to object to the question.
It's really very far afield.

MR. CAMPBELL: You may answer the question.

THE WITNESS: I may answer or--

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

MR. SIANO: If you can, go right ahead.

THE WITNESS: A Oh, sure, I would say it
prohibits wrongly-interpreted sectarian teachings.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What are sectarian teachings?

A Teachings that are peculiar to some
religious group or groups. I think that's what the
Act means by it.

Q Turning to Section 4A of Act 590, there is
a definition of Creation Science; reading Section 4A,
it states "Creation Science means the scientific
evidence is creation and inferences from those
scientific evidences; Creation Science includes
the scientific evidences and related inferences
that indicate," and then, it lists six different items.

I would like you to go with me through
these six different items, and to tell me, if you can,
which of these items, if any, are consistent with a

40

fundamentalist viewpoint, if that would be a correct
expression of a fundamentalist.

First, there is "the sudden creation
of the universe, energy, and light, from nothing?"

A That is consistent with the fundamentalist
viewpoint.

Q And on what basis do you make that statement?

A Fundamentlists' reading of the Bible--
of Genesis I--say that the Bible teaches that the
earth was created in one moment. At least, they used
to say such a thing.

Q And using your definition--one part of
your definition of a fundamentalist being a Biblical
literalist, then, you're saying that this particular
statement would be consistent?

A It would be consistent with that kind of
Biblical literalism, yes.

Q Two,"the insufficiency of mutation and
the natural selection in bringing about development
of all living kinds from a single organism?"

A That's also consistent. They're all
consistent for moreorless the same reasons.

Q And those same reasons being again--we'll
save going through all six of them?

41

A Biblical literalism; an interpretation
of the Bible, literalism.

Q Are there fundamentalists--and this is
one reason I was having you define fundamentalism
for me in some detail earlier--are there fundamentalists
who do not hold, say, these six items as part of their
beliefs?

A Yes.

Q Are there any of these items which are
more generally a fallout of a fundamentalist's view-
point than any others?

A "Fallout of," you mean some fundamentalists
would not hold and some would?

Q Right.

A 5 and 6; in the history of fundalmentalism,
particularly, there have been fundamentalists who
didn't hold these views.

Q 5, for the record, is an explanation of
the earth's geology of catastrophism, including the
occurrence of worldwide flood; and 6, is relatively
a recent conception of the earth and living kinds.

A moment ago, you mentioned that
a Creator was an inherently religious concept, I
believe--I don't want to put words in your mouth--but

42

was that correct, or is that not correct?

If it's not, I can just ask you this:
Is the existence of a creator a religious concept?

MR. SIANO: Of course, I object; are you
asking within the limitation of his expertise, or
in his personal view?

THE WITNESS: A. I am inclined to say it was
a religious concept, yes.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Do you know of any religions
where there is no mention of a creator?

A Yes.

Q What are some of those?

A Well, let's put it this way: I am hesitant,
without that being in my area of expertise, to
just say, but it certainly--I am sure there are
religions in which there is no mention of a creator.
But I don't--I guess I'd want to check my facts
before I name them.

Q Okay, from your examination of Act 509,
do you see anything in there which would prohibit
a teacher from expressing his or her professional
opinion as to the relative merits or demerits of
either of the two models that are set out in the Act?

A I think I'd have to read it over again to

43

be sure on that question.

I don't know. It's a matter of fact
that -- I could look it up or not. I am not sure
what it says on that.

Q I wish you would take a look at it,
because that's going to be an issue.

A All right.

MR. SIANO: Ask the question again.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Just whether or not you
think there is anything in the Act which would prohibit
a teacher from expressing his or her professional
opinion as to the relative merits or demerits of
either model of origins?

MR. SIANO: I will object. First of all,
I don't know whether it's going to be an issue or
not; if you want to pose an educational -- and start
from scratch on that.

THE WITNESS: A I don't see anything that
prohibits expressing a professional opinion on either
or both of the views.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Professor Marsden, how would
you define academic freedom?

MR. SIANO: Objection; it calls for a legal
conclusion.

44

MR. CAMPBELL: I am asking for his personal
opinion.

MR. SIANO: It still calls for a legal
conclusion. I am not going to object to an answer.
I am just telling you the question is improper.

THE WITNESS: A That's not something I have
a very--well, it's something that could be defined
in lots of different ways, I mean, academic
freedom to teach classes as long as you want, and
it may be just fifty minutes long; and you have
academic freedom to say anything you want, and
that's limited in various ways in different situations,
so academic freedom as a general category doesn't say
much to me.

You have to have a specific case
to say what it would mean. In itself, I don't see it
as necessarily a positive value or a negative value
to have academic freedom.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q In your opinion, may the
state prescribe a curriculum in the school?

A May it?

MR. SIANO: Objection; it goes beyond the
scope of his expertise; I'll let him answer.

45

THE WITNESS: A There are areas of guidelines
that might be appropriate for a state to provide
for teaching in schools, and clearly, states may
and do prescribe some curriculum. I think every
state requires that people learn to read some
language or other; so, yes, and usually, you know,
they do prescribe some things in the curriculum.

Q In your opinion, should teachers be
free to evaluate the validity of the subjects which
are discussed in the classroom?

A They should be free to evaluate them,
certainly.

Q Recognizing it's not your area of
expertise, but knowing you are a teacher, is it
your opinion that the presentation of divergent
views in the classroom can lead to a better appreci-
ation by students of the subject matter under
discussion?

MR. SIANO: Objection.

THE WITNESS: A They might or they might not.
It depends on how many divergent views there are,
and what the divergent views are. Divergency, for
its own sake, certainly isn't of any value.

Q Professor Marsden, how would you define

46

religion?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object.

THE WITNESS: A There are two kinds of
definition, I think, that one might give. One would
be an organized belief system that involves belief
in a diety; the other one would be just an organized
belief system.
Q How would you define deity?

A Well, let's say roughly, someone that--
some being that has supernatural powers or/and
authority.

Q What is Biblical inspiration?

A You mean, what is my view of it?

Q How would you define it?

MR. SIANO: Before you answer, I'll object.
I think I'm going to put my objections on the record
quite extensively. It's beyond his expertise.

THE WITNESS: A That the Bible reflects--
let me rephrase that--that God has had a hand in
determining what the Bible says.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Would fundamentalists believe
that the Bible is inspired by God?

A Yes.

Q Is there a difference between literalism

47

and inspiration, in that sense; would a fundamentalist
say the Bible is inspired, or would he say it's
literal?

A Those are two different questions. One
question has to do with the authority of the Bible;
and the other one is a question of interpretation
of the Bible. And one's stance of one doesn't entail
one's stance of the other.

Q So the authority of the Bible would be
inspired, is that correct?

A Right; you might think that the Bible
is authoritative because it's inspired by God,
like the fundamentalists always say that; but that
doesn't settle the question as to how the Bible is
to be interpreted.

Q Is Devine revelation the same thing to
you as Biblical inspiration?

A No, because you have a revelation that
wasn't in the Bible.

Q What is Devine revelation?

A God revealing himself, so for instance,
"the heavens declare the glory of God," would be an
example of Devine revelation.

Q Would fundamentalists believe in Devine

48

revelation?

A Yes.

Q Is there any particular examples you can
think of they would look to as Devine revelation?

A Nature and Scripture.

Q In what respect?

A All nature is a revelation of God's
handiwork. All science points to God.

Q What is your personal opinion on Biblical
inspiration?

A I believe the Bible is inspired by God.

Q What is liberalism?

MR. SIANO: Wait a minute. Is that political,
social--

MR. CAMPBELL: Q There's a form of--I think in
some discussion of religion and fundamentalism--I
think there is--but an opposite force might be
liberalism, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: A That's right; there's
political liberalism which has a whole bunch of
meanings; and then, there is sometimes what you
call theological liberalism, which is sometimes
identified with what used to be called modernism;
and basically, it's people who say that Christian

49

Doctrine should be modified in order to accommodate
the best ideals in modern culture.

But it has a variety of meanings;
it depends on what conservatism is before you can
define what your liberalism is.

Q I understand.

Would conservatism be the same thing
as fundamentalism?

A It's not identical.

Q How do they differ?

A Conservatism is--again, it's hard to say
what conservatism is--I heard someone yesterday say
that President Reagan claims to be a conservative
but that's what people always do when they're
making a radical change, and so, conservatism is
really a very illusive word that--

Q I am thinking in terms of a theological
conservatism, would it be the same thing as a funda-
mentalist?

A Not necessarily. He might be and might
not be. One trait of a fundamentalist is that he or
she be militant, and you might have a non-militant
conservative; and then, some conservatives like, let's
say--you might have a High Church Episcopalian conser-

50

vative who would not be a fundamentalist, because
once that person is conservative, it would be a
different body of doctrine--I would say that all
fundamentalists think of themselves as conservatives,
but certainly, not all conservatives think of them-
selves as fundamentalists.

Q So theological conservatism would be a
larger body or group or category than fundamentalists?

A Yes.

Q How would you define a theological
conservative?

A Well, usually, it's someone who wants
to conserve some theological tradition. It just
depends what the tradition is, but someone who is
opposed to what he considers to be liberal change.

As I say, conservatism is a term
that I don't find particularly enlightening unless
there is something else said about it.

Q I understand.

Would you put yourself in any of these
categories we've talked about: fundamentalist, or
conservative, or liberal?

A I'd rather not.

Q If you had to though, where do you think

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of George Mish Marsden - Page 2

51

you would put yourself?

MR. SIANO: It depends on what the categories
are.

THE WITNESS: A Yes, I don't--as I said,
I would put myself in the category of being Evangelical
protestant. I consider myself to be reformed, but
other that that, I guess I would want to avoid labels.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What does reformed mean?

A Well, that's--the reformed tradition
is a continental European way of saying Presbyterian,
roughly, in the Augustinian tradition of theology.

Q What is orthodoxy?

A It means straight thinking, but then,
again, that's like conservatism. It depends on where
you are. There's Eastern Orthodoxy, Presbyterian
Orthodoxy, and Liberal Orthodoxy, and whatever.

Q How would you distinguish orthodoxy from
neo-orthodoxy?

A Neo-orthodoxy means a more specific
religious movement, a 20th Century religious movement,
that grows out of methodic people like Carl Barks,
and arises after 1920s, and it's an attempt to recover
some Christian traditions in reaction to theological
liberalism.

52

Q Would a fundamentalist be a neo-orthodox?

A No.

Q How would the two differ?

A Well, it depends on the neo-orthodox,
of course. There is a wide variety of neo-orthodox,
but one difference is on the Doctrine of Revelation
in that neo-orthodox tend not to identify the Bible
as such with God's Word, but rather, they see it as
a Witness to God's Word; and a fundamentalist says
the Bible is the Word of God; and the neo-orthodox
says the Bible points towards God in revelation,
in work, in history.

Q What does inerrency mean?

A Inerrency? With respect to the Bible--
well, again, it means a variety of things to different
people, but the basic meaning is that there's a lack
of errors or mistakes.

Q Would it go to lack of error or mistakes
in the original manuscripts?

A Rarely. Sometimes, but not very often.
Usually, it means a lack of--no, no, I'm sorry;
it does mean that there's a lack of mistakes in the
original manuscripts, but not necessarily in the
version of the Bible we now have.

53

Q Not necessarily what?

A That they are without error. There might
be errors in transmission.

Q What is your opinion of inerrency?

A I think the Bible is without error in
what it intends to affirm.

Q Would that be in its original transcript,
or would that be in the way it's been interpreted?

A The way it's been transcribed?

Q Yes?

A Well, in the original it would be without
error, but there might be transcribable errors.

Q If a person did not believe in Biblical
inerrancy, what might he believe, or is there a
spectrum of--

A Yes, almost anything you can imagine;
there's a spectrum of views, from very strict inerrency
to very broad inerrency, inerrency in certain matters
to generally accurate, to authoritative; you name
it, there's been someone who's advocated it.

Q Would all fundamentalists believe in
the total or absolute inerrency of the Bible as
opposed to some of these lesser--

A Virtually all, yes. That's a characteristic

54

of fundamentalism.

Q But there could be some fundamentalists
who would believe the Bible is authoritative as
opposed to totally inerrent?

A I think so. I wouldn't--I mean, who knows?
There might be hypocritical fundamentalists. I don't
know, but typically, they believe it's inerrent in
everything it says.

Q What is dogma?

A Usually, it refers to theological teach-
ings.

Q What would be a theological teaching?

A Oh, a teaching about God or religion.

Q So dogma would not necessarily be in the
Bible. It could be some person's--

A It might be extracted from the Bible,
but the Trinity would be a dogma.

Q Would the fundamentalist have a dogma?

A Sure.

Q What would be a fundamentalist's dogma?

A Lots of things. Many traditional
Christian teachings; most of the things you
would find in the Nicene Creed would be dogmas the
fundamentalists would assent to. The inerrency of

55

the Bible is a fundamentalist dogma; anti-evolutionism
tends to be a fundamentalist dogma.

Q So believing that the Bible is inerrent
would be separate and apart from any dogma which
you may hold?

A I think that is a dogma.

MR. SIANO: Objection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What is faith?

THE WITNESS: A You mean Christian faith or--

Q Yes?

A Faith is--I'd say, it's essentially trust
in another person or maybe in a thing, and that trust,
of course, entails certain beliefs about that person
or thing.

Q Could you describe what faith would mean
to a fundamentalist?

A I think central to a fundamentalist's faith
would be trust in Jesus; trust in Jesus for forgiveness
in one's sin, and for salvation of one's soul, and
obeying the authority of the Bible and trying to
follow the commands of the Bible in one's life.

MR. SIANO: Mr. Campbell, we have been on
these definitions quite sometime. I hope we're going
to go someplace with this, because it's very far afield;

56

especially since it's not Professor Marsden's exper-
tise. It's not the area in which he's been tendered
as a witness. I am really at a loss to understand
why we are taking so much time for this, and I want
to note my objection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q How would you define
Christianity?

MR. SIANO: That certainly is much more
relevant; I am glad you responded to my objection.

THE WITNESS: A Christianity is a religion
that involves, among other things, faith in Christ.
There's a lot more to the story than that, but we
don't have time to go into it all.

Q When you've been talking about funda-
mentalism, you've always been referring to
fundamentalists as Christians today.

MR. SIANO: Is that a question?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

THE WITNESS: A Well, almost always. There are,
of course, fundamentalists who aren't Christians,
like there are Islamic fundamentalists, but I haven't
been thinking about them today.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q But you could have fundamen-
talists, in other words, in other religions besides

57

Christianity?

A Sure, generically, fundamentalists.

Q What is dispensationalism?

A Dispensationalism is a scheme of Biblical
interpretation that depends on Biblical literalism;
it divides history into seven dispensations, the
most interesting of which is the coming millenium
during which Jesus will reign personally in Jeruselum.

Q Can you recite those seven different ages?

A Actually, they differ from dispensationalist
to dispensationalist. I could take a shot at it if
you're really interested. I am not sure if I could
recite all of them or not.

MR. SIANO: Do the best you can.

THE WITNESS: (Continuing) A There is the
dispensation of innocence which is the Garden of Eden;
the dispensation of--well, the names differ, but the
ones that ends with the flood is a dispensation, and
it ends with the Tower of Babel; there's a dispensation
that ends with the exile of Abraham in Egypt; there's
a dispensation --the rest of the Old Testament runs
to the coming of Jesus--wait a minute--I think I got
most of them; and then, there's a church age, and then,
the millenium.

58

MR. CAMPBELL: Q How would a fundamentalist
view dispensationalism?

A Many fundamentalists are dispensationalists,
but not all fundamentalists are dispensationalists,
and not all dispensationalists are fundamentalists,
but there is a high correlation between fundamentalists
and dispensationalists.

Q Is there any particular reason that a
fundamentalist would be a dispensationalist?

A Well, it fits the fundamentalists' mind
set or--especially for the reason that fundamentalists
are typically inclined to a literal interpretation
of the Bible, and dispensationalism is that sort
of literalism applied to prophesy. If there's a
prophesy that has a plausible literal interpretation,
it's interpreted literally.

Q What is the Holy Spirit?

A The Third Person of the Trinity.

Q How would a fundamentalist view the Holy
Spirit?

A They would view the Holy Spirit as the
Third Person of the Trinity, and also, as the power
in one's life that is particularly important for

59

sanctification or holy living.

Q Would all fundamentalists believe in the
Holy Spirit?

A I would think so; almost all would.

Q You mentioned sanctification; what is that?

A Sanctification is essentially one's
holiness.

Q How would a fundamentalist view sanctifi-
cation?

A There are varieties of ways, but clean
living would be an example of sanctification; loving
your neighbor would be an example of sanctification;
generally, ethics is what's involved.

Q What is free will?

A Well, there's varieties in that, too, as in
everything else. Free will is a belief that the will
is free, which I guess means that there are meaningful
choices that an individual can make about things.

Q How would a fundamentalist view free will?

A Well, there's a variety of ways that
fundamentalists view free will. Some fundamentalists
would tend to emphasize free will, particularly, as
it would relate to accepting Jesus, whereas, other
fundamentalists would emphasize perhaps less your

60

personal initiative in accepting Jesus and more
of God's grace in leading you to do it.

Q Would free will conflict with predestin-
ation like the Romans VIII talks about, "God foreknew
someone?"

A Not necessarily. It just depends on
your definition of free will. I mean, there's two
big traditions in the history of Christianity on that
subject: one says it does conflict, and the other
one says it doesn't.

I think you could find both varieties
within fundamentalists, though there's a tendency, I
think, to emphasize free will.

Q You mentioned liberalism a little while
ago being a new definition or a new word for
modernism, is that correct?

A No, it's a word that sometimes was used
for modernism; sometimes it's equated with modernism,
but sometimes it's used very loosely to mean someone
who is not conservative, not orthodox, an innovator
or whatever.

Q What does modernism mean?

A Much as I defined it a while back when
I was defining liberalism, the idea that Christianity

61

ought to adjust to the best in modern culture or
accept what's best in modern culture.

Q How would a fundamentalist view modernism?

A A fundamentalist would be opposed to
modernism.

Q All fundamentalists?

A Yes, that's part of my definition of
fundamentalism.

Q You also mentioned in talking about
modernism, secular humanism; what is that?

A Secular humanism is a watch word that's
used today to encompass all sorts of things. Typically,
fundamentalists will say there are two possible
beliefs or religions. One is the religion that
centers in God, and another one that centers in
humanity; and any religion that makes humanity the
highest value is secular humanism.

So secular humanism can encompass
all sorts of things.

Q How would a fundamentalist view secular
humanism?

A Fundamentalists oppose--fundamentalists
almost always oppose secular humanism; certainly, as
I have just described it, they would oppose it.

62

May I take a break for a second?

MR. CAMPBELL: Sure, off the record.

(WHEREUPON, a short recess
ensued)

MR. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.

Q What is a millenarian?

THE WITNESS: A That's a word that's sometimes
used for someone who believes in a millenial age to
come in which Christ will reign.

Q What is a post-millenarist?

A A post-millenarist is someone who believes
that at the end of the present age, without any
dramatic supernatural intervention, there will be a
Golden Age in which there will be a great spread
of spirituality, and that the talk in Revelation 20
about millenium refers to that Golden Age.

Q What is a pre-millenarist?

A A pre-millenarist believes that Jesus will
come before the millenium, just as the post-millenarist
believes Jesus will come after that Golden Age.

Q How would a fundamentalist view the age
of millenium or the millenium age?

A Usually, fundamentalists believe that the
millenium will be a literal one-thousand years.

63

Q Would they be opposed or pre-millenarists
or would that make any difference?

A Most fundamentalists are pre-millenarists.
Of course, not all are, because there's that quali-
fication on many of these things, but I'd say most of
them are likely to be.

Q At the start of your deposition, you were
talking about that at one time in this country--I
believe you were referring to the 19th Century--that
there was no conflict between science and theology;
in fact, I think you said that science was felt to
support theology?

A That's right.

Q Would that mean that prior to the conflict
if origins was discussed in classrooms in this country
or in the universities, or secondary schools, or
public schools, that it would be discussed in terms
of Genesis I and II or the Biblical view of origins?

A Yes, usually.

Q When did that break occur or start separating
itself from being taught in the classrooms?

A In the late 19th Century, I think, usually.

Q You've discussed how a fundamentalist would
be opposed to evolution--I don't want to limit you at

64

all in terms of your testimony, and if I don't
characterize it right, please let me know--how would
a fundamentalist define evolution?

MR. SIANO: Wait a minute. Are you asking
Mr. Marsden what his scholarship discloses in the
wao of definitional component to fundamentalism;
or are you asking him to be predictive?

MR. CAMPBELL: I am just asking, basically,
based on the study of fundamentalism in America--

MR. SIANO: From an historical perspective?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

MR. SIANO: That's been asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: A Most fundamentalists came
to believe that evolution meant the development of
the species and of humanity without reference to God.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q So that would separate
a fundamentalist from other Christians who would say,
"God could have used this?"

A That's right.

Q So what you're saying is that the funda-
mentalists misunderstood the meaning of evolution, is
that right?

A Well, fundamentalists usually have thought
that it entailed something that it doesn't necessarily

65

entail.

Q Which is no God?

A Which is no God, right. Your views on
biology don't settle the question one way or the other.

Q So it would be that no-God mentality that
a fundamentalist would have that would make evolution
a religious issue to a fundamentalist, is that correct?

MR. SIANO: Objection.

I don't understand the question.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What I am really asking is
why would a fundamentalist ever see evolution as a
religious issue?

THE WITNESS: A It's related to that, yes,
but they see it as a way in which--or as part of,
at least--a philosophy that's attacking Christianity.

Q Because again, they would view it as
no-God?

A Right, because they tend to think that
evolution just means atheistic evolution, and that
would be antagonistic to Christianity.

Q How would a fundamentalist view creation?

A "How would a fundamentalist view creation,"
oh, that the Bible is the only adequate source for
understanding creation.

66

Q Would a fundamentalist say that God
created man, and then, "umpteen" different kinds of
things?

A Usually, they say it the other way around,
that He created a bunch of things, and the, on the
last day, He created man.

Q Would a fundamentalist allow any change
within a kind which has been created by God?

A Sometimes--"within a kind," it says in
Genesis that he created species after their kind,
and so if you don't change within a kind, then, it's
all right.

Q So essentially, what they would be saying--
"they," referring to fundamentalists--would be that
once a kind is created, whatever that is, that it does
not change and become something else, is that right?

A Often they say that, yes, that it can't
change from one kind to another kind, whatever they
are.

Q Is creation a necessary tenet of
Christianity--I don't mean necessarily fundamentalists,
but would creation be a necessary tenet of Christianity?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object; it seems to
me to be a theological question, and you're asking his

67

personal opinion again. I don't have an objection
to giving his personal view on this but subject to
the limitation of his expertise.

THE WITNESS: A Creation of some sort
would usually be pretty important for Christians, I
think, yes.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What I am trying to do is
show that there would be some type of dichotomy, so
to speak, between a fundamentalist and another broad
group of individuals who both consider themselves
Christian.

A Well, yes, there would be a dichotomy
between fundamentalists and other Christians, but
it's not a dichotomy over whether or not they believe in
creation.

Q All would believe in creation?

A Almost; they virtually all would.

Q What is revivalism?

A Revivalism is the name of a movement that
became rather characteristic of a lot of American
Evangelicalism beginning with the Great Awakening of
the 1740s and growing to more and more importance
through the 19th Century that involved awakening or
revival among people of religious fervor, and often

68

involved mass meetings, and often involved famous
evangelists like Charles Fenninger (phonetic spelling),
Billy Sunday--

Q Would a fundamentalist have any view
for revivalism?

A Most fundamentalists are revivalists; most
but not all.

Q Are there distinct fundamentalist groups
that you could name?

A Distinct groups? You mean ones today?

Q When you talk about your expertise, we
really go up to 1930?

A Yes; there are things like the World
Christian Fundamentalists Association. I can't remember
all the names of the groups, but there was something
like the Anti-evolution League, or something like that,
or the Bryan Anti-Evolution League, whatever; the
Bible Crusaders; there were all kinds of groups.

Q Just so we can get this straight--and I
don't want to go back and repeat what we talked about
in terms of your expertise--but will you be talking
about contemporary fundamentalism or fundamentalism as
it exists today, or will you be narrowing your testimony
to fundamentalism at the beginning of the 19th Century

69

to 1920 or 1930?

A I think--I guess I will be emphasizing
fundamentalism up to 1920 or '30; perhaps it depends
what I'm asked, I guess, but suggesting there might
be some connection with what is going on today, but
not presenting myself as an expert on what is going
on today, in that sense, or as strong a sense as
I would for the historical sorts of things.

Q Would you agree or disagree that the
political involvement in what we typically hear as
fundamentalists' groups today would be atypical of
fundamentalists' groups in the 19th Century?

A It's hard to say whether fundamentalists'
groups, as such, in the 19th Century--fundamentalism
is a word that was coined in 1920 though the movement
has precursors; there was a movement before there was
a word, and there were two periods in which political
involvements have been big, and those were the 1920s
and today.

There were other years of political
involvement, but it was relatively small; but there's
always been fundamentalists involved in politics.

Q So a fundamentalist would not necessarily--
a tenet of fundamentalism would not necessarily be

70

a separation from political involvement or from the
world?

A Not necessarily: some would and some
would not.

Q Do you see any differences or changes
in fundamentalism as it existed when the movement
first started in the 19th Century and today?

A When in the 19th Century?

Q I didn't want to pin you down.

A Yes, there are some big differences;

for instance, today fundamentalism is very much
involved in the electronic church which is very
different than fundamentalism in those days. It
has some theological implication, I think, in the
sort of message that is presented on TV. The
message that's presented on TV might be different
than a message that was presented in an early
revival meeting. There might be more glamor, for
instance, associated with today.

So obviously, there are changes that
take place in a movement. I would say not so many
changes at the center of the movement as changes
on the periphery, or changes in emphasis or nuances
that change.

71

Q So what might be considered dogma in the
19th Century would still be considered dogma today?

A Yes, but there might be some difference
in what the dogma--in just what the dogma is or
how much emphasis is put on it.

For instance, I think there is more
emphasis today put on the inerrency of the Bible
that there was in the 1920s. There were some
fundamentalists in 1920 who didn't really hold
to the inerrency of the Bible in the contemporary
fundamentalist sense; and it's not as though inerrency
is new today, but the emphasis is stronger.

Q With regard to the atonement and
resurrection of Christ, these are other attributes
or characteristics which you've attributed to the
fundamentalist movement; those would remain the same?

A Yes, in essential contours, yes.

Q Would Evangelicalism ever be considered
a tenet of fundamentalism?

A No--well, it's confusing a couple things.
It's not a tenet. Fundamentalism is a species of
evangelicalism.

Q Can you describe other species of
evangelicalism?

72

A Yes. What would be a good one--well,
Christian Reform is a species of evangelicalism.

Q There are others?

A Yes, there are evangelicals today, for
instance, that would be associated with, say, the
magazine, Christianity, today, that would not think
of themselves as fundamentalists, but they're
certainly evangelicals.

There are some like Presbyterian
evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. They are
not militant; they don't believe in, you know,
strict liberalism, but they're evangelical.

Q Would this be militant for the literal
interpretation of the Bible?

A Well, yes, and militant on the attacks
on liberalism or modernism or secular humanism.
They see things as The Battle. For instance, you
get all these books from fundamentalists entitled,
"Battle for the Bible," "Battle for your Mind", and
Battle for this and that thing.

Q Professor Marsden, I certainly don't
consider this to be a qualification for your being
able to testify at the trial, but I notice the
plaintiffs have asked this question of a lot of

73

witnesses, and I'll ask you the same one.

How often do you read the Bible?

A "How often do I read the Bible?"
Probably--of course, it depends on--sometimes a lot,
but I would say probably an average of once a day.

Q For how long a period would you read
it on an average?

A "How long a period?" It depends, you
know, on the occasion. We have family devotions on
most days, but not every day.

Q Which translations do you prefer or do
you read?

A The New International Version is good.

Q I notice you have an article here concern-
ing the Louisiana legislation; Professor Marsden,
were you involved in any way in that case?

A No.

Q Mr. Siano sent you that information?

A Yes, all these things came from him.

Q Let me ask you some questions concerning
these books which appear on your resume.

The first one that's listed is
"Evangelical Mind in the New School of Presbyterian

74

Experience," will you describe the topic of that
book?

A It's a study of 19th Century Evangelical
Presbyterians called, "The new school of Presbyterians."

Q Is there any discussion there on the
subject of origins?

A Yes, as it relates to the controversies
over Genesis and geology in mid-19th Century; and
I talk a little bit about the early reception of
Darwinism.

Q What was the controversy about geology.

A Geology seems to show that the earth
was a lot older than people thought it was, and the
question was, "How do we reconcile that with the
first chapters of Genesis?"

And there were mixed views on that.
Though within the same denomination, it was not a
matter of a test of the faith, but some people
said you have discount the science of geology; and
probably -- a larger group of people said, "Genesis
can be reconciled with geology if you have long
days."

Q The second book is, "Fundamentalism in
American Culture Shaping with 20th Century Evangelical-

75

ism, between 1870 to 1925," is this the text you
referred to earlier in your deposition where you
discussed the Darwinian controversy?

A Yes, as it relates to fundamentalism,
specifically.

Q The next book is, "The American Revolution,
Christian Perspective on History Series," will you
describe the topic of that?

A That's a pamphlet about the American
Revolution considering the question as to whether or
not it was a just revolution given traditional
Christian standards of just revolutions or not.

Q Any discussion of the subject of origins
in that book?

A No.

Q Next book is, "Christian View of History,"
will you describe the topic of that book?

A That has to do with questions of what
difference does committment to Christianity make in
one's views of history? And there is no discussion
of origins, as I recall, in that book either.

Q The next sheet has a list of articles
which you've written. The first is, "Perspective on
the Division of 1937," will you describe that?

76

A It has to do with a division in the thing
called the Presbyterian Church of America; it's just
a small denomination. It doesn't have to do with
origins.

Q The next article is, "Kingdom and Nation,
New School of Presbyterian Colonialism in the Civil
War Era?"

A That's a chapter from the Book, "The New
School Presbyterian."

Q Is there any discussion of origins there?

A No--well, I doubt it.

Q The next article is, "The New School
Heritage in Presbyterian Fundamentalism?"

A That doesn't have any discussion of origins
to amount to anything, I would think. It's mainly
trying to see what the connection between 19th Century
theological controversies and 20th Century theological
controversies of Presbyterianism.

Q The next article is, "Peter Miller's
Rehabilitation of the Puritans, a Critique?"

A It should be Perry Miller.

Q I'm sorry.

A That's a colonial history, and it has
nothing to do with origins.

77

Q The next article is, "Defining Funda-
mentalism?"

A That's a review article of the book by
Ernest Sandeen.

Q Is there any discussion of origins in
that book or that article?

A Only incidently, I think.

Q The next article is, "Christian and
Teaching of History?"

A That's an article from the book, "A
Christian View of History."

Q Any discussions of origins in that book?

A No.

Q Next article is, "The Gospel of Wealth,
the Social Gospel, and the Salvation of Souls in
19th Century America?"

A I don't think there is any discussion
of origins there.

Q What is the topic, generally, of that
article?

A Some Christians favor what you call the
"Gospel of Wealth." You know, "God gave me my money,"--
in other words, it's a social Gospel issue, and
exercising care for the poor.

78

Q The next article is, "From Fundamentalism
to Evangelicalism, an Historical Analysis?"

A That's basically a survey of fundamentalists'
evangelical history from 1870 to the mid-20th Century,
and I probably discussed origins incidently as the
evolution controversy comes up on the subject.

Q The next article is, "Fundamentalism as
an American Phenomenon, a Comparison with English
Evangelicalism?"

A That discusses the question of origins
some. That's also in my book, "Fundamentalism in
American Culture," that in England there was a
smoother transition to Darwinism and evolutionism
than there is in America.

Q The next book is, "Demythologizing
Evangelicalism, a Review of Donald W. Bacon's
Discovery of Evangelical Heritage?

A It has nothing to do with origins, as I
recall. It's 19th Century pre-Civil War evangelicalism.

Q The next article is the "American Revolution
Partisanship, Just Wars and Crusades, and War in
America?"

A That's another article on evolution and
just-war theory.

79

Q Any discussion of origins there?

A No, origins in the United States, but
nothing else.

Q The next article is, "History and Truth?"
The author is J. Gretchen Mason (phonetic).

A He was a theologian in the early 20th
Century. I think I might have very incidently
mentioned origin.

Q The next article is, "The Spiritual
Vision of History?"

A That's more of a philosophical paper
on the relationship of Christian committment to
understanding history.

Q Would there be any discussion of origins
in that article?

A Oh, no. I don't think so.

Q The next article is, "America's Christian
Origin, Puritan New England, as a Case Study?"

A Nothing on origins there.

Q The next article is, "The Reluctant
Evangelicals?"

A That's an article about the Christian
Reform Church and evangelicals; there is no discussion

80

of origin, I don't think.

Q Finally, the article appears, "Everyone's
own Interpretor, The Bible, Science, and Authority
in mid-19th Century America?"

A That does discuss the question of origins
as it relates to the discussion of theology, primarily,
again, but some discussion of the reception of
Darwinism, too.

Q You mentioned some book reviews on your
resume or C.V., would these be book reviews which
you have written on other books?

A Yes.

Q Among this group of book reviews, have
you reviewed books or articles concerning origins?

A May I see the list? I can't recall
anything that has--I don't even know all the titles
of these; I just have a list, and I'll have to recon-
struct that, but let's see--in none of these does
the question of my treatment of origins come up more
than incidently.

Q Professor Marsden, among the documents
which you provided me today are three articles. I
would like to mark this first one as Marsden Exhibit
Number 1; it's a document entitled, "Understanding

81

Fundamentalists' Views of Science," by George M. Marsden.

Can you tell me when you prepared this?

MR. SIANO: "This," being what?

MR. CAMPBELL: Exhibit Number 1.

THE WITNESS: A During the last two or three
months.

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Was this the document you
referred to earlier as the one you sent to Plaintiffs'
lawyers?

A Yes; I said I was working on.

MR. SIANO: This is the article you are working
on, is that right?

THE WITNESS: A Yes, this is the article
I mentioned that I was working on, and I might say,
this is a draft that's not completed, and so I
don't necessarily stand by anything that's said
in it until I'm done with it.

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand.

I'd like to have marked as Marsden
Exhibit Number 2, copy of a document, which appears
to be about fifteen pages in length with your name
on the front.

THE WITNESS: No, it's six or seven pages.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm sorry.

82

(WHEREUPON, said document was
marked Marsden Exhibit Number 2,
for identification)

Q When did you prepare this?

THE WITNESS: A I prepared that within the
last two months, and it's a statement that I sent
to Mr. Siano as a preliminary statement of what I
thought I might have to say about the history of
fundamentalism.

Q There is another article which you prepared
or which you have provided to me today entitled,
"The Creationist," by Ronald L. Numbers (phonetic
spelling); can you tell me what that is?

A That's a history of the Creation Science
movement. It's a paper that was delivered on a
conference, I think, this Spring, University of
Wisconsin, if I recall correctly; and it happened that
Mr. Numbers sent it to me within the last month or
two asking for my comments upon it; and it seemed to
fall under the class of things that was requested
by you.

MR. CAMPBELL: Off the record for a moment.

(WHEREUPON, discussion ensued
off the record)

83

MR. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.

While we were off the record, Mr. Siano
volunteered to make a copy of this article by
Mr. Numbers, "The Creationist," and has agreed to send
it to me Monday; and if you would send it to me
at my Little Rock, Arkansas, address.

MR. SIANO: As opposed to your moving address?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir; thank you.

I have no further questions, Professor
Marsden.

MR. SIANO: Professor Marsden, I have a couple
questions for you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY: MR. SIANO

Q In your capacity as an historian, would
you also be prepared at the time of trial to state
your opinion as to whether the Creation Science
Movement bears a relationship with fundamentalism?

A Yes.

Q What would that opinion be? What is that
opinion as an historian?

A I think it does bear a relationship to
fundamentalism. The Creation Science Movement is not
entirely fundamentalist, but it's strongly influenced

84

by fundamentalism; and I think it shares many of
the traits and concerns of fundamentalists, and to
a large extent, it is an expression of a characteristic-
ally fundamentalist impulse for a lot of reasons I've
said already in the deposition.

Q Have you, as a historian, made a comparison
between the definition of Creation Science in
Section 4 and the fundamentalist beliefs that you
have examined in your examination of American
fundamentalism?

A Yes.

Q In regard to Act 590, the definition of
Creation Science, Section 4, is that statement a
statement of fundamentalist belief?

A It is certainly a statement that is very
much like a statement of fundamentalist belief.

Q I take it you have reasons for that?

A Yes.

Q And you will be prepared to testify
as to that at trial, too?

A Surely.

MR. SIANO: No further questions.

MR. CAMPBELL: May I have a re-direct?

MR. SIANO: Sure.

85

REDIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY: MR. CAMPBELL

Q What would be some of the reasons that
you believe that Section 4 is related to fundamentalists'
belief?

A Where is Section 4 again?

Almost all these points reflect the
influence of a literal interpretation of Genesis I,
and the literal interpretation of Genesis I is
characteristic of fundamentalism, and some are
many fundamentalists' support of these sorts of
statements in their literature.

MR. CAMPBELL: No further questions.

MR. SIANO: One other question.

I would like this marked as Marsden
Exhibit 3.

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
Marsden Exhibit 3, for
identification)

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY: MR. SIANO

Q Mr, Marsden, I call your attention to
what has been produced today from your files, which
has been marked as Marsden Exhibit 3, what is this

86

document, sir?

A It's a document from a book by Henry
M. Morris, called, "Studies in the Bible and
Science."

Q And does, in fact, that page of that
document have a quotation which supports the earlier
testimony you gave me on cross-examination?

A Yes.

MR. SIANO: Thank you; no further questions.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

87

               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                             WESTERN DIVISION

REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et al,   )
                                                 )
                           Plaintiffs          )
                                                 )
                    vs                          )
                                                 )      Civil Action No:
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al,       )      LR-C-81-322
                                                 )
                           Defendants      )

This is to certify that I have read the
transcript of my deposition taken in the above-
entitled cause, and that the foregoing transcript
accurately states the questions asked and the answers
given by me.

_______________________________________
Signature of Deponent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this __________
day of _________A.D., 1981.

____________________________
Notary Public

88

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
                             )SS
COUNTY OF C O O K)

I, VICTOR J. LA COURSIERE, a Notary Public
within and for the County of Cook and State of
Illinois, do hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit,
on the 21st day of November, A.D., 1981, personally
appeared before me at Suite 607, 343 South Dearborn
Street, City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State
of Illinois, GEORGE MISH MARSDEN, a witness produced
by the Plaintiffs, in a certain cause now pending
and undetermined in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division,
wherein REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et al, are the
Plaintiffs, and BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al, are the
Defendants, Civil Action Number LR-C-81-322.

I further certify that the said GEORGE MISH
MARSDEN was by me first duly sworn to testify the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in
the cause aforesaid, that the testimony then given
by said witness was reported stenographically by me,
in the presence of the said witness, and afterwards
transcribed into typewriting, and the foregoing is a
true and correct transcript of the testimony given
by said witness as aforesaid.

89

I further certify the signature of the witness
to the foregoing deposition was not waived by agreement
or Counsel for the respective parties.

I further certify that the taking of this
deposition was in pursuance of notice, and that there
were present at the taking of this deposition,
MESSRS. ANTHONY J. SIANO and RALPH J. MARRA, JR.,
on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and MR. RICK CAMPBELL,
on behalf of the Defendants.

I further certify that I am not Counsel
for nor in any way related to any of the parties to
this suit, nor am I in any way interested in the
outcome thereof.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my
head and affixed my notarial seal this 24th day of
November, A.D., 1981.

_____________________________________
Notary Public

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

May 22nd, 1984
_________________________

Deposition of Dorothy Nelkin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - WESTERN DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al, :

Plaintiffs, :

- against - :
No. LR-C81-32
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al, :

Defendants. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

November 22, 1981
10:30 A. M.

DEPOSITION of DOROTHY NELKIN, taken by the
Defendants, pursuant to stipulation, held at the
Sheraton LaGuardia, 90-10 Grand Central Parkway,
Queens, New York, on November 22, 1981, at 10:30
A.M., before a Notary Public of the State of new
York.

2

A p p e a r a n c e s :

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, ESQS.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022

BY: GARY E. CRAWFORD, ESQ.,
of Counsel

STEVE CLARK, ESQ.
Attorney General for the State
of Arkansas, Defendant
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas

BY: DAVID L. WILLIAMS, ESQ.,
Deputy Attorney General

* * *

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED
by and between the attorneys for the respec-
tive parties hereto that filing and sealing
be and the same are hereby waived.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
that all objections, except as to the form
of the question, shall be reserved to the
time of the trial.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
that the within examination may be signed and
sworn to before any notary public with the

3

same force and effect as though signed
and sworn to before this Court.

* * *

D O R O T H Y N E L K I N , called
as a witness and having been first duly sworn
by a Notary Public of the State of New York,
was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q Will you please state your name.

A Dorothy Nelkin.

Q Professor Nelkin, I believe you know we are
here for a deposition this morning in the case of McLean
versus the State Board of Education.

A Yes.

Q I am going to be asking you questions about
your anticipated questions in this case. If I ask any
question you don't understand, please let me know.

A Yes.

Q Have you had your deposition taken before?

A No.

Q Have you testified in court before?

A No.

Nelkin 4

Q Are you aware that what you are saying
today will be used in preparation for the trial, and
Mr. Crawford has explained to you the purpose of the
deposition?

A Yes.

Q Could you please tell me, first of all,
are you married?

A Yes.

Q And what does your husband do?

A He is a professor at Cornell Department of Applied
Physics.

Q Do you have any children?

A Yes, two daughters.

Q What are their ages?

A 24 and 26.

Q Are they currently in school?

A One of them, yes, is at NYU graduate school.

Q In what?

A Getting her masters in business administration.

Q Where did your two daughters attend under-
graduate school or secondary school?

A Ithaca High School, and my oldest daughter went
to Wesleyan University in Connecticut. My youngest
daughter did not go to college. She is studying drama.

Nelkin 5

Q Ithaca High School is a public school?

A Yes.

Q To your knowledge, has the subject of ori-
gins been discussed in the classes that they took in
high school?

A Well, they took biology classes, so I would pre-
sume there was some discussion.

Q Do you know what text was used in that
class?

A I don't know. It was a long time ago.

Q Do you know if the creation model of origin
was ever mentioned in the class?

A Not that I know of.

Q Do you know whether the evolution of ori-
gins was mentioned?

A I don't know, but I would guess so because I think
that most of the textbooks were presented at that time.
It's not a subject of much discussion -- of any discus-
sion in the house.

Q Are you a member of any organized religious
faith?

A Yes. I am Jewish.

Q Are you active --

A No.

Nelkin 6

Q When you say no, could you describe your
inactivity, your own personal belief about the faith?

A I was brought up in a family where there was a
strong cultural identification with being Jewish, but
no particular practice -- no actual religious practice.

Q Do you observe Jewish holidays?

A No.

Q What is your personal belief about the
existence of a god?

A I don't know. Again, it's -- religion is not an
important part of my life, so I don't think about it
too much.

Q You say you don't know?

A My own particular -- I don't have any strong
belief in God. I guess I don't believe in God.

Q When you say you don't believe in God, would
it be fair to consider yourself an agnostic or atheist?

A I think more of an agnostic. I wouldn't be able
to swear on the bible that there is no God.

Q I think this is a contradiction of terms.

A Exactly. The midpoint is not a part of my life
which I have spent much time on.

Q Do you know what the Jewish faith says
about the origin of the world of man?

Nelkin 7

A Actually, I have never had an education in the
history of Jewish faith, so I am not sure.

Q Have you ever read any religious books
or religious works on the origin of the world?

A As part of my research, I have been reading a
lot of creationists books. I have been generally in-
terested in trying to understand what they are think-
ing.

Q Do you believe that a religious person can
be a competent scientist?

A Well, certainly. I know lots of scientists who
are religious.

Q I would assume that would apply to social
scientists as well as other types of scientists.

A Of course.

Q Where are you presently employed?

A Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Q And your current position there?

A I am a professor in the Department of Sociology
and in an interdisciplinarian program called Science:
Technology and Society with a primary affiliation to
the science STS program.

Q Tell me what the purpose of the science of
technology --

Nelkin 8

A Science: Technology and Society.

Q That is?

A Its purpose is to understand, as a major aspect
of our lives, the interrelationships between science
and society, the impact of science on society, and
vice versa.

Q Is there a purpose for it anywhere in the
program?

A The program exists partly as an educational
unit, people being trained in science and in non-
science of the existence of it, of the so-called two
cultures, and to try to sensitize, for example,
engineering and science students -- for example, some
of their work has social implication, and to try to
increase understanding of the non-science students.

Q Is there a statement of purpose reduced
to writing anywhere?

A Reduced to what?

Q A statement of purpose for the program
reduced to writing?

A Yes. I guess -- yes, we have a report which
states the basis. I could mail it to you.

Q If you would do that, I would appreciate it.

A OK.

Nelkin 9

MR. CRAWFORD: We will get that provided
to you.

Q Could you describe your own duties in
this program now in some more detail?

A It's teaching and research.

Are you asking what my research --

Q Let's talk about, first of all, your teach-
ing duties?

A I teach basically two courses plus supervise
individual students. One is called the Politics of
Technical Decisions, looking at decisions with respect
to, primarily, technology and the interplay of technical
and political components of that, and looking, in this
case, often on how political and social issues get
translated into technical terms when decisions are
fundamentally political and social, but have a tendency
to become defined as technical.

The other course is called the Social and
Political Studies of Science, and it looks at similar
issues with respect to science in a social component.

Q Do you use a textbook in these courses?

A I use a variety of different readings which have
changed every year.

Q So, there is no one text which is utilized?

Nelkin 10

A No. There is no one that is constant over
a time. For example, I am using for the spring course
on science a new book by June Goodfield called Science
and Media.

I am using the book that I wrote, actually,
that you have.

Q Yes.

A So, science and religion. But I am looking at
how science becomes used by different social groups.

Q Are you currently on a sabbatical?

A No. I was on sabbatical last academic year until
September.

Q During your sabbatical, you were visiting
associate at the Recourse for the Future in Washington?

A Yes, for five months. And in Paris at the Ecole
Polytechnique.

Q Could you describe your duties at the
Recourse for the Future?

A I had a research grant. I studied controversies
generally as a methodology to understand a relationship
between science and society, and I had a research
grant there to work on, actually, the antinuclear move-
ment in the United States.

Q And at the Ecole Polytechnique?

Nelkin 11

A I was there as a guest of the French govern-
ment just to give some seminars and to work with
somebody who is doing work on this assessment. I
lecture in French so I go there very often.

Q According to your curriculum vitae, you
have been a professor since 1977?

A No. I have been a professor since about 18 -- I
have been at Cornell since 1963. I was a certified
research associate until 1972, and then I was asso-
ciate professor in 1973; then I was promoted to full
professor in 1977.

Q How did your duties differ in 1977? It
appears that you were involved with the same program.

A I have been involved with the same program
since 1970. The duties don't differ. What happens is
you get promoted. Duties consist of a mix of teaching
and research and some administration, committees.

Q What courses have you taught besides the
two you mentioned earlier?

A I taught a course for a big undergraduate class
for a long time called the Impact and Control of Tech-
nological Change. Most of the course -- all of the
courses that I have taught have been focused in one
way or another around the same areas.

Nelkin 12

Sometimes more directed toward under-
graduate; sometimes more directed toward graduate
students. And they differ to the extent to which you
use primary and secondary material, theoretical and
case matter material.

The subject matter is more or less the
same. It is the kind of approach which is a little
more sophisticated for all of the students.

Q Where does the program of Science: Technolo
gy and Society receive its funding from?

A At this point its funding for teaching is in-
house, university funding. Research support primarily
comes from the National Science Foundation. It's had
some funding from Sloane.

Q Sloane is what?

A Sloane Foundation. It's a large private founda-
tion. It's had over the years some funding from Exxon
educational fund.

I have received research support -- it's com
plicated because there is general funds for program
development and there is funds for specific research
projects; then there is a lot of research that goes on
which is not funded, which means that we just operate
off of our faculty salaries.

Nelkin 13

Q In terms of the outside funding, do you
know approximately what percentage -- just a rough
breakdown -- would be coming from the National Science
Foundation?

A I just don't know that, actually.

Q Would it be the bulk?

A I try to keep my head out of that whole mess. The
initial seed money from the program, I believe, are
five-year grants from NSF, but that money is over.
NSF doesn't give any institutional development funds
any more.

Q In 1963 to 1969 you were a research asso-
ciate at the Cornell School of Industrial and Labor
Relations?

A Yes.

Q Was that a different position and different
duties --

A That was a different position. At that time I
was doing a study of migrant farm workers.

Q I notice there is no employment listed on
your curriculum vitae prior to that time other than a
one-year research assistantship?

A This was when I was a student in 1954. I was
child raising and playing a cello.

Nelkin 14

Q During that time you had no paid employ-
ment during those years?

A Yes, no paid employment.

Q Your degree is from Cornell University?

A Yes, in 1954 a Bachelor's Degree in the Depart-
ment of Philosophy.

Q Do you have any other postgraduate --

A No. I never went to graduate school.

Q Do you know how many other full professors
at Cornell have only a bachelor's degree?

A I don't know how many, but it's not many. It's
an unusual career pattern.

Q I'm curious. Do you feel the lack of a
master's or Ph.D. has hindered your development up
the career ladder to full professor?

A I think if somebody goes that route, they have
to publish a great deal, because generally a Ph.D. is
evidence that one can produce a scholarly work.

And partly because of career patterns of
women and child bearing, by the time you go back to
school you have less patience for classes.

I published a great deal of school litera-
ture in university presses, and that was sufficient to
substitute for the degree.

Nelkin 15

Q Was it your choice not to get postgrad-
uate education? Was that a conscious choice that you
made?

A No. It was partly circumstantial. We were mov-
ing around the country a fair amount for my husband's
career, and I ended up at Cornell and I happened to
fall into a research job that interested me a great
deal, working for somebody who realized I could do
some writing and independent research, and he gave me
my head and I became substantively involved in a num-
ber of areas, and I moved in the directions I wanted
to move.

So it was mostly circumstantial.

Q To your knowledge, did the fact that you
were married to a professor assist you in obtaining
a job at Cornell?

A It's generally an obstacle because there is a
fear of nepotism, a fear of pressure, and so people
bend over backwards to prevent that.

Q The first person you say you worked for
who was open-minded, who was that?

A A man named William Friedland. He was a profes-
sor at the School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Q How did you meet him?

Nelkin 16

A I honestly don't remember the details. I think
that I had heard the job was available and just went
up and talked to him -- introduced myself and talked
to him.

I think it was in that way, just hearsay
that there was a job available, or maybe it was listed.
I don't know.

Q Where did you graduate from high school?

A Brookline High School in Brookline, Massachusetts

Q What year was that?

A Class of '50. 1950.

Q Where you taking science courses in under-
graduate school?

A In undergraduate school?

Q In secondary school?

A I remember taking a chemistry course and I think
probably a biology course, yes. If you ask me what I
took in the biology course --

Q Do you recall any study of origins at all?

A I really don't.

Q Do you recall any study of evolution at all?

A I just haven't got the faintest idea what I studied
in the 1940's.

Q At your undergraduate school at Cornell --

Nelkin 17

A I was at Cornell as an undergraduate. I did take
a biology course there. It was an undergraduate survey
course which covered everything.

And, again, I don't remember the details
of what I took. I would presume I must have had some
although I am not sure in the fifties. I really don't
remember what I took in my college course.

Q You say you would not recall now whether
a creation model of origins or an evolution model of
origins was presented?

A I just don't remember. I remember very little in
detail of what I did as a college student.

Q Have you received any training in your field
outside of your formal education, any sort of formalized
training?

A Well, one sits in on seminars and on classes of
colleagues. It's not formalized training, but you
constantly educate yourself and find out what is good
to read. But that's not formal; that's informal.

Q In your work, how have you become familiar
to the extent that you have with science?

A That's a good question because I have no formal
science background. How can I answer that succinctly?
I have never had the feeling that science was something

Nelkin 18

that a layman could not understand in its broad out-
line and in terms of its methodology.

I obviously cannot do science, but I feel
that I understand how science operates and that's what's
necessary to understand it my work.

Q How does science operate, as you understand
it?

A Well, to put tomes and tomes of volumes into a
succinct -- in a succinct manner, I think the primary,
the most important, characteristic of doing science
is what Robert Merton called organized skepticism.
Where you are, essentially, continually testing hypothe-
ses where you start out with as few apriorius assump-
tions as possible, and I would say that is the pri-
mary characteristic for scientific research.

Q You mentioned the term "sociology of science".
Could you explain to me what the sociology of science is?

A It's a study not so much of science itself, but
of the social institutions and social relationships
that constitute science.

It's a study of the way science operates,
its relationship to the external nonscientific world,
the way science is used by the public.

Q So, is it more of a study of simply the

Nelkin 19

way it does relate to society than a study of what
science is?

A Well, there are really two directions, and
this is necessarily going to be simplistic. There
are two directions in which the sociology of science
has moved. One is called the internalist view; people
who study the internal workings of science, looking
at disciplines, of how it develops historically. It
looks at how ideas get communicated among scientists.

There is what I might call an external-
ist view which focuses on the relationship of science
to society, looking two ways at the bearing of science:
how society influences science and how science is used
and influences social live.

My own specialty is in the latter.

Q When you talk about how science influences
society --

A Yes.

Q -- I take it then that you think that
science does influence society?

A Oh, certainly.

Q Is the converse true, that society influ-
ences science?

A I think in the broad -- yes, the direction of

Nelkin 20

science becomes influenced by social needs. Yes.

Q By social needs?

A The directions of science. What gets funded
is not an abstract concept. It's influenced by demands
of society at a given time.

Q In a broader sense, though, do you feel that
society influences science today in the same manner,
though perhaps different in degree, than it did in
the early formative years of science when we had a
geocentric theory of the universe and society was
affecting science?

A I am sorry. I don't know what you mean by in
the same manner.

Q OK. When you define science or classify
science as organized skepticism, is what science is
skeptical about and what perhaps it is not sometimes
skeptical about, is that influenced by society in
the larger sense?

A I think you misinterpret what I meant by the
method of science being organized skepticism. I
think when a scientist does work in his laboratory,
he or she is very careful to continually test ideas,
to challenge.

The one starts with assumptions. One

Nelkin 21

always has to start with some sort of assumption.
The notion within science is to continually challenge
those assumptions, to try to disprove them, not to
try to prove them.

But in terms of the overall influence of
society on science, I think, for example, our preoc-
cupation with national defense is going to lead to
certain emphasis in certain areas of science in the
next decade that will be somewhat different from an
earlier period.

Q Well, my question concerns the affect of
society on science. Maybe I am not being particularly
articulate and I have a problem trying to talk about
this.

A These issues are difficult.

Q If we look at the history of science, as
I understand it, and I just used probably what would
be the most obvious example of the geocentric theory
of the universe --

A Yes.

Q -- at a time of what science was doing and
the views, prevailing views, sometimes were dictated
by what society wanted more than perhaps just by pure
scientific research.

Nelkin 22

Do you feel, in your studies now, that
we have gone beyond that where society -- at least in
the research it's doing and -- what I want to call
the purity of the science, that we have a purity of
a science above and beyond the effect of society on it?

A I think it's a very -- the reason I am having
trouble is because the question you are asking is
one of the most profound questions presently being
asked by historians and social scientists, and there
is no easy answer.

You have articulated the question well.
It's just that there are no clear-cut answers. One can
draw upon the history, for example, of genetics and
look at the eugenics movement, which is a part of
science, and how that was influenced by social views,
and how the Nazi period essentially changed those
social views, and that was reflected in the kind of
questions that were asked within science.

In that broad kind of historical framework
there is certainly an interplay between science and
social values, yes.

The more interesting question is almost
the reverse of that, but it is hard to separate it;
namely, the way people in society utilize science in

Nelkin 23

one way or another and use it as a sort of credibil-
ity for whatever ideas that they have and wish to
disseminate.

Q Who are the leading authorities, in your
mind, on the internal views of the sociology of
science?

A The leading people working in the field?

Q Yes, or who have worked in the field?

A One of the leading social scientists who is now
an old man is Robert Merton, and there is a school of
people that have developed around him a Columbia
University who have been working on the internal
development of science.

Q Any others that come to mind now?

A There is a very interesting young woman in the
University of Pennsylvania, Diana Crane, who is doing
-- who has done some extremely interesting work in
this field.

There is a society, a professional society
in the field which has both dimensions represented
called the Society for the Social Studies of Science.

Q Are you a member of that?

A I was president of it and now I am a member.
Past president.

Nelkin 24

Q Who are some of the other leading author-
ities in your mind in the relationship of science to
society now, excluding yourself?

A Oh. There is an interesting fellow at Georgia
Tech by the name of Darrel Chubin. There are a lot
of people working -- there is a historian -- by the
way, it's an interdisciplinarian field. It's diffi-
cult to separate the disciplines.

There is a historian at Harvard by the name
of Everett Mendelson. There is a whole number of people
in a program called Science: Technology and Society at
MIT.

Q Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn?

A Of course I am. Who isn't?

Q Are you familiar with his book, The Struc-
ture of Science of Revolutions?

A Yes.

Q What is your opinion of that work?

A I think it has a great deal of cogency. It's
been very useful.

Q Where is he now?

A He is now at MIT, jointly in the Department of
History -- I don't know the academic structure. In
this STS program. I think in the Department of History

Nelkin 25

or Science.

Q Do you consider him to be in this area
of sociology science?

A Well, he is more historian, yes, bridging it.

Q You said earlier that part of the idea of
science, the notion is to continually challenge the
underlying assumptions.

A Yes.

Q Doesn't Kuhn's work cause paradigm --
doesn't it in a sense run against that theory?

A In a sense. You are talking about different
levels of work, different scales of work. In the over-
all functioning of a field there are given trends
which begin to dominate and, as in every other field,
law included, there is a power structure which tends
to operate.

It takes a fair amount of work to com-
pletely overthrow a given line, overall line of thought,
but lines of thought do change in science and that was
the substance of his book. That was the essence of
his book, that you can have completely revolutionary
changes in the perspective of science.

On a more microlevel, scientific research
is changing, I think, to get more to the point of what

Nelkin 26

we are talking about, the disagreement within evolu-
tion theory. The disagreements are wonderful evidence
of how people keep challenging the nature of what
they are doing.

It doesn't mean they necessarily question
the whole entire framework, but they do continually
challenge internal difficulties in the field.

Q But even that fit into his notion of
paradigm, does it not, because they are trying to now
change the model to fit the data, because the data to
some people does not appear to fit the pre-existing
paradigm.

A It depends on what level you are calling para-
digm. If you are calling paradigm to be the whole
basic concept of evolution change, I don't think
that's what Kuhn was implying.

Q What is sometimes called the synthesis
theory of evolution, modern synthesis? Some of the
groups appear to be challenging that.

A The problem I have with your question is that
I am not a scientist. I prefer -- when it comes down
to the details of scientific debates going on in the
field, I cannot talk intelligently about them at the
scientific level.

Nelkin 27

One learns very quickly in the inter-
disciplinary field when one should open one's mouth and
when one should keep quiet.

Q I am not sure I can talk about it intelli-
gently either.

A But I think there are other people you can talk
to about that.

MR. CRAWFORD: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Q Do you have any idea, personally, of what,
if any, assumptions underlie the general evolutionary
theory?

A Of what assumption underlie --

Q The general evolutionary theory?

A Yes. Certain assumptions regarding change under-
lie it?

Q Could you be more specific?

A As I understand it, evolution theory has been
very, very widely accepted among scientists because
it's a very useful explanatory hypothesis that an
awful lot of things become clarified, and that's the
nature of a valid scientific theory.

One of the interesting things that I found
in my own research in this is the discrepancy between

Nelkin 28

how scientists understand science and how the public
understands science, and the public tends to under-
stand science as an inductive science, as an accumula-
tion of facts.

Science does understand it in terms of
a useful hypothesis, not in terms of truth, but in
terms of evidence to get closer and closer approxima-
tions to reality.

Q I think my questions was, though, what
assumptions underlie general evolutionary theory? You
had assumptions about change, can you be more specific?

A I guess I am having trouble understanding your
question.

Q I just want to know if you have made any
personal study or done any reading on what, if any,
assumptions underlie general evolutionary theory.

MR. CRAWFORD: Could you be more specific
about what you mean by assumptions? You mean
factual assumptions, theoretical assumptions
or natural or supernatural?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, earlier Professor
Nelkin stated that the primary characteristics
of science is organized skepticism and that
science approaches this work with as few

Nelkin 29

apriorty considerations as possible.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: And I am wondering if we
could call those assumptions.

Q Have you made any study of how many, if any
apriorty considerations or assumptions are involved in
the evolutionary theory?

A I guess my answer, which I thought had answered
that essentially, was that the scientific assumptions
are based on observation and then the attempt to
develop hypotheses out of those observations.

I think we are on different tracks because
I am arguing that there are really no fundamental
apriorty assumptions such as the existence of a god,
but there are hypotheses that are built up from obser-
vations, and then which become tested. Changes of
observation.

Q Well, maybe -- you say we are on differ-
ent tracks. I am really curious as to whether you
have made any personal study of what those assumptions
are.

A I have not done any studies in the history of
evolution theory, history of the development of evolu-
tion theory. I am not a historian.

Nelkin 30

Q For example, do you know whether there
is an assumption in the general evolution theory that
life emerged from nonlife?

A I guess there is an assumption that life did
emerge at some point from nonlife.

Q Is there an assumption, to your knowledge,
of how often life -- how many times life emerged from
nonlife?

A I don't know.

Q Have you relied on your husband any in
the gleaning, or in trying to understand the way science
operates?

A Oh, sure. I am sure we talk a lot. I think I
have some understanding the way science operates --
not necessarily talking, but through observing how
he works.

We have been married 30 years. I think
one must observe some sense of working style.

Q Some of the work that you have done in
the study of Creation Science, have you ever discussed
that with him?

A Yes, we talk about our work.

Q I think, as a matter of fact, you acknowl-
edge in your book that he perhaps provided some

Nelkin 31

critical comment?

A Yes. He reads a lot of my material and he
criticizes some of it.

Q Do you know what his personal opinion is
with Creation Science?

A Yes.

Q What would that be?

A More or less the same as mine, yes.

Q We will get to yours in a moment.

A I figured you would. But just to avoid redundancy
and save time.

Q What is the Advisory Group to the Regional
Seminar Program of the American Academy for the Advance-
ment of Science?

A American Association.

Q American Association. Excuse me.

A I have been on a number of committees for that.
Which one?

Q This was the Advisory Group to the Regional
Seminar Program called Science and the Public.

A There has been a couple of things: One is doing
some relationship between science and the public. My
present commitment there is a committee on the AAA
Scientific Freedom from Responsibility.

Nelkin 32

Q What is the charge of that committee?

A It deals with human rights issues. It deals
with such questions as science as an intellectual
property at this point, considering questions such as
Freedom of Information Act in its application to
science, the cryptography dispute, problems of patent-
ing of science.

A lot of it deals with whistle-blowing
issues, scientist who blow the whistle who think there
are some problems going on in the agency, and also
international human issues.

Q In 1977 up to the present you have served
on the AAA subcommittee science of textbook?

A Yes. That is sort of a defunct committee. That
is part of that committee which is concerned about the
creation of evolution controversy.

Q Why is the committee now defunct?

A It's not defunct. It's just been fairly inactive.
They haven't been doing anything with the committee.
The AAA is running an all-day panel at its January
meeting.

Q Do you have a personal code of conduct?

A A personal code of conduct?

Q Sure.

Nelkin 33

A When you say code, it sounds very formal, a
kind of formalized code of conduct. There is no plaque
on my wall.

You mean, do I have ethical principles?

Q Would you make decisions, ethical or other-
wise, by which you would -- your own guide or code for
your own conduct with the --

A Not very clearly articulated, but I guess: That
one is neighborly, one shares, one tries to behave
towards other people as he would like them to behave
toward you; that one takes good care of one's children,
and other kinds of normal, reasonable relationships.

Q Do you belong to any organization, any
ethical societies or any other formal or informal con-
cerns?

A No. All my affiliations -- I am not a joiner,
generally. All my affiliations tend to be professional
in nature.

I am a Fellow of the Hastings Center on
Biomedical Research which deals with a lot of ethical
issues in biomedical areas, but these are all profes-
sional societies.

Q Do you belong to any society or groups
besides the professional ones that you have listed

Nelkin 34

on your curriculum?

A No.

Q Is there any one book that you can think
of now or any one writer in terms of your own personal
code of conduct, such as it is defined, that would be
most similar to your own, any philosophy?

A I can't think of any. I feel that codes of
professional conduct are rather personal family-derived
codes.

Q What's the Advisory Council of the Society
for History of Technology?

A This is a society -- it's called SHOT. That's
a History of Technology Association, and it's an ad-
visory council to the organization.

And what one does is essentially to peer-
review articles for their journal. You know, all these
organizations have advisory councils. Some of them are
substantive and some of them are just to get names on
letterheads.

Q Have you had any duties on this advisory
council?

A This particular one I have reviewed a couple of
articles on, but it's not been a very active one.

Q What about the Office of Technology

Nelkin 35

Assessment Advisory Panel on Public Participation?

A Do you know what OTA is?

Q No, I don't.

A That's an arm of the U. S. Congress which looks
at the impact and tries to develop some means of pre-
dicting the impact of new technology. And the public
participation panel was a subgroup of that which looked
at the role of the public in assessing the impact of
technology.

OTA reports to the Congress directly.

Q Have you written any reports for this
advisory group?

A This particular advisory group, no.

Q Have you done any writings in this area?

A In public?

Q On this particular advisory group?

A No. I have done no writing for that advisory
group. We met and discussed the issues.

Q Again, what is the Hastings Institute of
Society Ethics and Life Science?

A That is a group in Hastings-on-Hudson which
focuses on biomedical research in medical practices
and looks at the ethical issues that are involved,
some of the problems of professionalism.

Nelkin 36

There are lots of ethical questions
that come up in the Right to Die cases. At this point
I am involved in an occupational health project. They
run workshops and meetings to discuss questions of
freedom of choice, ethical questions and sociological
questions and historical questions around biological
research and clinical practice.

Q I take it from your comment that those
questions are not questions purely of science?

A Hardly.

Q In those types of questions that you are
dealing with, what is the conceptual framework that
you bring to those sorts of questions as to what
role science plays, ethics plays, society in general
plays?

A Well, I tent to examine these issues in the
light of the social relationships and power relation-
ships involved.

For example, in a doctor-patient relation-
ship there are lots of ethical questions which arise,
but I think they cannot be properly understood
without an appropriate understanding of the power
relationships that go on between the doctor and the
patient, or the economic relationships that are

Nelkin 37

involved in doctor-patient and whether there is
third-party insurance in this kind of issue.

So, my own framework is always within
a sociological context. Philosophers or historians
would have another approach.

Q Could you give me a thumbnail sketch of
what is sociology?

A The study of social behavior, social relationship
It views a person not in a psychological framework,
but in excess of social relationships.

Q Is it one of the social sciences, or is
sociology interchangeable?

A It's one of the social sciences. Economics,
political science, sociology are all defined as social
sciences.

Q Is sociology an objective science?

A That's a very difficult question. It makes
efforts to be an honest science. I have problems with
the concept of complete objectivity, no matter what
group you are talking to.

Q That would be true, I suppose, of science
in areas of biology as well, would it not?

A Yes.

Q As a sociologist, when you begin to study

Nelkin 38

an area, what role, if any, do your own personal
feelings play?

A They play an important role in leading me to
select what problems I want to study primarily.

Q And after you have selected this, what
you want to study --

A What I want to do is understand what is going on
in that particular -- for example, I have no temptation
to really do a sociology of the law. I think it also
influences one's methodology.

I tend to study controversies as a methodol-
ogy. I think it's an interesting way to go about it.
Personal preferences enter into the area that you
move into. Once you move into that area, one tries
to understand what's going on.

One does not enter into a research area
in order to get at any body or to prove one side right
or wrong. One really tries to understand the dynamics
of what is going on.

In that sense, it is an objective science.

Q Do you feel when you begin an examination
of the Creation Science that you entered it with an
objective open mind?

A Yes. The question that interested me is why

Nelkin 39

creationism -- I mean, here you had a social movement
beginning to develop, one that had been very latent
since the Scopes trial, and I wanted to find out -- it
all of a sudden began to revive at this time and what
creationists wanted, what they were after, and I wanted
to understand something about how biologists reacted
and why.

I was not interested in either denigrating
one side or the other. I was interested in, again,
the social context in which these groups begin to
develop and to conflict.

Q At what point did you decide that the
creational science movement was a social movement?

A That gets into a complicated discussion to
define that. I decided it was a social movement be-
cause of the wide dissemination of -- when you had
different groups beginning to find what they were
saying salient for one reason or another.

And I'm not sure it's appropriate to call
it a social movement or a religious movement. But it
began to be an increasingly important social phenomena,
and my judgment of that came because it began to have
influence in local textbook committees.

My question is: What is it that they were

Nelkin 40

saying that became important?

Q Is there a difference between a social
movement and a social phenomena?

A Yes, sure.

As I mentioned, a source of great dispute
what a social movement is and how you define it; whether
something is a social movement or religious movement
or protest movement. All these words are being ban-
died about and there is no agreement as to what should
be defined as what.

Q If something is a social movement, does
that necessarily mean that it is not a scientific
movement?

A I wouldn't equate --

Q Does it necessarily mean that it is not,
though?

A Yes, a social movement is not a scientific move-
ment.

Q So, they are mutually exclusive in your
own mind?

A I am trying to think if I can think of scientific
movements. Yes, I think they are mutually exclusive.
They are categories that you wouldn't tend to put
together, which is why I am having trouble with the

Nelkin 41

question.

Q You said, as an example, it was a move-
ment when evolution science was first sensitized by
Darwin and its impact on society, if any. It cer-
tainly would appear to be a scientific movement. Was
it also a social movement?

A No, I would not define that as a social move-
ment. Social movements usually develop in organized
protest against something.

Q You served on the editorial boards --

A Of umpteen journals.

Q -- seven journals, according to your
curriculum.

A Yes. I think one of those is now obsolete. The
environmental thing.

Q In any of those journals, have you ever
reviewed any article on Creation Science?

A No. There are not many on that. I have been
reviewing other issues.

Q Are you a member of the American Association
for the Advance of Science?

A Yes.

Q Are you a member of any other science organ-
izations?

Nelkin 42

A Yes. The Society for the Social Studies of
Science.

Q Any others?

A I guess by being on the board of advisors I
am a member of the Society for the History of Technology.
I don't go to the meetings.

Q Has the AAA taken an informal position on
the subject of Creation Science?

A I don't know whether it has recently. I think
during the early -- there are certainly petitions that
came out during the early seventies.

Q Has it during this year?

A I will tell you better in January because the
National Academy just came out with a deposition ask-
ing for a position to come out, and it hasn't come out
yet.

Q When has the National Academy come out
with depositions?

A Didn't they about three weeks ago come out with
a sort of statement?

Q I am asking you?

A I don't know.

Q Do you have a copy of it?

A No, I haven't been keeping accurate in the last

Nelkin 43

year or two with the details that's been happening.
I sometimes read in the papers what is going on. I
am not keeping up with the details of the contro-
versy.

Q So, in the last three years you have not
been really keeping up with the details?

A I have been doing other research.

Q In the last two or three years, where has
your research been concentrated?

A I've generally kept to the areas of looking at
controversies of a science and technology, but I did
a book on European antinuclear movement in comparison
to France and Germany, some work on the American anti-
nuclear movement, and I presently have a study on
occupational health among chemical workers.

Q Other than your consultant role to the
ACLU in this lawsuit, have you had any consultant work
which involved the area of Creation Science?

A No.

Q When were you first contacted by the ACLU
about having a role as a consultant in this lawsuit?

A It's not a consultant role as I see it because
I am not paid. It's an expert witness role, and I think
I was contacted about three weeks ago. I don't remember

Nelkin 44

the date.

MR. CRAWFORD: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

A To my best recollection, about four weeks ago.

Q About October 20, somewhere around there?
Sometime in the middle of October?

A Toward the end of October, I believe.

MR. CRAWFORD: I will volunteer for
the record that I believe the first contact,
Mr. Williams, was earlier than that. And
the contact was with the lawyers in Skadden,
Arps.

A The only contact I have had has been through
Skadden, Arps. But this time of the year, the semes-
ter flies by so fast it's hard to keep track.

Q Have you provided the attorney for the
plaintiffs in this lawsuit any reports?

A I have responded to their questions with letters.

Q Do you have those letters with you?

A No, I don't. I think my attorney does.

MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Williams, I do have
those. Our position is that that is part of
our work product because that was in response
to specific questions and requests from us for

Nelkin 45

specific information and, therefore, demon-
strate our thought process in our view of
the case and so forth. We have produced
public writings which express our opinions
which will be presented at the trial.

Q Let me pursue that for just a moment.

Your writings which you have given to
them --

A I have given all of the stuff that I have writ-
ten on creation.

Q The publications. I am talking about other
correspondence that you might have had with them. Have
you prepared an outline of your anticipated testimony?

A What I have done is prepared a -- I was asked
a bunch of specific questions and I responded with a
kind of outline in specific response to the kinds of
questions that they had asked me.

Q Have you been given any instructions as
to your testimony?

A I was told to be prepared for actually
very much the kind of questions that you have asked
me about, my values and this kind of thing, and then
to answer directly and honestly, and to say no and I
don't know about the nature of the instructions, and

Nelkin 46

to go to the Camelot Inn.

Now it's the Simon Peck Hotel -- whatever,
but I was instructed. The effects of the instruction
were to answer directly and to make sure and not an-
swer if I don't know the answer.

Q Besides that, have you received any in-
structions as to the substance about which they would
like for you to testify?

A No. You mean in terms of how I should answer?

Q Not how you should answer, but the areas
which you would be covering.

A No. I made it very, very clear that I would not
I think they agreed with me. I made it very, very
clear that I would not testify on anything having to
do with science because I could not do that, and that
I would limit myself to the areas I felt where I
honestly could contribute something and avoid issue
areas that I don't know anything about. And they were
thoroughly supportive of that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Crawford, at this time
I would request that I receive copies of those
writings that Professor Nelkin may have pro-
vided to you to the extent that they are
preliminary reports of her testimony or contain

Nelkin 47

the substance of her testimony. I think
that as an expert witness we are entitled
to discovery that material.

MR. CRAWFORD: I will take the request
under advisement, Mr. Williams. It's my pres-
ent inclination that that is protected by
the attorney-client privilege. There has
been some time since I reviewed them. I will
consider seriously your request.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can you review those
during this deposition if we took a break?

MR. CRAWFORD: I may be able to do that.
I am not certain I have them with me.

Q Do you presently know what opinions you
will give during your testimony?

A More or less what I talked to you about today.
I have been promised -- since I have not been doing
research in the last two years, I have been told that
I would be given some update material on Creation Science
to try to bone me up a bit.

To the best of my knowledge, not too much
has changed -- to the limited extent that I have kept
up with it, not too much has changed that would change
my opinion.

Nelkin 48

MR. CRAWFORD: I would state for the
record, Mr. Williams, that she has expressed
an interest in viewing recent creationists
material, and that we have agreed to provide
her material from the various documents pro-
duced from the creationists groups and docu-
ments we may have collected, such as Acts and
Facts from the Institution of Creation Research.

And we have asked her to look at the
material and in her professional judgment re-
view whatever she thinks is important to review.
We just ask her to exercise her independent
judgment as to what she had to look at.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Q How many years has it been since you spent
some extended amount of time in the area of Creation
Science?

A I concentrated my research in 1976 to 1977. I
have not done any intensive research on the creation-
ists, on the controversy since then. However, when
one does a project like that, one tends to be inter-
ested in it; and even though one is concentrating one's
attention elsewhere, one tries to continually test one's
thought before to see whether it's held up or whether

Nelkin 49

one is to be embarrassed about one wrote before.

So you tend to keep up to a limited ex-
tent but not in great factual details. It's impossible

Q Since 1977 approximately how much of your
time has been devoted to studying this issue?

A Rather little. I don't know what percentage.
Very ad hoc. Occasionally I get Acts and Facts in the
mail; I pick up creation literature and I look and
see what people are saying.

Q Other than the sort of ad hoc occasional
reference that you would run across?

A I have not done a systematic work, any systematic
work since then. The lawyers have sent me some copies
of creationists writings recently, and I have been
looking at those. I have not been doing research
in the area since '77.

Q What writings have you been sent?

A Some work by Parker, some work by Gish. These
are the texts.

Q Do you know the names of those?

A No, I don't recall the names.

Q Do you recall what your opinions were of
those when you read them, or have you read them?

A I have scanned them. I haven't read them all.

Nelkin 50

There is a lot. I was struck by the
mix of scientific and religious references.

Q Which ones?

A I have always been struck by the religious
statements of the creationists and their concern with
documenting the inerrancy of the Bible. To somebody
who is doing work in this area, that's the most
interesting aspect, to me, of their work.

Q Any particular one that you recall had
religious reference?

A There were some interesting things in Parker's --

Q Do you know what his first name is? Is
it Gary Parker?

A I think it's Gary Parker -- who continually talks
about how the meaning of creation theory and his per-
sonal religious life; a lot of work by Henry Morris is
filled with religious references, the inerrancy of
the Bible.

The other thing that strikes me as very
interesting in there is the extent to which they are
concerned with using science as a way to deal with
their moral concerns and their religious concerns.

Q The documents that you have here, and
that I have received from Mr. Crawford, does this

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dorothy Nelkin - Page 2

Nelkin 51

comprise all of your writings on Creation Science?

A That is everything I have written on Creation
Science, yes.

MR. CRAWFORD: I might just ask Professor
Nelkin to examine the documents to make sure
you have received everything.

THE WITNESS: Yes. One of these was re-
printed in a book called Controversy, but it
is not a different document.

Q Do you recall --

MR. CRAWFORD: Could we identify those
for the record, Mr. Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. The Science Textbook
Controversy from the April 1976 Scientific
American, an article entitled Science and/or
Scriptures, the Politics of Equal Time. From
Volume 96, the Boston Studies in the Philosophy
of Science, Creation versus Evolution, the
Politics of Science Education.

Q Were was this published?

A That's in a book edited by Mendelson, Neingard
& Whitely called The Social Production of Scientific
Knowledge, published in 1977 by Reidel.

Q A paper entitled Science Rationality and

Nelkin 52

the Creation Evolution Dispute?

A That's a lecture.

Q December 1981, Program on Science --

A That's my address.

Q Oh, I see. I am sorry.

A That was presented in a lecture, Kennedy Library,
Northeastern University.

Q And then Politics, Science and Cancer,
the Laetrile Phenomenon?

A No, that's the cover page.

Q OK. Discussion: Science and Technology in
the Pits?

A That's a comparison between the laetrile contro-
versy and the creationists. There are references to
the creationists in comparison to the laetrile people
in there, and so, since there are creationists refer-
enced, I included that.

MR. CRAWFORD: And there is a letter to
the editor.

A (Continuing) There was a series -- in response
to the Scientific American article, there are a series
of letters, and I responded to these letters summarized
in correspondence.

Q This is a letter to the editor from what

Nelkin 53

corporation?

A Scientific American.

MR. WILLIAMS: There is also a letter
from N. L. Balazs.

MR. CRAWFORD: I believe that's a Xerox
from that page.

THE WITNESS: It's a Xerox of a page. That
has nothing to do with it.

Q When did that article appear,do you recall?

MR. CRAWFORD: Scientific American, July
1976, Volume 235.

A It was a follow-up of the article that you have
in Scientific American.

Q In 1978 you had an editorial in Inter-
disciplinarian Science Review entitled Limit to
Scientific Inquiry.

What was the general thrust of that?

A The subject of the compentent DNA controversy
and questions should be asked as to whether there should
be limits to scientific inquiry in areas which could
be publicly harmful or abused in some way by the pub-
lic. That's been raised in a lot of disputes.

Q What was your opinion on that DNA contro-
versy as it was expressed in this editorial?

Nelkin 54

And by the way, I would like a copy of
that editorial.

MR. CRAWFORD: Which document?

THE WITNESS: Interdisciplinarian Science
Reviews.

Q Do you recall what opinion you expressed
in there on that?

A That science can be abused, but -- I have writ-
ten so much -- but that it's not very practical to
expect limits on science, but the notion of freedom
of science inquiry is not a constitutional right such
as freedom of speech.

Q I want to make sure I understand your posi-
tion on the DNA controversy.

Did you say in this editorial that this
scientific study in DNA be somewhat limited?

A No. I did not say that it should be limited. I
was trying to address the general issue of the limits
to scientific inquiry and to try to respond to scien-
tists who are saying that there can be no limits because
it's a constitutional right, and I did not believe that
freedom of a scientific inquiry was a constitutional
right such as freedom of speech; and even freedom of
speech is limited in certain respects.

Nelkin 55

Q How is freedom of scientific inquiry
limited in your mind, or how should it be limited?

A I am trying to think exactly what I said.

Q Hopefully I will get a copy of that. I am
not going to try and ask you if you don't remember.
What is your present opinion.

Q My present opinion is that is that there
are in fact certain limits to scientific inquiry. There
are limits that are derived from funding constraints,
but scientific inquiry cannot really be limited, and
the people are going to really do what they want and
exposing external limits is not going to be a very
meaningful exercise.

In part, there is a question of individual
conscience involved in doing some research and not doing
others, but there has to be full recognition that
science does have certain social consequences and
can be used and misused.

Q Do you think that the DNA research is an
abuse or a misuse?

A I think the DNA research is not being abused. I
think it has -- because of its economic consequences.
it has potentially interesting and problematic con-
sequences for university research because of the rapid

Nelkin 56

commercialization of the technique.

Q As an individual, do you think it should be
limited?

A No. I have trouble with questions placing per-
sonal moral judgments on these things. I think moral
judgments are pretty much irrelevant.

Q On DNA, for example, some people have felt
fairly strongly personally and morally, if you want to
use that term, about that issue.

A I think that research like this where there are
unknown or uncertain impacts, I feel strongly that they
should be undertaken with certain restraint and certain
care. That one simply doesn't go ahead and do re-
search which could have potentially serious health
impacts, for example, without exercising extreme cau-
tion and without exposing your work to ourside scrutiny
so that other people besides those who are interested,
who have vested interests, can also examine the po-
tential consequences.

Q If a particular area of research could be
or is shown to have a potential serious, adverse effect
on health, for example, do you think that would be a
valid basis for either limiting or prohibiting research
in that area?

Nelkin 57

A Yes, certainly. But I would not classify DNA
in that category. If, for example, you are planning
to put a nerve gas laboratory in the middle of Man-
hattan where there were a strong likelihood of acci-
dents or problems for people in the community, yes, I
would take a moral position on that.

The difficulties arise when you have a
great deal of uncertainty, then it's another story.

Q Uncertainty? What do you mean?

A Well, when you do not know whether it is adverse.
You suspect, maybe, but you don't know whether there
are adverse effects.

Q Do you think putting a nerve gas research
center 15 miles from a town of 35,000 people would be
a moral question?

A I'd have to know more about the dangers involved
and the container capability.

MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Q Professor Nelkin, do you recall the content
of an article you wrote on changing dimensions of the
scientific movement, Scientists in an Adversary Culture
in June of 1978?

A Scientific movement?

Nelkin 58

Q Yes.

A Yes, I am looking at how science's changing
increases external commitment.

Q What external commitment?

A In response of their -- science is more of a pub-
lic issue. Science is more active in public affairs,
more and more people are using science as a sort of
legitimacy. This has implications for the scientific
community.

The public role of science, the level
of external funding has increased. It's a different
enterprise than it was before World War II.

Q Science is a source of political conflict,
which you wrote in 1979.

A That's the one he is sending you.

Q Do you recall what that --

A I looked at a variety of conflicts over fetal re-
search, over recombinant DNA research, over -- the in-
creasing number of technical disputes among scientists
in the nuclear debates, science tends to be used -- the
major point, in these and other writings, how science
tends to be used as a political tool in resources so
the people concerned with science and technology es-
sentially used as part of a tactic, science as a means

Nelkin 59

to enhance their own position and enhance their public
legitimacies and credibility at the same time.

Q How do you view that personally as a sociol-
ogist? Is that commentary to be condemned?

A Scientists tend not to draw these moral -- your
questions keep putting me in a role of a judge: Is it
wrong? Right? Good? Bad? That's not the kind of ques-
tion one asks. I try to understand the dynamics of
what is going on in the waistlines used in the political
resource. I don't make any moral judgment on whether
it's good or bad. It's a fact of life.

It's sometimes appropriate and sometimes in-
appropriate. I say sometimes -- very often it is in-
appropriate. I have written an article looking at how
the court uses science inappropriately. It is not out
yet.

Q What is your opinion on that?

A They translate valuable issues into scientific
debates, such as in the Delzio case on artificial insem-
ination.

You have lawyers arguing about the size
of a Petri dish when the real issue is a regulatory
issue in the desire of a woman to have a baby. And
the whole argument gets reduced to a kind of technical

Nelkin 60

debate so that I see a lot of lawsuits falling into
the trap of overusing science or bringing science into
the area where it isn't terribly relevant.

Q How do you view the courts generally in
trying to handle science?

A I think that I -- I find myself very often in
agreement with Bazalon in his judgment.

Q And could you summarize for me, that the
courts tend -- have too much placed on their hands;
that a lot of decisions that should be resolved at the
legislative level and up in the courts or at the agency
level, particularly with respect to technical cases,
that more should be going to the courts than should
be, that it's part of the weakness of legislature and
agency decisions in their desire to push aside responsi-
bility.

Do you think that's true in this case?

A I don't know enough about this case yet. I will
tell you after the trial.

Q Do you think that educational curriculum
is an appropriate subject for state control?

A That --

MR. CRAWFORD: State control? What do you
mean?

Nelkin 61

MR. WILLIAMS: By a state?

A Are you asking -- let me try to clarify the ques-
tion. Are you asking the question: Should it be fed-
eral, state or local government?

Q I am asking you do you think that it is
appropriate to have the curriculum controlled by a
state -- by the state government?

MR. CRAWFORD: The state legislature?

MR. WILLIAMS: State government.

A That's a hard question to answer yes or no. I
think the notion of local control for a school system
is fundamentally a good thing, but it depends on what
educational -- it depends on what aspects of educa-
tion you are talking about.

It's a big question, a big set of issues
put into one question, which is why I am struggling with
it.

Q Why is local control of education funda-
mentally good?

A Because I think local involvement is something
which is as important as education is a way to bring
communities together in some way.

On the other hand I think there are certain
widely accepted ideas that should be -- I am not sure

Nelkin 62

that every local community should complete decide
the curriculum of a school. I think it is very im-
practical.

However, I have no objection to school
vouchers in private education for people who feel
very strongly that their children should be taught
specific things. I think that is one very possible
resolution of this endless dispute, a private school
system of vouchers.

Q What dispute?

A The creationists dispute we are talking about.

Q OK. Have you read Act 590 1981?

A The Balance Treatment Act?

Q Yes.

A I have read a summary of that, part of it.

Q What part have you read?

A I think I read a summary my attorney sent me.

Q Do you have a copy?

A I don't have a copy.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have a copy of that
one here?

MR. CRAWFORD: I don't think I have.

Q Tell me what you recall about the Balance
Treatment Act.

Nelkin 63

A All right. That creation theory, scientific
creation, should be given balanced treatment in science
classes in the public school system whenever evolu-
tion theory is taught. That's my understanding of it.

Q Anything else?

A And that it should be taught as a scientific
hypothesis.

Q That Creation Science should be --

A As a scientific alternative.

Q Anything else that you recall about it now?

A That is the major point that I recall.

Q Do you recall what it said abour religious
instruction?

A No.

Q Are you aware that the Act specific pro-
hibits any references to religious writings or religious
doctrines, as I recall, and I don't want to misquote
it? I think it does specifically prohibit references
to religious writings and doctrines.

A Yes, but I have problems with that because it
seems to me that any science that is predicated on the
inerrancy of the Bible is intrinsically fundamentally
religious.

Q Can you tell me how, from reading Act 590

Nelkin 64

of the summary that you read, you have determined that
Creation Science as defined in the Act is predicated
on an inerrancy of the Bible?

A Well, what textbooks would they be using? If they
would be using creationists textbooks, then those books
and so-called scientific creationists writings that would
be taught are predicated on an inerrancy of the Bible.

It's a kind of vicious circle that is in-
volved. The Creation Science by definition is predi-
cated on the concept of our design by a supernatural
being and is based on the inerrancy of the Bible, and
to me that personally defines it as religion.

So, whatever the Act says is not based on
reality.

Q That's your personal opinion?

A That's my personal judgment based on having read
creationists texts.

Q Does Act 590 say anything about the Bible?

A I don't know. I really should have sat and per-
used it before, but I just didn't have the time.

Q What does the term "balanced treatment" mean
to you?

A Equal time.

Q Is that the only possible meaning for

Nelkin 65

balancing that you are aware of?

A I suppose it could mean fair. but it doesn't
make much sense to me, frankly, because the notions
of balance and notion of fairness are really not con-
cepts that one thinks of in terms of science. Those
concepts to me don't mean much in the context of
science.

Q What about proportionately balanced?

A Proportionate to what?

Q Perhaps to the weight of scientific evidence
on either side of an issue.

A Could you repeat the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the reporter read it
back.

(Pending question read by the reporter.)

Q Could that be a reasonable meaning, in
your mind, the balance of treatment?

A Yes. If there is really any weight to scientific
evidence on various sides of the issue, yes.

Q In sociology, do you sometimes discuss
conflicting ideas?

A Yes.

Q And in trying to discuss ideas with your
students in a class, does it sometimes take longer for

Nelkin 66

students to understand one concept than another,
just as a practical matter?

A Sure.

Q So, could balanced treatment in your mind
mean taking the time necessary for students to under-
stand each concept, whether they took equal time or
unequal time?

MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Williams, I am going
to post an objection at this point. I don't
understand whether you are asking the witness
to provide you a definition of balance in the
abstract, whether you are asking her as a
semanticist or linguist, or whether you are
asking her to go in a trance to figure out
what the legislative intent was to figure out
what the vague meaning of the word is.

Can you be precise?

Q Professor Nelkin, the book that you wrote
on the subject of Scientific Controversy, Science Poli-
tics of Equal Time.

A Yes.

Q I take it that one of the -- where do you
get the concept of equal time from?

A That is a term that was picked up from the demands

Nelkin 67

of the creationists in the California dispute.

Q Are you aware whether the term is utilized
in Act 590?

A I have equated the balance treatment since they
have been consistent with the Politics of Equal Time
with that concept.

Q What does the phrase "prohibition against
religious instruction" mean to you?

A It means that religious instruction is forbidden.

Q When you read Act 590, did you see anything
in there which would prohibit a teacher from giving his
or her professional judgment as to the validity of
either Evolution Science or Creation Science?

A As I mentioned, I haven't read 590 in detail and
can't reproduce it.

Q And the reading that you did give it, do
you recall anything on that point?

A The creation theory should be taught in the school
system as an alternative science of the hypothesis, but
again that drives us into a set of contradictions be-
cause scientific creationism, in the writings that I
have read, are derived from religious beliefs and is
based on apriority religious assumptions.

Therefore, there seems to be contradictions

Nelkin 68

in porhibiting religious instruction and yet teaching
something which is based on religious instruction.

Q Is that its sole derivation in your mind?

A Creation theory?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q If there were one or more scientists who
did not derive what they considered to be a scientific
theory of creation from apriority reason based on the
Bible, but rather from a scientific inquiry, would
that change your opinion?

A If that scientific inquiry were based on -- yes,
of course. If that scientific inquiry was apriority
and could pass peer review, was properly done and was
done with the apriority level of skepticism; that is,
not to prove something but to find out something.

Q What is academic freedom?

A The freedom to pursue what research one wants
to pursue.

Q In the context of a secondary classroom,
would it have a different meaning or would it be the
same?

A I think it would have the same meaning.

Q The reason I ask the question, there is

Nelkin 69

probably not a lot, or at least original, research
which comes from the secondary level.

A Yes. That's why I was having difficulty with the
answer. I do not think that it includes necessarily
the freedom to teach anything an individual wants
to teach at any particular time. I quite vividly use
the word "research."

Q What limits can be placed on what a teacher
would like to teach and what limit should be placed?

A Those are touch questions to answer succinctly.
I think the subject of classroom teaching reflects the
best knowledge that is available, the apriority, the
best knowledge that is available at a given time.

That is not to say that the knowledge would
not change at a given point. It's the most well-
accepted and the best of all possible available litera-
ture.

Q In your opinion, should a teacher be free
to evaluate the validity of various theories or subjects
discussed in the classroom.

A Well, no one individual teaching anything can
rely thoroughly on their own judgment in every field.

Q But should they be free to evaluate?

A Yes.

Nelkin 70

Q Do you think that a teacher --

A But a good teacher does use the advice of others,
yes.

Q Do you think that a teacher has to agree
with a theory before they can effectively teach it?

A No. I teach things that I don't agree with,
but usually express my opinion.

Q What are some of the things that you teach
that you don't agree with, for example?

A For example, if I'll teach something about the
nuclear dispute or the power dispute, I try to look
at scientific disputes.

Q And you will try to give a fair representa-
tion of perhaps both sides of the issue on some of the
nuclear disputes?

A Yes, but I don't present them as alternative
hypotheses in the same ways that the creationists are
trying to teach children.

Q Well, let's maybe refer to another disci-
pline of economics. There are conflicting theories of
economics.

A Sure.

Q An economics professor doesn't have to
necessarily agree with Keynesian on economics in order

Nelkin 71

to effectively present that, do they?

A No.

Q Do you think that the evolutional model of
origin should be subject to criticism?

A Of course.

Q Do you think there would be an educational
rationality in your own mind to, for example, in teach-
ing about the American Revolution, to teach not only
the American view of that, but also the British view
of the American Revolution?

A I think it is a very interesting, intellectual
exercise, yes. By the way, I see nothing wrong in a
class in social science or religion, or whatever, in
teaching about the scientific creations.

I talk about the scientific creations and
their theories in my classes all the time, but I don't
present it as a science. I present it as a dispute.

Q Have you made any review or survey of the
scientific literature to determine if there is any
scientific evidence which supports Creation Science?

A I again want to avoid making scientific judg-
ments because I don't think I can make scientific
judgments on the substantive context well at all, and
certainly nowhere near as well as some of the other

Nelkin 72

witnesses.

Q But you have made a decision, have you, in
your writings that Creation Science is not science?

A My writings are based on an analysis of the
religious statements that appear in Creationists called
Scientific Writings. And I have tried to get at their
motivation, what's bothering them, what's of concern
not only in terms of religion, but moral issues as
well. I try to understand what the social and reli-
gious context of these writings -- what generates these
writings in terms of social and religious commitment.

Q Do you know whether it would be possible
for a theory to have a theological or religious con-
text and also have a nonreligious and scientific con-
text?

A No. I think that if the scientific writings
are specifically based on theological assumptions, that
precludes them from being science because of the super-
natural element.

Q Do you know whether there are theories
which may be consistent with some religions on the
one hand that may also be a valid scientific theory on
the other?

A Could you say that again?

Nelkin 73

Q Sure. My question is this: Do you know
if there are theories which on the one hand may be
consistent with the belief of some religions and on
the other hand also be scientific theories?

A I am sorry. The question just doesn't make
sense to me.

You mean are there scientific theories
that are also religious theories?

Q That are consistent with the beliefs of
some religions.

A I guess I am having trouble because most people,
including religious people, tend to separate the two
parts of their lives.

Q Well, do you know of any theories? That
is my question.

If you don't, you can just say so.

A Offhand, no.

MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Williams, you mean
are there scientific theories which some re-
ligious group would find not to be incompatible
with their religious views?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. My question is are
there theories which are considered scientific
theories and which may be consistent with the

Nelkin 74

belief of some religious.

MR. CRAWFORD: I guess the problem is know
ing what you mean by consistent.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think consistent has a
common, ordinary accepted meaning. I don't find
it to be a particularly ambiguous term.

A Most religions, it seems to me, are predicated
on the existence of a supreme being. That is incon-
sistent with scientific theories.

For most people, that doesn't pose a con-
flict.

Q What is religion? Have you studied what
constitutes a religion?

A I would define religion, and this is awfully sim-
plistic, as belief in a supernatural entity.

Q Are you aware of whether there are any
religions which do not include a belief in a supernatural
or in a god, or in a diety?

A No.

Q As I understand it, the work and research
you have done in this area is for a substantial part
predicated on the notion that a scientific cannot be
consistent with religious belief and vice versa?

A Yes. I wasn't asking myself that question,

Nelkin 75

though.

Q Yes, but isn't that implicit in your wo

A That there is a certain inconsistency between
science and religion explanation -- well, both purpo
to be explanations of reality, but they come from di
ferent directions.

Q So, if there is a scientist who articul
a theory which to him is a scientific theory --

A Yes.

Q -- but which to others is a religious c
cept --

A Yes.

Q -- how would you view that scientist?
those as inconsistent to you?

A Let me try to repeat the question. You are sa
if a scientist defines his work as scientific, but so
body else views it as religious --

Q Yes.

A And what is the question?

Q Then is his work scientific?

A Whose work?

Q The scientist, his theory.

A That's not the judgment that one would use to
evaluate whether it's scientific or not. I mean

Nelkin 76

I can very well conceive of a first-rate scientist
doing superb science and somebody else comes along
and says no, I really think that is a religion, that
would not be sufficient to deny its validity as a
science. You would have to use other criteria.

Does that answer it?

Q In part.

A You would really have to make a judgment on other
criteria besides somebody's opinion.

Q Let me see if I can restate the question.

If a scientist puts forth a theory which
he considers to be a scientific theory, that theory,
however, happens to be consistent with the belief
of some religions and even a scientist admits that
it probably has traditionally some religious connota-
tion --

A Yes.

Q -- would you, from your perspective, classify
that as religion?

A Well, if it is predicated on apriorius assumptions
that God made the world at a certain time or that a
scientist rested on supernatural intervention, then I
would say that he is masking religion in the guise of
science.

Nelkin 77

But most scientists, when they do science,
don't see any contradictions with their religious be-
liefs. They separate the two realms.

I hope we are not talking past each other.
I am trying hard to answer your questions, but they
are general enough and it's hard.

Q I understand that they are general. We
have to try to look at some of the larger patterns in
this lawsuit.

A Yes, I see.

Q Are you familiar with a concept called
teleology?

A Yes.

The notion of purpose or the purposeness
of design.

Q Is that as it relates to science -- is
that a religion?

A It's a belief system. It's not a scientific
principle.

Q Would you consider that to be religion or
in the nature of religion?

A Well, I wouldn't call teleology religion, but
explanations based on teleological principles are --
tent to originate in religious motivation.

Nelkin 78

Q Rather than scientific inquiry?

A Rather than scientific inquiry, yes.

Q Do you have a definition for the theory
of evolution? Have you formulated one or taken one
that you would adopt?

A Again, I would rather not be brought into scien-
tific explanations because I would just make a fool of
myself.

Q Don't you have in your work in the Creation
Science area, looking at this controversy, isn't it a
certain fundamental understanding of evolution and of
what constitutes science a prerequisite?

A It depends -- I get into this discussion about
everything I write, and one has to be very careful not
to ask oneself the kind of question that requires on
to have a detailed understanding of the science
controversy.

I have never in that book, If you will
notice, made a scientific judgment about the validity
of creationism or evolution theory. That is not a ques-
tion that I am interested in.

Q Then you would not consider yourself to
be an expert in defining what is science or what is
a scientific theory?

Nelkin 79

A That's not what I said. That's what you said.

Q Well, I am asking you the question. Would
you consider yourself an expert?

A I have some idea as to what is an appropriate
method in science, but I am not evaluating whether or
not Creation Science is accurate, whether their data
is accurate.

In that sense, I do have to quite frankly
trust the judgment of colleagues who I think are good
scientists; but I can make some judgments about methods
people use to do research.

I have interviewed creationists and I have
gotten some notion of their motivation, of what drives
them, and I think that that cannot be distinguished
from their approach to science.

But I am very careful in all the work that
I do not to make an evaluation whether radiation is
dangerous to people or not, whether what chemicals are
more hazardous than others. That's where I stand on
this.

Q So, I think, in answer to my question,
that you do not hold yourself out to be an expert in
defining what is science or what is a scientific theory,
but you have relied on other individuals to make that

Nelkin 80

decision; is that correct?

A No. I have made a judgment on whether I think
a theory is scientific or not, but whether it is valid
science, I have not, and that is the distinction.

Q What is the distinction of whether it is
a scientific theory or whether it is scientifically
valid?

A In this case, it is whether the scientific theory
is predicated on the existence of a supernatural being
or the inerrancy of the Bible, or whether it is based
on the usefulness, the explanatory usefulness of the
theory of in its origin and research.

That's the differentiation.

MR. CRAWFORD: As opposed to judgments
about a creationists might think are accurate
in allegations of fact.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. CRAWFORD: Or interpretations of
data.

THE WITNESS: I mean the arguments that
creationists develop about the uniformity of
time, or their judgment as to whether some-
thing represents or does not represent the
transitional form, I would not presume to

Nelkin 81

make a scientific judgment on that.

However, I would go through there writings
and suggest that an awful lot of their writings
do say that we believe in the inerrancy of the
Bible in their recourse to God and design.

Q To your knowledge, did any of the Creation
Scientists that you interviewed or considered in this
book have any input to Act 590?

A No, I did not look at the legislative record,
so I don't know. I know that they are -- were a lot
of the major spokesman of the creationists, they still
are, and the same generals exist and the same people
are still writing.

But I don't know about the specific role
that is the creation of the Arkansas statute.

Q Do you know what criteria are necessary
in deciding whether a theory is a scientific theory --

A Or not.

There is a number of criteria. First of
all, it should not be based on apriority assumptions.
It should have useful, very useful explanatory value.
It should be amenable to refutation and it should be
tested continuously, and it should have some basis on
existing knowledge and factual material.

Nelkin 82

Q Do you know whether the theory of evolu-
tion under that definition qualifies as a scientific
theory?

A From the experts that I speak to, yes.

Q Who are the experts upon whom you have re-
lied?

A Evolutionists, people working in evolution theory
such as Gould.

Q Anyone else that you have relied upon princi-
pally?

A No. I have read a number of the reports from
various academic groups, national academic groups.

Q Have you ever asked someone who is not an
evolutionist or relied upon someone who is not an evolu-
tionist as to whether evolution or Creation Science are
valid scientific theories?

A I have talked to a lot of historians.

Q Historians of science?

A Yes, historians of science who have read a good
deal of history on science, talked to a lot of histor-
ians and tried to understand its controversy in his-
torical context.

Q Were these historians evolutionists?

A Yes. You mean evolutionists in what sense? They

Nelkin 83

are not doing evolution -- most of the historians I
know, yes, are essentially.

Q They would personally ascribe to evolution
theory?

A Yes. I mean they really feel the history of
research in this field has been very, very consistently
supportive. That is not to say that there aren't dif-
ferences among evolutionists because there are, and
that is a sign of a healthy science because people
disagree.

The historians of science that I know,
yes, are completely convinced.

Q Is apriority reasoning in your work as a
sociologist, is that accepted? Should you come to --

A I think every human being has certain apriority
assumptions. I think to argue that we are all a clean
slate and we approach our work with no assumptions, I
think, is sheer nonsense.

We all come with a set of assumptions, a
set of beliefs. It would be a gross exaggeration to
say otherwise. We try our best to be open-minded and
to look at what the evidence tells us and to play an
honest game.

Q Before you began writing in the area of

Nelkin 84

the controversy on Creation Science, did you have some
discussions with some scientists about the subject?

A No. In fact, when I started doing it, inter-
estingly enough, everybody thought I was out of my mind.
This was fairly early before there was much visibility
to the controversy.

I have been doing a series on rather turgid
studies on airport sitings, on really highly technical
controversies, and I needed that kind of a different
arena. It looks like it was an interesting controversy
to me, which would, first of all, reveal something
about our culture and how it deals and how it under-
stands science and the kinds of things about planes
that are disturbing to it.

In fact, I started off very sympathetic
to the creationists as people who are concerned about
the future of their children, about the implications
of science in secularization for their values and for
the concerns about the impact of science in technology.

I started off rather sympathetic to their
social concerns. Also, I was very interested in the
way people use science as a means of credibility.

I mean, just read the advertisements,
look at transcendental meditationists, the occultists,

Nelkin 85

any of these groups.

Q Isn't it true, even when you started look-
ing at this, that you thought the creationist scien-
tists were a bunch of nuts, in simple terms?

A No. Actually, I started off without really know-
ing much about them. And it seems strange -- not reli-
gious nuts.

Q I'm using pejorative term --

A It did seem to me rather strange that a group
which would base its science or would argue that they
are basing their science on religious assumptions
should -- I have no feelings about the creationists
as people, but it did strike me as strange that this
would develop at a period where science has a lot of
saliency in our society, and that struck me as a
rather strange kind of phenomenon.

I was interested in why this should all of
a sudden become important. That's quite different than
the question you asked me as to whether I thought the
creationists were nuts.

Q You said it struck you as odd that this
would occur at a time when science had a lot of saliency?

A Yes.

Q That statement in and of itself reveals,

Nelkin 86

does it not, the fact that you exclude Creation Science
from being science from the very beginning?

A Yes, all right. Yes.

Q As a matter of fact, is the presence of
your book Science Textbook Controversy in the Politics
of Equal Time at page Roman numeral x you state: "The
creationists' demands which seemed so bizarre was an
expression of basic and rather widespread criticism
of science in its pervasive influences on social values."

The use of the word "bizarre" there, that
was kind of your personal view, wasn't it?

A My personal view was that science has fairly
well established that certain kinds of signs are es-
tablished in our science, and along comes a group
with religious assumptions that is calling it a science,
and that that was bizarre.

I was interested in why. And I discovered
along the way that a lot of their concerns about the
impact of technology, a whole bunch of moral concerns
were widespread concerns about this society which most
people did not express, developing alternative scien-
tific hypotheses.

Q But the fact of the matter is that you
came to your work in this with your own apriority

Nelkin 87

reason, i.e., that Creation Science is not science as
simply related, correct?

A It's based on religion, yes. Assumptions, by the
way, which were based on the creationists' own writ-
ings.

Q Did creationists' writings also discuss the
fact that under a strict classical definition of what
is scientific definition that evolution is not a
scientific theory, have you ever seen that?

A Yes. The creationists expressed a theme that
evolution theory is also religion.

Q I think that is a different thing. My ques
tion was as to whether evolution was a valid scientific
theory under a strict classical definition of what is
a scientific theory.

A Yes, I think it is. Not all scientists are based
necessarily on the ability to do experiments.

If you are going to make that judgment, the
astronomy would not be a science, for example.

MR. CRAWFORD: Could we pause now and
change court reporters?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

(Whereupon, at 1:20 P.M. Joseph Quiroga
was relieved by Dorothy Grumberg.)

Nelkin 88

Q I think before the change of reporters
we were discussing what is science, and you said that
evolution, as I understand it, to paraphrase, because
it may not be completely testable, does not make it
not science.

MR. CRAWFORD: That is not her testimony.
She used the word "experimental."

Q What is the word you used?

We were talking about scientific theories.
You made reference to the fact that, for example,
astronomy --

A -- is not an experimental science.

The definition of science does not rest on a
fact that you can conduct experiments, for example.

Q From where do you draw your definition
of what is science?

A From a long history of studies of science,
sociology of science, definition of science.

Q Is there any one particular source that
you look to, or one definition?

A Probably the most widely quoted sociologist of
science, I think I mentioned before, is Robert Merton,
M-e-r-t-o-n.

There is widely accepted understanding about

Nelkin 89

what is science and what is not science.

Q Do scientists differ?

A There is a great deal of agreement within the
scientific community in terms of defining what is
science and what is not.

Q I will make sure we are not mixing apples
and oranges.

Are science and scientific theories the
same?

A Scientific theories are within science. It is
not like different parts of speech.

Q What is science, then?

A Science can be viewed as a profession, as a
modology. It depends on how you are using the word.

Q The subject of science, the study of
science?

A The subject of science is nature. The subject,
not study.

Q Is it correct to say what constitutes
science is a philosophical question?

A Well, it depends on whose study -- it can be a
philosophical or sociological question, or a histori-
cal question.

Q Are science and metaphysics mutually

Nelkin 90

exclusive?

A I really don't know how to answer that.

Q What does "metaphysical" mean?

A How are you defining metaphysical?

Q I am asking you, what definition in your
own mind do you have of the notion of metaphysical?

A Metaphysics is a kind -- no, I don't know. I
am not sure how to use the word "metaphysical." It is
not a word I would draw on often. It is a word used
so broadly in so many different ways that it's lost a
lot of precision.

Q Do you know whether the theory of evolu-
tion is observable?

A There are certain -- as I understand it -- again
I don't want to be drawn into a scientific discussion
-- there are certain artifacts which can be observed
to support the theory of evolution.

Q For example?

A Fossil evidence. Geological formation. The
theory itself is not observable but there are arti-
facts that support or do not support the theory,
depending on the -- according to my information,
there are lots and lots of artifacts which sustain
and support and are explained by the theory of evolu-

Nelkin 91

tion.

Q Do you know whether there are artifact
fossils supporting the theory?

A They mostly argue negative cases. They argue
against supportive evidence for evolution theory,
rather than offering positive proof that their theories
are correct. Mostly negative arguments.

Q Do you know whether there is any fossil
evidence that supports the Creation Science model?

A Yes.

Q Is the theory of evolution testable?

A Certain parts of it are. Other parts are not
testable.
Q What portions are not testable?

A Theories of origins are not testable in the
sense that one can experiment. However, one can
deduce a great deal.

Again, you are drawing me into scientific argu-
ments, which I cannot answer competently.

Q For example, is it possible to test the
evolution from one species to another?

A One observes the existence -- one observes
transitional forms. One observes fossil evidence.
The precise nature and arguments with respect to

Nelkin 92

validity of that evidence is something you will have
to ask a scientist about.

Q Is the theory of evolution falsifiable?

A Again you'd have to ask a scientist that.

Q Is the theory of evolution repeatable?

A Well, theories are not exactly repeatable.

You mean evidence that can be duplicated? Again
that is not the nature of a lot of scientists.

Astronomy, to give another example, you cannot
replicate observations, although you learn a great
deal from them.

It is a misunderstanding, I believe, of the way
scientists operate to demand that everything be rep-
licable. It would exclude an awful lot of what we
understand to be science.

Q For example?

A Astronomy.

Q What do you know about the Creation model,
Creation Science model?

A The Creation Science model is predicated on
the inerrancy of the Bible. They -- a lot of creation-
ist literature I read is refutation -- efforts to

Nelkin 93

refute the evolution theory.

In my book, if you notice, there is a little
table on which I lay out some of the different assump-
tions of the two theories.

Q Do you know whether the Creation Science
theory of origin is observable?

A Well, I know they have had expeditions to find
Noah's Ark and have failed to find it. It used to
cost, in 1873 $1,375 to be on one of these expeditions.
As far as I know, they never discovered anything.

Q Other than that --

A Pardon?

Q Other than that tidbit, do you know whether
the Creation Science model origin is observable?

A Mostly when they seem to be looking for is the
lack of transitional forms.

From the nature of their writings, I don't
believe so, but again, somebody who has looked at
the scientific dimensions of this rather than the
sociological dimensions should be asked that question,
and not me.

Q I take it then that you do not know whether
the Creation Science model of origins is testable?

MR. CRAWFORD: I don't understand the

Nelkin 94

question. One doesn't test models in science.
One tests hypotheses or theories.

MR. WILLIAMS: My understanding in science
is that the terms of model and theories are
interchangeable, essentially.

I can use the term "theory" just as well,
if that would assist.

MR. CRAWFORD: That pleases me.

Q Just answer the question. The theory
would be --

A From the nature of that theory, I would argue
that it is not testable.

Q Is it falsifiable?

A I don't think so, because it is based on a priori
assumptions about -- designed by a supernatural being,
and that is neither testable nor falsifiable.

Q Is not evolution based on a presupposition
of no creator?

A This is a negative -- restate it. There is a
double negative somewhere.

Q I will strike one of the negatives.

Is evolution based on the presupposition
of no creator?

A Yes. Evolution theory is based on the supposition

Nelkin 95

that there is no creator who at a given period of
time has created the world.

Q Is that presupposition subject to being
tested, to your knowledge?

A No. That is based on a priori assumptions also.

Q What materials have you read concerning
the Creation Science theory of origins?

A What?

Q What materials have you read concerning
the Creation Science theory of origins?

A I mentioned before earlier today that I can't
remember the names of all the stuff.

Q You mentioned that you received some books
written by --

A Yes. By Gish Morris, writings by Lester,
L-e-s-t-e-r. I can't remember the names of all the
things that I have read.

Q If there was some scientific evidence in
support of the Creation Science theory of origins,
would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

A If there were really valid material, again that
is not an effort to prove the existence of God, of
course.

Q In your opinion, should both the Creation

Nelkin 96

Science theory of origins and the evolution theory
of origins be discussed in a public school science
classroom?

A Say that again. I'm sorry. I'm tired, so I'm
kind of --

Q In your opinion, should both the Creation
Science theory of origins and the evolution theory of
origins be discussed in a public --

A Science --

Q -- science classroom?

A No. They should not be. Both should not be.
I mean, I think one --

Q You think evolution should?

A Evolution should. And creation should not.

Q There is an ambiguity?

A Yes.

Q In your opinion, is the evolution theory
of origins an unquestionable fact of science?

A I think all theories are questionable, but the
best -- to the best evidence today, the ideas that
are most well accepted among competent scientists and
found to be useful are evolution theory. Therefore,
I think that is what should be taught.

Q Do you think it is an unquestionable fact

Nelkin 97

of science, evolution?

A I think no facts of science -- evolution is not
fact. It is a theory. I agree with the creationists
that evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is a theory
that is a useful explanation of facts, but it is not
unquestionable. Everything is questionable.

Q In your opinion, is the evolution theory
of origins contrary to the religious convictions or
moral values or philosophical beliefs of some people?

A I think some people feel that it is. I don't
think -- I think that they are misguided in their
notion of science and what it is supposed to do and
be.

There are people very disturbed about the moral
implications of science. There is a wonderful clipping
that I read one day in the newspaper where some women
blamed streaking on the teaching of evolution theory.

Q Are you aware also that at one time, under
the theory of evolution, one who purported to be a
scientist said that the average black individual had
the mental capacity of an eleven-year-old?

A Of course, science has been abused by non-
scientists as sell.

Andrew Carnegie drew an evolution theory to

Nelkin 98

support the capitalist system, but this is a problem.

Q As you said, any science or any theory
can be abused.

A Yes.

Q In your opinion, can the evolution theory
of origin be presented in a classroom without reference
to any religious doctrine?

A Any -- what?

Q Can evolution, the theory of evolution,
be presented in the classroom without reference to
any religious doctrine?

A Sure. The theory of evolution can be presented
without reference to any religious doctrine, yes.

Q How do you explain to a student the first
cause?

A You mean the origins of life? Or the first
cause, the cause of life? How are you using that?

Q We can take it to be the origin of first
life.

A Well, again I don't want to go into the evolu-
tionary -- the science of evolution and defects of
it, because I can't present it in a very intelligent
way.

Q Do you favor a neutral position by public

Nelkin 99

education taught in secondary schools in the class-
room discussion of religious, moral and philosophical
matters?

A It depends on what kind of classroom they are
being discussed in.

I have no objection to teaching the history of
religions in public schools. I think it is very
interesting and excellent.

Q In answer to that question, would you
favor a neutral position by public education taught
in secondary schools on matters of religious, moral
and philosophical matters?

A Yes. I don't think a schoolteacher should be
teaching one religion or another unless it is in a
private parocial school.

I presume we are talking about public schools.

Q My question referred to public educators.

What is faith?

A Belief.

Q Is there anything else that faith means to
you?

A Faith does not have to be based on evidence.
What most people believe and have faith in is not
necessarily based on evidence.

Nelkin 100

Q In your book, "The Science Textbook
Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time," which
we will refer to as your book because I think it is
the only one on this subject that you wrote --

A Yes.

Q In Appendix 1, you have a list of some
National Science Foundation precollege science curricu-
lum college grants.

Do you know whether the National Science
Foundation gave any grants to look at or study Creation
Science?

A I don't know. You mean, to teach --

Q On curriculum.

A On curriculum? My research -- within my research
it had some funding within a larger study of contro-
versies, and I had some money, travel money, from them
to do research.

Q How much did you receive from them for
this book?

A It's very hard for me to estimate. It was part
of a larger science policy grant to Cornell, and I
drew my travel funds off of that.

I had a couple of trips to California, some
phone calls, probably some typing came from NSF funds,

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dorothy Nelkin - Page 3

Nelkin 101

but I really could not calculate how much or what,
you know -- my time was generally paid for by Cornell
as part of my regular teaching research time, but I
did draw from an NSF grant for routine expenses.

Q Other than your time, which you say was
paid for by Cornell, were there any financial contri-
butions to the writing of this book, other than NSF?

A No.

Q Are we now in an antiscience age?

I get some of those overtones from reading
your book.

A There is a lot of discussion, a lot of question-
ing about science and technology. More technology
than science.

I think the creationists reflect this. Although
they are not antiscience, they are rejected often as
antiscience, and I don't believe they are not.

Q Why do you say that?

A I think they are almost overwhelmingly scientistic
in the sense that they use science as justification
for perfectly valid beliefs.

I don't want to question their beliefs. I think
that everybody is entitled to their beliefs. The
fact that they feel it necessary to justify those

Nelkin 102

beliefs in scientific terms and by declaring those
beliefs to be a science is what one might call
scientistic. Almost an overcommitment to science.

Q Do you have an opinion as to whether
interest in science generally is increasing or decreas-
ing?

A Well, there is certainly a lot more pop science
around in science magazines.

There has been a proliferation of a kind of
"gee whiz" addiction to science in adventure stories.
In that sense, it is expanding in its importance.

I think there is a tendency generally to put a
great deal of faith in science, in areas where it
probably is not appropriate.

Q You say there is a tendency for a great
deal of faith in science.

Do you think religion can be based on
science?

A No. Based on faith.

Q Can religion be based on science?

A Yes, but I think people have a lot of faith in
science, not as a way to justify -- I believe that
people who have scientific beliefs -- excuse me.
People who have religious beliefs should not have to

Nelkin 103

justify them in terms of science, and if they do
justify them in terms of science, it is a way to gain
a wider credibility and to try to act as missionaries
and convert others to these beliefs.

Q Do you think that it would be possible to
base a religion on science?

A It would be inappropriate. It would be possible.
Anything is possible.

It would be inappropriate.

Q Have you seen anything or done any reading
on science as a basis for religion?

A Well, yes. There are lots of groups that use
science as a basis of religion. I think the creation-
ists tried to. Transcendental meditation uses it.

Q Have you seen anything where religion is
based on evolution?

A Not quite, no. Not in those terms. I suppose
Teilhard de Chardin developed what might be called a
religious philosophy based on evolution theory. Major
religions do not.

Q But there may be some minor ones which
would?

A Sure, but I am saying it is not appropriate.

Q Are you familiar with the Society of

Nelkin 104

Religious Humanists?

A No.

Q Have you ever heard of it?

A Yes, but the title is somewhat -- somewhere in
my mind, but I have no associations.

Q Since your husband is professor of physics,
are you familiar at all with the parallels between
some physics and some of the Eastern mystic religions?

A Well, there are people who say there are parallels
between physics and -- isn't there a book by Capra, or
something like that?

Q Tau, of physics?

A Yes, but I don't know much about that, and I
haven't read the Capra book. I mean, we live in a time
when there are lots of cults, but it does not mean
they are appropriate.

Q But that doesn't mean that they are not
religious, does it?

A These are self-definitions. They define them-
selves as religious cults, yes.

Q Directing your attention to page 2 of
your book on science textbook controversies, at the
bottom of page 2, you say, and I quote:

"Why has the old resistance to evolution

Nelkin 105

theory gathered into momentum? What issues have con-
verged to force public recognition of complaints long
ignored as merely the rumblings of marginal groups of
religious fundamentalists and right-wing conservatives?

"How have small groups of believers been
able to intrude their ideologies into educational
establishments, in some cases to control the educa-
tional apparatus that determines science curriculum?"

Is not there a thread running through
those questions that this is a question of religion
versus science?

A This is a question -- I think it is quite explicit
it is not a subtle thing, that it is the creation of
some religious fundamentalists who are trying to in-
trude their religion into classrooms.

Q What is a fundamentalist?

A Again, a religious fundamentalist, as I am
defining it here, is a person who believes in the
inerrancy of the Bible, literal interpretation of the
Bible.

Q Directing your attention to page 9 of your
book, the first sentence there states that, "The
metaphysical assumptions and moral implication inherent
in aspects of evolution theory have been a source of

Nelkin 106

innumerable battles for over a hundred years."

What are the metaphysical assumptions
inherent in evolutionary theory?

A The inerrancy is denial that God created the
universe at a fixed point in time.

The moral implications are, people have drawn
moral implications from the beginning in evolution
theory.

Q To be an implication it must be, to begin
with; isn't that right?

A Any theory that explains nature I the develop-
ment of man inevitably has moral overtones; yes.

Q Can you be more specific as to what the
moral implications of the evolutionary theory are?

A Well, the moral implications -- it may be in
part that using the word "implications" there in that
phrasing may have been somewhat misguided.

It is a kind of theory prone to have people
draw moral implications from it.

Carnegie drew implications about survival of
the fittest in its social ramifications.

Q That is more of an inference than implica-
tion, isn't it?

A I suppose so.

Nelkin 107

Q Do you recall what you had in mind when
you wrote "moral implications" there?

A I had in mind what a lot of people have from
the time of Darwinism, which was very controversial
in the beginning because it challenged religious
assumptions. Therefore, it automatically had moral
implications, since religion has been a guide for
morality.

Q On page 13, you state that, "Julian Huxley
described the evolutionary religion as a naturalistic
religion."

How did Huxley do that?

A One of the interesting things about the history
of evolution theory is now it has been a sort of
inference by scientists.

I think that is one of the problems I see in
scientists themselves who tend to draw ethical and
moral lessons from scientific theories.

Q The theory of evolution has been viewed
sometimes as a basis for religion by scientists;
correct?

A Yes, but that is not to preclude you should
dump it.

Q On page 23, to paraphrase, you discussed

Nelkin 108

some of the pedantical techniques in science education.
You talk about how they were stressing some of the
individual judgments in trying to place the students
in the world of a "scientific investigator" rather
than to make it basic material to the recipient pro-
vided by the teacher.

A That has more to do with another course called
MOCOS course of study than the evolution teaching.

Even in science teaching there has been an
effort to get students involved more actively.

Q MOCOS was designed, was it not, for
elementary schools?

A MOCOS was fifth and sixth grades.

Q It really involved asking some fairly
basic and probing questions of the students?

A Yes.

Q Questions about what implications do
animal actions have in relationship to how they relate
to each other?

A One of the reasons that I titled the book as it
is titled is that I wanted to look at several different
disputes.

I am not sure the MOCOS dispute is relevant to
the creationists.

Nelkin 109

Q I was curious about the MOCOS concept.

That was a program or curriculum which,
would you agree, was designed by professionals in the
field of science curriculum?

A It was designed by both scientists and science
curriculum specialists. It is a pedagogical theory
that tried to involve students more actively in a
teaching process so they don't sit back as kind of
passive puppets and be just lectured to.

Q Spoon-fed is the term that was used.

It is better not to spoon-feed them but
to let them really think about these concepts?

Is part of the idea there that the students
will --

A -- make up their own minds.

Q Not just that, but that students will have
a deeper appreciation and deeper understanding, rather
than just learning it by rote?

A Yes.

Q As your book mentioned, doesn't it exercise
the greater use of judgment so the students can make
up their own minds?

A There are some things appropriate for students
to make up their minds, and other things where they

Nelkin 110

are best told what the understanding of the scientific
community is at a given moment.

It depends on the subject matter.

Q Who has to make that decision?

A I think to some extent in society one has to
rely on experts.

I think there is abuse of expertise, but to some
extent there is a basis. One can't throw away years
and years of research and data and say the audience
should make up its mind. It doesn't make sense to me.

Q The MOCOS course of study is premised on
the notion that fifth and sixth graders could think
about and arrive at some decisions and judgments on
some basic questions that had some --

A I don't think so, no. Not on what you are driv-
ing at.

Q What were some of the issues that the
MOCOS course of study kind of laid out there for the
fourth- and fifth- and sixth-graders to think about?

A The nature of maternal relationships, for example,
in animals. They weren't -- if I can remember, again
I have done so much research since then that my memory
is not really that detailed at this point, but the
idea was not to have them decide what scientists have

Nelkin 111

been working on for years, but to try to relate to
their own experience in some way to absorb and under-
stand it in a less abstract fashion.

I don't know of any scientist curriculum where
students are asked to make up their own minds on well-
established scientific items.

Q You state on page 31, and I think you are
paraphrasing from Bruner here: "The task of education
is to provide a stimulating environment that will give
children opportunity to use their own problem-solving
skills."

Who is Bruner?

A Jerome Bruner is a Harvard University psycholo-
gist who developed this program, as well as the other
programs.

I don't want to be put in a position of defend-
ing MOCOS. I think it is problematic, and I was
fairly critical of it.

Q It also was drafted by the experts, so-
called, in the field, was it not?

A Yes, but not all experts are equal.

Q Professor Nelkin, you think, do you not,
that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence
is on the side of evolution?

Nelkin 112

A Yes.

Q And that probably little or no scientific
evidence is on the side of Creation Science?

A I am reluctant to call it a science.

Q In view of that, why would you have any
fear about presenting both sides to students and
letting them make up their own minds, particularly in
light of the overwhelming scientific evidence?

A If it was just a matter of that, I would say,
sure, go ahead, high school kids are pretty smart
and will sort these things out.

I think the creationists are out for bigger
stakes than that.

Q We are not dealing with the creational.
We are dealing with Act 590, which said that you are
to teach the scientific evidence for each model and
inferences therefrom.

Do you have a problem with that?

A I have a problem with that, the same old problem
we have gone over at least four times today, that
inherent in the creationists' position are a whole
bunch -- a whole set of religious suppositions which
in fact they are using science, I believe, to get
across, and that is just find if they are trying to

Nelkin 113

get this across to their own children in a private
school, parochial school setting.

When they are dealing in a public school, I
don't think the teaching of religion, be it in the
guise of religion or science, and giving it credibility
as science, is appropriate because you are dealing
with a lot of students and their parents, who don't
want to buy into it.

Q Is your concern then the idea that in
trying to teach Creation Science, that there would be
a lot of emphasis given to the concept of a creator?

A Yes.

Q In the teaching of evolution, do you know
whether substantial emphasis was given to the concept
there is no creator?

A I think it is not discussed, although it is
inherent and intrinsic.

Q Do you have any reason to think, if in
the same sense the concept of no creator is not sub-
stantially emphasized, that the concept of a creator
could not be given a similar emphasis or lack of
emphasis in Creation Science?

A I think that the notion of a creator is so
fundamental to the creationists' ideas that it has

Nelkin 114

to enter into their teaching.

The notion of changing in origins with no discus-
sion -- there is a different kind of notion of design.

Q From your statement, if the teaching of
Creation Science were limited to just whatever scien-
tific evidence or inference you can draw from scientific
data, you would not have any real problems with it,
as I understand, from what you are saying personally?

MR. CRAWFORD: That is not what she said.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it is.

MR. CRAWFORD: We can have it read back.

Q Correct me if I'm wrong --

A I suggested that the so-called scientific data
presented by the creationist is mostly negative
effort to refute evolution theory. That there is no
body of independent data to be taught.

Q Your other answer will stand, and we can
look at that.

Assuming Creation Science is more than
criticism of evolutionary theory, you said you don't
object to that type of criticism.

A We are playing word games. The point is, the
creationists developed a whole set of ideas in order
to prove the Bible.

Nelkin 115

Q That is your conclusion, is it not?

MR. CRAWFORD: Everything she says is her
conclusion.

A I am testifying to my opinions, yes.

THE WITNESS: Is that appropriate or not?

MR. CRAWFORD: Certainly. That is why
you are called as a witness.

Q Have you ever been to Arkansas?

A No. Why?

Q Why you have never been?

A Why are you asking the question.

Q I am just curious if you have ever been
there.

A No. I have never been to Arkansas.

Q I would assume that in writing your book,
that you would have wanted it to be as factual as
possible.

A I tried hard.

Q You state on page 19 that in Little Rock,
Arkansas, Governor Faubus, F-a-u-b-u-s, defended anti-
evolution legislation throughout the '80s. It was
"the will of the people."

On what basis do you make that statement?

A I can't remember. There is no footnote on that

Nelkin 116

quote, but it was -- in the writings I read, if I
remember right, this is a long time ago, it was defended
that the keeping of evolution theory out of the school
was something to be decided by democratic vote.

Throughout the book I suggested that science
is not a question of democracy.

Q How many times did Governor Faubus make
statements on antievolution legislation?

A In doing research one tries to do some historical
material and get the flavor of what went on in other
areas.

Q I take it you do not know what you relied
upon for this? It was not of personal experience, we
know, at least.

A Let's see. No, I was not there. There is
certainly not personal experience.

I took the next quote from the science teacher.

I don't know. One reads a lot and gets an idea
of what is going on, and puts it down to the best of
their ability, to the best of their knowledge.

Q You kind of got an idea that was what was
happening?

A If I put it in quotes, I looked at some discussion.

Q Perhaps Governor Faubus said at one time

Nelkin 117

it was the will of the people.

A Yes.

Q The fact you said he defended throughout
the '60s, did you just get a sense of that is what
happened?

A It apparently was discussed through the '60s,
that the legislation precluded teaching of evolution
theory in the public schools --

Q Were you aware whether that statute was
ever enforced, particularly during the '60s?

A I don't know. I know it was not until the
Epperson decision. It was still on the books.

I believe that was 1968.

Q I think the record will reflect that that
is correct.

Let's look at the quotes you have there:

"The truth or the fallacy of arguments
on each side of the evolution debate does not contribute
or diminish the constitutional right of teachers and
scientists to advance theories and to discuss them."

Do you agree with that statement?

A Let me read it.

I'm not sure. I'm seeing double by now.

"Teachers have a constitutional right to discuss."

Nelkin 118

I suppose that could be an academic freedom
question.

The question is, whether the State Legislature
should make a decision. Sure. I guess teachers have
a right.

I don't know details of the constitutional rights
enough to decide whether it is right or wrong.

Q We are not asking for a legal judgment.

Do you agree with that statement?

A Yes.

Q If a teacher in his or her professional
opinion should decide there is evidence of Creation
Science, and they think that it is at least as scien-
tific as evolutionary theory, do you think they should
have a right to discuss it in a classroom?

A If an individual teacher does?

Q Right.

A I suppose they have -- I think it would be
totally inappropriate.

You are asking me a legal question and I leave
it to my legal counselor.

Q No, I am not asking as a matter of law,
I am asking you as a matter of freedom, as one who
is a professional teacher who has done research.

Nelkin 119

A I believe -- don't ask if they have a constitu-
tional right, because that is a legal framework.

What is a constitutional right and what is not
is not my personal opinion. It is inappropriate to
give a personal opinion on that subject.

I think a teacher has a responsibility, as I
mentioned before, to teach what is the best available
evidence today. That has nothing to do with the
constitutional right.

Q If a teacher feels the best available
evidence today supports Creation Science theory, do
you think they should be free to discuss that in the
classroom?

A I don't know. I would really have to think
about that a little more. It is complicated. The
reason is, teachers have a responsibility to also
keep up with that is in their field.

The question really can be translated if a
teacher is irresponsible or not. The question poses
a dilemma.

MR. CRAWFORD: The problem is, on the one
hand teachers have rights to express professional-
ly opinions in the classroom, and at some point
they become agents of the state in propagating

Nelkin 120

the plaintiffs' religious viewpoint. Balancing
those two interests where there is no legisla-
tion mandating the teaching to the teacher is
a question that is partly legal.

I think the witness is appropriately
reserving her answer.

THE WITNESS: It is a legal --

Q No.

A Personal judgment on a legal matter is in a way
not appropriate.

Q All sorts of things have legal implications.

A Yes. But some are more clear-cut than others.

Q To restate the question: if a teacher,
having reviewed the data in the field and done so in
a responsible fashion, has concluded that there is
support for the theory of Creation Science, should
that teacher be free to discuss it in the classroom?

A I guess so, but I would say he or she has not
done her homework very well.

Some questions just can't be answered yes or no.

Q You say you think they should but they
have not done their homework.

You are making a judgment on that profes-
sional teacher's judgment, that it must be erroneous?

Nelkin 121

A Answered at the most theoretical level, yes,
the teacher has a right to profess his or her judgment
in a classroom.

Q You use the term "textbook watchers" a lot
in this book.

A Yes.

Q Were you aware as to any, quote, textbook
watchers, close quote, who were involved in the passage
of Act 590?

A I don't know. I have not followed the details
of the implementation of the passage.

Q Were you aware that Act 590 does not
require that evolution be banned from the classroom?

A I am aware of that, yes.

Q You state on page 42: "But just as scien-
tists --"

A Where? The middle?

Q The first whole paragraph.

"-- associated 'technological decadence'
with the absence of scientific rationality in educa-
tion, so text watchers would later associate 'moral
decadence' with the dominance of scientific rationality."

Could you explain what you mean by that?

A That the textbook watchers have been concerned

Nelkin 122

about immorality, about the decline of the family,
about sexual promiscuity, about Communism, you name
it, and they blame it on science -- on the scientific
rationality -- that their concerns are fundamentally
moral.

Q On page 42, you have a quote there set
off right below the bottom.

A "The decadence of science --"

Q Right. That's a quote from a letter in
the Medford Mall Tribune.

A Yes.

Q Why did you quote a letter from the Medford
Mall Tribune?

A It was characteristic of a lot of quotes I came
across, and it is just very colorful.

Q How did you make a decision that a letter
to the editor of the Medford Mall Tribune is represen-
tative of everything else you read?

A It was simple in its tone and expression involved
in reference to bacchanals, orgies and rituals. It
was a colorful quote.

There are many, many other quotes that could be
given in which creation is expressed that are concerned
with sexual mores and similar kinds of things in more

Nelkin 123

turgent language. It struck me as being a kind of
phrase that picked up a lot of the themes from all
the others, but it was colorful and read better.

Q Where is the Medford Mall Tribune?

A The clippings from newspapers all over the
place are filled with letters.

Q What do you know that the Medford Mall
Tribune is? Is that something you picked up around
Cornell?

A It is not a local newspaper. I can't remember
where at that point -- I collected various clippings
at that time.

Q I assume it is a paper published by a
shopping center.

A It sounds like it. I don't remember. It was
just such a beautiful quote that I used it.

I could have used a dozen others.

Q Do you know if the person who wrote this
was a Creation Scientist?

A I don't know. The context of it -- there are
dots for things left out of the quotes, but apparently
I had some evidence that it was.

Q That they were a Creation Scientist, or
just that they were deriding the decadence of

Nelkin 124

scientism?

A (No response.)

Q You have textbook watchers and Creation
Scientists and controversy over the MOCOS issue, and
to some extent, you lump them all together.

A There are certain similarities.

Q There may be similarities. The textbook
watchers and people concerned over the MOCOS issue,
had they all been promoting Creation Science?

A A lot of the people who are concerned, not all
of them -- a lot of people objecting to MOCOS are not
creationists.

I would guess most creationists are opposed to
programs by MOCOS.

There are a lot of people opposed who are not
creationists.

Q Isn't it true that you are painting a
rather broad brush in this book?

A In the first chapter on scientific creationists
I am talking about the development of fundamentalism
who developed this whole syndrome of textbook watchers.
I am trying to get a broad flavor to suggest that to
the creationists, out of nothing, that it had histori-
cal roots.

Nelkin 125

I am painting, yes, a very broad brush here in
this chapter.

Q Do you know how many districts adopted
inclusion of Creation Science positions in their
curriculums?

A I don't know. I think 17 states have introduced
-- proposed legislation. I don't know how many local
districts have.

Q Do you know how many states have acts,
like the California Board of Education, an education
policy act that says that evolution is not factually
definable?

Do you know how many states in one form or
another took some position on evolution and Creation
Science?

A It depends on the structure of textbook selec-
tion procedure in different states.

As far as I know, there are only two states
that have passed balanced treatment acts: Louisiana
and Arkansas. There are others talking about it.
There are 21 or so state textbook commissions, and
others have decisions are taken more locally.

As in most policy issues, it depends upon the
state.

Nelkin 126

Q On page 61 of your book, midway through
the page you state:

"Creationists argue that Genesis is not
religious dogma but inerrant scientific hypothesis
capable of evaluation on scientific procedures."

A Yes.

Q Does Act 590 allow use of Genesis in
instruction?

A From what you have said today, no, not directly.

Q Did you know that before today?

A I read it a while ago, yes, but -- again, I am
not sure how it can be avoided, given the nature of
creationism.

Q On page 61 of your book, at the bottom,
you state that: "According to creation theory, bio-
logical life began during a primeval period only five
to six thousand years ago, when all things were created
by God's design into a permanent basic form."

Does 590 mention five to six thousand
years?

A I don't remember. As I mentioned, I did not
read the act thoroughly.

This is the last two weeks of the semester,
you have to understand.

Nelkin 127

Q I understand.

On page 82, you state at the beginning of
the second full paragraph:

"Clearly creationists are faced with a
formidable amount of evidence that supports the theory
of evolution. This poses a cruel dilemma. They must
either admit exceptions to their beliefs that would
raise doubts among their constituents, or they must
maintain consistency at the risk of public ridicule."

A Yes. I think they are in a heck of a dilemma.

Q If there is formidable evidence that
supports the theory of Creation Science, are not
evolutionists in the same dilemma?

A That's a big "if."

Q I am asking you to assume that.

A If there really were formidable evidence, yes,
I think the evolutionists -- but presumably, if there
really were formidable evidence, the evolutionists
would not hang on to their beliefs.

Q When you look at people like Gould, who
are seeking to modify the theory of evolution, they
are trying to change this model, are they not?

A That's a healthy debate within science, yes.

Q There does appear to be, even within the

Nelkin 128

evolution community, if there is such a thing, there
does appear to be some evidence growing against the
theory of evolution as it has been previously thought
of?

A No, but it is not against the theory of evolu-
tion. It has to do with the processes of evolution.

There is a disagreement as to how evolution
operates. It has nothing to do with the theory of
evolution in general. That is a classic interpretation
which again can be explained in much more detail by
a scientist.

Even to a nonscientist, it is obvious that the
nature of the dispute, whether it is MOCOS or what
have you, has to do with the process of evolution, not
challenging the theory of evolution in general, but
the mechanisms through which it operates.

Scientists have been in dispute over that a long
time, and it has recently come to a head. It is a
sign of a healthy science, in fact, that a lot of
work is going on.

Q We already established there are certain
assumptions --

A -- underlying every work.

Q -- underlying evolution?

Nelkin 129

A Yes.

Q On page 63, about five lines down, you
say:

"Groups committed to particular assumptions
tend to suppress dissonant evidence and criticism only
encourages increasing activity in support of existing
beliefs."

A Yes.

Q That statement is made without qualifica-
tions.

Is that statement true, according --

A That is a basis of research in psychology by a
psychologist named Festinger, on how groups maintain
beliefs in the face of evidence, because they have
a social support system.

Q That statement would be equally applicable
to the assumptions in people who support evolutionary
theory, as it would be to the creative scientists,
would it not?

A I suppose you could twist it that way.

Q I am taking it at face value, not twisting
it.

A All right. Let's go back to where we all started.

When a scientist assumes assumptions, they assume

Nelkin 130

assumptions they were trying to challenge. It is
the only profession in the world where people are
trying to knock down their own assumptions, not prove
them.

That's fundamentally the way science operates.

Q The problem I have with that is, according
to some things like Coombs' work, that would appear
not to be the case, where you have the model and all
research is directed in support of a preexisting or
established pattern. They are trying to find further
evidence to support it, not trying to knock it down.

A It's hard to explain this.

People are fundamentally trying to tell their
assumptions all the time. They look at it with
scepticism.

When a theory becomes well-established in a
whole line of thought and a large framework becomes
established, the process of organized scepticism goes
on at a more micro level, and it takes a long time if
you have an overall theory which is having a tremen-
dous amount of support over many, many years to over-
throw that whole theory and to think in completely new
terms.

There are several levels which we are talking

Nelkin 131

about, I mean, what is going on in the arguments that
Gould is involved in, and you should be questioning
him along this area --

Q I hope to.

A That's what's happening at this point -- just
a lot of criticism.

Again, he can speak to that.

Q Do you personally know whether the American
Scientific Affiliation had any role in the passage of
Act 590?

A I don't know.

Q Do you personally know whether the Creation
Research Society had any role?

A I don't know. I have not followed the creation
of Act 590.

Q Where is the Bob Jones University?

A Is it in South Carolina?

Q I don't know. I know it is not in Arkansas,
which your book says it is.

A I said other Bible schools, on page 70, in South
Carolina.

Q Would you like to see mine? It says in
Arkansas, Bob Jones University.

A What page are you on?

Nelkin 132

Q Seventy.

A That's unbelievable. That's the same edition,
there was only one.

MR. CRAWFORD: Sometimes corrections are
made in different editions.

A (Continuing) Here. Bob Jones University, just
above -- (Indicating)

Q Do you recall writing that?

A I don't remember that. It may have been that
it got by in some sense and I caught it in a later --
I don't remember. It's South Carolina.

Q Did you at one time think it was in Arkansas

A I must have.

Q For it to get into the book, you must have
written that at one time?

A Yes, and then realized at some later point that
it was South Carolina.

At this point, I know it is not Arkansas. It
might have been a slip.

Q On page 70, you mention that Creation
Science courses have been presented at Southern Illinois
University and Michigan State.

A Yes.

Q Are you aware of any other universities

Nelkin 133

since this time that have presented courses on
Creation Science?

A I don't know. I have not been following it.

Q Doesn't the fact that secular universities
like Michigan State and SIU present a course, doesn't
that lend some credence to Creation Science?

A No, of course not. The fact that somebody can
teach a course that is not accepted by colleagues --
apparently I have heard there are a lot of people
concerned about Moore's course at Michigan State.

Given a tenure system, one does not have control
over individual courses. No, it does not give credence
to it.

Q Do you think these professors should be
prevented from teaching it?

A I think there should be a sense of responsibil-
ity. Whether or not it should be prohibited is a
problem.

Q To your knowledge, was the MOCOS course
ever protested in Arkansas?

A I don't know.

Q In your book, you have some comments con-
cerning the nature of the textbook publishers, that
they have in some way tried to avoid controversies

Nelkin 134

is one of the statements you make; is that correct?

A Yes. There is a lot of money in the textbook
business.

Q You also mentioned that Creation Science
literature that you have seen has religious references.

Do you have any opinion as to whether the
textbook publishers, if this act should be upheld,
and similar acts upheld, would publish Creation
Science literature?

A I presume so.

Q You say they are in it to make money?

A Do I think -- I think they would reduce their
coverage of evolution theory. I think in fact that
has already happened.

One of the big problems is, these books are
nationwide. The number of states with a large student
body would present enough controversy that would
affect the whole country.

Q If there is a market out there, the text-
book publishers, non-Creation Science textbook pub-
lishers -- don't you think they would probably try
to meet that need?

A It depends on the publisher, yes.

Nelkin 135

Q How many copies of your book were sold?

A Very little. It was published as an academic
book. Last I heard was 800 copies of the paper book.

Q How many of the hard book?

A Three or four hundred. It was not widely pub-
lished.

This project has been nothing but a pain in the
neck.

Q How many articles have you written on this
subject? Three or four others, approximately?

A Yes. It was a mistake to publish it in a
scientific press.

Q Do you know approximately how much finan-
cial income you have received from writing on Creation
Science?

A Well, you figure 495 paperbacks, six percent
royalties, seven percent royalties on copies. Not
much.

Q Would you say that your writings on Creatio
Science have given you a larger stature in the commun-
ity of sociologists?

A The book got excellent reviews and was appre-
ciated by a lot of people, so I would think so, yes.

One generally in academicia does not expect to

Nelkin 136

get rich or make money out of one's writings.

Q If Creation Science should be found by
the court to be valid and Act 590 should be upheld,
would that not adversely affect some of your own
writings, in terms of the way they are viewed?

A I am not sure it is terribly relevant. With 800
copies, it may be that I will sell ten more or five
more, out of a thousand.

Do I have a stake in this?

Q I am not talking about sales. I am talk-
ing about the fact that --

A My reputation does not rest on this book. No,
I really don't have any stake in this. In fact, I
wonder, why am I here?

I don't have any stake in the whole issue person-
ally. I think I have a sense of social responsibility
in a sense, but I can't think of any personal stake
I would have, unless you can tell me one.

Q Your article in "Scientific American,"
does it contain any material different from what was
in your book?

A No. Nor do the other articles. I haven't done
any more research.

I have done no research, except some recent

Nelkin 137

stuff sent by the authors of creationist writings,
last month.

Even the recent talk I gave, under some pressure,
because I didn't want to get into this again, was
drawn from old material, so if you read the book, that
saves you some time.

The "Scientific American" article is essentially
the second to the last chapter of the book.

Q Have you ever heard or studied a concept
or idea that where there are assumptions underlying
a theory, that it is a good idea to encourage the
study of contrasting theories?

A I have no idea what you are talking about.

Q Do you have any documents concerning Act
590 in your possession?

A It may be on one of the things sent to me by
the lawyer. I have had no contact with it before that.

I can't remember in the material sent whether
I had a copy of Act 590. I guess I had a copy sent
to me. Whether it was the whole act or part, I don't
recall.

Q Have you ever been part of any planned
program or effort to propose or inhibit Creation
Science in the public school?

Nelkin 138

A Have I --

Q Have you written letters or taken action.

A No. I have not personally been involved in that.
I have not been involved in that except for right now.

Q Did you have communication with any such
organizations?

A When I was doing research, I received letters
from them requesting an interview.

After the "Scientific American" article was
written, there were some letters sent to me on the
issues. Most of the correspondence was in the nature
of setting up an appointment.

MR. CRAWFORD: We have miscellaneous mail
from people who wrote her as a result of the
article.

Q Are you a member of the A.C.L.U.?

A No.

Q Have you ever written any articles on
Creation Science which have been rejected for publica-
tion?

A Yes. As a matter of fact, I wrote one for "The
Humanist" -- I don't know if you know what that is --
that's a group that opposes, very proevolutionist
and opposes -- the creationists are very much opposed

Nelkin 139

to them. "The Humanist" rejected the article because
I was too soft on creationists. It was essentially,
I was not interested in dumping on the creationists.
They rejected the article.

Q Do you recall how they said you were too
soft?

A No. I had that on a phone call. They wanted
something much more an advocacy piece. And I was not
taking an advocacy position.

Q What kind of advocacy were they looking
for?

A I think they wanted somebody to dump on the
creationists, heavily critical of their science.

Q You said "The Humanist" is --

A It's a journal.

Q I think you say they are proevolution?

A I think the journal or the editors or whoever
is behind the journal.

Q Is that the American Humanities?

A No. If you said the name of it, I would remember.

MR. CRAWFORD: American Humanist Association

A (Continuing) They took a proevolutionist posi-
tion and asked me to write a letter on the basis of
that.

Nelkin 140

They decided not to run it and ran something
else which more directly attacked the creationists.

Q Do you remember the article they used?

A I can't remember. You can look it up. Around
1977 or so.

Q Have you had any other article rejected
for publication?

A In the course of my career?

Q On Creation Science, first of all.

A No, I haven't. I haven't written any others
except the ones that were there.

Q Have you had any other articles in the
course of your career rejected from publication?

A In the course of twenty years of writing, yes.

Q How many were there?

A I have been lucky. Not many. I can't remember.
One writes articles and they get peer reviews. Some-
times they get turned down and sometimes accepted.

More than often, they say, we will accept with
revisions. Either you choose to do the revisions or
not, depending on one's time at the moment.

As you will note, I have had a lot of articles
published, which means relatively few have been
rejected, but --

Nelkin 141

Q Is the concept of peer review an objective
concept? Are they objective?

A There has been a lot of discussion recently.
Nothing is totally objective. However, it is the best
system that we have to assure quality of work. It has
its flaws.

Q What are some of the flaws that you see
in it?

A There is a tendency for well-known people to be
able to publish more easily than not well-known people.

Generally, it is a system which by and large
seems to work pretty well in the sense that if you
have a good idea, it gets into print.

Q Do you plan to rely on any documents in
your testimony at trial?

A I don't know. We haven't discussed that. I
guess I will take advice from counsel.

Q Have you prepared any?

A No. There was some discussion as to whether
Mr. Crawford would prepare some or not, but we have
not discussed it.

No, I was not. I have not prepared any.

MR. CRAWFORD: We will provide you with
any exhibits which any witnesses will use.

Nelkin 142

I would expect that there might be some
documents to be introduced through Professor
Nelkin.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you know at this time
what they are?

MR. CRAWFORD: I would expect if we can
get her to identify documents from various
creationist groups which she feels are represen-
tative of those groups and their ideas, we might
use them.

Q How do you determine what is representative
of a creationist group?

A That is judgment after reading a lot of material.

Q How many books on Creation Science have
you read, in total?

A I don't remember. I can't give you a number.
There are a lot of articles.

Q More than ten?

A No. A lot of articles. I did a lot of inter-
views with creationists, talked to a great number of
them.

I also talked to biologists and schoolteachers.
I talked to a lot of people, read a lot of articles.

Q Have you kept a list of everything that

Nelkin 143

you read?

A No. I don't have many materials.

The book was published in '77. Research was
finished really in '76, a long time ago. I have done
quite a lot of projects since.

I never dreamed I would be getting into it again.

Q Have you ever given any speeches on the
subject of education?

A I have given a couple of talks from these lectures
on creationism. I gave talks on science and technology
programs.

Q How do you decide when it is appropriate
to have an interdisciplinary program?

A When there is a significant problem that needs
addressing from more than one discipline.

The issues raised -- we engage lawyers in the
program, economists, political scientists.

Q Is an idea of an interdisciplinary approach

A Problem oriented.

Q There has to be some overlap between
disciplines?

A They have to have some kind of focus.

Q Have you ever thought about the concept
of interdisciplinary approach to teaching

Nelkin 144

origins, taking for the moment the idea that perhaps
one might be purely religious and one would be
scientific?

A No, I have not contemplated that.

Q Since you have done some work in the area
of interdisciplinary --

A It is not the kind of issue -- I am studying
controversies, not origins.

Q I thought you said you did some work on
the formulation of interdisciplinary studies.

A Yes, on the kind of teaching programs and every-
thing else.

Q If you look at the basic guidelines that
you would utilize in deciding whether to undertake
interdisciplinary study, would the interdisciplinary
study of origin concerning both religious and science --

A I think they are talking past each other. I
don't think you can come to that kind of juncture
along those lines.

Q Do you have any other communications other
than with your attorneys concerning this case?

A I did get a letter -- but it was sort of --
from your colleagues in Arkansas, asking me to get in
touch with you, or --

Nelkin 145

MR. CRAWFORD: That's another attorney in
the case.

A (Continuing) Another attorney in Arkansas. I
haven't had communications about it.

Q Other than the questions I asked you and
your testimony as you presently contemplate it, are
there other opinions or subject matters that you are
going to go into?

A Not that I know of. I happen not to have done
too much contemplation, since I am so inexperienced,
I don't know what a cross-examination is like.

MR. WILLIAMS: Have you had a chance to
review those documents that I showed you?

MR. CRAWFORD: Only one. I will finish
reading them this afternoon and advise you later
in the day what our position is.

MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions at this
time, since I have not seen those documents. I
want this deposition to be continued if there is
something really important.

MR. Crawford; The witness will be in
Arkansas prior to trial.

MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions at
this time.

Nelkin 146

EXAMINATION BY MR. CRAWFORD:

Q Mr. Williams asked some questions about
assumptions of evolutionary theory. He asked you
whether evolution says there is no creator. I heard
you say yes to that question.

Would you explain to me what you mean by
that?

A I think the question of the existence or non-
existence of God is not relevant. It doesn't enter
into the discussion of evolutionists.

There are evolutionists who do believe in God
but it is not part of this consideration.

Q If one accepts evolution, that would be
inconsistent with the idea of a creator in the way it
was described that the world was created in six days,
would it not?

A It would be inconsistent with it.

Q Is that how you used the word "creator"?

A Yes. The existence or nonexistence of God does
not enter into consideration by evolutionists.

MR. CRAWFORD: No further questions.

(Time noted: 3:30 p.m.)

* * *

147

STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

We, Joseph Quiroga and Dorothy Grumberg,
stenotype reporters and Notaries Public within
and for the State of New York, do hereby certify:

That DOROTHY NELKIN, the witness whose
deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly
sworn and that the transcript of said deposition
is a true record of the testimony given by such
witness.

We further certify that we are not related
to any of the parties to this action by blood
or marriage and that we are in no way interested
in the outcome of this matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 23 day of November, 1981.

_________________________________
Joseph Quiroga

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 23rd day of November, 1981.

_________________________________
Dorothy Grumberg

148

I N D E X

Witness: By Mr. Williams Mr. Crawford

Dorothy Nelkin 3 146

* *

DOCUMENTS
REQUESTED

Page 8, Line 24

Page 46, Line 21

oo0oo

Deposition of Langdon Gilkey

No. LR-C-81-322

REV. BILL MCLEAN, ET AL. *
Plaintiffs * IN THE UNITED STATES
*
VS. * DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
*
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, * DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
ET AL. *
Defendants * WESTERN DIVISION
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. LANGDON GILKEY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES: MR. ANTHONY J. SIANO,
Attorney-at-Law
Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
** For the Plaintiffs

MR. RICK CAMPBELL,
Attorney-at-Law, Assistant
Attorney General, Attorney
General's Office
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
** For the Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF DR. LANGDON GILKEY,
a witness produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the
25th day of November, 1981, before Certified Court
Reporters and Notaries Public in and for Fulton
County, Georgia, at American Civil Liberties Union,
88 Walton Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia, at approxi-
mately 9:45 a.m., pursuant to the agreement therein-
after set forth.

(Whereupon, the reading and signing
of the deposition by the witness was
reserved.)

DR. LANGDON GILKEY,

having been first duly sworn, was examined and deposed
as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. RICK CAMPBELL:

Q Good morning, Professor Gilkey.

A Good morning.

Q May name is Rick Campbell. I am with the
Arkansas Attorney General's office. As you probably
know, our office is representing the State Board of
Education and other Defendants in this action concern-
ing the constitutionality of Act 590 of 1981 of the
State of Arkansas. Today I am going to ask you just

3

a few questions about your background, about your
interest in the area of Scientific Creationism, and
then about your prospective testimony at trial.

If, at any time during the deposition today
you would like to stop and get a drink of water or
get a Coke or go to the restroom, please let me know
and we can do that. There will be no problem with
that whatsoever.

I am really hear to learn as much as I
can about where you are coming from and I think you
will get a little vision from our conversation today
as to where I am coming from and some of the possible
arguments that the State may try to have with connec-
tion to this litigation.

First of all, let me ask you to give me
your full name and address, please.

A Langdon Brown Gilkey. **** ***** ******
******, *******, *****.

Q Are you married?

A Yes.

Q If during the course of the deposition I
refer to you as Dr. Gilkey instead of Professor
Gilkey, please excuse me for that.

A I will forgive you.

Q Do you have any children, Professor Gilkey?

4

A Yes, I have three children.

Q How old are they?

A One of them is 22; one of them is 14; and
one of them is 12.

Q Have all the children attended public or
private school?

A Private school.

Q What type of school was that?

A Well, one of them attended -- the older
one attended Trinity School in New York, in the class
of John McEnroe. The other two attend the Laboratory
School of the University of Chicago.

Q What is that?

A That is a private school run by the
Education Department of the University of Chicago.

Q Do you know if in those classes the
subject of origins is taught?

MR. ANTHONY J. SIANO: I would like
that term defined, please.

THE WITNESS: I was going to say that
I could distinguish two aspects of the
question of origins.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) All right, sir.

A One is what one might call ultimate origins,
which is of interest to the philosopher and the

5

theologian, but more to the theologian than the
philosopher. The other is the question of origins
of this or that form of life, the earth, planetary
system of the nebulous; ask that, but don't ask the
question of where does everything come from.

So let's go back, and you can rephrase
that question, possibly, so that I can know which
way to answer it.

Q All right, sir. I appreciate that.

Is the subject of ultimate origins discussed
in that?

A No.

Q Is there a discussion of origins of this
or that form of life?

A Yes, sir; yes.

Q Do you know how that is discussed?

A By hearsay only, let me say that, because
I listen to my son telling me about what he has been
studying. But they -- I know that they have studied
-- I won't be accurate about this, let me make clear
-- I know they have studied what are called the
cavemen and women, the early forms of humanity. I
don't believe yet they have dealt with the issue of
the -- of the origin of species, one out of another.

Now, I may be wrong about that, but I don't

6

think that has come up yet. But early forms of what
are taken to be early forms of human existence, the
kind of thing you get in Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon
and so forth and so on. My son comes home and talks
to me about this, that, and the other. I know they
have been talking about that. I think that they have
had some geology. Actually, the scientific courses
in grade school, middle school, and in early high
school, are not geology and biology --

Q General science?

A Yes.

Q The distinction you made between ultimate
origins and origins of this and that form of life,
would that be the same distinction you talked about
in your writings concerning first causation and
secondary causation?

A Yes, roughly. The question of first
causation is the question of ultimate origins. It
is part of the hypothesis of modern science that
forms of life arise out of secondary causality.
That is rather precisely put.

What the argument is about, I would say,
is whether the species arise directly from the first
cause or from the workings of secondary causality.
We are using here in first and secondary causality

7

Thomistic language, which is the language of the
Catholic tradition, and is familiar to them. This
isn't language familiar to the Protestant tradition.
It is quite appropriate language.

The first causality is the causality of
God. We are talking about Christians, causality of
God in bringing finite beings out of nothing. This
is a causality which any scientists, we don't know
anything about, and we can't talk about it. In that
sense, that is a philosophical and/or theological
question. Most philosophers would say we can't talk
about it, either. Most modern philosophers, for
various reasons, we could talk about it.

But the question of how a finite form of
life arises out of secondary causality could be a
scientific question if they wish to address themselves
to it. One might put it that the scientific community
agrees they are stuck with secondary causality
entirely. There is a kind of roof over it, a limita-
tion to what they can talk about. The theologians,
on the whole, agree that all they can usually talk
about is primarily finite. That is what their task
is, and I would agree with that.

Q Just so I can make sure that we are
talking about -- that I am using the right language,

8

you referred to it as primary causality and secondary
causality; is that correct?

A Yes. Secondary causality is what we
would ordinarily call if -- we wouldn't ordinarily
use these words, probably -- causes that are finite
in character, or you could say natural historical
human causes. Primary causality would always be
the divine cause.

Now, obviously in the doctrine of Creation
out of nothing, you have only the divine cause; there
aren't any secondary causes, because that is what is
being produced. At least, that is the doctrine. That
is what you mean by an absolute beginning. There isn't
anything there except God, and then secondary causes
are produced in some kind of a system. So things
begin to get going.

Q So your scientific inquiry --

A It can't go beyond that barrier.

Q From the second causality?

A Right. It can't go beyond that barrier,
yes. This is a self-limitation. If it does, it leaves
the laboratory.

Q Let me ask you again, you used the word
-- was it Thoistic (sic)?

A St. Thomas Aquinas. T-h-o-m-i-s,

9

Thomistic.

Q What is that, again?

A Well, St. Thomas Aquinas was the official,
let's see, later declared to be the official philoso-
pher of the Roman Catholic tradition. In his own
time, he took rather a beating because he said some
new things. But he became the official philosophee
of the Roman Catholic tradition.

I don't think I could say that any longer.
But for a long time, he was that. So Thomism was
a Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Anglo-Catholic
philosophy. They are the ones that use this conception
of first cause and second cause, more than any other
tradition. It is far too philosophical, and not
enough scriptural, because you don't find primary
and secondary causology as phrases used in the
scripture at all; though, I think it is a legitimate
implication of the first chapter of Genesis and
Psalms and so forth.

Nevertheless, this is philosopher's
talk rather than preacher's talk. Let's put it that
way.

Q What would a protestant -- how would he
react to the primary and secondary causation arguments?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object

10

to that question. It is a hypothetical and
abstracted. Are you defining protestant
as a particular denomination?

Q (By Mr. Campbell) I am not talking about
a particular denomination. I am separating Catholicism,
that type of thinking from the general Protestant
thinking. These would be the terms of primary causality
And secondary causality would be language of St.
Thomas Aquinas as opposed to, generally, the Protestant'
belief.

///

11

A Right. Well, now Protestantism is a big
bag. The Reformation, which is what I suppose -- first
of all, the Protestant tradition was not interested
in philosophy at all. They sought to stick to the
words of the Scripture, and so have the Calvarist
and the Lutheran tradition on the whole. They've
been uneasy about philosophy.

Now, there has developed various forms
of what I suppose we can usefully call liberal
Protestantism, which has represented both European and
Elghish and American philosophies in the Nineteenth
Century -- Galvin, Kantian, this, that, and the other.
They're quite happy with philosophy. However, they're
not Thomies. That is to say, they're not a Thirteenth
Century Catholic philosophy based on Aristotle; so
they would not be using this, but perhaps for another
reason. All right?

America is not made up primarily of Lutheran
or Puritans, though the latter started the place
anyway, at least the Northern part -- not the Southern
part, but the Northern part. And it's made up of
groups like -- on the whole, like the Methodists, the
Baptists -- which I am one, so I'm not talking down
the religion, who have not been interested in philosophy;
have been interested in the Bible, and they, for a

12

slightly different reason would not be interested
in this kind of language, either.

Now, this doesn't mean that a Baptist
community doesn't go to school and study philosophy,
study theology, and maybe wants to use primary and
secondary causality. I'm not trying to say that.
But on the whole, the traditions haven't found this
kind of language, that's what I mean. But, Protestan-
tism is a lot of things. Of course, Catholicism, up
to recently, was one thing; now it's a number of things.

Q I see. You mentioned that you were a
Baptist, and for whatever it's worth, I am, too; so I
really appreciate it -- your comments.

Is there a particular branch of the
Baptist Church that you are a member of?

A Yes, yes. I'm a member of the American
Baptist Church. My father was a Baptist Minister.

MR. SIANO: And I'm going to object
to inquiry as to personal belief systems,
unless there's some particular direction
you're going in.

MR. CAMPBELL: Throughout the deposition,
Mr. Siano and I may exchange comments about
the relevancy of particular questions. It
has nothing to do with you; so please don't

13

take it personally. It's just part of our
job.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) (Continuing) How large
is the American Baptist Church?

A I must admit, I don't know. It's not
nearly as big as the Southern Baptist Church; I know
that.

Q How does the American Baptist Church view
primary and secondary causation?

A Well, now, one of the things about the
Baptist, at least the Northern Baptist, is that
everybody rows his own boat. Whether that's true of
the Southern Baptist is an interesting question. But
everybody does row their own boat, and there's lots
of diversity.

There is the American Baptist, who were
instrumental in the development of liberal Protestantism.
There are a number there who are much more conservative
and so it's a little hard to describe them as a whole.

As I say, anybody can go now to a modern --
will go if they're interested, and this sort of thing --
go to a modern university, like, the University of
Chicago or the Harvard Divinity School or the Yale
Divinity School. They may come in looking one way,

14

and they may come out looking another way. So it's
a little hard to specify what this one -- the Northern
Baptist, and I think the Southern Baptist, too, are
a mixture of very different points of view.

Q That's what I was getting at. Do you know
of any church position concerning the primary and
secondary causation in the American Baptist Church?

A No.

Q Do you know of any church position concerning
primary and secondary causation in the Southern
Baptist Churches?

A Not in those terms. Well, I'm really
guessing, so I don't want to say.

Q What is the liberal Protestantism? What
does that include?

A I would say, first one wishes to distinguish
between what one could call the liberal spirit toward
tolerance, towards other points of view, interest in
other points of view; not walking out of the room when
someone disagrees with you, and so forth and so on.
And at that point, I think one could say that whatever
one's theology, one can have that kind of a view of
other people. Using the word "liberal" as describing
a type of thinking is a different matter; right?
So I'm -- I'm using it that way historically, how we

15

would describe a movement with this word.

I would say with the Eighteenth Century,
modern science especially physics -- Isaac Newton
appeared very powerfully on the scene -- very, very
powerfully on the scene. This is prior to geology,
prior to biology. This is arising out of the develop-
ment of physics in the Seventeenth Century. And as a
result of this movement, I think that's where it started,
there came the enlightenment, which you probably know
about, a kind of new view of everything on the part of
the European and the Early American community.

Jefferson is a good -- of course, a good
example of this. It spread out from science into
political fault, and our Constitution and Bill of
Rights, and so forth, are very directly dependent
on that, as you probably know.

This really was a new world. It was
different from the orthodox. And religious thinkers,
leading preachers, teachers, and so forth, especially
in Europe -- of course, we weren't getting going
much then -- found this world a part of themselves,
as technology is part of us now, and they were also
Christian.

So they tried to think out how to relate
their Christian thought to the new world, really, of

16

science, but also of political thought, a new sense
of ethics. One should help to make the world more
just rather than merely not doing this and not doing
that, and so forth and so on. And liberal Christianity
was the effort to create an interpretation of Christiani
that fit in this world, and this developed from, let's
say, 1800 in Europe -- we could push it back a little
further, but that's a good time -- right on up through.

An effort to reinterpret Christianity
on the basis of -- now, not -- well, let me say "on
the basis" is wrong here; but so that an interpretation
of Christianity based upon Scripture and tradition
could relate itself to this new world.

Q Was there a split, say, around 1800, a
significant split between, say, liberal thinkers or
liberal Protestantism and conservative Protestantism.
I mean, how do you --

A That split doesn't appear very much in
this country except for the kinds of arguments that
you get on the East Coast among people who participated
in this kind of thought; and then you have -- I
suppose one could say the liberals were then deist,
and there were a number -- well, Jefferson would have
been a good example of a deist. I think he called
himself a deist. And he would have -- he did disagree

17

quite explicitly with what he would have termed the
orthodox.

With Jonathan Edwards, let's say, up in
New England and the Puritans, and you get that kind of
a split, that's not the same kind you get later. But
a real difference between orthodoxy and the free-
thinkers, let's put it, as they call themselves, that's
the way the split would have appeared then.

As it began to develop in Europe about the
same time -- a much more sophisticated culture than
ours, of course, in 1800; there is no doubt about it.
You have most of the philosophical community in
Germany and England who were Christian. That is to
say, they regard themselves as Christian.

In France, a good number of them didn't
want anything to do with Christianity, and so there's
a bit of difference here, and one can see this in the
French Revolution. This is an anti-church movement,
whereas, the enlightenment was not anti-church in
neither Germany or England, though there were some
people who were. But obviously, a split is beginning
to develop here between orthodoxy, Lutheran, Calvanists,
Presbyterian, some developments of Catholicism, and
this rethinking liberal theology; and that split goes
all the way along. It really surfaces in America, I

18

think, a great deal later towards the end of the
Nineteenth Century, where you have people now who --
we've got a -- we're in a different age and we have
people who may have interpreted Christianity along
an evolutionary line, on a doctoral line, let's say
on a liberal line, who are beginning to talk about
social Christianity; that is, Christianity interested
in social form, and you get the social gospel developing

Now, this is 1890, 1900, and so forth,
and you begin -- this is the point at which one has
the rise of fundamentalists because they're conscious
of another type of Christianity appearing. Before
that, I don't think the issue was drawn, so to speak.

But you take the Evolutionist Movement,
for example, in the North. Here's a type social
Christianity, but Evangelics were very much involved
in it. Overlin, for example, ran the underground
railway and, yet, was the center of Evangelicism.
So you don't have much of a split there, but it
develops -- it develops at the end of the century;
and so you get a real tussle between those who are
seeking to save the fundamentals and those who are
moving, so to speak, in tune with the culture.

Q When you mentioned Christianity moving
along evolutionary lines --

19

A Yes.

Q -- what does that mean? I mean, what
were you --

A An interpretation of Christianity that
reinterprets the primary causality of God. Let's go
back to that language, though they might not have used
that language at that time.

As working through secondary causes,
finite causes, and the scientists were beginning to
talk about the development of the cosmos, the nebular
hypothesis, the whole development of astronomy and
the development of various forms of life, the Darwinian
as the way God is working.

Q I see. So the liberal Protestantism would
have gone off in that direction thinking that God was
working through the secondary hypothesis or causation --

A Yeah.

Q Whereas, the more conservative or funda-
mentalists or --

A Right.

Q -- or fundamental Protestants would have
gone off in the direction that what, where there was
a liberal -- God caused everything right, or what
would be their position at that same time?

A Their position would be that the origin of

20

species is not a question of secondary causality, but
of primary causality. That's the essence of their
position. Now, if species are permanent, they don't
arise out of second causes; they go right back to the
beginning.

So that the question of the origin, let's
say, of the giraffe, is not a scientific question, but
a theological question, because the giraffe goes right
back to the beginning, and the giraffe was on Noah's
Ark, Adam named it, et cetera, et cetera.

This is a question of primary causality.

To make it a question of secondary causality
is really quite a revolutionary step, and this is a
step that Darwin made. That is to say that species
are not permanent. They don't go back to the
beginning; they arise. And this was the step that
Lyle made and Hutton in geology. Mountains were not
there at the beginning, even beautiful mountains of
England that have coal in them, as they used to say,
put there for the English to keep themselves warm,
these have arisen in the process of time.

Now, this is a very different view. See,
what you're doing is changing from primary to secondary
causality, which is to say, also, you're bringing it
under the umbrella of science. This becomes a

21

scientific question, how did the hills arise, and
that's the origin of this science of geology.
Biology came next. Incidentally, the progressivist
hypothesis is not biological in its origin. It actually
came up in history; Then in geology; then in biology,
as it was in the middle of the Eighteenth Century
that people began to talk abou the progress of human
civilization.

Before that time, they had never thought
that they were higher than the Greeks, and there was an
argument in the Seventeenth Century between ancients
and the moderns, those who said Greek and Roman
culture was higher than we were, which everybody up
to that time had thought -- well, not the Mediaeval
Age, but since the Renaissance. And then they said,
no; we have science. And, therefore, the young
fellows, not the old fellows -- the young vellows are
the Greeks, and we stand on their shoulders, which is
the way probably we would feel. And with that, you
get a sense of progress in time, which gets then
taken up again in geology and again in the Nineteenth
Century and becomes the central idea of the Nineteenth
Century.

Q All right, sir. Let me see if I've got
this right, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

22

So at one time, say, in the Eighteenth
Century, there was really no distinction between
science and religion, and to the extent that everything
was assumed to be a primary causation, to use the
terms that we've used today; and then at some point
in time in the Eighteenth Century or early Nineteenth
Century, there was a break, and some people could
make a distinction between the primary and the
secondary causality, and others, either unwilling
to change or unwilling to bend, stayed with the
primary causality viewpoint.

MR. SIANO: I'm going to object to
the question. I'll object on the form
basis in that that seems to be not really
a complete summary of the testimony, and
I think the transcript will speak for
itself. I would suggest that we not
clutter the record with synopses of what
Professor Gilkey is saying, in that what
he's saying has got a great deal in it,
and I don't think that either one of us
sitting here could make a fair summary of
what that was.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) (Continuing) I'm really
asking, at some point in our history, then, there was

23

no distinction between, you know, primary and secondary
causality.

A Let me amend that a little bit. It all
depends on what a religious group thinks is what God
intended us to know. Now, it would be wrong to say
that tussle between religion and science begins in
the Eighteenth Century, because -- Galileo is a good
example of that tussle back a little earlier -- because
at that point, the Catholic Church had itself involved
with what one could call the Aristotelian view and
the Talmaic system, and they thought that was associated
with their own religion. They don't any longer.

But what Galileo was saying, and what
Percuncus had been saying -- but Galileo was the one
who took the beating, so you had a big tussle. This
didn't bother the Calvanists, for some interesting
historical reasons. And most of the earlier scientists
and England were Calvanists. An awful lot of them were
preachers. Newton was one; Ray was one; Prestley was
one; Bull was one, and so forth.

There is an interesting relationship between
the reformed tradition as the Calvanist tradition and
the development of modern science, especially in
England, in Holland, and Switzerland. These were the
centers of it. That's a funny relation. It's hard

24

to document, but it's there.

Then, when the issue of the history of
the earth began to appear, then you began to get a
tussle with that tradition; and you see that at the
beginning of the Nineteenth Century in the argument
about geology.

When a good many of the theories that
are now appearing -- catastrophism and so forth,
neptunism, vulcanism, and so on -- appeared within
the geological community, they subsequently disappeared,
with the establishment of geology as a science. But
there was a real tussle going on then. That was a
real tussle, and people came -- hundreds of people
came to listen to geological lectures, which is
unbelievable.

Of course, at that point, the mosaic
history was under some kind of discussion. This is
geology; not yet Darwin. Darwin is the unlucky guy
who gets the blame for all of this, but it went on a
good deal before that.

So it comes and goes. It comes and goes,
this issue.

Q So what we really have is a -- or what
we have here, there are some religions which can
adapt to scientific progress, so to speak, and others

25

who just can't handle it.

Q Or some of them will adapt to this; some
of them will adapt to that. Now, I mean, let's say,
I don't imagine -- though I'm not speaking as an
expert here -- that fundamentalism has any problem
with Isaac Newton. I don't imagine they have any
problem with Kerpunkas, though I have met fundamentalist
who think the earth is flat, and it's very hard to
argue them out of it. But that's neither here nor there.

Generally speaking, the fundamentalists
in America would accept Newtonian physics -- in fact,
they'd probably regard that as physics -- and most
of the astronomy that's come from Kerpunkas and the
changes there. Right? They have a hard time with
geology and -- now, most of us in religious studies
have a hard time with psychology, for example. Now,
I can go on talking about that, if you'd wish.

But when they say this is science, I agree
with them; but then I think there's more to say. So
that where it comes up is -- and part of the problem
of theology is to see, decide what is valid within
a Christian perspective of a scientific movement and
what is not.

Generally, I think that what is not turns
out to be a philosophical, what, expansion of science

26

into a total view. But then that's not science; that's
philosophy.

///

27

A So I would be uneasy to say that everybody
involved in religion, which I am, and I am not
involved as a student, but as a theologian and member
of the Christian community seeking to reflect upon
Christianity and its relation to what else we know
in the world, I think it isn't as if some people can't
adapt at all and some people can adapt right across
the board. We can talk more about that if you would
like to. But I wouldn't want to be put in the position
of saying that because there is no question that the
Fundamentalist community America adapts to a good
deal of philosophy. I wouldn't wish to say they
were anti-scientific in that direct sense.

Q Generally speaking, can you characterize
the threat that Fundamentalists may feel from these
scientists which they have not adapted to?

MR. SIANO: I would like to have a
clarification of the phrase "threat."

Q (By Mr. Campbell) In other words, obviously
some people have been able to adapt to science, and
I think you have. What you are saying is that the
science is no threat to Christianity?

A Yes, I believe that.

Q Because Christianity is broad enough to
encompass that. And science has limits, and science

28

can only go so far, and beyond that, you are into the
theological realm?

A That is a very important point.

Q What I am really saying is, I am wondering
why couldn't everyone, you know, if there is a
general reason, you know, go ahead and say the same
thing? Why do they feel their religion is not big
enough?

A I am glad to answer your question, if it
is clear that this is a speculative answer on my
part.

Q I understand that.

A I am no expert in the mind of the
Fundamentalist or in the ankh, the anxiety of the
Fundamentalist. My answer is speculative. We live
in a scientific culture. I would disagree with this
professionally in my own thoughts and so forth,
where it is generally felt that what science says is
the truth and the only truth, almost like the oath
I took here. So that if science says something isn't
there, then it isn't there, that is part of the problem.
They define reality for us, and I don't think that
is what they are about. Okay.

Now, I would take it that the Fundamentalist
Movement accepts this point, which they shouldn't.

29

I think a good deal of the academic world of America
also accepts it. Being a theologian in a university
is a bazaar thing to be, to lots of my colleagues.
If you take that assumption, that the only truths
about reality, they like to say what is the case,
are truths established by science or as they like to
say, and you find this in their documents, scientific
facts, then if science denies something, they get
very, very nervous.

And a child comes home and says, I have
been taught scientifically that such and such is
the case. God didn't appear in this scenario, which
from my point of view, God should not, because this is
a scientific account; therefore, it is concluded by
both child and parent that they have been taught
there is no God.

Now, how do you resolve that? I would
say you have a discussion somewhere in school about
the different levels of truth. That is not a biology
class. What is it? It is a comparative thinking
class or philosophy of science and philosophy of
religion class, or possibly comparative views, world
views, where these things could be discussed. I think
that would be a very good idea. I am not running the
education, but I think that would be the place to

30

settle this issue. Then we could talk about what is
artistic truth, what is moral truth, what is religious
truth, and what is scientific truth. These are
important issues, but they are not biological issues,
and so forth and so on.

I think the anxiety arises in the scientific
culture, where science is said to be the arbiter of
what is real and not real, and science is suddenly
found not to talk about God. Therefore, they are
saying God doesn't exist. And there is feeling that
if you have got these two hypotheses, they are
parallel. They are not at all parallel. One of them
is quite limited, and therefore relatively certain.
We can be sure of that. I feel sure. I am glad they
are relatively certain.

I long ago decided it was foolish of a
theologian to fly somewhere and then beat up science.
I have a good deal of colleagues that do this. They
say, I am sorry, I have a meeting and I have to take
an airplane.

Q I see your point.

A I won't say, and I don't mean to imply,
that theology or philosophy is the resolution of
this problem. Just as in the high school course, you
don't have exactly the top level or far-out level of

31

biology, so I am not talking about that. But I
wish there were some way this could be discussed.

Q so it really becomes a question of what
is reality or what is final reality?

A That's the major philosophical question.
It is also, of course, basically a theological
question. Our culture -- and here I would say the
Fundamentalists and some scientists may join together,
and would say, no physics tells us about this. The
physicist would say, I can't put it that way, but
lots of people would think when the physicist talks
about atoms, that is what was really real.

Subsequently, with Bohr and Heizenberg
and some others, they found the atom wasn't all there
was, and there have been developments since then.
But that question of what is really real is a theological
question and philosophical question. It really shouldn't
be a scientific question. If I make myself clear?

Q Yes, I understand that. You are employed
at the University of Chicago?

A Correct.

Q What are you teaching there?

A I teach in the area we call theology,
which is an area within the divinity school, whose
main business is training Ph.D.'s. We have a

32

ministerial program, but it is rather minor. Because
we are a university, we are nondenominational and
so forth. Our main business is Ph.D.'s.

Within that school, there is the study of
what we call the history of religion. Somebody wants
to study Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth. There is
the study of the scripture, Jewish scripture. There
is the study of the history of Christianity or
really of Western Religion. It is called the history
of Christianity, but you can study Judaism in it.
There is the ethics in society. There is religion
and psychological studies. There is religion and the
arts or religion and literature, primarily. And there
is theology, which would be the study of the reflec-
tive, reflective side of religion, and primarily a
Western Religion.

We have Jewish students studying the
history of Jewish religion. We are Christians, I
am, and my Catholic colleagues are, and so forth. But
we would welcome a Jewish thinker or Buddhist
thinker and so forth.

That is a practical problem, not a
theoretical problem. Within that, my main responsi-
bility is Protestant theology. Now, I have a colleague
who knows all about the Reformation, so I don't stray

33

onto that turf. But I do know something about it.
There is a medievalist there who does early Christian
thoughts, medieval thought. And once in a while I
teach courses there. But mainly, I am teaching
Protestant thought from the enlightenment to the
present. I teach courses in particular thinkers,
which is -- you studied philosophy and you have the
same kind of thinking we have. You can study Plato;
you can study Aristotle; DeCarte. We would take
great theologians, Paul Tiller, and so forth, and
teach courses of that sort.

You can also teach the doctrine of God,
the doctrine of Creation, religion and science,
nature of history. One can develop a whole spring
of those. I have courses of all that sort of thinking.

Q When you are teaching or when you have
taught about Protestant theology or the doctrine of
Creation, religion and science, and origins as dis-
cussed, if it ever is --

A Oh, it would be with us, yeah, that is
our problem.

Q Would it be discussed in the framework
that we have talked about earlier this morning, of
the ultimate origins and the secondary causality?

A Well, in discussing that problem, that

34

would come up possibly in religion and science, much
the way I have specified it. It would certainly come
up if you were teaching a course in Christian doctrine
of Creation and Christian doctrine of God. I would
expect it would come up in the Jewish doctrine of God,
although I am not an expert on that. It would come
up in many, many contents. One of the first things
to do would be to make this distinction because it
has been made historically, as I say, and because it is
a useful way to think about the whole matter. And
there are many things to be said about the idea of
Creation; all kinds of things to be said. But that
certainly is one of them. Let me say that in teaching
something, in teaching your own views, which we do
occasionally, one is involved, of course, in teaching
one's own view. And one's own perspective, so to
speak, is out there in the center of the table. That
is what we are talking about.

In teaching someone else's view, at least
I try to recede at that point. Now, you don't ever.
I suppose that is true in studying law, too, the
petticoat of any professor shows. I think that
religious studies are probably more aware of the
problem of the petticoat than the social scientist, so

35

that is a speculative matter. But we are very aware
of it.

I am a Protestant teaching Catholic
thoughts, a Christian may be teaching Buddhist thoughts,
as I used to do in college. One perspective is
out in the center in teaching a course of one's own
thought. One's perspective should, I think, take a
back seat, though obviously to be there teaching, say,
Calvin or teaching liberalism. I don't regard myself
as a theological liberal. But in teaching them, I
would try to teach the way that person would. I think
this is the way you ought to do in being a teacher,
whatever you are teaching. So in teaching someone
who is not a Christian, I try to get inside them and
give it the same power that they would.

Q You said you didn't consider yourself a
theological liberal?

A That's correct, in the sense that I hope
I have the liberal spirit, but, no, I was raised in
the middle of the Twentieth Century when Hitler was
astride Europe and the optimism of liberal theology
seemed to be incredible.

Q How would you characterize liberal
theology?

A Well, there in the Twentieth Century, there

36

was a reaction against liberal theology. I don't
mean a Fundamentalist reaction.

The name of Carl Bart is the great name
in this. In America, the name of Reinhold Niebuhr
is the one who grabbed ahold of me when I was in
college, got me interested. This was a view, what
is called Neo-Orthodoxy or Dialectical, that found
liberal philosophy too optimistic about the goodness
of modern world and the goodness of man and woman
and how we were much better off morally and so forth.
They thought this was not true. They found what
they call the biblical view much truer, that God had
created the world, but something had happened. And
they weren't sure how to talk about what had happened,
but they were sure something had happened. So the
doctrine of original sins comes back, and the doctrine
of revelations, the incarnation, and so forth.

However, they saw fit to teach that way
still within the modern world, and that is what they
were trying to do.

Q As a Neo-Orthodox?

A Yes. The world generally refers to the
great Carl Bart, and there is a significant difference,
I think, between that rather strong Neo-Orthodoxy --
I can define that, but it is getting pretty far up

37

the road -- and it's milder American cousin, if I
can put it that way, who were represented by, actually
by my two teachers, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tiller,
who were much less -- I don't know what to say -- had
been influenced more by the modern world. Though
Bart was a very aware man and a very educated man,
there are differences here. If Neo-Orthodoxy refers
to Bart, then I am not a Barty. But I would associ-
ate myself with that whole Twentieth Century movement,
which sought to reinterpret the liberal tradition in
a more biblical direction. They regarded themselves
as biblical theologians, which is stepping from the
biblical views. But they, in various ways, thought
to show this view is not unethical; in fact, it
understands the developments better than the liberals
did, who were too optimistic.

Q What are the characteristics of Neo-
Orthodoxy, besides what you have just mentioned about
the return to the Bible?

A There is a good deal of variety among
them. The European varieties, they have varieties
among them; the American and English varieties are
different, too. But I would say that the first thing
that would come to mind was a much more sober -- you
say sober when you think it is true and you say

38

pessimistic when you think it is not true -- I will
say sober view of history as not a simple progress
into better and better worlds, more and more secure
worlds.

The First World War did this for Europe,
and the Second World War and the atomic bomb have done
it for American consciousness. And, therefore, it is
a much more sober view of history, sober view of
human reality and human beings, that they are not as
good as they would like to think they are, that some-
thing was wrong with the world and the way we behaved.
We try to be good, but we end up not being good,
and so therefore, they fall; the symbol of the fall,
a very meaningful symbol, by which to work. By
"symbol," I don't mean not true.

Then emphasize revelation much more,
which is something not to be found in ordinary
experience, but is manifested by God. They are inclined
not to be as exclusive as their orthodox great
grandfathers about this concept. But nevertheless,
this is the center of their theology. That is true
of all of them. This isn't a matter of science or
philosophy, but on which Christian community is founded.
They would regard the Scripture as revelation or as
witnessing the revelation or containing revelation.

39

Now, there are some real differences
between orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy at these points.
But the transcendence of God, creation out of nothing,
the fall, revelation, incarnation, so forth, all of
these symbols, they would regard essential to
theology and seek to reinterpret them. That is what
they have been about. That is what my own book is
about. My first book was on the doctrine of Creation,
what does it mean in a modern setting. Another book
was on the doctrine of the church. My recent big
book was on the doctrine of providence, what does that
mean in modern science.

Q Would one of the splits between orthodoxy
and Neo-Orthodoxy involve a literal interpretation
of the Bible?

A (Witness nods head affirmatively.)

MR. SIANO: You have to answer
audibly.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes, yes.
And that would be probably, if not the
essential theological issue, essential
methological issue that they would be
arguing. Now, they might also be arguing
about a lot of other things; predestina-
tion, maybe, and so forth. I don't mean

40

to confine it to that, but that would be
the essential methodological, how do we
know, kind of question.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) If you are --

A I am not expert on this, but let me just
say that I am not trying to put the orthodox world
all into one.

Q I understand.

A There are large differences between
Lutheran orthodoxy in Europe, Litheran orthodoxy in
St. Louis, let's say, Baptist orthodoxy, Church of
Christ orthodoxy. There are real differences here,
or Reformed orthodoxy in Michigan. So one can't put
them all in the same category. And I wouldn't want
to be on the record as doing that.

Q How does a Neo-Orthodox view the Bible?
I understand you mentioned a moment ago about
revelation. Does does that differ from literalism?

MR. SIANO: There are a lot of
very significant terms in that question,
Mr. Campbell. And I would suggest that
you might want to define a few or limit
a few in the context of your question.
On that basis, I object.

MR. CAMPBELL: I wish I could define

41

some of those.

MR. SIANO: You are sort of left
with the answer as it comes, without any
qualification or definition. I just offer
that by way of an objection.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) What is biblical
literalism?

A As I interpret the term, it is the belief
that as an aspect of revelation, they would not
wish to confine revelation to this, but as an aspect
of it, there is -- and I am using their word -- a
dictation of the words of the Scripture by the Holy
Spirit. So that words of the Scripture are literally
infallible, every one of them. This is comparable,
I might say, to the view of the infallibility of the
Pope. It sets the infallibility in another place.

Now, there are wide varieties in the Neo-
Orthodox way of dealing with this question. And it
is hard to characterize it all in a few sentences. I
would say their view would be that the main center
of Revelation is not in the book, but in the event
to which the book witnesses. And these would be the
events, whatever they were, in which Israel was
formed, called, chosen, covenanted; that would be
very important. And in a way, they would affirm, and

42

I would, too, God was present in that community in a
quite extraordinary way. It doesn't mean God wasn't
present in China. I want to be clear about that point.
He creates and preserves. I would say the other
religions witnessed to him in their own way.

If one believes in God, one can't have Him
only in a particular place, but nevertheless, present
in an unusual way, in a special way. And therefore,
there is the prophetic word. Anybody who seeks to
figure out what went on with Amos ought not to press
too closely. I don't think they know. But Amos
heard the word of the Lord. This would be recorded
in some sense, maybe not all the literal meanings, but
in some sense, the judgment on Israel and that calls
to repentence the word of the Lord.

Now, the sensoral event, for a Christian,
not a Jewish -- Jewish is quite close to this, but
needless to say, it stops -- would be the event of
Christ. This was witnessed in one way by Mark and in
another way by Matthew and another way by John and
another by Paul. All of these were the ways in which
inspired, yes, inspired to call him to Christ. But
writing it down as human beings, one has differences
in the story. Now, that is witnessing to an event
of Revelation, which is, of course, what it means to

43

be a Christian. This is not something you can prove,
not something you can witness to, and you can say it
makes sense to the world and so forth and so on.
And I would argue that. If anybody said, can you
prove it, the answer would be, of course not, not
any more than the Jewish person can prove to me that
Israel was called and so forth.

I would say what it means to be a
Christian is what it means to be a theologian, as a
member of the community. The Bible, therefore, is
regarded as a witness to Revelation, the authoritative
witness, the closest one, that which continues to
communicate to us this. And secondly, there would be
the belief that God in some way speaks through these
words to you and to me. They are not ordinary words.
If I read it in faith, that is different from reading
it in scholarship, reading in faith, as it is done in
church, as I preach from it, or as I do it personally.
And the word comes to us. Now, that is a kind of a
general statement.

Q I understand. I think what you are really
saying is that -- and I don't want to improperly
characterize what you have told me, either --

MR. SIANO: I suggest you ask a
question and not characterize.

44

Q (By Mr. Campbell) All right. The
event of Creation occurred to the Neo-Orthodox. The
methodology is not spelled out in the Bible, is what
we are saying; is that correct?

A God's methodology, so to speak. My own
view of this would be that the Hebrews were, because
of the Covenant, fully aware that God was the sovereign
Lord. I think this is clear in Amos and clear in the
Psalms. They start there and move out, so to speak.
This is what they knew. The sovereign Lord means
the Creator. One might say that Creation is an
implication of Israelites standing before God. It is
not as if someone had a class in systematic theology.
That is not the way it happens. Actually, the
orthodox view is as if theologians had done the whole
thing. They come later. They organized this.

It is very clear the first thing Israelites
say is, He saved us from Egypt, the Exodus. This is
where it begins. Then there is Abraham. Something is
going on with Abraham. But we know things started
with Exodus. That is the center of the Old Testament.
He who saved us from the pharaoh is the ruler. This
is also absolutely clear in every line of the Old
Testament, it seems to me. This is what we know.

And that means the ruler of those other

45

tribes, the ruler of Cyrus, the ruler over the
pharaoh, and this means he is the Creator. So this
is a way of praising God, of saying who He is. Now;
they say this in terms of what they knew about the
world. And it is the most powerful statement.

I object very much when this is called
pre-science, early science. I will argue as much with
the scientist on this. This is crazy. This is a more
profound document than Birch and Russell, as far as
I am concerned, more sophisticated. But still, it
is set within what they knew, just as we would set
it within terms of what we know. 1,000 years later
or 500 years later, even the best statement is going
to be looked at differently.

In Genesis, there are accounts about
Israel being the chosen people. Enoch, I believe,
walked with God. Would these be events or would these
be the explanation of some other --

MR. SIANO: Again, as you are aware,
Mr. Campbell, we had not tendered him as
a Bible scholar, per se, to the extent you
are getting into a particular testimony
which is scientific interpretation of the
Bible itself, and I would object to the
inquiry in this area. A philosophical

46

or theological discussion on this topic,
I am certainly not going to inhibit that.

MR. CAMPBELL: I am speaking from
a theological standpoint.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) As I understand, you
are not being tendered as an expert on the book of
Genesis. I am not trying to limit you to that.
What would the specific story of Enoch walking with
God or the story of Joseph and the coat of many
colors, what would these describe?

MR. SIANO: Again, I think you
ought to try to focus the question under
a particular theorem, to use a layman's
word. Professor Gilkey has been very
forthright in discussing various approaches,
and I think you ought to try to focus
through whose prism you are asking the
question.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Just from the prism
of theologian or Neo-Orthodox. I mean, obviously,
you have written some articles on Neo-Orthodoxy,
and we have talked about that this morning. But how
would a Neo-Orthodox view --

A There are wide varieties there. Bart
would do it one way. Somebody else would do it another

47

way. Let me say, until you think about it, you don't
know what you think about it. That should be said.
I don't have a system in my mind, to put a nickel in and
out it comes. I never thought about Enoch.

I think most of us, and I would say, "us,"
including historians, give a lot more credence to
early documents than they used to. That is just a
profane statement. It used to be regarded, they were
all untrue. Now, we don't know about that. And a
lot of the archeology has shown many of these things
that were said. I think it is generally agreed that
one can have different interpretations of some of
those early stories.

And now Joseph, I think, probably has some
real historical background. That is my own opinion.
And some of the earlier ones about Matthew and so
forth, you can have lots of disagreements with what
is going on here, but when you begin to get into the
historical material from Abraham on, you have clearly
memories of a people, preliterate memories of a people
that have gone on for quite a while, that had a good
deal of validity to them. But I am not one. Who
knows just what that is? The important point itself
seems to me, theologically, that these express the ways
in which the Hebrew people saw their own history in

48

the relationship to God.

Now, let me put it this way: I would say
the details of the history, I don't regard as revealed.
I would say the relationship of God to this people,
interpreting their history, is that that relationship
is given to them by God and thus is revealed in that
sense. Though a relationship is not revealed -- that
is not quite the right word -- let's say God manifested
Himself or herself -- and I would like to say that
for the record, manifested Himself to the Israelite
people. And out of this, they have an entirely
different way of being in the world, a different
way of thinking. This is evidenced throughout the
whole Scriptures. So these stories -- and I don't
mean by that, that they are untrue -- reflect that.

And Abraham is a very Jewish story. At
that point, the whole bit, from beginning to end,
reflects the knowledge of God that that community had.
Now, as I say, my own feeling is that knowledge
really begins somewhere with that Mosaic Covenant,
though something is happening with Abraham.

Q How would you view the flood, the story of
the flood?

///

49

A The same way. Now, I don't have any doubt
there were floods in the past, and I think that is a
very profound and true story, it seems to me. Whether
it is a geologically relevant story, I am not that
certain. There, I would have to be a geologist,
as far as I am concerned, and say what kind of evidence
is there. The theological meaning of it is perfectly
valid.

Q What is the theological meaning of the
food?

A It has to do with the reality of human
sense with the reality of the Divine judgment on human
sense, and which I firmly believe, although I don't
think when we are talking law we can come in and say
so and so was killed because of the judgment of God.
I don't think a judge would accept that. It was
Bill Jones that killed him. A lawyer doesn't get
away with that. So I would say that the Divine
judgment is very real. The Divine judgment on us
in the Twentieth Century is exceedingly real. And
that's what I say a theologian is seeking to talk about.
I believe the Second World War was the judgment of
God of human sense. The empirical forces of the
world all go together to bring that up. Whatever
happened in the future can also be taught.

50

There is a religious dimension to everything
as far as I am concerned, because God is there. This
doesn't mean the historian in his or her way, in effect,
they don't mention God, which doesn't mean God isn't
there. That is the key point. So the Noah story
indicate both the judgment of God and the mercy of
God. And it is a story from which one can preach with
great force and vigor and a sense of its validity.
However, I would be clear in what way I thought it
was valid and what way I didn't.

Q How would you view God's judgment on the
Twentieth Century, outside of like World War II. What
other things do you see?

MR. SIANO: Are you asking for a
personal opinion?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

MR. SIANO: I am going to object
to that as being irrelevant.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) You may go ahead and
answer.

A The World War is not the only tragic
outcome of the Twentieth Century life.

Q What other things would you say?

A You have got your list and I have got
mine. It is a long, long list.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Langdon Gilkey - Page 2

51

Q Can you give me some examples?

A The judgment of God on the white race is
very real. It is going to be increasingly real.

Q In what respect?

A They will pay for their oppression of the
blacks and of others. This is the Old Testament view.
God appears, as Hosea says, not as a friendly person,
but as a bear or a lion. And in the long run,
radical injustice leads to conflicts and leads to
destruction. My first experience of this was living
in China and seeing the dissolution of the British
Empire and seeing the Japanese reaction to the Empire.
So it wasn't just Hitler. That reaction was frightening.
I was a prisoner, but it was also there because of
the oppressive and arrogant power of the white West,
which the Japanese just couldn't stand. And they
exploded. The Chinese did a little later. Khomeni
is exploding now, not against Christianity, but against
the West.

Now, the instruments of God in the Old
Testament language are not thereby virtuous. And I
take the Old Testament as giving me the best clue
as to what is going on. And I would argue with
someone who would say, no, there are only natural
explanations. Now, you see what I mean by seeking to

52

recapture the Bible in the modern situation.

Q Using that as a guide to more or less
your own life?

A Not only to my own life, but as a guide
to understanding my world. I would say the same
about nature. You use nature as if it were merely
an objective realm that we can do anything we want
with. It is a child of God. It is made in the image
of God; not as we are, but we can't do that.

Q It rather seems anti-climatic to go back
to your professional associations you are involved
with. But I would like to ask you about those. Those
were not listed with your curriculum vitae. Are you
a member of any professional organizations?

A Yes. I am a member, but not a regular
attendant of the American Theological Society. I
have been a member of the American Academy of Religion,
which is the professional society, like the American
Historical Society. AAA is the professional society
of teachers of religion; and seminars and colleges
and universities and so on. I have been a member of
that. I was vice-president of it. Then I was
President of it. That is the professional association.

Now, I am an elder statesman. That is
the one I have been involved in quite deeply.

53

Q Do you know if either of those associations
has a position on whether or not Creation Science
should be taught in public schools?

A The American Academy of Religion would
rather die than take a position on such issues, I
suspect. That is to say, we have Hindus, we have Arabs,
A-rabs, as we like to say --

MR. SIANO: Facetiously, of course?

A (Continuing) Right. We have Jews; we
have Christians; we have non-Christians; we have
everything there. We have fundamentalists. If they
wish to join, they do.

Now, an issue of academic freedom would be
a professional issue. I don't wish to relate these
two. I am not an expert on that. I am not speaking
as an expert. I can well imagine issues of academic
freedom being of interest to the American Academy of
Religion. Any substantiative issue they would steer
clear of for obvious reasons. This is an academy of
teachers; therefore, of all kinds of varieties, and it
is possible only if it takes no particular tradition,
no particular position. I don't think they would agree
to take a position.

Insofar as it might be a constitutional
issue or an issue of academic freedom, they might well,

54

but not on the substantiative issue.

Q Do you know if they have taken an issue,
either of those organizations?

A No. No, I don't. I meay be wrong about
that. I don't know of it. I am speculating about it.

Q Are you familiar with the organization
called the Society for the Study of Evolution?

A No.

Q Are you a member of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science?

A No, I am not a member. I have been in
touch with them. I have been invited on, I believe,
two occasions, to attend their meetings, because
I have been interested in religion and science. I
went to the Copernicus Festival, whenever that was,
in '76 or something. I am invited to view a speaker
at their meeting next January, in which they are
dealing with the issue that is the substance of our
issue. And I am asked to address a paper, which I
have not written yet, on the subject of inquiry and
beliefs in America. So I have a folder in there of
letters in which this arrangement has been made and
what I am to talk about, who else is on the program,
and so forth and so on.

Q You mentioned academic freedom. I know

55

you are not an expert on academic freedom and you are
not going to be talking about that at the trial, but
do you personally view Creation Science as an issue
of academic freedom?

MR. SIANO: Again, Mr. Campbell,
I would ask that you select a definition
of the term "Creation Science."

MR. CAMPBELL: I am always referring
to the definition, the only definition I
know of, which is in Section 4A of the
Act 590 of 1981.

MR. SIANO: I am more than happy,
on behalf of the Plaintiff, to accept
that definition.

A (Continuing) My own view is that it is
quite appropriate to teach that in a course on
comparative world view. In fact, I wish there were
such a course. I think its proper place is in the
course that would include philosophical views, among
them, naturalistic and atheism. I think that is where
it is. I don't think it is science. I don't think
it belongs in the scientific classroom. That isn't
an issue of academic freedom. That is another issue.
This is perhaps a constitutional issue of what is
science and what is not.

56

Now, for my own view, what is science is
determined by the scientific community. As far as
I am concerned, they are the only ones to tell us this.
Just as I would assume the lawyers would want to say
what is the law, what is included there, it's something
we, not anybody else, can say. I would say the same
about the doctors. When one gets to doctors, this gets
interesting, because my wife would disagree that they
knew anything about health. I am not saying these
are the socially, legally, practically ways we can
define these things, and the only way. It doesn't
mean necessarily they are right. I want to be clear
on that. But I don't know any other way to define
what is the subject of law besides the concensus of
the legal community, including its philosophers and
so forth, historians and so forth. I wouldn't want
us to say what the law is. In this way, I think it
is dangerous academically for anybody to tell the
scientific community what they should be teaching.

I think it is dangerous in many ways that
we would spell out, just as I think that the legislature
shouldn't tell the political scientists what to be
teaching, or the sociologists or the psychologists. I
can well imagine the legislature saying you shouldn't
teach Freud. That is very easy to consider. So I

57

think there is an academic freedom issue here. And I
would be very edge about any act on the part of a
legislature that declared to a profession what its
subject matter was and what its limits were. This,
it seems to me, is precisely what happened in Russia,
to the great detriment of Russian science. This is
precisely what happened in Germany. German science
is tough, and it can survive anything. But that was
too tough. So that is where the issue of academic
freedom will arise, as far as I am concerned.

Q If a scientist -- this is a hypothetical
question -- felt that there was some evidence to support
Creation Science as it is spelled out in Act 590,
do you think that he should be free to discuss that
in the classroom?

A Of course. Of course. I don't have any
question about that. And the only adjudicating
supporters are his or her peers. Now, they are not
in the classroom, but the principle. I would say the
same about a teacher of law.

I believe that, and I think that is part of
science, that one should be quite open to new
interpretations. Now, we can discuss whether this is
possibly scientific, and I am willing to state my
opinion on that, though not as a philosopher of science.

58

MR. SIANO: And not as a scientist.

A (Continuing) Not as a scientist, correct.
But let's leave that one out. I agree with that
thoroughly, absolutely.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Would you also agree
that the legislature should not prohibit some area
from being discussed in the classroom? Just as we
talked about it mandating the teaching of something
to a professional, would it likewise follow that it
should not prohibit --

A I am not quite sure what that means.

MR. SIANO: Also, I object. I am
going to object to the question as calling
for a legal conclusion and being speculative.
I am not going to let you get very far into
this area.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) What I am thinking of
is in terms of teaching, you indicated, I think, you
found it offensive or whatever that the legislature
would mandate to a professional that he should present
something in the classroom?

A Right.

Q Likewise, would you find it offensive if
the legislature prohibited a professional from bringing
something in the classroom?

59

MR. SIANO: Again I am going to object
to the question. You are asking a different
question, which is intrinsically a legal
conclusion.

MR. CAMPBELL: I am asking him as a
person, not as a lawyer.

MR. SIANO: As a person, his opinion
is not relevant. It is not in his area of
expertise and not relevant to the case. It
is very far afield. There are limits. There
is in fact a limit to what you are allowed
to inquire, when you tread upon an area
in which I am compelled to direct him not
to answer, when you go so far afield.

MR. CAMPBELL: Are you instructing him
not to answer that question?

MR. SIANO: No. I am suggesting to
you, I think you ought to get into some area
that is at least collaborately relevant.

MR. CAMPBELL: May he be permitted to
answer that question?

MR. SIANO: Yes. I told you that.

A (Continuing) I can't conceive of what
you are thinking about. I couldn't have an opinion
as to what you are thinking about. If you can,

60

formulate that into an example of prohibiting something.
I have already indicated that I think a scientist
who generally feels that something is scientific --
now he may be wrong -- obviously -- but I approve
of his being able to teach what he or she feels to be
scientific. I think they would be obligated to teach
what the concensus of the scientific community is, and
then say, well, my own view is this. I would be quite
content with that. If the legislature said this is out
of bounds, I can't conceive of such a law. I don't know
what such a law would look like. Anyway, I am a baby
there.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) This is not a major
point at all. The thing is, I was wondering, just
like the legislature having mandate here in the
teaching of creation science, what if they made a
law prohibiting the teaching of Creation Science in
this country?

A The principle would be, they would then
say it is a science. And I would disapprove of that.
A more possible example is, say, if you have a college
faculty in political theory and they want someone to
teach Marxism, and the legislature says you can't,
I would say that is wrong in principle. We should know
what Marxism is. This is something that should be

61

before us. I would go against any prohibition of that
sort. Let me say that in relation to this, that the
verb "to teach," is a very ambiguous word. I interpret
that as I said, to show the class how to think about
this idea. To many people, to teach means to instruct
this is true. And I think the issue of academic
freedom, the issue of the freedom to explore various
ideas, is based upon the first meaning of the words
"to teach," and not the second. So that the way the
sentence is, to you approve of so-and-so being taught,
actually the sentence has got to be unpacked.

My own view is that it is the scientific
attitude that there are few things that, in the
classroom, should be taught in the second meaning of
the word, and that everything should be taught in
the first meaning of the word. That is the way I
would interpret academic freedom.

Now, in the issue of religion, this is
particularly warm. I think they should all be taught.
I think none of them should be taught in the second,
in a classroom. You can hardly grade people in piety
on a final exam.

Q We have talked about this earlier, but can
you tell me how you personally viewed the creation of
the universe and man and life?

62

MR. SIANO: Wait a minute. Now, you
are not asking for his professional opinion.
You are asking for his personal view?

MR. CAMPBELL: Right.

MR. SIANO: I am going to object on
the grounds of relevance. But I will let
him answer the question.

A (Continuing) Let me first of all say my
first book was on that subject. It is before the
court. I think I have expressed this, that I believe
everything came into being through the work of God.
This is the way I interpret the first chapter of
Genesis, the first verse of Genesis. As a theologian,
I don't know how that process took place. Just as a
theologian, I don't know what the neurological structure
of my body is. We found out a lot of things. I am
interested in various people who know much more about
these things telling me how that took place. In other
words, my own interpretation of theology is that it
has to do with God and God's activities, with primary
causality and not with the detailed structure of
secondary causality. Now, the theological question
is, what does it mean to say God is our creator? Does
it mean about the world? Certainly. Certainly that
it is good, as the Bible says; that it has a meaning;

63

that its history is headed somewhere. I am not exactly
sure there, but that is a firm belief, that we are
sent here for a purpose. We are more than animals.
Though, I don't think it is bad to be an animal.
I object to some of the literature where animals
are regarded as somehow dirty. In many respects,
they are cleaner than we are. I wish we were as
virtuous as the animals. That is part of our faith.
I don't like the cover of that thing (indicating).
It has the ape looking down. An ape can well look
down on us. They haven't extinguished the earth;
we may have. It indicates to me that we have a
certain responsibility to be related to god, to be
related to our neighbor in a certain way. This
is the first and second Commandment. This is what
we are here for, and so on and so forth.

So the concept of God's creation of the
world and us, let me put it that way, has almost an
infinite meaning. In fact, it says you spell it out,
what you are doing is spelling out the whole Christian
faith. Now, actually, if you start anywhere, you
spell out the whole thing. Systematic theology is,
you start and say God is the creator and so on and
so forth. I suppose it is like the law. Things
relate to one another. If I went on with what it means

64

to me, I would run through everything. I think I have
said enough.

///

65

Q Have you ever testified before in a
court of law?

A I've done this once.

MR. SIANO: What is "this"?

THE WITNESS: This deposition. Not
in a court of law, that is to say.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) What was the circum-
stance of that --

A Well, I'm a member of the Committee for
the Study of the New Religions, which appropriately
it meets inadvertently, because I'm an expert, I
suppose, and I'm also interested in the subject.
And apparently, as a member of that committee, my name
gets given to groups who wish one form of testimony
or another. There may be other types of testimony,
but I don't know what they are. But mine was, in this
case, to testify that a group was, in fact, a religion.
And I agreed to do this after looking at the group.
It was called the Gurdyaev, G-u-r-d-y-a-e-v. I had
never heard of it before. It shows I didn't --
wasn't as much of an expert as I thought.

It's a small group founded by a Russian
at the end of the Nineteenth Century, which is kind of
a mixture of Russian Orthodoxy and Sufism and Hindu --
well, we don't need to go into that. And they wanted

66

me to testify they were a religion.

I read their stuff. I went down and met
with them a couple of times.

The point was, they had bought property,
and they wanted -- it wasn't for a store; it was for
their meetings. They wanted to be set under the tax
laws of governing religions, churches. And there was
no question they were a religious group. I had to
define religion in the process, and I think I convinced
them this was a religion.

The fellow lawyer said, but they don't
meet on either Saturday or Sunday. Now, he was Jewish,
and I thought that was a marvelous expression from an
American legal view of religion. Thursday is out.

And so we had a long talk about what
religion was and how not everybody met on either
Saturday or Sunday, and so on. So that was --
that was what it was.

Q I was going to ask you later on, but we
are already here. But how would you define religion?

A Well, I'm an expert, but no definition is
universally agreed to. My own definition is that
anything to be called a religion must include, first,
a view of the ultimate reality, what is really real,
and our discussion will indicate why I say -- have that

67

MISSING PAGE

68

ethic, a law, a set of rules. But unless, in moving
into it, you change the way you're existing or at
least say you're going to, you don't have this.

Now, whether the people in a given religion
really do what they're saying is an interesting
question; but still, they would say, we believe in
this, that, and the other; this is what we follow.
All right?

Okay. And in that way of life, there is
included some way of coming into touch with that
reality. It's not just an ethical society; right?

Now, some will call that worship; some
will call it meditation; some will do it through what
we would call cultic practices; right? I mean, there's
a tremendous variety. But along with the way of life
is -- as a part of it, there is, you may say, regular
-- almost regularized within a particular tradition,
a way of associating one's self with this reality.

It's very hard to be more specific, because
the minute you are, you leave somebody out; right?

Okay. Thirdly, there is a community --
church, you would say, people. As in Judaism, there
is a community with a -- some form of definite
structure, some mode of authority, some designation
of tasks -- well, so on and so forth -- that meets at

69

specified times and places in certain ways, and so
forth and so on. Without that, I don't think you
can have a religion.

Now, we can go on explicating each of
these three and believe me, I would say there's nothing
people disagree with as much as definitions of religion;
but I think that's a pretty good one.

MR. SIANO: Can we take a short
break?

MR. CAMPBELL: Sure.

MR. SIANO: Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was
taken.)

MR. CAMPBELL: Professor Gilkey,
if you want to stop again, that's no
problem. We've been going for quite a
while. I'm sorry I didn't notice.

THE WITNESS: That's all right.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) You've been listed
by the Plaintiffs as a witness in the case, and
obviously, the main part of my inquiry today is going
to be directed toward determining what it is that
you're going to testify to and the source of those
opinions, the reasons for those opinions. So can you
tell me, if you have thought it out, generally what

70

the subject matter of your testimony will be at
trial?

A Well, if I were to choose how it would
develop, it would develop this way; that we would
begin just as you did, with a definition of religion,
and then I would narrow that to the relevant point
of what is religion in our historical tradition,
which is almost exclusively, though not quite, formed
by the Jewish and the Christian, to some moderate
extent, the Islamic traditions, but one could say
it's -- as the Islamic people say -- the people of
the Book. This wasn't always true in the West,
obviously, but it is now. It's been that way since
334.

Now, in such a religions context, that
first point of the definition of ultimate reality, of
course, takes a particular form -- God. That is to
say, God is the center of all religion. Religion has
to do with God; God is what religion is about. That's
the functional meaning of monotheism. There's nothing
else religious but God.

However, we stray from that. That's the
point. So that in our tradition, religion and God
are, in our common sense, in our assumptions, in
everything, directly associated.

71

This was the problem legally with that
little group -- how could they be religious without
God, you see? Well, that makes sense in Chicago.
It wouldn't make any sense in Tokyo, but we're here.

So then I would go on and talk about the
meaning of monotheism, which means that when you
speak of God, you're speaking religiously. When you
speak of the world, you're not -- you could be
speaking religiously if you speak of the world in
relation to God; but whenever you're speaking of God,
you're speaking religiously. Whatever you're talking
about with God, whether one's talking about Creator,
Revealer, Redeemer, Judge, Savior -- you see what we
mean by "monotheism"? Every one of those subjects
relates to God.

Thus, one could say religion has to do
with God, and whatever has to do with God is part of
religion. This includes not only ways of behaving,
worship -- we aren't worshipping anything else; we're
worshipping God there in a Christian or Jewish context
or Islamic.

It also includes language, prophesies,
theologies, if you will -- theology, perhaps, is a
little more confined; but language compositions.
God did so-and-so; God spoke to me; God is going to do

72

so-and-so for you -- these are all religious proposi-
tions.

Now, I would go on to say that among the
religious propositions that are most religious in
that sense is the statement, God created the world.
Now, I mean, "most religious" not in the sense that
emotively, that is religious, but in the sense of
the Jewish definition of Creation. God's the only
actor; right? That's what ex nelio means.

God is presumably the main actor; but
after all, in the orthodox view, Mary is also there,
and so forth and so on; right? So even with salvation,
we're also there.

At this point, nothing's there. So one
could say ex nelio is of all statements, the most;
those others are religious.

The fact it has to do with nature doesn't
mean it's not religious. It's a religious view of
nature. Always has been taken to be that.

In the sense appropriately, it is the
first chapter of Genesis, though, as I said, my own
view is that this is not the first thing known.
That is to say, the calling of Israel begins the
story, as far as I'm concerned, all right? And then
they know that the God who called them is the Creator.

73

But logically, it comes out this way, obviously, and
it's not only the first chapter of Genesis, but it's
the first article of the Christian creed, the so-called
Apostle's Creed.

I'll say "so-called" not in terms of doubt;
but as far as we know historically, this appears about
150. But it's about as early as you can get, the
first document and, after all, the first chapter,
John, and so forth.

But I wanted to say to creed, because this
is quite right. I believe the God Almighty in Heaven
and Maker of this Earth when they want to say, who
are we, what do we believe, what is our world like,
how do we view everything. This is the first thing
they say, and rightly. So this is a religious
statement.

It's also a peculiarly Christian statement.
Now, it's also Jewish, though the Jews are not so
much interested in doctrine, and they get kind of
bored when we start talking about ex nelio and so
forth. But I haven't found any of them who really
want to disagree with this one; that is, this Creation
out of nothing.

It's peculiarly that. It's not Hindu.
They have a different view of Creation. In fact, they

74

wouldn't even want to use the word. It's not Greek
in the sense of Greek religions or Greek philosophical.
It's not Babylonian, and so on and so forth. You name
it, it's not.

There are all kinds of religious creation.
This is peculiarly Christian, and when I talk to
Buddhists, they object to this one just the way
Birch and Russell would object to this one. Different
grounds, but they don't believe it. So it's a religi-
ous doctrine, and it's a peculiar religious doctrine.

Thirdly, it's a particular interpretation
of that religious doctrine. That is, the Creation's
interpretations, it's not mine; apparently, it's not
the Jewish interpretation; and I'll suspect that's
what the other churches who are involved say, that
is, who are among the Plaintiffs. So I will testify
this is a particular interpretation of a very particular
religious point of view.

Then I was going to talk as a theologist,
not as an expert,about the difference between religion
and science, at least with regard to what their
propositions involve; right -- or their theories
involve. What is a religious theory? What is a
scientific theory?

Now, I'm not an expert on science, as I'm

75

not paid to be a philosopher of science; so the
weight of my testimony is a little bit unbalanced
there. But I do know something about it and can make
the distinction, and I will try to do that.

///

76

Q Is there anything else that you might
testify on?

A No. Just to make that quite concrete,
I would say, as a conclusion to these views, that the
establishment of a religious point of view, which I
take it to be, because it has to do with God. God
is the main actor here. If you take God out, there
isn't even theory; there's no model. It's the
establishment of a religious point of view in the
act as it appeared -- this, again, being the first
amendment.

Now, that's obvious in what I've been
saying, but I just wanted to make that clear.

MR. SIANO: Off the record.

(An off-the-record discussion ensued.)

A (Continuing) Yes. Involved in this
testimony is the question, what is apologetics, which,
as you probably know, has been an effect of -- I
don't think the word is used in any other tradition.
Of the Christian tradition or Christian theological
tradition has been an enterprise called apologetics.
Now, that enterprise has been distinguished rightly
or wrongly. Someone might say, the systematic
theological enterprise, which would be expounding the
Christian faith.

77

Apologetics is distinguished from that in
terms of an argument for the validity of the Christian
faith. And there are many apologetic documents; but
probably the most famous is St. Thomas' summa contra
gentiles; that is to say, the summa, the compendium
of geology against the gentiles, an argument to those
outside for a religious position.

In this sense, apologetic doesn't assume
the faith at the beginning, assume the authority or
either Scripture or church, of dogma; but finds some
common ground, the world we live in, morality,
community, or what we know about nature, let's say --
I don't want to say "science," because that doesn't
apply, say, to the Thirteenth Century or to the
Fourteenth Century, whatever. And there are many
documents from the earlier church arguing against
Roman philosophers. There were a group of early
Christian thinkers called the apologies -- exactly
this, arguing with the Roman world.

You mind a common ground, and you argue.
You argue for a particular religious tradition; that's
what apologetics is. St. Thomas is the most famous
example, but there are many others. William Pehli,
the famous formulator of the Divine argument at the
end of the Eighteenth Century, who, incidentally,

78

by heart, as a theological student, memorized the
arguments from God of the design of the world. Another
one that comes to mind is F. R. Tenant, an English
philosopher of religion in the Twenties who argued
from the facts of evolution to the necessity of a
designer.

I would argue that Creation Science is
an act of apologetics. That is to say, it has a
model derived from the religious tradition which it
seeks to show is true by appealing to the scientific
facts, and so forth and so on. And it's an argument
for a -- as I say, a particular position and a particular
interpretation of a particular religious position.
But there's -- in my mind, there's no question it is
an apologetic effort.

Q In defining religion, what authorities
will you be relying on to make your conclusions as to
what is religion?

MR. SIANO: Do you understand the
question?

A (Continuing) I'm going to rephrase it.
What sources.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) What sources.

A All right. Because "authority" has got
the wrong nuances. The main sources would be what

79

study of religions I've been involved in. Now, at
that point, I am on the boundary of expertise; however,
it's my job as an expert to think about religion,
and I know a great deal about various religions.
I've taught them and I've read about them, and so
forth, and there, of course, as I say, a hundred
definitions of religion. But this one is the one
that I have -- and I've checked it with others -- that
seems to me to tell us what this is.

Among all the various other things humans
do, religion is an abstraction. It's not as if it's
there any more than economics is there; it's an
abstraction from the totality of life. It seeks to
be the center of life, but it's an abstraction. And
there's also economics, politics, and so forth and
so on. And it's perfectly true that if you went to
an archaic society -- I'm thinking of a Babylonian
society, Egyptian society -- you would be absolutely --
it would be impossible to distinguish religion from
politics, from economics, and so forth and so on.
In that sense, it's very much of an abstraction.

And what we call religion was the center
of the society. One of the things that's happened
in the development of civilization has been these
things that divide it off. Law is different from --

80

well, I don't need to explain. That's -- and what
happened -- has happened with the Constitution of
the United States, but happens spiritually with the
development of the enlightenment -- I mean, in terms
of people's mind is that the community is not founded
upon its religion, but founded upon what we like
to call a natural basis.

Now, the legal separation of church and
faith is merely an expursion.

///

81

The religion is a part of life, but
not center. So one has to look for one's sources of
a definition of religion to all kinds of situations
where it has different ways of functioning in a
human community. And I think that what I was des-
cribing is able not only to cover the varieties --
well, for something like Buddhism, early Buddhism is
clearly an old religion, because there's no question
that the early Buddhists were religious and had no
deity. And there are those things that seemed to
follow up the community where you have a theology,
in effect, or a Roman society, or indistinguishable
from political, or in our society, which was Christian
for a long time, where you have a different relation-
ship where it's absolutely in the center of the
Christian King, the Holy Roman Empire, and so on and
so forth, and in our society where you've got the
Methodists, let's say, with very strange relations to
Washington. And so those are the sources.

Q The ultimate reality which you talked
about sounds a lot like Paul Tiller with his --
was it ultimate concern? Was that what he taught?

A No. Ultimate concern is a psychological
category. Ultimate concern is my relation to ultimate
reality, but that's a psychological category. No.

82

The unexamined, the patillic (sic) God is the object
of my ultimate concern. Got is not my ultimate
concern; my ultimate concern could be for cash.
Then one could say, this is my God, but God is not my
ultimate concern in that -- in the sense of logical
identity. Until its category of the unconditional,
the grounds of power and meaning is equivalent to the
word God.

No. I was thinking of some word, but
even the word "reality" is dubious there, because
after all, your Buddhist friends would say no, it's
not reality; it's nothingness. But if you joggle them
a little bit, you say, well, I'm using the word
"reality" to cover your nothingness, whatever that
is' and he'll say, okay. But that itself is not a
-- I think you can see the problem.

Whatever language you use to point to that
which religion or its culture takes to be ultimately
real, you try to get some neutral word there that
will cover that.

Now, this will be the subject of its
doctrines. This is the prime -- I don't know of any
religion which doesn't relate itself to what it
thinks to be real. It doesn't believe itself to be
a projection.

83

Q I see.

A All right? Other people may say that,
but it doesn't say that. That's why I think that
first definition is quite right.

Q Would this definition be held only by
you, or are there others who hold a similar definition?

A When they're taking a test, students
hold it. When they get on their own, I don't know.

Q Did you pick this up from reading any
scholar theologians? I think you mentioned --

A Well, this is a result of all of my
scholarship insofar as it has to do with all of
this subject. I don't -- I feel a little uneasy about
either saying it's somebody else's or trying to put my
name on it.

Q I see.

A If asked, what do you call religion, I
don't know -- and one can be asked this in many contexts.
This is precisely what I was asked in that other
deposition. Then this is what I would answer.

It has the authority not of my name, but
of the fact that it makes sense with regard to the
data. And anything like this is a proposal. It doesn't
come from God, and I want to make that clear. I don't
think that it does. But I'd be willing to argue for

84

it with anybody.

Q Which scholar theologians have most
influenced your thinking?

A When I wrote my last large book on the
theology of history, I dedicated it to Ryan O'Neal and
Paul Tiller, saying that they had been my teachers,
they were both my teachers and friends, and that
anybody who read my stuff could see them in it. They
said that they disagreed and regarding an antithesis,
since every sentence of mine reflected both of them,
I didn't agree with that point. I was either bringing
them together or was wildly confused, and I wasn't
ever sure which. So that's the main source.

If one goes back a little further, I would
say St. Augustine, Lutheran Calvin, and Schliermacher.

Q You want to spell Schliermacher for the
reporter?

A S-c-h-l-i-e-r-m-a-c-h-e-r.

Q You stated that it was your opinion that
God is the center of all religion. If I said some-
thing wrong, please let me know. I don't want to
mischaracterize your statement.

MR. SIANO: I would object to the
characterization. Again, I think we have
a great deal of difficulty in the area of

85

sophistication to have either you or I
try to characterize his testimony. But
my understanding was that the concert to
the deity was what was focused on. You
know, I'm not trying to characterize,
either, and I don't want --

MR. CAMPBELL: I understand.

THE WITNESS: Let me respond to that
question. I won't answer it, but I'll
respond to it. There are various ways of
talking in this field. When you asked me
for a definition, I was giving a descrip-
tive historical, in careful quote,
scientific -- careful quote, scientific
description, which sought not to give a
view of the world, but to say, what's this
stuff we see all around us, what we named
by common usage, religion. Okay?

Now, there's a -- quite a different
question which is a much more interesting
one to me. What do you think there is in
reality that explains why people are
religious?

Now, obviously one is they're showing
one's own petticoat. This is where you

86

begin to develop a world view. And many
people looking at religion, just the way
you and I might, would say, this is all a
projection. This would be Floyd, this would
be Marks, this would be even Darwin. I would
say they don't make sense, but that can't be
a scientific statement. That's a philosophi-
cal or a theological explanation. But let's
leave that aside.

If you ask me as a theologian something,
then you get what you said. This is a
response to God, and I would thoroughly agree
with that; but that would not be my defini-
tion of religion. It would be my theological
statement, which would seek to include --
in explaining all kinds of things, to
include, why is there human religion? Why
is it when you get to the earlier tribes,
you find a sense of the holy, you find a
holy fear, you find a celebration of some
kind of gift -- all these things, because,
I would say, they're living in the presence
of God. But if I said this for the Society
of the Study of Religion, they would just
say, this is typical, and they have their

87

own view, and et cetera, et cetera.

That's a theological interpretation
of religion, which is quite different than
a definition of religion in a court of law.
But if you, in court, ask me, all right, you,
as a theologian, how do you explain it?
Then we'd get talking this way. But one's
got to make some pretty careful distinctions
as to how the witness is talking here.
I think that's -- anyway, so you were not
wrong in what you said. We just got a --
said it in the right context.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) With regard to mono-
theism and with regard to religion in our historical
tradition -- and I assume by "our," you're referring
to -- let me ask you. What are you referring to when
you said, "our historical tradition"?

A that of the European and American West.
Australia, New Zealand -- you name it. But that
which seems out of the Jewish tradition, the Greek or
Roman tradition, which come together. In both the
Jewish and the Christian tradition, subsequently,
the Jewish thought reflects this as well as Christian
thought, this union. It comes down through the
medieval period, goes through the renaissance and

88

reformation, the enlightenment, into maternity, so
to speak, what we generally call West with a capital
"W", that's what I mean.

Now, more specifically with regard to our
religious tradition, which is a part of that -- I
don't know what sentence we were talking about. I
would be referring to the Catholic, and then the
Protestant traditions in the West. The eastern
tradition -- I mean, eastern orthodox tradition is
different in many ways, and I'm really not an expert
at all on that.

Q Accepting that definition which you've
just given in terms of the American -- excuse me --
European and American West --

A Uh-huh.

Q -- and then, more specifically, Catholic
and Protestant position of the West, is it your opinion
that the word "Creator" is an inherently religious
word?

A With a capital "C"; yes. Now, obviously,
"Who's the creator of that statute" is not a religious
statement or a question. "Who's the Creator of
the world" is. And that goes beyond monotheism. That
is, that the myths of Creation of other -- by "myth"
I don't mean untrue; but the myths of the religions

89

used may or may not use the word "Creator"; they
don't mean what we mean by it. But they may use the
word "Creator," and in that sense, it's religious.
There's no way of getting around that one.

Q Would that be true, then, of any word
which sought to describe the ultimate origin of the
world?

MR. SIANO: You've got to define
"the world" for me.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Well, the universe,
or however -- we've been talking about origins. In
other words, at any time that you've talked about
origins, regardless of whatever word you used --
creator, designer -- would it have an inherent
religious --

A That's a tricky and subtle matter. In the
history of philosophy, there have been a number of
ways of talking this way. Usually, they begin with
something there. In that sentence, none of them have
quite the character of ultimate origins we've been
talking about; right? I'm thinking of early Greek
philosophy.

Now, let's say speculative philosophy is
the endeavor to think this out nonreligiously; okay?
Whether the person is religious or not -- Jay Gould

90

would be a good example. I think one could say
Aristotle. What's interesting is that they're always
reflection the religious tradition of their time in
terms of rational forms. And I think August Comp
was quite right that metaphysics is a rational form
of religious condition. I think Comp couldn't have
been wronger that we couldn't get rid of -- well, he
did think, you know, you had to have a cult, you know,
science. But I think he is right about that. Greek
philosophy is a rational form of the religious
attitude of that culture.

So that there are efforts as a society
becomes more -- let's say advanced in "reflective"
to set the religious tradition into religious
philosophical form. Very clear examples of this are
Indian/Hindu philosophy, which set in reflective
form the mystical fundamentals of the religion of
India, Buddhist philosophy and so on. These have
unquestionably a religious space. They express a
religious point of view philosophically, and I will
say, whatever you find, say, St. Thomas, natural
theology, this is Catholic religion expressed philo-
sophically, whatever it wants to call itself, and it's
called natural theology.

Now, at the present time, I think it would

91

be almost -- that this is a risky statement, but I
think I can make it. There are not many philosophers
who think they can deal with this kind of question.
Say, metaphysics, in this kind of ultimate sense, is
as I've put it, a terminal case in the same award
as theology; that is to say, in the mind of a good
deal of our world, our academic world. And you find
philosophy defining itself in the -- a speculation
in which the question of origin could come up. But
as the philosophy of science, as the analysis of
experience -- now, the minute you say philosophy is
the analysis by reason of experience, you cut out
the question of origin. The question of origin is
excluded. You understand?

So I say the only people who are taught
to raise the question are the theologians at the
present time. Historically, Thomas raised it, but
he had a clerical collar on. The point you're raising
is a tricky one. But I would witness to this. When
you witness to a theological, a philosophical point
of view, you're not subject to perjury, because some-
body may disagree with you, and that should be
clear. I don't want to be caught on that one -- here's
something that doesn't agree with me.

We're dealing with controversial issues

92

here, and I want to make that clear. I don't wish
to state the truth; I wish to state my view that when
one looks at these, and even the most speculative
efforts to discuss origins, one finds some philoso-
phical expression of religious tradition.

Q So is Creation Science, then, a rational
form of religious tradition?

MR.SIANO: Objection. The question
has been asked and answered already. You
can go ahead and answer it again.
I've just said you already asked the ques-
tion once before.

A (Continuing) Well, the logical form of
it is philosophical or natural theological. That is
to say, they're asking the question, how do we make
sense of certain facts, which is the way a philosopher
might proceed or a theologian arguing a natural
theology. Formally, therefore, this is philosophical.
This is not the way the scientists ask. You don't
just ask, how do you make sense of what is the most
intelligible explanation. In fact, I think I'd say
the history of science have found those kind of things
can end up with everything from apples to bananas.
And there's no way of settling this, how did we make
something out of it.

93

And one might say, the criteria of ade-
quacy to the facts incoherent which are generally
regarded as the criteria of philosophical ideas.
Now, that's not the way the science is perceived.
And it is, in part, the way the theologian proceeds.
That is to say, I think most of us agree that to be
in accord with the Scripture is our first -- to be
in accord with the Scripture, and that means in
argument that we are, that's our first authority or
requirement or canon. To be in accord with tradition
is the second and subsidiary one.

But what we regard as true in the sciences
is important. And then what's important to me is
adequacy to all the facts of experience, and heaven
knows who has hold of the facts of experience; but
that's part of your argument. And, of course, coherence
among your ideas, if they don't -- aren't coherent,
you better pack up right away. You can't start with
one God and end up with five. So those -- some of
those are philosophical criteria. They're significantly
different as what the scientists would specify as
criteria for the theory, and these have a different
form; and I would say that Creation Science comes in
under that.

Q You mentioned religions that do not have

94

God as the source of their origins. Do any of those
religions even seek to explain that, explain origins?

A No. Rephrase the question. I'm not sure
-- quite sure what you're asking.

Q These religions that do not have God as
the creator --

A Yeah.

Q -- do they attempt to explain creation, or
do they just start from where they are?

A Well, they wouldn't use the word "creation,"
probably. That's a word pitched inexorably to God.
Without God -- you can't have a creation out of nothing,
because you've got nothing. So they don't explain
creation; they regard that as a Christian myth. And
they're very rough about that. Get talking with the
Buddhist. He thinks we're asinine.

Well, let's take the best example, which
is Theravada Buddhism, which is presumably the
early Buddhism. Here it's very obvious, it seems
to me, to everybody who's read these documents, that
there is no deity figure. In fact, the Buddha said
he wasn't interested in this kind of a problem. The
Hindus had deities and couldn't care less. He did
have -- what, he had four noble truths. My statement
of this will not be in expert form. Involved in them

95

was the statement, all is in flux, which is pretty
close to my first point, all that is in flux is
suffering, which is involved in that.

What's our big problem? We think we are
real, we think we are a self. We're attached to this,
and, therefore, we suffer in it. The way to get out
-- and, boy, here's the real religious element -- is
to learn detachment from this that we are not a
self; that there's nothing to be attached to here,
to develop this incredible cool; and then finally,
we will not exist any longer, and so forth and so on.

Now, there are four noble truths, and
there is the song, the community, and there is the
way of life, which seems very aesthetic to us, but
was regarded in that Hindu world of about the Fifth
Century, B.C., as being very middle-of-the-road.
Now, to the average guy sleeping in the Holiday Inn,
it's everything but the middle of the road, but
that's -- and it had certain characteristics.

Now, they would certainly not use the
word "creation," in fact, what is is the problem.
That's not Christian. What is is good; what we've
done with it is the problem. But for them, what is
the problem.

You've got a very different view here,

96

very different view; and this is -- this has always
been going on, and we can get out of it. And you
have certain creation myths in Hinduism, but they
almost always have a deity connected with it of one
sort or another. They're not Creation in our sense,
because the deity either spins the world out of himself
-- which is not the Christian belief. God didn't
spin the world out of Himself. We are not of the
substance of God. Christ is only of the substance of
God. We are made out of nithing, not out of God.
So we are -- this is an utterly different view from
that Hindu myth, when out of Brahman comes the world,
and then goes back to Brahman, and so forth, or
Brahman dreams the world. It's all a dream.

You've got hundreds of different things
that -- but those are not Creation myths.

There are also Indian Creationists. Indra
comes to a foremost matter and creates the world
out of it. He slays Tiobot and takes the world.
But Indra is proceeded by heaven knows how many
hundreds and thousands of deities, and so forth and
so on.

All I'm trying to do is indicate, you've
got very, very different ways of going about this,
and none of them would have the force of our word

97

"creation," but everybody explains origins in one way
or another, talks about it; right? Everyone talks
about it' right? Even the question of ultimate origins
is Christian.

Q With regard to your testimony concerning
the difference between religion and science --

A Uh-huh.

Q -- you've provided a definition for
religion. How would you define science in that con-
text?

MR. SIANO: You're asking a specula-
tive question, assuming the witness will
define science, and I object to the assump-
tion inherent in the question.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Will you define science
to distinguish it from religion in your testimony
concerning the difference between religion and
science?

A I will certainly say it's something about
the way I understand the way scientists proceed.
The kinds of questions they ask, the kinds of experi-
ences that they appeal to, the kinds of authorities
that they recognize, and the kinds of theories that
can be regarded as scientific, and shows, in each
case, the kinds of questions that are asked, the

98

kinds of experiences that are appealed to; or one
could put it in kinds of facts that each talks about,
the kinds of authorities that are appealed to, and
the character of the theories are substantially
different between science and religion. That will
be the way my testimony will proceed.

Q How are the kinds of questions that
scientists ask different from the kinds of questions
that religion ask?

A On the whole, the scientist has been
interested in the question, what sort of a process
that can be observed can infect a material process.
A physical process explains events that can be observed.
In this sense, one might say, this is a "how" ques-
tion -- how did it take place. It's not a "why"
question. You can bend "why" around to answer that --
to ask that question, but that's not really what
you mean by "why."

Very early, purposes were regarded as not
a scientific matter -- I say very early -- in the
development of modern science.

What's the purpose of the earth going
around the sun is a kind of typical, what, Greek
semi-religious question when they thought the sun
going around the earth was an in-soul being, and one

99

might ask, why is it doing it. Because it's a being;
it's a "how" question asking for the material process
and asking for a necessary -- the answer will be a
necessary, as they like now to say, set of variable
relations.

Okay. We will say causes and effects.
Modern philosophy of science is a little uneasy about
cause and effect causes. They'd rather be talking
about this if "P" then "Q" kind of stuff. And so
you have a different theory there in terms of it --
the observational canon, because it is interested in
the process of events as they unfold. It recognizes
only secondary causality in terms of our discussion.
It is against the rules to introduce anything else.
Now, I think that's a canon that has been recognized
in every one of these distinctions.

I would suggest also in the law that a
demon killed John Smith is not a legal explanation.
You have a category act of God, but it doesn't function
that way; right? And I'd say the scientist would say
the same; the historian would say the same. If I
were to write a history book, not a theology book --
a history book on the origins of the First World
War -- that's the word, the origins of -- as I say,
I could not include the category, the judgment of God.

100

Maybe in a footnote; maybe in an addendum; but if I
handed that into the University of Chicago History
Department as a thesis, I'd have a hard time.

Now, to me, that doesn't mean it's untrue,
as I said, but it's simply not historical inquiry --
the rules of historical inquiry.

Now, I would say, with history -- you
don't have a necessary law, I don't think, in history
and that makes it logically different than natural
science. There's a lot of argument about this, as
you may know.

Supernatural cause is uncommon right
across the disciplines. I suppose that's what we
mean by secular discipline. Certainly Academia
recognizes this. That's what they're uneasy about,
our being in Academia. All right?

I think it's important to understand
Darwin wasn't the mean guy you're deduced at this
point. At this point, he was being a scientist. A
doctor is required, as Shrewell said, to find the
natural cause of a disease. He doesn't keep looking
for it. The fact he hasn't found it, whatever he
may believe, that's what his job as a doctor is.

I'd say the same with a lawyer. Now,
that means, scientific theories are really significantly

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Langdon Gilkey - Page 3

101

different than religious theories; right? They func-
tion differently; they ask different questions; they
appeal to different experiences, though they may be
overlapping.

Okay. I can say, the world is a very
orderly place, and that reveals to me the presence
of God or the creativity of God. Generally, in doing
that kind of -- I'm taking it all as a whole; right?
I'm not selecting a particular kind of order. That's
a more specific question. But I can take the same
facts. But I'm asking for the why of them and the
ultimate origin of them in the sense we've used the
word; but also, the "why" is there very deeply in
religious questions. Why is the world as it is? Why
is it good? Why is it so messed up? What's going
to happen to us all? Where are we going? Why are we
here? What are we about?

Now, these are typical very important
questions, I think the most important questions that --
you can look through every science in the world, and
you won't have an answer to any of those things.

Now, let me be clear. When I say this,
I don't mean all scientists would agree with me; right?
But the kinds of experiences they appeal to, the
scientist is truck with shareable experience. And I

102

don't mean shareable in a revivalist camp meeting or
a Catholic mass; I mean shareable to anybody who is
wiling to look and is able to look -- let's put it
that way. Thus, it's data or objective, I think the
word carries it's own weight here. You can look at
them; he can look at them; I can look at them; repeat-
able.

Now, while there are a wildly different
variety of experiences from which a religious view-
point arises, they certainly aren't shareable in
quite that way. They're not nonpublic because they're
often common. The Catholic mass, that's common; the
Southern Baptist experience of the Gospel, let's say;
but these aren't shareable in the same way. They're
not objective. Or, take that Fundamental experience
with the Christian faith experience of guilt and
forgiveness. I suppose one could say we all share the
experience of guilt, but we might not want to call it
guilt; but the analyst will have one way to talk about
it, and you and I, if we're Christian, would have
another way of talking about it. But the center of
our faith stems from that experience, insofar as it
stems from any experience.

Now, the scientist would be boggle-eyed
as to what to do with that, and a guy like Skinner

103

would say, it ain't real. Freudian might say, well,
it goes back to Daddy and so forth and so on. So
that the experiences are significantly different,
and one can see in the example of Skinner, Freud, and
so on, that what is meant by the limitation of science
-- and I would say that's a very important issue
in this case -- the fact it isn't scientific doesn't
mean it's not there.

And just aside from the question of
religion, just on the issue of understanding humans,
the "why" question can't be got at; but I think it's
absolutely basic. Here, it's basic to law. They
can't adopt Skinner. They take intention seriously.
What did you intend with this? Was it accidental or
intentional? I take it these are important legal
categories. Well, that's a hairy one to get at,
as you know.

Now, there are experiences that are almost
impossible scientifically to deal with; right? If
you understand what I mean. By that, it doesn't
mean it's not true; it means that this is a method
with limits to it. And so I would say that the
experiences, the kind -- and the facts, the kind of
facts we're dealing with, the fact of guilt would be
very important to me; the fact of fear of death would

104

be very important to me. These may be facts that
someone else would think were, what, effects rather
than causes, a phenomena, and so forth.

How many religions would take those
very -- as Buddhism did, suffering. This is a real
clue to what's real for them. This is not a scientific
point of view. So their very science is resident in
its theories; not its facts. And their very definite
rulings on what can count as a theory in this and
what cannot. There, the consensus of the community
is about the only real litmus paper as you go along.
There's nobody else.

We theologians and you lawyers can't say --
we can say, well, we were not experts, and I imagine
the same is true of law.

Q How are the kinds of authorities that
are appealed to different in science than religion?

A In our tradition, that is, the Christian
tradition, the fundamental authority -- and there's
been disagreement on this, obviously, between various
groups. There has been Scripture in church in the
Catholic tradition, Scripture in the early Protestant
tradition, among some groups that I don't know whether
we want to call them Protestant or not, but what we
call the left wing of the affirmation or the sectarian

105

group, it was the spirit, the Holy Spirit speaking;
and if one asks about this group or that group, one
has a mix of these three in various forms.

Actually, I think it's pretty hard not
to find any group that doesn't add -- that's Christian
that doesn't add Scripture some way, the way we
interpret the Scripture is one way and experience in
some kind of a mix. This would be true of the Baptists,
and so forth and so on. It's hard to say just how
that mix works out.

Now, as I say, when you get a philosophical
theologian on the elite level or an intelligent lay
person trying to think all this out as everybody has
to do, they'll say -- they'll begin to talk about
the authority of coherence and adequacy, and back where
people are talking about what they believe, you'll
probably find that, as well as the Bible; right?

Now, this is simply very different from
authority in science, which is methodologically the
authority of repeatable experiment, combined with
-- now, mind you, I'm not an expert here; I'm just --
but I'm answering.

Combined with the fittingness of this
tested theory, it hasn't been classified -- right --
to other theories that are established; it's coherence

106

with other theories, and they all see its fruitfulness.
It's hard for a nonscientist to put flesh on the
bones of that word "fruitful," but I can imagine what
it means. I think you can, too -- leaving to other
questions, to other insights. And they admin this
had been there from the beginning, simplicity. But
I would say the crucial experiment is always there;
the possibility of falsification is always there, if
not of the total theory, at least of its parts. And
by the very nature of the case, no religious theory
can be falsified; right? The meaning of faith --
one of the meanings of faith is anything that happens.
I still believe in God; so if a person says, well,
if that happens, if I stop being vice president, then
I won't believe in God, you've got a falsification,
but you haven't got a religion.

///

107

(The luncheon recess was held.)

Q (By Mr. Campbell) How are the characters
of the series which are appealed to different in
science than religion?

A Science, over the years of its modern
development, has come to recognize, again, this is
the concensus of a community, mind you, that what
they are looking for is -- what we ordinarily call a
law which more particularly I understand is a set of
invariable relations that applies universally.
Logically, it is the "if P, then Q." Granted, if
this, then such and such will follow. That is what
they are looking for. As I remarked, the historian
is in a little different ball park there. Somebody
may want a law about something historical. That is
a little different, though. "If P, then Q," is
universal. You don't have a scientific law that
isn't universal granted the condition that, "If P,
then Q." It is automatic, so to speak. The words,
"necessary," is a little heavy there. Modern
physics is uncomfortable with the word "necessary."
Since you have now random movements on the various
particles. So you have a statistical account. But
nevertheless, you have got, "if this, then that." So
you have a universalness automatic, and therefore

108

tending toward the material. I think that is the
tendency, toward the physicalistic explanation. This
is why you have got such tremendous arguments in
psychology and so on, and arguments as to whether it
is scientific or not. And the groups that start
talking about introspection and purpose and intention
are called by the others nonscientific. This is what
the behaviorists say to the analysts and so forth and
so on. So that is a shady area, is Freud scientific
or not.

I would say the argument is because if
what I have been talking about. Also, what kind of
sharable experience do you have in a dream or in the
interpretation of that dream? The same obviously is
true with sociology and so on. The hard scientists
laugh when these people use the word: "science." And
the other people are deeply, mortally insulted. But
you tend in this direction as a scientific theorem.

This is certainly what Darwin thought to
do and Lyle thought to do in geology. This has built
within it the principle of some sort of uniformity.
Otherwise, we can't possibly observe these processes
which are part of the rule. This is not just an
aspect of certain kinds of science, it is basic to its
procedure. There, the historian would agree.

109

I can come along and explain why
Constantine was over his brother by the fact the
angels appeared at the bridge. I am not giving an
historical explanation. I am not appealing to
processes that you and I can look at, to disease, to
excellence of generalship, to supplies, so forth.
Notice that at that level you don't have an exclusion
of intentional causes.

Purposes, most historians would say, are
very deeply part of it. But that doesn't mean it is
not stuck with secondary causes and so on. But
generally, one wouldn't call that science. At least,
I would be hesitant to use the word there. Certainly,
it is not a natural science or physical science.

So you have a necessary universal automatic
formula or law as the character of a scientific theory.
This is testable, but limited. A religious theory
seeks to talk about the whole. It is immediately
then beyond, as I said, beyond falsification, beyond
crucial experiments. It generally appeals to things
we don't experience all the time. In fact, the
doctrine of creation is a different denial of ordinary
experience. None of us experience creation out of
nothing. When the doctrine of creation was originally
formulated, that is, reflectively, in the early church,

110

it said the two types of creation that we experience
were denying. That is, the creation was typically
say of the Father, of the Son, right, where out of
the substance of something comes something. This
is the model we have for the Trinity. We don't mean
you and you and you. And the image of the carpenter
and the cabinet, because the wood is already there.
These two meanings of creation, this is a unique
act. You and I can't repeat it. We can't even
begin to repeat any of its component parts. Thus,
it's authority is Revelation, because it is not
ordinary experience. It is not the opposite of
ordinary experience, but certainly is defined as
outside of it. It is explaining how ordinary
experience got there. And that can't be part of
ordinary experience, logically. Any process you can
find around us is going to be the process in which
ultimate original appear or in which that question
is resolved. Within that tradition, in every one
of its cases, the ultimate question of "how,"
received. No one knows how God did it. From beginning
to end, they don't answer that one. You won't find
anybody from Augustine on that will say how. They
will all say why. They will say that and why.

That is precisely the opposite of what the

111

scientist is interested in. He is bored with anything
that isn't a "how" explanation. Tell me how it
happens. You say, well, I don't know that. I tell you
that it happened, and I believe that. I tell you
why it happened, because I believe God is a loving
God and so forth. Also, you have certain Scriptural
passages. God looked at the world and saw it was good,
and so forth and so on. If you take that all apart,
you will find lots of differences.

I have divided it up, what kinds of facts
and experiences are appealed to, what kinds of
questions are asked, what kinds of authorities are
recognized, and what are the different characteristics.

Q Have you had an opportunity to read Act
590?

A I don't remember it verbatim. Let me say
that. But I have read it.

MR. CAMPBELL: Off the record.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

(Gilkey Exhibit 1 was
thereupon marked for identi-
fication by the reporter.)

MR. SIANO: Let the record reflect
that we have marked from the papers produced
by Plaintiff, from Professor Gilkey's file,
as Gilkey Exhibit No. 1, a copy of Act 590

112

of 1981, the State of Arkansas.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) First, Mr. Gilkey,
when did you first recognize a copy of Act 590?

A When a discussion began to take place as
to whether I would be a witness.

Q When was that?

A I would have to look at the correspondence
to know the exact date.

MR. SIANO: Let me state for the
record that that occurred in the summer
of 1981.

(A recess was held.)

Q (By Mr. Campbell) We established before
the break that it was approximately in the summer of
1981 when you first examined Act 590?

A Yes.

Q As a person, certainly not as an expert,
I know you will not be testifying to this, but what
does balance treatment mean to you?

A Roughly equal time, I take it.

Q In Section 2 of Act 590, what does the
phrase "prohibition against religious instruction"
mean to you?

A It means one doesn't mention the word
God, I would think,except in a -- as I say, in a course

113

on comparative world views. This is very appropriate.
I take it in this context, it means that the bringing
in of God as a cause in this case, first cause,
obviously is religious instruction.

Q Looking at Section 4A of Act 590, which
is the definition section, there is a definition of
Creation Science which states that Creation Science
means the scientific evidences for creation and
inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation
Science includes the scientific evidences and related
inferences that indicate -- and then it lists six
different parts to that definition. You stated a
moment ago Creation Science might be considered a
rational form of religious tradition?

A Right.

Q In what respect is the sudden creation of
the universe, energy, and life from nothing, a rational
form of religious tradition?

A Well, No. 2 gets striked out as purely
negative against another view, right.

Q I'm sorry. No. 2?

A No. 2, A4, A2, so we have the sudden
creation of the universe from nothing. We have the
concept of permanent species, as it has been called
in the discussion, fixed species, right. We have the

114

concept of a special creation of human beings. I take
it, also, a special creation of apes. In either case,
a special creation. We have the concept of catastro-
phism, which is interesting. I am not sure from the
context what the cause of catastrophism is certain to
be.

Certainly, the world-wide flood is taken
as Got to be the cause of it. I suppose one could
have a catastrophe that appeals to secondary causality.
The first one is not a theory until one introduces
God. There is no concept there. This is admitted
in the literature of Christian Science. From nothing
means nothing else is there. Therefore, the only thing
that could make this a theory is to bring in the agent
God. There you are in religion.

I myself, am not functioning as a
philosopher of science, which I am not, but as an
amateur in this, and would wonder what the phrase
"scientific evidence" means. I think one could
just say evidence.

If one adds the word scientific, one means
sensory, sharable data. As I indicated, it is my
understanding that science resides in theories, not as
data. They may have been uncovered in the process of
scientific exploration of data. It is the theoretical

115

structure that makes a science. And so the words
scientific facts is a kind of popularization. Science
doesn't reside in the facts; it resides in the theories.

Now, I would say that my general impression
is that "A" has no theoretical content. It is in
fact not a model until God is introduced as the
central agent. In that sense, while Nos. 1 through
6 don't mention God, they all directly entail God,
or there is nothing that is said, except for No. 2,
which is merely negative, a useful and interesting
negative criticism of the theory of evolution.

If dear, old Newton was criticized, then
anybody is up for grabs in terms of the history of
science.

Number one is meaningless without the
divine activity. As I have indicated, permanent species
going right back to the beginning, are equally
meaningless without the divine activity. That is,
there is no explanation for them unless God created
them. This is historically the view. The origin of
species was a theological, not a scientific problem.
This is the origin of the hills and the valleys and
so forth, was a theological, not a scientific problem,
prior to geology. And the same with No. 4, because
it really implies 3, doesn't it? No, 5, I don't know.

116

As I say, that is ambiguous, because there
are many distinctions between secondary and primary
causality. I would have to read the literature of
catastrophism, the catastrophism that was popular
among the scientists from about 1790 to 1820, and was a
scientific theory. It moved into the Minister's
realm, so to speak, after that. But anyway, it
certainly entailed the divine activity for those
catastrophies. The definition of a catastrophe was
not like Mt. St. Helen. That is a catastrophe, but
not what we mean here. We mean something of which
the causes are quite out of line with ordinary causes.

Now, is that a natural explanation or
supernatural? I leave it to you. That is to say,
one would have to explore that a good deal in order
to find out whether God is involved there. To me,
catastrophism is a perfectly respectible -- I guess
that is a good word -- scientific theory if it
offers secondary causality as its theory. It has no
theory up to that point. It merely says such and
such are facts.

To have a theory, you have got to have an
explanation, what kind of a process brings this about,
and as I am saying, there is no theory or model
without introducing God.

117

Now, I am not going to be committed on
No. 5, that point. I am pretty sure about No. 6,
because I think you can't explain anything in terms
of fossils, as this is admitted. A recent history
of the earth demands a supernatural cause.

If you adopt the fact we are not going to
try to talk about it in terms of supernatural causes,
then you are stuck with a long, long time. I think
the geologist, as well as the biologist, would agree
there. But I am not speaking as an expert. I would
say Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6 are meaningless as theory
without God. Therefore, No. 4a is, to me, taken
literally. But the books don't do this. This is a
theory without content, as so stated, a model without
being a model, setting forth certain -- well, I don't
want to say so-called, because that sounds as if I
don't think they are true -- but certain things that
are claimed to be facts, but leaving out the
explanation. But a model without the explanation
principle is not a model. It is merely -- it merely
sets you a problem. And insofar as the model is
going to be taught, God is going to be right there
in the center. We have the teaching of religion, as
I say, and the particular form of a particular
religion. I would argue that section 4a is in

118

contraction to the first full sentence in Section 5.

Q Recognizing you are not going to testify
to this, but do you think that the -- as a teacher --
that the presentation of divergent views in the class-
room may lead to a better appreciation by students
of the subject matter which is being discussed?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object
on the grounds that that question is very
vague. But I will let Professor Gilkey
answer it.

A (Continuing) It all depends, for its
usefulness, on squaring up views with something
fundamentally in common. It also depends upon being
perfectly clear that these are not the only two
alternatives on the scene, which is part of the problem
we have. I would say that with regard to the question
of where do we come from, as an ultimate question,
and why are we here, it is extremely useful that various
points of view be put forward. I would be the first
to argue for the teaching of this. And I would welcome
anybody doing Creation Science; or in that case, they
could really come forward, full-blown, onto the
center of the stage, and say, let's present the
Biblical view as this group interprets the Biblical
view.

119

Then I would want to get in the act and
say, this is what I think about it. I would be inter-
ested in getting a Jew in there, and whoever else is
relevant to the scene, and talking about Greek myths,
and see why each one of these makes more sense to
the whole business than the others. This is a
comparative necessarily, comparative religion,
comparative this, that, and the other kind of class.
These are not generally alternatives, it seems to
me, that we have here. In that case, I don't see
the usefulness, and I do see the problem. They are
not alternatives in the sense that one of them has --
does follow the rules. Here again, I am not an
expert, but I have looked at it, the rules of scientific
inquiry. The other one, on the other hand, is clearly
based upon religious authority. However, it prunes
itself and gets a haircut. But as I say, if it gets
too much of a haircut, the head is gone. And they
really aren't comparable. They are not mutually
exclusive.

And when I say these are alternatives,
it misleads the situation. It leads to the conclusion
that my view is not an alternative, which personally,
I find offensive. You either believe in Darwin or you
believe in Genesis. I do not think this is the case.

120

I am not arguing for Darwin there. That is simply not
true, as far as I can see. And the main body of
Christian churches in the world agree on that. At
that point, this is very, very tricky. They aren't
alternatives in that sense. Especially presented them
as the alternative means you have either got to be
a literalist and fundamentalist, or you have got to
be an atheist. This would empty our churches. I
would be worried about that. I am speaking quite
personally. It would get rid of the Presbyterian
Church in Little Rock and get rid of the Methodist
Church, and get rid of a good section of the Southern
Baptist Churches. If they want to do that, and they
may -- I am speculating there -- that is why the
churches are against it. So I would say, setting
them as alternatives is wildly misleading, and that
is really the point of my witnessing.

Now, in a sense, these two views come
across as the legal alternative, as saying either/or.
And in the writing, you find this admitted and then
taken back. As in many of the writings, this is the
test. Without this, you are an atheist. But then in
other sections, they would say, of course, one doesn't
need Creation Science to be religious. But I would say
the impact educationally would be you either are a

121

Christian or you are involved in the whole operation
of modern science. This isn't just evolution. This
is geology. This is astrophysics, physics. This
penetrates all the way out to the missile.

Q With regard to apologetics, which were
the third item you may talk about at trial, would you
again define for me what apologetics means?

A It is the enterprise on the part of
certain people within a given religious community
to argue for the truth, the meaningfulness and the
truth of that religious position; maybe not all of
it. They may say say some of this, we can prove, and
some of it we can't. Okay. But it is the effort to
show the credibility of a religious community's
belief, convictions, doctrines, truths, whatever you
wish to say. This is the meaning of apologetics.

Let me say that is the fundamental
enterprise at stake here, which, when they are not
writing this way, is very clear. They are seeking
to argue for the scientific aspect of the Genesis
account. In that sense, it is apologetics.

We make better sense of the facts that
have been unearthed in modern inquiry than any other
view. It is an apologetic argument. I would say
the Christian view of history makes more sense than

122

a naturalistic view of history. That is an apologetic.
It seeks a common ground and the argument one makes
that that common ground is more intelligent than the
other. That is really philosophical argument. It
is not scientific argument.

Q What is atheism?

A Just what it says, the belief that
reality does not include anything to which the word
God is appropriately attached, I suppose. Though,
that is a pretty quick definition.

Q Would atheism be a religion, as you have
defined religion today?

A Yes. Yes -- well,no. I don't know. Let
me take that back. It doesn't have a community.
It doesn't have a way of life, necessarily. The
humanist society may well come to function the
ethical culture society as it was formed by Adler
in New York. They met regularly. They have a way
of life and so forth and so on. It is a religious
view in a certain limited sense. I wouldn't call it
a religion under my own definition. It is a religious
view in the sense it gives a picture of the whole.
And probably as you begin to spell it out, it fits
pretty well with that number one. It tries to tell
us what is wrong with our world and how we can be,

123

insofar as it begins to talk about the problem of
life and rescue from it. It begins to have religious
characteristics. I would be more inclined to call it
a philosophy.

Q Would there be -- given that definition,
would there be such a thing as atheistic apologetics?

A Yes, sure. Any guy coming along and
saying religion is bunk, I can show it is wrong.
Freud is an atheist apologetic when he talks about
religion. Marx is the same way. There are a number
of them around. I am debating with them all the
time. "Marx: Religion doesn't make any sense. It
is incredible; it is harmful," and so forth and so
on.

There is a religious humanism. But as
we usually use the word, it indicates someone who
doesn't believe there is any diety anywhere, and there
shouldn't be. And they will give arguments, of course,
for it. I am using the word in a pretty broad sense,
because generally, apologetic has been associated
with the community.

Q In religion -- and I will confine that
to the Western religion which we have been talking
about today -- if you are ultimately concerned or
committed to one thing, are you automatically

124

uncommitted or disassociated with its opposite?

MR. SIANO: I don't understand
that question. I object to it. It is
very obscure. I will ask you to rephrase
it.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Do you understand the
question?

A I am glad to have you rephrase it, though
I can probably put it together into a question that I
can answer.

Q You can probably do that better than I,
but I will try to rephrase it.

A Right. You rephrase it.

Q If a Christian as we have talked about
today in the sense of the Western religion, is
committed to creation, which we have established is
an inherently Christian ethic, so to speak, is a
Christian automatically then opposed to noncreation?

A There we have to unpack your word
"opposed."

MR. SIANO: I would also like to
unpack "noncreation." I am a little
confused on that term.

A (Continuing) Let me say I am interested
in unpacking the word "opposed" here. Historically

125

it meant I would like to cut off their head. That is
the heavy meaning of opposed, let's say. They are
no longer a citizen. They get put in jail, persecuted.
Our joint tradition, Baptist tradition, said this
isn't right. That is the best thing they ever said,
though many of them now will happily cut off the head
of some of those who disagree. That is our tradition.
That is what Roger Williams said. He was a great
founder of our tradition in this country.

Now, if you mean intellectually opposed,
in terms of disagreement, I would say, of course.
This is a fair argument. You mean opposed in the
sense of -- let's use the word charity, tolerance,
love, brotherhood, I would say absolutely not. And
this is what we have learned. Otherwise, I couldn't
discourse with the Buddhist. I couldn't be friends
with the Buddhist, couldn't respect the Buddhist.
So I would say I will argue with the Buddhist, but
he or she is a brother or sister.

I personally respect their position as
to say I recognize it has truth in it. That gets
touchy. That gets very touchy. And I would say
this isn't a new problem for us all. It has always
been there, and we have given the wrong answer.
I am speaking personally.

126

With the Jews, I think Paul gave the
right answer, they still have the Covenant, but that
certainly hasn't been the church's answer. But as I
indicated earlier, they are a special case. That
isn't a fair treatment of what you are getting at.

We certainly learned to live with the
atheists. And often, they have shown they are better
citizens than we are. Anybody who consigns Mahatma
Ghandi to hell, it seems to me they ought to have
their Christian head examined. That is my opinion,
because there was an obvious Saint, according to almost
every criteria of Jesus' teachings, this man did
everything for everybody. The early church, incidentally
felt this about Socrates and spoke even about the
covenant with the Greeks, because they could not
put Socrates down the drain. And when one reads the
dialogues, one can see why. This is not Jesus, but
it is a figure, a tremendous figure. Whether this
is the historical Socrates or not -- and they, of
course, thought it was, and I think it probably was --
the issue of Socrates' salvation came up. Most of
them didn't want to say, it is too bad that he is
going to fry, you know. This is a very interesting,
difficult problem. I would say it is a new problem
because the question of the truth content of other

127

points of view is now arising for the West in a new
way. Now we can go on forever about this. I don't
want, as an expert, to be testifying in this. This
is way off base. But I am quite willing to say this
is an interesting problem.

No one, under any circumstances, can
stand nowhere in particular. That is the first
think. If I stop being a Christian in a discussion
with a Buddhist, I become sacrilegious. I am still
standing somewhere. I am in a position. There is
no way of escaping that. So there is no way of
even raising the question without standing somewhere.
Now, the question is, if you are standing there, you
affirm it, you have got to affirm it. There is an
absoluteness here. I see the world as a question.
But I have to see the world so that that guy can stand
where he is standing and I don't cut off his head.
That is the problem and you can't make an easy, logical
solution to that absoluteness. I first realized
this in talking to a Buddhist.

If we are involved in a conversation, I
didn't want him to stop being a Buddhist. He merely
became a Japanese secularist. By the same token,
I wasn't going to stop being a Christian. This
raises a question of the dialect of the absolute

128

and the relative, which is not easy to put together.
I don't want to get in a court and put it together.
This is kind of an intellectual puzzle in the human
problems that our generation has the task of
exploring. This is involved in anything called a
dialogue, and I am deeply involved. I thoroughly
believe this is closer to what God wants us to be
in relation to each other than my saying I have
absolute truth and you have absolute error. So it
depends upon what you mean by the word opposed. But
that is my view of it.

Q Is evolution an inherently impersonal
concept?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object to
the question unless you can define evolution
and impersonal, and probably inherent, too.
But I will let that go.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Speaking of it in the
sense of Darwin's Theories of Evolution, is it secular
as opposed to religious?

A It is a very complicated matter. As a
scientific theory, it is by definition secular. This
doesn't say atheistic. It includes only natural
processes. Darwin interpreted it that way, though
he was pulled about it. But he was so afraid of

129

messing up the theory that he was developing, that he
wanted to leave any kind of divine causation out of
it. His friends said he was crazy, and Wallace argued
he couldn't make any sense out of it without some kind
of divine activity. And he always said, I don't know
about that. That is not what I am trying to say.
Therefore, your question asks, really, what level are
we talking about when we use the word "evolution"?
Or what do we do with this? As a scientific concept,
I would say it is like every other scientific concept.
It can only recognize secondary causality. And,
therefore, is a preory, non-religious.

Now, many people can take it as an
explanation of the whole of the universe and say
this is the exclusive explanation. There is
nothing else to say. Then it has expanded into a
philosophical, semi-religious, mythical concept,
as with Herbert Spencer, as in the implication of
T. H. Huxley, as in a number of people. I would
say that it is the last chapter of a good number of
books. And I would be prepared to argue with this.
This is clearly an expansion of a biological law
into a universal law. And it was very common in
the Nineteenth Century, and is much less common now,
though the aura of this remains.

130

There, it is functioning as a philosophical
religious symbol, or a symbolic system, and I would
be inclined to agree.

But I would disagree with this. This is
quite different. Actually, Marxism is an interesting
parallel, if I might say. Here is something that starts
out in political economy and expands its way out. It
is functioning not unlike what I said, one, two, three.
It is holding the communities together, providing
the bases of education and behavior of the whole works,
and it is answering the question of good and evil.

Many people have argued Marxism as a
religion. I wouldn't say evolution, because it is
a Johnny-come-lately idea, but I would say the
liberal theory has become a civil religion, secular
religion, and so forth. It is what we believe in,
what we think is going to resolve all our problems.
It is balanced by Marxism; both of them starting in
science and moving up. When they move up, that is
something else. I don't think evolution is inherent
in this way any more than Newton is. And there were
many ways that theology accepted and dealt with
Newton. And that is, these are the theologists of
the Eighteenth Century, largely. I don't think they
were very good theologists. As I said, the theologists

131

of both the reformed Jewish tradition, reformed and
the liberal Protestant tradition, are taking the
scientific doctrine of evolution and expanding it.
This is a way of explicating the atheistic belief,
as is Creation Science. So I would say evolution
in one sense is inherently atheistic; in another
sense, not at all. It depends on how one is using
it. Is that clear?

///

132

Q Yes. What does metaphysical mean?

MR. SIANO: Are we trying to get a
dictionary definition here, Mr. Campbell?

MR. CAMPBELL: We have talked about
physical and metaphysical.

MR. SIANO: Are you just trying to get
a frame of reference, then?

MR. CAMPBELL: Right, for our dis-
cussion.

A (Continuing) Well, this is one of those
words, when defining, one spells out one's own posi-
tion. This is a controversial definition. I would
use the word as examining the general structures of
realigy in every one of its forms, those structures
that apply to every aspect of experience. This is
Whitehead's definition. Now, one can say, isn't that
science? No, because science doesn't include the
subject. The guy in the white coat is left out.
You and I stretched on the table is what they are
talking about. But the guy in the white coat with
the stethoscope is omitted. Skinner isn't talked
about in books about Skinner. That is a controversial
argument. I think you get what I am talking about.
If one begins to include the subject as well as the
object, you are in philosophy. Obviously, you have

133

moved out of science; you have examined the scientific
mind, as well as the inquired object. Immediately,
you are into arguments about materialism, idealism,
is everything spirit, is everything matter, neither
one of which can make an awful lot of coherent sense.
I mean, everybody's arguments are probably right at
this point in time.

I am a theologian; I am not a physician.
I think that God transcends the metaphysical categories
because those are the structures of our experience, and
our experience is creaturally experience, though we
can still talk about God. That is where I am in
regard to that. I am interested in it, but I don't
put my money on it.

Now, metaphysics comes into our conversa-
tion in that I would say naturalism, not in the sense
of a botanist, but is a metaphysical position; aetheism
is a metaphysical position; dualism is a metaphysical
position. There are a number of alternatives here,
each one with its different doctrine of origin, though
they don't mean by that what we mean by it, as I
have said. They ask those kinds of questions, what
is it all like, what is the whole like, what is the
whole universe like, the kinds of questions that make
scientists very nervous. They think this is verbiage

134

or preferences, as they put it. There are also a
lot of scientists who are religious and might be
interested in metaphysics. But generally, when I
talk about Evolution expanding itself into a world
view, you are quite right to bring up metaphysics.
For it to be a metaphysical doctrine, it would have
to be explicated in terms of the rules of metaphysical
thinking. I would say probably the greatest example
of this is Whitehead, in our tradition.

MR. SIANO: His name has come up
before in this.

A (Continuing) I am sure. Here is a system
setting out not to be a theology, but to explain all
experiences, to explain it as a process developing
so that it can take in physics, biology, artistic
experience, moral experience, et cetera. You see
immediately you have moved out of science there. We
assume responsibility in law that we have to put into
our system, so that every aspect of experience is
made intelligible in terms of one set of ideas. This
is what the metaphysician is after.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Is scientific inquiry
as we have talked about today generally set within
a framework of presupposition?

A (Witness nods head affirmatively.)

135

MR. SIANO: You are going to have to
define presupposition in this context.
Professor Gilkey is not a scientist. That
word may have particular meanings in a
theological and philosophical context,
and then have different meanings in a
scientific context. I am troubled by it.

MR. CAMPBELL: Let the record
reflect the witness shook his head yes.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held
off the record.)

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Assuming that scientific
inquiry is based on some -- within a framework of
presupposition, could a theory ever be truly falsified?

MR. SIANO: Now, that is a hypothetical
question.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Do you understand
what I am asking?

MR. SIANO: You started out with
"assuming," and that is why I asked if it
is a hypothetical question. Is it a
hypothetical question?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, it can be a hypo-
thetical question. Actually, it is a
philosophical question.

136

MR. SIANO: It may be a philosophy
of science question.

THE WITNESS: It is a totonogy. He
has just uttered a totonogy.

A (Continuing) Falsification itself has
presupposition, which is your answer. Without the
presuppositions that lie in back of the scientific
method, there is no meaning to the word falsification.
We have to agree to having a mode of falsifying what
kind of data are relevant, what kind of experience
gets us in touch with those data, what kind of
methods are relevant. We have to agree on that. You
and I might say, if we live somewhere else, we have
to have a Shawmanic (phonetically) experience to
falsify an interesting view. When you say falsifica-
tion, you are probably talking westernly A Hindu
falsification might be quite different.

Now, there are two kinds of -- should I
say two kinds of meanings referenced to the word
presupposition here, it seems to me, that are rele-
vant. I agree thoroughly with the fact that science
exists within the matrix of Western culture insofar
as it moves outside of it and it converts that culture.
That matrix here is not directly religious, though
it has religious roots. It believes the material

137

world is real. They may say, oh, we don't. But I
think they do. Therefore, sensory experience gets
in touch with reality. This is not a necessary
proposition at all and not necessarily agreed to.
It is a way of wandering through the world of
illusion, so to speak. Your word falsification would
have a different meaning. These are metaphysical
presuppositions. There are a whole number of them
that come to be in our Western culture. They have
partly biblical roots, which we could talk about,
and partly Greek. They certainly involve the sense
of the reality in order of the material world, which
arises out of the doctrine of Creation, which I have
argued in many of my books. It also has certain
Greek roots. It also argues that we don't know what
is going to be out there until we look and see. We
don't know God's ways, so let's see what He did. We
don't understand God's ways in creating, and therefore,
we have got to look and see what they are. These
are some of the metaphysical aspects.

Now, you don't need to be a Christian to
hold these. That is one set of presuppositions to
modern science. In this sense, I am not a Positivist
who thinks it exists by itself. This is useful in
metaphysics, then it explores those presuppositions.

138

That is what the metaphysicist is doing.

I would prefer to call them canons of
the science, rules, limited requirements, which is a
better word, to science. You might call those pre-
suppositions. I would prefer to call them canons,
which are the ones we have been talking about, the
limitations; this kind of theory, not that kind of
theory. Those are not presuppositions. The scientist
comes into the laboratory with them. This is what
you mean by the method and its limits. I have tried
to stress that. That is another sense of the word
presupposition. It is entailed, but it is in the
canons. It is the rules of the road, the particular
rules of the road which do have their presuppositions.
They are the same ones we have been talking about.

Material reality is real. This is what
we wish to explain. We can understand it rationally
in some sense if we go at it empirically, and so forth
and so on. I think they also have presuppositions
about the subject, which science itself doesn't
give us any explication of.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) I know you have dis-
cussed your writings, the idea of leaps, scientific
leaps of creative vision that you have talked about.

A You have done your homework.

139

Q Are there any common characteristics
of those men which you have written about in terms
of creative leaps?

A (Witness nods head affirmatively.)

Q Have you ever sat down and tried to pin
down some common characteristics?

A I suppose I thought about them. But that
takes a different kind of expertise than I have got.
This is something for the philosopher and historian
of science who really knows the biography of these
people. This is a biographical matter, to some extent,
and notes in great detail the scientific theoretical
world of the person as they enter, let's say, the
mythical laboratory at this point, or sit under the
tree and the apple falls on their head, or something,
and they can see what happens here.

MR. SIANO: You are not going to
speculate, are you?

A (Continuing) I am not going to speculate.
That is beyond my capacity, that there is something
like a unifying intuition that takes place; I don't
think there is any doubt, whether you are talking
about Archimides or Newton or Capernicus or whoever;
those that write about it, be an expert on it,
demand an intimacy of what is going on. It will have

140

ifs own presuppositions, anything written about that.
You may figure it out in terms of toilet training,
for all I know.

MR. SIANO: Mr. Campbell, we are
getting, not close to plane time, but
plane time is approaching here, the day
before Thanksgiving, and I would offer that
to you so you do not miss any of the salient
aspects in your outline of questioning
Mr. Gilkey.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Were those men who
took the leaps generally considered as in the main
stream of the scientific community in those times?

MR. SIANO: I object to the question,
unless we identify who we are talking
about.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Well, let's talk about
Newton, for an example, or Capernicus, or Galileo.

MR. SIANO: All of them?

Q (By Mr. Campbell) We will start with
Newton.

A He was a pretty strange bird, because he
was a rather wild creature on certain things, much
more so than the others, because he was building on
Galileo. Galileo was new, and Capernicus was even

141

newer. The originators of the scientific view are
not in accord with the scientific consensus at that
point.

Q Is truth a legitimate goal of science?

MR. SIANO: Objection. Again, Mr.
Campbell, you are outside the witness'
expertise. I don't know what sort of an
opinion question that is.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, the witness
has written volumes and volumes concerning
this issue. This is not something he is
just --

MR. SIANO: I am not going to argue with
you about what the witness has or has not
written. I am suggesting to you he has
been tendered in a certain capacity. I am
not going to direct him not to answer.

A (Continuing) No scientist thinks he or
she is going to get the truth. In fact, science has
rearrange the view of truth for most of us. This has
been a very important creative activity, to make us
realize human truth is always an approximation of the
truth. This, in turn, has had great effect upon the
religious community and has partly led to that. I
wish it had penetrated to some of the other social

142

sciences. But that is neither here nor there.

I would say there is nothing to science if
it is not directed at approximating the truth. This
is a cognitive endeavor. The cognitive endeavor
gets its meaning from erost towards the truth, it's
longing to find it. When you get a genuine scientist,
this is all he or she cares about. If it is directed
at making money, forget it. I would say the same
with the legal profession, in some sense. Without some
concern for justice, it is not going to happen. This
sounds sentimental, but it is true. If everybody
can be bought, then forget it. In that sense, the
truth is related to the cognitive activity of human
beings. I would insist that science is not the only
way to get at the truth. This is their basic erost.
That is the only word to use. Desire is not the
right word, but it is that which draws me, or the
ultimate concern. If a scientist doesn't have an
ultimate concern for truth, he or she is not a
scientist, and they will fiddle with the evidence,
and you don't have science.

Now, their science as a community begins
to sound not only moral, but a little bit religious.
I would be quite willing to explore that. But the
erost for the truth here is held by the commitment to

143

the canons. That is the intention within which a
guy like Saulk or Einstein or whoever functions.

Q Looking at these documents, this folder
that is marked Scientific Creationism, Morris, is
this simply a reprint of his book?

A Yes.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, if I wanted
to make copies of these documents, a few,
not necessarily all of them, would you
please send them to me?

MR. SIANO: I would be glad to if
you would just tell me what you want
copied. I will see that these are sent
to you.

MR. CAMPBELL: I would like a copy of
the documents contained in the folder,
Pro-Evolution documents.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Mr. Gilkey, are you
on the mailing list of any organizations which
support the teaching of Creation Science in the public
school system?

A No.

Q Are you on the mailing list of any organiza-
tion which is opposed to the teaching?

A Yes, the AAAS; that is, I am restrictedly

144

on their mailing list. We have had correspondence
about this subject; that is, the folder in there
(indicating). I am not a member of that organization.

There is a group called the Committee of
Correspondence -- why, I don't know -- in Chicago,
one meeting of which I have attended; and which
regularly send me their documents. That is in a
folder there called the Aulie Group. This is a group
of biology teachers, geology teachers, and so forth,
that are concerned about this whole subject. They
send out articles and this and that and the other,
all of which I have received is in that folder. I'm
not a member in the sense of having joined, paid
dues. I attended these meetings, and I am generally
interested in what they are doing. I am not a member.

Q How was it that you accumulated a great
amount of information from the Kelly Segraves
organization?

A Well, the "how" is sitting on my right.

MR. SIANO: Let the record reflect
that counsel for Plaintiffs have made
materials available to the witness.

THE WITNESS: Though I brought the
book there.

MR. SIANO: Meaning?

145

THE WITNESS: I want to say it,
because they didn't send me that. I want
to be accurate here. The Creation explana-
tion was bought by me in the Moody Bookstore
in Chicago.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held
off the record.)

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Professor Gilkey,
have you prepared a summary of your testimony or what
you expect to testify to at all?

MR. SIANO: I will state for the
record you ought to quantify that apart
from the dialogue with the lawyers, which
is where we seem to be getting into problem
areas in this.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Have you prepared any
report or documents which generally summarizes what
you expect to testify at trial, and given it to Mr.
Siano?

A I have.

Q Do you have a copy of that with you?

A I understand that that is part of what
are called the lawyer's working papers or something
to that effect.

Q Just for purposes of the record, I have

146

got to ask you for it, and Mr. Siano is going to
object.

A So go ahead and do what you want to do.

Q Do you have a copy of it with you?

A Yes.

Q May I see it?

MR. SIANO: No. Objection. The
record should reflect the documents exist
only by virtue of Professor Gilkey's
dialogue with the lawyers. And the docu-
ments, under Rule 26, reflect the operation
of the lawyer's input on the case, and
in our view of the case, constitute trial
preparation material.

MR. CAMPBELL: I would like a copy
of the AAAS file.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Professor Gilkey, in
one file, you have marked, the Aulie Group. Who is
Richard P. Aulie?

A I really don't know. I think he is a
high school teacher in Chicago, of one of the
natural sciences.

Q How is it you happen to have some --

A Well, that is the little group I spoke
of. He called me on the phone and got my name -- I

147

don't know how -- probably because he had heard my
name in one connection or another -- and explained
to me what the group was doing, though I don't think
it is a formal group, as I say, and invited me to
come to a meeting, which I did, and then he sent me
some of these documents, or gave them to me. I asked
him for them. I saw those documents and was interested
in reading them, so he gave them to me.

Q This is the Committee of Correspondence
in Chicago?

A That's right. You will see it in the first
letter. I believe it identifies itself there.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, I would
like a copy of the letter addressed to
Dr. Gilkey from Mr. Aulie, dated September
7, 1981.

In addition, I would like a copy of
a letter which appears to be drafted in
memorandum form, from Dr. Richard P. Aulie,
to Professor Gilkey, dated September 8,
1981.

And finally, I would like a copy of
the memorandum dated September 4, 1981,
the Chicago Area Committee of Correspondence
signed Dick Aulie at the bottom.

148

In addition, I would like a copy of
the pamphlet entitled, "Origins and Change,"
which appears in the Journal of the
American Scientific Affiliation.

MR. SIANO: Sure.

MR. CAMPBELL: And finally, a copy of
an article entitled, "The Doctrine of
Special Creation," by Richard P. Aulie,
reprinted from the American Biology Teacher,
April 1972 and apparently again in May --
excuse me, it is April and May of 1972.

Professor Gilkey, I have tried to
keep all of these in order, these files,
hopefully kept them in order to return to
you. I enjoyed the deposition today, and
I appreciate your responsiveness and your
help. Thank you, very much.

MR. SIANO: I take it you have no
further questions?

MR. CAMPBELL: I have no further
questions.

MR. SIANO: Mr. Campbell and I have
agreed that the same stipulations as have
been obtained in the two previous deposi-
tions of Plaintiffs' experts will be carried

149

forward through this deposition; is that
right, Mr. Campbell?

MR. CAMPBELL: That is correct.

(Deposition concluded.)

- - -

Deposition of Michael E. Ruse

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

--------------------------------x

REV. BILL McLEAN, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :

-against- :

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al., :

Defendant. :

--------------------------------x

Deposition of MICHAEL
ESCOTT RUSE, held at the offices of
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Esqs.,
919 Third Avenue, New York, New York,
on the 23rd day of November, 1981, at
9:15 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Notice,
before Walter Holden. C.S.R., and
Thomas W. Murray, C.S.R., Notaries
Public of the State of New York.

2

APPEARANCES:

JACK D. NOVICK, ESQ.
Assistant Director for Affiliate Program
American Civil Liberties Union
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036

STEVE CLARK, ESQ.
Attorney General
State of Arkansas
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas

-and-,

DAVID L. WILLIAMS, ESQ.,
Of Counsel

3

M I C H A E L E S C O T T R U S E,

called as a witness, having been first duly
sworn by the Notary Public, was examined and
testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY

MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Would you state your name, please?

A. Michael Escott Ruse.

Q. It's Dr. Ruse, I believe?

A. Yes.

Q. My name is David Williams and I am with
the Attorney General's office and we are here this
morning for your deposition in the case of McLean
versus the State of Arkansas. I am going to be
asking you questions about your background, about
anticipated testimony and perhaps some other areas
concerning this case. If I ask any questions that
are ambiguous, please let me know and I will try
to rephrase them.

Have you had your deposition taken
before?

A. No.

Q. Have you testified in court before?

A. No.

4

Q. Has Mr. Novik or other attorneys
explained to you what a deposition is and the
purposes of it?

A. Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Before we get started,
it's my understanding that plaintiffs are not
waiving signature of Dr. Ruse's deposition. The
plaintiffs have been requesting of us that the
deposition be signed within five days. If not
signed within five days it may be used as if it
were signed.

MR. NOVICK: Have you agreed to that
when we made the request?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think we had some
response that we will try to do it as
expeditiously as possible.

MR. NOVIK: I will try to do it as
expeditiously, as well.

Q. Dr. Ruse, are you married?

A. Separated.

Q. Separated. Do you have any children?

A. I do, two.

Q. What are their ages?

A. Nigel 12 and Rebeccas 9, nearly 10.

5

Q. Where do they attend school?

A. Nigel goes to St. John's School, Eloria.
That is in Ontario, and Rebecca goes to St.
Margaret's school in Eloria.

Q. Are those public or private schools?

A. They are private schools.

Q. Are they affiliated with any particular
religion?

A. Yes.

Q. That would be?

A. Anglican. I guess you call it
Episcopalian.

Q. Have they taken any science courses as
yet?

A. Yes. At that sort of level.

Q. Are you aware of any of the content of
the science courses they have taken?

A. Yes.

Q. Has the subject of origins been
discussed in any of their classes?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what you know about
the discussion within their classes?

A. Nigel came home and told me that

6

dinosaurs were warm blooded.

MR. NOVIK: I would like to note for
the record that Dr. Ruse is a Canadian citizen
living in Canada, and that consequently the laws
of the Constitution of Canada would govern what
was appropriate to teach in the public schools, in
the schools of Canada, public or private. And
that those laws and Constitution and statutes, et
cetera, have very little bearing on what is
appropriate in the United States.

I think the line of inquiry is somewhat
irrelevant for that reason. But you are welcome
to continue with the understanding of his
citizenship and where he lives.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, I am aware he
is a Canadian citizen.

Q. Would you please continue concerning
what Nigel said?

A. Nigel has been taught evolution, and
they have a science fair once a year. And he gave
his entry last time was insectivorous plants.
Venus fly traps. You may know that Darwin worked
on these. He discussed this and he gave it as an
exhibit.

7

Q. What of Rebecca?

A. I don't think it's been anything as
high powered.

Q. Do you know whether THE CREATION
SCIENCE MODEL OF ORIGINS or anything on that order
has been discussed in their classes?

A. To the best of my knowledge, no. That
is to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Do you know whether THE CREATION
SCIENCE MODEL OF ORIGINS is discussed in either
public or private schools in Canada?

A. It is.

Q. In what way and in which schools?

A. Well, you got to draw a distinction --
again, as with you, we have different provinces.
I believe our provinces have a great deal more
autonomy on what they teach than with respect to
you in that we don't yet have a Constitution. Ask
me next week, we might have one.

We have both a public -- our public
school system is both secular and religious. In
Ontario we have a Catholic school system which is
state supported, and I believe, but I am not
speaking as an expert now, I think New Foundland

8

doesn't have any nonsecular schools, nonchurch
schools.

Q. Is it correct that the province in turn
has much discretion as to whether they want to
support a parochial school?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you please continue?

A. Again, please understand I am not
speaking as an expert now.

Q. I understand.

A. I am just reading what I have read in
the paper and that sort of thing. But I
understand in some provinces in Ontario, in fact
evolution of creation is taught, I even understand
in parts of Alberta not much else is taught. In
fact, evolution is not taught.

I understand in Ontario one can
withdraw from the classroom if you don't like
evolution. You know, as I say, that is about -- I
believe that there are some -- I believe Nova
Scotia doesn't allow creation to be taught. That
is about as far as I can -- I am talking now about
biology classes as opposed say to general
discussion classes. Of course, again I am -- I

9

only have my own personal experience which has
been at the elementary level, not the high school
levels. I was not a student myself in Ontario.

Q. Have you reviewed any materials which
are used to teach creation science in Canada?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you have copies of any of it?

A. Again, I have to say I don't know.

Q. You say you don't know. You don't know
whether you reviewed any of it or not?

A. I don't know whether I have reviewed
material which has been used in Canadian schools.
In other words. I have reviewed material. Whether
it's been used in Canadian schools -- I have
reviewed the Bible.

Q. How do they teach creation science, to
the best of your knowledge, in the Canadian
schools, where it is taught?

A. You know, I really don't know. As I
say, I am not an expert on Ontario or other school
systems. I presume that it's presented as at
least an alternative model, if not as -- I don't
know. As I say, I don't live in Alberta, for
example, and I read what I see in the paper. But

10

I am not, what shall I say, I am not a high school
education expert.

Q. You have taken no steps the try to find
out how it is taught?

A. Not as yet.

Q. How long has it been taught there, to
your knowledge?

A. Again, I, to be honest, it's not
something I know, though I say it, we learn more
about what goes on in America. By America, I mean
the U. S., than we do in Canada today. Much
things are much more polarized -- how shall I put
it, easy to define in America. You have a
Constitution, we don't.

Q. Are you a member of any organized
religious faith?

A. No.

Q. Have you been in the past a member of
any faith?

A. Yes.

Q. Which faith is that?

A. Quaker.

Q. Could you give me the dates of the
membership?

11

A. I say from about the age of five -- I
might still be on the books in England.

Q. You no longer consider yourself a
member?

A. No.

Q. At what point did you consider yourself
to have -- to no longer be a member of the Quaker
church?

A. It's a difficult question to say. To
answer. In the sense that I would no longer have
identified with them say in the early 20's. My
early 20's.

Q. What would you then be, approximately?

A. In my early 20's.

Q. You were born in 1940, sometime in 1960?

A. Yes, in the '60's.

Q. You say you no longer identified with
them. Could you describe why you no longer
identify with them?

A. The simplist thing to say is I came to
Canada in '62 and made just de facto something of
a break with my past life. I don't mean that any
more than a 3,000 mile trip is a past life.

Q. If you could explain further, because

12

the simple mileage does not explain to me how you
put the break between you and the faith you had
held in the past?

A. When I was a university student I used
to attend meeting. When I was at Bristol. That
was an undergraduate. When I came to Canada, you
see I came first to Hamilton, Ontario. They
didn't have a Quaker Meeting House. Naturally, I
went occasionally when people -- I lived with a
Unitarian and I went occasionally with them. When
I was in Rochester I went once or twice to
meetings. But basically, that's about it. 3,000
miles isn't irrelevant.

Q. What is your personal belief as to the
existence of a God?

A. I would say somewhere between deist and
agnostic.

Q. Could you articulate for me your own
conception of God, your own personal view?

A. I could speak very tentatively now. I
would say that I think that there probably is some
sort of world force.

Q. World force?

A. In some sort of way. As I say,

13

probably a God is an unmoved move. At least one
who doesn't interfere in his creation or her
creation.

Q. What does the Quaker faith say about
the origin of man and of the world and the unverse,
if anything?

A. Quakers really don't say very much.
Quakers tend not to lay too much on obligatory
belief.

Q. Have you ever studied any religious
views of origins?

A. I am not quite sure I follow you now.

Q. The religious views on the origin of
man and of the universe?

A. Scientific creationism.

Q. Which you view to be a religious view?

A. Yes.

Q. Other than that?

A. I have read quite deeply in some of the
historical work.

Q. Do you believe that a religious person
can be a competent scientist?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Do you know competent scientists who

14

are also religious people?

A. Yes, I have met people who I would want
to say are competent scientists and religious
people. And of course, I know of --

Q. You are presently a professor at the
University of Guelph?

A. Guelph.

Q. Have you been there since 1974?

A. No, I have been there since '65.

Q. You have been a professor since '74 but
you began as a lecturer in 1965.

Could you describe your duties as a
professor?

A. I teach philosophy and the last three
years, four years, I have also taught history.

Q. You teach philosophy in what areas?

A. I teach philosophy of science,
philosophy of religion, ethics, logic,
introductory philosophy. Most areas other than
some of the technical areas like medieval
philosophy.

Q. Beside your teaching duties, are there
other duties involved in your job?

A. Administrative work.

15

Q. Do you have any sort of assigned
research responsibilities?

A. I do research. I don't have assigned
research responsibilities.

Q. Is your research funded by any grants?

A. Yes. I think in the last page you will
find those.

Q. Your students there at the university,
how many of them come from Canada?

A. It's difficult to say. We have quite a
lot of foreign students. We have a big
agriculture school. So we have a lot of Third
World students. Most come from Canada.

Q. Have you found that the Canadian
students who have studied creation science in
school have greater difficulty in studying the
philosophy of science, for example, or any of the
other courses that you have taught?

MR. NOVIK: You have never asked him
whether he knows whether any of his students have
studied creation science in school. The question
assumes information not yet in the record.

MR. WILLIAMS: I will be glad to go
back to do that.

16

MR. NOVIK: I would appreciate it if
you ask the questions with the requisite basis.

Q. Dr. Ruse, do you know whether any of
your students have studied creation science in
Canadian schools?

A. No.

Q. Have any of them ever told you that?

A. I would -- I am sure in 15 years, the
subject has come up. How can I put it? It's not
been a matter of great debate in Canada.

Q. In 15 years, do you have an opinion as
to whether you have had some students who have
studied creation science in some of the Canadian
schools?

MR. NOVIK: He already testified that
he does not know whether students have had
creation science. I think that is enough of an
answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking him if he
has an opinion. Not whether he knows personally
from talking with them. But whether he has an
opinion as to whether any of his students who have
come to his class would have studied creation
science.

17

A. They have studied creation science in
Sunday School. I know a lot of them have done
that. To what extent they have done it in the
public schools, I just don't know.

Q. In your classes in the philosophy of
science has any identifiable group of students had
any problems in understanding the concepts of
philosophy of science?

MR. NOVIK: I am not sure I even
understand the question. What does identifiable
group of students --

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking him if there
is any one particular group. It might be everyone
who has blond hair perhaps. I don't know.

A. Yes.

Q. What groups?

A. The Chinese students that don't speak
English properly.

Q. As far as you know, you have had no
problems in your philosophy of science course with
any students who might have studied creation of
science being able to understand the philosophy of
science?

MR. NOVIK: I have to object to the

18

question. He's already testified he doesn't know
whether any students have studied creation of
science and the question is trying to get him to
admit that if such students had studied creation
of science they didn't have any problems in his
course. The question is just confusing, assuming
facts not -- which he said are not so, and
consequently irrelevant and objectionable.

Q. Dr. Ruse, in what province is
University of Guelph?

A. Ontario.

Q. In Ontario, you have stated earlier
that creation of science is studied in the public
schools?

A. I didn't say that. I think I said that
students could withdraw from evolution classes.

Q. What about the parochial schools there?

A. I really don't --

Q. Is creation of science studied there?

A. The Catholic schools?

Q. Yes.

A. I really don't know. I am not a
Catholic.

Q. How about the Anglican schools there?

19

A. These would be private schools.

Q. Yes.

A. Again, I can only speak to the
experience of my children's schools.

Q. Are you concerned about what is being
presented in the Canadian schools as science and
particularly as it relates to evolution and
creation science?

A. Yes.

Q. If you are concerned, why have you made
no effort to determine to what extent creation
science is being taught and how it's being taught?

A. Mainly because -- well, entirely
because I have only just become aware of the fact.
There was a big article in the paper on Saturday.

Q. As one who teaches the philosophy of
science and has been in the country since 1965 --

A. 1962.

Q. 1962, up until recently you have made
no effort to determine the manner in which biology,
evolution, and any other theories of origins are
being taught in the Canadian public school system,
and private school system? Is that correct?

A. Sorry, as well as teaching philosophy

20

of science, I have made no effort -- let me put it
this way: I have been worried about the, what I
have perceived as the bad teaching of science in
Canadian schools. In talking to babysitters and
so forth. That was one of the reasons why I sent
my children to an Anglican school or Anglican
schools. That I guess is the extent of my own
self.
Q. To answer my question, my question is,
if you are concerned, why have you lived there for
so very long without making any effort to find out
what is being taught?

A. I wasn't aware of the extent to
apparently that this is widespread. In Ontario, I
don't know to what extent creation science or
creationism, religion, in other words, is taught
in biology classes. I live in Ontario, not
Alberta. I am sure if I lived in Alberta my
answer would be different.

Q. Are you aware in 1979 that in Ontario
petitions with several thousand signatures were
presented to the Minister of Education advocating
teaching of creationism as a paralegal scientific
explanation when evolution was taught?

21

MR. NOVIK: Before you answer. Are you
reading from something, Mr. Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking him if he is
aware of it.

MR. NOVIK: Are you reading from
something?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking the witness
if he is aware of that fact. Either he is or he
isn't.

MR. NOVIK: You seem to be reading from
something. If you are reading from something, I
think it appropriate that you make it known on the
record. I am not going to permit the witness to
answer the question until I find out whether in
fact you are reading from something, whether it is
an accurate quote and if so, what you are reading
from.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking if he is
aware of it. he can say I am not aware of it or I
am, and the record will speak for itself.

MR. NOVIK: He could. I am not going
to permit him to answer unless you tell me whether
you are reading from something, whether it is an
accurate quote, and I would like to know what you

22

are reading from. In that regard, I might point
out that in Dr. Ayala's, deposition which I
believe you took, you purported to be reading from
a particular document or paper and, in fact, you
were apparently paraphrasing. The witness was
confused and the record was confused. I would
like to avoid such confusions in this instant. It
seemed to me that you were reading from something
and I am simply asking what it was and if it was
accurate.

MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to your
characterization of whatever is in Ayala's
deposition. I think we can leave that for
whatever. Let the record speak for itself there,
Mr. Novik.

Second, I am asking him a question. He
can respond to this question in a way which he
feels appropriate. It is not a confusing or
ambiguous question, I don't think at all. Unless
you have some objection to the form of the
question, I would like to move on.

MR. NOVIK: Would I like to move on,
too. Why don't we do that?

Q. Will you answer the question, Dr. Ruse?

23

MR. NOVIK: I am directing the witness
not to answer that question.

MR. WILLIAMS: On what ground?

MR. NOVIK: On the ground that you
appear to be reading from something. I have the
right to know whether it is an accurate quote and
a right to know what you are reading from.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right. I am not
reading from anything.

Q. Are you aware that in 1979
approximately 6,000 people in Ontario signed a
petition and presented it to the Minister of
Education, which stated that they felt that
creationism should be presented as a scientific
alternative to evolution when evolution is taught?

A. No.

Q. In your opinion, does the course of
study of science in secondary schools affect the
quality of, first of all, the quality of student
in science that goes into the university school?

MR. NOVIK: Could you read that
question back?

[Record read.]

MR. NOVICK: Do you understand the

24

question?

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Does the science curriculum in
secondary school have an effect for good or ill on
the university student, the student when they come
to the university to study science?

A. I don't know.

Q. Besides your courses in philosophy, the
philosophy of science in particular, have you ever
taught any courses in science?

A. No.

Q. So if you had a student who, in
secondary school, never studied evolution, say
studied creation science exclusively, and then
went to a university and took a course in
evolution, you don't have an opinion as to whether
that would affect his ability to study evolution?

A. Are you asking me now as a professor or
as an individual?

Q. I am asking you in your professional
capacity.

A. I can't answer that.

Q. So you have no professional opinion on
that matter?

25

A. In the science course?

Q. Yes.

A. As a science teacher?

Q. No, not personally as a science teacher,
but as someone who teaches the philosophy of
science.

A. It's very difficult for me to answer
this because I am one stage removed.

Q. I take it then your answer is you have
no professional opinion on that question?

MR. NOVIK: He has given his answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: He says its difficult.
I am asking does he or does he not have an opinion.
Difficulty --

MR. NOVIK: I don't mind you asking the
question, but I prefer you not give him the answer,
too.

Q. Do you have an opinion?

A. As a philosopher of a student who has
taken creation in a biology class, how they would
perform in a science class?

Q. Yes, in college. If they should study
evolution.

A. I think I would have to say I do have

26

an opinion, yes.

Q. You said you had an opinion. Would you
please continue?

A. I think they would have difficulty.

Q. On what do you base that opinion?

A. My knowledge of creation science, my
knowledge of science and incompatibility of the
two. Not incompatibility, but let me just say the
difference.

Q. In your tenure at University of Guelph,
have you taught any other courses besides the ones
you had previously mentioned?

A. History of science.

Q. History of science?

A. Right.

Q. Any others?

A. No.

Q. What were your duties at the graduate
system in the University of Rochester?

A. Assisting in introductory to philosophy
classes.

Q. And at McMaster University as a
graduate assistant from '62 to '63?

A. Assisting in introductory classes.

27

Seminars and marking.

Q. When you speak of assisting, what were
your duties?

A. Taking an hour of a three hour a week
class, and marking the students' papers.
Sometimes doing some library work for professors.

Q. You state that one of your major
interests is the area of ethical questions in
biology and medicine?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether
research in the area of medicine and in the area
of biology should sometimes be limited due to
ethical considerations?

A. Yes, I think -- I do.

Q. Can you describe your opinion in that

area?

A. I think there are some areas where you
shouldn't allow it.

Q. Could you give me some examples where
you have that opinion, where you feel that way?

A. For example, I would say something akin
to Hitler's racial experiments ought not to be
allowed.

28

Q. Anything in any of the issues that we
are facing today that you have an opinion that
should be limited?

A. One example I would -- hear much about
a lot of experiments being carried out on retarded
children.

Q. Is that occurring today?

A. I read cases that this sort of thing
has occurred. Not treating people, a venereal
syphilis case where people weren't treated though
they were aware they got it. These sort of things.

Q. Do you have an opinion on some of the
controversy over the DNA research?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether
that should be limited at all?

A. I think in some respects it should be.

Q. How should it be limited?

A. I wouldn't allow research, for example,
expressly designed to create things to hurt people.
I wouldn't allow unlimited research on dangerous
organisms like smallpox virus.

Q. Why not?

A. Well, I wouldn't allow just unlimited

29

on smallpox virus, anyway, because it's very
dangerous. People die as they did in Birmingham,
England.

Q. That is an example, though, of why you
wouldn't want or why you would limit some of the
research in this area. Could you give me the
overall principles on which you would make the
decision?

A. Yes.

Q. That research in a given area should be
limited.

A. Inasmuch as it is incompatible with my
broadly based ethical beliefs.

Q. From where do you derive your broadly
based ethical beliefs?

A. I think that I would say that I intuit
them as objective realities.

Q. Are the ethics by which you would guide
your live, are they reduced to writing anywhere?

A. Are they?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I think the volume that is coming
up has at least some of what I want to say.

Q. What do you have your own code of

30

personal conduct?

A. I am not quite sure I understand that
one.

Q. We are talking about a code, I don't
mean a formalized written code, necessarily. but
the standards by which you judge your own life and
your own personal existence.

A. Yes.

Q. What is that? Could you describe it
for me?

A. I would say it's a combination of
utilitarian and the Kentian position. I think
that I would feel strongly that you ought to treat
people as ends and not as means. I mean inasmuch
as one can, one should maximize happiness in the
eudamonistic sense. That means happiness as
opposed to pleasure.

Q. Anything else about your own, what I
term the code of personal conduct? Any other
attributes of it?

A. That is kind of a sweeping question. I
am not quite sure what you want as an answer there
at all. How can I put it? I think that my reply
is pretty broad. I have to apply it in particular

31

cases. I don't think of it as my personal code.

Q. What is the difference between
philosophy and religion?

MR. NOVIK: If there is a difference
between philosophy and religion.

A. Yes. I think of religion as
essentially something based on, in an important
way, on faith and related to some sort of supreme
being. I don't see philosophy as an area for
faith. Any knowledge of a supreme being or any
thoughts of a supreme being have to come through
reason. That is a bit broad. There are different
kinds of philosophy.

MR. NOVIK: I would like the record to
reflect that we are, in addition to many other
documents produced before the deposition again, we
are making a copy of Dr. Ruse's latest book in
manuscript form available to the government.

As I explained off the record earlier,
we intend soon to submit this document manuscript
to the judge as a proposed exhibit in the up-coming
trial. In connection with that submission to the
judge, we would normally make a copy also
available to the defendants. And would like this

32

copy made available at this deposition to be
responsive both to their document request and
counsel as a copy in connection with the exhibits
to the court.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding
that the plaintiffs' attorney will receive the
original copy of the deposition and tomorrow will
send it by Federal Express to Dr. Ruse for his
signature with a return airbill or some method of
return by Federal Express as well?

MR. NOVIK: We will use some air
courier service to get it up and back as soon as
possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you would like
perhaps it would be better since the original is
coming to us if you could just have it after --
well, after you receive it, the original back, and
conform your copy to any changes, you would then
have it back Federal Express to our office in
Little Rock, I would appreciate it.

MR. NOVIK: The original?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. NOVIK: We will do that.

33

Q. Dr. Ruse, does religion necessarily
require a supreme being?

A. As a belief system, in some sense I
would say yes.

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. I would like to
point out for the record that Dr. Ruse is a
philosopher, an historian of science and is not
being called here by the plaintiffs for anything
he has to say about religion. Dr. Ruse is not
here as an expert in religion. Anything he has to
say in that regard are his own personal views on
this.

Q. Dr. Ruse, you teach a course in the
philosophy of religion, do you not?

A. I do.

Q. Do you feel you have some knowledge and
expertise in the area of religion?

A. In the area of philosophy of religion.

Q. Are you aware that there are religions,
whether or not there are religions which do not
have a supreme being or a god?

A. A god in the Judao-Christian sense,
certainly.

Q. For example?

34

A. Certain Hindu forms, animalistic
religions.

Q. Would you consider atheism to be a
religion?

A. No, not as much.

Q. How do you define religion?

A. As a belief system or as a sociological
phenomenon?

Q. Let's try both.

A. As a belief system, I think that one
has to have some sort of belief in some other
worldly entity or things. Perhaps there is a
distinction between the sacred and the profane
habits and customs associated with it. As a
sociological phenomenon, people gathering together,
perhaps in church or something like that, I think
there are borderline cases which -- is Marxism a
religion? I think you pay your money, you take
your choice. Catholocism is.

Q. In teaching the philosophy of religion,
do you use a text?

A. Yes.

Q. Which text is it?

A. The main one is John Hick THE

35

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. I also use a collection
of readings by W. Alston, RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND
PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT. That's readings. I have
used other books in the past, but those are the
standard ones.

Q. Where did you attend high school or
secondary school?

A. I went to two schools. When I was 11
through 13 I went to what the English call a
grammar school, what I guess you would call a high
school, a state school. In Walsall, that's in
England, called Queen Mary's Grammar School. And
then at the age of 13 in 1953 through 1959 I went
to what we call a public school and you call a
private school, in York, called Bootham School.

Q. You said this is what we call a prep
school?

A. A prep school.

Q. Were these schools supported by public
funds?

A. The first was.

Q. Both were in England?

A. Yes. The second one was in York,
England. The first one was.

36

Q. What science courses did you take?

A. Grammar school, I did physics.
Mathematics. At the public school, we did some
natural history, mathematics, physics, chemistry.

Q. Did you take biology?

A. Only in the early years.

Q. By that what do you mean?

A. I mean 13, 14.

Q. Was biology offered in what I would
want to refer to as your secondary schooling?

A. It was offered. I didn't follow you.
You would take it.

Q. You didn't follow that you could take
it or you had to take it?

A. That you could take it.

Q. You couldn't take it?

A. Not if I did math, physics and
chemistry.

Q. Did you study origins during your
schooling?

A. No.

Q. Did you study evolution?

A. No.

Q. Did you study in school the creation

37

model for origin?

A. Like I put it, I knew of the Bible.
But I didn't do creation science in science
classes.

Q. At Bristol University did you take any
science courses there?

A. Mathematics.

Q. Did you take any biology?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any study of evolution or
creation science there?

A. No.

Q. You received a BA in philosophy in
mathematics?

A. Right.

Q. Did you study science courses in your
Master's program?

A. No.

Q. Or in your Ph.D. program?

A. No. But I did attend some science
biology courses at Guelph when I started as a
lecturer and audit.

Q. The last time you had been formally
enrolled in a course in biology was when you were

38

13 or 14?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you received any training in your
field other than your formal education? I am
talking now apart from any sort of independent
study or just reading on your own.

A. I mentioned auditing at Guelph.

Q. Are you a member of any professional
organizations?

A. Yes.

Q. Which ones?

A. American Association for the Advancement
of Science, American Philosophical Association,
Philosophy of Science Association, Canadian
Society for History and Philosophy of Science, I
think Canadian Philosophical Association.

Q. Have you been an officer of any of
those organizations?

A. I have held elected posts.

Q. But you were not an officer?

A. Well, head of the nomination committee.
Is that an officer?

Q. I would think probably so, as an
elected post.

39

The organizations which you have
previously described aren't listed. Have any of
these organizations taken a position on the
creation science? Formal or informal.

A. To the best of my knowledge, the
philosophy ones haven't. To the best of my
knowledge, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science is opposed to the teaching
of the creation science in schools, in biology
classes.

Q. On what do you base that?

A. Base what?

Q. That conclusion, your knowledge they
are opposed to it.

A. Obviously, my conclusion is based on
what I have been asked to do as a member of the
organizations or more particularly not asked to do.
And what I have read.

Q. What have you been asked to do on
behalf of the AAAS?

A. I personally have not been asked to do
anything.

Q. You said --

A. I said to the best of my knowledge. I

40

read SCIENCE, the weekly magazine. I am aware
that great concern has been expresses in the pages
of this magazine.

Q. What professional publications do you
subscribe to?

A. Philosophy of SCIENCE, SCIENCE, GENERAL
HISTORY OF BIOLOGY. I have a subscription to
NATURE, which I have not yet received.

Q. Are you on the mailing list of any
organization which supports the teaching of
creation science in public schools?

A. No. I was sent one thing independently.
What is a mailing list?

Q. What was that, that you received?

A. It was something by a man called
Wildesmith. HE WHO THINKS HAS TO BELIEVE.

Q. That was the name of the publication?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever taught any theories of
origins in the classroom?

A. As a scientist, no. I certainly talked
about them as an historian of science, and as a
philosopher.

Q. Have you discussed the CREATION MODEL

41

OF ORIGNIS?

A. As an historian, yes.

Q. Have you discussed THE CREATION SCIENCE
MODEL OF ORIGINS as it relates to present day
controversy of creation science versus evolution?

A. I have certainly talked about the works
about people like Morris and Gish.

Q. In the classroom?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you done any writings on that
subject?

A. Yes.

Q. Which of your writings?

A. The primary one is the one in front of
you.

MR. NOVIK: The witness is identifying
the manuscript made available earlier.

Q. Darwinism Defended, A GUIDE TO THE
EVOLUTION CONTROVERSIES?

A. Yes. I think there is a mention of
scientific creationism in my book IS SCIENCE
SECTIONIST? And one or two of my recent
publications make tangential reference to it.

Q. In your manuscript, is there one

42

chapter which deals with creation science?

A. Two chapters.

Q. Which two chapters are those?

A. Final two.

Q. Would that be chapter 15 and 16?

A. Right. Part 6. It is called part 6.
It's chapters 15 and 16 in the manuscript form.
In fact, one of the earlier chapters was taken out
for -- for the to be published version. I think
it will come out of 14 and 15 in the published
version.

Q. Part 6 of chapters 14 and 15.

A. I am sorry.

Q. This is the first mention that I see.

A. Yes. The version you have got it's
chapters 14 and 15, part 6. In the version which
will be published, those are virtually untouched.
It's 13 and 14, because one of the earlier
chapters is taken out.

Q. The content will be substantially the
same?

A. I have a little bit more on laws and
the super natural. A couple of paragraphs.

Q. When were you first contacted about

43

testifying as a witness in this case?

A. About two months ago.

Q. Who contacted you?

A. One of the attorneys at Skadden Arps.

Q. Have you read Act 590 of the State of
Arkansas?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you first read it?

A. A month ago, A bit more, perhaps.
That is not quite true. That is the first time I
read it as a document. I have read reports of it
in NATURE earlier in the year.

Q. Have you provided to the plaintiffs'
attorneys any writings other than the ones you
have given me previously concerning your testimony
in this case?

MR. NOVIK: Let me say that in response
to requests by plaintiffs' attorneys, Dr. Ruse has
provided us with certain information in written
form. We have not made that available claiming
work product privilege with respect to those
communications.

Q. Dr. Ruse, the other writings which you
have provided to the plaintiffs, were those in the

44

forms of reports or writings? What were those?

MR. NOVIK: You can answer.

A. Yes,

Q. Could you be more specific and tell me
what form they were? What form they took.

A. I have written digests of some of the
material I have written before. Lawyers like to
have things condensed.

Q. Have you prepared any report or summary
of your anticipated testimony or the areas that
you might cover in your testimony?

A. It's difficult to say that because I am
not sure what anticipation means quite in this
context. What can I say? I am here because I
write that sort of thing. That's anticipated
testimony, yes.

Q. I understand that there certainly are
things in here which may be gone into in your
testimony. Have you written any other documents
covering what you anticipate testifying about in
this case, which you have given to them?

A. I think the answer would probably be
yes.

Q. I would like to see those documents,

45

please.

MR. NOVIK: I already said we are
withholding them from you and claiming the work
product privilege.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that the
witness as an expert witness has prepared
documents on which he intends to rely, to
summarize his testimony or a report, I don't think
those are covered by work product. Indeed, if
covered by work product, then it means he is
working for the attorneys and there is a question
as to whether he is in fact unbiased.

You are entitled to ask whatever
questions you want and take whatever steps you
think appropriate. I have no intention of arguing
with you about it on the record. It seems a
little cumbersome and just wastes time. I prefer
to get through with the deposition.

Q. Dr. Ruse, these documents which you
have provided to the attorneys concerning your
opinions and possible testimony in this area,
could you describe for me what is contained in
those documents?

MR. NOVIK: To the extent that you are

46

asking him for the substance of what is in the
documents, I object on the same grounds. If you
have any questions in the nature of attempting to
ascertain what they are, which I think you have
already asked, there are other questions that
would go to what the privilege is probably asserted,
you can properly request that information. For
the same reason I am not turning them over I can't
very well allow the witness to disclose to you the
contents thereof.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not asking at this
point what the exact contents are. I am asking
more in the nature of format.

MR. NOVIK: You can certainly answer as
to format. I instruct the witness not to discuss
the substantive content of what he has written.

A. Ten page papers. Three ten page typed
pages.

Q. Three ten page typed papers?

A. Approximately.

Q. What you did use as sources for these
papers?

A. At this point, primarily my published
or to be published writings.

47

Q. Do you recall the writings which you
relied upon, specifically?

A. Well, yes, the writings that I have
done on the history and philosophy of biology
recently. On Darwin, Darwinism, scientific
creation.

Q. I want a specific list. Of each of the
writings you relied upon.

A. I certainly relied upon my book, my
manuscript, DARWINISM DEFENDED. I have relied on
my published work, the DARWINIAN REVOLUTION,
Science Read in Tooth and Claw.

Q. DARWINISM REVOLUTION, what portions
there did you rely upon?

A. All of it.

Q. What was the other book you mentioned?

A. DARWINISM DEFENDED. I also relied on
my book THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY.

Q. Any particular portions that you relied
upon there?

A. All of it. I didn't discuss taxonomy.

Q. Dr. Ruse, I have some problem in
understanding how you relied upon all of it in
three ten-page papers.

48

MR. NOVIK: Do you have a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am leading up to a
question.

Q. Can you describe to me how you were
able to in a ten-page paper -- describe for me how
you were able to rely upon the whole thing in just
a mere ten-page paper.

A. I think I would say simply that I draw
on the general philosophy using this in a general
sense, and historical facts that I put into these
various works, and condensed it down into succinct
digests.

Q. You mentioned something also about Read
Tooth and Claw?

A. It's the subtitle of my book the
DARWINIAN REVOLUTION.

Q. What other books did you rely on
besides these three?

A. My general knowledge drawn on basic
works in the history and philosophy of science.

Q. Any other of your own writings that you
relied upon in particular?

A. Not as such, but I wrote them without
spending my time pouring over my works. So if

49

somebody said to me well, you have used this line
in some other work, they could be right.

Q. I would like to show you a copy of Act
590.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to have a
copy made an exhibit? I don't think it's
necessary.

MR. NOVIK: I think it's all right that
we not make it an exhibit.

Q. Looking at Act 590, section 1, does the
statement or phrase, "balanced treatment," what
does that mean to you?

MR. NOVIK: Dr. Ruse is not speaking as
a legal expert.

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. I am not
asking for any legal judgments. That goes without
saying. But it's been said.

A. I think I would prefer to answer that
question in the, without mentioning this
particular thing. If somebody else were to give a
balanced treatment between what shall I say, two
opposing philosophical positions, I would expect
you to draw on the major works, to talk about the
major works, perhaps at a certain level of

50

sophistication. The secondary sources, to expound
both in class, appropriate feedback. An
examination to cover both of these, or whatever
the appropriate thing is. And again, I speak as a
philosopher. Also to not penalize somebody for
drawing one set of conditions, as long as they
were done within fair context rather than another.

Q. I didn't understand that last statement.

A. What I am saying is, is the following:
If one were arguing say a philosophical position,
if one, free will versus determinism. As long as
the student was able to support his position,
either way, that is what you are evaluated on.

Q. Do you in trying to teach the different
philosophies try to give them balance, some sort
of balance treatment yourself?

A. yes, in the sense that I try to be fair.
That doesn't mean I have time to or attempt to
teach every philosophical claim which has ever
been made. I select the standard and basic
positions. Of course -- all right.

Q. When you are teaching some of the
different philosophies, do you -- are there
certain philosophies which are considered

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Michael E. Ruse - Page 2

51

predominant theory of philosophy and there are
others which are more of a minor view?

MR. NOVIK: I am not sure I understand
that question.

Q. In teaching philosophy, are there
certain views which are considered the more
standard and some are considered more minor?

A. Yes.

Q. When you are teaching a minor view, do
you spend as long on a minor view as you might on
one of the more standard views?

A. Depends very much on the context, on
the course.

Q. What does the phrase prohibition
against religious instruction mean to you?

A. It means that you don't teach religion,
religious beliefs.

Q. I would like to direct your attention
to section 4 of the act, please. 4A, first of all
which states that "creation science means the
scientific evidence for creation an inferences
from those scientific evidences," and then below
that as you will see, it lists six separate
categories.

52

Section 4Al states, "sudden creation of
the universe, energy and life from nothing." What
do you consider that to mean?

A. Supernatural intervention by the
creator. Miraculous.

Q. Is that consistent with your religious
beliefs?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific
evidence which would support that portion of the
definition?

A. It's not science.

Q. That was not my question. Are you
aware of any scientific evidence that would
support that part of the definition?

A. My answer is I don't think it's of the
nature that could have scientific evidence.

Q. The next portion of that definition is
"the insufficiency of mutation and natural
selection in bringing about development of all
living kinds from a single organism."

Could you tell me what that means to
you?

A. What it means?

53

Q. Yes.

A. It means that natural selection
differential reproduction of organisms working on
variations which are caused by changes in the
genes, is a mechanism -- if you talk about
sufficiency, it's mechanism sufficiently powerful,
if you talk about insufficiency, not sufficiently
powerful to cause the organisms of the world from
one initial first organism.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence which
supports that portion of the definition, any
scientific evidence?

A. Which supports insufficiency or
sufficiency?

Q. The insufficiency.

A. Yes.

Q. What is the evidence which supports
that?

A. I would say that there is evidence of
random factors, quite possibly genetic drift.
These sorts of things.

Q. You feel there is scientific evidence
to support 4A2?

A. Probably. Single organism I don't know.

54

Q. 3 is the "changes only within fixed
limits of originally created kinds of plants and
animals." What do you understand that to mean?

A. I really don't know what that means.
It's fixed limits. I don't know what. It is too
vague.

Q. Then would you have any knowledge of
whether there is any scientific evidence to
support that portion of the definition?

A. As I said, I don't really understand
what fixed limits, I find to be so vague as --

Q. 4 is "separate ancestry for man and
apes." What does that mean to you?

A. It means human beings and things like
chimpanzees, if you go back far enough in time you
don't find an ancestor, common ancestor.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence,
scientific evidence which supports that portion of
the definition?

A. Separate ancestry?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of any inferences from
scientific evidence which would support that

55

definition? Again, I am not asking you whether
you personally agree with these.

A. It depends. If separate ancestry
implies something -- does this imply nothing about
causes or not?

Q. Let's just take it on its face. I am
asking you what it means to you in the first
instance.

A. If it means something to do with causes,
miraculous causes, then my answer again is this is
something which I don't think could be subject to
scientific proof or disproof.

Q. We are looking just at part 4 there and
there is nothing mentioned about a miraculous
cause. If that is not included --

A. It's just a phenominal statement?

Q. Right.

A. Them my answer is I do not know of any
scientific evidence.

Q. 5 is "explanation of the earth's
geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence
of world wide flood." What does this portion of
the definition mean to you?

A. Miracles.

56

Q. Do you think all catastrophic events
are miracles or implied miracles?

A. It's a loose word. It certainly has
meant that in the past.

Q. Are you aware of whether it still
maintains that meaning today?

A. In my readings of the scientific
creationists, I find it does.

Q. Are you aware of whether it maintains
that readings with geologists generally?

A. I am not sure this is a word that
geologists word use in this sort of sense.

Q. Catastrophism?

A. You would have to show me specific
cases of geologists using it.

Q. 6 is, "a relatively recent inception of
the earth and living kinds." What does that mean
to you?

A. It's so vague as to be virtually
meaningless.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence which
supports that?

A. As it stands here, I find it so vague
to be meaningless. As I read it in the scientific

57

creationist's works, again I find it to be
religious and not something subject to scientific
justification.

Q. Turning our attention then to evolution
sciences. The first part of that definition
states the emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe from disordered matter, and emergence
of life from nonlife. What does that mean to you?

A. I am not sure about what the word
emergence means in this sort of context.
Emergence, does this mean some sort of higher form?
The word emergence to me is again a word I am not
sure that I would use. Something comes out of the
water. Naturalistic processes mean blind, unguided
law. Life being produced, if you want to say life
being produced from nonlife by blind law.

Q. Are you aware of scientific evidence
which supports this statement?

A. I know of evidence which bears upon it.

Q. Bears upon it in favor or against it?

A. Bears upon it favorably. As I say, I
don't like the word emergence in that context.

Q. Would this statement be consistent with
your religious beliefs?

58

A. Yes.

Q. 2 is "the sufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of
present living kinds from simple earlier kinds."
What does this statement mean to you, Dr. Ruse?

A. It means the, that natural selection
differential reproduction of organisms working on
random variations can bring about the organisms of
the world.

Q. Is there scientific evidence in support
of this portion of the definition?

A. Sufficiency, if you mean total
sufficiency, the answer is no.

Q. Is this statement consistent with your
religious beliefs?

A. What, the false statement?

Q. Yes.

A. Something I consider false isn't really
consistent with anything I believe.

Q. You said the false statement. I
thought you said full statement.

A. Sufficiency, I don't subscribe to
sufficiency.

Q. You mean as used here?

59

A. I don't subscribe to statement 2.

Q. 3, it says "emergency," but I think we
can agree that is a typo, and, "by mutation and
natural selection of present living kinds from
simple earlier kinds." What does that statement
mean to you?

A. It means more or less the same that 2
means. I would have thought that organisms -- I
suppose 2 says that sufficient and 3 says that
they did in fact occur through differential
reproduction working on random variation.

Q. Is there scientific evidence to support
3?

A. Again, I don't like the word emergence
in this context. There is, if you say all living
kinds came only by that process, I would have said
no.

Q. It doesn't on the face of it seem to
say that all living kinds came by that process, to
me. Does it to you?

A. If it doesn't -- yes, I think it does,
yes.

Q. 4, is the "emergence of man from a
common ancestor with apes." What does this

60

statement mean to you?

A. Again, I don't like the word emergence.
But I take it that it means that human beings and
present living higher apes like chimpanzees have
common ancestors.

Q. Is there scientific evidence which
supports this portion of the definition?

A. I think there is evidence which points
in this direction, certainly, yes.

Q. Is this statement consistent with your
own personal religious beliefs?

A. Yes. As much as I qualified the word
emergence.

Q. "5, explanation of the earth's geology
and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism."
What does this mean to you?

A. Again, I find it difficult because of
the term uniformitarianism which has been used in
many different ways. If you mean by natural
causes, I -- if that is what it means.

Q. What does uniformitarianism mean to you?

A. How can I put it? What does it mean to
me or what has it meant to people?

Q. What does it mean to you personally?

61

A. Inasmuch as I mean uniformitarianism --
to me, uniformitarianism has to be defined in the
terms of what particular scientist who is using it
means. In other words, what I am saying is, it
doesn't mean one thing exactly to me. You have to
tell me who is using the term.

Q. Can you define uniformitarianism?

A. I can give a definition. Again, you
are not asking me as a geologist. I presume you
are asking me as an historian of science. What it
meant to Charles Lyell were causes of the same
kind, same intensity. And an unchanging world. A
steady state world.

Q. Are you aware of scientific evidence
which supports this portion of the definition?

A. If you mean it in those terms, Lyell's
terms, then I wouldn't accept it.

Q. Is there a more commonly accepted
definition for uniformitarianism?

A. If you mean same cause or causes of a
kind which se see around us today, effective or
same natural laws or something like that, then
subject to the fact that in the past you can have
different conditions -- preplate techtonic

62

situations, then I think that would make the
position that I think that the average geologist
today would subscribe to, and I would, too.

Q. What does preplate techtonic situations
mean?

A. I think what goes on in the world at
the moment might not necessarily be the way things
came together and worked in the past. It doesn't
mean to say, what I am saying that doesn't mean to
say that the laws as such are violated. It's just
that you got different conditions working when the
earth is molten instead of when the earth is now
in its present state.

Q. Does that mean that different laws of
nature and the --

A. That's the very point I was trying to
avoid saying. I was saying you have a different
situation. Same laws. Different situation.

Q. Uniformitarianism have a definition to
you, the idea that the same laws of nature which
are now in effect were and always have been in
effect?

A. If that is what you mean by
uniformitarianism, it can have that meaning and I

63

accept that.

Q. Can it have that meaning in your mind?

A. It can certainly have that meaning in
my mind.

Q. Given that definition, are you aware of
scientific evidence which supports this?

A. Certainly.

Q. And given that definition, would this
portion of the definition of evolution science be
consistent with your religious beliefs?

A. I am not happy with the term evolution
science.

Q. That is the term that the act has. We
have to discuss those terms.

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. You have made a
point of asking the witness his views as to each
of these items extracted as single units from the
statute. Your reference to the phrase evolution
science is an attempt to put this back into the
context of the statute, which the witness has
properly resisted.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not trying to
attach more significance. I was really trying to
reference the definition.

64

Q. This portion that we have read, just
that portion 5, is that consistent with your
religious belief?

A. In the way that we have finally worked
it out, yes.

Q. 6 is, "an inception several billion
years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."
What does that mean to you?

A. That means that the earth started a
long time ago and that life appeared on earth for
some reason or by some cause, again presumably in
the past.

Q. Is that statement consistent with your
religious beliefs?

A. Yes.

Q. As you read or have read Act 590 have
you read anything in there which, in your opinion,
would prohibit a teacher from expressing their
professional opinion as to the validity of either
evolution science or creation science as they are
defined in the act?

A. I am not quite sure I follow that
question, sorry.

Q. In Act 590 as you read it, is there

65

anything in there which would prohibit a teacher
from expressing his or her professional opinion
concerning the validity of either the theory of
origin, which are covered by the act?

A. I see what you mean. To my way of
thinking, I think yes. I would want to say.

Q. What?

A. I look upon having to teach something
that you don't want to teach as a prohibition in
that sort of sense.

Q. A prohibition on expressing their --

A. If I am made to say things which I
don't agree with, then I look upon that as a sort
of a prohibition in the sense of not being allowed
to say things which I do agree with. I mean
subject to not allowing me to teach what you don't
want to. We have so many double negatives going
here.

Q. My question is, is there anything in
the act which would tell the teacher you can't say
for example that I think that creation science is
not scientifically valid or I think that evolution
science is not scientifically valid?

MR. NOVIK: This is the third time you

66

have asked this question. He has given his answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think I have
gotten an answer to the question yet.

Q. Dr. Ruse, you can answer the question.

A. I run into the question of balance
treatment now. If a teacher were to teach
creation or were to have to teach creation science,
which as I say I don't look upon as science, I
think it would be extremely -- and -- extremely
difficult to say, for the teacher to say, to be
given a balanced treatment if the teacher were
introducing it and denying it all the way through
just flatly. I think a balanced treatment --
well, that's it.

Q. In teaching the various philosophy
courses that you do teach, do you at times ever
teach or discuss theories or philosophies that you
don't personally agree with?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that a teacher should
teach only those things that he or she agrees with?

A. No.

Q. In teaching philosophy, are there
philosophies which you think are at greater weight

67

or more valid than other philosophies?

A. Yes.

Q. What is academic freedom, to you?

A. I think it's something which means the
teacher and the student and parents involved have
the right to express and explore ideas free from
ideological constraints.

Q. What do you mean by ideological
constraints?

A. Well, for example, if a teacher were a
socialist, I would think that academic freedom
should protect him from the capitalist
superintendent of schools.

Q. If I understand your answer, you don't
mean that a teacher has to totally divorce
themselves from their ideological beliefs in
teaching, do you?

A. No, no. What I mean is that a teacher
and students and parents have the right to their
beliefs, within certain constraints.

Q. What are those constraints?

A. Suppose a teacher believed in
pedophilia, in other words, believed that it was
acceptable or morally right to sleep with small

68

children. Then I think I would say that --
academic freedom would not protect the teacher,
allow the teacher to preach this, this sort of
view.

Q. Academic freedom is not an absolute?

A. I think it is an absolute notion, but I
don't think it's something without any -- I think
you would have to qualify it to spell it out.

Q. How can academic freedom be limited?

A. I think by higher moral considerations.
If it violates the integrity or rights of an
individual, or this sort of thing.

Q. What other moral considerations would
justify a limitation on academic freedom?

A. In some sort of overall sense,
happiness as well we are talking about, like two
basic moral concerns.

Q. How do you determine when the teaching
of some particular notion would violate, I think
you said, the integrity of an individual?

A. Of course, one draws on experience.
Rarely if ever does one come into a situation cold.
And one can look back on past experience and these
sort of things.

69

Q. To make a decision as to whether
teaching something violates the integrity of an
individual, is that an objective assessment?

A. I think one is working with objective
sense of values, surely. But human beings are
limited.

Q. Might two people differ on what
teaching would in fact violate the integrity of an
individual?

A. They could.

Q. In fact, would people would, more than
likely?

A. Not more than likely.

Q. In your opinion, may the state
prescribe the curriculum for secondary schools?

A. The curriculum?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. In your opinion, should the classroom
in a secondary school be open to all academic
discussion?

A. What does academic mean in this context?

Q. Well --

A. Every idea? Every idea that people in

70

the state have held?

Q. What do you consider academic
discussion to mean?

A. I mean the broad, general knowledge
that we ourselves have developed and our parents
and the general consensus, sifted through
experience.

Q. Given that definition, do you think the
classroom in a secondary school should be open to
all academic discussion?

A. If we are talking about in the terms of
consensus, yes. In the discipline.

Q. Perhaps I am having a problem
understanding what you mean by consensus. Could
you elaborate for me on that?

A. What I mean is, I wouldn't allow
religion to be taught in science classs, for
example. The consensus of professional scientists
sifted through certain ideas or let's say medical
people, then for example I wouldn't allow, shall I
say, Christian Scientists to give courses at
medical schools.

Q. Do you think that if a science teacher
having reviewed all the evidence and data

71

available to him decides that creation science is
a valid scientific alternative to evolution, that
that teacher should have the right to teach that
in the classroom?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because it's not science.

Q. Assuming you were to be presented with
scientific evidence which supported creation
science, could you accept creation science as a
scientific theory?

A. You are asking me an impossible
question, because you are asking me for scientific
evidence for a nonscientific position.

Q. I am asking you, and I am asking you to
assume, please understand --

A. I can't assume it because it is
contradictory.

Q. If a competent, well skilled scientist
came to you and presented to you evidence for
creation science, scientific evidence --

A. It's impossible.

Q. I am not asking you if it is possible.
I am asking you if it in fact happened.

72

MR. NOVIK: The question, there is a
fallacy in the question. The witness is trying to
point it out. The question assumes that it is
possible to do what the hypothetical suggests.
The witness has stated now three times that he
doesn't believe it is possible or that the
question can be assumed. He is not answering it.
Perhaps a different line of inquiry might be
helpful.

Q. Dr. Ruse, what you are saying, as I
understand it, is simply that no matter how much
evidence might be presented to you, you could not
accept creation science as science? Is that
correct?

A. As I say, the evidence, as such, is
irrelevant. I cannot accept creation science as
science.

Q. Why do you say that it is an
impossibility to have scientific evidence for
creation science?

A. Because creation science relies on the
supernatural.

Q. Why do you say creation science relies
on the supernatural?

73

A. Because every work by a creation
scientist that I have read invokes the creator at
some point. Which then is outside law.

Q. Why does the creator necessarily imply
something outside natural law?

A. It's a question of definition, for
starters. But it's also stated quite explicitly
by creation scientists.

Q. It is stated in Act 590?

A. Not in Act 590.

Q. So you are being influenced by what you
have read on creation science other than Act 590?

A. Let me qualify that. If you ask me is
it in Act 590 literally, no. My reading of Act
590, the only way I can make sense of it, is by
the notion of the creator.

Q. I think you changed terms.

A. I am qualifying it. I am putting in a
second clause. Not changed. Extended.

Q. You were talking about supernatural and
now you mentioned a creator.

A. I am sorry. Supernatural intervention
by a force outside the natural cause of things,
called as a creator.

74

Q. If there were -- assuming there were
scientific evidence for creation science --

MR. NOVIK: The witness has already
responded to that assumption on three separate
occasions. And I have let him give that answer on
three separate times now. I think it is unfair to
continue to use that hypothetical in your question.
You are questioning his objection to it.

MR. WILLIAMS: You may be right.

Q. Let me ask you this: Do you have any
objection to all scientific evidence on the theory
of origins being presented in the classroom?

A. All scientific evidence?

Q. Yes.

A. I have no objection at all. At the
appropriate levels.

Q. Do you feel that high school students
can appreciate different theories of origin?

A. Appreciate?

Q. Appreciate, distinguish.

A. I would say upper level ones, yes.

Q. How do you define evolution?

A. A continuous development, succession of
forms, organisms from one or a few number, early,

75

back in life history through natural processes up
to the present. That's organic evolution.

Q. As distinguished from what?

A. Inorganic evolution.

Q. What is inorganic evolution?

A. The belief that the universe had
evolved. The nebular hypothesis.

Q. The big bang?

A. Or whatever. I am not sure whether I
want to use the term evolution in terms of big
bang. I am not a master physicist.

Q. Is there a difference in your mind
between a theory and a model?

A. Yes, I think I can draw a distinction.

Q. What is the distinction?

A. I think models are small pictures or
small stories that a scientist, in a particular
context theory, as the overall, what shall I say,
set of the models.

Q. A theory is larger than a model?

A. More comprehensive in some sense. Yes,
they are technical terms. Different philosophers
or different scientists would use them in
different ways.

76

Q. Some might use them interchangeably?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the theory of evolution or the
evolution model, if you will, observable?

A. A theory isn't observable. A theory is
a set of claims. That is not observable.

Q. Why is a theory not observable?

A. The theory is not the sort of thing
that could be observable.

Q. Is evidence for the theory of evolution
observable?

A. Evidence, yes.

Q. Is the theory of evolution testable?

A. Yes.

Q. How?

A. From inferences that one can draw from
it and check against the world.

Q. Is the theory of evolution falsifiable?

A. What do you mean by the theory of
evolution?

Q. I am content at this point to use your
definition for organic evolution.

A. Without regard to some specific
mechanism?

77

Q. Yes.

A. Is it falsifiable, you asked me?

Q. Yes, that is the question.

A. Yes.

Q. How is the theory of evolution
falsifiable?

A. Again, I don't want to be awkward, but
it's a little difficult without specifying a
little more about mechanisms to know what sort of
specific claims one might make. For example,
Darwin's theory and Lemarck's theory are separate.
What might falsify one theory might not falsify
another. As we get specific, I think I would have
to have a little more.

Q. Is the theory of evolution repeatable?

A. Again, if you just use the term the
theory of evolution, it's difficult to know quite
what you mean. Some theories have allowed that.
Others haven't.

Q. Some theories of evolution have allowed
it, you mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of whether there are
scientists who feel that the theory of evolution

78

cannot be falsified?

A. Scientists?

Q. Yes.

A. Some scientists have made some claims
to that effect, about some parts.

Q. Are you aware of whether some
scientists have said that no genuine evidence can
be found in favor of the theory of evolution?

A. Can be found in favor of it or can be
found --

Q. In favor of the theory.

A. Some scientists said there is no
genuine evidence in favor of it?

Q. Yes.

A. I can't recollect scientists who said
there is none at all. But it's possible.

Q. What about Manser?

A. He is not a scientist.

Q. What is he?

A. A philosopher.

Q. A philosopher, then. Are there other
philosophers who have said that the theory cannot
be falsified?

A. There are philosophers who have said

79

this, yes.

Q. Are these philosophers creation
scientists?

A. No.

Q. While you may differ perhaps with him
on opinions, would you respect someone like Manser?

A. As a philosopher I could respect him.
Not necessarily as a philosopher of science.

Q. The point is, that experts in the field
of philosophy of science differ, do they not, on
whether the theory of evolution is falsifiable?

MR. NOVIK: You have used experts in
the plural; is that right?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. NOVIK: You have only cited one.
Do you know of others?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking him.

MR. NOVIK: Is that the question,
whether more than one expert believes --

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

A. You are asking me about today?

Q. Let's start with today.

A. I am not sure.

Q. Have there been more than one expert in

80

the last 20 years?

A. Yes.

MR. NOVIK: By expert, do you mean
philosopher?

MR. WILLIAMS: Expert in the area of
philosophy of science.

A. Not philosophy of biology.

Q. Who are the experts in the philosophy
of science who have held this view that the theory
of evolution is not falsifiable?

A. Popper, Carl Popper.

Q. Would you regard Popper as the foremost
philosopher of science?

A. No.

Q. He is regarded by some?

A. Yes.

Q. In that role, is he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Popper, wasn't he the one that said
that evolution is a metaphysical research program?

A. Yes.

Q. What does a metaphysical research
program mean to you?

A. To me it doesn't mean very much. To

81

Popper it meant some sort of overall guide for
formulating theories which itself would not be a
scientific theory but sort of a conceptual
framework into which you would fit one.

Q. Popper, as you understood his thought,
felt that the theory of evolution was not overall
a scientific theory?

A. He thought that the Darwinian theory
was not.

Q. Who else besides Popper?

A. Medawar, he's got certainly
philosophical pretensions. Other philosophers --
not too much.

Q. What did Manser say? Did he not hold
that position?

A. Yes. Manser certainly held that
position. He is not a philosopher of science.

Q. What is his area of expertise?

A. Existentialism.

Q. What about Goudge?

A. Goudge.

He was a philosopher of science. He is
a philosopher of science.

Q. What was his position on the

82

falsifiability of the theory of evolution?

A. I think he thinks that it's falsifiable.

Q. Is criticism of a scientific theory
appropriate?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that the theory of
evolution should be critized?

A. You keep saying "the theory of
evolution." You mean one particular theory?

Q. Does that have a meaning to you, the
theory of evolution?

A. If you mean, most people I guess
without qualification, I would mean some form of
Darwinism. If that is what you mean, yes, I think
it should be open to criticism.

Q. Is the evolution theory of origins an
unquestionable fact of science?

A. Origins? What do you mean by origins?

Q. Origin of the universe, the earth, of
life and man?

A. That's a big grab bag.

Q. I understand that.

MR. NOVIK: What was the question?

Q. Is the theory of -- is the evolution

83

theory of origins of the universe, of the earth,
of life and man an unquestionable fact of science?

MR. NOVIK: If there is an evolutionary
theory of origins in the way you have defined it,
then the witness can answer, if he understands it.

A. Well, yes. I think that the evolution
of organisms is a genuine theory.

Q. Is at unquestionable fact of science?

A. I don't quite know what that would mean,
an unquestionable fact of science. It's a genuine
theory.

Q. You would not agree with the statement
that it is an unquestionable fact of science?

A. I don't see theories as being
unquestionable facts. Nothing is unquestionable.

Q. Does the theory of evolution presuppose
no creator?

A. No -- well, depends what you mean by
creator.

Q. You previously used, I think, creator
as some sort of supernatural intervention?

A. The theory of evolution carried through
consistently, in its modern form, precludes an
intervening creator.

84

Q. In teaching the theory of evolution in
its modern form, is it required that substantial
emphasis be given to the preclusion of a creator?

A. No.

Q. Is the concept of a creator an
inherently religious concept to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Because it deals with the supernatural,
outside natural law.

Q. If the creation theory of origins could
be discussed in the classroom free of any
religious references, would you oppose its
presentation?

A. It can't.

Q. I understand that's how you feel. But
if it could --

A. I don't think it could be.

Q. What is teleology?

A. It's understanding in terms of future
or ends rather than initial causes.

Q. It seems like I have heard or read one
time, the concept of teleology is the hand, the
hand is made for grasping. Could you give me an

85

idea of what that was and just refresh my own
memory on it?

A. A teleological explanation of the hand
would be contrasted with a normal causal
explanation. A normal causal explanation would be
in prior causes, how the hand grew and what made
it grow. A teleological explanation would be one
which in terms of what function or what end does
the hand serve.

Q. Have teleological explanations
traditionally been or had theological implications?

A. Until 1859.

Q. Do you consider the concept of
teleology to have religious overtones?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. It's possible, is it not, to have a
theological teleology and a nontheological
teleology?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you distinguish the two?

A. A theological one is done in terms of
God's intention, God's purpose, God's design. A
nonteleological one -- a nontheological, sorry,
would be one which still looks at things in terms

86

of the ends but doesn't impute some sort of great
designer in the sky.

Q. Could you enlarge upon the
nontheological teleology?

A. Yes. I think Darwin himself admitted
to being a teleologist. I think a lot of modern
biologists think of themselves as teleologists,
although today they often use the term teleonomy
to give a non -- to show it's a non --

Q. Why do they use that term?

A. To show they are using the sense of
teleology without theological connotations.

Q. Trying to overcome the semantical
problem?

A. Right. Teleological explanation in
today's terms would be someone who said I am
trying to explain why do we have what shall we say
is the tail on the back of the dinosaur, or what
is the purpose, what end. I think most of them
would want to translate this out in terms of
natural selection. What function does it serve.
But as I say, there wouldn't be any implication
that God had especially intervened or put it on
the drawing board.

87

Q. You said teleology is or is not a
byproduct of natural selection?

A. I think inasmuch as a scientist uses it,
a biologist uses it today, I think it is connected
to natural selection. I think. Much discussed by
philosophers.

Q. Is there a dispute over that?

A. Not on theology.

Q. Not on theology but?

A. But on the exact, on packing.

Q. I think you said that the theological
teleology continued to 1859?

A. It went on after that, but that is the
dividing point.

Q. That is the date origin of the
species --

A. On the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.

Q. Was written. What is faith to you?

A. Some sort of commitment or belief which
transcends or is other than reason in some way.
It transcends, is not the word I want. Other than
reason, some sort of commitment to a belief for
which there is neither empirical nor logical
evidence. At least -- which is arrived at other

88

than that. One can have both.

Q. Do you think there is any faith placed
in some in the theory of evolution?

A. I wouldn't want to deny that some
scientists sometimes have gone beyond the evidence.
As -- but again to go back to my term of consensus,
no. I wouldn't use the word faith in that context.

Q. By the term "consensus," you don't mean
unanimous, do you?

A. No. I take it you are asking me
whether the average biologist believes in
evolution through scientific reason or faith.

Q. I am not really asking that question.

I am asking you when you use the term
consensus, you said some people have gone beyond
the data or the evidence. By the term consensus,
you mean not each and every scientist or biologist?

A. The well sifted experience of the
average biologist.

Q. The predominant school of sort?

A. Yes.

Q. Before 1859, was there a nontheological
teleology?

A. I think that people like Darwin and

89

there were others who were working on the idea.
Darwin had the idea for 20 years.

Q. But at some point prior to 1859 or
prior there to, teleology was considered to be an
inherently religious concept, wasn't it?

A. I would -- yes, I think I would say
that is a fair comment. By 1859 I don't mean an
exact moment.

Q. I understand.

Dr. Ruse, your article that you wrote
entitled -- perhaps it's a book -- THE REVOLUTION
OF BIOLOGY?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it a book?

A. That was an article I wrote in 1969.
Or 1968, I wrote it.

Q. What is the general -- could you give
me the idea what it was about?

A. It was the first one I ever wrote.

Q. First article that you wrote?

A. Yes. It's an analysis of Kuhn's, the
philosopher or historian and philosopher, and his
book structure of scientific revolutions, put
forward a theory of scientific change. Which is

90

relativistic. What I was trying to do was analyze
it and show that it wasn't right.

Q. When you use the term relativistic
applying to his notion, what did you mean by that?

A. Kuhn's theory which I don't think he
holds to today, was that scientists have a
particular paradigm, a particular conceptual
framework, and that when they change their minds
they do it for reasons which are often not simply
a question of looking at the facts and deciding on
these. To a certain extent one's beliefs define
the evidence. So Kuhn argued that one has a sort
of a switch, revolution.

Q. A conversion?

A. I think he may well use that term.
It's not a position to which I subscribed at that
point.

Q. When you wrote the article, you are
referring to?

A. Right. And on out.

Q. I think you said that you don't believe
that Kuhn still holds to that position.

A. Yes.

Q. Has he recanted?

91

A. Taken quite a bit back.

Q. How has he modified his position, as
you understand it?

A. I think that now, you would allow a
much bigger place for cross communication between
scientists and different paradigms, and more,
shall I say more weight to more objective evidence.
And shared rules.

Q. Has he changed his basic notion of that
a paradigm arises and attracts a number of
adherents and then all evidence or all work to
support that paradigm until someone breaks out and
tries to establish a new one?

A. He certainly changed it to the extent
that it's now clear that paradigm can involve a
much smaller group of scientists than we thought
previously.

Q. What?

A. Smaller group. Almost tow or three
gathered together can constitute a paradigm. It's
much more of a microtheory rather than that sort
of global position that all scientists hold and
then switch to.

Q. What are the other criteria by which he

92

would measure a paradigm?

A. Kuhn?

Q. Yes.

A. He uses sociological terms, as you
pointed out. That you accept a certain work, or
that sort of thing. That you accept certain basic
positions and then work from within this. And try
and solve puzzles as he says within the basic
position and holding to your basic beliefs.
Trying to work around the evidence.

Q. Is part of his idea that when the
evidence doesn't fit the model or the paradigm,
then you start tinkering with it and modifying the
paradigm a bit?

A. Certainly was, yes.

Q. Is it still?

A. He has modified his position, as I say.
I am not sure.

Q. Is there any publication that you can
recall right offhand where he has modified this
position?

A. Yes. A book edited by Fried Suppe.
It's a collection with an article by Kuhn. THE
STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

93

Q. Theories?

A. I am sorry. It's an edited collection
by Fred Suppe, called the structure of scientific
theories. Kuhn has some comments there. There
are other places, as well. But that is one place
to start.

Q. While you would differ, as I understand
it with Kuhn in some particulars, would you
recognize his work as being authoritative?

A. What does authoritative mean?

Q. Authoritative, recognized as an
authority.

A. As an authority, yes. Authoritative --

Q. By authoritative, I don't mean to imply
that it's the final word in the sort of absolute
sense.

A. I would prefer to use the word
important.

Q. With whom did you have a debate that
was reduced to video tape?

A. Lane Lester, I debated with.

Q. When did that debate occur?

A. A month, six weeks ago.

Q. Where?

94

A. On the TV Ontario. That's our
equivalent to PBS, in Toronto.

Q. Who is Lane Lester?

A. He teaches, I think, at some Christian
college in Tennessee or somewhere like that. He
is a professor of biology there. If not Tennessee,
one of --

Q. How many minutes did you have in the
debate?

A. It's not a debate as such. It's a host
and two people and you put the position and then
people phone in. It's a 60 minute tape altogether.

Q. Do you have a transcript of this?

A. I don't, no.

Q. Are transcripts available?

A. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Do you recall what you said during this
debate?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me kind of a summary of
some of the things which you said about creation
science during the debate?

A. I said it wasn't science and that as
such, shouldn't be taught in science class rooms.

95

Q. How do you define science?

A. I think the most important thing is an
appeal to natural law.

Q. An appeal to natural law?

A. That scientists work by trying to bring
phenomena beneath natural laws. This has
ramifications.

Q. If there are things about the natural
law -- are there things about natural laws that we
don't understand yet?

A. That we don't understand?

Q. Yes.

A. I am not sure how you could answer that
question.

Q. Do you think -- do you think we reached
the maximum potential in understanding the natural
law?

A. The natural law, no. All natural
laws --

Q. All natural laws?

A. Certainly not.

Q. You stated in one of your books, I
believe, that the modern synthesis theory of
evolution has been proved beyond a reasonable

96

doubt?

MR. NOVIK: Are you quoting?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am paraphrasing.

MR. NOVIK: Do you know which book you
are paraphrasing?

MR. WILLIAMS: I really don't recall
right now.

A. I think that aspects of it are
certainly proven. That doesn't mean to say that
new evidence can't come up or something like that.

Q. THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, page 121,
you stated, "Because of all the evidence taken
together the truth of the synthesis theory in the
sense discussed at the beginning of the chapter
and the falsity of its rules is beyond reasonable
doubt."

MR. NOVIK: Before you answer, can I
see it?

(Handing document to counsel.)

Q. On what do you base your opinion that
the truth of the synthetic theory is beyond a
reasonable doubt?

A. In terms of the evidence that we have.
You got to understand that I am talking about

97

things like morphological characteristics, the
hand and the eye. I am not talking about
molecular biology. It is a qualified sentence.

Q. When you use the term "synthetic
theory," what do you mean that to mean?

A. I am talking about Darwinian theory of
evolution through natural selection as the cause
of thinks like the hand, the eye, so on and so
forth. I am not implying that everything -- I am
not ruling out the logical possibility of genetic
drift, I am not talking about molecular effects as
such, or something like that. When I use a term
like beyond reasonable doubt, I deliberately drew
the analogy with the legal position in the sense
that we have to make decisions to go along with
things. As you know in court cases, sometimes
evidence gets re-opened and something new comes up.
I am not arguing beyond reasonable doubt in the
sense of 2 plus 2 equals 4 logically could never
be disproved or the case could never be reopened.

Q. Have you changed your opinion on this
point since you wrote this book?

A. That the hand, the eye --

Q. No. The synthetic theory of evolution?

98

A. As much as it applied then I would
still.

Q. Does the modern synthetic theory as you
understand it involve the slow and gradual change
over time --

A. How gradual is slow and gradual?

Q. I am not trying to put any limits on
those terms. As I understand it, that has been
part of the modern synthesis theory; is that not
correct?

A. There is some debate about that and I --
as you know, and I don't think that the level of
the synthetic theory that I am talking about there,
I certainly wasn't taking on that issue.

Q. Again, maybe I don't understand what
you meant by the synthetic theory here.

A. I mean evolution through natural
selection leads to things like the hand and the
eye, is beyond reasonable doubt in a sense that we
would use it in a court of law. It doesn't mean
that it's logically necessary or that one is
ruling out the possibility that anything ever
would make you change your mind. I mean I
deliberately used that analogy. What I meant by

99

it is that this is something that we as reasonable
human beings now learn to accept and get on about
our business, as it were.

Q. Close the case, so to speak?

A. Close the case. One can always open a
case in a court of law. What I mean is, that you
don't spend your time worrying about it.

Q. This appears to me to kind of, if you
will, fit into Kuhn's notion of the paradigm. The
paradigm has been accepted and we cease to really
look at some of the underlying assumptions or
potential problems that have gone to support the
paradigm. Would you agree with that?

A. We cease to look at them. We quit
bothering about them or something like that. Yes.
I don't think Kuhn is completely wrong. What I
was talking about with Kuhn was change.

Q. Are there any assumptions which
underlie the modern synthetic theory of evolution?

A. What do you mean by assumptions?

Q. The premises.

A. The laws of logic for example.

Q. Could you be more specific than the
laws of logic?

100

A. In order to do science at all, you have
to make certain implications or make certain
things about science, about mathematics, for
example. I certainly think that those assumptions
are presupposed. I think you have to make
scientists as a scientist assume that there are
laws to be found. That is part of the scientific
method. One makes certain assumptions about say
the nature of deduction or inference. A implies B
or something like that. I mean all of those sorts
of things. That I mean as a scientist, I think
one makes certain, how shall I say, accepts
certain rules of play. Testability,
falsifiability. These sorts of things.

Q. Is there an assumption in organic
evolution --

A. Objectivity.

Q. The question I think is is there an
assumption in evolution, organic evolution, I am
talking about now, for example that life emerged
from nonlife?

A. I am not sure that there is an organic
evolution, no. I think that is a separate
question.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Michael E. Ruse - Page 3

101

Q. How would you classify that?

A. Perhaps it's sort of inorganic to
organic. But from the point of view of an
evolutionary theory, one doesn't get into that as
such.

Q. Are you familiar with a book by Kerkut
called THE IMPLICATIONS OF EVOLUTION at all?

A. I know the title, I am not sure that I
have ever read it. Certainly the title I know of.

Q. He makes, to broadly paraphrase it, it
is my understanding of his book in which he
discusses some of the implications, some of the
assumptions of evolution, that because of the
assumptions involved in it, and because we have a
fairly uniform system of education where everyone
learns the same thing,, the theory of evolution is
taught and the assumptions are not really stressed.

The assumptions then become re-enforced
because everyone learns them to the point that
when you get from secondary school to college and
really in an area where you could do some research,
scientists are perhaps unable to give a fresh
appraisal to the evidence because of this kind of
process that he talks about. Have you ever

102

thought about that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think there is any merit to that?

A. I think it could certainly be true of
individual scientists. I think you better draw a
distinction between being prepared to, if cause
arises, and spending every day doing so. The
scientist as a scientist has to get on with his or
her job. Just as you as a lawyer have to.

MR. NOVIK: I am a bit confused. You
are referring to this book that the witness has
never read. You are talking about assumptions
that the author claims are part of evolutionary
theory; is that right?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not trying to get
this witness to adopt those assumptions. I am
merely talking about an overall idea about the way
in which scientists perhaps approach the subject.
Whether ever thought about this idea. I am not
trying to tie him down to the book.

MR. NOVIK: Or the underlying
assumptions.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I was trying to
give some background. For purposes of background

103

rather than trying to talk him down to it. I am
in no way trying to do that or have him adopt
those assumptions.

Q. I think another concept which I have
heard mentioned is for some of these reasons that
perhaps the study of "scientific heresies" should
be encouraged. Have you thought about that?

MR. NOVIK: Does this come from the
same author, also?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it does.

A. Of course, it depends what you mean by
heresy. My position is as follows: I think that
science is an enterprise like other aspects of
life. Like the law. I think that certainly you
work on ideas and you try them out, you explore
them. They work, you can take a pragmatic
position or you can in some sense encode them.
Then there comes a point when you don't spend your
time worrying about them all the time. As I say,
whether it be Constitution or some sort of basic
claims. That does not mean that -- I think good
science means working from this and going ahead.
That does not mean that you should never look at
them again or that there never comes a time to

104

look at them again or beyond reasonable doubt that
there comes a time one could never open up the
case again. Certainly. My point that I make here
I would accept with Kuhn, I think, that it is not
unreasonable, not a question of faith in any
religious sense, to assume certain basic sort of
things have now been established. Let's get on
with the job. Not start from scratch every Monday
morning.

Q. Would it be fair to kind of talk about
it in the sense that there is a base there and
that you are talking about the base has been
established, let's build on it rather than always
trying to see if the base is correct?

A. Right. It doesn't mean that you never
can look at the base again or in teaching, you
talk about heresies. One of the reasons I think
history of science is very good for students is
that they do invoke -- you do introduce them to
some of the earlier ideas in life. But if you say
to me is it good teaching to introduce Balakovsky
in every physics class, no.

Q. As an example of the idea you are
talking about of going on, saying this has been

105

established, let's get on about the business, it's
my understanding from my very limited knowledge
about the history of science, that the geocentric
theory of the universe predicted within 98 degree
of accuracy some of the orbits of the planets and
stars. Not stars, but orbits of the planets and
of the moon; is that correct?

A. Probably can now. I am not sure
Ptolemy ever did.

Q. With that degree of accuracy, would
that have been a basis for just going on and
furthering that model of that paradigm rather than
looking at the underlying basis?

A. No. Because there were serious
conceptual differences with the Ptolemy theory.

Q. Where do you determine where the
serious conceptual difficulties are, if there are?

A. In the Ptolemy theory, for example, the
only way you could explain the planets going
backwards, retrogressing -- Ptolemy did it through
epicycles, and this didn't fit in with the causal
connection of crystal spheres. So one had serious
internal contradictions within the theory. Which
Copernicus was at pains to remove. And unanswered

106

questions within the theory about the inferior and
superior planets.

Q. Explain to me why, first of all, is it
true when you start defining what is science and
what is biology, that this is a philosophical
input rather than a scientific one?

A. Yes, and historical.

Q. Why is that a philosophical inquiry?

A. I guess it's a question in the nature
of the philosophy. Philosophy is a second order
discipline. We are not scientists, we are looking
at the methods, concepts that -- ideas of
scientists. And of course in other areas of
educationalists and so forth. That is what
philosophy is.

Q. As one who is new to much of this, in
fact most of it -- I think about the term which is
often used, the question that is asked, is this an
exact science? The idea being that science is
somehow very exact in itself. But yet, when we
begin to define science we depart from science and
enter into philosophy.

MR. NOVIK: Is there a question?

Q. I would like to know why.

107

A. Because that's what philosophy is.
Science is an empirical study of the natural world.
Trying to invoke law and you mentioned testability,
falsifiability, objectivity, that sort of thing.
That is what science is. Philosophy is the
enterprise which looks at what is going on and
asks questions, say, like is what one scientist is
doing like what another scientist is doing. A
scientist can act like a philosopher.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to who is
better equipped to determine whether a theory is
scientific, a scientist or a philosopher of
science?

A. I would say that whoever is going to do
it is going to be doing it as a philosopher of
science.

Q. Do you agree with Popper's notion of
what is a scientific theory?

A. I am empathetic to much that Popper
says.

Q. Empathetic?

A. Empathetic. Philosophers really agree
entirely.

Q. Where would you differ with him?

108

A. I am not -- we talked about Kuhn, for
example, and we had seen that I am empathetic,
obviously, to some of Kuhn's ideas. Inasmuch as
Popper would accept these, then I think Popper and
I would be very close. I would probably disagree
with some of the more strident Popperians who made
falsifiability of every item the absolute
criterion of something being scientific.

Q. Why would you disagree with them?

A. As I said, science to a certain extent
has to be almost pragmatic enterprise in the sense
that you don't spend every day criticizing or
looking at every item all the time. Popper, I
think, was fully aware of this. In fact, most
scientists don't read past the first chapter.
Popper himself is very much aware of these sorts
of things. I differ from Popper again in Popper
says history isn't so important. I think history
of science is very important.

Q. Why did Popper feel that the history is
not so important?

A. Philosophers could do, should do their
work just by looking at the present.

Q. Why do you feel that we must look at

109

history?

A. Because I think often -- first of all,
I think you can get a better grasp of what happens
now through looking at the past. Certainly I
think I have. I guess that's -- particularly if
you are looking at things on a temporal dimension.

Q. In stating that the synthesis theory
has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, how do
you respond to the individuals who are now
forwarding the punctuated equalibertarian theory?

A. My feeling is something like Francis
Koyarla. I don't see that debate as being one
which causes any trouble at all. I see the sort
of things I was talking about there and referring
to the work of someone like Bashanjki, as being
quite compatible with some of the different
interpretations of the fossil record between
paleontologists. In other words, what I am saying
is, loke other people, like other Darwinians today,
I don't find the debate at all worrisome.

Q. Do you --

A. I think it's exploring areas which up
until this point hadn't been filled out.

Q. Do you think that the modern synthesis

110

theory and the punctuated equilibrium are
compatible?

A. I think there had certainly been
extreme statements on both sides. I am quite
prepared to accept that some people cannot agree.
That some paleontologists have disagreeing
positions. I said that. On the other hand, I
believe that most scientific change doesn't come
about through victory or failure but usually some
sort of synthesis. I think that this is the sort
of thing that is occurring here. I see nothing
what is going on at the moment to deny the sorts
of claims I wanted to make there.

MR. NOVIK: There being your book?

A. When I talk about the synthetic theory
in the question of genetic change. I don't
logically preclude the possibility of opening up
the case.

Q. It hasn't been opened up yet, to your
mind?

A. The hand and the eye, no.

Q. One of the things, as I understand it,
the exponents of the punctuated equilibrium cite
in support of their case the fossil record. The

111

fossil record doesn't support any transitional
forms. It doesn't spring up suddenly. Do you
agree with that?

A. There are different positions within
the punctuated equilibrilists. One I think, some
would argue for a more rapid change than others.
Again, it's difficult for me to make an equivocal
unqualified statement yes or no.

Q. For example, Steven Gould, what does he
argue?

A. At one point he has argued very
strongly that his position stems from the
synthetic theory. He argues that his position is
based on the founder principle, which for example
I discuss in chapter 4 there.

Q. The founder principle?

A. Yes, founder principle. Which is as
the work of Meyers. Certainly he has argued very
vigorously in some of his writings. What he is
doing is taking orthodox evolutionary theory and
applying it to fossil records. Other places he
said other things.

Q. What else has he said?

A. I think recently, he's been exploring

112

the possibility that when one might get some sort
of double chromosome number in Zebras. But I am
not -- I don't want to pretend to be an expert on
the particular position of Gould, per se. Every
last new answer, of course. I think it's a
developing position that he's got which is the
nature of science.

Q. If a scientist were to try to look at
for example the origin of first life and using
accepted scientific principles and mathematical
principles, to determine that the origin of first
life could not have been possible by pure random,
nondirected chance, would you consider that to be

A. I am not sure that this is part of the
evolutionary theory you are asking me about now.

Q. Why is it not?

A. Traditionally, the evolutionary theory
starts with life. Darwin and the origin says one
or a few forms.

Q. He said the creator breathed life into
the first few forms, also, didn't he?

A. Yes, something like that. The first
part of my answer is I am not sure that at least

113

as far as evolutionary theory is concerned that
that is a question. But no, my answer to the
second part is no, that if a scientist stops using
blind natural regularists, then he quits being a
scientist.

Q. How did he stop using blind natural --

A. I thought you said that was your
hypothetical, if a scientist stops doing this and
starts --

Q. My question was if a scientist should
determine that based upon the laws of science and
of mathematical probabilities that it simply would
be impossible for the first life to have evolved
purely by chance, would that be scientific?

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. I have trouble
understanding the question. You said first life
evolved through chance?

MR. WILLIAMS: I misspoke.

Q. To have occurred, for life to have --

A. To have occurred through blind law?

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me again. Are you
asking whether chance combination is the only way
life could have originated?

MR. WILLIAMS: No.

114

Q. I am asking if a scientist who has
looked at and studied the origin of first life and
has determined, looking at what would be necessary
to make a living cell, and some of the
mathematical probabilities of that occurring by
chance, and determines that it would be impossible
for it to have occurred by chance, would you
consider that to be scientific?

A. If he said it's logically impossible
that we could have a natural explanation of this
phenomenon, at that point I would say he has gone
beyond being a scientist. He might say I can't
answer it at this point.

Q. In effect, what you are saying, are you
not, that science could not admit its own
inadequacies?

A. No, I don't think I am saying that. I
am saying I could well accept that one is only
exploring in a certain area. But what I am saying
is that as science, one accepts a certain
methodology, and if you don't do that, you are no
longer doing science. You may like baseball, but
what shall I say, if you introduce a ball this
size you may prefer it but it is no longer

115

baseball (indicating).

Q. In the DARWINIAN REVOLUTION, you make
reference in the prologue on page I. Just a
passing reference I think, five lines from the
bottom, "That for many aspects of the causes of
origin are still highly controversial."

What are some of those causes of origin
that are still highly controversial?

A. What I am referring to in this specific
case, if you notice the reference to Lewontin was
about the debate, on-going debate about the amount
of variation that there is within populations.
And the extent to which this has, this variation
is held in place by selective forces or not.

Q. The variation within the population?
Would that be the same or different than variation
within a species?

A. Populations going up to make full
species. Some people think there is a lot, others
think there is a little. That is what I have got
in mind at that particular point.

Q. Does the word converted have inherently
religious connotations to you? When you talk
about someone becoming converted to a particular

116

position.

A. Not necessarily. I think -- no, I
think it depends on the position. I can get
converted for example to -- I would use the term
for example I could get converted to a belief in
say the superiority of Japanese cars. To take a
comfortable example. That does not to my way of
thinking necessarily imply the sort of experience
that Saul had on the way to to Damascus: It's a
generic term. I would use it for changing your
mind. If I were writing a book on religion or
philosophy of religion I would probably be -- that
is the sort of word I would clarify and specify.
Just as here I clarify and specify the word law.
But that is a key word to my discussion.

Q. The word "converted" can have a
religious meaning, can it not?

A. It can have.

Q. Like teleology?

A. Can have, surely.

Q. On page 5 of this same book, again you
are talking about Kuhn there.

A. Background to the problem?

Q. Yes.

117

A. You quote Kuhn, not quoting but you
paraphrase him I think there and you mention that
when discussing those who tend to break with the
past and open new and fertile fields of scientific
field of exploration tend to be very young. One
of the reasons for that is that young people for
some reason are the people who open the new fields
are not as emotionally or intellectually as
committed to the past, for example. Is that what
you say there in part?

A. That's what I say there.

Q. Do you agree with that?

A. At the individual level, yes.

Q. If you study only one theory or one
model of origin rather than any alternatives,
would that not tend to make a person more
emotionally intellectually committed to the past?

A. One model of origins? You mean only
one particular mechanism of evolution?

Q. No, just one model of evolution. One
model speaking of evolution, if you just study
evolutionary theory as opposed to any other theory.

A. Emotionally attached to it? I think he
would probably be very sincerely attached to it.

118

When I use the term emotional here, I am talking
about an individual scientist who perhaps has done
a lot of work in something and then feels
threatened. I am not talking about the scientific
community having an emotional attachment to
individual scientists.

Q. Does that occur, where they do a lot of
work in something and then become emotionally
attached to it?

A. I think sometimes, yes.

Q. And they may become intellectually
attached to it as well, if they work in the same
sort of mind set for a great many years?

A. An individual scientist, yes. Not all.

Q. Also, to a certain degree, if they had
done work in a particular area and they have
established a stature in that area, their stature
is going to be determined in large part by the
success or failure of that theory?

MR. NOVIK: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Q. Isn't it?

A. Sure. Some scientists, but not all.
If you read on in the book you will see how Lyell

119

sweats it out. And really goes quite a long way.
As I say, I think that I would want to distinguish
between Kuhn's sort of perceptive insights about
the individual scientists and be wary of
generalizing to the general scientific community.

Q. If we could just just consider
evolutionary theory and think about it apart from,
as much as we can from this creation science
controversy, if there arose a new alternative
scientific theory to the theory of evolution,
would you agree that there would be something akin
to an institutional resistance to accepting it?

A. That is awfully hypothetical and it's
very difficult to answer that one. I think the
answer is possibly but not necessarily. It would
depend on the evidence.

Q. Kuhn talks about part of a normal
scientist to defend the model?

A. Yes. But scientists can change their
mind as a group very quickly. Plate techtonics.
It depends on the evidence that is brought up.
It's like everything else, you go with something
and you give it up but, of course, depending on
what the force of the evidence which is brought

120

against it. For example, if you convict somebody
and then the next week you gat an identical murder
and another person actually caught doing it, that
is much stronger evidence than a bit of tangential
evidence 20 years later. You change your mind
much more quickly in the one case than the other.

Q. I guess I am really asking you a larger
and what appears to me to be more philosophical
question of are scientists immune from really the
human condition that --

A. Scientists as such, as individuals, no,
obviously not.

Q. When we look at the history of science
and we look back at some of the notions which were
once considered scientific, today, with the
benefit of hindsight, some of those appear
laughable and ludicrous?

A. Reading Kuhn teaches you not to laugh
at them.

Q. But they would appear to that?

A. If you held them today they would be
ludicrous. For them to have held them was not
ludicrous.

Q. Do you have any reason to think that

121

one day someone might look at what some of the
notions that we currently hold to be scientific
and have the same opinion?

A. I am sure they will.

Q. That raises the larger question is
science affected by society at large?

MR. NOVIK: Isn't that a bit broad?

Q. The idea, for example, that someone
like Sir Fred Hoyle says that if science affects
society then there is no reason to think that the
converse is not always true?

A. I think it would be naive to say that
can't happen. Particularly in the social sciences.

Q. Do you think it happens in the physical
sciences?

A. It has been known to. But I think
science has its sort of self-correction or its
methodology, its attempts to rise above this. So
that it would be unfair to say that science is no
more than, what shall I say, some sort of trendy
popular idea of the time, which is purely
subjective. Like a liking for Elvis Presley or
something like that. One society likes, another
doesn't.

122

Q. But there is that influence there?

A. The influence, yes. But there is also
the, how can I put it, the counterbalance of what
I would call the scientific aim, scientific method
overall, which helps, what shall I say, the truth,
knowledge, science, to emerge. Rise above the
individual, above the time.

Q. Is pursuit of the truth, is that a
proper inquiry for science?

A. I think that is a --

Q. You didn't finish.

A. How can I say no.

Q. On page 244 of the DARWINIAN REVOLUTION,
you make a statement that depending on one's a
priori conviction, one could draw completely
different conclusions from the same facts. Do you
still --

A. Of course, I am talking here now about
a time when religion and science haven't been
separated out. At least on this issue.

Q. What reference is that?

A. In the 1860's. I am talking about the
Duke of Arguyll, who was very explicitly a
Christian, and very explicit about the extent to

123

which he let his Christian beliefs influence him.
I am also talking about Charles Lyell, who again
was a very ardent deist and letting his religious
beliefs influence him. I am certainly not denying
that individual scientists have done this, or
individual scientists have let their religious
beliefs intrude.

Q. Would you say that that statement is
any less true today than it was --

A. Yes, I think so. In the sense that I
think that we do now have a clearer notion of
science, once acceptable. And it's an evolving
and been an evolving concept. Darwinian
revolution was part of it.

Q. Do scientists today not have any a
priori convictions?

A. Apriority convictions? 2 plus 2 equals
4. If you want to call than an a priori
conviction.

Q. You can have an a prioric conviction
that --

A. I wouldn't want to say that every
scientist today is as pure as driven snow. On the
other hand, I think now as indeed then, in the

124

1860's, I think there was a scientific methodology
which enabled people to sift through things. And
what shall I say, approach some sort of scientific
consensus. Individual scientists in the 1860's
had different views. But it didn't mean to say
they were all equally valid then or now.

Q. If a scientist is working on
evolutionary theory accepts the general
evolutionary framework or concept rather than
testing it, does not have an a prioric conviction
concerning evolutionary theory?

A. I prefer not to use the word a prioric
conviction here. I this is a point that goes back
to a point I was making earlier. I think there
can come a time when it is no longer reasonable to
go on worrying about that particular position.
That does not mean that it is necessarily a priori.
You convict somebody and, okay, let's go on from
there. That does not mean that your belief in the
person's guilt or innocence is a priori. What it
does mean is that you don't now spend the rest of
your legal career going over that one.

Q. Doesn't your analogy breakdown, though,
because if you look at the criminal justice system,

125

a decision has to be made, you can't have the
fellow charged interminably?

A. All analogies break down. If they
didn't they wouldn't be analogies. No, I don't
think so. God knows, in America you go on long
enough with your cases, anyway. No. How could I
put it? Surely, perhaps in the courts you have to
say some sort of formal mark of the time when you
say enough. In science, even there, I suspect, in
a sense there comes a point where you say to your
students, look, how can I put it, you drop it from
the course now. Because you say look, that's
decided. It doesn't mean that it could never,
ever be opened again. But it means that you go on.
It may not necessarily be a formal court which
says right, we have now proven or we have now
established these things like this. But you do
get marks of acceptability like Nobel prizes and
so on.

Q. Then you say we shouldn't bother with
that, we should go on with other things?

A. Double helix.

MR. NOVIK: Shall we break for lunch?

(Luncheon recess: 1:05 p.m.)

126

AFTERNOON SESSION

2:10 p.m.

M I C H A E L E S C O T T R U S E, having
been previously sworn, resumed the stand and
testified further as follows:

EXAMINATION (cont'd.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Dr. Ruse, do you thing that a teacher
in a class on evolution, if asked a question about
evolution and religion should try to answer it
fairly and honestly?

A. Depends on the question.

Q. If a student should ask for example a
question as to whether in a discussion of
evolution, as to whether the concept of evolution
precludes the existence of a God in bringing about
life, how should a teacher answer that question?

A. I think you would probably say
something along the lines of -- certainly, some
people have been evolutionists and believe in a
God and others haven't been. Some Christians have
not been evolutionists and vice-versa. In the
context of an ordinary classroom discussion. But
more than that, I think you lay off.

127

Q. Do you think that would be a honest
answer?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Earlier today, didn't you tell me that
the concept or the theory of evolution in its
terms precluded the existence, not the existence
but the necessity of an intervention by a creator?

A. A necessity. But it didn't preclude
the intervention. Precludes the intervention of a
creator on an on-going basis like that, yes.
Obviously, you can't be a rigid fundamentalist and
an evolutionist at the same time. But you asked
me whether one could be a Christian or something
like that. I think you can be a Christian and an
evolutionist.

Q. Do you think that evolution is contrary
to the religious, moral and philosophical beliefs
of some students?

A. I suspect it's contrary to some of
their religious beliefs. It's a difficult
question. It depends how far their religious
beliefs extend.

MR. NOVIKL Which students are we
talking about? His students?

128

MR. WILLIAMS: Not his students.
Students in general. Some people.

A. Moral beliefs, I don't think so. What
was the other one?

Q. Philosophical.

A. Not necessarily.

Q. I note in your manuscript, in chapter
14, I think it will be 13 in the published volume,
you at some length tried to expound on what you
consider to be creationism; is that correct?

A. Scientific creationism.

Q. And you rely almost exclusively on it
but call it creationism, published by the
Institute for Published Research; is that correct.

You made a determination as to?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you made a determination as to
whether the book SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM would be
permissible under Act 590?

A. I got a feeling that is a legal
question.

Q. Just from your reading of it.

A. Well --

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. Permissible is

129

a legal issue. There might be other questions you
can ask, but I am not sure permissible is the
right question. I think perhaps the witness ought
to try avoiding seeming to interpret the statute
in terms of what is permissible or not.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the statute if
implemented would probably be implemented by
educators probably more than lawyers.

MR. NOVIK: Is that a response?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. NOVIK: The purpose of this lawsuit
is to find out what is permissible or not. And
that is to be decided by lawyers and judges.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have no problem with
approaching it a different way.

Q. Are you aware that Act 590 does contain
language which prohibits religious instruction or
reference to religious writings in --

A. Yes.

Q. Have you examined SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM
to determine whether that book meets those
criteria?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion on that?

130

A. Well, I find bill 590 --

Q. Act 590?

A. To be somewhat contradictory. On the
one hand it does prohibit religious teaching. On
the other hand, that particular book, the textbook,
I think fits -- puts forth in six points.

Q. If, speaking in the realm of the
hypothetical, if there were a creator who did
cause the first life, if you will, in whatever
form it might have occurred, would that be
creation?

A. I think so, If he did it in a
supernatural way, I mean.

Q. How do you distinguish between morals
and religion?

A. Religion has a belief in some sort of
supernatural creator or some extraworldly entity.
Morals has to do with code of conduct. Some
religions certainly incorporate a moral system.

Q. Would it be true in large part that if
you take atheistic religion, if you take the
presence of a supernatural being out of there,
that you would be left probably with some sort of
moral code?

131

A. Well, I am not quite sure how to answer
that. If you took God out of Christianity, I am
not quite sure how much you have left.

Q. If you took just the precepts and some
of the rules that are given by which to guide one's
life, wouldn't you still have a moral code?

A. You would certainly have moral claims,
but I am not sure how much you are going to have
left if you take God out of Christianity.

Q. Is it quite so simple to separate
morals from religion, one has a God and one
doesn't?

A. No, it is not simple, no. You say one
has a God and one doesn't. I don't think it is
quite an either/or like that. I myself think that
morality is something which exists independently
of a god, certainly of an atheistic god. I think
it is something that one intuits. Certainly
certain religions have emphasized or reinforced
this or specified this, often with their own
particular side twists, as it were.

Q. You do think that a school should teach
morals; is that what you say in your manuscript?

A. Yes. I think that a school should

132

certainly teach morals. Not all morals in the
sense that not all things that people have claimed
as morals, but loving, integrity, honesty.

Q. How do we decide what morals we teach
and what we don't?

A. Again, I think one falls to a great
extent back on the accumulated wisdom of the ages,
what we have worked out, the sorts of things that
we were taught very much.

Q. Where did you learn this?

A. At school and at home, and to a certain
extent in the Quaker Church.

Q. How do you teach morals in school?

A. Often you do it by example. In other
words, if the teacher is honest, the teacher keeps
his/her word, the teacher plays fair, I think this
is an important thing. Also to a certain extent
by talking about these things, by having rules,
and obviously a certain amount of enforcement.

Q. Could you summarize for me your
argument that scientific creation should not be
taught in public schools because of the morality
problems you see?

A. As I have said, the problems I have

133

here are the sort of what I call the side effects
or the twists, as I said in a rather inelegant
phrase I used earlier. I see scientific creationism
as endorsing a particular set of moral claims. By
moral claims here I mean claims that people make
in the name of morality. For example, certain
aspects of the Old Testament about the status of
women, homosexuals, some of these sort of things,
which I personally find ethically offensive. But
my point is not so much whether I find them
ethically offensive, but I think these are sort of
particularly divisive aspects.

Q. Because you think they are personally
divisive you wouldn't like to see them taught in
the schools?

A. I personally find them that. But the
reason why I object is because I don't think these
are today, with our present understanding, part of
what I call the consensus, accumulation of
knowledge.

Q. Does the theory of evolution have any
moral implications?

A. I really don't think so.

Q. When you talk about natural selection

134

and survival of the fittest and you apply that to
all areas of your life, do you not think that
would have some moral implications?

MR. NOVIK: He never said that natural
selection and survival of the fittest applies to
all aspects of his life. Your initial question
assumed a state of facts which the witness never
testified to.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's go on.

Q. Do you understand my question?

A. I think I do. I find it a difficult
question to answer because I am not sure how much
sense it makes. It is rather like asking me does
the law of gravity apply to all aspects of my life.

Q. For example, was some knowledge or
notion of evolutionary theory used -- who was it,
by Carnegie? -- to justify the corporate system?

A. Rockefeller.

Q. Rockefeller?

A. John D. Rockefeller. I think this is
something he is reading into evolutionary theory
and then reading out.

Q. I really fail to --

A. A knowledge of biology can help you to

135

make moral decisions. Genetic counseling, for
example, the knowledge of this certainly. But I
don't think your moral decisions and morality per
se stem from science. It stems from your moral
code, utilitarianism, Kantianism. But to apply
moral decisions you have to bring particular
circumstances into effect.

Q. If a student learns that one of the
laws of nature, of evolution, is survival of the
fittest, that general notion, and understanding it
as a law he seeks to apply it to other aspects of
his life, could that not lead to some results
which would be contrary to even your own set of
morals?

A. If. But that is not teaching
evolutionary biology as it is presently understood
today. If somebody is taught badly, sure things
can go wrong.

Q. Maybe the question is not one of the
quality of the teaching but the application which
the student might give it. Is that not true?

A. How can I put it? You teach a student
how to drive, he might do something wrong. But
the job of the driving instructor is to teach you

136

properly so that you minimize the possibility of
accidents. I see nothing in contemporary
evolutionary theory which would lead the student
to go out and behavior like the mad hulk.

Q. Isn't what you are saying that the
evolutionary theory is in this nice neat little
box called evolutionary biology and it shouldn't
go out of there?

A. No. What I am saying is that
evolutionary theory doesn't have these horrendous
ethical principles or consequences that you are
trying to draw out of it.

Q. It has been used for that, though,
hasn't it?

A. So has Christianity.

Q. Both can be abused?

A. Right.

Q. In your manuscript you talk about the
creationists' cries for, quote, equal time, closed
quote. Is there any piece in the Act which
requires equal time to be given?

A. Balanced treatment.

Q. Does that mean equal time?

A. I would have thought the presumption is

137

equal time.

Q. Other than the balanced treatment,
there is nothing in there that indicates equal
time to you, is there?

A. That to me is enough.

Q. In your manuscript you also describe
creation science and you make a statement about
the creationists, quote, "Here at last, one can
find a firm basis for morality."

MR. NOVIK: Can we see that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have a copy of it?

MR. NOVIK: I don't, I'm sorry.

A. What I am saying here is that this is
the creationists' belief. If you will notice in
the sort of context I am talking about, how people
feel worried about the collapse of moral behavior,
as I say, I am tending somewhat simplistically to
a belief or set of beliefs that they can hold on
firmly to. That is not my claim.

Q. Are you in effect saying here that
creation scientists look at creation science and
say here is a firm basis for morality in creation
science?

A. No. I think they find a firm basis for

138

morality in the Old Testament.

Q. You said you think that the
creationists have had great success. Was that
your statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Why do you think they have had such
great success?

A. Well, here we are. What more can I say?

Q. Have you ever taken any step to oppose
the teaching of creation science in the schools of
Canada?

A. No.

Q. Do you oppose it in the schools of
Canada?

A. I do indeed, yes.

Q. Have you ever testified in any efforts
in Canada to have creation science banished from
the classroom?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever written any letters to
any educational officials in Canada opposing it?

A. No.

Q. You make a comment in your manuscript
about the Arkansas law and state, "Significantly,

139

the Arkansas law makes the same charge as that
leveled by the California creationists, claiming,
that, if anything, it is the teaching of evolution
which is unconstitutional!" Where do you find that
in that 590?

MR. NOVIK: Would you like to show him
the statute?

A. This was written in the summer. I got
this secondhand out of Nature. Well, here we go.
How about Section 7(c), "Evolution science is not
an unquestionable fact of science because
evolution cannot be specifically observed, fully
verified or logically falsified, because evolution
science is not accepted by some scientists.
Evolution science is contrary to the religious
convictions, moral values, philosophical beliefs.
Public school presentation of only evolution
science without any alternative model abridges the
United States Constitution protection of freedom
of religious exercise."

It seems to me the implications here
are starting to be that evolution science is
treated as a religion.

"Public school presentation of

140

evolution science produces hostilities towards
many atheistic religions." Then it goes on to say,
"These nonatheistic religions are like atheism, in
that these religious faiths general," I think that
should be generally, "include a religious belief
in
evolution." That seems to me to make the case.

Q. Do you read the Act as saying that the
teaching of evolution is in itself unconstitutional
or that the teaching of evolution without the
balanced treatment required by the Act is
unconstitutional?

A. As I explained to you, I find the Act
somewhat internally inconsistent anyway. But I
certainly find the implication in those parts that
I just read to be that evolution is religious, in
which case at least certain aspects of the Act
seem to imply that evolution should not be taught.

Q. But the Act in fact requires that it be
taught if either theory is taught, doesn't it?

A. Well, I didn't write it.

Q. How many years have you been involved
in the study of the Darwinian thought, Darwinian
revolution?

141

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the title of one
of his books.

A. I would say it is a 15-year project.

Q. I take it that the notion of the
success of the creationists have had inspite of
your 15-year project of trying to write on Darwin,
in simple terms, makes you mad, doesn't it?

A. Upset.

Q. You say that you even think that "the
creationists have had and can anticipate great
success."

MR. NOVIK: Are you reading from the
book?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Well, have had.

MR. NOVIK: I am sure Dr. Ruse did not
mean to imply anything about the outcome of this
litigation.

Q. Do you think, honestly, they will
continue to have great success, as you claimed?

A. You are asking me about the outcome of
this trial.

Q. No, not with reference to this trial.

142

I really would not ask you that.

A. Put it this way. I don't think things
are going to be over by Christmas.

Q. When I look at this and try to read, as
I am told by people like yourself and other people
in science who propose the evolution model, that
the overwhelming weight of evidence is in favor of
evolution, I think about have the evolutionists
somehow failed? Do you have a response to that
question?

MR. NOVIK: I didn't hear a question,
first of all. Second of all, there has been no
testimony about what scientists think of the
evolution model. It is not a phrase that Dr. Ruse
has used once, as I have heard this testimony
today.

MR. WILLIAMS: I can use "theory" just
as well. It matters not.

MR. NOVIK: Well, it matters a bit to
me.

Q. Dr. Ruse, do you think that the
overwhelming scientific evidence is in favor of
the theory of evolution as opposed to the theory
of creation science?

143

A. I think the scientific evidence is in
favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to
other scientific hypotheses. I think scientific
creation or creation science is not science.

Q. Do you feel that the theory of
evolution has been accepted?

A. By whom?

Q. Generally.

A. That is a sociological question I am
not really that competent to answer. My guess
would be not entirely.

Q. Approximately 120 years, since THE
ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, approximately, with all the
scientific evidence and certainly the bulk of the
scientific community on the side of evolution, do
you have an opinion as to why evolution, that
theory of evolution, has not been accepted?

MR. NOVIK: Accepted by whom? Do you
mean the community of scientists? Because he has
already testified as to what he believes about
that.

Q. I am talking about generally in terms
of its acceptance by people. Maybe I am assuming
something. But as I read this work, some of it,

144

particularly the last position, there seems to me
to be a sense in your writing that the theory of
evolution simply has not been accepted by many
people. Is that fair?

A. I think in North America a lot of
people certainly have not accepted evolution. In
England I really don't know. I would hazard a
guess that more have. But I am not an expert in
this field.

Q. We will confine ourselves to North
America, keep it narrow. In view of everything on
the side of evolution and in terms of the things I
mentioned earlier, those three factors, why do you
think it has not been accepted?

A. I think one reason is that it hasn't
been properly taught. I think there has been a
lot of ongoing pressure from special interest
groups who fairly effectively excluded the fair
teaching of evolution in the schools.

Q. When you say it has not been effectively
taught, what do you mean?

A. I mean precisely that.

Q. Do you mean it has been too watered
down?

145

A. Probably not even taught at all. As I
say, you are getting me beyond areas that I feel
competent. I am not an educationalist in the,
quote, professional sense. I am an educationalist
in the sense I am a teacher.

Q. In your manuscript you state that, "Even
in areas in the U.S. where creationism is not that
strongly entrenched, course materials are directly
affected by the beliefs of those who take the
Bible literally." Then you have a reference to
Nelkin, 1976. In what areas is creation strongly
entrenched?

MR. NOVIK: What areas of the country?

MR. WILLIAMS: Of the country.

A. Towards the south and Alberta.

Q. On what basis do you make that
conclusion or have that opinion?

A. Again, it is reading things like --
people like Nelkin. It is reading newspapers like
The New York Times, which report to me where these
bills are being passed at places like Arkansas
rather than Pennsylvania. That is the inference I
draw.

Q. Have you made any study of the textbook

146

publishers in the scientific area?

A. The textbooks?

Q. The publishers.

A. I have talked to one or two publishers.
I haven't more than that, no.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether
the textbook publishers, the non creation science
publishers, if this bill is upheld and the one in
Louisiana and any others which might be passed,
whether they would meet the need for a market for
so-called nonreligious scientific creation books?

A. I am not sure.

Q. You don't have an opinion on that?

A. I think the textbooks would be altered.

Q. Is it true that the Natural History
Branch of the British Museum has had a display
which portrays creation science as an alternative
to Darwinism?

A. Yes.

Q. You quote in your book from, it is
Medawar, that, "There are philosophical or
methodological objections to evolutionary theory.
It is too difficult to imagine or envision an
evolutionary episode which could not be explained

147

by the formula of neoDarwinism." Do you agree
with that?

A. No.

Q. Is Medawar a creation scientist?

A. No.

Q. On Page 428, and you can look at this
if you like, you talk about, quote, "We have the
creationist position which supposes that in the
fairly recent past the world was created
miraculously by God, that animals, plants, and
humans was all brought into existence at that time,
and that was it as far as new life was concerned."
Are those things necessarily required under
creation science as defined by Act 590?

A. I would need to put it line by line.
But, yes. If you want a definitive answer, I want
to look at the two texts together. But certainly
the gist seems to be there.

Q. For example, you state that "animals,
plants, and humans were all brought into existence
at that time." I assume you mean at the same time.
Where in Act 590 do you find that?

A. At the relatively recent inception, I
take it.

148

Q. Does that say that they were all
brought into existence at the same time?

MR. NOVIK: You asked him where he drew
the comparison, and he told you the place.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking are they in
fact in there.

A. If you are asking me, for example, does
it say they all have to be done in the same five
minutes, the answer is obviously no. However, if
you look at what I say through the context here,
you will see that it is clear that I am not
implying there that it is all done at exactly the
same moment. What I mean there is fairly early on.

MR. NOVIK: "There" pointing to the
book.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. You state in your manuscript that after
these animals, plants, and humans was brought into
existence, that "that was it as far as new life
was concerned."

A. Yes.

Q. Is there in the definition of creation
science anything which precludes other new life
coming into existence after the creation?

149

A. Are you asking me if creation science
allows the creation of new life -- let me try that
one again. Are you asking me whether the bill
forbids a teacher from suggesting that new life
occurs on a daily basis?

Q. On a daily or any other basis.

A. I am not sure that if somebody wants to
teach that it is actually occurring today -- well,
yes. It seems to me Section 4(a)(3), "Changes
only within fixed limits of originally created
kinds of plants and animals." certainly to my way
of thinking has the implication that all the new
life that is going to come has come.

Q. You agree, do you not, that if the
world is not the billions of years old which the
evolutionists think that it is, that evolutionary
theory cannot be upheld?

A. In its present form.

Q. If you look at Act 590 and look at the
creation science and think about the creator that
is either implied or, as some would say,
presupposed by that, what do you know about that
creator, just from the definition there?

A. He is obviously going to have to be a

150

designer of some sort if he can suddenly create
the universe, energy, and life from nothing. And
I take it this is in juxtaposition to emergence by
naturalistic processes. I would say he is
certainly going to have to be a designer of some
sort. It would imply that he is going to have
some sort of special place for man. I would want
to unpack the implications of the worldwide flood,
too.

Q. What do you mean unpack them?

A. What you are asking me is what can I
infer about the creator from Section 4(a), I take
it.

MR. NOVIK: Do the unpacking.

A. What I am saying is, as I see it, we
are dealing with a creator who is obviously
all-powerful in some sort of traditional sense.
He is obviously or she or it is obviously a
designer of some sort. I see from 4(a)(4)
presumably one who is concerned about man.

Q. How so? How do you get that?

A. Man is separated right off from the
apes. In other words, man doesn't come under
4(a)(3), for example. We are dealing with man and

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Michael E. Ruse - Page 4

151

the apes, obviously separate.

Q. Does that necessarily mean he is more
concerned about man?

A. He has a special concern, let me put it
this way.

Q. If he created all kinds separately,
then he just created all kinds separately. Does
that necessarily mean a special place for man?

A. As I see it, 4(a)(3) is allowing some
changes within the limits. So I see somebody who
has some special concern about man.

If I am unpacking 4(a)(5), a creator
who is responsible in some way for a worldwide
flood, as I see it, implies how certain do you
want to unpack this. I ask myself why would there
be a world-wide flood? Then I go and look at the
works by creation scientists.

Q. Rather than looking at the works, I
would like for you just to look at that Act and
what is defined in there and tell me what you know
about the creator.

A. I think I have done as far as I can go
at this point.

Q. So we know that there is a power, it is

152

a designer, with some special concern about man.
And yet the question about the worldwide flood
doesn't really tell you anything about them, does
it?

A. I think it does.

MR. NOVIK: Them?

MR. WILLIAMS: Did I say "them"?

A. I think anybody who does all this and
presumably wipes everything out, I take it a
worldwide flood is going to last long enough that
we can't just swim on the top.

Q. Do you know necessarily that this
creator has love or compassion or any of those
qualities which would typically be associatesd
with a god?

A. I find this very difficult to answer
because you are insisting again, I think, on my
confining myself to an impossibly narrow thing,
namely, 4(a).

Q. You can look at other portions of the
bill if you would like.

A. Thank you. I do look at 4(b). I say
at least we are implying a god of some particular
kind, maybe a stern god, a vengeful god, a just

153

god, something along these lines. For example, if
I look at 4(a)(5), then I start to ask, well, how
many organisms got left, where did they go? You
are asking me these sorts of questions. I can't
do this out of the context of Genesis. I can't do
it out of the context of creation science writings.

Q. Is there anything in 4(a) which
necessarily implies that -- back up. In your text
here you have a quote with several adjectives
applied to the creator. You don't have a
reference for that. Is that from creation science?

A. I'm sorry, if there isn't one, there
should be. It is from Morris's edited work

Q. From 4(a) do we definitely know that
this creator was infinite?

A. I would have thought that we are
getting fairly close to in with 4(a)(1).

Q. What in there tells you that?

A. Anybody who can create everything out
of nothing has got pretty significant powers.

Q. I was thinking infinite more in terms
of either size or endurance.

A. Does one mean that by "infinite"? What
does one mean by "infinite" in the theological

154

sense.

Q. What about "eternal"?

A. It is difficult to say. One assumes
that this is a god outside time. Don't forget,
eternal doesn't necessarily mean everlasting. So
I would infer again from 4(a)(1) that we are
getting fairly close to something eternal in the
sense of beyond, outside, time.

Q. Also the sudden creation of energy --

A. We are dealing with someone that can
create something out of nothing.

Q. That doesn't necessarily mean that they
have been there forever, does it?

A. I think you are confusing everlasting
with eternal.

Q. What is the difference in your mind?

A. Everlasting is where you have events
going on like this and that. Eternal is something
outside of time. Pythagoras's theorum hasn't been
everlastingly true. It extends outside of
physical events.

My implication from 4(a)(1) would be
that we are dealing with a being which in some
very important and very real sense stands outside

155

physical phenomena. As I understand religious
discussion, and I am talking now as a philosopher,
that would be eternal.

Q. I take it you would find the
omnipotence in 4(a)(1)?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. How about omnipresent?

A. Again, having built in the eternal, we
are probably getting pretty close to omnipresent,
and 4(a)(5) certainly shows that the god --

Q. What is (5)?

A. Explanation of the earth's geology by
catastrophism including a worldwide flood, I would
have thought is pushing fairly close to being
around.

Q. Pushing?

A. But omnipresent, again, we are unpacking
4(a)(1). I see 4(a)(1) being associated with sort
of our Western intellectual tradition as you can
best unpack it with a god who is all powerful,
eternal, omnipresent, and so on and so forth.

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. I think we may
have lost somewhat the fact that Mr. Williams is
reading from a quote within Dr. Ruse's book, the

156

quote coming from a Mr. Morris, a noted creationist
who uses these words in support of his argument
for scientific creationism.

THE WITNESS: It is not just Mr. Morris.
This is a book that he has edited.

MR. WILLIAMS: But it is the Plaintiffs
who are to inextricably tie this Act back to these
people.

MR. NOVIK: That is something we can
argue about later. I was just trying to clarify
the record as to what you were reading from.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

Q. Is there necessarily in Act 590 any
indication that this god is a moral god or creator?

MR. NOVIK: Is that another one of Mr.
Morris's works?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

A. I would have thought that 4(a)(4) and
(5) would be difficult to expound on without in
some sense bringing morality in.

Q. The worldwide flood --

A. You are asking me to make a cloak
without cloth at the moment. You are asking me to
comment on rather ambiguous fragmentary passages,

157

like separate ancestry from man and apes.

As I unpack that, we are obviously
dealing with some sort of special status for man
or for humans. That, again, one has to put this
in sort of common sense and general intellectual
tradition and everything like this. When you
start talking about special status for man, you
start to get to morality and spirituality very
quickly.

Q. What you are really saying there when
you are talking about this Western intellectual
tradition is simply that that sounds like
something from the Bible, therefore it must be the
same creator as in the Bible?

A. No, I think I am saying something a
little stronger than that. I am saying that in
these sort of fragmentary states that these are in
and rather ambiguous phrases these are in, the
only reasonable way to interpret them as they
stand at the moment is to take what we know and,
as it were, build something which makes sense. In
order to do this, the presumption as I see it
would be that we are dealing with a moral being, a
being certainly which has a special place for man.

158

Q. Are you extrapolating? When I asked
you the qualities that you could read into it, you
only gave me a power, designer, a special concern
about man, and then some question about a worldwide
flood.

MR. NOVIK: He also said all-powerful.

A. I am getting close to moral, too.

Q. Do you think that the theory of
evolution is consistent with the beliefs of some
religions?

A. Yes. Not inconsistent, put it that way.

Q. Do you know whether evolution is the
tenet of some religions?

A. I don't, no.

Q. Are you familiar with the Society of
Religious Humanists?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever read the
HUMANIST MANIFESTO 1, 2, or 3?

A. No.

Q. Something else about your manuscript
that I want to ask you. Let me show it to you.
You state here that, "Remember how blatant the
Arkansas bill is in this matter. Homosexuals will

159

be condemned and excoriated as moral degenerates,
women will be confined to perpetual second-rate
citizenship, and all nonbelievers will be labeled
perfidious infidels." Do you get that from the
Arkansas bill?

A. I see that as an implication of the,
what shall I say, the enforcement of the Arkansas
bill. I don't see the Arkansas bill condemning
homosexuals.

MR. NOVIK: I think the first sentence
in that paragraph adds some light on what Dr. Ruse
means by that.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, the
first sentence is, "The trouble with the
creationists' position is that it really does open
the way to a teaching of a specific religiously
based morality."

Q. You think teaching about a creator,
that is religious, is that what you think?

A. I say teaching about a creator is
religious.

Q. How do you deal with ORIGIN OF THE
SPECIES then in this reference to a creator?
Should it not be taught?

160

A. I am not sure that Darwin intends it
literally at that point. He does qualify himself
in later editions to point out that he doesn't
necessarily mean it in a literal sense.

Q. But he did use a capital C Creator,
didn't he?

A. Yes. But he does point out later on
that he didn't intend it in the literal sense.

Q. Do you think that the first editions
then of origin of the species should not be taught
in the classroom?

A. No, because I don't think Darwin
intends that. But I would certainly expect the
teacher to be able to point that out or point out
the ambiguity there.

Q. In other words, when the concept of a
creator is included in an evolutionary theory, you
have no problem with the teacher being able to
point out what was going on; is that correct?

MR. NOVIK: That is argumentative,
don't you think?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. I will save
the argument.

Q. Could you summarize for me your

161

argument on why creationism should not be taught
based on knowledge?

MR. NOVIK: Can you refer us to the
argument you are talking about?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. It is on Page 48
of his manuscript. He has three specific
arguments. One is religion, one is morality, one
is knowledge.

A. I worry that students will be forced to
accept such bad and falacious arguments that this
will hinder their development, intellectual
development, so that generally speaking they will
be unable to make proper judgments.

Q. Why do you feel this in particular will
hinder their intellectual development?

A. Because I read the works of the
scientific creationists, and I see a great many
logical and formal and informal fallacies being
committed, passages being quoted out of context,
people being taken to say things that they don't
mean to say, arguments being distorted, claims
that things are being tested when they are not
being tested, pseudo explanations. In other words,
just about everything I teach my students not to

162

do. I worry that if this is taken to be
acceptable intellectual discourse or intellectual
reasoning, that this will lead to a general
downfall of intellectual, what shall I say,
criteria, methodology, teaching.

Q. Do you think that creationists are to
be equated with Auschwitz and Hiroshima?

A. I don't think that Harry Morris is
another Hitler, no. I do think that bad thinking
of all kinds, shoddy thinking, leads the way for
evil people to take action and to seize power.

Q. Did you tell me this morning that you
thought that a teacher who thought that creation
science had some merit, and as you will recall I
think my question presupposed that the teacher had
reviewed all literature and made a conscious
effort, you still thought he should be prohibited
from teaching that; is that correct?

A. Teach it on Sundays.

Q. But he should not teach it in the
classroom?

A. In public schools, no.

Q. How do you determine when a science
teacher should be prohibited from teaching an idea?

163

A. When it is religion.

Q. Is what is religion a fixed standard, a
constant?

A. I think there are fuzzy edges, but I
think that doesn't mean you can't say that some
things are religion and some things aren't.

Q. Do you think that the neoDarwinian
theory of evolution is axiomatic?

MR. NOVIK: Are you going to tell us
what neoDarwinian is?

Q. Do you understand what that means?

A. Yes. Synthetic theory.

MR. NOVIK: Is that what you mean?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

A. I think in part it is.

Q. What do you mean by axiomatic?

A. You start with certain basic axioms and
from these you derive other statements as premises,
hopefully deductively.

Q. Are axioms provable?

A. They are certainly up for test.
Because something is axiomatic, there is an
ambiguity here, doesn't mean to say it is accepted
without question. Within a system it is, but it

164

doesn't mean to say that the system itself has to
be accepted without question.

Q. Except for tests. But my traditional
sort of layman definition of an axiom is something
which can't be tested. Does that apply here?

A. As I say, that is a confusion between
the two senses of "axiom" here. I mean unproved
within the system.

Q. Have you studied physics much?

A. In my past I did. My undergraduate
degree included a fair amount of theoretical
physics.

Q. Are you familiar with any parallels
between physics and some of the Eastern mystic
religions?

A. No. That is beyond my field.

Q. Are you familiar with the Taoist
physics?

A. I know of it, but I have not read it.

Q. When the creation scientists talk about
evolution as being not testable or falsifiable, is
Dobzhansky in their corner on that?

MR. NOVIK: Read that back.

(Question read.)

165

Q. Does he agree with them?

A. It wasn't the creationists. I think
the phrase was the creation scientists. You are
not implying that Dobzhansky was a creation
scientist?

Q. No, not at all.

A. I would not have said that Dobzhansky
would have agreed with them on an overall basis.

Q. What was Dobzhansky's position on that
point as you understand it?

MR. NOVIK: On falsifiability?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

A. To the best of my knowledge, he would
have thought the theory was falsifiable. But, to
be honest, I can't pretend that I have read all of
Dobzhansky's works and I have never met him.

Q. Are you familiar with MATHEMATICAL
CHALLENGES TO THE NEODARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF
EVOLUTION?

A. I think I glanced at it 10, 12 years
ago, but that is my familiarity.

MR. NOVIK: Is that a book?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. NOVIK: Who is the author of it?

166

MR. WILLIAMS: Murray Eden.

Q. Do you have an opinion about that work?

A. I have come across Medawar's article on
it, which I don't agree with. But other than that
I really don't.

Q. Are you familiar with either Paul
Ehrlich or L. C. Birch?

A. I know of them, yes.

Q. Are they evolutionists?

A. I am pretty sure that Ehrlich is, and
Birch.

Q. Do you know who L. Harrison Matthews is
or was?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. He is a fellow of the Royal Society. I
think he may have been president of the
Sociological Society or at least important in
those sorts of circles.

Q. Is he an evolutionist?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with H. S. Lipson,
physicist?

A. I think I have come across -- I was

167

shown an article by him -- is he from Manchester
or somewhere like that? I forget.

Q. I think he is, yes.

A. Then I think I know who you mean.

Q. Do you consider him to be a competent
scientist?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know, have no opinion?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that Gould has stated
that if Mayer's characterization of the synthetic
theory is accurate, then that theory of the
general proposition is effectively dead?

A. Yes, right.

MR. NOVIK: Was that a quote?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Q. What is your opinion of that statement
by Gould?

A. A, I disagree with it. But, B, I think
that if you look at what Gould has to say in the
context of the whole article you will see that he
is nowhere like as far from Mayer's position as
that one paragraph implies. Although he does say
it.

168

Q. Are you aware of any other scientific
explanations or theories for the origin of the
world, life, and man?

A. Yes.

Q. What other scientific theories are
there?

A. There are versions like the one that
Fred Hoyle is pushing at the moment, that life
came from outer space or something like that. I
believe there are several versions of this now
that life was brought here by intelligent beings
or that life was planned by intelligent beings. I
think Hoyle's version is that in some sense
intelligent beings planned the comet so we would
pass through cloud dust or something like that.

Q. Do you consider that to be a scientific
theory?

A. Hoyle's stuff is very difficult to
follow when he gets to his religious chapter. I
think that it would be possible to divorce that,
as it were, the earlier part perhaps, from the
later part. I think when he gets to talking about
intelligent beings, then he is going into religion.
But if one had a position that life had just

169

always existed, I see no reason why that shouldn't
be a scientific position of some sort. I don't
say that it would necessarily be true.

Q. I am not asking you to adapt the theory
as being true. Any others that you can think of?

A. Not offhand. But that could be a
function of my limits of imagination.

Q. Do you have any correspondence other
than this with the attorneys in this case on the
subject of creation science?

A. What we were talking about this morning?

Q. Other than what was passed between the
attorneys in this case and you.

A. No.

Q. Have you done any other writings on
creation science other than what we discussed here
and that you brought with you?

A. No.

Q. Other than the professional societies
of which you are a member, are you a member of any
other groups?

A. I think St. John's Parent Teachers
Association.

Q. Are you not a member of the ACLU?

170

A. No

(Discussion off the record.)

A. I was asked whether I have everything
on the table literally which is on my CV. I am
fairly certain that there are about three articles
probably not in that group.

Q. Do you know which ones they are?

A. I don't, but I will certainly check
them and make them available. It was a function
of hurried time, getting them done.

I don't have my book reviews.

Q. In your book reviews have you ever
written about creation science?

A. To the best of my memory, no. I
wouldn't want to say that there has never ever
been a sentence on creation science. I am looking
down the list. There are a lot of reviews over a
long time. I would certainly say there is nothing
here which is not already on the table.

Q. What did you say about Gould's EVER
SINCE DARWIN?

A. I said that I thought it was a most
enjoyable book and that everybody should buy a
copy for themselves and for their favorite great

171

aunt for Christmas.

I think I also mentioned I do have this
edited volume, if you will look on the penultimate
page, annotated papers from the 1980 Montreal
symposium. I only contribute the preface. The
preface in fact is on the table.

Q. What was your review in essence of J.
Farley's SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?

A. I expressed admiration for somebody who
knew so much science and so many foreign languages.
I said it was an interesting book. I think I
implied that it was a little bit on the dull side,
which it was.

Q. What was the concept and the thrust of
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION? What was the general
thesis of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?

A. Farley was talking about the
development of the idea that life had been created
out of inorganic matter by natural processes. He
goes back to the Seventeenth Century and brings it
up to the Twentieth Century. He is concerned to
show that the popular view that it was all simply
a question of experimental evidence in fact wasn't
always true, that there were other considerations

172

which motivated people, including religious
considerations. I think that's about it.

Q. Have you brought with you the papers
you have read at conferences?

A. I confess I haven't. I'm afraid I
don't have them. But I would say that there is
nothing in the papers that I have read at
conferences which didn't find its way into print
on the table.

Q. I would like you, after today if you
would, to check and see which articles you don't
have here. If you would send them to us, I would
appreciate it?

A. I certainly will do that.

Q. Have any interviews with you ever been
published?

A. I think not, no.

MR. NOVIK: Have you ever been
interviewed?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have been asked
questions, that sort of thing, when I worked on
Darwinian evolution theory.

Q. What evidence is there against the
theory of evolution, if you think there is any?

173

A. There is evidence against some theories
or some mechanisms. I am not sure that there is
evidence against the, how can I put it, the
neoDarwinian version. There are some areas where
we are obviously debating hotly. But I don't know
of evidence which is firmly against it.

Q. Firmly against it, that is something of
a subjective judgment, isn't it, the
interpretation you are going to give the data?

A. You asked me what evidence is there
against it, which kind of implies that there is
evidence against it.

Q. I said if any.

A. My reply is that there are areas where
matters are certainly not settled, where we don't
have enough evidence.

Q. When did you write this manuscript?

A. When?

Q. Yes, over what period?

A. February through September.

Q. Of this year?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you write the portion --

A. Towards the end.

174

Q. In September of this year?

A. Probably earlier. You write something
and then you revise it. For me it is a holistic
process.

Q. Did you write it before or after you
were contacted about being a witness in this case?

A. Before, all before.

Q. You wrote it before October 8th or 15th?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a personal belief as to
whether a creator, in whatever form, had a hand in
creating life, man or anything else or the
universe?

A. Not really.

Q. You think it all evolved by natural
laws?

A. I think inasmuch as one can know at
this level of existence, yes.

Q. What do you discuss in "Cultural
Evolution"?

A. I am talking about the sorts of things
which might lead to the sort of change of customs,
habits, beliefs in the human world and whether or
not one can draw an analogy between what happens

175

in the human world and what happens in the
biological world.

Q. Can you draw an analogy, do you think?

A. Probably, but not in the way I suggest
in that paper.

Q. You have changed some of your concepts
since 1974 when you wrote this or some of your
thoughts on it?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you think you can draw an
analogy?

A. Since the writing of that paper
sociobiology has been discussed, and I am inclined
to think that now one can perhaps not just
analogize but relate behavior in a more direct way.
We know more about it than I suggested in that
paper.

Q. What analogies do you draw?

A. Perhaps "analogies" is not a good word.
What I am saying in that paper is I think that one
can draw sort of a Lemarckian sort of inheritance
or some sort of analogies between the kinds of
adaptive strategies that organisms take in the
biological world and what we do in the human world.

176

But, as I say, that paper was written from what I
call a group selection is the point of view, and I
would repudiate most of what I say there now,
along with most biologists.

Q. What publication is this article from?

A. This is from NEW SCIENTIST.

MR. NOVIK: Could you read the title?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. It is "Darwin's
Theory: An Exercise in Science."

Q. Could you briefly summarize what your
statements and findings are in this article?

A. That natural selection is not a
tautology.

Q. I take it in this article you were
trying to answer even some of the evolutionists
who were saying that it is tautology?

A. Some of the philosophical evolutionists,
yes.

Q. What is sociobiology?

A. It is the study of behavior from a
Darwinian perspective, group behavior, social
behavior.

Q. Do you think that is a valid science?

A. I think it is a valid enterprise. I

177

don't necessarily think that every hypothesis
which is put forward is fully confirmed yet.

Q. But some of the hypotheses are validly
scientific?

A. I think in the animal world some are
very good, yes.

Q. Do you think there are gay genes?

A. Let me put it this way. I don't think
it is any worse than some of the other explanations
that have been put forward.

Q. You wrote an article entitled "Is Human
Sociobiology a New Paradime?" What is the answer
to that question in your mind?

A. It goes back to what we were talking
about this morning, what is a paradime? In some
respects yes, in some respects no.

Q. Are you familiar with THE CONTROVERSY
OVER MAN, A COURSE OF STUDY?

A. No, I don't think so, no.

Q. Would you have any objection to an
interdisciplinary course on the study of origins
in which both religion and science were studied?

A. In a public school, yes.

Q. You would. Even if they were just

178

studying scientific theories of origin and some of
the different religious beliefs on origins?

A. If you are asking me at a comparative
religion level, then I don't think I would, if you
are asking me in a general knowledge class or
something like that what do people believe. But
if you are asking me something which could be
taken as an either/or, something as you do in a
biology class, then yes.

Q. If you had a course on the study of
origins which looked at it from a comprehensive
viewpoint, considered all the scientific evidence,
whatever that might be, considered religious
theories of origins and just talked about how that
question affects us generally and some of the
sociological implications, would you have any
problem with that sort of course being taught at a
public school?

A. I am not sure how specialized a course
one would teach at this level anyway.

Q. How about in a college?

A. In a college?

Q. Yes.

A. In a certain general affairs class or

179

something along those lines, I think one could
cover different beliefs, a history of religions
class or something like that. But I would
certainly in a public institution, publicly funded
institution, I would certainly have objections to
a course being taught which presented creation
science as a viable alternative to biological
theory.

Q. But as along as it was not presented as
a viable alternative, you would not object to it?

A. In the sense that I could see a teacher
telling students about Communism in public affairs
class, O would not object to that happening. I
would object to a teacher, say, lecturing on DAS
KAPITAL as something the students must accept and
believe.

Q. Would you have a problem in, say, a
history course, where you were studying the
American Revolution, trying to give a balance to
it from the American perspective as well as the
British perspective?

A. Well, I talk about history in my own
science class. So I am not saying under any
circumstances at any time in a school or

180

university could one not ever possibly mention it
or anything like that. My objection is to
teaching creation science in the biology classes
as a viable option today.

Q. Maybe the problem is with the idea of a
viable option. If it was presented in the form of
there are individuals who -- I am trying to avoid
the use of the term "scientist" there because I
think you may find I would have some problems with
that -- but individuals with Ph.D's who work in
the field of science who believe there is
scientific evidence to support it, would you
object to that? Support it, I mean the theory of
creation science.

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. There are a lot
of questions in that question. Do you want me to
explain or do you want to rephrase it?

MR. WILLIAMS: I will be glad to
restate it if you have some problems with it.

MR. NOVIK: I have problems with the
question.

Q. In a biology class, if the students
were told, in addition to being told about
evolutionary theory, that there are individuals

181

who have studied science and who have Ph.D's in
several fields of science and after having studied
it feel that there is scientific support for the
theory of creation science, would you object to
that?

A. Being taught or just a mention of the
fact?

Q. First of all, that being mentioned.

A. If somebody just mentioned the fact in
passing, preDarwinians, I would hardly object to
that. But if the person now went on and tried to
teach from it as a viable option in a biology
class, I would object.

Q. Put aside for the moment the question
of a viable option. After they made this mention
they gave a summary, here is what the creationists
say and what the evolutionists say, kind of just a
contrasting position, would you have a problem
with that? Would you object to that?

A. I think probably yes.

Q. Why would you object to that? We are
talking about a summary form, just kind of a
comparison.

A. I think, again, we go back to viable

182

options. Inasmuch as it is just something
mentioned in the course of teaching, we can't
pretend that the world doesn't exist, making
reference to preDarwinians or something, one
doesn't want to stand over the teacher and say
never ever mention the word "creation."

But I think we can all draw the
distinction between, say, a passing reference and
saying now, kids, now students or whatever, this
is what the creationists believe, et cetera. And
certainly any implications that there might be an
evaluation or that the students might be expected
to learn this or be tested on it.

Q. So you could mention that there are
creationists but you can't mention what they say?

A. You know the level I am talking about.
If the students said to me, if a student put their
hand up in biology class and said, sir, have you
read about the creationists, I would say yes. The
student would say, well, can we explore this? I
would say, sorry, no, that is religious concepts,
this is a science class.

(Continued on following page.)

183

MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

MR. NOVIK: I don't have any questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dr. Ruse.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Time noted: 4:15 p.m.)

________________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ______ day of ______________ 1980.

____________________________________

184

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

I, THOMAS W. MURRAY, C.S.R., and WALTER
HOLDEN, C.S.R., Notaries Public within and
for the State of New York, do hereby certify:

That MICHAEL ESCOTT RUSE, the witness
whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth,
was duly sworn by me and that such
deposition is a true record of the testimony
given by such witness.

I further certify that I am not
related to any of the parties to this action
by blood or marriage; and that I am in no
way interested in the outcome of this matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand this 24th day of November, 1981.

___________________________
THOMAS W. MURRAY, C.S.R.

___________________________
WALTER HOLDEN, C.S.R.

Deposition of Senator James L. Holsted

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

REV. BILL McLEAN, et al PLAINTIFFS

vs.

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al DEFENDANTS

* * * * *

DEPOSITION OF

JAMES L. HOLSTED

TAKEN AT INSTANCE OF PLAINTIFFS

* * * * *

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

HONORABLE ROBERT M. CEARLEY, JR.
Cearley, Gitchel, Mitchell & Bryant
1014 W. Third
Little Rock, Arkansas.

HONORABLE LAURIE R. FERBER
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
919 Third Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10022

FOR DEFENDANT STATE OF ARKANSAS

HONORABLE DAVID L. WILLIAMS
HONORABLE RICK CAMPBELL
Attorney General's office
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas.

FOR DEFENDANT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

HONORABLE HENRY J. OSTERLOH
300 Spring Building
Little Rock, Arkansas.

2

The deposition of the witness, JAMES L. HOLSTED, was taken
on Thursday, August 13, 1981, beginning at the hour of 10:00 A. M.
in the conference room of the Attorney General's office, Justice
Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, pursuant to agreement of counsel
for the purpose of discovery, at the instance of the plaintiffs in
the captioned cause now pending before the above named court, and
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

* * * * *

Thereupon,

JAMES L. HOLSTED,

called as a witness by counsel for the plaintiffs, after being
first duly sworn by the undersigned Notary Public, in answer to
questions propounded, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CEARLEY:

Q Senator, you know who I am...

A Yes, sir.

Q ... and that I represent the various plaintiffs in this
lawsuit. I feel certain that Mr. Williams and Mr.
Campbell have told you the purpose of a discovery deposi-
tion, but, if they haven't, let me just tell you that my
purpose in asking you here is to take the opportunity to have
you here and under oath and ask you a number of things
having to do with the drafting and passage of SB 482,
Act 590 of 1981. In any instance in which your memory

3

may be vague I want to get your best recollection. If
you later think that you have made a mistake or want to
correct what you said, please do that.

A Okay.

Q This deposition can be used at the trial in the event
there's anything inconsistent between what's said at the
trial and what's said here.

A I understand.

Q Basically my purpose is just to get information from you,
so stop me if I'm not plain.

A Will do.

Q Your full name is James L. Holsted?

A Correct.

Q What's your current address?

A **** ******** *****.

Q In North Little Rock?

A North Little Rock.

Q You're married and have children?

A Two children.

Q Are they in public schools?

A Yes, sir.

Q What are their ages?

A A daughter 14 and a son that's 9. He just turned 10 in
July.

Q Are they in public school in North Little Rock?

4

A Yes, in public schools in North Little Rock.

Q What's your educational background?

A A B. A. from Vanderbilt University.

Q What was your major?

A Business Administration.

Q How are you currently employed?

A I'm employed by Omega Corporation, which is a holding
company.

Q What are your duties basically in your employment?

A Just oversee the assets of the corporation. It owns an
insurance company and rental properties and other invest-
ments.

Q How long have you been employed in that capacity? That's
a family-run and owned business, isn't it?

A Yes, it's a family-owned business. I'm president and
chairman of the board of that company.

Q Have you been doing that for a number of years?

A Yes, sir, since the death of my parents in 1972.

Q You are also the elected Senator from your district, are
you not, in the State Legislature?

A That's correct.

Q How long have you held that state office?

A Two years, which is the equivalent of one term, in the Senate.

Q When will you be up for reelection?

A This next year, 1982.

5

Q In the fall?

A In the fall election. They'll be in May, I guess, June.

Q Have you had an opportunity to discuss this lawsuit and
these issues, or the issues that are raised in the lawsuit,
with the Attorney General and Mr. Williams and Mr. Campbell
here?

A Yes, sir, many opportunities.

Q I'll bet! I want to ask you first ... I notice from some
of the reports that appeared in the press that you have
stated publicly that what eventually became Act 590 of
1981 was originally a bill or a draft of a bill handed to
you by someone. Will you reiterate that for me?

A You want me to go through the process of how I received
that model legislation?

Q Yes, sir.

A I had an employee of mine in the insurance company by the
name of Carl Hunt, who contacted me and asked me if I
would be interested in sponsoring a piece of legislation
that required the teaching of creation-science along with
evolution-science in the school systems. At that point in
time I had no knowledge of the subject. I really didn't
know anything about it. I told him I would be happy to
look at a piece of legislation and see if I would like to
sponsor it. That's the way much of my legislation comes,
from constituents.

6

Q You get a lot of either requests or suggestions or drafts
that someone has submitted to you?

A Certainly. Someone will have a problem that they want to
correct or an idea they want to do, and they'll bring me,
or any of those senators, legislation, and we'll look at
it and see if we want to do that or not.

So he asked me if I would consider that.
I said yes, to send me the information. Then I was contacted
by Larry Fisher, who is a science teacher in Jacksonville
school system, who contacted me. He had been contacted by
Mr. Hunt, and asked me if it was true and I would like to
look at the information, and I said yes, I would.

So he mailed me a copy of a bill, and
he also mailed me some background information on the subject.
He had been teaching it in his science classes in Jackson-
ville, so he mailed me some information on that.

Q Let me stop you for a minute, Senator. Carl Hunt is an
employee of yours?

A That's correct. He's an insurance agent.

Q Do you have any other relationship with him, social or
through your church, or political, or anything of that
sort?

A Never knew him until he came and was employed by me.

Q What does he do in your business?

A He was setting up a new area called prepaid legal insurance,

7

and that's when I first met him on that, and we traveled
a couple of places out-of-state to look at other companies,
came back and set up a program, and he was handling the
program, setting it up, new policies, getting it approved,
those kind of things.

Q Is he still doing that?

A On a very, very limited basis. The program did not pan
out as we hoped it would. The money was not there and the
business, so he's doing other things now, and really not
employed ...

Q Is he still employed?

A He is a licensed agent with us, but he's not drawing any
kind of salary or any expenses or anything.

Q He did not himself give you anything in writing that later
became SB 482?

A No, no. He gave me background material on the subject.

Q Carl Hunt did?

A Yes, but he never gave me the particular piece of legislation
that ultimately was passed.

Q Then Larry Fisher, if I understand your testimony, actually
provided you with a copy of the bill that became Senate
Bill 482?

A Correct.

Q Along with some background material.

A Basically became a Senate bill.

8

Q You were served, I believe, with a subpoena duces tecum
that listed some documents on it, were you not? Did you
happen to see that in your subpoena?

A Golly! You know, I read that, but I thought that was just
telling me the time and place.

(Off the record.)

Q You've just told me off the record that you either forgot
to bring all the information requested in the duces tecum
or that you just overlooked that.

A That's correct.

MR. CEARLEY: I would like a stipulation
with you, Mr. Williams, that we could be furnished the materials
listed in that duces tecum within a few days of this deposition,
so that we can have them attached to the deposition.

THE WITNESS: That's fine.

MR. CEARLEY: Can we stipulate to that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Be glad to stipulate
that anything Senator Holsted will give us we'll be glad to give
to you.

MR. CEARLEY: I'd like, also, although
it may not be necessary to do it, to adjourn this deposition - not
right now, but today - with the understanding that if there are
any other issues raised by those materials that we could reconvene
the deposition at some later convenient date and pursue that.

THE WITNESS: Fine.

9

MR. WILLIAMS: It's agreeable to us.

Q You had gotten to Larry Fisher, the science teacher. My
understanding was that he's actually a math teacher at the
Southside Junior High School, I believe, in Jacksonville.
Do you know?

A I understood he was teaching some science classes. Now,
what his qualifications are, I don't know.

Q Just go ahead and tell me what dialogue you had with him
and what he did and what you did.

A Okay. He mailed that to me and I read the information and
visited with him on the telephone, to be sure that it was,
as far as he could tell me, a valid scientific theory, not
something that was just trying to gloss over anything. So
I became satisfied that that could be taught as science
in the school systems, and took the model legislation that
he sent me, and I took that to the Legislative Council.

Everything that we do - me, as a
senator - has to be drafted in the form of legislation
that conforms with the way we do it in Arkansas. So the
Legislative Council drafts all our legislation, and I took
the bill to the Legislative Council and asked them to draft
it, asked them to be sure that it would conform to the way
we do things in the Senate, and ultimately, if it became
law, the way it ought to read on Arkansas books. So they
did that and brought it back to me.

10

Q Did you give that bill to Kern Treat? Is that who you deal
with?

A I deal with Kern, but I don't believe he worked on it, and
I don't recall who worked on the bill. I can find out, but
I don't recall who brought it back to me.

Q Was the bill transformed overnight or within a day or two
to an Arkansas form or style?

A It took about three or four days, is my recollection, at
that time. I had a legislative assistant who dealt with the
Council on that. I would give the stuff to her and say,
"Get this drafted for me," and then she would get it drafted
and come back, and we'd make any changes or anything that
we needed.

Q What's her name?

A Treeca Dyer.

Q Teresa?

A T-r-e-e-c-a, I believe, Dyer, D-y-e-r.

Q Does she live here in Little Rock or North Little Rock?

A She lives in Little Rock.

Q Do you know where?

A No, I don't.

Q Does she still work for you?

A No. She was in the process of just completing law school
and getting ready to study for the Bar, this current Bar
examination, and I just employed her for during the session.

11

Q Do you know where she could be located or contacted?

A She's here in Little Rock. Her mother and father live in
North Little Rock, and I'm sure she could be located.

Q What's her father's name?

A Jimmy Dyer, and he works for the North Little Rock School
System. I think she had dialogue with the Council on getting
the bill drafted, because I didn't have the time at that time
to do that.

Q Was the content of the bill changed at all or was any of the
wording of the bill changed from the time you got it until
it came out of the machinery of the Legislative Council?

A I don't think the major content of the bill was changed.
I think they may have rearranged some of the sections to
fit the way we drafted our legislation.

Q It was just basically formated?

A Uh-huh. To my understanding yes, that's correct.

Q Do you know where that model legislation came from?

A The letterhead said Citizens for Fairness in Education,
South Carolina.

Q Do you know who that is?

A I found out that Mr. Paul Ellwanger is the one who did the
work on that, but I didn't know at that time. Had no
contact with them when I received the legislation.

Q Did you have any contact with them or a representative of
that organization prior to the time the bill was passed
and signed into law?

12

A No.

Q Have you had to this date any contact with Mr. Ellwanger
or his representative?

A I've not talked to him. I don't recall, other than I
think I sent them when it passed a copy and told them
that the legislation had passed - just to the letterhead -
and I may have received a congratulatory letter back from
them or something like that, but that's the only kind of
conversation I've had with them.

Q Would you have a copy of your cover letter and whatever you
sent to them?

A I should have.

Q Would you have any objection to furnishing that to Mr.
Williams or Mr. Campbell or that we could have a look at it?

A No. I have no problem with it.

Q You received back from the Legislative Council, then, a
bill in the standard style that's used in the Arkansas
Legislature.

A Correct.

Q What did you do from that point ... and, if you will, I
won't stop and interrupt you. Just tell me the course that
bill took through the Senate and the House as far as you
know.

A I signed two copies and turned it in. It was then sent to
the printer, printed, brought back and inserted in all the

13

books in the Senate, and read across the desk. I'm out of
sequence there. It was read across the desk first, first
and second time, and sent to committee.

Q Do you recall the dates that these things were done?

A No, sir. I can find out.

Q My notes reflect that the bill was actually introduced on
February 24, 1981. Does that sound about right?

A I don't have any idea. I've forgot about dates on that.
I can find out from my Legislative Digest. (Looking at
document.) It should say on there, because it should be
stamped.

Q It's not that important.

A No, I'm sorry, it's not. That's when the Governor signed
it. I can find out from my Legislative Digest. I turned
it in. It was sent to committee.

Q What committee did it go to?

A Judiciary Committee.

Q What normally happens when a bill is referred to committee
that's introduced in the Senate?

A It's put on the calendar of the committee, and the next
committee meeting you start down the bills and consider as
many as you can during that committee meeting, and you keep
working during your meetings till you try to get everything
out of committee that you can get out.

Q Those committee meetings are public committee meetings that
sometimes include public hearings, do they not?

14

A That's correct.

Q Was there any hearing of any sort set or held with regard
to this bill in the Senate?

A We had set a hearing. The chairman had agreed to have a
hearing on the bill. We were running down to the latter
part of the session. I visited with the committee members
and obtained a majority of votes in the committee necessary
to pull the bill out of committee with a "Do Pass" recom-
mendation. So I took a slip of paper to them - and I can't
recall the formal name for it, but it's a form that's used -
and they all signed that form saying. "We will vote for
this bill. Do Pass out of committee", so I pulled it out
of the committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation, and it
went to the floor.

Q And there were no hearings as such held in that committee?

A That's correct.

Q Is that customary or is that unusual?

A Not unusual at all.

Q Was there any request made to you or to the committee to
your knowledge that there be a public hearing on that bill?

A No. The main reason in having a hearing in the committee
is to educate the members of the committee about the piece
of legislation so you can get their vote on it. I had the
necessary votes to get it out of committee so it could go
to the floor for a full vote there and discussion on the

15

floor of the Senate, so there was no need to have that
hearing.

Q How many votes did that require?

A There are seven members and it required four, and I had
four signatures, four members of the committee to get it out.

Q Would there be any way for me to track that? Are records
kept of who approved that or how it got out of committee?

A Probably in the journal, because that's a matter of public
record.

Q Would it reflect who signed that?

A Uh-huh.

Q Do you recall who the committee members were that signed it?

A Myself, Kim Hendren from Gravette, Max Howell and Olen
Hendrix. No, I'm sorry, not Olen, Morrell Gathright from
Pine Bluff.

Q And the only effect of your having signed that along with
them was to allow that bill to get out of committee with
a "Do Pass" recommendation?

A Well, I was a member of the committee...

Q Yes, I understand.

A ... and it needed four votes, and that was the four that it
had.

Q Did you present to Senators Hendren, Howell, and Gathright
any supporting materials or any literature or anything
other than the bill itself when you discussed that with them?

16

A I just explained to them the intent of the legislation.
That's normally what's done in those situations. You explain
the bill to them, and they all knew that it would come up
for a full vote on the senate floor and everybody would have
an opportunity to discuss it at that point, which was really...
The issue was to get it out so that instead of having a
hearing with just seven members present, we could have a
hearing with 35 senators and let everybody get the benefit
and not have to duplicate that all over again.

Q Tell me, then, what happened subsequent to that.

A It went to the Senate and was put on the calendar. It
was brought up for a vote, discussed. The normal procedure
is the author stands up and explains his piece of legislation,
discusses why he wants it passed, what he wants to do with
it, why he introduced it. Then they allow the opposition
to speak, and then you allow proponent, opponent, proponent,
opponent, until everybody's had their say. Questions can
be asked at any time. When everybody's through talking
then you take a vote.

Q Is there a record made of that?

A No, sir, there is not a formal record of the discussion.

Q Is there a tape-recording or anything made of that?

A To my knowledge there is not. Some of the stuff goes days
and days. I mean, you can imagine on some of them, and to
my knowledge I don't think they've ever done that.

17

Q Would it be impossible to reconstruct what was said in
that debate on the floor?

A I think practically speaking it would be impossible to
reconstruct any of that, because you have questions all
the time.

Q Tell me to the best of your recollection what the course of
that debate was and how long it took place.

A Well, I presented the bill and answered questions on it.
The majority of the questions were were we meddling in
school affairs that the schools ought to have more control
over, and I answered those questions. We discussed that.
That comes up on every piece of legislation that involves
school systems. Somebody says, "Well, we ought not to be
doing this." They asked me particular questions about the
bill that they didn't understand, wording and language, and
I think two people spoke for the piece of legislation.
Nobody spoke in opposition, and then the vote was taken.

Q It's not customary, is it, to have any type of public hearing
before the full Senate on pending legislation?

A It is customary and we do it quite often if people request
it.

Q Was there a request of that sort made?

A No request made to have anybody else. Invariably if somebody
does not understand a piece of legislation and they want
some experts to come in and testify on it, it's very common

18

for people to request it, and it would be the author's
prerogative to say yes or no, and that's depending on
whether he wanted ... you know, how he felt like it'd
help him pass his legislation, and nobody requested that.
Everybody seemed to understand the piece of legislation
when I finished explaining it and after the people spoke
for it.

Q You said there were two people who spoke for it?

A (Affirmative nod.)

Q Who was the other one?

A I think Kim Hendren and to the best of my recollection
Senator Howell spoke for the legislation. They were the
two senators that spoke. Now, there were a lot of questions,
and a lot of times in the questioning you're speaking for
or against the piece of legislation just by the way you ask
questions. You understand.

Q I understand.

A There was a lot of comment and discussion on the floor about
it.

Q You said that part of the questioning was to the effect
that some people thought this might be meddling in the
affairs of the Department of Education?

A Uh-huh.

Q Did you respond to that?

A Yes, sir, I certainly did.

19

Q What was your response to that?

A I just reviewed with them that we in the Senate that year
had done things requiring school systems to do certain
things, to not do certain things. We required certain
subjects to already be taught in the school systems. It
was not like we were doing this for the first time, and
that it was quite common, that it was our obligation as
elected representatives of the people of the State of
Arkansas to reflect those wishes through legislation about
what we think the school systems ought to be doing.

So that's pretty much the thrust of
the argument that I used, and apparently they agreed with
me.

Q Did you cite any specific examples of things that were
required to be taught?

A We require Arkansas history to be taught in the school
systems.

Q Is that by statute?

A I think ... I'm not certain whether that's by statute or
whether that's by directive of the Education Department.

Q Do you know of any subject or subject matter that's
required by statute to be taught in the Arkansas school
system other than the subject of Act 590?

A No. I really haven't researched it, though. There may
be. I just ... I didn't go ...

20

Q That's all right. I just wanted to find out if you knew
if there was.

A I didn't know of any.

Q How long would you estimate the whole process took on the
floor of the Senate for the bill to be considered and voted
upon?

A I guess 30-45 minutes.

Q There were no non-member speakers either for or against the
bill?

A Correct.

Q And there was not a public hearing as such other than on
the floor?

A By public hearing you mean the public having access to the
floor?

Q Yes, sir.

A That's correct. It was only done by the senators.

Q Was there any public announcement of any sort that this
matter would be considered on the Senate's agenda on that
day?

A No. It's very difficult to do that, because a lot of times
you get hung on one particular piece of legislation and
may spend the whole day on that and never get to anything
else. I know many times teachers have come up there when
they thought we were going to vote on some legislation
concerning them, and it might be two or three days later

21

before we got to it. There's just no way to do that. There
was plenty of announcement in the papers about what was
being considered.

Q Lots of media interest?

A When it got out of committee ... because the press knew
that because it went to the calendar ... When it got out
of committee and was reported out with "Do Pass" and put
on the calendar, the media publicized that considerably
across the state and people knew, because there were people
outside contacting the senators from all over the state.

Q Did anyone contact you about that?

A Oh, yes. Understatement.

Q More people than you can recall?

A Unbelievable, yes. Of course, that was just the tip of
the iceburg. I never realized the number of people that
would contact and come up to the Senate and House.

Q While the legislation was pending, Senator Holsted, at any
point before the Governor signed it, did you receive any
written communications from any organizations, groups, or
individuals in support or opposition to the bill?

MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me. To clarify
the question ... Before it was passed?

MR. CEARLEY: Yes, prior to its
passage.

Q I'm sorry. Let me clarify that. Before the Governor

22

signed it, which I believe was on March 19th, did you
receive any written communications or literature or
materials in support of or opposition to SB 482 from any
individual or group?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you make any use of those materials?

A You mean furnish them to anybody else or anything?

Q Yes, sir.

A No. I just considered those as correspondence with me
personally, and I answered most of them and just filed them.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the record's clear,
the question - at least to me, maybe not in the record - is a
little bit ambiguous. Are you talking about prior to the time
the Senate and the House passed it but before the Governor signed
it or the entire period before the Governor signed it?

MR. CEARLEY: The whole period from
when the legislation was introduced, or when it was handed to
you as a model act, until the Governor signed it. What I'm
getting at, Senator, is that if you don't have any objection I'd
like to see whatever materials were submitted to you either in
support of or opposition to that bill, if you can lay your hands
on it.

THE WITNESS: I've got boxes full of
it, if you'd like to spend the time going through it. You know,
I was sent books, stacks of books from people concerning this.

23

Q What kinds of books?

A Concerning creation-science, evolution-science.

Q Did you receive any books from a man named Henry Morris
or from Dwayne Gish or from Richard Bliss or from any
of the various creation-science organizations?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you look at those materials?

A No. I really can't say that I looked at them other than
just maybe briefly thumbing through them. I received so
much information, if I'd tried to read everything that
came to me I'd still be reading. There was no way for
me to even read through and decide what I wanted to read
and what I didn't want to read. I couldn't do that. A
lot of that was concerning the science aspect of creation-
science and evolution-science, and that was not ... That's
not my field and is not my decision. That will be done by
the scientists and by the people that write the textbooks.
I felt like that was not even part of what I was trying
to do, in the sense that I couldn't ...

Q Do I understand you to be saying that the materials furnished
to you debated the issue of whether creation was science
or not science or whether it was good science or bad
science and so forth?

A Right.

Q Are those materials segregated in your office? Did you

24

keep them in any manner where they could be retrieved?

A I don't understand what you mean by that.

Q Can you lay your hands on those materials?

A Yes. Most of the stuff I think I've saved. Some of the
books ...

Q Would you object to furnishing those to Mr. Williams and
allowing us an opportunity to examine them?

A Not at all.

MR. CEARLEY: Would you do that?

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think there is
any ground for any privilege, but if I look through and determine
that there would be some, I would have to reserve the right...

MR. CEARLEY: Then you can state that,
sure.

MR. WILLIAMS: ... but otherwise, of
course.

Q Did you receive any text materials or teaching materials
from anyone?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you take the opportunity to look at those?

A Yes. That was the one thing that I really considered
after determining to the best of my ability that there
was valid scientific evidence supporting creation-science.
I contacted North Little Rock School System and reviewed
their textbooks and tried to -- get some advice from

25

Jimmy Dyer, the man who reviews the textbooks there in
the North Little Rock School System -- about what is
taught around the state, and he got me some sample
textbooks and I looked through them to see what was being
taught in the State of Arkansas.

Q Were any text materials or teaching materials submitted
directly to you by representatives of any of the various
publishers who produce creation-science materials?

A Not to my knowledge. As I said, I received a lot of books
that I didn't really have time to look at that I just
stuck aside.

Q Do you still have the materials that were furnished to
you by Mr. Dyer?

A No.

Q Were those materials that were currently in use in the
North Little Rock School System?

A That's correct. My sister-in-law is the head of the
biology department at Ole Main, and I got her textbook
that she uses to teach biology.

Q What's her name?

A Joy Phillips, and she brought it by and I looked through it.

Q Do you recall the name of it or the publisher?

A No, sir, I don't.

Q It's the one currently in use in the North Little Rock
School System?

26

A I don't think they've changed this year. They used it
last year.

Q What did you find of interest in that textbook?

A I was purely looking to see if there was any other mention
of anything other than evolution. When they talked about
the origin of species I was looking to see if anything else
was taught. There would have been no need for the legis-
lation if anything else was being taught.

Q Did you just look for a chapter on evolution or did you
look at the overall presentation of the book, the division
of animal kingdoms and the development of various genuses
and species of animals?

A Well, I looked through the book just to see where they
address the origin of species and any reverences made in
that and where they specifically discussed the evolutionary
process, and that's primarily what I looked for.

Q I assume that you found no statements about creation-
science in that textbook?

A No, none at all.

Q Did that play any part in your feelings or your support for
SB 482?

A Certainly. There would have been no need for me to intro-
duce the legislation.

Q 284, which is it?

A 482, I think it is. The bill that ultimately became 590.

27

There would have been no need to introduce the legislation
if it had been presented.

Q Okay. We've tracked the bill to its being voted on ...

A To the Senate.

Q ... by the whole Senate.

A Okay. After it passed it went to the House. It was read
across the desk in the house and sent to the Education
Committee. At that point the publicity, of course, was
considerably more in the newspapers and in the media than
it had been at any point in time, because now it had reached
the status of from being considered as a piece of legis-
lation to having passed one body. So the media was heavily
publicizing the bill at that point.

It went to the Education Committee
and a hearing was held in the Education Committee. That
was a public hearing. They allowed the proponents and
the opposition to speak and present evidence, and it was
voted on in committee and came out with a "Do Pass."

Q Did you attend that hearing?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you recall how many people appeared for and against the
bill?

A It was either two or three on each side. I'm not certain.

Q Do you recall who they were?

A I spoke for the bill. Cliff Hoofman spoke for the bill,

28

who is a member of the House, and Larry Fisher spoke for
the bill.

Mike Wilson, a House member from Jackson-
ville, spoke against the bill. The AEA, Arkansas Education
Association, spoke against the bill, and there may have been
one other group, I'm not certain, and then, of course, they
were questioned by members of the committee who either were
for or against the bill and able to express their views
through their questioning and through their statements.
Then, of course, the chairman allowed the members of the
committee to make any statements they wanted to, and then
they took a vote.

How many members were there of that committee?

A I don't recall what the membership is in the House.

Q Do you recall how many dissenting votes there were to the
bill?

A I don't remember. I was just looking for the number of
votes necessary to get it out.

Q Do you recall whether Bishop Kenneth Hicks was present at
that hearing?

A I don't remember seeing him.

Q Do you recall whether anyone requested time and opportunity
to speak that was denied time and opportunity to speak?

A No. I know the chairman limited the time for debate, and
that's normal because ...

29

Q What was the limitation?

A I don't recall. I think it was 15 minutes a side. By
the time you have questions from all the committee members
while you're making your testimony it drags into considerable
time.

Q Who was the chairman of that committee?

A I don't remember.

Q It went to the House Committee on Education?

A That's correct.

Q What committee did it come out of in the Senate?

A Judiciary Committee.

Q Why was it referred to the Judiciary Committee? Is that
a matter of comity because it was your bill and you were
a member of that committee?

A Yes. If it's possible the bills will be sent to the
committees that the member sits on, so that he can handle
legislation. Otherwise, it's difficult ... When you're
in a committee meeting and your legislation is being
considered in another committee, you've either got to leave
your committee and go handle your legislation and then
miss voting on something in your committee. If it's
possible we try to put them in the committees that the
members are on.

Q Can I conclude from what you've said that the bill was
never considered officially by the Senate Committee on
Education?

30

A Officially as a committee, meeting as the Education
Committee, it was not, but every one of the Education
Committee members sits as a member of the full Senate
and voted on it on the Senate floor.

Q Are you a member of the Education Committee?

A No, sir.

Q So the bill was voted out of committee ...

A Of the House ...

Q ... House Education Committee.

A ... and went to the floor of the House. Then it was put
on the calendar, and the gentleman that was handling the
bill in the House, Representative Hoofman, got the bill
up for a vote on the floor of the House.

By this time the public contact was
tremendous with the House members. As a matter of fact,
I know they quit taking phone calls to the respective
House members, they were getting so many phone calls and
the switchboard just couldn't handle them and they couldn't
get the man out to talk to people. There were too many.
It received a vote -- in fact, I think it received three
votes -- and ultimately passed.

Q What do you mean "it received three votes"?

A Well, I think they voted on it three different times through
their parliamentary procedure, and they do different
procedure than the Senate and I'm not familiar with how
they do their parliamentary maneuvering, but ...

31

Q You were around and I assume aware somewhat of the media
attention and public attention that the bill was getting
at that time.

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you know what kind of response the bill was drawing from
the public that caused the members of the House to quit
taking their calls? Were they getting a lot of support or
a lot of opposition or was it mixed?

A Support.

Q Support?

A There was some opposition, but the overwhelming majority
of the calls were in support of the legislation.

Q Did the bill change form at all between the time it was
introduced as a Senate bill until it was passed by both
houses?

A No, sir, I don't think so. You mean was it amended anywhere?

Q Yes.

A To my knowledge it was not.

Q So what we have as Act 590 is the same language as prepared
by the Legislative Council form the material submitted to
them?

A That's correct. They would have had to ... I think they
tried to amend it maybe in the House, but did not adopt
any amendments.

Q Were any hearings held, public hearings held, by the House
to your knowledge?

32

A That's the House Education Committee.

Q That was the only hearing held?

A Was the only hearing. Then, of course, they discussed
it among the 100 members of the House as they voted on it.

Q You had, I assume, at some point, Senator, conversations
with the Governor. At least the newspaper articles indicate
that...

A That's correct.

Q ... in which the Governor indicated to you that he would
sign the bill, as the newspapers reported, I think, if it
passed by a large majority or got good support, I think
were his words.

A That's correct.

Q Is that basically the commitment he made to you?

A Basically yes. Basically if I got it passed by more than
just 1 or 2 votes, where he could see it was a substantial
majority of both houses, he would sign it.

Q Can you recount for me what your dealings were with the
Governor prior to the passage and signing of the Act?
How much contact did you have with him about the bill?

A Very little. I notified him about the piece of legislation
when it passed the Senate. His staff had a copy of it, and
I briefly explained to him the legislation and what I was
trying to do, and then he had his staff review it and
advise him on it.

33

Q Do you have any personal knowledge of the extent that he
dealt with his staff on the bill?

A No, sir.

Q Tell me about the extent to which you explained the bill
to him. Did you take it section by section or word by
word?

A No. That was up to his staff to do that and get back to
me on any questions they had. I didn't have the time nor
did he have the time at that point to go through it word
by word. I explained to him the general thrust of the
legislation and what I was trying to do with it, and asked
him to get back in touch with me if he had any problems with
it.

Q I gather we're talking of a 5-minute conversation or
something like that.

A Well, no. You know, you'll spend 15 or 30 minutes by the
time you get in and just talk about it and discuss it a
little bit.

Q Did you go over to the Governor's office to do that?

A Yes.

Q Was that the only conversation you had with him at which
that was the subject of the discussion?

A After the bill passed the House I came back. I was out of
town and I returned to the state and went in the day
after the legislature adjourned, I believe - I may be off

34

a day or two there - and sat down with him and went over
the bill with him and with his staff, and this was before
he had signed it.

Q How long did you spend with him on that occasion?

A Oh, probably an hour, hour and a half.

Q Who else was present when you did that?

A I don't recall who his staff was.

Q Could it have been Bill Bethea?

A No. It was a female, I believe.

Q Joan Vehik? Do you know her?

A I don't know Joan. This girl was on the Legislative Council
before she went on his staff. I can't ...

Q Is there any way that you could find out what her name is?

A I'll find out. I'll be glad to.

Q Would you furnish that to Mr. Williams and Mr. Campbell?

A Sure.

Q Was that a "Yes, I will"?

A Yes, sir. I will do that.

Q Did the Governor then sign the bill within a short period
of time?

A Yes, sir. I think he signed it within two or three days
after that.

Q Did you have any further contact with him about it?

A No.

Q Did you submit to the Governor or to anyone on his behalf

35

any of the materials that you had received through the
mails or otherwise in support of or opposition to the bill?

A No. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, I did. I submitted a copy of some
materials I had received.

Q Did you receive those back?

A No, because I made him a copy. It was materials I had
gathered together for a presentation on the Senate floor,
and I copied some of the documents that I had and gave them
to his staff.

Q Do you still have those together?

A I think I do. I don't have them in the form that I
presented them to the Senate, but I think I can show you,
give you copies of what I have him.

Q Would you indicate in some manner what those documents consist
of and furnish those to Mr. Williams too?

A Yes, I sure will.

Q How would you describe your relationship with the Governor
at that time?

A Good.

Q Do you have any relationship with him or did you prior to
the time that he was elected Governor?

A No, sir.

Q Did you even know Frank White?

A Not other than by reputation. I had never really met him
personally.

36

Q Do you have any personal relationship with him now?

A No, other than just ... Well, of course, through the
legislation we've been brought close because we've dealt
on that and discussed it after he signed it, all the
publicity and stuff, but other than that ...

Q The newspapers indicated that you have stated that you had ---
either you stated or the Governor did --- that there was a
commitment by the Governor to sign the bill if it passed
with good support. Did you feel that you had a commitment
from him to do that?

A I felt like I had a commitment based on the way I had
explained the legislation to him to sign it, but I felt like
at any time, if he was advised by his staff that was not the
way it was legally or they misunderstood, I felt like he
would veto it, or he could in good conscience tell me why
and I would understand.

Q Senator, did you at any time prior to the introduction or
after the introduction and prior to the enactment of Act 590
consult with anybody in the Arkansas Department of Education?

A No, sir.

Q Did you consult with any religious leaders in the community
or in the state?

A What do you mean by "consult"?

Q I mean did you seek out the counsel of any religious leaders
in the community or in the state about the advisability of

37

this Act or seek their comments on it?

A I had many contact me, and I explained to them what I was
doing. None of them knew that I was going to introduce
the piece of legislation or really knew anything about it
until it was introduced, and, of course, then they contacted
me, but I never sought them out.

Q Did any organizations contact you prior to the introduction
of the bill?

A No.

Q The only contact you had, as I understand it, with Mr.
Ellwanger's group was through the fact that he had furnished
to Mr. Fisher the model legislation, is that right?

A Correct.

Q Do you know how that model bill came into being?

A I have since the time the legislation passed, it's been
explained to me, but I don't know whether that's the fact
or not. I don't really know. I have never talked to him
personally.

Q You still haven't talked to him personally?

A No, I haven't.

Q I have handed you a package or a group of articles that have
appeared in local newspapers in which you are quoted, and
I think they're arranged in chronological order. I'd like
to just kind of go through these and ask you about some of
the statements that are attributed to you. Do you have
those in front of you?

38

A Yes, sir, I do.

MR. CEARLEY: Do you mind my attaching
these as exhibits?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I would prefer
that you did.

MR. CEARLEY: I'm not going to mark

them. I'm going to identify them by the date and the byline and
so forth, if that's all right with you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why don't you just make
it a group exhibit?

MR. CEARLEY: I can do that. Let me
identify these and then I'll refer to each of them and have the
Senator identify them. I have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to
the deposition of Senator Holsted an article, copy of an article,
appearing in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE on Sunday, March 22, 1981, that
is two-pages long; an article appearing in the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT
on Wednesday, June 3, 1981; an article appearing in the ARKANSAS
DEMOCRAT on June 9, 1981; an article appearing in the GAZETTE on
June 10, 1981; an article from the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT dated
June 10, 1981; another article from the ARKANSAS GAZETTE dated
June 10, 1981, entitled, "Religion Isn't at Issue, Holsted
Insists"; an article dated June 14, 1981, from the ARKANSAS
DEMOCRAT; an article from the ARKANSAS GAZETTE dated Wednesday,
June 24, 1981; and then a 4-page article from the SOUTHWEST TIMES
RECORD dated June 14, 1981. I'd like to attach those as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to Senator Holsted's deposition.

39

(Off the record.)

(Whereupon, said identified articles
were collectively marked as an exhibit to the deposition, and
are transmitted as a group with a transcript of the testimony.)

Q First, if you would, Senator Holsted, look at the article
dated March 22, 1981, appearing in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE,
in which your picture appeared on the front page of the
newspaper under the headline "'Creation-science' Bill
Prompted By Religious Beliefs, Sponsor Says." Do you
have that in front of you?

A Yes, sir.

Q In the first paragraph the article indicates that you said
you introduced the bill because of your own religious con-
victions and that the legislation is - quotes - of course -
close quotes - related to religion. Is that an accurate
quotation?

A I would say part of it is.

Q Explain to me how it's accurate and how it's inaccurate.

A I do everything in my life based on my convictions, just
as you do and just as anyone does. Whatever my religious
beliefs are concerning the creation of this universe are
not expressed in this bill, but I felt like, in reviewing
the textbook material and other material and determining
to the best of my knowledge that creation-science had some
valid scientific evidence to go along with it, that it was

40

not being presented in the school system. And that's
basically why I introduced it. When they asked me that
question I can't say that no, it's not associated with
my religious beliefs, because everything I do is based
on what I believe in.

Q Well, let me ask you about some of the things that you
believe. Are you a member of an organized religious
organization, a church?

A The Lakewood United Methodist Church.

Q How long have you been?

A My family was a charter member of that church.

Q How would you describe or can you describe for me what
a fundamentalist is in the common understanding of the word?

A I don't have any idea.

Q Do you hold any fundamentalist beliefs?

A I don't know what funda-------- ...

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to the question.

Q Let me ask you if you believe literally in the biblical
account of the creation as presented in the Book of Genesis?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did you find that the language in what is now Act 590
was consistent with your belief in the literal interpretation
of the creation as presented in Genesis?

A No. I don't think overall it is consistent. If I wanted
to teach my religious beliefs in school I would have the

41

instructor from Bible Study Fellowship teach the Genesis
account of creation.

Q Do you find as it regards the teaching of creation-science
and as that is defined in Act 590 that those elements are
consistent with your belief in the literal interpretation
of the Book of Genesis? I mean, I understand that to be
the purpose, to present scientific evidences in support of
creation, is it not?

A That there is a Creator, as opposed to no Creator, a
Creator in the same sense of a Creator that's mentioned in
the Declaration of Independence, not as a Creator that's
mentioned in Genesis.

Q Let me back up for a moment. The article in the GAZETTE
quotes you as saying that you introduced the bill because
of your own religions convictions. Did you say that?

A Yes.

Q And that the legislation is - quotes - "of course" -
related to religion. Did you say that?

A I don't recall saying that specifically.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just to clarify before
answering the question, I think the record reflects that the only
part in quotes there is "of course."

MR. CEARLEY: I'm sorry, that's true.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall saying
that. I was saying it in the sense that everything I do is based

42

on my beliefs, as is everything that you do or anybody else does.

Q Do you think that the bull is related to religion?

A Not at all. I specifically did everything in my power to
make sure that it would not be related to religion.

Q Let me go on to the question I was trying to get at, and
I want to be as precise with you as I can.

A I understand.

Q The definition of creation-science as it appears under
Section 4 of Act 590 lists six elements. It says:
"Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and
related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of
the universe ..." et cetera, et cetera, and it runs (1)
through (6). My question to you is: Do you find that the
elements as set out there are consistent with your religious
beliefs in the creation?

A No, not all of them. Part of them may be; part of them
may not be, are not.

Q Let me come back to that, then. Refer, if you will, to
the article again in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE of March 22, 1981.
You are quoted as saying in the third paragraph on the
first page: "I believe in a Creator and I believe that
God created this universe. I can't separate the bill from
that belief. All of we legislators have prejudices and
beliefs that affect what legislation we introduce. My
job as a politician and as a senator from North Little Rock

43

is to introduce something that represents my beliefs and
the beliefs of the majority of my constituents, which I am
convinced that this bill does." Is that an accurate quotation?

A Yes, sir.

Q You are further quoted as saying that the bill - quotes -
"probably does" - close quotes - favor the viewpoint of
religious fundamentalists -- those who strictly interpret
the Bible -- over religious groups that make more liberal
interpretations. Is that a fair statement of what you
indicated to the reporter?

A Yes. I said "probably does." That was just an opinion on
my part.

Q You are further quoted as saying: "Probably the ones who
are going to be the strongest supporters of the legislation
are fundamentalists." Is that accurate?

A That was my guess. Well, yes, that was accurate. That was
my statement.

Q And you are quoted as saying that you are a "born-again
Christian" ...

A Correct.

Q ... and then absent quotation marks a fundamentalist.

A The only thing I said was born-again Christian.

Q And the reporter concluded that that meant fundamentalist?

A I would assume that's correct.

Q Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

44

A Never have thought about it. It's kind of like trying to
define liberal and conservative. They change every year,
so I don't like labels in that respect.

Q What do you mean by born-again Christian?

A I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior at a
point in time, well, in 1976.

Q Let me just ask you if you are a regular church-goer and
active in the church and so forth and your family is.

A Yes, sir.

Q Are you active in any other religious organizations?

A Christian Businessmen's Committee.

Q Any others?

A No, sir.

Q Do you have any contact in your religious work or your
work for the church with Governor White?

A No, sir.

Q Over on page 2 of that article you are quoted as saying,
with regard to a statement in Act 590 regarding preventing
the establishment of theologically liberal, humanist or
atheistic religions, that that section of the bill was
placed in the bill - quotes - "because it was the intent
to bend over backward to make it clear that the bill wasn't
designed to establish any religion in the schools" - end
quotes. Is that an accurate quotation?-

A Yes, sir.

45

Q And then further on in that paragraph you are quoted as
saying that the major point is that the bill, although it
has to do with what you acknowledge to be a religious
belief in creation, it won't favor any religious denomin-
ation, sect or creed over another. Is that a fair summary
of what you said to the reporter?

A I would disagree with that, because I'm not sure I
acknowledged it to be religious beliefs of creation. It
doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs of
creation, the bill, and they're saying there that the
bill ... "... what he acknowledged to be religious beliefs
of creation ..." and I didn't acknowledge that.

Q But you did say that the bill won't favor any religious
denomination, sect or creed over another?

A That's correct.

Q You're further quoted as saying: "Even among religious
groups there are no telling how many viewpoints on creation."
Is that accurate?

A That's accurate.

Q Down at the bottom of that page there is a statement by
you that's in quotation marks: "I disagree that because
you introduce God into creation-science, then it's
religious", he said - meaning you. "I've interpreted it --"
and they inserted (the bill) -- "to mean that it won't
impose any religious doctrine, Baptist or Methodist or

46

whatever, over another. That is what the Supreme Court has
ruled that you can't do, teach one religious doctrine over
another. But that doesn't mean that you can't teach
alongside evolution the theory of a Creator. To me
creation-science means a Creator." Is that an accurate
quotation?

A Yes.

Q In the next paragraph you're quoted as saying: "I think
you should teach the scientific theory of a Creator, but
not go any further than that."

A That's correct.

Q And then further, although it's not in quotes, you indicated
to the reporter to teach just evolution is to deprive students
of opposing scientific views, and that should be unconsti-
tutional. That is your feeling, is it not, Senator?

A That is correct. That's the main reason I introduced the
legislation.

Q In the next paragraph you're quoted as saying: "But all
it really does ..." - referring to the bill - "... is
require balanced treatment of an educational subject,
evolution and creation, and it allows the State Department
of Education to set the curriculum and the criteria."

A That's correct.

Q I believe you've answered the other questions that are
raised by this about the origins of that bill, with one

47

exception. At the top of the last column on the right
the word "creation-science" appears inside a quotation to
the effect - and I quote - "I might not even have introduced
it if I'd known people were going to be asking me about
the specifics of creation-science. I might have gotten
scared off because I don't know anything about that stuff."
You've indicated earlier that you weren't a scientist ...

A Correct.

Q ... and didn't have the background to debate those issues
that scientists have been debating about this.

A That's correct.

Q When is the first time you saw the term, "creation-science,"
if you remember?

A The first time I heard it was when Carl Hunt contacted me,
and the first time I saw it written down was when I received
the model legislation. No, I'm sorry, he gave me some
books before I received the legislation.

Q Carl Hunt did?

A Yes.

Q Do you still have those books?

A No, I don't. I gave them back to him.

Q Do you recall what they were?

A No. It was six books and pretty thick books ...

Q What was their content?

A ... presenting the scientific evidence for creation-science

48

and discussing creation-science opposed to evolution-science,
and, you know, trying to fill me in on the background of the
whole issue, and there was just so much volume of material
there, I could never have read it all.

Q He's still in your employ. Do you know if he still has
those books?

A I'm sure he does.

Q Could you find out the names of those books?

A Uh-huh.

Q Would you do that?

A Be glad to.

Q Names and publishers?

A You guys are going to put me to a lot of work, aren't you?
I thought you were going to do all the work.

MR. OSTERLOH: I presume Mr. Holsted
will furnish those to his attorney, the Attorney General's office,
and that you will see that they're distributed to us other
defendants?

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

THE WITNESS: I hope you guys read all
of these. Maybe you can tell me what they say, many of them.

Q Refer, if you will, Senator, to the next article which
appeared in the DEMOCRAT on Wednesday, June 3, 1981.
The headline is "Holsted may enter creationism case." It
indicates that a reporter interviewed you and that you

49

indicated that you could give the court a good idea of
what the legislative intent was, since you're the one who
sponsored the act.

A I said that. As I found out later, I didn't know what I was
saying.

Q Did you find that out after you consulted with the Attorney
General?

A Well, yeah, I found out that legislative intent is the
legislative intent of 135 people that voted on it, not just
my intent.

Q But to the extent that you dealt with the bill you think
you can give the court some insight at least into your
thinking and your motivation?

A Yes.

Q You expressed also, according to that article, surprise
that some representatives of various religions had taken a
stand against the creationism law. You're quoted as
saying: "I don't think they represent the cross-section
of the Christians of the state." Is that your belief?

A Yes.

Q You go on to say, according to the quotation, "I just find
it hard to believe that religious leaders want a theory
taught in the school system that is void of any mention
of a creator. I would have thought they would have been
on the other side." Is that another accurate quotation?

A That's an accurate quotation.

50

Q The article goes on to say that you indicated the material
you've seen is all scientific stuff and it doesn't have
anything to do with religion. Is that your belief?

A Yes. All the books that I had looked at was strictly
scientific matter.

Q Refer, if you will, to the next article from the ARKANSAS
DEMOCRAT of June 9, 1981, headlined "Clark to ask lawyers'
advice on creationism-bill lawsuit." That article indicates
that Wendell Bird and John Whitehead contacted you and that
you brought them out to visit with the Attorney General.
Did you do that?

A No. I didn't bring them out here. I met them out here.
It had been arranged previously, and they asked me to come
and attend, so I came by.

Q Who contacted you? Did the Attorney General contact you?

A Carl Hunt contacted me.

Q Had you spoken with Mr. Bird or Mr. Whitehead prior to that
time?

A The only thing I knew of either of the two gentlemen was
a Law Review article that had been written for the Yale Law
Journal by Wendell Bird, and I had that article to use in
presentation to the Senate, and that's the only think I knew
of him.

Q Have you read that article?

A Yes, sir.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Senator James L. Holsted - Page 2

51

Q You indicated, according to the reporter, that that meeting
really enlightened you about what the issues were going to
be in the lawsuit. I assume that you discussed the issues
in the lawsuit.

A Yes, sir.

Q Is that when you were enlightened about your ability to
demonstrate the legislative intent?

A Yes, I kind of got, you know, pulled off my high-horse
at that point in time about that issue.

Q The next article appeared in the GAZETTE on June 10, 1981.
The headline reads: "Lawyers Offer to Help Defend Creation
Law, Attorney General Says." You're quoted over on the
right column at the top as saying, "They don't want to be
in the position of seeking publicity. In fact, they were
wondering how the media found out that they would be here."
I assume that you were talking there about Bird and White-
head?

A That's correct.

Q You indicated to the reporter that in the meeting you had
with the Attorney General they wanted you to do the talking
and they just wanted to be there. Was that in essence
what their position was?

A In visiting with the Attorney General?

Q Uh-huh.

A Well ...

52

Q I guess you met with Mr. Campbell here, did you not, and
Mr. Williams?

A They came in town and I was informed that they were here
and asked if I'd like to meet with them; said they were
going to stop by and make a call on the Attorney General,
and I felt like it would be a little easier for them to
visit if I was along, and wanted to meet them and wanted to
hear what everybody's ideas were in the lawsuit, but I didn't
do any talking at all, hardly. They're the ones that did all
the talking.

Q Did you all discuss to any extent making statements to the
press about this lawsuit?

A They advised me at that time it was best that I didn't say
anything else.

Q Does that account for your relative silence about that since
that time?

A Yeah. You haven't heard me say anything else from that
point, have you?

Q Look, if you will, Senator, at the next article, which is
another article appearing in the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT on
June 10, 1981, with the headline, "Lawyers offer aid in
defending creationism law." It basically reiterates what
appeared in the earlier article I just asked you about,
and gives some explanation consistent, I believe, with what
you've said ...

A Correct.

53

Q ... about how this bill was placed in your hands. On
the right side under an Associated Press byline headlined,
"Sponsor of bill denies any religious overtones", you're
quoted as saying that you never said that this was a
religious issue. As a matter of fact, the quotation reads:
"It's not a religious issue", he said. "I never said that.
At least I don't think I did. But I've been interviewed so
many times." Do you know whether you said that?

A No. You get confused by what they interpret as saying it's
a religious issue or it's not. I do not see it as a religious
issue.

Q And the rest of the quotation that's attributed to you in
that article is consistent with what you've already said,
that the bill doesn't have anything to do with your religious
feelings?

A Yes.

Q You are quoted as saying: "Creation-science can be presented
in the classroom with no references to a creator, completely
void of any religious references."

A That is an improper statement.

Q You didn't say that or ..

A No.

Q ... that's wrong?

A I said that, but what I meant in stating that was a Creator
in the religious sense, as espoused by one religion,

54

Methodist, Baptist, whatever. The presupposition of
creation-science, of course, is there was a Creator that
started the process.

Q How would you define that, a Creator?

A A supra-natural power.

Q Supra-natural or supernatural?

A Supra, s-u-p-r-a.

Q And in your view teaching creation-science and attributing
the existence of life to a supra-natural Creator does not
introduce religion into the schools?

A That's correct.

Q You're quoted also in that article as saying that you can't
speak for the intent of the other members of the House and
Senate and I can certainly understand your saying that. I
wonder the extent to which you had conversations with other
members of the Senate when this matter was debated in the
Senate. Did you have many conversations other than the
discourse on the floor of the Senate?

A With every senator.

Q Did you go around and talk with every senator personally?

A I visited at one time or another with every senator about
the piece of legislation.

Q Did you inquire about why they were going to vote for it
if they indicated they were going to vote for it?

A No, sir. I presented it as an issue of a balanced treatment.

55

Q And if they told you they were going to be for or against
they didn't say why?

A You never ask anybody that. All you want to know is what
they're going to do.

Q You don't care why.

A It's all based on their beliefs, see, everything that anybody
does.

Q The next article, Senator, is under date of June 10, 1981,
in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE, with the headline, "Religion
Isn't at Issue, Holsted Insists." It basically reiterates
what was in the DEMOCRAT on the same date and quotes you
as making the same statements that are included in the
DEMOCRAT article. Do you have any dispute about the quota-
tions that appear there? You again state it's not a
religious issue.

A Correct. Yes, I think most of those statements are correct.
I don't see anything I have any problems with.

Q Look, if you will, at the next article in sequence, Senator
Holsted. It's an article that appeared in the ARKANSAS
Democrat on June 14, 1981, in which you are quoted as
saying with regard to the Seagraves case in California, or
the judgment that was rendered there: "I think that's in
our favor because that's all that is taught in Arkansas -
evolution - that's what all the furor's about. The majority
of the science teachers and educators say, 'You can't tell

56

us what to teach, and all we want to teach is evolution.'"
Is that an accurace quotation from you?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is that your feeling, that that's what the furor's all about?
Is there a furor in your opinion between evolutionists and
creationists?

A Apparently there is.

Q What makes you think that the majority of science teachers
and educators say you can't tell us what to teach; all we
want to teach is evolution?

A Because that's all that's being taught in the school systems
now.

Q What do you base that conclusion on, Senator? Do you
know what's being taught in all the school systems around
the state?

A Just in checking with some textbooks to see what material
is presented and visiting with school teachers, and they're
knowledgeable. They have meetings during the summer. They
know what's being taught around the state.

Q Are you aware of textbooks on the approved list of the
state for science texts in teaching materials that do in
fact have some mention or some portion of them dealing with
creation or creation-science and stating what that view is?

A No, I'm not, but I have not seen all the textbooks that are
on the approved list.

57

Q You're not aware of that now or weren't at the time, or both?

A Both.

Q The next article is under date of June 24, 1981, from the
ARKANSAS GAZETTE, headline reading, "Test Creation-science
Act in Court, Not Special Session, Holsted Urges." It
simply states that you were opposed to having the legislature
take this up in a special session, as I recall ...

A Correct.

Q ... and that you thought it ought to be tested in the courts.

A Correct.

Q That's your feeling, is it not?

A Yes, sir.

Q Look now, if you will, to the final article that appeared
in the SOUTHWEST TIMES RECORD on Sunday, June 14, 1981. You
are quoted on page 2 of that article down at the bottom,
and I think I've marked it for your reference, "They're
discriminating against my children's rights to freedom of
speech by not allowing them to teach both theories," said
Holsted, sponsor of the bill. Is that an accurate quotation?

A Yes, sir.

Q Is that your feeling?

A Yes, sir.

Q Explain that to me, if you will.

A Evolution is not a proven fact. Evolution is a theory,
a model, so to speak, that they have taken scientific data

58

and the scientists have said, "We believe that it fits
this model." When you only teach one model in a school
system to children from grade school through junior high
and high school and even through college, a model and a
theory tends to become a fact because there's no other
alternative presented. I know my daughter had it presented
in her science class last year in the 8th grade. The only
thing presented was evolution, and while they do say it's
a theory, after you hear this over and over again as you
go through your school years, a theory tends to become facts,
and it's not a fact, and to allow for the freedom of
education for my children and other children, they ought
to be presented alternatives, and say, "These are the facts.
They perhaps fit this model. Some facts fit this model,
but they're all theories. You make up your mind based on
what you believe in and what you want to believe, based on
these facts." By not doing that they're discriminating
against my children's rights in the school system.

Q I assume, then, that line of thought in a way was one of
your motivations for introducing Act 590?

A Yes, sir.

Q What about the people that don't believe in either one of
those things?

A That's all right.

Q Do you think they ought to have the right to have their

59

views mandated by state law to be taught in the public
schools?

A I don't care how many theories they present in the public
schools. They can present fifteen different theories if
they want to. That is what education is for, and you may
throw all of them out and not agree with any of them. But
at the moment only one is being presented, and if that one
is correct and it is subjected to comparison with many other
theories and it in fact is the only good one, then it will
survive and there won't be any problem.

Q What right to freedom of speech was discriminated against
with regard to your children, or would be discriminated
against if just evolution theory was taught?

A Well, i guess in a sense that perhaps they would like to
discuss another theory. Perhaps my children believe in
the creation-science theory and would like to have that
discussed and those views presented, but they would not be
able to do that in the classroom because the only thing
discussed would be evolution. In that sense I was thinking
of freedom of speech -- more of freedom of education, I think.

Q Do your children know what creation-science is?

A What I have tried to explain to them. My children believe
in my beliefs, in the Biblical account of creation as
written in Genesis, but that's not what's going to be taught.

Q Do you find the teaching of evolution theory or do you

60

find evolution theory offensive to those beliefs?

A Yes.

Q Is that why you think there ought to be a balanced present-
ation?

A Yes.

Q You're not a scientist, Senator ...

A That's correct.

Q ... I know that, and you don't pretend to be. You haven't
made any attempt to weigh all of the scientific evidence
or to make any study to determine how widely accepted the
views that are presented by the creation-scientists are
in the scientific community, have you?

A This debate has been going on before my birth.

Q I understand.

A I did not attempt at all to even get into in the legislation
saying what particular scientific data would be taught and
would not be taught.

(Break)

Q Senator, with reference to the copy of Act 590 that's in
front of you, I'd like to go through that Act in some
detail and ask you about the language that appears. Was
the title of the Act the creature of the Legislative Council
or did you title the Act or was it titled already in the
model legislation submitted to you?

A It was titled in the model legislation.

61

Q The title reads, "To protect academic freedom by providing
student choice." That's the second phrase in it. What
does that mean exactly?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that question.
That calls for a legal conclusion, I think, on the part of
Senator Holsted.

Q What did you mean by including that language in the title
of this bill?

A The same that I've discussed earlier, by allowing students
to see alternate views.

Q "To ensure freedom of religious exercise." What did you
mean by using that language?

A Well, I really didn't have one feeling one way or another
on that. That's the way the bill was drawn. The language
was put in there by presumed attorneys, and attorneys read
it at the Legislative Council, so I just left it the way
it was. I felt like that was the best thing I could do,
since I was not an attorney.

Q So you didn't have any particular belief about that,
to ensure freedom of religious exercise?

A That's correct. I looked at the whole thing on the issue
of what I want to accomplish, and then I expect the people
that draw the legislation to tell me legally how we accom-
plish the idea that I want to accomplish. I don't get into
the specifics of each little sentence, because, not having

62

a legal background, I don't feel like I'm qualified to do
that.

Q Is it your feeling that the teaching of just evolution as
it's defined in this act abridges some right to the freedom
of religious exercise?

MR. WILLIAMS: Again I'll object to the
question on the grounds that it calls for a possible legal conclusion

MR. CEARLEY: I'm just asking for his
reaction to it. I know he's not a lawyer.

A No. I never associated religious exercise with anything in
the school system. I have religious exercise in whether
I want to go to church or not.

Q I understand, but is it fair for me to conclude, Senator,
that you find the teaching of evolution alone offensive
to your religious beliefs?

A Yes.

Q Isn't that in fact what this language addresses, and, if
not, tell me what it means, if you know, and what you meant
by including it in the title of this bill.

A I left it there because it was there to begin with and I
figured they had a good reason for putting it in there,
perhaps a reason that I didn't know about, and so I left
it like that.

Q Let me read to you several following phrases: "To guarantee
freedom of belief and speech; to prevent establishment of

63

religion; to prohibit religious instruction concerning
origins ..." To prevent establishment of religion, how
does this bill in your mind do that?

A Specifically prohibits any religious materials being used
in the classroom.

Q You're not maintaining, then, that teaching evolution
establishes a religion somehow?

A No. My personal beliefs on whether it does or not establish
a religion have nothing to do with what I tried to do in
the bill.

Q And yet you find that the teaching of evolution is offensive
to your religious beliefs?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he said evolution
alone.

Q Evolution alone.

A That's correct.

Q I stand corrected. "To prohibit religious instruction
concerning origins." Had there up to the time of the passage
of this act been religious instruction concerning origins
to your knowledge?

A No.

Q What does that phrase address, then?

A I could see someone teaching creation-science from the
Bible or from some other materials, and I could see someone
teaching evolution-science from some other particular

64

religious beliefs that hold up evolution as their fundamental
religious belief, and I didn't want that.

Q Do you know of a religion that holds up evolution as a
religious belief?

A I think there are some. I can't tell you off the top of
my head, but in visiting with Wendell Bird I was informed
there are some.

Q But this bill is designed in your mind to prohibit religious
instruction concerning origins. That's one of its purposes.

A I wanted to be sure that nothing was used except scientific
data.

Q Senator, how, if you know, can you talk to students about
creation by a supra-natural Creator - your term - without
talking about religion and teaching a religious belief?

A In the same way you can say that there is no Creator;
therefore, you believe in man as the start and essence of
everything that happens. That is as much religious as
saying that there is a supra-natural.

Q Is that what you think students were being taught?

A Certainly.

Q It comes kind of as a surprise to me. Have you seen
statements in any biology books or something of that sort
saying that there is no God, there was no Creator? I
don't believe that any such statements exist.

A No, not saying specifically in black and white there is

65

no God. When you teach creation void of any reference to
a Creator, you're teaching that there was no God.

Q You mean when you talk about origins of life and of man
without reference to a Creator you are teaching that there
is no God? Is that your view?

A Correct. In the original Origin of Species in Darwin the
creation of an evolution that he speaks of came from a
one-celled amoeba that came from a combination of amino
acids, et cetera, in a pool of water.

Q But there's not a statement there that there is no God ...

A That's correct.

Q ... and there was no Creator.

A That's correct.

Q That's a conclusion that you're reaching, is it not?

A Finish that up.

Q Well, what I want to get at, Senator, is evolution theory
as it's presented in most biology texts, that I have seen
anyway, says nothing whatsoever about creation. That word,
if it appears at all, only appears in explaining what
creationists believe, and, certainly, the word, "God" or
lack of a God, the absence of a God, does not appear in
any biology texts.

A Statements about absence of a God, but the whole evolutionary
process as presented in biology texts presupposes that it
started and is all contained in itself, that there was no
Creator.

66

Q Well, now, that's your conclusion, is it not?

A And it's the conclusion that you reach as you look at the
material, but that is my conclusion, that's correct.

Q In fact, there are a lot of religious people and religious
leaders that find no problem at all in reconciling those
two elements.

A Sure.

Q Is that true?

A That's true.

Q At least they say they fit together rather nicely.

A That's true.

Q But you personally don't believe that, and that's a
religious belief, is that correct?

A That I personally don't believe that they do fit together
nicely?

Q Yes.

A I believe there can be evolution within a species.

Q Well, how about man evolving from lower forms of life ..

A No.

Q ... from sea water?

A No.

Q And you base that, I am assuming, on your religious
convictions and your literal interpretation of creation
as it appears in Genesis?

A That's correct. If there are any scientific data to back

67

that up, then that ought to be presented. If there's not
any scientific data to back it up, then it ought not to be
presented.

Q Back to my original question. How can you teach creation-
science -- that is, creation of man and the universe --
referring to a supra-natural Creator without teaching
religion?

A How do you define religion? You believe in something.
You have a religion that you believe in. Everyone has
some kind of religion they believe in. It may be a Creator
or it may be a God; it may be no God; it may be indifferent
to that part of it.

Q Or you may not have thought about it at all.

A Correct.

Q On the other hand .... Well, let me get back to my question.

A In the absence of academic freedom this causes them to
think perhaps there is.

Q I understand. What I'm trying to get at, Senator, is
the interjection of a supernatural being here, supra-
natural Creator, to use your terms.

A Okay.

Q The fact of the matter is, the way I read this, you cannot
present this data to students without also presenting to
them the existence of a supra-natural Creator, can you?

A That's correct.

68

Q The balance of the Title to the act goes on to say that
it is to bar discrimination on the basis of creationists
or evolutionist belief; to provide definitions and
clarifications; to declare the legislative purpose and
legislative findings of fact; to provide for severability
of provisions; to provide for repeal of contrary laws; and
to set forth an effective date. Were those phrases that
were all included in the model act also?

A To the best of my knowledge they were.

Q Look, if you will, at Section 1. The term, "balanced
treatment," is that your term or is that from the model act?

A From the model act.

Q Do you have a firm opinion or a firm position on what that
means?

A It'll be difficult to actually define what "balanced
treatment" is, because in everybody's mind balanced treatment
will be different. To me balanced treatment is not presenting
an hour of one theory and 5 minutes of another, saying,
"Well, here's the other theory that some people believe.
You can believe it whether you want to or not." Balanced
treatment is to give the same emphasis by the teacher as
all theories are presented, and it is their professional
duty and they're professional people and they do that.
They say, "These are the facts. These are the theories. You
make up your mind on which one you feel ..." But a balanced

69

treatment does not necessarily mean that you have to spend
the same number of minutes on each theory.

Q Does it mean in your mind that you have to treat the two
things with equal dignity?

A Yes.

Q Does it prohibit in your mind a statement by the teacher
that he or she may think that one is right or wrong?

A I would think a teacher would never make that statement.
That would be very unprofessional.

Q Would it prohibit in your mind a teacher from expressing
to his or her students that one of these theories is more
widely held or supported by scientific data than the other?

A If that could be proven, I think a teacher could state that.

Q How could she give balanced treatment to it if she did that?

A She's only presenting the data. Maybe you have ten different
facts or supporting documents on one thing and only two on
another. Balanced treatment is that you give as much
respect and emphasis to one theory as you do to another.
It may take you a lot longer in time to explain that, and
you say, "There's more data that supports this theory than
the other," but you still present the other theory.

Q Do you think that a teacher could do this and, consistent
with the mandate of this statute, tell his or her students
that in that teacher's professional opinion one of these
is scientifically acceptable and the other is not -- that

70

is, evolution theory as opposed to creation theory?

A I don't think a professional teacher would say that, because
that particular point has been debated all my lifetime and
they haven't come to a solution yet, so why would one teacher
stand up and say, "I've arrived at that conclusion now"?

Q Are you saying that you don't think a teacher would say that
or that it would be improper under the language of this act?

A I don't think a teacher professionally would say that.

Q Well, let's assume we had a teacher who would say that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bob, just for the record
I want the record to reflect a continuing objection on my part to
all the questions going to what the act means. I understand you are
saying what you think it means, but I still think you are in
essence trying to draw from this witness a legal judgment which
he is not competent to make and should not be called upon to make.

Q I'm trying, David, and Senator, to find out what was in your
mind and what was your intent in presenting this bill to
the legislature for passage, and by way of determining
that I think it's necessary to find out what you meant by
the language that you used, and this was your bill ...

A Correct.

Q ... regardless of the source of it. I have great difficulty,
frankly, in determining for myself what it means, and I'd
like for you to help me to the extent that you can by telling
me what you think it means and what you thought it meant when

71

you presented it in the Senate and explained it to your
fellow senators and to the Governor.

A You understand, we pass a lot of legislation that sometimes
does exactly the opposite of what we thought it was going
to do, once the courts interpret it or it gets on the books.
Balanced treatment would be up to the teacher to determine.
We don't sit out there and look over their shoulder, and
it's quite natural for teachers to bring their biases and
their viewpoints into the classroom, and you can't help that.
As a professional I think they would do their utmost to
give it what they consider balanced treatment, and that's
all I can ask for.

Q Back to my question ... Do you think that a teacher could
in compliance with this act present evolution theory,
present creation theory, and then offer an opinion to a
class that one or the other is acceptable on a scientific
basis and the other is not?

A I would hate to see them do that, but I think they could.

Q You think they could under this act and that would still be
balanced treatment?

A They would just be expressing their own viewpoint at
that point, based on their knowledge and their beliefs.
Who's going to know the difference?

Q The bill has no teeth in it that I can see to police the
enforcement or implementation of it.

A Correct.

72

Q Is there any reason for that?

A You have to rely on the integrity of the school teachers
in the school system. They'll comply in the best way they
can. We do the same way in all the other rules and
requirements that the schools are supposed to adhere to.

Q Would you consider, in light of this act, that a school
district could require a teacher to abide by the provisions
of Act 590?

A Certainly. It's a law.

Q And could then terminate or non-renew that teacher for
failing to do that?

A I would think so.

Q You said balanced treatment was difficult of definition, I
think. I'm paraphrasing what you said. With perhaps a
teacher's job being in peril or hanging in the balance,
how is the teacher to make that judgment of what is balanced
treatment and what is not?

A The local school boards determine what the curriculum will
be in the school system. They review the textbooks, local
committees do. They determine the material to be presented,
and then they rely upon the teacher to do that in all areas.

Q And they will be the judge of whether the teacher was doing that.

A Certainly.

Q I assume, then, also, in your mind anyway, they would be
the judge of whether it would be proper for a teacher to

73

offer an opinion that one of these is scientifically
unacceptable and the other is not?

A Certainly.

Q Section 2 says, "Prohibition against Religious Instruction.
Treatment of either evolution-science or creation-science
shall be limited to scientific evidences for each model
and inferences from those scientific evidences, and must
not include any religious instruction or references to
religious writings." The presence of the word, "creation",
bothers me ...

A I've determined that.

Q ... in the context of this bill, and I wonder how you can
instruct in a public school on creation-science based on
the concept of a supra-natural Creator without getting
into religious instruction.

A You're not going to use any religious writings. It's going
to all be scientific data that may fit one model or may
fit another model or may fit both models.

Q And then you're going to tell the students that these six
things here listed under "creation-science" mean scientific
evidences for creation, are you not, or that they are
scientific evidences for creation?

A The scientific evidences would be presented. It says,
"Here is the way we date the earth, that shows that perhaps
the earth was created suddenly and not as old as others

74

would believe. This fits this model. This fits another
model."

Q And the model that you're referring to has a name...

A Creation-science.

Q ... creation-science, which is defined as - and I'm quoting
from the bill - "... the scientific evidences for creation."
Back to my question. How do you get around religion there?
You're talking about creation, which implies a supra-natural
Creator.

A I think it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that because
a theory or a model is consistent with a religious belief
does not make that theory or model in itself religious.

Q Regardless of what the Supreme Court may or may not have
ruled, how do you get around reference to a supra-natural
Creator with a definition like that -- "...means the
scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those
scientific evidences"? That's the only reason for teaching
this stuff, isn't it?

A Is to say, "Okay, suppose you have a Creator ..."

Q This supposes the theory of a divine creation or a supra-
natural Creator.

A That's correct.

Q That's the reason for teaching these things.

A Creation-science.

Q Okay. We agree on that, then, do we not?

A Yes, but it is not religious.

75

Q I understand that's what's in issue in this lawsuit.

A And you think I'm going to decide it here as we sit around
this table?

Q No, but I'd like to know very honestly what you think and
what you thought when you passed the bill.

A I do not see it as religious. I see it as religious as
teaching one religious viewpoint. We mention a Creator
in the Declaration of Independence two or three or four times.

Q I understand, but I'm not attacking the Declaration of
Independence. We're talking about this bill here.

A I understand, and I'm using Creator in the same sense as
that. I'm not using the Creator in the sense of what the
Baptists believe, the Jews believe, or Methodists believe.

Q Okay. Section 3. "Public schools within this State, or
their personnel, shall not discriminate by reducing a
grade of a student or by singling out and making public
criticism against any student who demonstrates a satisfactory
understanding of both evolution-science and creation-science
and who accepts or rejects either model in whole or part."
Now, the question that I would ask you about that is in
implementing Act 590 do you envision that students will be
presented -- if either is taught, both will be taught ...

A Correct.

Q ... and that they will be tested on both theories?

A I would imagine so.

76

Q And they can't reduce the grade?

A If the biology teacher so decides to do that. Perhaps one
of the students should get up and make a presentation in
the classroom for evolution, and the majority of the students
and the teacher believe in creation-science and don't believe
the evolution theory. They are not allowed to discriminate
or reduce his grade or to do anything because of that.

Q Let me go through Section 4. First, we've dealt somewhat
with the definition, "Creation-science means the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific
evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific
evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden
creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing ..."
Did you have in mind any particular scientific evidence
or any particular text or information to be presented to
students under that subheading?

A No. This definition was in the model act, and at that
point I did not know how to define creation-science from
a legal definition. In reading this definition I assumed
that that was the best won that could be done, so I included
it in the bill.

Q Is the belief in sudden creation of the universe, energy,
and life from nothing consistent with your religious beliefs?

A Well, yes.

Q Is it consistent with the account in Genesis of the creation?

A Yes.

77

Q (2) says: "The insufficiency of mutation and natural
selection in bringing about development of all living kinds
from a single organism." Do you know what the word "kinds"
means?

A No, I don't.

Q That was also a word in the model act?

A Yes.

Q Is that criteria or that phrase, that statement, consistent
with your religious beliefs?

A Yes.

Q It seems to me to be a refutation in part of the theory of
evolution. Is that what it is?

A The basis of the theory of evolution is a mutation and
natural selection from a single cell to man.

Q Creationism, on the other hand, would espouse the belief
that all life forms were created instantaneously at the
same time and there are no transitional forms. Is that
your understanding?

A I don't know about instantaneously all at the same time.

Q Well, over a period of six days, according to Genesis.

A Yeah, but a day could be a million years.

Q It could be?

A Who knows? You know, I don't get bogged down in minor
details about what a day meant in Genesis. I know what
this was intended to say was that there is no evolutionary

78

change from species to species.

Q Are you talking about man developing from a lower form of
life?

A Yes.

Q And this statement here would be contrary to that proposition?

A (Affirmative nod.)

Q So it would require that you reach whatever evidence there
is that mutation and natural selection would be insufficient
to bring about, for instance, man as man currently exists
in the world?

A Yes.

Q (3), "Changes only within fixed limits of originally created
kinds of plants and animals." Did you just address that
by saying that there's some evolution or some change within
species but not otherwise?

A Yes. I think I addressed that in the other statement. I
really don't have a handle on what that particular statement
means. In the definition I assume they included that in
there because it needed to be there.

Q Do you make that assumption for this entire body of this
definition, that these six elements would tend to support
creation-science as it's defined, and that the others
would tend to refute it or would tend to support evolution-
science as it's defined?

A I'm not sure I understand that. I assume ...

Q You said you made no independent examination or did no

79

independent research about these particular elements. Are
you assuming that each of these six elements under the
definition of creation-science would support a belief in
divine creation consistent with that reflected in the Book
of Genesis?

A I wouldn't assume that. I did not make that assumption at
all. I assumed that they put these in here because legally
that was the best way to define what you were talking about
in the bill.

Q I guess I get back to what we're talking about. If that's
not what we're talking about, what are we talking about?

A We're not talking about anything to do with Genesis.

Q We're talking about creation by a supra-natural Creator,
are we not?

A That's correct.

Q That happens to be consistent, is it now, with the view
that's presented in Genesis?

A Oh, no, other than you have a God, a Creator. That's in
Genesis, and that's in this bill, but everything else is
not necessarily consistent with Genesis.

Q Do you know that to be the case?

A Do I know that to be the case?

Q Do you know that these six elements are not consistent
with a literal interpretation of the creation as presented
in Genesis?

80

A From my understanding they are not all consistent with that.

Q (4), "Separate ancestry for man and apes." Again, I'm sure
that came from the model act, did it not?

A That's correct.

Q And that would include presentation of whatever scientific
evidence there is to show a separate development of man
from apes?

A Yes, I would assume that ... You're right.

Q Do you know what we mean by the use of the word, "ancestry",
there?

A No, other than what I would interpret it to mean, like a
family tree, how you trace back your origin.

Q It wouldn't end up tracing back the origin of any man to
something that you couldn't call a human being?

A I would presume that's what they're meaning by "ancestry".

Q That's one of the points, is it not, of creation-science,
to establish a separate ancestry for man and for apes?

A That is part of the theory. That is one of the parts of
the model theory of creation-science.

Q No. 5 deals with, "Explanation of the earth's geology by
catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide
flood." Do you know what we're talking about there or what
you're talking about?

A Vaguely.

Q Is that what is referred to as the Noachian Flood?

81

A I don't know that.

Q Is that the great flood that's reflected in the Bible, a
flood of the entire world where all of the animals were
placed in the ark?

A I assume that's what it is. I don't know much about that.
I just know that that is one of the basic tenets of the
creation-science theory, that there is scientific evidence
that can show that the world was flooded at one time
completely.

Q Is that consistent with your religious belief?

A Yes.

Q "(6), a relatively recent inception of the earth and living
kinds." Tell me what that means, relatively recent inception.

A I have seen the explanation of that in writings, and they're
talking about the earth maybe being thousands of years old
and not billions of years old.

Q Would it be accurate to say they generally speak in terms
of six to ten thousand years old rather than four to four
and a half billion years?

A I think I've seen that.

(Off the record.)

Q The word, "supra-natural", came up earlier through you,
Senator Holsted. What do you mean by supra-natural
Creator? I looked it up during the break in Webster's
Third New International Dictionary.

82

A What does the definition say in the dictionary?

Q It says: "Transcending the natural, meaning supernatural."

A Correct, outside the natural, but I didn't use supernatural.
I used supra-natural, meaning outside what we comprehend
as being natural.

Q And that's what you mean by the use of that word?

A That's correct.

Q Does that dovetail with your belief in a Creator? You,
I think, used that as an adjective, supra-natural Creator.

A Yes.

Q We were on No. 6, a relatively recent inception of the earth
and living kinds. The materials that I have seen from the
various publishers of creation-science material speak in
terms of six to ten thousand years...

A Yes.

Q ... as the relatively recent inception. Is that your
understanding?

A Yes, that's my understanding in there, in that time frame.

Q Is that consistent with your religious beliefs?

A No.

Q If you have a religious belief on that particular point, what
is that?

A I've never worried about it. That's not, as far as I'm
concerned, of material consequence to me in my religious
beliefs.

Q Whether the earth is 4.5 billion years old or 10,000 years
old makes no difference to you?

83

A It doesn't make any difference to me at all.

Q You volunteered earlier that the length of a day as
presented in the Book of Genesis is of no particular
consequence to you, whether it's a million years or
twenty-four hours.

A Correct.

Q "(b) Evolution-science means the scientific evidences for
evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences.
Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and
related inferences that indicated: (1) Emergence by
naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered
matter and emergence of life from nonlife." What are we
talking about there, do you know?

A It was my thought that we were referring to the Darwin
theory of species, where man evolved from a one-celled
animal, which happened to be somehow come into existence.

Q Is that inconsistent with your religious belief?

A Yes.

Q Is it your religious belief, Senator Holsted, that man did
not evolve at all, that man was created in the form that
man appears in today?

A I believe that man could have evolved within the species.
Man may not be ... could have perhaps been harrier or
different texture of skin, or whatever.

Q But always a man?

84

A Always a man, always the capability of reasoning thinking.
I believe that we were created in God's image, but
physically that doesn't have anything to do with it.

Q And did not emerge from nonlife or from one-celled
organisms?

A Correct.

Q "(2) The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of present living kinds from
simple earlier kinds." We're just really stating the
converse of No. 2 up in the definition of creation-science,
are we not?

A Correct. I think each one of them probably will be the
converse as you go through them.

Q And I assume, then, that you are talking about there the
scientific evidence that would tend to support the
evolution theory, natural selection and so forth?

A Correct.

Q "(3) Emergency ..." I assume that means emergence ...

A Yes, sir.

Q "... by mutation and natural selection of present living
kinds from simple earlier kinds."

A Pretty much the same thing.

Q Isn't that pretty much the same thing as No. 2?

A Right.

Q Does it mean the same thing in your mind?

A Yes.

85

Q "(4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes."
What does that mean?

A That's my understanding of the theory of evolution, that
we evolved from simpler - from a one-cell - and through
that we evolved into a fish that crawled on land that became
an ape that became man.

Q Roughly speaking.

A Very simplistic, right.

Q Would it be a correct conclusion for me to reach that each
of these six elements outlined under the definition of
evolution-science are repugnant or offensive to your
religious beliefs in the origin of man and of the universe?

A You used the words repugnant and offensive and ...

Q Well, inconsistent.

A Yes. I have no problem with what anybody wants to believe.

Q I understand that. I'm trying to find out how the teaching
of these specific elements that tend to support evolution
offends or abridges a First Amendment right, as you've said
publicly it does, and you've said that each of these things
is inconsistent with your religious belief in creation ...
(1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe
from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife,
you've said that is repugnant or inconsistent with your
belief that man has always been man ...

A Okay.

86

Q ... and was not created or did not evolve from non-living
matter. (2) and (3) you've said that your religious beliefs
are inconsistent with the notion that mutation and natural
selection account for man in his present stage or for animals
in their present stage.

A Correct. However, there are people - and I'm sure some
plaintiffs in the lawsuit - who may believe in a Creator
that used steps (2) and (3) to create man.

Q I understand, but you don't believe in that?

A No, I do not.

Q And then (4), Emergence of man from a common ancestor with
apes ...

A I do not.

Q ... that notion, I take it ...

A I do not believe that.

Q ... would be inconsistent with your religious belief and
your belief in a supra-natural Creator.

A Yes.

Q Is that right?

A Yes.

Q "(6) An inception several billion years ago of the earth
and somewhat later of life," you don't care much about?

A That could be consistent with my religious beliefs and it
could not be.

Q Is it to your knowledge inconsistent with a lot of funda-
mentalist belief and with the view that's espoused in the

87

various creation-science textbooks that you've seen?

A You talk about fundamentalist beliefs, and I have a hard
time defining what fundamentalist beliefs are. Most of the
creation-science textbooks present their scientific evidence
with the model that the earth is young.

Q Six to ten thousand years old?

A Yes.

Q I have no problem with the definition of "public schools."

A We agree on something. We'd better watch out.

Q Section 5. "This Act does not require or permit instruction
in any religious doctrine or materials." I think you have
stated that you simply don't view it as instruction in
religion to refer to a supra-natural Creator ...

A Correct.

Q ... as the natural conclusion one would reach from these
six elements being taught under creation-science.

A Yes.

Q And I think we have also established, Senator, that neither
you or I know exactly what "balanced treatment" means, and
that's a decision that will have to be made on an ad hoc
basis by teachers and school boards, is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q No. 6. "Legislative Declaration of Purpose." Does this
appear verbatim as it was in the model act presented to you?

A I don't recall. I think it does but I'm not certain.

88

Q I guess an examination of that would disclose it, but you
don't recall any change?

A No, I don't. I tried to make as little change as possible,
because I assumed that the legislation I received, the
model act I received, had been thoroughly examined and
drawn up in a way to be proper.

Q The first phrase says, "This Legislature enacts this Act for
public schools with the purpose of protecting academic
freedom for students' differing values and beliefs." We've
already talked about that, and I think you have stated your
position, that it's unfair or improper just to teach
evolution if it tends to negate or makes any statement
about the existence or non-existence of a supra-natural
Creator.

A Uh-huh.

Q Is that fairly stated?

A Basically that's correct.

Q "... ensuring neutrality toward students' diverse
religious convictions." We've touched upon that also.
"... ensuring freedom of religious exercise for students
and their parents." Do you view it as an intrusion on the
freedom of religious exercise for evolution theory to be
taught without creation-science?

A I think in the past teachers have been afraid to teach
creation-science because they were afraid of being

89

disciplined for teaching religion in the school system.

Q Do you have any evidence of that?

A No.

Q "... guaranteeing freedom of belief and speech for
students." We're kind of restating the same thing we've
said before, aren't we?

A Right.

Q "... preventing establishment of theologically liberal,
humanist, nontheist, or atheist religions." What do you
mean by that language?

A I don't have any idea. That was in there and I left it
there, because I assumed they put it in there for a
purpose.

Q Is there something theologically liberal, humanist,
nontheist, or atheist about teaching evolution theory or
any of these things that appear numbered (1) through (6)
under "Evolution-science"?

A There are so many different theories under evolution, under
the title, "Evolution," you can have all kinds of different
theories under that. You might have a theory picking up
two or three of the definitions from creation-science and
using four of the definitions out of evolution, so it's
difficult to just say yes in answer to that question. I
don't know why they put it in there. I assume they put it
in there to again emphasize it's not mixing religion in the
state.

90

Q At least it's not mixing these four things that are there.
It doesn't say anything about Islam or Buddhism or
Shintoism or any of a thousand other religions. Is there
any particular reason that these four beliefs, whether
they're religious or not, are picked out here?

A No.

Q Do you think that a belief in evolution-science as it's
defined in the act is a theologically liberal belief, or
is theological at all?

A I've never thought about it. What do you mean by
theological?

Q I don't have any idea.

A I don't know.

Q It's out of your bill.

A I don't know. I assume that they put that in there for a
particular reason. It needed to be in there.

Q The use of the word humanist here, theologically humanist,
I assume that means Humanism as a religion. Would that be
your assumption?

A Yes.

Q Do you know what that is?

A What Humanism as a religion is?

Q Uh-huh.

A Yes, I've read some things on it.

Q Can you give me a capsule definition of Humanism?

91

A To the best of my knowledge Humanism believes that man is
the ultimate in the universe and he is totally responsible
for where he came from and where he goes, and there is no
God.

Q Do you think that that is established by teaching evolution-
science?

A Oh, I think you could establish anything by teaching any
theory if you wanted to do that. Some people have said
that. I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. It just
depends on how you want to present certain facts.

Q Do you know what a nontheist is?

A No.

Q Do you know what an atheist is?

A Yes.

Q One who denies the existence of God?

A Denies the existence of God.

Q But you don't know what a nontheist is? Somebody who's
against theism, I assume.

A I would assume so.

Q Is it your opinion that teaching evolution-science as
defined in the act establishes theologically liberal,
humanist, nontheist, or atheist religions?

A I think it could if the teacher wanted to, or it could not,
just as on the other side you can carry the other side to
extremes.

92

Q This bill is specifically designed, though, to prevent
that, and that's what I'm getting at. That's the language
that appears in it.

A Uh-huh.

Q "... preventing discrimination against students on the
basis of their personal beliefs concerning creation and
evolution." Do you think there is discrimination against
students on the basis of their personal beliefs concerning
creation and evolution?

A No, but there always could be, on either side.

Q But you have no evidence of current discrimination against
students on the grounds of their belief in creation or their
belief in evolution?

A No.

Q "... assisting students in their search for truth." What
did you mean by that language?

A Oh, that was in the piece of legislation. I thought it
really expressed ... My intent and purpose was in allowing
students to seek all theories. In searching for the truth
of what they believe in, have an opportunity to view
everything.

Q Did I understand you to say - I may have forgotten what you
said - ... Did I understand you to say that it would be
proper in your view under this act for a teacher to present
both creation-science and evolution-science and then to

93

offer a professional opinion that perhaps creation-science
is not acceptable on a scientific basis?

A No. I don't think that would be proper at all.

Q It would be unacceptable to you under the wording of this
act?

A Yes. I think that would be very unprofessional.

Q Well, without regard to whether it's professional or not,
do you think that would be non-compliance with this act?

A Yes.

Q That would be failing to give balanced treatment, equal
dignity?

A I think if they were doing that in the North Little Rock
School System, I believe I would address that to the
school board.

Q Do you think that would be grounds for terminating a
teacher then?

A No, unless they were told not to do that and they persisted
in doing it.

Q If they persisted in saying to their students, "Creation-
science is something that I don't believe is scientifically
acceptable"?

A (Affirmative nod.)

Q Then that would be grounds for termination?

A If they were told not to say that and they continued to do
that, they'd be in direct violation of some school board
policy.

94

MR. OSTERLOH: I think just to show I'm
here I will object to the form of that question. I believe you're
asking Mr. Holsted to make a judgment that he is not prepared to
make.

MR. CEARLEY: What I'm asking Senator
Holsted to do is to tell me what the intent of this act is and
how it can be implemented and what is required of a teacher and
what is prohibited by a teacher in this act.

MR. OSTERLOH: Well, when you get into
the area of what is grounds for termination of a teacher, you're
getting into an area which certainly Mr. Holsted is not
conversant.

Q Well, let me rephrase that. Do you think that a teacher
telling his or her students, after presenting creation-
science and evolution-science, that creation-science is not
good science and not acceptable on a scientific basis,
would be non-compliance with Act 590? That's a long
question, I know.

MR. OSTERLOH: I know, and I hate to be
interrupting. You were kind enough to invite me, but if he
understands that question, I certainly have the greatest respect
for him, because it is so long and vague and ...

MR. CEARLEY: Let me back up, Senator.

MR. OSTERLOH: ...I had forgotten the
first of it by the time you got to the last of it.

95

MR. CEARLEY: I'll address your
objection, Mr. Osterloh.

Q This act makes it mandatory that balanced treatment be
given to two subjects, creation-science and evolution-
science.

A Correct.

Q It also stated under the Declaration of Purpose that it
has several purposes. One is assisting students in
their search for truth. My question to you is would it
be acceptable for a teacher to present creation-science
and evolution-science, and would it be consistent with
the requirements of the act, for the teacher after those
two things are presented, to say, "In my professional
opinion creation-science is not valid science"?

A First of all, I don't think that's up to me to decide.
School boards set the policy. Second of all, I think the
teacher would present the material as it's presented in the
textbooks, and I have never seen any textbook say, "Here's
some scientific data, but it's not valid scientific data."
If it's valid scientific data they're going to present it.
If it's not, they're not going to present it. If it's a
valid scientific theory they're going to present it with
scientific facts. Otherwise, it's not going to be in there.

Q There are, in fact, Senator, some textbooks that say just
about that, that belief in creation-science is a religious

96

belief that one is free to espouse, but that it's not
science.

A That is not balanced treatment.

Q So in your view if a teacher said creation-science is really
not science and "It's unacceptable to me as a professional
scientist", they would not be complying with Act 590.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your question presupposes
that they are saying that creation-science is a religious doctrine ...

MR. CEARLEY: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: ... the way it's
phrased, because you referenced back to the textbooks which state
that.

Q Let me back up. This question is important to me, Senator.
I want to know if in your view a teacher would be out of
compliance with Act 590 if the teacher did everything
required, taught creation-science and then taught evolution-
science, or vice versa, and at the end of it told his or her
students that he or she did not believe that creation-science
had any valid scientific bases, or was unacceptable to a
scientist.

A She would not be out of compliance with the act.

Q Would not be out of compliance?

A Would not be, no. That is an editorial comment by a
teacher, and as long as she presented both theories and
the facts, that's all I'm after. If she wants to
editorialize from that point ...

97

Q And the teacher's free to say that one is hogwash and the
other is okay?

A If she wants to do that, she can do that.

Q Section 7, "Legislative Findings of Fact." Is it customary
in the Arkansas Legislature to include findings of fact
in the body of an act?

A No. Generally we do not do that.

Q Were all of these findings of fact present in the model
bill to your recollection?

A To the best of my knowledge they were.

Q Let me run through them quickly. "(a) The subject of the
origin of the universe, earth, life, and man is treated
within many public school courses, such as biology, life
science, anthropology, sociology, and often also in
physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social
studies," Do you know that to be true?

A I do not recall it being presented in any of my World
History clases.

Q How about in Physics?

A Yes.

Q Chemistry?

A Yes.

Q Would a teacher in any of those courses have to balance
any comment that's made that would tend to support evolution-
science with ...

98

A Yes.

Q ... an explanation of creation-science?

A Yes.

Q Do we envision, then, supplemental teaching materials or
new textbooks for all of these courses that are listed?

A Supplemental materials. That's quite common in the school
system.

Q "(b) Only evolution-science is presented to students in
virtually all of those courses that discuss the subject of
origins." What's the basis for that finding of fact?

A That was based on what I had determined from talking to
school teachers and reviewing some of the textbooks that
were used.

Q But it was also a statement that was already included in the
model bill that was presented to you?

A Correct. Now, you understand that any of these statements
could be amended out if anybody disagreed with them... by
"anybody", in the legislature.

Q But there was not, however, any hearing as such during which
these matters were inquired into and evidence presented or
testimony presented as a basis for any of these findings
of fact, was there?

A To present factual data and say, "This is a fact"?

Q Yes, for the legislature to look at a body of data or
testimony and say, "We find as fact the following:" There

99

were no hearings ...

A No. Here it's just based on their experience of what they
had observed in growing up in Arkansas and serving or
whatever.

Q "Public schools generally censor creation-science and
evidence contrary to evolution." Do you know that to be
true?

A I know it to be true in the sense that that's all they
teach is evolution. They don't teach anything else.

Q Well, they don't teach Arabic in the public schools, either,
but it is not censored. I'm getting at the word, "censor."
Do you know of a school board censoring creation-science
or evidence contrary to evolution?

A Oh, not by any public policy, no.

Q And there certainly is none in the Department of Education,
is there?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q "(c) Evolution-science is not an unquestionable fact of
science, because evolution cannot be experimentally
observed, fully verified, or logically falsified, and
because evolution-science is not accepted by some
scientists." You're not a scientist, Senator.

A Correct.

Q Do you know that evolution-science as it's defined here
cannot be experimentally observed, fully verified, or
logically falsified?

100

A That is what I have been advised by scientists.

Q But you don't know that yourself?

A I have no ... based on what limited scientific ...

Q And again ... I cut you off, I'm sorry.

A Based on what limited scientific knowledge I have, I would
not be qualified to ...

Q This finding is not based on any testimony or evidence,
documents presented to the legislature?

A No.

Q And that's true of all of these findings, is it not?

A Right.

Q "Evolution-science is contrary to the religious convictions
or moral values or philosophical beliefs of many students
and parents..." Do you know that to be true?

A Yes.

Q I guess that would depend on how many are many?

A That's correct. Two may be many.

Q "... including individuals of many different religious
faiths and with diverse moral values and philosophical
beliefs." Do you know that to be true?

A Yes.

Q "(e) Public school presentation of only evolution-science
without any alternative model of origins abridges the
United States Constitution's protections of freedom of
religious exercise and of freedom of belief and speech

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Senator James L. Holsted - Page 3

101

for students and parents, because it undermines their
religious convictions and moral or philosophical values,
compels their unconscionable professions of belief, and
hinders religious training and moral training by parents."
Did you or did anyone to your knowledge or on your behalf
or on behalf of the legislature consult with the Attorney
General before including this finding of fact?

A No.

Q Again, that finding of fact was not based upon any independ-
ent research or legal memoranda or testimony or evidence
presented to the legislature, was it?

A Correct.

Q Can you tell me how presentation of only evolution-science
without any alternative model of origins compels uncon-
scionable professions of belief?

A No.

Q Do you think it does?

A I don't know what the word, "unconscionable", means.

Q If it means intolerable or immoral or something to that
effect can you tell me how it compels a belief - period?

A Evolution-science, as I have stated before, and we seem to
disagree back and forth, presupposes no Creator. If,
through the study of evolution-science you arrive at that
assumption that there is no Creator, that man is sufficient
for everything, then you have a system with no absolutes.

102

It's my belief that any system without an absolute is going
to be a declining system, whether it's moral values, whether
it's anything to do without an absolute there. The standards
are always going to be declining, and that's how I feel
that teaching only something that presupposes no Creator
could develop into an unconscionable profession of belief.

Q But you're not aware of any textbook or teaching materials
that state a conclusion that there is no Creator or that
even presupposes the absence of divine creation or anything
of the sort, are you?

A The Origin of Species by Darwin presupposes that it was all
created from nothing by natural forces. I mean, that's the
basis of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Q But Darwin doesn't say that there was no God, does he say
that, in the Origin of Species?

A He says it was created out of a natural process.

Q And you feel that creation-science should present some
absolutes and standards in this area?

A No. No, I think ... I don't think it should present any
absolutes or standards. It's to present scientific data.
As you study scientific data on either side, that's what
you base your beliefs on, what you study in school and learn
and acquire from your parents and as you go through all
your growth.

Q It further says that teaching that hinders religious

103

training and moral training by parents ... How does it do
that when it does not address the existence or non-existence
of a supra-natural Creator? Is that answered the same way
you responded ...

A How could that develop ...? Yes, the way I responded before.

Q And your response is that evolution presupposes the non-
existence of a God or creation. Is that your response?

A Correct.

Q "(f) Public school presentation of only evolution-science,
furthermore, abridges the Constitution's prohibition against
establishment of religion, because it produces hostility
toward many theistic religions ..." Can you tell me how
it does that?

A No. That was in the model legislation and I left it there.

Q "... and brings preference to theological liberalism,
humanism, nontheistic religions, and atheism, in that
these religious faiths ..." -- I assume that should be
"generally" -- "... include a religious belief in evolution."
How does it do that?

A (No response.)

Q We don't know what nontheistic religions are, we've estab-
lished that, so what we're talking about is giving a preference
to theological liberalism, humanism, and atheism. Do you
know that these three lines of thought include a religious
belief in evolution?

104

A No. Some do, some don't. I'm not familiar with all those;
same thing I've said on the others.

Q This was a part of the model bill and you don't know why
it's in there.

A Correct.

Q "(g) Public school instruction in only evolution-science
also violates the principle of academic freedom, because it
denies students a choice between scientific models, and
instead indoctrinates them in evolution-science alone."
I seem to be asking the same questions over and over again.

A I think we're going to get down to that over and over again.

Q This is a restatement of what appears earlier in this bill.
There was no testimony taken, no hearings held to support
that finding.

A Correct. I presented that to the legislature, and apparently
they agreed with it.

Q "Presentation of only one model, rather than alternative
scientific models of origins is not required by any
compelling interest of the State..." Do you know why that
statement's in there?

A No.

Q "... and exemption of such students from a course or class
presenting only evolution-science does not provide an
adequate remedy because of teacher influence and student
pressure to remain in that course or class." Do you know
why that's in there?

105

A Only an assumption on my part, and I assume because if
someone, say, objected to evolution-science as the only
think being presented, they can't drop out of the biology
course because they object to that or it goes against
their beliefs.

Q "(i) Attendance of those students who are at public schools
is compelled by law, and school taxes from their parents
and other citizens are mandated by law." I can't quarrel
with you there. The rest of these, the next two, (j)
and (k), the same thing is true; those were in the model
act and they're not based upon any independent investigation
or research or testimony?

A Correct.

Q (l) says: "Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs
about origins, favor balanced treatment in public schools
of alternative scientific models of origins for better
guiding students in their search for knowledge ..." You
simply don't know whether that's true or not, do you?

A Based on the telephone calls I had, the contact I had with
my constituents, that is true.

Q Did you know that at the time this bill was passed?

A I know it by the time it was passed. I didn't know it
when I introduced it, but I knew it as soon as I introduced
it.

Q And when this was written you didn't know that?

106

A I didn't know it personally. Perhaps the people that wrote
it knew that.

Q The legislature did not have access to any survey, opinion
poll, or anything of the sort to support this finding, did
they?

A Only their exposure to their constituents.

Q "... and they favor a neutral approach toward subjects
affecting the religious and moral and philosophical convic-
tions of students." Could we make the same statements about
that, that you don't know if most citizens favor that or do
not favor that, do you? You just know ...

A Just the ones I've contacted.

Q ... the ones who called you?

A That's correct.

(Break)

Q Did you at the time this act was passed or do you now have
any reason to believe that some teachers might refuse to
teach creation-science?

A No.

Q Has anyone discussed that possibility with you?

A No. They've just discussed the curriculum and how to
implement the bill.

Q I assume that you would view that a violation of the mandate
of Act 590 if a teacher refused to teach creation-science?

A Only if she refused to teach one. Teach neither, that's fine.

107

Q In other words, if a teacher or a school system makes no
reference whatsoever to origins of life or of man in all
of these various disciplines in humanities and sciences
and so forth, then they don't have to teach creation-science.

A Correct.

Q Do you know what the term, "secular humanism", means?

A Not really.

Q Do you have any idea other than what you gave as a definition
of humanism?

A No.

Q You indicated earlier that after a review of some materials,
that you satisfied yourself that there was scientific
evidence that supports creation-science. Can you be more
specific and tell me what supports creation-science?

A One of the definitions talks about the age of the earth.
There are scientific evidences that are held by scientists
that can show that based on the cooling of the earth and
the gathering of cosmic dust on the moon or something,
something like that, that they can show how the earth is
not as old as other scientists believe it is, and that's
all I was trying to determine, if there were really valid
scientists, PhDs in Education, and ...

Q I can see how that might refute the proposition that the
earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. I don't see how that
supports the believe that it's 6 to 10,000 years old. Are
you telling me that it does?

108

A That's just ... I presume that's where they get the 6
to 10,000 years, by some sort of dating method that they
use.

Q Are you referring to statements and evidence presented in
the textbooks that you reviewed that were given to you
by ...

A Jimmy Dyer?

Q ... Jimmy Dyer or Carl Hunt?

A Not anything that was given to me by Mr. Dyer. The data
that was given to me by Carl Hunt, as well as the information
that Larry Fisher furnished me.

Q And you don't recall the names of any of those texts
or publishers ...

A No, I'm sorry, I don't.

Q ... but you're going to furnish that to Mr. Williams or
Mr. Campbell?

A (Affirmative nod.)

Q Are there any other scientific evidences of which you are
aware that tend to support creation-science that you were
relying on in presenting this bill?

A There are scientific evidences that support the catastrophism
theory of the flood.

Q Are you looking to the same sources for that evidence?

A Yes.

Q The Governor announced to the public that he would include

109

a repealer in the special session only if the sponsor asked
for it. It didn't happen. I assume you didn't ask for it.

A Correct.

Q In view of all the controversy surrounding this bill, do
you have any feeling one way or the other whether it might
be a good idea to open the thing to debate before the legis-
lature?

A Yeah, I've got a view.

Q Is that what's stated in the newspaper?

A That's right. The best way to establish whether this law
is constitutional or not is through this procedure we're
going through.

Q You made a statement in one of the newspaper articles that
we went through that you were surprised that a number of
religious leaders are plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and you
said you didn't think they represent a cross-section of
the Christians of the state. That's what was attributed to
you, anyway.

A That was in one of the articles that you had here previously.

Q Yes, sir. Do you recall that statement?

A Yes.

Q Is there anyone you can point to or any organization that
represents a cross0sectino of the Christians of the state?

A No.

Q Had you had any communications with -- and you just stop me

110

if I hit one --- The Institution for Creation Research?

A I've received letters from them, you know, a letter
congratulating me on the passage of the bill when it first
passed. That's all.

Q Did they furnish any materials to you?

A Subsequently afterwards I have received materials from them,
but not in the initial stages.

Q What have you done with those materials?

A Nothing. Read them, stuck them in the file.

Q You must have a great big file on this or a closet full of
materials.

A Most of the books I've gotten rid of, because I'd never in
my lifetime be able to read all of them. I have one of
those large display briefcases about this thick and about
this long full of press clippings, just articles that were
written in Arkansas papers only.

Q Do you recall who wrote to you from the Institution for
Creation Research?

A There are two Creation Research institutes, and I get them
confused. I communicated with Dwayne Gish. I have a brief
that he wrote that I had used some excerpts from in my
testimony in the Senate, and that was one of the things
that was furnished to me by Larry Fisher that I'll get to
David.

Q That you're going to furnish to David?

A Uh-huh.

111

Q Have you had any communication from Henry Morris, from a man
named Wysong, from Richard Bliss, from the Creation Research
Society, from Moody Institute of Science, the Bible Science
Association, or the Creation Science Research Center at
San Diego?

A Some of those, but not all of them.

Q Can you tell me which ones?

A Start at the top again and I'll tell you.

Q Of the men it would be Richard Bliss ...

A I have not.

Q ... Henry Morris, Dwayne Gish ...

A Wait just a minute. Morris I have received communications
from. Bliss, is he head of ICR? I recognize that name.
I've heard it so many times.

Q Richard Bliss, Senator, has been in the state to conduct
some seminars on how to teach creation-science.

A That's it. Yeah. Yes, I've received a letter from him.

Q Have you received any materials from him?

A I don't think so, but I may have. I'd be surprised if I
had not received something from him material-wise.

Q Henry Morris?

A Henry Morris I've communicated with.

Q How about W. L. Wysong?

A Huh-uh.

Q The organizations I mentioned, you just don't remember the

112

names, but you remember the names of individuals?

A No, I remember. You just went over them so fast I ...

Q Creation Research Society of Ann Arbor, Michigan?

A I have not received anything from them.

Q Moody Institute of Science?

A No.

Q Bible Science Association?

A No.

Q Creation Science Research Center in San Diego?

A Is that Seagraves'? I received a letter from them.

Q Are those communications or materials among those that I
previously asked you to furnish to Mr. Williams?

A Yes.

Q And you'll do that, I take it?

A Yes.

Q Do you know anything, Senator Holsted, about the scientific
background of any of the people that furnished you with
these things?

A No.

Q I've got another list here. Has anyone communicated with
you from the Committee on Openness as a Principle of Science,
El Paso, Texas?

A No.

Q Citizens Against Federal Establishment of Evolutionary
Dogma?

A No.

113

Q Creation Science Society of Milwaukee, Wisconsin?

A No.

Q The Fair Education Foundation, Claremont, California?

A No.

Q The Christian Heritage College?

A No.

Q Do you know what the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund is?

A Yes.

Q What is it?

A It was a fund set up to pay expenses for a group of
lawyers and defendants that wanted to intervene in the
lawsuit.

Q Is that the group that was formed here locally to support
Mr. Bird's intervention?

A Correct.

Q Do you have anything to do with that?

A No.

Q Has any representative of that organization contacted you
other than Mr. Bird or Mr. Whitehead?

A I've attended their meetings and attended the organizational
meeting they had. So you might say I had something to do
with it in that respect, but I'm not ...

Q Is that group in existence right now?

A To my knowledge it is.

Q You are aware, I assume, of the response that Don Roberts

114

made publicly to the legislature's meddling in his business...

A Yes.

Q ... if that's a fair summary of his view. He seems to think
that the legislature shouldn't be meddling around in the
curriculum of the schools.

A Uh-huh.

Q I assume that your view is to the contrary.

A Mr. Roberts fails to realize that he's a government employee
employed by the State of Arkansas. We are elected repre-
sentatives elected by our constituents, hopefully reflecting
the views of our constituents from the districts that we
serve. If you want to get public input into what's being
taught in the school systems, the best way is through the
elected representatives, and apparently that reflected the
views of the majority of the constituents in the State of
Arkansas, because every person in the legislature had to
vote on that bill one way or another, and every one of them's
got to run for reelection this year.

(Off the record.)

Q Do you know what that is?

A ACBEO, yes, Arkansas Citizens for Balanced Education in
Origins.

Q What is it?

A It's a group that was formed to assist in defense of the
lawsuit, if possible, that's concerned about having balanced
treatment in the school systems on the Education of Origins.

115

Q Who started that organization? Who are its leaders?

A I don't really know.

Q Are you a member of it?

A No. I've just attended a couple of their meetings because
they wanted to ...

Q Is it of relatively recent inception?

A I don't know.

Q Not within the last six to ten thousand years, but in the last
month or so.

A I don't know how long. I think they've been in existence
for awhile.

Q Do you know the name of a single person, individual?

A Ed Gran.

Q Ed Gran is the one who would know something about it?

A Yes.

Q He was also one of the prime movers in the group to come
up with a defense fund, was he not?

A Correct.

Q Do you know what the Arkansas Citizens for Fairness in
Education is?

A No.

Q You've had no contact with them?

A I don't think so. I may have received a letter or something
from them, but I have not attended meetings with them.

MR. CEARLEY: You can ask anything you
want.

116

MR. WILLIAMS: I have no questions.

(Whereupon, at 1:15 P. M. the taking of the captioned
deposition was concluded.)

(Witness excused.) (Signature not waived.)

* * * * *

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss
COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I, Della Lu Hall Tyson, a Notary Public within and for the
County of Pulaski and State of Arkansas, duly commissioned and
acting, do hereby certify that the witness, JAMES L. HOLSTED, was
first duly sworn to testify the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, that the foregoing deposition was by him given and his
statements were by me taken down in shorthand and by recording
and thereafter transcribed, and that the foregoing 115 pages contain
a true and correct transcription thereof.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the said deposition was taken at
the time and in the place hereinbefore set forth, and that the
taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as previously
stated.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that Mr. Bob Cearley, 1014 W. Third,
Little Rock, Arkansas, and Ms. Laurie Ferber, 919 Third Avenue,

117

New York, N. Y., appeared as attorneys for the plaintiffs; that
Mr. David Williams and Mr. Rick Campbell, Justice Building,
Little Rock, Arkansas, appeared as attorneys for the State of
Arkansas; that Mr. Henry Osterloh, 300 Spring Building, Little
Rock, Arkansas, appeared as attorney for the Pulaski County
Special School District.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not attorney or counsel for
any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any
attorney or counsel or party connected with the action, nor am
I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this
15th day of August, 1981.

_________________________________________

Della Lu Hall Tyson
Notary Public

My Commission expires:
January 10, 1985.

118

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss
COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I, JAMES L. HOLSTED, the witness in the foregoing deposition,
do hereby certify that I have read the transcript and that it is
true and correct with the following additions and corrections (if
any), or with the following changes which I wish to make, if any,
for the reasons as indicated:

___________________________________________

JAMES L. HOLSTED

Subscribed before me, a __________________________, this
________ day of _______________________, 1981.

(SEAL) ___________________________________________

My Commission expires:

______________________

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day One

              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

                               WESTERN DIVISION

                                          - - -

REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,       )
                                                    )
                                       Plaintiffs,)
                                                    )
                     vs.                           )                NO. LR-C-81-322
                                                    )
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et    )
al.,                                                )
                                                    )
                                   Defendants.)
_____________________________)
 
 
                            DEPOSITION OF

                       DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

                   Wednesday, November 18, 1981
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reported by:
CAROLINE ANDERSON, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1903, and
DEAN MC DONALD, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1869

2

                                       I N D E X

                                                                                   Page
DEPOSITION OF DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

       EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS                                 4

       EXAMINATION BY MR. KLASFELD                              110

                                     - - -

                                  EXHIBITS

Defendants'

       1       Copy of curriculum vitae of Francisco

                Jose Ayala                                                       4

                                     - - -

3

       BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of Taking
Deposition, and on Wednesday, November 18, 1981,
Commencing at the hour of 9:45 o'clock a.m. thereof, at
the offices of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California, before me, CAROLINE
ANDERSON, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary
Public in and for the State of California, personally
appeared

                        DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.

                                     - - -

       SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by DAVID
KLASFELD, Attorney at Law; and

       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 132 West 43rd
Street, New York, New York 10036, represented by SUSAN
STURM and BRUCE J. ENNIS, Attorneys at Law, appeared as
counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

       STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS, Deputy Attorney General,
appeared as counsel on behalf of defendants.

                                     - - -

4

MR. KLASFELD: I am David Klasfeld, K-l-a-s-f-e-l-d.

MR. ENNIS: I am Bruce Ennis.

Mr. Klasfeld and I are appearing on behalf of
Mr. Ayala, and Mr. Klasfeld will be primarily
responsible for any objections we might have.

MR. WILLIAMS: My name is David Williams, and I am
here on behalf of the defendants.

[Also present: Susan Sturm, attorney for A.C.L.U.]

MR. KLASFELD: The stipulations that have been
agreed to are all objections except as to the form are
waived.

We will not waive signature.

MR. WILLIAMS: Fine.

                                     - - -

                        DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you please state your full
name.

A. Francisco J. Ayala.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to have this marked as
Ayala Exhibit 1.

           [Copy of curriculum vitae of
           Francisco Jose Ayala was marked
           Defendants' Exhibit 1 for
           identification.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Before we get started, Dr. Ayala,
I will tell you I am going to be asking you some

5

questions about your testimony in this case, and if at
any time I ask a question you don't understand or that is
unclear, please tell me and I will try to make it clear,
and if you have any other questions or if you feel you
have to confer with your lawyers, let me know.

I would like to show you what has been marked as
Ayala Exhibit 1 in this case.

Tell me if you can identify that document.

A. It's my curriculum vitae and a list of my
many publications.

Q. And when did you supply this to the
plaintiffs' counsel?

A. Yesterday.

Q. Have they previously requested a copy of
your curriculum vitae at any time, to your knowledge?

A. I don't think so.

Q. You don't think so?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, for you New York
lawyers, I will object to the lawyers at this time as to
the fact we have not been provided a copy of the
curriculum vitae until today, the day of the deposition.

Obviously, we have been unable to get publications
of Dr. Ayala, and I feel prejudiced in our discovery.

MR. KLASFELD: We had a conversation last week,
I believe, in which over the phone we gave you a list
of Dr. Ayala's three major recent texts and a number of
articles that he had written.

6

I apologize for not having got you the curriculum
vitae until this morning.

I think it would have been a tremendous example of
effort for you to have gotten through those three
texts and the articles by this morning, let alone the
articles listed on the 14 pages of Dr. Ayala's
publications.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, I notice you brought
some books with you today.

May I see those books?

A. Certainly.

Q. What is your current position at the
University of California at Davis?

A. Professor of Genetics, Associate Professor
for Environmentalist Studies and Director of the
Institute of Ecology.

Q. How long have you been in that position?

A. As a professor of genetics, since 1971; the
other two, since 1977.

Q. Where did you attend secondary school?

A. Madrid, Spain.

Q. What school did you attend there?

A. Colegio de San Fernando.

I will try to write it in Spanish.

Q. It's a Catholic school?

A. Yes.

Q. And then where did you attend undergraduate
school?

7

A. In Madrid in Salamanca.

Q. What was the name of the school?

A. University of Salamanca.

Q. And what was your course of study there?

A. In Madrid it was physics. In Salamanca it
was philosophy and theology.

Q. What degree did you receive?

A. These are names that you may not know.

Licenciate, which is comparable to a Master's
degree, and Lector.

In the university I went to it is comparable to a
Ph.D. in theology.

Q. So you have a degree similar to a Ph.D. in
theology?

A. Yes.

Q. Your Master's degree was in what area?

A. Master's degree in theology.

Q. And when did you receive these degrees?

A. 1960.

Q. Both of them?

A. I think so.

The Licentiate in 1959, within months.

Q. What area of theology did you specialize in
in your studies?

A. I suppose dogmatic theology.

Q. Could you explain to me what dogmatic
theology is?

A. The study of the Bible and the interpretation

8

of the main beliefs of the Christian Church.

Q. Did you specialize in any study of any
particular religious beliefs?

A. Catholic.

Q. What is the Catholic view of the origin of
the earth?

MR. KLASFELD: If you are aware of one Catholic
view.

THE WITNESS: The scientific view is accepted.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. As a Catholic, in viewing the
origin of the earth, how would you view -- how would a
Catholic view the Genesis act of creation?

A. I would say history of creation of man
which is conveying the message that God created man.

Q. God created man.

Could you please enlarge upon that.

A. Well, that man should therefore revere God
and worship God and obey God.

Q. But when you talk about God made man in
Genesis, does the Catholic faith and when you were
studying it in 1959 and '60, did they have a particular
position as to how that would have occurred?

A. Primarily, that was a matter for scientists
to decide ant to consider up to what point scientific
matters might be compatible with Genesis.

Q. Are you aware that there are at least some
Roman Catholics who would view and read the Genesis
act of creation literally?

9

A. I'm not aware of any theologians, and
experts, who will accept that today.

Q. You are not aware of that?

A. Of any theologian or experts.

Q. Were you aware of any expert theologian
experts in the Catholic faith that would have accepted
that in '59 and '60 when you were studying?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were those that you would be aware of?

A. I suppose Professor Teofilo Urdanoz, with
some ambiguity, and he was not taking a strong position
on the matter.

Q. But he would read the Genesis act somewhat
literally?

A. Not completely literally, but he would say
that the evolution case was not fully established for
human origins.

Q. Well, when he would say that the evolution
act was not fully established, then the converse of
that must then be that he felt that the Genesis act
was established?

MR. KLASFELD: Objection.

It's not clear to me if he does think that
evolution as established means anything else.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just trying to ask.

THE WITNESS: Will you repeat it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You were saying he felt the
evolution act was not fully established; what would be

10

his opinion of the Genesis act?

A. He would not accept literally the
interpretation of Genesis.

Q. You say he would not accept it somewhat
literally, or there would be some ambiguity?

A. I said he accepted the literal message of
creation of man with some ambiguity; he would not
accept it literally but would think, and I am
interpreting somebody else's thinking -- he would
think that God must have intervened in some particular
way in the creation of man.

Q. That in some way then that there was a
supernatural hand of God, if you will, at work in
creation?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were there other professors which you knew
of or were aware of at that time, Catholic professors
and theologians, who would accept the Genesis act
literally?

A. No. Literally, no.

Q. Are you aware of whether the Catholic
faith, as theologians within the Catholic faith, have
ever accepted the Genesis act literally?

A. Not since about 1906.

There is an encyclical of Leo XIII saying the
Bible interpretation is not to be taken literally
since it was quite clear to theologians that were
contradicting literal interpretations.

11

Q. Just within -- in the Bible, are you talking
about?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider someone that is an
adherent to the Catholic faith to be a fundamentalist?

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: You are not intending to establish
Dr. Ayala as an expert on theology?

MR. WILLIAMS: He has a Ph.D. in the area, so
perhaps we will need to. I don't know.

THE WITNESS: Don't quote me as having a Ph.D.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You were going to say something
about the status of your degree. What would you like to
say about that?

A. The proper title is Lector.

Q. Lector?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you graduate with honors? Did you have
any honors in your Master's or Ph.D. in theology?

A. There is no such thing there.

Q. Do you have any children, Dr. Ayala?

A. Yes.

Q. How old are they?

A. 12 and 9.

Q. What are they, a boy and a girl?

A. Both boys.

Q. Where do they attend school?

A. In Davis.

12

Q. Public?

A. Public.

Q. Have they taken any science courses yet at
that age?

A. I think the oldest one this year has
started.

Q. What type of science course would he be
taking this year; do you know?

A. I don't know. I don't know what it is.

I know he is taking math and something called
"science." I don't know what it is.

Q. To your knowledge, has the subject of
origins ever been discussed in their classroom?

A. No.

Q. Are you currently a member of any organized
religious faith?

A. No.

Q. Have you been in the past?

A. Yes.

Q. What faith?

A. Catholic.

Q. And for what years were you a member?

A. Practically all my life until about '67, '66.

Q. What happened that you are no longer a
member?

A. My convictions changed.

Q. How did your convictions change?

A. You would need a psychoanalysis.

13

Q. Just explain to me what your convictions
were when you were a member of the Church -- and then you
left the Church voluntarily, I assume?

A. Yes.

I could not accept some of the tenets of the
Catholic faith.

Q. What tenets in particular?

A. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin, the
immaculate conception and many others.

Q. Many others.

Do you believe in a God?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that God exists?

A. It depends on what definition of God you
have.

Q. What is your definition of God that exists?

A. I don't know that I am ready yet to give
you a lecture in theology.

Q. I would like to know just in a summary way
your conception of God.

A. Goodness in nature that can be seen as an
expression of the presentation of God.

Q. There is goodness in nature. Do you think
this goodness in nature has a personality?

A. No.

Q. Well, you have a Ph.D. in theology. In
terms of some of the labels that are used to describe
people's belief about God or the lack of a God, is

14

there a term that would more properly characterize your
belief? Is there a term in your mind that you would
characterize yourself as an athiest, an agnostic, a
deist?

A. I prefer not to use any of those terms.

I consider myself an independent thinker.

Q. An independent thinker?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, when you talk about goodness in nature
as being God, it's not very specific to me.

Now, I would like to have a more specific idea,
when you talk about that you think there is a God, what
your conception of that is.

MR. KLASFELD: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is a question.

Q. Can you be more specific?

A. I don't see how I could be more specific
that what I have said without engaging in a long speech
with lots of qualifications.

Q. When you talk about goodness in nature, are
you talking about the laws of nature as your study?

A. The reality of nature, the world that
exists.

Q. Do you believe that the laws of nature
were set up by some force or that they evolved by chance
or some other way?

A. Some other way.

Q. What is the other way?

15

A. As part of the reality of nature, the way
nature is.

Q. How did the laws of nature come into being,
in your mind?

A. It's part of how the world came into being.

Q. I think that is what I am asking you.

If you can answer my question, what is your own
opinion of how the laws of nature came into being, if
you have one?

A. Just part of reality. Reality exists.

Q. Reality exists?

A. Yes, and the laws of nature are part of it.

Q. They now exist. At one time did they not
exist?

A. I don't know.

That is a meaningless question to me.

There is no time before reality exists, so to me
It's a meaningless question.

Q. So the laws of nature have always been in
existence?

A. Since reality has been in existence.

Q. Is there any one writer in the area of
religion as to whether there is a God or not a God or
whether there is goodness in nature who would best
fit your own conception?

MR. KLASFELD: You are asking him to adopt
someone else's view?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Not adopt, but who would be the

16

closest?

A. I cannot answer that without many
qualifications.

In some aspects, some writers, and some other
aspects for other writers.

Q. If you need to qualify, I would like you to
answer the question, is there one writer.

A. No one writer.

Q. Is there one book which would most generally
characterize your beliefs about religion?

A. No.

Q. Are there several books? Can you give me
several books?

A. Not without doing some research on the
matter.

Q. Can you recall any off the top of your head
at this point without having to give me an exhaustive
list from the ones that you are now aware of?

A. Will you repeat that.

Q. Are there some that you can think of this
moment, some books that you have read which have been
influential to you in arriving at your own current
belief as to the existence of a God?

A. Yes, there is.

This is French. Le Phenomene Humain by P. Teilhard
de Chardin, The Divine Milieu by the same, L'Espoir by
Gabriel Marcel, Naturaleza, Historia y Dios by Xavier
Zubiri.

17

MR. KLASFELD: My understanding of the question is,
what books did he read that influenced him, not what
books does he agree with what is in it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would you agree with the majority
of those books?

A. No.

Q. If you wouldn't mind, could I see that list?

It might assist me.

Do you have any personal code of conduct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. Ethics.

Q. Yes. What is it?

A. I don't know where to start.

Q. You say "ethics." That is your code of
personal conduct?

A. I think my code of ethics is very close to
Christianity.

Q. Is there anyplace where your code of conduct
has been reduced to writing or something similar?

MR. KLASFELD: Have you written it down anywhere?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Or have you read it somewhere
that someone else has written?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe that a religious person can
be a competent scientist?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think there is any necessary conflict

18

in being a religious person and being a scientist?

A. Not in being a religious person, no.

Q. Could you describe the role of the Institute
of Ecology?

A. To foster ecological research at the
University of California in Davis.

Q. Is there any statement of mission or purpose
which has been reduced to writing for the Institute?

A. Yes.

Q. And what would that statement of purpose
include?

A. What I have said more or less.

Q. That it fosters ecological research?

A. That is it.

Q. Please describe what you include in ecological
research.

A. The study of interactions between organisms
and the environment.

Q. Are you paid in your role as director of the
institute?

A. I have a minor increment to my regular
salary for that position.

Q. A minor increment to your salary?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how much is that increment?

A. As director of the Institute of Ecology,
$125 a month.

Q. How much time per month do you devote to

19

the institute?

A. About 25 percent.

Q. Is the Institute of Ecology engaged in any
research in the area of evolution?

A. Members of the Institute of Ecology are.

Q. Will you describe your duties as professor
of genetics.

A. To do research in genetics and teach
genetics.

Q. What coures are you currently teaching in
genetics?

A. As of this quarter, none.

Q. None this quarter?

A. That's correct.

Q. What courses have you taught in the past?

A. Evolution, genetics, philosophy of biology.
Those are the main ones.

Q. What texts have you utilized in your
evolution course?

A. My own.

Q. And you don't have a copy of it with you
today, do you?

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: It's listed on the first page.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Evolving: The Theory and
Processes of Organic Evolution
. Evolution, 1977.

Which one did you utilize?

A. One or the other at different times.

20

Q. You would not use both in the same course?

A. No.

Q. What is the difference in the two courses?

A. Level.

Q. What is the difference?

A. Level.

Q. Which is more detailed?

A. More advanced, '77.

Q. At what level is it written?

A. For advanced undergraduate or graduate
students.

Q. And for whom is the 1979 boot written?

A. Undergraduates.

Q. Do you have tenure at Davis?

A. Yes.

Q. I think you told me that you had one other
duty in addition to those two.

A. Associate Dean for Environmental Studies.

Q. And what are your duties in that position?

A. To administer, guide and lead research and
teaching in the areas of environmental questions.

Q. And in that role have you done studies in
evolution?

A. That is an administrative role, yes.

Q. So there is no research you do in that role?

A. In that role, no.

Q. Your resume or curriculum vitae states that
you have research which has been supported by grants

21

from various agencies including the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Health and
Department of Energy.

A. Yes.

Q. How many of those grants that you have
received -- first, how many have you received?

A. Many.

Q. Well, could you give me an approximate
number?

A. On a year-to-year basis, 12 to 20, something
like that.

Q. 12 to 20?

A. Depending on how you count them.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, you say you received
approximately 12 to 20 grants per year from
organizations.

A. Not per year. Altogether.

Q. And approximately, in terms of dollars, how
much money has been involved in all of these?

A. Research over all the years?

Q. Yes.
A. Probably one million dollars.

Q. And now much of that have you personally
received?

A. None.

Q. None of it personally?

A. No.

22

Q. Have you received some of it indirectly?

A. No.

Q. Well, let me be more specific.

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me. When you say "received,"
do you mean went into his own pocket?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In terms of like salary, the
grants would go to whom?

A. The university.

Q. The university would receive the money and
administer the grants?

A. Yes.

Q. And from that money you would be conducting
various research projects; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that is in fact part of your duties as
a professor?

A. Yes.

Q. So it is important for you as a professor
in your role at Davis to research projects; is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And approximately how many of these up to
20 grants have been in the area of evolution?

A. All of them.

Q. Dr. Ayala, I would like to request that you
make a list of those grants and the amounts that you
have received and supply them to your lawyers so they
can supply it to me.

MR. ENNIS: Do you have problems?

23

THE WITNESS: I don't have a problem.

MR. ENNIS: Could we limit your request to his
compiling that information from the records he has
available at Davis?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Approximately how many have you
had at Davis?

A. The majority of those.

Q. If you could supply those you have available
to you at Davis, I would appreciate that.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Now I want to state what my
understanding is concerning scheduling, because at no
time have I agreed to limit his deposition to 1:00
o'clock.

We have, due to obvious requirements of travel and
people's available schedules, we have limited our
witnesses' depositions. To my knowledge, I don't think
we have limited anyone to a three-hour deposition, which
is, in essence, what you are doing here.

I was here at 9:00 o'clock this morning, and we
did not get started until approximately 9:45, at least.

There is a difference between taking an eight-hour
deposition of a nonexpert and taking a three-hour
deposition of one of your main expert witnesses, and if
he has to leave, he can get up and leave, but I will
strenuously object, and it puts us at a serious
disadvantage, given the complexity of his testimony.

MR. KLASFELD: I only want to say on the record

24

what I said to you off the record that my understanding
of the conversation that I had with you about Dr. Ayala's
availability was that he would be available Tuesday
morning or Wednesday morning or Friday.

Our original agreement was that he would be
available Tuesday morning. At our request, that was
changed to this morning.

I understand "morning" in any sense of the word to
end by 1:00 o'clock, and I understood you to agree that
Dr. Ayala's deposition could be taken during that time.

As Mr. Ennis pointed out, Mr. Childs made a
speech for the record about the burdensomeness of our
deposition that extended four hours, and I understood
the point you made to the judge in the telephone
conference that these depositions that we were conducting
were extending beyond three or four hours for expert
witnesses and were unreasonable and burdensome.

If you want to take up what remaining time we have
now discussing this, I am happy to do that.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you can show me in the
transcript of what I said yesterday where I said that
to the judge, I would be most interested to see it.

Secondly, when you were talking about changing
Dr. Ayala from Tuesday to Wednesday morning, our
understanding has been all along that these were to
begin at 9:00 o'clock, and the inclusion of one is not
the exclusion of the other when you said he would be
available on Tuesday morning.

25

MR. KLASFELD: That is true.

If at the end of this deposition you feel that you
have been prejudiced, then we should talk about it
then.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, we were discussing,
I think, some of the grants you received, and you said
all were in the area of evolution.

Tell me as an example what is the most recent grant
you have received from one of these sources that you
previously mentioned.

A. Which one?

Q. The most recent one that you have received
and you have now concluded the work on.

A. I have grants in progress from all these
agencies.

Q. One that you have now completed.

A. I can't say off the record. I don't think
you understand how the system works, so you make it
very difficult to answer.

MR. KLASFELD: The most recently completed.

THE WITNESS: The National Institute of Health, a
grant for research on evolutionary genetics of
Drosophila.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What were your conclusions in
this study?

A. I can provide you with the papers that
report the results.

Q. Do you recall the results?

26

A. It cannot be summarized in five minutes or
three hours.

Q. In other words, you can't give a brief
explanation of conclusions?

A. An explanation of conclusions --

Q. I don't care to hear the methodology of the
study.

A. That varies, electrophonetically hidden
variation at the Adh locus in Dornelanogaster, genes
do not interact multiplicatively, that there is
variation in gene regulation in natural population.

Q. What implication does it have for evolution?

MR. KLASFELD: Are you finished, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: Not completely.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Just a fair summary and brief
summary.

MR. KLASFELD: It would be impossible to do it,
given three hours.

You pressed for an answer.

THE WITNESS: That there is variation in gene
regulation in natural populations.

MR. WILLIAMS: What implications do those have for
the theory of evolution?

A. Very many.

It would take me three hours to explain it, at
least, or my whole course.

I encourage you to take it.

Q. What if you did not receive any grants from

27

any of these sources for study? What impact would that
have on you?

A. It would restrict the kind of research I
can do.

Q. Would it have any effect upon your standing,
first of all, within the university itself?

A. Possibly.

Q. Well, isn't it fair to say that if you
didn't receive any of these grants, that your stature
would be somewhat limited or be diminished?

A. Possibly.

Q. Have you ever applied for any of these grants
that you have not received?

A. Not in recent years.

Q. When was the last time that you applied for
one you didn't receive?

A. Probably '72.

Q. What was that?

A. To study the variation of a group of marine
mollusks.

Q. Why was it rejected?

Were you given a reason?

A. One is not given precise reasons. They are
critiques written.

The main one will be that the study will be
difficult to conduct.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. If you did not receive any of

28

these grants or you ceased to receive any, what would
be the impact of that on your stature in the scientific
community, generally?

A. Probably none.

Q. Does the University of California at Davis
have sufficient funds to support the research that you
desire to do without the grants?

A. Yes, some research.

Q. It would be much more limited, would it not?

A. It would be different.

Q. You received your M.A. from Columbia in
1963?

A. Yes.

Q. In what area?

A. Zoology.

Q. And your Ph.D. in '64 in what area?

A. Zoology.

Q. What was the subject of your Master's thesis,
if you wrote one?

A. There is no Master's thesis.

Q. Did you have any sort of dissertation for
your Ph.D.?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the subject of your dissertation?

A. Effects of genetic variation on population
science in Drosophila.

Q. In what?

A. In Drosophila.

29

Q. Was that published?

A. Yes.

Q. Where has it published?

Is it listed in here?

A. Yes.

1965 Genetics.

Q. Have you prepared any reports for the
plaintiffs' attorneys in this case or anyone else
concerning your testimony in this lawsuit?

A. Repeat the question.

Q. Have you prepared any reports, documents or
any written anything concerning your testimony in this
lawsuit for the plaintiffs?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any previous communication with
the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' attorneys?

A. Yes.

Q. When were you first contacted about
testifying in this lawsuit?

A. Two months ago, something like that.

Q. Who contacted you?

A. Mr. Klasfeld.

Q. And what did Mr. Klasfeld tell you when he
contacted you?

A. That there was going to be this lawsuit,
and I told him I was aware, and he wanted to know
whether I would be willing to participate as a witness.

Q. And then did you meet with him at some

30

point?

A. Yesterday.

Q. Yesterday was the first time that you had
met with him?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you previously written to the plaintiffs'
attorneys at any time?

A. No.

Q. Have you prepared any exhibits that you plan
to utilize in your testimony?

A. No.

Q. Do you plan to use any written exhibits or
charts or graphs, anything in writing when you testify
in this case?

A. I don't know whether I will.

Q. I'm asking you, do you plan to?

A. I have not as yet given it enough thought.

Q. Well, the thought that you have given it,
what is your present intention?

A. That it might be useful to show some slides.

Q. What slides do you have in mind?

A. Some that appear in my books.

Q. I would like to show you your curriculum
vitae and your publication and have you check the
books in which those slides could be found, and if you
have a description of the slides, please write that on
there, as well.

A. This book.

31

Q. Would you please name the book.

A. Modern Genetics, Evolving: The Theory and
Processes of Genetic Evolution
and Evolution.

Q. From that book what slides do you have in
mind?

A. I don't have any in mind at this time.

Q. You have another book checked there.

Any slides from there that you presently have in
mind?

A. None.

I have three books.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Three books.

Q. I assume you have none from the third book,
as well?

A. No.

                                     - - -

32

Q. The list of witnesses which the attorneys
have filed in this case states he will testify
concerning the relevance of biology to Evolution and
Creation Science.

Do you know what opinions you are going to be
giving on that subject?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what those opinions will
be?

A. That the evidence today is unambiguous as
to the fact that evolution has taken place and that is
is very definitely established.

Q. When you say that it is unambiguous to the
fact that evolution has taken place, are you talking
about all scientific evidence; are you talking about
evidence in the area of biology or some other area?

A. All.

Q. All evidence.

Is there any evidence against evolution?

A. No, not that I know of.

Q. There is no evidence against it?

A. No, not scientific evidence.

That is what you are talking about?

Q. Yes.

When you speak of evolution, could you give me a
definition of what you mean?

A. Yes.

The fact that organisms change through time and

33

multiply in their kinds.

Q. Do you consider evolution to be a valid
scientific theory?

A. Very definitely.

Q. Could you describe for me what the criteria
are of a scientific theory.

A. Explanation by natural law of natural
processes which is testable, meaning by that, subject
to the possibility of falsification by empirical
testimony.

Q. Is that essentially the definition of a
scientific theory from Popper?

A. It's mine, based on Popper.

Q. You would not disagree with Popper's
definition?

A. Not essentially.

Q. Are there any assumptions in the general
theory of evolution?

A. What do you mean by "assumptions"?

Q. Are there any underlying assumptions in the
general theory of evolution?

A. Yes.

That the human mind is able to obtain information
about the external world, about reality; that the
human mind works according to the principles of logic
that are generally accepted.

Q. Does evolution include evidence of the
emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe

34

from disordered matter?

A. Biological evidence, no.

Q. We are talking here about the general theory
of evolution.

A. For me the general theory of evolution is
biological evolution.

Q. Are you aware that the general theory of
evolution does include, by most definitions, the
emergence of the universe by naturalistic processes
from disordered matter?

A. It does not [sic].

Q. Is it your opinion that the general theory
of evolution includes the emergence of life and nonlife?

A. Not as an integral part, no.

Q. Not as an integral part but it is part of
it, is it not?

A. No.

Q. Why is it not?

A. Because the evolution theory I have usually
been dealing with is the evolution of living things, so
living things existed to start with.

Q. We are dealing here with theories of origin,
are we not?

A. Is evolution a theory of origin?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. If a question arises as to what do living

35

things come from, what does evolution say about that?

A. From other living things.

Q. That either they had to come back from
something else besides living things or there have always
been living things; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion on that?

A. That they came from nonliving things.

Q. What is the mechanism by which you think
living things have evolved from nonliving things?

A. Natural processes.

Q. What scientific evidence are you aware of
which would support that evolutionary theory which
says that life emerged from nonlife?

MR. ENNIS: Objection.

I think the witness just testified that in his
opinion that is not part of the evolution theory, and
your question assumes it is.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. He said it was.

THE WITNESS: I said it wasn't.

MR. ENNIS: That is an objection as to the form of
your question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You did state, did you not,
that it is your belief that life evolved from nonlife?

A. Yes, that is my conviction.

Q. What is that conviction based on?

A. On the evidence that exists that all main
components of living things can be synthesized by

36

natural processes spontaneously.

Q. Could you give me the scientific matter you
are aware of which supports that?

A. Experiments by Stanley Miller, experiments
by Orgel, Leslie Orgel, and by Urey and Margulis and
Ponamperuina and many others.

Q. Your statement was, I believe, that these
experiments showed that the possibility of being able
to synthesize that matter spontaneously; is that
correct?

A. Yes, the living components.

Q. It shows the possibilities, but does it
prove that it happened that way?

MR. KLASFELD: Are you using "prove" in the
scientific sense?

I think that Dr. Ayala probably has a very
scientific definition of what the notion of proof is,
and I am wondering in what sense you are using the word
"prove."

MR. WILLIAMS: I will leave that to Dr. Ayala.

Q. How would you define the term "prove"?

A. Well, proof depends on the context.

Empirical science is when, from a theory, you have
made predictions and these predictions have been tested
against empirical facts which are previously unknown.

Proof is not an absolute thing. It happens
gradually. So there are degrees of proof.

Q. I'm speaking now about the process of life

37

and nonlife -- is that what it is called by in Genesis?

A. That is one term used, yes.

It means "origin of life."

Q. Would you agree or disagree that the schemes
which have been suggested in these studies which have
been done on this possibility are merely suggestive
rather than proof?

A. Suggestive.

Q. Suggestive that it could possibly have
happened?

A. I do not agree with that.

Q. How would you characterize it?

A. As hypotheses that have been tested to a
certain limited extent.

Q. Do we know that it happened that way,
though?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of what the odds or
probabilities would be that it occurred the way you
have described?

A. In the general way that I have described,
I would say 100 percent.

Q. In a general way --

A. In the general way I have described.

Q. Is it clear to say that you think it
occurred by some sort of natural forces which were
random and which was a chance occurrence?

A. No. There were components of chance --

38

well, if that is a joint question, I would say no.

Q. There are factors of chance at work, though?

A. What are the factors of chance?

Q. I am asking, are you aware of any studies
you would agree with that would show what the factors
of chance were or are?

A. Yes.

Q. What would be those factors?

A. Random association between molecules by
well-known chemical interactions that have a component
of chance.

Q. Could you quantify the component of chance?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen it quantified?

A. No, not in any convincing way.

Q. You say you haven't seen it quantified in a
convincing way?

A. Not in any way that I would accept.

Q. Did these individuals, or do the studies
you have previously mentioned, do they quantify it?

A. Not in the hard science papers, in the
papers where they are reporting scientific results.

Q. Why in your curriculum vitae do you not
have your degrees in theology?

A. I'm sorry, what did you ask?

Q. Why in your curriculum vitae do you not
include your degrees in theology?

A. It's irrelevant for most purposes that I

39

use my curriculum vitae.

Q. Well, isn't it part of your curriculum which
you have studied?

A. Yes.

There are many other things which I don't include
there, as well.

Q. But are there any other advanced degrees you
have got which are not there?

A. Yes.

Business administration.

Q. What degree do you have in business
administration?

A. Something probably comparable to a Master's
degree.

Q. Is it another part of general evolution
theory -- is it part of evolution theory that this
spontaneous generation of life occurred only once?

A. No.

Q. It is not?

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

Would you define "spontaneous generation of life."

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he used that term himself.

MR. KLASFELD: I don't believe that he did.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let's put it this way. The
emergence of life from nonlife occurred only once, so --

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

My point simply is that spontaneous generation is
a long-since discarded scientific notion.

40

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is that right?

A. Yes.

It's ambiguous.
                                     - - -

41

Q. Is the concept that life evolved from nonlife
only one part of evolutionary theory?

A. No.

Q. What does your notion of evolutionary theory
indicate as to how many kinds might have emerged from
nonlife?

MR. KLASFELD: Objection again.

We have had this discussion on the record before.

Dr. Ayala said that as far as he is concerned,
evolutionary theory is the change in life forms once
that is started and does not necessarily include the
change from nonlife forms to life forms.

So I have no objection to your questioning him
about this area, but I do object to your attempting to
characterize his earlier testimony in such a way as to
suggest what it seems to me you are trying to suggest.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is it part of general
evolution theory that this emergence of life from nonlife
occurred only once?

A. No.

Q. It is not?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of what generally accepted
evolution theory would be on that subject?

MR. KLASFELD: Objection.

I don't understand the question.

When you say that it only occurred somewhere in
San Francisco, for example, and then spread all over

42

the world, or that it only occurred at one point in
time, or what?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if it occurred in San Francisco
and it happened only once, it still happened only once.
That is my question. I don't think it's ambiguous.

MR. KLASFELD: You are right; it is not ambiguous
if that is the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the question.

I didn't think I said "twice"; I said "once."

MR. KLASFELD: Well, "once" could mean a lot of
things.

Your question is, did it occur once in one place
and from there have all life --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is this.

Has it occurred just once and has all other life
evolved from that one --

MR. KLASFELD: From that one first molecule?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- from that one first emergence
of life from nonlife?

A. You are asking two questions.

One question is, did it occur once, and I answered
that is not part of evolution theory.

Q. You say it's not part of evolution theory?

A. That it occurred only once; that is right.

Q. What does evolution theory say about how
many times it did occur?

A. Nothing.

Q. So it says nothing.

43

Are you aware as to whether any authorities in the
area of evolution believe that life did emerge from
nonlife only once?

A. I will take your question literally, and my
answer is no.

Q. You are not aware of any authority in the
area of evolution recognized as such, not just by you
but generally recognized as such, who would agree with
that statement?

A. That is correct.

Q. When you talk about your definition of
evolution, could you repeat it again to make sure that
I have got it correctly.

A. It may not be the same words.

Q. I would like to have the same definition,
though, if I could.

A. Well, it will be the same idea.

Organisms change through the generations and
multiply in their kinds.

Q. With that definition of evolution, do you
feel, for example, that man has evolved in the last
50 years?

A. What do you mean by "evolved"?

Q. Well, I mean, has he evolved within your
definition of evolution; has he been, subject to your
definition?

A. Do you mean has he changed?

Q. Has he changed through the generations and

44

multiplied in kinds?

A. No.

Q. As I take it, there are two parts to your
definition of evolution, and one is that there is a
change through generations.

A. Yes.

And diversification.

Q. And diversification. Okay.

You can characterize that as diversification, that
one word, for that part of your definition.

When was the last time there was a diversification
in man?

A. Do you include in "man" homo sapiens, or do
you include all of the hominids?

Q. Homo sapiens.

A. There has been no diversification of the
species.

Q. There has been multiplication in kind, has
there not?

A. No, since homo sapiens exist.

Q. When we talk about multiplication in kind,
tell me what you mean, Doctor?

A. Divergence, and one species giving rise to
more than one.

Q. Could you define "kind."

A. Species.

Q. So your definition would include
multiplication in kinds but not within kinds?

45

A. It includes that, too.

MR. KLASFELD: I want to just point out to each of
you that "kinds" is, in a sense, a word of art among
Creation Scientists, and if you are using it in a way
that is different from how you understand Creation
Scientists to use it, you should make that clear to
Mr. Williams.

THE WITNESS: My definition was intended to be
sort of --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Vague?

A. Not vague, but easily understood by a
layman.

Now, the more proper way would be to say
"multiplication of species"; is that correct?

Q. Multiplication of species?

A. Of species.

Q. Given your definition of "evolution,"
could you explain to me how it is testable?

A. Yes.

Where do you want me to start?

I could spend the next 25 hours on that.

Q. Since we have been limited to a 1:00
o'clock deadline, I have several other questions besides
this one, so if you could give me a brief summary, I
would appreciate it.

A. For example, one makes the prediction that
if one were to examine the amino acid sequences of
proteins of more closely related organisms, closely

46

related organisms defined as those which have a more
recent common ancestor, such organisms will have, on
the average, a greater similarity in the component
amino acids.

Q. What tests do you have in mind which have
occurred and which show that?

A. Examining the amino acid sequence of
proteins.

Q. The amino acid sequence of proteins?

A. Yes, and many others.

Q. Would you say that your theory of evolution
is observable.

A. A theory is never observable.

Q. Did Popper not include observability as a
criteria of a scientific theory?

A. Of the theory?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Not of the theory of evolution but of a
scientific theory.

A. Any theory.

Q. What were Popper's definitions, what did he
include as his criteria of a scientific theory?

A. Very much what I said before.

The criterion of demarcation of what a scientific
theory is given by the fact that scientific theory is
subject to the possibility of falsification by
reference to the empirical world.

47

Q. Is the theory of evolution subject to
experimental method?

A. Very definitely.

MR. KLASFELD: All of those grants, for instance,
you were talking about before.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you know -- please excuse me
if I mispronounce his name, but do you know Theodosius
Dobzhansky?

A. Yes, I knew him.

Q. Is he now dead?

A. Yes.

Q. When did he die?

A. December 18, 1975.

Q. Are you aware that he has talked about the
evolutionary happenings as being "unique, unrepeatable
and irreversible," and that he said that "the
applicability of the experimental method to such
processes is severely restricted"?

MR. KLASFELD: Are you reading from a quotation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

                                     - - -

48

MR. KLASFELD: Could we have that quotation in
some kind of context so the doctor could look at it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have it here, the quotation. I
am asking if he is aware of it.

MR. KLASFELD: And I am asking you what book or
article your source is from so that Dr. Ayala could
look at it to try to place that statement in its
context.

MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, let's see if he is
aware he said that.

MR. KLASFELD: I won't permit him to reply to that
question without your allowing him or telling him what
source it's from and allowing him to look at it in its
context and explain it, if necessary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, whether or not he said
anything or didn't say anything is not of any particular
relevance until you know where it's from and in what
context it was said.

If you want to give him the source and let him
look at it and then let him say whether or not he said
it, and if he wants to explain its context, then that
would be fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your objection is noted for the
record.

Q. I am asking you, Doctor, are you aware he

49

said that?

MR. KLASFELD: Would you read it again, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. "These evolutionary happenings
are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. It is as
impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it
is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study
of such unique historical processes is severely
restricted for" --

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me, is this the same thing
you read before?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. KLASFELD: Would you read back to me what he
read before, Mr. Reporter.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't read exactly that before.
I was trying to save time.

MR. KLASFELD: Well, that is not what you read
before.

Would you read back the quote and read back the
question, Mr. Reporter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Don't read the question. We will
just go on and I will start again.

Q. First of all, let me ask you, did you
consider Theodosius Dobzhansky to be an authority in the
area of evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that he once wrote the
following:

50

          "These evolutionary happenings
          are unique, unrepeatable and
          irreversible. It is as impossible
          to turn a land vertebrate into a
          fish as it is to effect a reverse
          transformation. The applicability
          of the experimental method to the
          study of such unique historical
          processes is severely restricted
          before all else by the time
          intervals involved, which far
          exceed the lifetime of the human
          experimenter."

Are you aware that he wrote that?

A. I'm not aware as to the specific words;
I am aware as to the content.

Q. Well, do you agree or disagree with that?

A. I completely agree.

MR. KLASFELD: For my benefit, do you have the
source of that quote?

MR. WILLIAMS: "American Scientist," Volume 45,
page 388.

Q. Do you know of Murray Eden at M.I.T.?

A. Yes, I know of him.

Q. Would you recognize him as an authority in
the area of evolution?

A. No.

Q. What is his area of expertise?

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day One - Page 2

51

A. Mathematics.

Q. Would you recognize him as an authority in
the area of mathematics?

A. I'm not an expert, but I hear he is, yes.

Q. Are you familiar with his work, "Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of
Evolution"?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your general opinion of that work?

A. The work has many authors. Some things are
very good; some are poor.

Q. Are you aware that within that work he refers
to the theory of evolution as being "tautologous"?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion of that assessment?

A. That he is mistaken.

Q. Are you familiar with or do you know of
Paul Erlich and E. C. Birch?

A. Yes.

Q. You consider them to be authorities in their
field?

MR. KLASFELD: What is their field?

MR. WILLIAMS: Biology.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. They are at Stanford University
and the University of Sidney in Australia?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that they have opined that the

52

theory of evolution is not falsifiable?

A. No, I'm not specifically aware they have
said that.

Q. Are you aware that they have said it is
outside of empirical science?

A. No.

Q. Would you agree or disagree with that
statement?

A. That it is outside empirical science?

Q. Yes.

A. I disagree.

MR. ENNIS: Excuse me.

For the record, do you have a source for those
quotations you are relying upon?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

That is from "Nature Magazine," Volume 214, page
252, 1967.

Q. Are you familiar with Nature Magazine?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider that to be a Creation
Science publication?

A. No.

Q. Would you consider it to be generally a
fair journal concerning the theory of evolution when it
discusses it?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a refereed journal?

A. Yes.

53

Q. Do you know who L. Harrison Matthews was or
is?

A. No.

                                     - - -

54

Q. Do you know who Leon Harris is, C. Leon
Harris?

A. No.

Q. Does that name mean anything to you?

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: Do you want to tell him who these
people are to see if that refreshes his recollection?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what I am looking for here.

Harris is with the Department of Biological
Sciences, State University of Arts and Sciences,
Plattsburgh, New York.

Q. Would it be correct, in your opinion, to
state that evolution presupposes no creator?

MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry -- I apologize -- what
did you say?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would it be correct to state
that the evolution theory presupposes no creator?

A. Do you mean that it presupposes that there
is no creator?

MR. KLASFELD: Is your question, does the theory
of evolution presuppose that there is no creator?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is right.

THE WITNESS: No. It's irrelevant.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Does it presuppose there is a
creator?

A. No.

Q. So there is no presupposition of a creator
in evolution theory?

55

A. It's not testable.

Q. Are you aware that Sir Carl Popper stated
that evolution was not a science but a metaphysical
research program?

A. Yes, I am.

I am also aware he has retracted that.

Q. Where did he retract that?

A. Several places.

Q. Could you give me a citation?

A. I would have to research it.

I know at least two places where he has done that.

Q. Do you recall what publications those would
have occurred in?

A. That is what I would have to research to
remind myself.

He is a very prolific writer.

Q. Do you think at the time he said that he
didn't believe it?

A. That he didn't believe what he said?

Q. right.

A. No. I think he believed it.

Q. Now, one of your publications was published
in a text with Valentine.

A. Yes.

Q. Does that text include a statement that it
would be impossible to get the necessary --

MR. KLASFELD: Are you quoting, David?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I am just summarizing,

56

paraphrasing.

Q. -- that it would be impossible to get the
necessary protein for life by chance?

A. I'm sorry, repeat the question.

Q. Does that text include a statement that
there would be no way of getting the necessary proteins
for life by chance?

A. I'm sure that the statement does not occur
in the book as you put it.

Q. Does that ring a bell as to statements in
there about the chance occurrence of proteins?

A. It rings many bells, yes, but I do not
recognize the statement.

Q. Have you not in some of your other writings,
Dr. Ayala, acknowledged there are many gaps in the
fossil record which remain unexplained?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any explanation for them
presently?

A. For what?

Q. For gaps in the fossil record.

A. For why there are gaps?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What is your explanation?

A. Our knowledge is limited. Not all organisms
are preserved as fossils, and we don't know all of the
fossils there are.

57

We need more grants.

MR. ENNIS: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Back on the record.

Q. What is your opinion of the expertise of
Stephen J. Gould?

A. Very high.

Q. You have, have you not, written at least
one article criticizing some of the punctuated equilibrium
theories which he has postulated?

A. I have criticized some things related to the
theory.

Q. What in particular do you find to criticize
about his theory?

A. It's not about his theory but something
related to the theory, namely, the implication that it
might be incompatible with the formulations of
population genetics made by some Evolutionists.

Q. The article you wrote was with Stebbins; is
that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of another article that
Stebbins has written which says that natural selection
works only at the species level and from there you have
to extrapolate?

A. Not those specific words.

Q. Would you agree with that?

A. Natural selection works within a species,

58

yes.

Q. But from there you have to extrapolate?

A. From where to where?

Q. From the natural selection at the species
level you would have to extrapolate?

MR. ENNIS: Excuse me, David.

I have no objection to the witness answering that
question, but it might be useful if you say what you
mean by "extrapolate."

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, what does "extrapolation"
mean to you in this context or in general?

Does it not have a specific context, a specific
meaning in the area of science and ,more particularly,
in the area of Evolution Science?

A. Not more specific. I mean, I can acknowledge
the common meaning of the word "extrapolate" from what
we know in one place to --

Q. Excuse me.

Do you contrast extrapolation with interpolation?

A. No.

Q. How do you define "science"?

A. I believe I did that before.

MR. KLASFELD: I was going to say that you have,
not once but twice.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

It is the knowledge of natural phenomena in terms
of explanatory principles that account for natural
phenomena in terms of natural laws that are genuinely

59

testable.

Well, I will change the "is" to "are," and I will
say that "are" genuinely testable.

We can stop there.

I was going to add a clarification, though.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My previous question actually
was what was a scientific theory, as I recall, and now
I'm asking you what is science.

A. Yes. That is why I included "the principles,"
you see.

Q. Can you define what is supernatural?

A. Yes. Something which is above nature.

Q. Would it mean it is above nature -- I will
withdraw that and rephrase it.

When you talk about supernatural as being above
nature, are there not certain things which you might
label as being supernatural, but at some point in the
future, as we learn more about the laws of nature, they
will no longer be supernatural?

A. I don't know of anything today which is
supernatural.

Q. But would you agree that our understanding
of the laws of nature are limited, that we don't know
all of the laws of nature?

A. Yes, very much so.

Q. So that if something should be labeled as
supernatural because it is above the laws of nature as
we now know them today, it might one day become subject

60

to the laws of nature as we better understand them?

MR. KLASFELD: No, Dave. It could be that
something is also subject to the laws of nature but we
don't yet understand it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to testify, or would you
like the Doctor to testify?

MR. KLASFELD: I was simply trying to point out
that your question said, if it's not one, it's the other,
and I wanted to point out that was not right, and I
don't want to allow you to put words in Dr. Ayala's
mouth.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think Dr. Ayala can handle himself.
If he feels he can't, then perhaps he shouldn't be called
as a witness.

MR. KLASFELD: I can't let that go uncontested.
You know, I view myself as having a role in this
deposition, and I intend to pursue it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you making an objection?

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

My objection is that your question presupposed that
there could only be one possible answer, and that was
not true.

I would like you to restate the question in a way
that allows Dr. Ayala to answer it properly.

MR. WILLIAMS: How did my question presuppose
there could only be one answer?

MR. KLASFELD: We can talk about this as long as
you like.

61

What I understood you to say is that you tried to
characterize his answer that there were thinks in the
world we didn't know, and you tried to characterize that
as supernatural and if we found out and understood them
in the future, that they would then be subject to
natural laws.

That didn't, in my mind, accurately characterize
what it was that Dr. Ayala had said, which was that
everything in effect now is natural; some of those
things we understand today and some we don't, and when
we understand them in the future, it would simply be
our understanding of the natural laws that were always
in effect but we didn't understand them at this time
but gained an understanding of them at some time in the
future.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, when you talk about
the laws of nature which we know today and which we
have agreed we are limited in our knowledge of what
those laws are based on our knowledge today, if there
are things which cannot be explained by the laws of
nature as we know them today, would it not be possible
to characterize them as supernatural based on present
knowledge?

A. Your question is ambiguous.

If they cannot be explained today by the laws of
nature and our knowledge of the relevant facts that we
know, it still would not necessarily be supernatural.

Q. But based on our knowledge today, would

62

they not have to be supernatural because we can't
explain them by the laws of nature?

                                     - - -

63

A. No. I don't call supernatural something
which I cannot explain. I cannot explain how your brain
works, for example.

Q. Not that you can't explain but the laws of
nature can't explain; that is what I am talking about.

A. You said the laws of nature as we know
them today?

Q. Right.

How would you characterize that?

I am just curious.

How would you characterize something which is above
and beyond the laws of nature as we know them today?

A. As being beyond the laws of nature as we
know them today? I frankly do not understand the
question.

MR. KLASFELD: Do you want to give him an example?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You are saying you don't know
anything outside of the laws of nature; is that what you
were going to say?

A. That we know is outside the law of nature,
yes.

Q. Would you agree that the modern synthesis
theory of evolution is coming under criticism from other
Evolutionists today?

A. Some aspects of it are, yes.

From me, too.

Q. What aspects of it are you criticising?

A. Well, we are learning more things more

64

precisely and clarifying many of the concepts as we go
along.

Q. What aspects of it particularly have you
criticised?

A. I don't know that "criticise" is the proper
word, but to give an example, up to a few years ago it
was very often thought that most species evolved or
appeared very slowly; we know today that relatively
rapid speciation, formation of new species, is not a
rare phenomenon.

Q. Do you have any theory as to how to account
for the rapid speciation?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. I refer you to my writings again.

It's very difficult to summarize these things in
a single statement.

Q. I understand.

Could you try to think of some for me.

A. Well, by a variety of ways, one of them
being by polypoidy.

Q. Does the modern synthesis theory include
gradual changes?

Microevolution, perhaps it's called.

A. Please rephrase the question using only one
of the two words at a time. They are incompatible.

MR. KLASFELD: Thank you. You are doing my job
better than I am.

65

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Does the modern synthesis theory
of evolution include gradual change?

A. At some levels, yes, and it doesn't, as well.
It depends also on the definition of "gradual."

Q. Define "microevolution" for me.

A. Evolution within a given species.

Q. Could you give me an example, a simple
example of microevolution?

A. Changes in gene frequencies in any given
species, the drosophila melanogaster, for example.

Q. When is the first time you studied or heard
of the term "Creation Science"?

A. In the last year or two.

Q. I take it then you have never studied it in
any of your formal education.

A. Creation Science?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Where did you first hear the term?

A. I'm not sure.

Probably in the context of the law in Arkansas.

Q. Well, that was only passed this year, you
understand.

A. Yes.

I am not sure.

Q. You brought some books with you, and for the
record, they are Creation, the Facts of Life by Gary
Parker; The Scientific Case for Creation by Henry M.

66

Morris; Evolution, the Fossils say "No" by Duane Gish;
Scientific Creationism by --

MR. ENNIS: By Henry Morris.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- by Henry Morris, yes.

And Biology, a Search for Order and Complexity by
Moore and Slusher.

MR. ENNIS: That is our Exhibit No. 1, as we all
know.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you read all of those?

A. Not everything.

Q. Have you read parts of each of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there any other documents you have read
which form the basis for your opinions on Creation
Science?

A. Yes.

Q. What are the other documents?

A. A number of papers, articles in various
journals.

Q. Do you recall any specifically now?

A. Yes.

A series of five or six articles in a journal,
written by Mr. Armstrong.

I think the title of the journal is --

Do any of you know it?

MR. ENNIS: Do you want me to volunteer?

MR. WILLIAMS: Go ahead.

MR. ENNIS: Is it "Creation Research"?

67

MR. WILLIAMS: No. It's "Truth" or something like
that.

MR. ENNIS: Oh, "Plain Truth"?

MR. WILLIAMS: "Plain Truth," thank you.

Q. That is by Garner Ted Armstrong.

Is that the fellow's name?

A. Yes.

And others.

Q. The others, were they also in religious
publications?

A. Well, those of Creation Research Institute
and such publications, yes.

Q. You said you have read some other
publications by the Creation Institute, and I am not
aware of any institute called that.

A. I mean the Institute for Creation Research.

Q. Other publications from them?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it upon the basis of reading these
books and these articles you mentioned by Garner
Armstrong and others that you have arrived at your
opinion as to what Creation Science is; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you read Act 590 of 1981 from the State
of Arkansas?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you read that?

A. In total, yesterday.

68

Q. Section 4(b) of Act 590 states:
"'Evolution Science' means the
scientific evidences for evolution
and inferences from those scientific
evidences."

MR. KLASFELD: Go more slowly.

THE WITNESS: And read it clearly, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I am sorry. Why don't you just
read Section 4(b) to yourself.

A. I will.

Q. Have you now had a chance to read Section
4(b) of the act?

A. Yes.

Q. First of all, what is your opinion of the
definition given to "Evolution Science"?

A. That it is confusing.

Q. How is it confusing?

A. Well, the term "Evolution Science" as
written is not a term which would appear in ordinary
scientific language.

It misses the main point as to what the science of
evolution or the sciences that dealt with evolution are.

Q. When you say it misses the main point, what
do you mean?

A. Science is primarily intellectual constructs

69

of theories.

Q. How does that miss that point then?

A. It just talks in terms of scientific
evidences and inferences. It seems to imply a notion
of science which is at least antiquated by 300 years
in this context.
I find it confusing.

Q. All right.

Are you looking at the part there, subpart 1,
where it says, "Emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe from disordered matter and emergence of
life from nonlife," and are you aware of any evidence
which goes against that statement?

A. The emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe --

MR. KLASFELD: I just want to make one point.

As I recall, Mr. Williams read him that before,
and he said that wasn't part of evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking him that. I'm asking
him if he is aware of any evidence against that
statement.

MR. KLASFELD: If the statement makes any sense
to you, you can answer.

THE WITNESS: It makes dubious sense.

The universe cannot emerge. I find the statement
confusing, and from my understanding of it, I don't
know of evidence against it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Subsection 2 states:

70

"The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about
development of present living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds."

Are you aware of any evidence against that
statement?

A. Very definitely.

Those processes are not sufficient.

Q. In what way are they insufficient?

A. You need many other processes: general
genetic drift, environmental interactions, interactions
between organisms of different kinds and so on.

Q. so then if we look back up to Section 4(a)
where it states that "Creation Science includes the
scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate, (No. 2) the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development within
all living kinds from a single organism," would you
find yourself more in agreement with that statement
than the statement at (b)(2)?

MR. ENNIS: I object.

THE WITNESS: With neither.

MR. ENNIS: He has said he is more in agreement
with 4(b)?

MR. KLASFELD: He is asking if he is.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking if he is.

THE WITNESS: You have read a compound statement
which started with (a), and then went into (a)(2).

71

Will you rephrase the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let's just talk about No. 2
separately.

Under (a)(2), "The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of all
living kinds from a single organism," we have read that
already.

Now, (b)(2) we have previously read?

A. Yes.

Q. Between those two statements, would you
find yourself more in agreement with one than the other?

A. If they are understood literally, with a
literal meaning of the word "insufficiency," I would
be more in agreement with 2.

Q. 2 what?

A. I'm sorry, with (a)(2).

And that is because (b)(2) is a distortion.

Q. In your opinion?

A. Yes.

I thought you were asking my opinion.

                                     - - -

72

Q. Yes, I was.

(b)(3) starts with the word "emergency," and I
think we can agree that means, or that should be
"emergence." It's a typographical error.

It says:

"Emergence by mutation and natural
selection of present living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds."

Are you aware of evidence which is against that
statement?

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: I am sorry, excuse me, David.

Why don't you ask him first if he agrees with the
statement and then ask him if there is evidence against
it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I am not really concerned
with whether he agrees with it or not.

MR. ENNIS: But let me say for the record that the
confusion here is that the statute purports to define
what evolutionary theory means, and the first question
is whether Dr. Ayala agrees with the statutory
definition of evolution, and the second question then
is if he knows of evidence contrary to that statutory
definition.

You are assuming he agrees with the statutory
definition when you proceed directly to the second
question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm really not assuming that. I

73

am really not. I just want to know if he knows, taking
that statement at face value, of any evidence against it.

THE WITNESS: If the statement is understood as
"emergence by mutation and natural selection as well
as other processes," et cetera, then I do not know any
evidence against it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. (4) states:

"Emergence of man from a common
ancestor with apes."

Are you aware of any evidence against that statement?

A. No.

I do not like the word "emergence," and this keeps
repeating it. It's not a proper word.

Q. Why do you not like that word?

A. Because "emergence" has certain implications
in science and in the philosophy of science.

If he would say "evolution of man from a common
ancestor with apes," I do not know of any statement
against it so long as women are included.

Q. (5) states:

"Explanation of the earth's geology
and the evolutionary sequence by
uniformitarianism."

Are you aware of any evidence against that statement?

A. In the normal tradition of uniformitarianism,
yes.

Q. What evidence are you aware of against the
statement?

74

A. We know that geological processes change
through time, tectonics, for example.

MR. KLASFELD: T-e-c-t-o-n-i-c-s.

THE WITNESS: That is one example of geological
processes not having been uniform through time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, concerning (5), again,
what other evidence is there against the statement?

A. I have said I am not an expert in geology,
but I think uniformitarianism in the traditional sense
of that word is not generally accepted in geology in
that many processes are not uniformitarian.

Earthquakes occur, for example.

Q. Would that be catastrophic?

A. Not in the traditional sense of catastrophism.

Q. Is there not in geology some talk of
catastrophism and a movement toward catastrophism?

A. In the 19th Century there was a polemic
between uniformitarianism and catastrophism.

I think, in my limited knowledge in this field,
that today no true expert in the field would call
himself either a uniformist or catastrophist. That is
a problem we are having all of the time, you know.

Q. No. (6) says:

"An inception several billion
years ago of the earth and somewhat
later of life."

Do you know of any evidence, scientific evidence,
that is against that?

75

A. No, I don't.

Q. Could you please state for me the reasons
why you oppose the teaching of Creation Science?

A. Because it is not science; and also, because
endangers the teaching of religion.

Q. It endangers the teaching of religion?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, tell me first of all why it's not
science.

A. I don't know of any of their statements
that are testable in the scientific sense.

Q. What if there were such statements?

A. Well, the theory, as such, in terms of
general principles is not testable.

Specific statements of fact may be testable, but
that is relatively trivial in science. What has to be
testable is the theory, the principles.

Q. Is the general theory of evolution testable?

A. Yes. The principles that make up the theory
of evolution are testable, yes.

Q. But your definition of evolution is much
more narrow, is it not, than what some people would
consider to be or what some experts would consider to
be the theory of evolution?

A. I think most experts would say there are
several ways of speaking about the theory of evolution,
and the more precise way, I feel, is that it is a
biological theory that applies to the evolution of

76

life. I think most experts would define it that way.

Q. But evolution can take into consideration,
can it not, merely the evolution of life, in the terms
as you have defined it, from one form of life to
another, but it can also take into consideration the
evolution of the universe?

A. Yes.

Or the evolution of this dialogue between you and
me and --

Q. I'm talking about evolution in the
scientific sense: evolution in the universe, evolution
in the earth itself, as well as evolution of life from
nonlife.

A. Evolution of human history, evolution of
sociological systems, evolution of political systems,
which are scientific.

Evolution comes in many things, and I think it is
wise to define the context in which one is speaking.

Q. Have you discussed the creation model of
origins in your classroom?

A. Yes.

Q. In what context?

A. Trying to explain that there is not
incompatibility between the message of creation as
conveyed in Genesis and the theory of evolution. It
is only a literal interpretation that is incompatible.
But the Bible, as most theologians understand it, is
not incompatible.

77

MR. KLASFELD: If I could just interject a
question, please, which of your classes was this in?

THE WITNESS: In almost all of them, at different
levels of complexity or sophistication.

Part of my goal is to avoid the problem that I
have with this kind of situation, namely, that people
feel obliged to reject their religious convictions after
they become overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution,
and I think that they feel obliged to reject it when
they have been told that the two are incompatible, and
I think that is unfortunate, because they are not
incompatible.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Your rejection of religious
values came after you learned about science?

A. I don't reject religious values.

Q. You don't personally reject them?

A. Oh, no.

Q. You still hold the beliefs of the Roman
Catholic Church?

A. No.

Q. What religious values do you hold to?

                                     - - -

78

A. Oh, very many. Respect for human life,
respect for the universe, respect for people who believe
in the Catholic principles, and others, Protestant, that
exist over this.

Q. Is that a religious belief?

A. Certainly it is a religious value.

Q. Respect for human life is a religious value?

A. Yes.

Q. Respect for others is a religious value?

A. For persons.

Q. It is a religious belief, you say?

A. A religious value. I would not call it a
belief. We are talking about respect and it's not a
belief. Respect refers to attitudes, to values.

Q. How do you differentiate between a religious
belief and a religious respect?

A. Respect is a matter of attitude. Belief is a
matter of thinking, an intellectual matter.

Q. Is it a religious belief for you that you
have a respect for people who have faith?

A. It's a religious value.

Q. A religious value.

How is that value necessarily religious?

A. Because it has to do with the ultimate
meaning of life and the universe.

Q. And how does that, in your mind, become
religion?

A. That is what religion is, concern for ultimate

79

values and the significance of the universe and human
life, or life, if you want it more generally.

Q. I am curious because you have stated that in
1967 or 1966 you ceased to be a member of the Roman
Catholic Church, but you state that you have religious
respect but no longer have religious belief; is that
correct?

A. Religious values.

Religious respect, I don't know. I don't know that
that is a very meaningful phrase.

I have religious values, yes. And I have religious
beliefs also.

Q. What are those religious beliefs?

A. That there is goodness in nature.

I think we went through some of them before.

Q. Are there any others besides goodness in
nature?

A. Just that human life is sacred.

Q. How do you define "religion"?

A. As concern for -- as ultimate concern. Let
me put it that way. Ultimate concern. That is my
definition of religion.

Q. That has no meaning to me. I don't under-
stand it.

A. There is a book by a great American
theologian which has that title as the definition of
religion.

Q. "Ultimate concern"?

80

A. Ultimate religion is ultimate concern.

Q. For what?

A. For the ultimate significance thing.

Q. Of life, would that be one of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Of the universe, would that be another?

A. Yes.

Q. What else, ultimate concern for anything
else you can think of?

A. There is nothing beyond the universe. Concern
for life is a qualification.

Q. The universe we start with and we come into
life; is that correct?

Can we come in any further when we talk about the
ultimate concern for --

A. Human life.

Q. Human life.

Who is this book by, by the way?

A. Paul Tillich, T-i-l-l-i-c-h.

Q. And what was the name of it again, do you
recall it?

A. Not exactly. I recall that he defines
religion as ultimate concern.

Q. So you would generally agree with Tillich's
definition of religion?

A. As one definition.

Q. As one which you can personally agree with?

A. Yes. And I hope everybody else does.

81

Q. Are you familiar with the term "humanism"?

A. Excuse me.

Q. Are you familiar with the term "humanism"?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the Society of
Religious Humanists at all?

A. Very vaguely.

Q. Would you consider, under Tillich's definition,
humanism to be a form of religion?

A. Possibly. Some people would. I wouldn't.

Q. I'm sorry. I didn't understand you.

A. You see, it depends on what you mean by
"humanism," so I have to qualify it.

Q. What definition of humanism would you include
as a religion?

A. Can you give me a list of definitions of
humanism? And then I will tell you which one.

Q. I think your answer to me was that, depending
upon how humanism is defined, it can be a religion, so
there is obviously something in your mind which constitutes
religion from the prospective of humanism and I would
like you to tell me that.

A. One definition of humanism is valuing the
human person or persons as the greatest value in the
universe. Now, that is consistent with a religious view.

Q. All right. Do any of the organizations to
which you belong have a position on whether the creation
model of origin should be discussed in the classroom?

82

A. In an officially formulated policy?

Q. Yes, something which has been articulated
either orally or in writing.

A. You mean explicit formulation?

Q. Right.

A. I think not.

Q. When you have discussed creation in the class-
room, I take it from your comments that you would be
discussing creation from what you considered to be the
religious sense of the word.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you had any difficulty with your
students?

A. Yes.

Q. What are some difficulties you have
experienced?

A. Well, students from time to time come for
clarification and some of them come with objections.
The majority, however, find relief.

Q. I am sorry. What did you say?

A. The majority find relief.

MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry, David. Was your
question there --

Dr. Ayala testified previously, I think, that some
of the students he had found difficulty with their own
religious beliefs and the massive amount of scientific
information they were getting. Was your question about
whether there were people who, on the other hand,

83

continued to believe in --

MR. WILLAIMS: I asked him the question whether he
had any difficulties with his students and he started to
answer on that point, so I was going to get him to go
ahead and answer.

MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So the difficulties, as I under-
stand them, Doctor, have been that some students have
objected to the notion that science, the scientific
theory of evolution, and their own religious theory of
creation or origin, were not inconsistent?

A. No.

What I said was that some students come with
objections to my interpretation of the Bible, for
example. Most of the students come for clarification,
trying to understand.

Q. When you say they come to you, they come to
you personally, outside of class, you mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you feel that is unhealthy that they have
these questions?

A. Oh, no.

Q. Do you feel like it's unhealthy to discuss
creation in a science classroom as a matter of academic
principles?

84

A. Discussing it as science, yes.

Q. Well, do you feel it's unhealthy to discuss it
as being religious in a science class?

A. Well, I dedicate only a few -- a small amount
of time to it, and that is why most of the clarifications
take place at my own time and expense afterwards. I
think it's fair to the students, since it's such an
important issue, to spend a few minutes on it.

Q. About how many minutes would you spend on it?

A. It depends on what course it is, but maybe
fifteen minutes, half an hour.

Q. fifteen minutes to a half an hour?

A. Yes.

Q. What courses would you go into this in?

A. In general genetics, when we come to
evolutionary genetics; in my evolution course; and of
course, in the philosophy of biology course.

Q. How many years have you done this?

A. Since I have been teaching these courses.

Q. If a student does take a literal interpre-
tation of the account of Genesis, would then the theory
of religious creation we are talking about now in
Genesis, would the theory of evolution be incompatible?

A. The theory of evolution is incompatible with
a literal description of the origins of man in Genesis,
yes.

Q. Here are some of the texts you have brought
with you.

85

As to the articles you have read, for example, by
Mr. Armstrong, did they include some religious or
scriptural references?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that any scriptural reference
is prohibited by Act 590 or any religious writings or
religious references?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that, wasn't it in the first
few editions of Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species,"
that he made reference to a creator?

A. Yes. In the next to the last paragraph.

Q. Is it correct that he stated that the first
life had been breathed into these forms by a creator,
that there was a grandeur in this view -- I think his
words are "there is some grandeur in this view."

A. Yes.

Q. Would you think that would be an inappropriate
study for a science class or a student to read "On the
Origin of the Species," which talks about a creator?

A. No, because it's one paragraph out of 450
pages.

Q. Sure.

A. As I told you, I spent a few minutes on the
matter, too, so I hardly disagree.

Q. but in that book,, did not Darwin, if you will,
ascribe to the creator a role in evolution; he was not
talking strictly, perhaps, in a religious sense there,

86

but he was writing a book on science and he said that the
creator had done this?

A. No. He said there is grandeur in this view
of the universe, which is where the -- I am paraphrasing
-- where the creator does not necessarily create every-
thing but has created the world whereby the laws can
evolve and produce this enormous variety and beauty.
I am paraphrasing.

His point, however, is that what he says is that
there is grandeur in this view of the world as evolving.
That is why the creator doesn't have to be put in every
little thing there but there is change by natural laws.
That is what he is saying, and I feel there is grandeur
in that view.

Q. So I take it you would not object to that
being read, that work being read and studied by a science
student, although he does mention the concept of a
creator.

A. No, I do not object to it.

Q. Do you have an opinion on the origin of the
universe?

A. May I ask for a clarification: the universe
as we know it today or the very beginning of everything,
the very beginning of matter, of reality?

Q. Well, let's start with the universe as we
know it today.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion on that?

87

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion?

- - -

88

A. Living things have evolved gradually, have
diversified, have become extinct.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

A. Living things have evolved gradually,
diversified into main species, and at different times
some species have become extinct.

Q. I don't mean to cut you off, but I am
really talking about the universe in terms of the
planets and stars.

A. Oh, I'm glad you clarified that.

When somebody talks to me about the universe, the
most important universe is the living things.

Q. I understand that might be to you, but I
am asking about the universe in terms of the planets
and stars and all of that.

Do you have an opinion as to that?

A. I accept what astronomists generally say,
namely, that they are a result of what is referred to
as a big bang.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to what caused
the big bang?

A. No.

Well, let me qualify that. It depends on what you
mean by "cause."

Yes, in terms of the physical forces. Matter
cannot stay together that way. So my answer would be
yes, if that is what you mean.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to how the

89

matter came together?

A. No.

Q. Do you ascribe to the notion of the
pulsating --

Is that right? Isn't there a notion that if it
was pulsating, the bang, then it will come back together
again?

A. I think that is a possibility.

It's not generally accepted; but I have no position
on that.

Q. So you have no general position as to what
brought that matter together in the first place?

A. That is right.

Q. Do you ascribe to any personal hypothesis
on that?

A. My own?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Do you have one you agree with?

A. No.

Q. Do you have one that you agree is more
authoritative or more likely than others?

A. No.

Q. What is your opinion, if you have one, on
the origin of man?

A. Mankind came by evolution from nonhuman
ancestors, I suppose is what you are referring to.

Q. Are there any transitional forms that you

90

know of to those nonhuman ancestors?

A. Between nonhuman ancestors and present
mankind?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What are the ones that you believe are
transitional forms?

A. Australopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus.

Q. When you speak of australopithecus, how do
you determine that it was not human?

A. It was human.

Q. It was human?

A. I thought the question was between modern
mankind and nonhuman ancestors.

Q. So it was fully human?

A. It was humanoid.

It's not homo sapien.

If by "fully human" you mean homo sapiens, it
wasn't. If you mean it belongs to the family of hominids,
it was.

Q. Have you an opinion on the origin of the
earth?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. The general one accepted by astronomers.

Q. You have to forgive me. Could you describe
it?

A. You realize it's not my field of knowledge,

91

so your knowledge and my knowledge may not be
different in this case.

It's just that it formed by condensation of gases
that were rotating with the sun or around the sun.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is just a housekeeping matter.
Are you going to provide the documents in our document
request?

MR. KLASFELD: Absolutely.

MR. ENNIS: Those we don't object to.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

When will those be provided?

MR. ENNIS: As fast as we can get them to you.

MR. KLASFELD: We will give Dr. Ayala a copy of
them and --

MR. WILLIAMS: Can I get them in the next couple
says?

MR. KLASFELD: Well, we hope so.

MR. ENNIS: I can't answer that because we don't
know if there is one that is responsive or 4000 that
are responsive. We will do our best to discuss it with
Dr. Ayala today and get the documents to you as fast as
we can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you done any consulting
work, Doctor?

                                     - - -

92

A. What do you mean by "consulting"? Students
consult me all the time.

Q. I mean for pay.

For example, with businesses or other entities.

A. Not with businesses but with the U.S.
Government.

Q. The grants we talked about, or something
other than that?

A. Advisory bodies in the Federal Government.

Q. Have these been compensated positions?

First, are they listed on your curriculum vitae?

A. Probably. I didn't list everything so let
me check.

Q. How much were you paid for these; for
example, as a member of the advisory general medical
sciences council of HEW?

A. $100 per day for services.

Q. Would that be the same for all of them?

A. I think so.

Q. Approximately how many days have you served?

A. In a year?

Q. Yes.

A. Six to eight a year.

Q. Would these also be in the area of your
expertise in evolutionary biology?

A. My expertise is relevant there, yes.

Q. Have you ever written anything on the subject
of Creation Science?

93

A. No.

Q. Have you given any interviews on the subject?

A. Do you mean public interviews?

Q. Yes. Interviews which have been published.

A. I don't think so, no.

Q. Have you ever made any speeches on the
subject?

A. No.

Q. Have you in any form, other than entirely
private conversations, ever made any comments on the
subject of Creation Science?

A. I have.

Q. Where?

A. Well, in passing, for example, at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution last
June, July, a brief comment.

Q. Do you recall the comment or was there a
recording made of it?

A. No, I am sure there is no recording.

Q. Tell me about the Society for the Study of
Evolution.

Where is it located?

A. Off the record, in Heaven.

On the record, there is no formal physical location.
There is an office of an editor, an office of the
treasurer, an office of the secretary and the president,
and these people change from year to year. They are
scientists that get elected.

94

Q. Does it publish a journal?

A. Yes.

Q. What journal is that?

A. "Evolution."

Q. Have you been an officer of that organization?

A. Yes.

Q. What offices?

A. Vice president and president elect and
president.

Q. Is there a stated position or purpose of the
organization reduced to writing?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a copy of that?

A. Not with me.

Q. Do you have a copy at your office?

A. I can get it. It's probably in the library.
It's probably in the records.

Q. If you could give me a citation to that or if
you could provide me with a copy, I would like to have
one. You could provide it to your attorneys.

A. All right.

Q. The general thrust of the organization, I
would take it, though, is the study of evolution, is it
not?

A. Yes. A variation on evolution or anything
relevant to evolution, yes.

Q. To further knowledge concerning evolution,
would that be correct?

95

A. Further knowledge concerning matters of
evolution, yes. The order of the words is very important.
Concerning knowledge, it is.

Q. I understand.

Has the Society had as its purpose to study whether
evolutionary theory is correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Has the Society or any of its members ever
published a paper which said that evolutionary theory
might not be correct?

A. Do you mean parts of evolutionary theory?
You realize that evolutionary theory is a big name for
many, many things.

Q. I am speaking of evolutionary theory in
general, not just a small part of evolutionary theory but
the theory in general.

A. Well, I don't think anybody has published
that the whole of evolution theory is not correct.

[Brief recess]

- - -

96

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you define academic
freedom?

A. Yes. I suppose privilege of a person in an
academic position to express his or her views concerning
the subject matter in which he or she is a specialist.

Q. Do you think in order to teach a subject that
a teacher must agree with all the theories he is
teaching.

A. Definitely not.

Q. You refer to it as a privilege.

A. Freedom is a privilege. Call it a right.
I'm not an expert in such things.

Q. Well, would you agree that the manner in
which courses are to be taught particularly in public
schools and public secondary schools there are some
limits on the manner in which they can be taught?

A. Oh, surely.

Q. and subject to appropriate control by the
state and local authorities that are appropriate, that is
an appropriate exercise of sometimes limiting academic
freedom? Sometimes it would be appropriate to limit
absolute academic freedom?

A. No, I do not agree with that. I do not agree
that the state or anybody has the right to interfere with
academic freedom of a teacher, academic freedom as I
have defined it.

Q. And you have defined it as the freedom to
give their professional opinion about a particular theory

97

within their area of expertise, is that correct?

A. The freedom to express their views and make
a fair presentation of what their field of knowledge is,
yes.

Q. I think there are two parts in there perhaps.
You said one, to express their views, and then you said
something about to make a fair presentation.

A. Well, if a teacher is not making a fair
presentation, then he should be removed.

Q. What is a fair presentation?

A. Generally it is very difficult recognizing
what is generally accepted, what is generally accepted
and making those presentations which are presentations
which are irrelevant.

Q. Isn't that a highly subjective area?

A. I think the area of freedom concerns human
rights and exercises, and there is an element of
subjectivity in its application.

Q. If there is a teacher who in their honest
professional opinion believes that there is scientific
evidence to support the theory of Creation Science, do
you think they should be prohibited from teaching that?

MR. ENNIS: Objection. Are you asking the question
of the witness if this is a matter of law?

MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of academic freedom that
he has espoused.

THE WITNESS: Somebody who is engaged to teach the
subject.

98

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is not entitled to teach the
matter of evolution, the subject matter of science?

A. Within science he is teaching evolution as
part of his duty on the subject of evolution.

Q. He is teaching chemistry and he feels there
is evidence to support the theory of Creation Science
in the area of the origin of first life and the way the
chemicals came together and he wants to teach that.

A. I don't think that subject belongs within the
area of chemistry. It's not a subject of teaching within
chemistry.

Q. I appreciate you feel that way, Doctor, but
my question is if he sincerely feels --

A. I think a teacher who teaches things which
are not within the general subject matter of what is
the agreed consensus as to what belongs in the field is
not a competent teacher. He should be removed.

Q. So if someone teaches something which is
not generally recognized, they should be removed?

A. As relevant to the subject matter. If I
asked to teach sociology and start to lecture on genetics,
I should be removed from teaching sociology.

Q. If many years ago before Copernicus's
theory concerning the fact we don't have a geocentric
universe, before that was accepted, if a teacher taught
that theory before it was accepted by the scientific
community, if a teacher taught it, should he have been
fired under your opinion?

99

A. If he was teaching a subject which was
totally irrelevant to the subject matter he was charged
to teach, yes. You are changing the grounds of the
previous question.

Q. Perhaps my question was ambiguous. Let me
clarify it. I have in mind, for example, a chemistry
teacher who in his chemistry course deals with, as I
understand it, the origin of first life, and he mentions
in there how it would be possible for certain elements
to come together to form some form of "life," and he
wants to include in that discussion some of what he
considers to be evidence for Creation Science, that is
the very high odds against that occurring by pure
science, other than having it occur with some force?

MR. ENNIS: I object because it was done twice
now before. Evidence against the formulation of those
proteins based on probability is not evidence for
creation.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what part of this lawsuit
is about.

MR. ENNIS: Your question assumes the answer to
that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm saying in this teacher's
opinion he thinks that it is.

THE WITNESS: First, is it part of the syllabus
of chemistry to deal with the origin of life? I think
it's not part of the syllabus of chemistry classes, so
I think he would have to be told it's not part of the

100

syllabus.

Q. What if it is?

A. But it isn't.

Q. What if he is not given a syllabus and has
the freedom to choose that?

A. That is precisely where there is a general
agreed consensus in the scientific community or local
boards as to what belongs appropriately within a given
field of science and that is for science really to
establish what is an appropriate field of science.

I'm not trying to be difficult. It is difficult
for me to handle the question.

Q. We have gone back to the essential premise,
one of academic freedom, and as I understood what you
were saying about academic freedom you would not want
a teacher to be limited in the manner in which they
could teach.

A. So long as he does it on the basis of
appropriate knowledge.

Q. Appropriate knowledge. All right.

And how do you define what is appropriate knowledge?

A. Well, being knowledgeable in the field and
able to judge the evidence as it exists, the principles
as they are known by the scientific community at large.

Q. So now let's go back to my other example.
At one time under your definition I assume that
Copernicus's theory of the universe could not have been
taught because at one time it was not generally accepted

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day One - Page 3

101

in the field; is that correct?

A. No, it's not correct because for one thing,
if you read Thomas Aquinas and even the Greeks, already
they had theories about the earth not being the center of
the universe.

At the time of Copernicus these things were
debatable and scientists debated them and they sometimes
brought them in in script to avoid the church deciphering
their communications. I think at the time that it was
a legitimate debatable question. It is a debatable
question today.

Q. But at the time was it not true that the
geocentric theory of the universe was the predominant
theory?

A. Probably, but I'm not sure. There were some
astronomers.

Q. But if it was the predominant theory, then
at that point under your theory you could have not taught
anything except the geocentric universe?

A. No. So long as it is taught from knowledge
and a proper teacher at the time would say, "Here we
have a theory," and "There is another theory," and I
think if the evidence favors this theory, he would be
able to handle it properly.

Q. As long as scientists are debating the
question you think it would be proper to discuss both?

A. Yes, so long as one understands the word
"scientists" properly, in the plural, properly.

102

Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether the
state may prescribe a curriculum in the secondary schools?

A. I'm sure some aspects of it they can prescribe.

Q. In your opinion should the classroom and
secondary schools be open to all academic discussion?

MR. KLASFELD: If you understand what that means.

THE WITNESS: Anytime anybody would discuss
anything.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you think that academic
discussion in the secondary schools should be limited to
only what for example -- let me give you an example.
Do you think that academic discussion in a secondary
school should be limited only to what has been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt in the area of science for
example?

A. Yes, in terms of presenting it as proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. One can mention other things.

Q. Perhaps you don't understand my question.
My question was in terms of the discussion in the
scientific classroom should the discussion be limited to
those theories which have been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt?

A. No.

Q. In your opinion should the evolutionary
model of origins be subject to criticism in the public
school classrooms?

A. What do you mean by "evolutionary model of
origins"?

103

Q. Well, the evolutionary model of origins may
include several things. I'm talking generally. Do you
think it's above criticism?

A. No. There are many aspects of it if you read
my papers. There are many components of the theory of
evolution that are being discussed in my papers that
should be discussed in classrooms.

Q. Are you familiar with The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion of that work?

A. A very interesting book.

Q. Could you be more specific?

MR. KLASFELD: Specific in what sense?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you agree with it?

A. Not with all of it, no.

Q. What parts do you agree with?

MR. KLASFELD: Which pages?

THE WITNESS: Parts was the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: If I can fairly summarize --

MR. KLASFELD: Are there some things you agree with
or disagree with?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Can you generally agree with the
work?

MR. KLASFELD: Apparently not.

MR. WILLIAMS: He may not agree with it.

THE WITNESS: Okay. So the question is whether
I generally agree with it?

104

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Yes.

A. And I say I agree with many parts of it.

Q. When he discusses his concept of the
paradigm, p-a-r-a-d-i-g-m, which arises in the scientific
community and then all concentration and research
essentially are directed in support of futhering that
paradigm, is that one of the things he discusses as you
understand it?

A. Yes, but he uses paradigm in the book in two
different meanings. He will have to spend twenty years
of his life to clarify that. He has written many papers.
He uses that term "paradigm" in two different meanings
in the book.

Q. What are those two different meanings that
can be fairly said in two minutes?

A. Let me go off the record. It is very
difficult for me to be precise.

MR. ENNIS: You are not required to remember all
these books.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I want your knowledge, the best
you recollect.

A. One of many books is the Philosophy of
Science that I have read. I read it years ago. I have
reread it again more recently. It would take me some
effort to recollect with precision the two meanings, and
I would like to have some time to look at the book again
and be able to be precise.

Q. First you mentioned the last twenty years of

105

his life talking about these two paradigms.

A. I have a copy that was published in 1970,
and this is around '62, maybe '65, no later than '65.

Q. He talks about what is normal science.

A. I suppose you realize that as a way of
speaking he spent the last twenty years of his life.

Q. I don't take your terms literally.

A. Technicalities.

Q. When he talks about the idea of a paradigm
as being normal science, do you recall that discussion?

A. Yes.

Q. A paradigm is something of a universally
scientific principle or accepted theory, is that correct?

A. Yes, that is one of the meanings/

Q. What is the second meaning?

A. I would have to have the book and you allow
me a few minutes.

Q. Given the fact that your attorneys have said
you have to leave at 1:00 o'clock, do you have to leave
at 1:00 o'clock?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a class?

A. I have to introduce a speaker and I am
engaged to do something at 3:00 o'clock.

Q. Did your attorneys ever ask you as to whether
or not you could cancel that?

A. Yes, and I couldn't because it's a major
engagement I accepted many months ago. It involves some

106

very important scientists.

Q. Let's take the paradigm that I mentioned,
universally scientific principle of theory, and does
Kuhn not talk about there is pressure -- that may not be
the right term. I don't want to mischaracterize it, but
there is some force of continuity to change the paradigm,
the data that fits the paradigm, and if the data does not
fit, to try to modify it.

A. Yes, that is the way science works. You have
some of general models talking about more or less general
models, and as evidence accumulates we modify the
paradigms.

Q. He also says when discussing paradigms that
many times if there is data that does not fit in the
paradigm that sometimes it may not be seen at all in the
figurative sense.

A. If it is done by a competent scientist.
Scientists take great pride in showing evidence that goes
against prevailing theories because it's one way of
getting attention and challenging scientists, so I think
it's unlikely as a general statement.

Q. Does Kuhn's book include the concept that it
has been historically difficult once a paradigm is
established for a new paradigm to come along and
supplant it?

A. The book largely consists with precisely the
fact that the history of science consists largely of
scientific revolutions, changes of paradigms. I think

107

he overstates that rather than understates it.

Q. How does he overstate it?

A. I don't think paradigms are so fully replaced
in the history of science as he claims. Maybe some
branches of science it does.

Q. Why is it difficult in your opinion for one
paradigm to be replaced by another?

A. Because usually a paradigm if it is an
accepted set of principles is usually supported by an
enormous amount of evidence. By the time it has reached
that stage having many scientists gather in lots of
evidence, people don't give up that easily and they
shouldn't.

Q. You said they what?

MR. KLASFELD: Don't give up so easily, and they
shouldn't.

THE WITNESS: What is accumulated information?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. He talks about the difficulty
for those who go outside the paradigm who try to establish
a new one that they may be met with resistance from the
community.

A. Those who do it within the scientific
community don't get resistance; they get a lot of
attention. He is not a good sociologist.

Q. Does he say that?

A. No. I'm saying that.

Q. So you disagree with him?

A. Yes, that fact.

108

Q. Would you agree this book is generally
recognized as something of an authority on general
scientific principles?

A. He is an authority but an authority which is
very much questioned.

Q. Many authorities are much questioned, are
they not?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your opinion that there are no
competent scientists who espouse a scientific theory of
creation?

A. Competent scientists in the field of
evolution. Yes, that is my opinion. You phrase your
question they are not competent specialists on evolution-
ary theory or knowledge relevant to evolution. You
formulated it that way. My answer is yes, there are no
such competent specialists in the field. I'm sure that --

Q. Please go ahead and continue.

A. I'm sure there are competent specialists
in microelectronics, somebody who does not know about
evolution and may espouse that.

Q. You think there are no competent scientists
in the general study of origins, origin of life, the
universe, man, plants and animals?

A. Evolution of life, yes.

Q. There are no competent scientists who would
espouse creation science or a portion thereof?

A. In my opinion the evidence is such that only

109

an ignorant person or person who is unable to judge the
evidence fairly can deny it.

Q. Are you aware that there are even some
experts who would agree with you on evolutionary theory
and would differ with you as to whether it would be only
an ignorant person who espouses Creation Science?

A. I said a person ignorant of the relevant
evidence. A person may be very knowledgeable in other
fields.

Q. My question is: Will you not agree that there
are experts in the field of evolutionary theory who would
disagree with you as to the existence of other competent
scientists who believe that a Creation Science model is
supported by scientific evidence?

MR. KLASFELD: Is the question are there experts
in evolution who think there might be a legitimate reason
to believe in creation science?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is; In your opinion
are there any or can there be maybe, can there be an
expert in evolution who would admin or agree that
creation science was a valid scientific model?

A. If he is a real expert, I don't think it's
possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record I want to strenuously
object to the cessation of this, or recess I should term
it, of this deposition. I have been given only this
morning, as I said, the curriculum vitae that has over
two hundred publications, none of which we have had a

110

chance to get beforehand. Further, the request for
documents which I gave to plaintiff's counsel last week
apparently was not shown even to their own co-counsel and
certainly not to this witness until such time as I
presented it to them today, so we are being severely
prejudiced by this, and either we will have to take it
up by way of further deposition or by way of motion to
the court.

MR. KLASFELD: I have one question for cross-
examination.

EXAMINATIN BY MR. KLASFELD:

MR. KLASFELD: Q. To the extent that you make
any reference to Creation Science in the courses that
you teach, is that reference to the evidence in support
of Creation Science?

MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. The question is leading.
It suggests an answer.

MR. KLASFELD: You have your objection. You can't
direct him not to answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think in this deposition when it is
your witness and you are asking what is blatantly a
leading question --

MR. KLASFELD: You can't direct him not to answer.
You have your objection.

THE WITNESS: What is the question?

MR. KLASFELD: Q. The question is: To the extent
that you teach Creation Science in your classes, do you
teach the evidence, the scientific evidence, which

111

supports Creation Science?

A. I do not reach Creation Science in my classes.
When I refer to creation, I refer to the story of the
origins of man and living things as it is told in the
Book of Genesis.
 
 
                                    _________________________________
                                    DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

112

STATE OF CALIFORNIA                          )
                                                           )   ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO   )

       I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named

                    DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by

                CAROLINE ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD,

Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and that
the pertinent provisions of the applicable code or rules
of civil procedure relating to the original transcript
of deposition for reading, correcting and signing have
been complied with.

       And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome of
the cause in said caption.

       IN WITNESS WEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office this _____ day of
November, 1981.

___________________________________

113

       I have read the foregoing transcript and desire
to make the following corrections:

                 Reads                          Should Read

          Page        Line                  Page        Line
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                    _________________________________
                                    DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two

              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

                             WESTERN DIVISION

                                      - - -
 
 
REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,       )
                                                    )
                                       Plaintiffs,)
                                                    )
                      vs.                          )                  NO. LR-C-81-322
                                                    )
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et    )
al.,                                                )
                                                    )
                                   Defendants.)
_____________________________)
 
 
 
 
                            DEPOSITION OF

                       DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

                     Friday, November 20, 1981

Pages 114 - 289
Volume II
 
 
 
 
 
Reported by:
Karen Williams, CSR
Cert.# 2933

Susan Scott, CSR
Cert.# 4666

115

                          I N D E X

Deposition of DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1981

Examination by                                        Page

MR. WILLIAMS                                         120

116

                      E X H I B I T S

Number                                                 Page

2      Letter, 12-29-81, Ayala to               144
       Bush

3      The National Association of              152
       Biology Teachers Press Release
       entitled "National Associations
       Confer On Creationism"

4      "Countering the Creationists"           155

5      Letter, 11-9-81, Weinberg to Ayala   177

6      Group of letters re Committee          178
       of Correspondence

7      Statement of Dr. Francisco Ayala      183

8      Handwritten Notes                           265

9      Handwritten Notes                           268

10    The Watchtower, July 15, 1978         277

117

       BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to
Continuance from Wednesday, November 18, 1981,
and on Friday, November 20, 1981, commencing
at the hour of 2:30 o'clock p.m. thereof, at
the offices of BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON,
One Market Plaza, San Francisco, California
94104, before us, KAREN L. WILLIAMS and SUSAN
SCOTT, Certified Shorthand Reporters and
Notaries Public in and for the State of
California, personally appeared

                 DR. FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

called as a witness herein, who, having been
previously duly sworn, was thereupon examined
and testified as hereinafter set forth.

                            - - -

       SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919
Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022,
represented by DAVID KLASFELD, Attorney at
Law; and

       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 132 West
43rd Street, New York, New York 10036,
represented by SUSAN STURM, Attorney at Law,
appeared as counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

       BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California 94104,
represented by BEENU MAHMOOD, Attorney at Law,

118

appeared as counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

       STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of
Arkansas, Justice Building, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201, represented by DAVID WILLIAMS,
Deputy Attorney General, appeared as counsel
on behalf of defendants.

                            - - -

119

                 FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

MS. STURM: Before we get started, I
want to say for the record, first of all, that
for today's deposition, and to accommodate the
defendants, we have produced voluminous
documents, and Dr. Ayala has agreed to be here
at great personal inconvenience. But we have
complied with the defendant's document request.

Also, in terms of the documents, the
parties have agreed that all documents
produced will be used solely for purposes
directly related to the litigation. And we
reserve objections to documents because we've
not had really adequate time to go through
them in any great depth.

MR. WILLIAMS: As to the purposes of
documents, these documents will be used --
they will be used for purposes of litigation,
I understand, but it was my understanding that
it related more to the correspondence.

MS. STURM: Right, to the correspondence.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not to publication.

MS. STURM: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

120

EXAMINIATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, you were --

A. Excuse me a second. Am I supposed
to be under oath?

Q. I was going to ask you, you were put
under oath a couple of days ago, and you are
technically still under oath; if you would
like to be we sworn --

A. No.

Q. This is a continuation of that
deposition; therefore, that one oath will
suffice. I want to ask you some questions
first of all about some more of your
background.

What was your first full-time employment
after you finished undergraduate school in
Spain?

A. I didn't have any full-time
employment in Spain.

Q. All right. When did you complete
your first diploma, postsecondary diploma, in
Spain?

A. It would be 1954, 1955. I think '54

Q. And after 1955, what did you do?

121

A. Well, I continued studying.

Q. In what field or discipline?

A. From around 1955 to -- no, let me
try to put it together. I'm sorry.

At least until about '55, '56 I was
studying philosophy; then I started theology
from about '55 to '60.

Q. So you studied philosophy --

A. Do you want me to go on?

Q. No. Let's take that right now.

So, you studied philosophy for
approximately five years in Spain?

A. No. Philosophy for approximately
three.

Q. You said '55 to '60?

A. That was theology.

Q. Excuse me, theology, that's correct.

A. I said philosophy until '55. I
think I started philosophy around '52, because
I was doing more than one thing at the same
time.

Q. Okay. And you've studied theology
up until 1960?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you studying theology as a
layman?

122

A. No.

Q. In what capacity were you studying
theology?

A. As a student of theology for the
priesthood.

Q. Have you ever been ordained as a
priest?

A. Yes.

Q. And in what faith?

A. Catholic.

Q. And what day were you ordained as a
priest?

A. I think probably June 1960. I may
be off, but that seems to me --

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's go off the record.

(Discussion off the record).

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Were you ordained
in any particular order?

A. Yes, the Dominican order.

Q. And, essentially, what is the
Dominican order?

A. It's an order of preachers,
technically. It's a religious order within
the Catholic faith.

Q. Would they have any particular
emphasis within the faith?

123

A. I think very diversified.
Considerable emphasis in the teaching and
learning of theology. Considerable emphasis
also on missionary work.

Q. Would priests within that order be
involved in the active ministry to a church or
cathedral?

A. Yes. Not -- in some countries, yes.

Q. What were your responsibilities once
you were ordained?

A. After ordained I was sent -- in
agreement with my superiors, I went to study,
to continue studies.

Q. In 1960?

A. That's correct, late 1960.

Q. Where did you go to study?

A. Came to New York to work at Columbia
University.

Q. That's where you began your master's
program?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that was in biology?

A. Zoology.

Q. Zoology. How long were you a member
of the Dominican order?

A. You mean as a priest?

124

Q. Yes, as a priest.

A. From about -- I was ordained in 1960,
and I left there in 1966, if my memory serves
me right.

Q. During your time in the priesthood,
did you have any duties other than pursuing
your studies?

A. I could corroborate in church
services and -- simply as a helper, you know,
on occasion. I was not regularly assigned to
a parish, or such, you know, in the sense of
having the responsibility for it, for a parish.
But I was, you know, helping out.

Q. When did you make the decision to
enter the priesthood?

A. May I ask for a clarification? I
don't mind making it public, but off the
record.

Is it all right?

MR. WILLIAMS: If you want --

MS. STURM: Yes.

(Discussion off the record)

A. Will you repeat the question, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. When did you make
the decision to enter the priesthood?

A. To enter the priesthood?

125

Q. Yes.

A. I believe around 1951 or '52.

Q. And why did you make that decision?

MS. STURM: Just for the record, we
reserve the right to object at trial on these
and all other areas in the deposition.

A. I'm sorry --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Why did you make the
decision to enter the priesthood?

A. I could say largely for idealistic
reasons. I thought it was something I could
do for the good of mankind. I'm embarrassed
to say that, but ...

Q. I take it -- well, at the time you
entered the priesthood, did you believe that a
God exists?

A. Surely.

Q. At the time you entered the
priesthood, what was your -- was your concept
of God different from the concept that you
have today?

A. Yes.

Q. What would your concept of God have
been in 1951, as best you remember it, just
generally?

MS. STURM: You just need to answer the

126

question --

A. Yes. Very similar to the concept of
Got as established in the Catholic Church.

Q. Would that include a God with a
personality?

A. Yes, except that today I'm much
fussier about what such a personality means,
than I was at the time; but fair enough.

Q. A God who had qualities of love and
compassion, and those sorts of things?

A. Yes.

Q. For individuals?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Why did you leave the priesthood?

A. Because I could not accept anymore
some of the tenants of the Catholic Church.

Q. I don't want to be repetitive of the
questions I asked you the other day; so, if I
do go into some of those, I hope you will bear
with me.

A. Surely.

Q. I think you mentioned some of those
the other day that you had some problems with.
And you specified, I think, for example, the --

A. Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

Q. Right.

127

A. The Immaculate Conception, which is
not the virgin birth.

Q. Right.

A. But I could have said the virgin
birth, too.

Q. Did you have a problem accepting the
concept of God as you had once accepted him
and conceived of him?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you today state that you
would agree or disagree with the concept of a
God with a personality and love and compassion
and concern for individuals?

A. It will depend very much on the
definition of personality.

Q. Well, the other day you mentioned
that your concept of God was something of a
goodness in nature.

A. Yes.

Q. That does not on its surface to me
encompass a concern for an individual.

A. That's right. A personalty -- you
mean individual, that's correct.

Q. Did you leave the priesthood
voluntarily?

A. Yes.

128

Q. At the time when you left the
priesthood, did you remain a member of the
Catholic Church?

A. No.

Q. When did you sever your relationship
with the Catholic Church?

A. At the time when a left the
priesthood; I believe around 1966.

Q. And would that severance of your
relationship with the Catholic Church have
been voluntary or involuntary?

A. Voluntary.

Q. What role did your studies in
science play, if any, and, if you will forgive
my use of the term, evolution, from one
believing in a God who cared for individuals
with compassion and love and other qualities
that we normally ascribe to that concept, to
the concept of just a goodness in nature?

A. To the best of my knowledge, none;
they played no role.

Q. Were there any factors which you can
point to today which did play a role?

A. Yes. The presence of evil in the
world, physical and moral world. I found it
difficult to make them compatible with the

129

existence of the notion of God as an
individual who is good and omnipotent.

Q. Are -- excuse me.

A. It's clear that I'm not preaching.
I'm not trying to convince anybody.

Q. I understand that, Dr. Ayala.

Is the --

MR. KLASFELD: You may have a convert
down at this end, but --

MS. STURM: Totally not because of your
intention.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is the concept of a
God who is compassionate and cares for
individuals and the presence of evil in the
world inconsistent to the Roman Catholic faith,
to your knowledge?

A. No.

---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

130

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. As you learned more
about science, and as you, I assume, during
this period of the 1960's were thinking about
your own faith, did you think about whether
science and religion were consistent or
inconsistent?

A. Whether I thought about it?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion on that?

A. That religion that I'm more familiar
with, which is the Catholic and various types
of Protestantism, is quite compatible with
science as I know it.

Q. Was that what your opinion was
during this same time period?

A. Yes.

Q. The Catholic church, I assume, was
responsible for the cost of your education
during this time, or not?

A. No.

Q. I'm curious. How did this work?
Were you on sort of leave to continue studies?

A. It's a bit, perhaps, more
complicated than that. I largely paid through
my own efforts and money, got fellowships and

131

the like. I could have had my studies paid by
at least two sources, one the Catholic Church
and one private, my own family.

Q. Would it be fair to say, Dr. Ayala
that you have rejected a belief in the
existence of a God as that God is perceived by
organized faith, particularly the Roman
Catholic Church?

MS. STURM: Would you clarify that
question, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Well, let me restate
it.

Q. Would it be fair to state that you
have personally, as your own personal position,
have rejected a belief in God as God is
perceived by the Roman Catholic Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any organized
religion which would presently adhere or
subscribe to or be similar to your present
idea of what God is?

A. Let me restate what you're asking to
be sure I understand what you're trying to ask.
Whether I know of an organized religion which
will profess or accept a concept of God which
is similar to mine.

132

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the Society of
Religious Humanities?

A. Yes.

Q. Is their concept of their "faith"
similar to your own?

A. No.

Q. How would they differ with your own
beliefs?

A. I don't know much about them. I
know about them but --

MS. STURM: You only need make the
response based on your personal knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. To your present
knowledge, how would you differ from them?

A. They tolerate and accept a variety
of notions of God, some of which are not
consistent with mine.

Q. Have you ever been a member of any
other religious group or other group which
subscribes to some belief of ethics?

A. Personally?

Q. Yes.

133

A. No. I take it you mean as a member.

Q. As a member, yes.

A. As a good card-carrying member.

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Are there any other groups besides
organized religions, perhaps informal groups
or groups of ethical society that you find
yourself in somewhat agreement with?

A. Well, the way you qualify it, you
know, I would have to say yes because "in
somewhat agreement," there are all sorts of
scientists that belief in being nice to people,
for example.

Q. That's a fair statement. Let me
rephrase it. Which you would find your own
views to be fairly similar to?

A. And you are talking about religious
beliefs.

MS. STURM: It would be helpful if you
would maybe give more specific adjectives to
which the witness could respond.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if he has some
problem in framing an answer to it --

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am having a problem.
It is that you qualify some of your questions

134

with things like "somewhat," and of course
there is a lot of agreement with many groups,
some kind of agreement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. If I asked you, then,
to just name the one group of either organized
religion or some sort of informal group or
ethical society to which you could say that
your own code of personal conduct is most
similar to, is there one group?

A. You are asking now about a code of
personal conduct?

Q. Right.

A. I could say the Christian church.

Q. Why did you decide to become a U.S.
Citizen?

A. Because I decided -- once I had
decided to remain in this country, it was the
natural thing to do. And also I feel very
grateful to this country that gave me the
opportunity to work and to develop.

Q. Was your decision to become a
citizen of this country related to your
decision to leave the priesthood at all?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge has the National
Academy of Sciences taken any position on the

135

issue of Creation Science? First of all, for
the record, you are a member of the National
Academy of Science?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge has it taken any
position on the issue of Creation Science?

A. You mean specifically, you're
talking about?

Q. Yes.

A. Rumors heard should be considered as
knowledge?

MR. KLASFELD: Is your question has it
officially taken a position?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm talking now of a
formal position - -

THE WITNESS: But also you are talking
about serious knowledge that I might have?

MS. STURM: Based on your knowledge,
that you know of.

THE WITNESS: I have heard in the last
two or three days that the National Academy
had filed an amicus in this case.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

Q. Did you play any role in that
decision?

A. I may have.

136

Q. When you say "I may have," what
action did you take in that regard, if any?

MS. STURM: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

THE WITNESS: Will you repeat the
question, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

I think it might be good just for the
record to state that counsel for plaintiffs
have conferred with the deponent outside.

Q. Now, my question was, did you play
any role in the decision of the National
Academy of Sciences' efforts to file as an
amicus in this case?

A. I may have.

Q. Is there any action that you have
taken in this regard?

A. Yes. The president of the Academy
of Sciences.

Q. Who is that?

A. Dr. Frank Press asked me to visit
with him at his own initiative to discuss the
issue.

Q. When did you meet with him?

A. I believe Friday, October 9th of
this year.

137

Q. And what did you tell Dr. Press when
you met with him, to the best of your
recollection?

A. Well, that he -- he asked me what I
thought of the matter, and I told him that it
was a very important issue because it affected
not only the question of evolution, but the
whole matter of the teaching of science in the
public schools and the separation of state and
religion.

Q. Have you had any other meetings with
anyone of the Academy, or have you had any
further input beyond the meeting on October
9th?

A. No.

Q. Did you at that time ask Dr. Press
or the Academy to take any specific action?

A. No.

Q. You did not ask them to file as an
amicus?

A. No. Whether I asked them?

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. Did he ask you whether you thought
they should file as an amicus?

A. Yes.

138

Q. How did you respond to that?

A. It seemed reasonable.

Q. When you say "it seemed reasonable,"
was that your response to him, or would it be
fair to say you encouraged him to file as an
amicus if it would be appropriate?

A. I would say I encouraged him, and
very strongly, as far as taking some
appropriate action on the matter. Whether the
appropriate way was to do it by filing an
amicus, it seamed reasonable. I did not take
a position.

Q. You are a member of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences as well, are you
not?

A. Yes.

Q. Has the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences taken any position on Creation
Science?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Are you aware -- well, let me
rephrase that. They publish, do they not,
Science Magazine?

A. No.

Q. Who publishes Science?

A. The American Association for the

139

Advancement of Science.

Q. Thank you. Have you had any
discussions with members of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences concerning this
case?

A. You mean official discussions?

Q. Well, official or unofficial.

MR. KLASFELD: Was your question any
member?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Every scientist in
effect is a member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. How about any leaders
or officers of the organization?

A. No.

Q. When did you learn that the National
Academy of Sciences was going to file as an
amicus in this case?

A. Two or three days ago.

Q. How did you learn of that?

A. Somebody mentioned it in my office.

Q. Another one of your colleagues?

A. No.

Q. A lawyer?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any other a amici who
will be forthcoming?

140

A. Forthcoming?

Q. Yes, who have not filed.

A. No.

Q. Has the California Academy of
Natural Sciences taken any formal position on
this matter?

A. Not to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you had any
discussions with the officers of the
California Academy on this subject?

A. No.

Q. Has the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, of which you are a
fellow, I believe, taken any formal position
on this subject? By "this subject," I'm
referring again to Creation Science.

MS. STURM: What do you mean by formal
position.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I mean, have they
published any statement on this? Have they
taken any position in any of their committees?
I'm speaking of anything other than informal
conversations around a coffee table or
something.

A. I see at least three parts to your
question. To my knowledge, on discussions in

141

committees, to my knowledge no formal
positions have been taken. However, in
Science there have been reports on this matter,
at least one.

Q. Again I think you said they have
taken no formal position that you know of?

A. To my knowledge.

Q. But there have been some articles in
Science Magazine?

A. In the news reports, as opposed to
articles or editorials.

Q. Do the news reports in Science
reflect the position of the organization?

A. I don't think there is any position
of the organization as such, as of this time,
anyway.

Q. Has the Society for the Study of
Evolution taken any position on the subject of
Creation Science?

MS. STURM: Could you be more specific?
Do you mean formal position?

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's start with a formal
position, by way of resolution or similar
position paper.

THE WITNESS: No, to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Has the Society

142

initiated any action concerning the issue of
Creation Science?

A. Specifically the issue of Creation
Science?

Q. Right.

A. No, the way I understand the
question.

Q. Well, let me word it this way: Has
the Society taken any action on -- well, let
me rephrase that. Quite simply, did you not,
as president of the Society, appoint a
committee to take some action?

A. Concerning the teaching of evolution
in schools, yes.

Q. When was the first action taken in
this regard?

A. The first action was probably
somewhere around June 1980 -- I'm talking
about recent actions. There may have been
others farther in the past -- when the Society
passed a resolution that a committee be
appointed by the president to work towards
fostering the appropriate teaching of
biological matters, including evolution, in
public schools.

Q. There was a formal position

143

concerning the appropriate method of teaching
biological evolution in public schools; is
that correct? Is that what you said?

A. Actually, we could look at the
record and get the proper wording of the
resolution, as it is in my file that you are
handling. And it would make it easier for me,
rather than trying to remember what was the
resolution. Why don't we look at it and you
can read it for the record, or I can read it.

Q. Do you recall what date that would
have occurred on?

A. The meeting -- it was in Arizona, in
Tucson, and it would have been, I believe, in
late June '80. I can, again, research the
file and see if it appears anywhere.

Q. I'm presently looking through some
of the documents which were delivered to me
from the lawyers.

MS. STURM: Here we go.

THE WITNESS: This is the appointment of
the committee, June 29, 1980. If you care for
me to read the resolution passed by the
council, I will do so.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right. That's not
necessary right now.

144

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 2)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I direct your
attention to Ayala Exhibit 2, which is a
letter dated December 29, 1980 to professor
Bush from yourself. Did you send Professor
Bush this letter?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the occasion on which
you sent him this letter?

A. The appointment of the committee
that I have been commissioned to appoint by
the council of the Society.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

145

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, in this
letter, Exhibit 2, it states that, "President
Ayala proposes that a committee be established
to study the current anti-evolutionary
movement in the country."

Why did you propose that?

A. Because there was, in my perception,
an anti-evolutionary movement in the country.

Q. And this proposal occurred on June
29 of 1980?

A. Yes, at the meeting of the council.

Q. Was there any formal proposal that
you made at that time that has been reduced to
writing?

A. I think this is a copy from the
record as it exists.

Q. You did not at that time present to
them a paper on the anti-evolutionary movement
in the country --

A. No.

Q. -- with the proposal.

What evidence do you see of an
anti-evolutionary mood in the country, or did
you see in June of 1980?

A. A number of laws being introduced --
a number of bills, I think is a better term --

146

being introduced in various legislatures,
either for interfering with the teaching of
evolution or encouraging the teaching of
religion as part of science, or religious
beliefs are taken to contradict the
evolutionary principles; reports in newspapers
to that effect; evidence that on occasion
groups of activists were trying to interfere
with teachers in local schools and such.

Q. I think the first evidence that you
mentioned were that bills had been introduced
which prohibited the teaching of evolution in
schools.

A. Interfere with the teaching of
evolution, something to that effect.

Q. Are you aware of any bill which has
been introduced which prohibits the teaching
of evolution?

MS. STURM: For the record, I think what
Dr. Ayala said was interfere with the teaching
of evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I didn't
understand him.

Q. To your knowledge, have there been
any bills passed -- or introduced, excuse me --
which would prohibit the teaching of evolution

147

in schools?

A. In the United States?

Q. Yes.

A. Anytime?

Q. Well, recently -- in, say, the last
five years -- which would give rise to your
concern over the current anti-evolutionary
movement?

A. That would prohibit the teaching of
evolution?

Q. Yes.

A. Not directly.

Q. Why did you feel there was a need
for a committee to combat what you perceived
as an anti-evolutionary movement?

A. Because scientists like to go about
their business of doing research and teaching,
and find it difficult to allocate time to
courses that may be meritorious socially, or
educationally at large, or politically; and
they are unlikely to get involved unless they
are somehow encouraged to do so, like with the
appointment of a committee.

Q. How did you select the members of
the committee?

MS. STURM: Perhaps you could divide the

148

question up. It's not been established that
Dr. Ayala did select the members of the
committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll be glad to.

Q. I think -- doesn't your letter
reflect that you are requesting Professor Bush,
in this instance, to serve on a committee?

A. Yes.

Q. On the Education Committee of the
Society for the Study of Evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to this time, had the society
had an education committee?

A. I believe so, some years earlier.

Q. But this was the first time in
several years that such a committee had an
institution within the organization; is that
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you select these individuals to
serve on the committee?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you select them?

A. I looked for scientists who would be
knowledgeable.

Q. In what?

149

A. In biology, in general, and the
relevant issues of science, and who would be
articulate and that might be likely to want to
serve.

Q. Did you make any effort to have any
adherence of Creation Science on this
committee at all?

A. Do you mean a member?

Q. Yes.

A. No. I don't know of any member of
the Society for the Study of Evolution that
adheres to Creation Science, although they may
exist.

Q. You further state in Exhibit 2, on
page two, that one of the charges given to the
committee is to -- "...is collect, evaluate,
and make available to the members of the
society documents and other information
distributed and used by the so-called
creationists in their efforts to thwart the
teaching of evolution in public schools."

A. Yes. I take it the question is
whether this is part of my --

Q. This is part of the letter, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what instances you

150

are aware of where they have sought to thwart
the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A. Yes. By way of example, the bills
introduced in various legislatures; attempts
in California, for example, by some groups to
have the framework of education either
formulated and changed so as to forbid the
teaching of evolution or -- and others like it.

Q. Further, in your letter, next to the
last paragraph on page two, you state
"Perhaps we have been too apathetic and have
ignored the political realities of the world
we live in."

Do you see this issue of Creation Science
and Evolution Science as being a political
battle?

A. Very much so.

Q. Do you know personally each of the
members of the committee that you asked to
serve?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know before you appointed
each of them that they would be considered
evolutionists?

A. Yes.

Q. What work has the committee done

151

subsequent to your December 29, 1980 letter?
Could you describe it for me in detail?

And if you would like to refer to any
letters, if that would assist you --

A. Relatively little. And I'm sure
it's all in the record of my correspondence.

To the best of my recollection, a couple
of communications from the chairman urging
members to contribute ideas of materials, and
a few letters from members contributing either
ideas or some materials.

Q. And who is chairman of the committee?

A. Professor John A. Moore, Department
of Biology, University of California,
Riverside.

Q. Did you participate in a conference
on Science Education and Biblical
Fundamentalism sponsored by the National
Association of Biology Teachers?

A. No.

Q. Have you played any role with the
National Association of Biology Teachers
becoming a party plaintiff in this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any discussions with
any officers of National Association of

152

Biology Teachers --

A. I'm not quite clear who the officers
are. I believe I have sometime sent a copy of
my correspondence to one member of that.

Q. Who would that be?

A. I believe William Mayer is a member
of that, an officer of...

Yes.

Q. I'd like to show you what I'd like
to have marked as an Exhibit 3, please.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 3)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Directing your
attention to Exhibit No. 3, which appears to
be a press release on the letterhead of the
National Association of Biology Teachers,
would you agree that this came from your
correspondence file?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. You believe so, fine.

Do you know how you received a copy of
this?

153

A. Yes. In the mails, I'm sure.

Q. Have you had any contact with the
National Association of Biology Teachers about
this conference?

A. No.

Q. On page -- well, the pages aren't
numbered -- on the third page, the last
paragraph states that:

"Creationism is the belief that the
world living things were supernaturally
created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago,
that nearly all life was destroyed in a
later worldwide flood which laid down all
fossil beds and sedimentary, rocks that
animal and plant 'kinds' were separately
created, and that humans were especially
created and shared evolutionary history
with other animals. People who believe
that the Bible is literally true want to
see creationism taught in pulic schools
whenever evolution is taught."

Q. Is that first sentence, in your
mind, a fair summary of Creation Science, as
you understand it?

A. Well, the statement does not say
this is the belief of Creation Science but

154

creationism.

Q. All right. Is that a fair statement
of creationism or Creation Science, either or
both?

A. I think of some form of creationism,
yes.

Q. Do you differentiate between
creationism and Creation Science?

A. Probably Creation Science, too, some
forms of it, I think that is a a fair
statement.

Q. And is your opposition to the
introduction of Creation Science in the public
schools based upon an understanding that this
is what creation scientists would like to have
introduced into the public school?

A. No.

MS. STURM: Are you limiting the witness
to this understanding --

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just trying to
inquire as to whether this statement from the
National Association of Biology Teachers is a
statement of what he considers Creation
Science to be.

A. One form of it.

Q. So, other than receipt of this

155

correspondence, you have no knowledge of this
conference or of any position taken by the
National Association of Biology Teachers?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. And you appointed, I think you said,
the members of the education committee of the
Society for the Study of Evolution, but you
are also a member of that committee, are you
not?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you had any meetings of that
committee?

A. No.

Q. Are any meetings planned?

A. In the specific or precise manner,
not to my knowledge.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's have this marked as
Ayala Exhibit 4.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 4)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, can you
identify, first of all, Exhibit 4?

156

A. It's a document that is entitled
"Countering the Creationists," and it says
"For discussion at the meeting of the ad hoc
Committee on Creationism National Academy of
Sciences, October 19th, 1981."

Q. Did you attend a meeting on that
date on this subject?

A. No.

Q. How did you come to have a copy of
this?

A. Came in the mail. I am not -- I
cannot tell precisely.

Q. You did not solicit a copy of this?

A. No.

Q. Have you read this document --

A. Yes. At least cursorarily at some
point.

Q. Can you state whether you agree with
the content of this document?

A. I'll have to read it again.

Q. All right. That's all right.

Let me direct your attention in the
second paragraph to one statement that, quote,
"The climate of the times suggests that the
problem will be with us for a very long time,"
close quote.

157

Do you agree with that statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Directing your attention to page six,
it states that "Something like the National
consortium will be needed to," and then it
lists several items, including, quote, "Monitor
the individual performances, select the more
promising models and approaches, and make
these available to teacher at large.

Do you know what's meant by "Monitoring
the individual performances"?

MS. STURM: Just let me object, because
the witness has stated that he doesn't know
how the document was formulated, and he is
only giving his opinion about his
interpretation of that language. But --

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

A. May I read it to myself?

Q. Certainly.

A. (Reviews document)

I cannot figure it out, what is meant.

Q. Okay. Well, I won't ask
you to try to divine what John Moore had in
mind when he said that, then.

Have you heard of an incident, in trying
to monitor what you view as the anti-evolution

158

PAGE IS MISSING

159

PAGE IS MISSING

160

obligation of those who would be responsible
to look at the qualifications of that teacher
to teach the subject of biology.

I believe that that a degree by itself
does not establish a person as knowledgeable.

Q. If the appropriate authorities
looked at their qualifications or the manner
in which they were teaching -- and by
"appropriate authorities" I am referring to,
for example, a local school board who would
have authority over a public school -- and
determine that they should not be teaching it,
and prohibit them from doing so, would that,
in your opinion, be an abridgement of that
teacher's academic freedom?

I'm talking about in a non-legal sense.

MS. STURM: Okay.

A. If they were done on the basis, that
the person did not have appropriate knowledge
of the field, I would think that would be no
abridgement.

If they were done on any other basis I
think there would be an abridgement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In your own mind, do
you have some standard by which you could
measure a teacher's knowledge as to whether

161

PAGE IS MISSING

162

Creation Science, would you think that would
be appropriate or inappropriate as a principal
of academic freedom?

A. Let me make my statement repeating
the question, to make sure I understand it.

If it were established that this person
had good knowledge and understanding of the
relevant fields of biology, and this person
still would want to -- would think that could
reflect -- let me strike that.

Read me the first part, and I'll continue.

(Record read)

If it were established that this person
had appropriate knowledge of the relevant
fields of biology, and this person would be
teaching according to such knowledge, I think
this person should be tolerated to teach,
should be allowed.

Q. Is it true that two scientists can
look at the same data and come up with
different conclusions?

A. To some sets of data, yes. To all,
I think that is not possible.

Q. But there is a degree of
interpretation and subjectivity in
interpreting scientific data, is it there?

163

MS. STURM: Objection. There are two
questions. There is interpretation and
subjectivity.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

A. In some sets of data, yes, and some
degree of subjectivity, yes.

Q. Would you agree that in studying
generally biology and the data that there is
some degree of interpretation involved?

A. In some cases, in some areas, in
some data, yes; in others not.

Q. All right. Do you have a well-
defined line that you could articulate?

A. I could only articulate by reference
to specific cases.

Q. Could you give me one example where
you think there is subjectivity --

A. There is subjectivity?

Q. -- in interpreting the data?

A. You said there is a degree of
interpretation -- I'm sorry, this is not for
the record. I want to clarify that you are
shifting the term --

MS. STURM: It would be helpful if
counsel would continue to use one term and
give the witness an opportunity to answer as

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two - Page 2

164

to either subjectivity or interpretation.

I think they're two different concepts --

A. I'm willing to answer either way,
but it would make it easier --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you give me an
example ofan instance where there is
subjectivity in drawing conclusions from data
in the field of biology?

MS. STURM: I'm having trouble
understanding what you mean.

Could you be more specific in terms of
what you mean by "subjectivity"?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, Dr. Ayala, do
you have a present sense of what the word
"subjectivity" means to you?

A. Well, perhaps, in face of the same
evidence, different people could have
different interpretations, not based on
objective fact, I presume.

Q. I think that's an excellent
definition. With that definition in mind ...

A. Okay. I hope the Attorney General
will understand the fact that it is not easy
for me to find such an example. I am trying
hard. So, I want to be allowed a few more
moments.

165

Yes. For example, the extent to which
animal groups may be judged to be organized as
societies.

Q. As society?

A. Societies. Very fuzzy boundary line
there as to what is a society.

Q. To a layman, could you explain to me
what you mean by the term "societies"?

A. For example, a beehive is clearly a
socially-organized group of bees. On the
other hand, a pair of doves, who remain as a
pair for all their lives and breed the young
ones, is not clear that it's properly a
society.

Q. Let me divulge my lack of knowledge
here and ask you a question about dividing
animals into species. Is that an exact
science?

A. Normally, the exact science is only
mathematics, and by the definition I
understand of what exact science is.

Q. Well, is there any degree of
subjectivity in dividing animals into species?

A. Oh, in a few cases, yes; in the
majority of cases not.

Q. Do you have an example where that

166

occurs?

A. Surely. There are populations at
different degrees of divergence. At which
point science calls them different species,
it's somewhat arbitrary. It's clear that
before a certain time, in the existence, they
are not different species; it is clear after a
certain time they are different species; and
the period in between there is often
subjectivity.

Q. Is it a necessary criteria of
different species that the two species cannot
breed?

A. Will you rephrase -- or repeat the
question.

Q. Is it a necessary criteria when you
are formulating the dividing line between
species, that the species cannot interbreed?

A. Yes, in sexually reproducing
organisms, species are identified by the fact
that they can not interbreed.

Q. Did you attend in August of this
year a meeting in Iowa City of the Education
Committee of the Society for the Study of
Evolution?

A. In August what?

167

Q. Of 1981.

A. What day of August?

Q. I don't know.

A. Okay.

Q. I assume that a trip to Iowa City
would be memorable.

A. I have been in Iowa City this summer.
but I don't think in August.

Q. Perhaps in July?

A. Yes.

Q. Sometime before August 30?

A. Yes, I attended a meeting there of
the Society for the Study of Evolution.

Q. Right.

A. That was not your question.

Q. My question was a meeting of the
education committee of the Society for the
Study of Evolution?

A. I don't think there was a meeting, a
formal meeting, of such committee.

Q. Okay. But there was a meeting of
the society itself?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that meeting, did you make
some comments concerning Creation Science to
the effect that the society must not get into

168

any, quote, "evolution versus religion," close
quote, stances?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain to me what you
mean by that?

A. Well, that very much refers to what
I said earlier; that is, first, there is no
opposition between evolution and religion, and,
second -- and this I did not say earlier, that
it's only a political ploy to present the
teaching of creationism as opposition of
evolution to the teaching of creationism as
opposition to religion, that is a political
ploy.

May I ask where you are reading or
quoting from?

Q. Sure.

A. I remember the situation, yes.

(Reviews document)

Q. To your knowledge, has any
evolutionary writer or theorist ever
postulated a theory of evolution that includes
the concept of a creator?

A. Yes.

Q. Who would that be?

A. Darwin, among others. But many

169

others.

Q. Are you aware of any who today --

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me the names of ones
that come to mind?

A. By "today" you mean somebody who is --

Q. Modern, relatively modern?

A. Certainly Teilhard de Chardin, who I
referred to previously at the last time;
Bergson. ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

170

Q. When did Teilhard de Chardin
postulate an evolutionary theory which
included a creator?

A. Several of his books were published
starting around 1955, and some down to very
recently. Many of the books very explicitly
refer to the theory of a creator.

Q. Could you give me a summary of how
he viewed a creator within an evolutionary
theory?

A. Yes. To the best of my own
interpretation of his writings, and as can be
stated in a few words, he says that God can
create the world in any way that God chooses,
and that the evidence of science shows that
God has done so through the natural laws that
lead to evolution by having created the
natural laws in evolution.

Q. Would you consider Teilhard de
Chardin to be a competent scientist?

A. In paleontology and other fields of
evolutionary science, yes.

Q. Would you find discussion of his
theories in his writings in this regard in a
public school classroom to be appropriate?

A. Not in science per se, unless they

171

were in passing allusions.

Q. So you would have no objection as
long as it was not dwelled on at length; is
that correct?

A. Yes, because that's not a scientific
subject per se.

Q. You mentioned the fact that Darwin
had postulated a creator in his evolutionary
theory.

A. Stretching a little bit what he says,
as we discussed two days ago.

Q. And you would have no objection to
his writings which discuss a creator being
discussed in a public secondary school science
classroom, would you?

A. I must reformulate the question in
order to agree. I would not have objection to
the writings of Darwin being read or being
taught in public schools, including his
allusions to a creator, so long as it is done
in passing.

Q. And the Bergson, what is his theory
of creation which includes a creator?

A. This will be much more difficult for
me to remember in detail. I have not read
Bergson for many years now. He's primarily a

172

philosopher of evolution.

Q. Do you recall, and I certainly would
not try to hold you to your statement on this,
but do you recall generally what he talked
about in his writings concerning an creator in
evolution?

MS. STURM: You only need answer to
the extent you remember.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

That God was the author of the world and
God made creatures that possessed what he
called elan vital which was a sort of impulse,
a simple-minded definition of his elan vital,
a sort of internal impulse that propelled the
evolutionary process.

Q. Is this sometimes referred to as
vitalism?

A. Bergson would be considered by many
a vitalist, yes.

Q. And would you state again, with
regard to Bergson's writings, that you would
have no objection to their discussion in a
public classroom as long as the creator was
alluded to and was not dwelled on?

THE WITNESS: Well--

MS. STURM: Objection. The language

173

of the witness was it was mentioned or alluded
to in passing.

THE WITNESS: Yes. The writings that
I'm familiar with of Bergson are primarily
philosophical writings, and would not be
appropriate for scientific classes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. With regard to the
other two writings that we mentioned, to make
sure that I understand your position, is it
fair to say that you would not have objection
to their inclusion and discussion in a public
school secondary classroom as long as the
concept of creator therein is not given
substantial emphasis.

MS. STURM: Objection. I think you're
trying to put words in the witness's mouth.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm asking him if that's a
fair assessment. If it's not, please tell me.

THE WITNESS: No. I'll rephrase it.
Again, it would seem to me not inappropriate
if, in discussion of, say, Darwin, in a
classroom to mention that it was -- and in the
Origin of Species he mentioned that there is
grandeur in this view of the world where the
creator does not need to create everything
individually, every living organism

174

individually, but has created laws by which
these organisms themselves evolve.

It seems to me that allusions to
convictions or thoughts that are not strictly
scientific by people who are otherwise good
scientists are appropriate even in a science
classroom.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Are you familiar with
an organization called the Committees of
Correspondence?

A. I am familiar with the Committees of
Correspondence.

Q. Could you describe for me what that
is? Or what they are, I suppose, is more
appropriate.

A. The best description of what I know
of them is grassroots organizations at the
state level, for the purpose of being
concerned with appropriate teaching of biology.

I think it's primarily biology. I am not
quite clear it is only biology.

Q. Is one of their purposes as you
understand it to oppose the teaching of
Creation Science?

A. To oppose the teaching of it as
science, yes.

175

Q. Have you had any involvement with
this group?

A. Will you clarify what you mean by
involvement?

Q. Well, let's start with the broadest
sense. Have you ever discussed this before
with anyone?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you discussed it with some of
the individuals who are associated with the
Committees of Correspondence?

A. Yes.

Q. Who have you discussed it with, the
members?

A. Well, at least with Dr. Stanley
Weinberg, who is one of the liasons of
Committees of Correspondence.

Q. Are you familiar with the biology
text that Dr. Weinberg has authored?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that in a biology text
written by him one page is devoted to two
columns, one of which says, "Creationists" and
the other of which says "Evolutionists," and
gives the contrasting views of the two groups?

A. I have already stated that I am not

176

familiar with the book.

Q. Is Dr. Weinberg the head of the?
committees of Correspondence A. I don't
think that he's the head of Committees of
Correspondence.

Q. What role does he play with the
group?

A. To my understanding, he's the
liaison for the State of Iowa.

Q. Did you earler state that he
organized the committees, to your knowledge?

A. I don't know that he organized them.

Q. Do you know what the IAS Panel on
Controversial Issues is? If I might speculate,
perhaps it means the Iowa Academy of Science.
I don't know.

A. I am guessing that you are quite
right. Your guess is as good as mine.

Q. Have you served as a liaison or in
any capacity to the Committees of
Correspondence?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, are the
Committees of Correspondence -- let me
rephrase that. To your knowledge, do the
liasons and the participants of the Committees

177

of Correspondence try to keep their existence
a secret?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you written a letter to someone
in California asking them to serve on the
Committees of Correspondence, to your
knowledge?

A. If I understand your question
correctly, the answer would be no. Asking
them to serve? I --

Q. That's fine.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 5)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I have shown you
Exhibit 5, which is a letter addressed to you
from Stanley Weinberg dated November 9, 1981,
in which he states to you that he is glad that
you are agreeable for assuming a role in the
leadership team of the embryonic California CC,
or Committees of Correspondence.

Could you tell me what the occasion was
that you received this letter and what role
you took?

178

A. I think the correspondence in the
hands of the attorney general will allow you
to follow the case with more precision than my
memory, but I am willing to quote from memory
if that is what is wanted.

I think that documentation is available.
Do you want me to recall?

Q. I am not trying to in any way trick
you, I can assure you. I have been given lots
of documents today, and I have not had a
chance to go through all of them myself. If
there are other documents that you are aware
of --

A. The full relevant correspondence
should be there.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 6)

THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall all this
correspondence quite well, and I think that is
what it is referring to, the previous letter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So after reviewing
Ayala Defendant's Exhibit 5 and 6, do you
recall, first of all, taking a role in the

179

leadership team of the California Committees
of Correspondence?

A. To the best of my knowledge there is
not a California Committee of Correspondence,
let alone a leadership team.

Q. Could you describe for me what if
anything that you did in regard to the
California Committees of Correspondence?

A. Dr. Stanley Weinberg asked me to
bring to the attention -- rather, to deliver
to Thomas Dukes some materials concerning some
activities of the Correspondence, and Dr.
Stanley Weinberg suggested that Dr. Jukes
might be a good liaison of the committee.

I performed the duty, as stated in my
letter of October 15th, after having failed to
communicate by telephone. There is more to
follow, but I think that is what you were
after.

Q. So at Stanley Weinberg's request you
did contact Thomas Jukes and request that he
serve as the California liaison for the
Committee?

A. I believe I did not request so. I
said "Stanley Weinberg has suggested that you
serve," I believe. Why don't we read it? I

180

hope you will appreciate the difference.

Q. So then you simply sent some
information to Jukes concerning the Committees
of Correspondence. What else, if anything,
have you done in relation to the Committees of
Correspondence, formally or informally?

A. Dr. Tom Jukes suggested that I be
the liaison, at which point I said I couldn't.
I was much too busy, among other reasons. But
I would consider cooperating with a liaison if
a committee were established with a proper
liaison, yes.

Q. Have you taken any further action in
regard to the California Committees of
Correspondence?

A. To the best of my recollection, that
letter of Dr. Weinberg that has been
introduced as Exhibit 5, I believe, is the
last event in this process.

Q. Do you know if the Committees of
Correspondence are currently functioning
within this state, first of all?

A. Within California? I believe they
are not.

Q. Are you aware of whether they are
functioning in any other states?

181

A. Yes, in Iowa. And I understand that
in thirty some other states.

Q. And just to make sure the record is
clear, you've stated that one of the purposes
of the Committees is to oppose the teaching of
Creation Science?

MS. STURM: Objection. I don't think
that that was the witness' statement.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what I'm trying to
determine.

THE WITNESS: I think one of the -- to
my understanding, one of the objectives is to
object to the teaching of any religious
convictions under the guise of science,
including Creationism, in the general meaning
of the word, yes.

Q. I think we're quibbling over
semantics a bit. Creation Science is viewed
by this organization or these individuals as
religion under the guise of science; correct?

A. I suppose. I might want to qualify
still farther.

Q. Have you been involved in any other
groups or any other efforts to oppose the
teaching of Creation Science?

A. I'm always uncomfortable with your

182

mentioning the opposition of the teaching of
Creation Science, because my activities in
this matter, as the record shows, are not
directed to the teaching of Creation Science
but the teaching of Creation or religious
belief as science and interfering with the
teaching of evolution.

So I think it would simplify matters, at
least I would not have to reword the questions,
if you could address them in those terms.

Q. Doctor, my problem is we're dealing
with a lawsuit and an act of the State
Legislature of Arkansas which specifically
talks about Creation Science, and I can
understand, appreciate, that you may have some
difficulty perhaps acknowledging what Creation
Science is, in your mind, given your position
on this issue, but I would like to try to
refer to it, since those will be the terms
which we will be dealing with in trial, and
those are the terms which are defined in the
bill.

MS. STURM: Though you may continue to
clarify your terms and use what terms you feel
most comfortable with in responding to the
question. If it means we take a little longer,

183

so be it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, have you been
involved in any other efforts concerning an --
let me see if I can assist.

Have you been involved in any other
efforts concerning, as you put it, I believe,
the proper role or the proper teaching of
evolution?

A. Yes, other than those that have
already been mentioned earlier today, at least
one, when I was asked by some parents, I think
from the school district of Livermore in the
state of California, to write a letter to the
effect of, you know, what was science in this
context and what was not. I suppose that
would be a simple way of doing it.

I think my letter is also in the record,
then.

If I man continue --

Q. Excuse me. I would like to see if I
can locate that before we move on.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 7)

184

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I show you what's
been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 7.

THE WITNESS: I would like to continue
my answer, to simplify things for the future,
that also I recall on a couple of additional
occasions to have had correspondence where
people have asked me for clarifications in
these matters informally, and not members of
organizations, to the best of my knowledge.

Now we can go back to this document.

Q. Have you finished reading it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the occasion of this
statement?

A. I was at the time at a meeting, I
believe, in Washington, and I was contacted by
telephone by a person, who I presume to be the
person that is here mentioned as Ruth Ann Hunt,
as to whether I would be willing to comment on
these matters and have my views presented to
the Livermore School Board.

And at the time and at that moment off
the top of my head, I stated what is Exhibit 7.

Q. You state in here in Exhibit 7 that
"The origin of the world or of living things
by Creation is not a scientific explanation in

185

that it is not a process that occurs by
natural laws."

Could you explain, elaborate what you
mean by that?

A. If one says that the reason why you
exist the way you are is because God created
you, that way does not tell anything about
natural laws or natural processes.

Q. What if the origin of the world or
living things is explained by natural laws but
is also, I guess, qualified, if you will, by
the statement that the creator might have used
the natural laws to create the world or living
things?

MS. STURM: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I'm asking him.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is fine as far
as it goes. Then what we want to talk about
in science are the natural laws.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, the reason I ask
that question is, reading that sentence that I
just quoted to you, there seems to be an
indication that "Creation" could not have
occurred by natural laws. Is that a fair
reading of that?

A. Definitely not. I would encourage

186

the attorney general to read some of my
publications.

Q. In your opposition to the
introduction of what is called Creation
Science in Act 590 into the public school
classroom, how much of it is based upon the
detriment you see to science and how much of
it is based upon what you see as a detriment
to religion?

I'm reading from Defendant's 7, and there
seems to be an implication there, Doctor, that
you think it will be a detriment to religion;
is that correct?

A. Oh, yes. In this case, like in most,
I am asking to talk as a scientist, and as far
as the, quote-unquote, "interests of science"
are concerned, so that's my primary interest
too.

I have some concerns about the other, too.

Q. Why do you feel that the
introduction of Creation Science into a
science classroom would have an adverse effect
on religion?

A. Among other reasons, for the ones
stated there. People are taught that the
fundamental dogmas of religion are not subject

187

to the possibility of being false, but rather
are absolute truth.

Anything which is introduced in the
science class as science is thereby put into
question, as it were, because it is always
possible that something might not be true.

Q. Is it your understanding of what is
termed Creation Science in Act 590 that it is
based on some absolute truth and therefore
does not have the degree of being tentative
that science requires?

A. Will you repeat the question, please.

Q. Is one of the criteria of what is
science, as you understand it to be that a
scientific theory is always somewhat tentative
and subject to later modification?

A. Yes.

Q. And is part of your reasoning for
your position on Act 590 the fact that you
feel that Creation Science lacks this
tentativeness?

A. I don't see how I can answer that
with a yes or a no, frankly.

Q. Well, do you feel that Creation
Science does lack the tentative element of a
scientific theory?

188

A. I think it lacks many other things
much more important.

Q. I understand you may think there are
other things, but do you consider that to be
one of its shortcomings?

A. As it is presented in the Act and so
far as I can make sense of the presentation
there, I think not. I mean it is presented
that that could be scientific concept.

Q. Is it also presented there as if it
could be subject to disproof?

A. I think it is presented there that
way, yes.

Q. Is the concept of the insufficiency
of mutation, for example, in bringing about
all living kinds from a single organism, is
that subject to disproof?

A. That mutations are insufficient?

Q. Right.

A. You mean that the proof will be
therefore that mutations are sufficient?

Q. I'm quoting from memory, and I think
accurately, as to one portion of the
definition of Creation Science which talks
about the insufficiency of mutation to bring
about all living kinds from a single organism.

189

A. I think anybody who knows anything
about mutations knows that mutations are
insufficient to bring about evolution.

Q. So that is subject to disproof?

A. I'm sorry. The things which are
subject to proof or disproof are theories or
laws or principles, even perhaps statements,
but statements as such are not of great
interest to science.

I am unclear as to what is being asked.
Is it being asked that proving that mutations
are insufficient is possible?

Q. As a matter of theory, in trying to
look at whether something is a scientific
theory.

A. I think that is possible. I don't
know who would want to waste energy into it
because it's so obvious that they are
insufficient, but it is possible, yes.

Q. Looking at Defendant's Exhibit 7,
would you consider that to be a fair summary
of your position on this issue?

A. Of part of my position. I was
responding to some specific questions, yes.

It was also stated, you know, off the top
of my head so is not as precise as I might be

190

if I were writing on the subject. And it's,
of course, not explaining things as much as I
might want, again, in a publication as I have
in other places, but I think it's a fair
statement of my position in the relevant
matters.

Q. Would you anticipate that your
testimony that you'll be giving in this case
will consist in part of some of the statements
or ideas expressed in Defendant's Exhibit 7?

A. I must say I don't know what I will
be asked. I presume that there will be some
relation to the statements in the first part
of it, yes. I presume.

Q. Have you been given any instructions
to your testimony?

A. The attorney general should
appreciate by now that I don't take
instruction easily from anybody.

Q. By the term "instructions," I mean
any sort of suggested areas of testimony that
you will be going into, or requested areas.

A. I think only in the more general
terms, a matter of evolution, theory of
evolution.

Q. You have met with the plaintiff's

191

counsel for at least a day, have you not?

A. For a few hours.

Q. During the conduct of those
conversations, did you become aware of the
areas in which you would be testifying?

A. Only in the most general terms, as I
have stated.

Q. To the extent that it was general I
would still like for you to give me your
current understanding of your testimony in
this case.

A. I believe what is wanted is my
knowledge as to the theory of evolution, my
knowledge as to the relevant facts, my
understanding of what is science and what is
not. And I take that to be the primary
aspects of my expertise that are wanted in
this case.

Maybe the attorney general will have
helped them to realize they can use me in
other ways through these inquiries, as he has
unraveled some other knowledge of mine.

---
---
---
---

192

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In Exhibit 7 you
state that "Science is an intellectual
enterprise that seeks a natural explanations
for natural processes."

Can science ever admit it's own
inadequacies to explain --

A. Oh, yes.

Q. When science admits its own
inadequacies -- well, let me rephrase that.

When by the scientific inquiry, science
cannot explain some aspect, what does science
do? I mean, as a general principle, does it
just --

A. You don't have explanation, you may
have to find it somewhere else, like in
religion or other places.

Q. What if science could tell us that
it is impossible that something happened
according to natural laws?

A. If science were to tell us it's
impossible...

Fine.

MS. STURM: What's the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is, your
previous statement is that, as I recall, that
if science doesn't have the answer to

193

something, it just means that it doesn't have
the answer yet, as I understand it; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then what if, through the
scientific method of inquiry, one is led to
the result -- to a deadend, if you will, that,
as a matter of the natural laws, what we
observe is impossible?

MS. STURM: What's the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I'm asking, where is
science left then?

It's not just that there is no answer,
there's an impossibility there.

A. That something is impossible, or
just that we don't have an explanation for it?

You are asking me what if science will
conclude that something that we know to be a
fact is impossible?

MS. STURM: Is your question would
science conclude that. There seems to be a
number of questions. Would science conclude
that? Is that your question? What would a
scientist do if it were to conclude that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Where would science
be left if that occurred?

194

MS. STURM: I think there are two
questions in that.

First, the question is could science
arrive at that conclusion --

MR. WILLIAMS: We're assuming that. I'm
assuming that. That is an assumption in my
question.

MS. STURM: I'll Just note for the
record that that is an assumption which the
witness has not adopted as his own.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Assuming that
science, in resorting to the scientific method
of inquiry, could be led to the result or
conclusion that something which has been
observed could not or cannot be explained
according to natural law.

A. The question is, I presume, what
scientists will do, or science?

Q. What will scientists do?

A. They will conclude either the
observation is somehow mistaken; or, if that
would not be questionable, they would conclude
that, according to the natural laws as we now
know them, that could not be explained, it's
not accountable for.

Q. If something could have occurred by

195

chance, and the probabilities of this
occurring were one in ten to the power of 40
thousand, as a matter of probabilities, would
you say that that is -- well, my question is:
Would that be something akin to being
impossible?

A. If something was truly the
probability of ten to the minus 40,000th power,
which I think is what you said, one divided by
ten to the 40,000th --

Q. I was actually saying -- well, maybe
so. One in ten to the power of 40,000.

A. Okay.

Q. One in ten with 40,000 zeros after
it, as I understand it.

A. Okay. (Draws diagram)

Is that what you mean? One divided by
ten to the 40,000 power, this one tenth --

I presume that's what you mean. I'm not
trying to trap you.

Q. The way I have seen it formulated,
Dr. Ayala, is just one in ten and then with a
40,000 --

A. That would be this.

Q. I think it would be the same.

A. When you say it verbally it's

196

ambiguous. That way is fine.

If the calculation were correct,
something which has that probability, I would
take it to be in fact impossible.

Q. Did you assist the California
Attorney General's office in the preparation
of the so-called Seagraves case?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your involvement in that
case?

A. The Deputy Attorney General
consulted with me by telephone and at least
once was in my office. And he asked me
whether I would be willing to be an expert
witness.

Q. Did you testify in that case?

A. No.

Q. Did you give a deposition in that
case?

A. No.

Q. Approximately how many hours did you
spend assisting the Deputy Attorney General on
that case?

A. Ten. Very rough guess.

Q. Did I understand that your
involvement was requested by the Attorney

197

General's office here in California?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Dr. Ayala, have any of the other
organizations or professional societies of
which you are a member adopted a position
formally or informally on Creation Science as
it's defined in Act 590?

A. As it is defined, not. The American
Society of Naturalists, I think, decided also
in 1980 to establish a committee, in effect,
somewhat similar to those of the committee in
the Society for the Study of Evoluton.

Q. Have you participated in that
committee?

A. No.

Q. According to your curriculum vitae,
you have served on several professional
journals, including, for example, "Evolution."

And you served as an associate editor for
two years there. That is a refereed journal;
is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in your capacity as an editor,
did you personally review articles submitted
for publication?

A. Yes.

198

Q. To your knowledge, were any articles
ever submitted on the issue or subject of
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. For your tenure as associate editor
of "Paleobiology," were any of the articles
submitted to you for review concerning
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. In your services on the editorial
board of "Biosciences Communications," have
any articles been submitted for your review of
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. Would the same be true for the
editorial board of the "Brazilian Journal of
Genetics"?

A. That's correct.

Q. For the "Journal of Molecular
Evolution"?

A. That's correct.

Q. And as the associate editor of
"BioScience"?

A. That's correct.

Q. Have you had other articles
submitted to you from other journals for

199

review and comment?

A. Concerning the subject matter of --

Q. Apart from this subject matter. Any
subject?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Have any of these articles concerned
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, have any of the
publications that you have listed on your
curriculum vitae as having served on ever
published an article on Creation Science?

MS. STURM: I know for the record that
none have been submitted, so ...

MR. WILLIAMS: To any of these journals,
I'm sorry.

MS. STURM: That's what the witness's
testimony has just reflected.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. As I understand his
earlier testimony, he has personally never
reviewed any.

MR. STURM: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Which were submitted for
publication. My question is now a larger
question.

Q. To your knowledge, has any article

200

ever been published in any of these journals
on Creation Science?

A. The precise answer would be no, to
my knowledge. I have some vague recollection
that, in both "Evolution" and "BioScience," at
some point. some years back, some article was
published to that effect. But it is very
vague, so ...

Q. To you r knowledge, have any articles
on Creation Science been submitted for
publication in these journals?

A. No. I mean, within recent times,
I'm assuming. No.

Q. Some of the other journals which you
have reviewed articles for, do you know
whether any articles on Creation Science were
submitted to them for publication?

A. You would have to try to build up my
memory about each journal, which I think would
amount to quite a few.

Q. I don't know what journals you have
reviewed articles for, so --

A. Well, let me, off the top of my head,
say that -- and to show that I'm in good faith --
that the answer would be no, but I would want
to try to recall also some journals for which

201

I have reviewed at one time or another
articles -- which I had a vast number -- and
it might take me some time to recall.

Q. Well, if your answer would be no,
then there's no need to recall the journals.
I will certainly accept your recollection on
that point.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, your answer is to my question
as to whether you had personally reviewed any.

Do you know --

A. To that, it is a definite no.

Q. And do you know, or would you have
the means of knowing, of your own personal
knowledge whether any articles on Creation
Science had ever been submitted for
publication to these other journals which you
have served?

A. That's when I would say no, probably
not; but I would like to -- I mean, I could
say no, but I could -- it would be more
precise to say probably no, until I could help
my memory by going through trying to recall
what journals I have reviewed. Because I
review not only for scientific journals but
for philosophical journals and all sorts of

202

journals from time to time, because of my very
diverse expertise.

For example, I would have to make an
effort in recalling whether I have in my
review of articles for journals of theology,
and I might have. Or philosophy, where such
might have been submitted.

Q. All right. Let me ask one final
question, I think, on this area.

Would you be in a position, Dr. Ayala, to
be informed as to all of the articles which
are -- the subject matter of all of the
articles which are submitted for publication
to all of these journals which you have served?

A. No.

Q. So, there might have been articles
submitted on Creation Science that you would
not be aware of?

A. Yes.

Q. In your training in theology, did
you study creation as a religious doctrine?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall how many courses you
might have taken which may have considered the
subject of creation?

A. It will be in at least two kinds of

203

courses: one, courses in dogmatic theology,
where the main tenants or the main beliefs of
Christianity were being discussed; and, second,
in the courses in biblical exegesis,
explanation of text.

Q. Do you have a rough idea of how many
courses you might have taken which would cover
creation in both of those areas?

A. Well, I don't think there was any
single course dealing with creation; I think
several courses probably every year. At least
one may have discussed at some point or
another creation, yes.

Q. Would it be fair to say that in your
religious and theological studies you have
studied creation in some detail?

A. Surely.

Q. And, I suppose, in your tenure or
service as a priest, you would have been
acquainted with the concept of creation as a
doctrine of your religion, would you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to the first time you heard
the term "Creation Science" and you became
aware of the general controversy over Creation
Science, had you ever thought of creation in a

204

way which was non-religious?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm not trying --

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When had you thought that --
can you recall now -- of creation in a
non-religious way?

A. Many times.

Q. For example?

A. In terms of artistic creation. I am
very interested in art.

Q. When you see something like that, a
work of art, do you think about that as being
an effort of creation?

A. By some definition of creation, yes.

Q. And in that work of art, or that
creation, the artist has taken some matter and
put it in some form, has he or she not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is one definition for
creation?

A. Yes.

Q. Apart from that definition of
creation, have you, as it relates to the
origin of the world and of man, ever thought
of creation as a non-religious doctrine?

205

A. It would be difficult for me to be
clear as to what is being asked.

Q. Okay.

A. Can you rephrase it?

Q. Let me see if I can rephrase it.

My question is, apart from this artistic
creation that you spoke of, when you have in
the past thought about the concept of creation
as it related to the origin of man, the origin
of the earth and the universe and origins
generally, have you ever considered creation
in other than a religious context, in your own
mind?

MS. STURM: I think there is a lot in
your question. You've said creation generally,
creation of the universe, creation of mankind --

MR. WILLIAMS: Creation as it refers to
origin, is what I'm really speaking of. If
the question is unclear, I'll --

MS. STURM: And your question is whether
the witness has ever thought about creation in
non-religious terms?

MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.

A. Neither religious nor artistic, I
take it, that is what you are asking?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Right. We have

206

excluded artistic and the concept of religious
creation.

A. I would say yes, I have thought
about that, yes.

Q. Can you give me an example of how
you would have thought about it --

A. For example, with respect to the
origin of the universe, I have tried to give --
to explore as much as possible the problem of
how the universe may have come about -- that
is, the very beginning -- yes; so I have given
it thought.

Q. Do you label that a creation?

A. Well, I have given thought to the
possibility that the universe may have come
from nothing but an act of creation, yes.

Q. And you have given thought to that
in a non-religious way?

A. Yes. Trying to find out natural
explanations, yes.

Q. Could you enlarge upon what your
thoughts have been in that regard?

A. Very unsuccessful.

Q. But you have thought about the idea,
then, of a creation of the universe in a
non-religious way, but with the concept of a

207

creator in there somewhere?

I'm not trying to place words in your
mouth, I'm trying to understand, Dr. Ayala.

A. We have not mentioned the creator,
because then you change the rules of the game.

Q. All right.

A. You have asked me what I have
thought about the possibility of -- I mean, we
were specifically speaking about the origin of
the universe from nothing --

Q. Yes.

A. And I say, you know, as a
possibility, as a non-religious possibility,
that this is an event that might have been
explained by natural laws, and I have been
very unsuccessful in trying to find answers.

Q. Did you think of any mechanism that
might have been used?

A. Yes.

Q. What mechanism, non-religious
mechanism, did you think about?

A. Spontaneous generation, the eternity
for perpetual existence of matter, you know,
since infinity. I find both equally
unsatisfactory.

Q. Is that part of that steady state

208

theory?

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Ayala, if someone could talk
with you, and someone who you considered to be
a competent, well-qualified scientist, and I
would like for you to assume for a moment --
and I know this is a big assumption on your
part -- to assume that they presented to you
scientific evidence for creation; could you --

MS. STURM: I'll have to ask that you
clarify the question.

I have the sense that your notion of
creation and the type of creation that Dr.
Ayala has been discussing for the last 15
minutes may not be the same. I want to be
sure that we're talking in the same terms.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, do you
have difficulty in understanding the question?

A. In this case, yes. I think you
meant with respect to the origin of the
universe itself -- that is, the origin of
matter from nothing -- and I would prefer if
you, for the moment, restrict it to that,
because we're simply --

Q. Fine. If someone had presented to
you scientific evidence for the creation of

209

the universe from nothing, could you accept
that as a scientist?

A. As a science or scientist?

Q. A scientist.

A. I could accept as a scientist. I
will always accept the --

Q. Could you as a scientist accept that
evidence?

A. I think any evidence which is
relevant to any scientific issue, I am ready
to accept, yes.

I hope you appreciate the fact that for
me there is a contradiction in terms in
talking about scientific evidence and creation.

Q. I understand that. I know I'm
asking you to do a lot of bending of your own
personal scientific beliefs.

A. Yes. Ultimately, I'm open minded.

Q. Let me pursue this for a moment
further.

If someone who wa a well-qualified,
competent scientist presented to your
satisfaction scientific evidence for an age of
the earth which was approximately, let's say,
10,000 years old, would you as a scientist
have any problem accepting that?

210

A. I will accept the evidence and weigh
it, all the evidence. I could accept it very,
definitely.

Q. If the same scientist could come to
you and give you evidence, scientific evidence,
for the existence of a creator, a supernatural
force, if you will, could you accept that?

A. In this case I cannot conceive of it
as a matter of principle, because scientific
evidence and supernatural are absolutely as
contradictory as white and not white.
Supernatural, by definition, is non-natural.
Science concerns only natural.

To me, you are asking a contradiction
that has no answer.

Q. Right. So, I think the answer to my
question is you could not accept that.

MS. STURM: I don't think that's what
the witness --

A. You're asking an impossibility.
Could you accept if white were presented as
not white? Could you accept that?

I mean --

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is,
though -- please remember, my question assumes
that someone has scientific evidence that you

211

would accept for the existence of a creator.

A. I'm sorry?

Q. A supernatural force.

MS. STURM: I'm objecting to the
question, and the witness has stated that it's
impossible for him to answer the question with
a yes or no because the question is
contradictory in its own terms; so I think
it's just a question that a yes or no answer
will not be possible for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What you are, in
essence, saying, are you not, Dr. Ayala, is
that you could not -- you cannot conceive of
scientific evidence for a creator?

A. I'm sorry, unless you qualify what
you mean by "creator," I would not agree with
that statement. I don't think that's
equivalent to what was being said before.

Q. Okay. A creator as would be
conceived with supernatural powers?

A. Will you be able to accept something
as being natural and not natural at the same
time? Are you willing to accept that?

That's what you're asking me.

How can anybody accept that. It's a
contradiction in terms.

212

Q. Well --

A. Unless you reword the question
differently, you know ...

MS. STURM: I think that the views of
Dr. Ayala on this point are fairly clear.

I have the sense that, perhaps, you'd
like to get him to say it in different
language, but unless there is some additional
point that you would like to get in this area,
I think it would probably be beneficial to
move on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What is supernatural?
Is that a static measure, or could that be
subject to change?

A. I suppose either. It can be -- a
supernatural concept or supernatural
phenomenon may be conceived of either as
static or changing.

Q. Well, if you were to define
supernatural as being above and beyond the
laws of nature as we know them --

A. I could not -- I would not define
supernatural in that way. That, maybe, is
part of our problem.

Q. Well, if it were -- if it were --

A. Supernatural, for me, is something

213

which is outside nature, period. Not as we
know it, but it is not part of nature. I
think you understand now the problem.

Q. Yes.

MS. STURM: I'm going to object to the
line of questioning. I have the sense that
the questions are attempting to get the
witness to speak in terms that he obviously
does not agree with and thinks that, in and of
themselves, are inconsistent.

I don't see that it is fruitful, and I
think it is somewhat misleading.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, I think my
question is -- they may not be fruitful;
that's for later determination. But I'm
really trying to understand something here
that I don't have an understanding on, and I
don't want to belabor the point, and I will
move on just as quickly as possible.

Q. When you say that it's nature -
something outside of nature -- but is it not
true that we simply -- we have not fully
fathomed, if you will, nature?

A. That's correct, certainly. So,
there are --

Q. So, there may be things outside of

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two - Page 3

214

nature?

A. There is nature and not nature;
there are things about nature that we know and
things about nature that we don't know.

Q. Now, this is -- maybe our problem is
in terms of the use of the term "supernatural."

Now, when we talk about something outside
nature, what is outside nature today may be
inside nature tomorrow, as we understand it --

A. Well, what things for which we don't
have a natural explanation today, we may have
a natural explanation for tomorrow, yes.

Q. You stated the other day that your
definition of evolution was organisms changing
through generations, and the multiplication of
species.

Has there been any direct observation or
demonstration of the formation of a new
species is either the laboratory or in the
field?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me an example?

A. The production of species known as
Raphanobrassica through hybridization and
chromosome duplication of to use common terms,
cabbage and radish.

215

Q. You're talking there about a new
species of plant?

A. Yes.

Q. Outside the plant world, are you
aware of any direct observation or
demonstration of the formation of a new
species?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you give me an example?

A. Evidence of formation of new species?

Q. A direct observation or
demonstration.

A. What do you mean by "direct
observation or demonstration"?

Q. Well, I'm talking about the direct
observation or demonstration of the formation
of a new species in the lab or in the field.

MS. STURM: Could you define the term
"direct observation."

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Where there has been
a new species formed.

A. And we have evidence that the new
evidence was formed?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. That there's a
distinct new species --

A. Formed?

216

Q. Yes.

A. Within the -- I mean -- yes, I would
say yes.

Q. Could you give me an example?

A. I'm not sure about the spelling.
Psilopsa petrolei, I believe, is the spelling
(indicating). This is a species of fly that
lives in oil wells, and only in oil wells.

Q. And what experiments -- or, perhaps
not; maybe it was in the field; maybe there
was no experiment.

Where did this new species arise and how
did it arise?

A. I'm not familiar with the details of
this case as to the question you're asking now.

Q. You said something petrolei. I've
heard also something -- have there been some
studies purported to create new species on
fruit flies?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that --

A. No, that's not a fruit fly. That's
an example.

Q. Who conducted these studies that you
are speaking of now?

A. I'll have to review the literature.

217

Q. Are there other studies that you can
think of where a new species has been created?

A. Animal species?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. So-called fruit flies, because
they are not fruit flies. Drosophila.

Q. That is one of your areas of study,
is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you in any of your studies
created a new species?

A. No, but I am trying.

Q. Is one of the people who had created,
Thoday?

Is that a study?

A. I would not consider his studies to
have led to the production of a new species.
He has done something along those lines.

If that is called production of a new
species, I have done it, too.

Q. Could you tell me who has, then?
Which researcher has done this?

A. Some will be -- for example,
Drosophila is a name which is purely
artificially produced in the laboratory by
manipulation of the chromosomes.

218

Q. Who conducted these experiments?

A. This was done in, I believe, in
Morgan's Laboratory in the '30s. I, again, do
not remember the names, but I could find them
out. Contrary to what may appear to be the
case, this scientifically is a trivial matter.
I will remember very well the names of people
who have done important things. That for us
is not important.

Q. Okay.

Have Morgan's studies successfully --

A. In his laboratory.

Q. In his laboratory, whoever did it,
have those studies ever been replicated?

A. Oh, yes. In fact, in recent years,
to quote one recent repetition, this has been
done, something very similar -- not exactly
the same thing but -- which makes it all the
more interesting.

Q. Has the change in species been found
to be a stable change? They remain a
different species?

A. In these cases, yes.

Q. Have there been other cases where
they kind of reverted back?

A. Off the record.

219

(Discussion off the record)

A. In other cases, a new species
reversing back, and that, presumably, in the
laboratory or under direct observation?

Q. Right.

A. I cannot think of such case.

Q. Okay. Other than what are commonly
called fruit flies, more correctly called --

A. Drosophila. Fruit files will do,
except it doesn't do in California now, as you
know. We don't want them confused with the
Medfly, which is a true fruit fly.

Q. Well, Drosophila sounds so much more
elegant than fruit fly.

A. Yes. Know what Drosophila means?

Q. No.

A. The lover of the dew.

Q. Has there been any other creation of
new species in other animals or --

A. Okay. Let me make sure that we
maintain the boundaries of the question as
being the same as before: naming cases where
direct observations, where one sort of can
identify a new organism, and this having
happened within a very short period of time?

Q. Found a new species.

220

A. Yes. Do you want to exclude all
plants, also? Because there are many cases of
plants?

Q. Right, exclude the plants.

A. All right. And you want to exclude
this other fly, which is not a Drosophila,
also?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. Well, I cannot think of it
now. It's possible. I would like to point
out that I would not be surprised if there are
such cases; so if I could find them myself
after longer recollection -- these facts or
knowledge are not quite on my fingertips
because, from my point of view, these
questions are scientifically trivial.

Q. Why is this question scientifically
trivial to you?

A. Because science relies in only
trivial ways on direct observation, all
science. Are you an observer of gravity? Are
you an observer of my heart?

Q. How long have you been attempting to
try to create a new species?

A. Well, my object is not -- my direct
object is not to create a new species, but,

221

rather, to understand one of the mechanisms by
which new species come about; namely, the
development of sexual isolation. And I'm
interested in understanding the genetic basis
of this mechanism; so I'm trying to produce in
the laboratory as much sexual isolation as I
can, and I would hope eventually complete, so
that I can afterwards do proper genetic
analysis, because I will have control of the
variables. My interest is in the genetic
analysis of the process.

This experiment has been going on, I
would say, roughly eight years.

Q. And in eight years no new species
have been developed or observed by you?

A. In this eight years considerable
advance has taken place in the development of
reproductive isolation, which is what I'm
concerned with.

Q. What is the development of
reproductive isolation.

A. The reproductive isolation simply
says they cannot interbreed and, of course,
this matter which is achieved --

Q. You mean a species cannot interbreed?

A. Well, species do not interbreed.

222

Organisms of different species do not
interbreed, okay?

Q. Okay. I'm not sure if I follow
completely. Are you talking about two flies
of the same species, but somehow different,
who cannot interbreed?

A. I'm sorry. By now I'm totally
confused about what you are asking.

Q. I apologize for my lack of knowledge.

A. That's all right. It's fair enough.
Maybe we should start a little farther back,
and go -- are you interested in my experiments,
and --

Q. I'm interested to get a general
knowledge of your experiments, yes, I am.

A. Species -- organisms, or groups of
organisms, to be more precise, are considered
different species if they could not interbreed
with each other.

Now, the reasons -- biological mechanisms
that keep them from interbreeding are called
reproductive isolating mechanisms. We call
them RIMs for short.

One of those mechanisms -- and one that
plays an important role in animals -- is
sexual isolation; that is, when individuals of

223

different sexes attract each other and are
able to mate successfully, they are of the
same group. But not if they are in different
groups. Ant that is sufficient in some cases,
in many cases, to keep species as such. So,
I'm interested in understanding how this
process evolves.

So, I started with populations, groups of
organisms, that I label in some ways, I was
able to identify in some ways -- which are not
relevant, but I'll volunteer if you wish --
and I now started to experiment to see whether
I can gradually find -- see reproductive
isolation developing. That is, the experiment
starts with individuals of these two groups
meeting at random. At the beginning, males of
Group A are as likely to mate with females of
Group A as with females of Group B, and so on
for all the other possible combinations.

The experiment is designed to facilitate
the development of preferential meeting; that
is, that males of Type A will choose on their
own females of type A, and males of Type B
will choose preferentially females of Type B
and not across.

If at the end they -- I mean, if one were

224

to bring the experiment to a point where the
preference was absolute, then we would have
two species by definition.

So, the experiment, however, is concerned
with understanding the genetic basis of the
process. The process has made substantial
progress in some lineages. It is nowhere near
complete in most lineages. It's fairly
advanced in one of the experiments, you know.

Let me end on that for now.

Q. Now, if I understand in essence what
you're talking about, you have these two
groups which are -- while they are in some
ways perhaps different, they are of the same
species currently?

A. At the beginning, yes.

Q. And are they distinguishable?

A. Yes.

Q. By some physical or observable
characteristic or some genetic characteristic?

A. Let's call it genetic.

Q. But they can, nonetheless interbreed?

A. And can be unambiguously identified.

Q. So, your studies are designed to
determine what would, perhaps, lead them to
the point -- I'm using very lay language,

225

understand -- to the point where there would
be no interbreedings between the groups?

A. Yes, except that my object is not to
understand what would lead them there, but to
understand the genetic basis of one of the
processes that we know can lead them there,
which is how many genes are evolved and how
they interact. That is what the purpose of my
experiment is.

Q. All right.

226

Q. Are you familiar with a book
entitled The Complications of Evolution by
Kerkut?

A. How do you spell the name?

Q. K-e-r-k-u-t.

A. I don't think so. Not, at least, to
my present recollection.

Q. He's with the University of
Southhampton in England. I think it was
published about 1960, if I recall.

Would you state that your definition of
evolution is the same as what is termed the
"modern synthesis"?

A. The modern synthesis is very complex.
There are many components in it which try to
account for a great diversity of phenomena, a
great diversity of ways. What I gave to you
was the most bare-bone definition of what the
theory of evolution might state as I thought
was relevant to you at the time.

Q. So the theory of evolution, as it is
properly defined, might be somewhat broader
than the definition that you have utilized in
this deposition?

A. The theory of evolution concerns
many issues which are all comprised in my very

227

broad definition. Actually, my definition was
very broad. But there are many phenomena and
things involved there. And the modern
synthesis, which is the most generally
accepted version of the modern theory of
evolution, is a series of theories, statements
and principles that purport to account for the
relevant phenomena.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I
home I have clarified it.

Q. Well, to a non-scientist, when I
read your definition it is certainly of much
greater brevity and apparently much more
simple than what I have read or have
considered in the past to be a definition of
evolution. Perhaps it is deceiving in its
simplicity, because you say it's broad.

How would the modern synthesis differ
from your definition of evolution?

A. It does not differ.

Q. By "differ" I don't mean -- is it
not broader and involve more?

A. No.

MS. STURM: Again, I think that the
question as you phrased it before was, you
know, the same. And it's my understanding

228

that Dr. Ayala has responded that it's in fact
the opposite, that his theory is the broadest
statement, and that the synthesis explains in
much more detail the various phenomena and
mechanisms.

I'm unclear at this point about what
further question you're asking.

THE WITNESS: We may be running into
problems also about what we understand by
"broad" and such terms here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. When you talk about
an organism changing through generations as
part of your definition of evolution, would
the idea that, as I understand it, man --
using that term broadly -- homo sapiens have
been getting taller and taller through
subsequent mutations; is that an example of an
organism changing through generations?

A. If they are due to genetic changes,
yes.

Q. Well, is that through genetic
changes, as you understand it?

A. Some of the changes in height are.
For example the ones -- the difference between
Australopithecus and modern man, there is no
question that it is.

229

Now, if you are talking about modern man --
and I was not sure which you were talking
about -- then it is not so clear. Most of
those changes are due to changes of diet, from
all that we know.

Q. All right. Your definition said
"organisms changing through generations."

A. Through their generations through
time.

Q. And your definition does not include
a change caused by genetic changes as opposed
to being caused by diet, for example, does it?

MS. STURM: I'm unclear about the
question. Could you be more specific or
clarify your terms?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm taking his
definition.

If I am misquoting you, please tell me,
but I believe you have a very succinct
statement of evolution as organisms changing
through generations.

Q. Now, your definition does not
ascribe any particular cause for the change,
does it?

A. No. But, you see, they change
through generations. It has to be genetic.

230

An environmental change, which has no genetic
basis, will not be passed from one generation
to another one.

This one you spoke about, height, if you
are talking about genetic change as another
way of saying it is transmittable from one
generation to another, then yes.

Q. If you look at the fact that modern
man, as you term it, has gotten taller through
the years, and that it is attributable, at
least in part, to diet, are you saying that if
the progress or the change in diet was removed,
that man would again get shorter?

A. Depending what the change of diet
would be. The Japanese, the average height of
Japanese at the time of World War II was
several inches lower than the average height
of Japanese today, say forty years younger.
That is almost certainly due to change of diet.

If in the next generation of Japanese
they would be fed the same diet, and if there
were environmental conditions similar to those
under which the people who were adults in the
1940s grew, I believe that they are likely to
become shorter again.

That, incidentally, is a general

231

phenomenon in more than human populations,
that, in very recent years, of becoming taller
in just a generation or two. And I think that
can be largely attributed to a change in diet.

You have only to try to walk through one
of the old castles in Spain or France and you
have to be ducking all the time; you can't fit.

Q. My problem or concern is your
definition of evolution, because you have
stated without qualification that it is a
change in organisms through generations. And
that change may be caused by diet, but yet
under your definition it would be evolution?

A. I hope you appreciate the fact that
that was as simple a definition as possible to
avoid confusing you, which I could have very
well done if I wanted.

The implications of that change, e.g. a
change that persists through the generations
or is cumulative or continues, although
directions can change, but the change
continues through the generations. Change
which is due to diet only, in the context
which scientists will talk of these terms,
will not be passed from generation to
generation unless, of course, you keep

232

changing the diets every generation; something
like that.

Q. Well, if you were going to define
evolution, not necessarily in the most simple
terms but the fairest and and most precise
terms, would you have a different definition?

A. Yes. If I may get the book called
Evolution.

One definition -- which is by no means
complete because, like any reality which is
very complex, it is in fact effectively
impossible to define in just one or few
sentences -- but one definition which is
fairly satisfactory is in this book Evolution,
page eight, last paragraph.

"Organic evolution is a series of partial
or complete and irreversible transformations
of the genetic composition of populations
based principally upon altered interactions
with their environments. It consists chiefly
of adaptive radiations into new environments,
adjustments to environmental changes that take
place in a particular habitat, and the origin
of new ways for exploiting existing habitats.
These adaptive changes occasionally give rise
to greater complexity of developmental pattern

233

of physiological reactions and of interactions
between populations and their environment."

Q. Is that your definition? Did you
draft that or did you adopt that?

A. Professor Stebbins'.

Q. Did you bring with you a copy of
your book Evolving?

A. Yes. The answer to your question is
no. I think it was brought yesterday by
counsel.

Q. Have you ever testified before, Dr.
Ayala, in any case?

A. In any case?

Q. Yes.

A. Once.

Q. What case?

A. Oh, testified? No. I had a
deposition once.

Q. When was the deposition given? In
what case?

A. There was a young lady who got in a
relatively minor accident in my house. There
was a legal suit, which I believe never went
to court.

Q. Does the scientific method of
inquiry reject all claims to final truth?

234

MS. STURM: Could you clarify that
question, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think I prefer not
to, since it comes from the plaintiff's
complaint.

THE WITNESS: "Final truth" is truth
which is absolutely established and forever,
and if we are talking about empirical issues,
yes. The scientific method doesn't say there
is no truth.

MR. WILLIAMS: If I've asked you some of
these questions before, I'll have to ask you
to forgive me.

Q. How is the evolutionist's model
observable?

A. Models are not observable. Theories
are not observable.

Q. A model or theory is not observable?

A. No.

Q. So the theory of evolution is not
observable?

A. As a theory, the statements are not
observable phenomena.

Q. For example, the definition you read
to me, the definition of evolution, that
theory is not, in and of itself, observable?

235

A. Those statements are only observable --
you read them in the book in a trivial sense
which, I presume, we are not talking about.

Q. I don't mean observable in the sense
of in that book.

A. Now remember, this is a definition.
That's not a theory; that is a definition of
evolution.

The theory of evolution is stated in that
book from page 1 to page 570 or whatever. And
not all of it is there.

You observe phenomena. You don't observe
theories.

Q. Well, is there an evolution model of
origins? What is the difference between a
model and a theory, if any?

A. I'm sorry; a model, yes, is a form
perhaps less precise if you're speaking of a
theory.

Q. So it's not correct if I sometimes
may unconsciously shift to the use of the word
"model"?"

A. No; it's fair.

Q. So in terms of the evolution model
of origins --

MS. STURM: It's not clear that Dr.

236

Ayala has been speaking about the evolution
model of origins. He's made it clear in his
testimony that may indeed not be his view of
evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you understand, Dr.
Ayala -- perhaps you don't.

Q. Is it your understanding that
Act 590 deals with the theory of origins?

A. Yes.

Q. And that one of the models of
origins in Act 590 is the evolution model of
origins.

MS. STURM: Origins of what?

MR. WILLIAMS: Of man, life, the universe.

THE WITNESS: Yes, we are talking about
the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right; we're talking about
the Act.

Q. Now, is the evolution model or
theory, if you will, of origins observable?

A. I believe I have answered that. A
theory, a model is not observable. You
observe phenomena that relate to the theory.

Q. Is the evolution theory of origins
testable?

A. Yes. Let me qualify. I think this

237

is very important.

Let us assume, at least for the moment,
that we are talking about the origin of living
organisms so we avoid too many qualifications.

Q. Let me be more precise. Is the
evolution model of origins as it relates to
the original of life, the universe, the earth
and man testable?

A. I am afraid that to the best of my
knowledge there is no such single theory which
allows for such disparate phenomena. I think
there are different theories dealing with
those different things.

Q. Well, is there not some form of a
coherent, more or less, theory starting
perhaps with what's called the "big bang" and
then leading up to the origin of the earth,
and from that the so-called "primordial soup,"
leading up to the first life, leading up
eventually to man and other life?

A. A consistent single theory
accounting for all of those things? I would
say not, to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Not a single theory but several
theories, all under the general umbrella or
the general framework of an evolutionary

238

theory?

A. Yes, I presume. I mean, some people
do that, but I don't like it.

Q. But there are evolutionists who talk
about that?

A. You are begging the question by
saying there are evolutionists.

Q. Okay; I appreciate that.

Are there scientists who discuss that?

A. all those aspects, as it were, in a
single spread? Most rarely; let us put that
way.

Q. Carl Sagan, would he be one of those
people who do that?

A. Carl Sagan concerns himself
primarily with the evolution of the universe,
questions of astronomy. From time to time he
makes excursions outside his expertise and
talks about biological evolution and other
things. That's the main subject. There are
different fields of science, really.

Q. Dr. Ayala, considering this sort of
general theory of evolution which takes into
account the origins not only of man but also
of the universe and the earth and life --

MS. STURM: Objection. I'll continue

239

to make the objection that that is a theory
that is only contained in the model in your
question, and Dr. Ayala does not adhere to it,
nor has he treated it in his testimony as a
single theory.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, you did
state earlier what I refer to as the "general
theory," which subsumes the origin of all of
those different things, is discussed by some
scientists and is --

A. Some scientists discuss all these
various problems. I don't think they discuss
them as a single theory.

Q. But they all fit under the evolution
model or theory, do they?

A. I think when -- let me rephrase it
and say that they will discuss it while
discussing evolutionary problems. Okay? That
avoids the question as to how many theories
are involved.

Q. Can I refer to this, for shorthand
and to expedite matters, as just the general
theory of evolution?

A. I find it very difficult to accept
that. If you would say -- let me think for a
moment.

240

Why don't you call it the "problem of
origins," with the understanding that we are
talking about the origin of universe, life and
organisms. The "problems of origins"; I think
you were using that language before.

Q. Well, the only problem I have in
using that term is that the "problem of
origins" is treated in Acts V:90 under two
seemingly distinct theories; one is Evolution
Science and one is Creation Science.

So can I call it just the "evolution
approach to origins," if you will?

A. Good. Okay.

Q. Is the evolution approach to origins
falsifiable?

A. Yes. However, I feel obliged to
qualify that the status of falsifiability is
very different for different components of
that approach.

Q. All right. But you think it is
falsifiable?

A. Yes.

Q. How is it falsifiable?

A. By making predictions that can be
subject to empirical tests and by observing
whether the predictions are indeed the case or

241

not.

Q. The neutrality of protein evolution;
is it falsifiable?

A. Yes.

Q. Has it been falsified?

A. With respect to some parts of it, I
think so. I've been trying my best.

Q. Is it correct that scientific
hypotheses are subject to empirical testing?

A. Yes. If they are not, they are not
scientific hypotheses.

Q. And if a hypothesis is subject to
empirical testing, is it a scientific
hypothesis?

A. If it is well formed and meets all
the requirements.

Q. I notice in your article on
"Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or
Random Walk" you make reference to the fact
that Mendel's paper on his experiments with
peas in the garden in a monastery was first
published in an obscure journal.

A. That's correct.

Q. Can we assume from that that merely
because publications occur in obscure journals
does not necessarily make them any less

242

scientific?

A. I completely agree. I think they
should be judged on their merits.

Q. You state also in this article that
"The probability that highly organized systems
like living beings and their parts may arise
by chance is effectively nil."

A. Absolutely.

Q. Could you explain to me what you
mean by that?

A. I'm sorry; I mean what it says. It
probably is helpful if I just make the
statement.

MS. STURM: What page are you on?

MR. WILLIAMS: On page 693.

THE WITNESS: I know the statement. I
just want to facilitate things by not
introducing additional terms and confusing
things more. "The probability" -- okay.

I presume there's no problem
understanding that highly organized systems
like living beings -- a fly, a human, even a
bacterium -- under their parts -- by "their
parts" I refer to their having a single organ
like an eye or a hand -- may arise by chance;
that is, by pure random combination of the

243

component atoms and molecules, is effectively
zero. I think it's clear enough.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would you disagree
with that statement if I changed one word and
said "would" evolve by chance is effectively
nil; or would you still agree?

A. I would still agree. Evolution by
chance is still effectively nil, yes.

Q. And in your own mind what is it that
involves the chance element?

A. I'm sorry; will you rephrase that
question, please.

Q. You state that the probability that
highly organized living systems may arise by
chance is effectively nil.

A. Yes.

Q. So if it wasn't by chance, then
there most have been some other mechanism?

A. Yes.

Q. To use rough language, "guiding
force"; whatever you want to call it?

MS. STURM: Well --

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. I'm not
trying to attach any legal significance to it.

MS. STURM: Well, I think there's a
distinction between "mechanism" and "guiding

244

force."

Is your question whether there is some
mechanism besides chance which accounts for
the change?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is my question. i
just want to make certain he understands what
I'm talking about.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Obviously, by what I
say and by what you can read anywhere else in
my writings or those by any evolutionists,
indeed, by chance evolution would be
impossible. You have other processes, of
which natural selection is one, which is
definitely not a chance process.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What about the
application of your statement to the first
life, whenever the first life was formed? Is
it applicable there?

A. Well, I --

MS. STURM: I would like to state for
the record that we did deal with this issue at
the first part of the deposition. I think
it's been covered pretty fully.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I still can answer?
Do you object?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't recall

245

discussing this specific statement as it
relates to that.

THE WITNESS: Is it all right?

MS. STURM: Go ahead and answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes. It would seem to, if
you're talking about going from pure, say,
atoms to something which would properly be
called "living," that those steps will occur
only by pure chance, I think the probability
will be effectively nil.

Let me clarify. Once again, by something
that I could call "living" I'm talking now
about something that is a cell, maybe as small
as a bacterium, but a whole cell. But going
from the atoms to cells or bacteria or any
other simple form of life by pure chance, I
would consider that still nil. It would be
much more probable than a higher organism, but
would still be nil.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you have an
opinion as to whether there was some other
mechanism other than chance in the origin of
the first life?

A. I am not an expert on such things,
but indeed there are some. In the later
stages of that process, natural selection

246

itself comes into being. In the earliest
stages other processes which involve poly-
molecularization -- interactions between small
molecules which are very directed. They are
not chance, but very directionistic.

And there are others. I could go on in
detail, but interactions which are not chance
interactions must have intervened, probably
from the beginning -- except perhaps at the
very, very, very beginning, and certainly as
the process went on more and more, so --

Q. Do you have an opinion personally as
to what caused the first life to come into
being?

A. Yes. I mean natural processes. I
think there are a variety of theories as to
the details, and on which I have not very
strong preference, although I have mild
preferences.

Does that answer the question? I've lost
track of both the question and my answer.

(Discussion off the record)

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think I asked
particularly with reference to the statement
that he made.

MS. STURM: Well, it's the same.

247

You're referring to a particular article, but
you're not asking a different question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the statement in the
article obviously has a specific reference to
that line of inquiry. That did not arise the
other day because I didn't have the article.

MS. STURM: The substance of the
article is identical. I don't want to waste
time arguing about this. If you do intend to
pursue this line of inquiry much further, I
will go get the deposition. We have it. I
can show you this was an area that has already
been delved into, at least to the degree of
depth that you're questioning now about the
issue of origins of first life.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Do you feel you're an
expert on the origin of first life?

A. No. Everything is relative, I hope
you understand. I know more about the origin
of life than most people.

Q. I'm sure that's true.

You wrote an article entitled "Biology as
an Autonomous Science" in 1968, I believe --
that's the publication date, at least -- in
which you discussed -- I hope I can say this
correctly -- teleology.

248

In this article -- and you have a copy in
front of you, if you want to refer to it -- I
notice that you discuss the concept of
teleology as having been somewhat discredited
in the past because it has been associated
with some sort of creator; is that correct?

A. Something more general.
Philosophically, the notion that in order to
have teleology, the end that is reached by the
process that is said to be teleological has to
be the agent itself of the process does not
require a creator at all. You see, it's a
general problem, although these matters can be
discussed also in the context of the creator.

Does that help?

Q. I think your statement is that the
main reason for this discredit of teleology is
that the notion of teleology as corresponding
with the belief that future events have active
agents in their own realization.

But then you go on to say that "The
nature of diversity of organisms are then
explained teleologically in such view as the
goals or ends in view intended from the
beginning by the creator are implicit in the
nature of the first organisms."

249

So as I read this article, I take it that
you perceive that in discussing the notion of
teleology, that some people would ascribe to
it connotations which are somewhat unscientific;
is that fair?

A. Yes. That is fair, yes.

Q. But when properly viewed, would you
not say that the concept of teleology is
necessarily unscientific?

A. Well, I'm sorry; the concept of
teleology is not scientific at all. It is
philosophical. Now it can be discussed in the
context of unscientific approaches to
empirical problems, but can also be discussed
in the concept of proper science. The concept
itself is not scientific; it's really a
philosophical concept.

Q. But it can be discussed properly in
science?

A. No. I think philosophers can use
this kind of concept, or scientists talking as
philosophers, as I am doing here, can take
proper scientific notions and use them in
discussing teleology. Teleology itself does
not belong in the realm of science, is not a
scientific notion. It is a philosophical

250

construct.

I realize these distinctions may be too
foreign to you, but they are not trivial.
They are important. I mean from my point of
view.

Q. But the fact that you would write
such an article as "Biology as an Autonomous
Science" and discuss in such detail teleology
indicates that in some manner that teleology
is appropriate for discussion of science.

MR. STURM: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doesn't it
necessarily follow?

A. Depends on what you mean. I could
say -- I mean, to avoid having to repeat
questions, I think it is a concept which
should be of interest to scientists and in
fact to many people.

I would point out two things. This is
not a scientific journal, and in fact this
discussion -- in spite of the name "American
Scientist," this is a journal that really is
very broad. It's not a technical journal,
perhaps would be a more appropriate thing.

This paper, the title itself, "Biology as
an Autonomous Science," it is not a paper
251

dealing with a scientific issue but with a
epistemiological issue, a philosophical
question.

So whether sometimes it's scientific or
not is really not a scientific issue, but a
philosophical issue. So the paper is a
philosophical paper, although it uses
scientific concepts -- and I hope they are of
interest to scientists -- but their concepts,
by and large, are not appropriate to be
discussed as science. They are not science,
which is not saying they are not true or wrong.

Q. There are two statements in here
that I was particularly interested in as I was
reading. You say on page 213, again for your
reference, that "Biological evolution can now,
however, be explained without recourse to a
creator or a planning agent external to the
organisms themselves."

And then you discuss that at some length.
And then further down the page you say that
teleology of nature could not be explained, at
least in principal, as the result of natural
laws manifested in natural processes without
recourse to an external creator or to
spiritual or non-material forces. At that

252

point biology came into maturity as science."

A. I'm amazed myself how well it reads.

Q. What strikes me about that, Dr.
Ayala, is the notion that teleology -- I want
to see if I understand this correctly -- that
teleology apparently at one time, even during
the philosophy of science, had connotations of
a creator; is that correct?

A. The teleology of organisms was
explained by the fact that the creator had
created living things, yes.

Q. And now, from what I understand,
you're saying in this paper that you believe
that teleological principles or the teleology
of nature can be explained without reference
to a creator; is that correct?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. So if you today talk about teleology,
if someone thinks about a creator, that's a
problem of semantics, isn't it?

A. I'm sorry; will you repeat that
question?

Q. That if today you are talking with
someone about teleology and the person you're
talking with -- and you're talking about it in
this sense that the other person may be

253

thinking about it in reference to those
connotations of a creator, it's a problem of
semantics?

A. No. If I understand you correctly,
I would not agree with that.

I think in the context of organisms some
people may say that the reason why organisms
are teleological -- why, say, the hand is made
for grasping, which is something teleological --
is due to the fact that God made it that way.
You see? The theological explanation of a
teleological organ.

On the other hand, you can provide a
natural explanation of this teleology through
evolutionary process. I don't think the
difference is semantic. It's philosophical;
very important.

Q. Oh, I agree with you. What you're
saying is you can have a theological teleology
and a nontheological teleology; correct?

A. Yes, and still other kinds?

---
---
---
---
---

254

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, just back
briefly to my reference to a problem with
semantics, my question there is simply, if you
are discussing with someone teleology in the
non-theological sense, if that person does not
know that, and he or she is resorting to other
notions, they may think you're talking about a
theological teleology.

MS. STURM: I think you're asking the
witness to hypothesize about something.

Q. I'm just saying -- its not a
hypothesis.

MS. STURM: But what someone using a
term might think if they didn't understand
what the concept meant.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think it's a
hypothesis when he has written an article in
which he, at some great length, has to
distinguish between the two.

MS. STURM: Except you're assuming the
witness will know what someone is thinking
when he confuses the concepts.

Could you clarify the question to
something that would be within the witness's
knowledge?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, let me ask you

255

from your personal experience, Dr. Ayala.
Have you discussed this concept of teleology
in the non-theological sense before, and have
you, in trying to do so, met with some
difficulty of trying to explain that you
really were discussing something of a perhaps
somewhat new and non-theological teleology?

A. Yes, it's correct. Often scientists
in particular, as I state there, assume that
teleology has certain implications; so when I
use the term, they attribute to the concept
those implications.

Now, those are good grounds on which one
might have been wise -- and I probably would
have done it, if I could be writing this paper
now with what I know -- to have changed the
term. I don't want to change the term,
because I thought the original meaning of the
term is the one I was giving in this paper;
but through history it had changed and had
been narrowed, and I wanted to broaden it and
pay due respect to the Greeks, for example,
Greek philosophers and Greek theologists. And
I therefore retain the term.

However, there has been a considerable
source of confusion for some people who

256

immediately say, "But, obviously your Catholic
upbringing is coming out," or something like
that.

I hope you appreciate the last comment
was made in jest.

Q. I understand.

As a result of this article, you have
encountered, if not resistance, some
misunderstanding?

A. As a result of the discussion of the
concept with people who have not read the
article or other articles where I have
explained it clearly, yes.

Q. Okay.

I don't want to go over this again, but I
just note, since I have the first time to look
at one of your books, "Evolving," you talk in
there, as a matter of fact, about Kuhn's
notion of paradigm. You discuss that and how
"scientists usually seek to extend the
paradigmatic explanations into new areas to
explain new data and to resolve observations
that do not seem, at least at first, to jibe
with the accepted paradigm."

A. That's written by my co-author to
explain something, which is said in very

257

different words, but I think with examples in
this paper, too, now that I think about it.

If you start the bottom paragraph of the
first page of this article and read that whole
paragraph -- not necessarily now -- you will
realize that the paragraph is making that
point, that one takes a paradigm and tries to
extend it to explain additional notions as one
goes along, and -- additional facts, I should
say, as one goes along -- and that's what
proves that the paradigm is fertile, that
helps you to understand more phenomena.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, I've got
some articles here I would like to show you.

Unless you have some objection, I don't
really care to make them exhibits, because I
just want to ask him where he got these and
just what he considers them to be.

A. (Reviews documents)

Q. Have you read this article before?

A. I don't think so. I have some idea
that I have seen it, but --

Q. Do you plan to rely upon it in your
testimony?

A. It would be nice to have time to
read it. I don't know what the implication of

258

you question that I am --

Q. Well, let me tell you that this is
one of the documents which was given to me
from the lawyers for the plaintiff as having
been a document in your possession, and it was
one of the first documents they gave me. So I
assume, since it was one of the first
documents that you gave me, that you have seen
it and you have copied it from somewhere --

A. It was in my file, yes. The request,
as you may recall, was very -- I presume you
know very well -- was very broadly stated. It
does not state I should provide documents that
I have read or plan to read.

I have seen it, and I have not read it in
extent, so.

Q. For the record, that is "Genesis
Kinds and Hybridization, Has Man Ever Crossed
With Any Animal," by Frank L. March.

Q. I'd like to show you "Genetics and
Creation Studies," by William J. Ouweneel.

A. (Reviews document)

Yes.

Q. Have you --

A. I have read it. Certainly not word
for word of this article, but I read through

259

it at some time in the past, yes.

Q. Do you recall now what your opinion
of that article was?

A. I would have to refresh my memory.
I read too many papers.

May I?

Q. If you would like. Perhaps if you
read the abstract, maybe that would refresh
your memory.

A. Okay.

(Reviews document)

Yes, I remember more or less what the
article was about and what the point was,
which is a fascinating one, because, if I
recall, he uses a lot of my data and papers
and such, I believe is the case.

I think if you go through it or look at
the list of reference, I think you -- unless
my recollection is mistaken -- he cites a lot
of my papers, and most of the data cited there
come from my papers.

Q. Do you recall now as to whether you
had an opinion about this article?

A. Yes. That, you know, he goes
through some notions of population genetics
that he understands almost - well, certainly

260

much better than most of the literature of the
other kind -- then concludes, because there is
a lot of genetic variation, that shows the
creator is around, because he has put it there
to provide for the future evolution of a
species.

That's all fine and good, but it's not,
in my view -- that does not prove more that it
is due to the action of the creator than it
will prove that this cup is upright here, and
the creator is around because otherwise it
would be upside down.

I mean, it's lack of logic at the end.

Q. Tautological?

A. Not tautological, but non sequitur.
You know, it's really -- I don't see, frankly,
in what way the fact that there is a lot of
genetic variation shows that there must be a
creator that has provided the -- in fact, you
formulated -- in some way, you could say it's
tautological.

I mean, he presumes what he's attempting
to show.

Q. Do you recall the article that you
wrote or was published in March of '70,
"Tautological Explanations in Evolutionary

261

Biology"?

A. Yes, very well.

Q. Is that somewhat similar to your
other article that you wrote, "The Philosophy" --

A. the half of that article is about
half -- very similar to half of this. The
other half is -- half of it is not there and
half of that is not here.

Q. Do you know whether you would plan
to rely upon this in your testimony in this
case?

A. If questions have been asked about
tautology, and in what way I could explain,
you know, that organisms appear to be made,
you know, to serve some purpose; for such
questions I would rely on my ideas which would
be expressed there as well, yes.

Q. Does this article relate to the
question of Creation Science at all to you?

A. It could be made to relate, yes.

Q. In what way?

A. In the sense that some of the things
that -- I'm sorry, I have to talk about
creationists. I think Creation Science is
what you ask, because Creation Science tries
to leave the creator out, making things even

262

more -- I mean, quite un-understandable, from
my point of view -- but creationists sometimes
argue that one of the reasons why we need a
creator is the obvious tautology of organisms,
the obvious fact that the eye is made to see,
which, of course, is something which I agree.
And if that is taken to be as evidence that
there is a creator, I could rely upon concepts
that are discussed in that paper to show that
that is not necessarily so, which... period.

Q. I show you this document, which is
entitled "Creation Evolution," issue 5, Summer
of 1981.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you read that? Do you recall
reading that?

A. I have gone through what is here,
and, you know, not read every word, but --

Q. I notice on that paper that the
first article on -- I think the definition of
"kinds" has been circled at least on the cover.
Have you paid particular attention to that?

A. No. That was not circled by me.

Q. And this is a book, or part of a
book, entitled "The Troubled Waters of
Evolution" by Henry M. Morris?

263

A. (Reviews document)

Yes.

Q. Have you read that --

A. Again, I have, you know, gone
through it and read parts of it.

Q. Did you put that together, those
pages?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Do you own a copy of that book?

A. I don't own it, I have seen it and I
have -- and I do have access to it. But I
don't own a copy.

Q. I notice they've quoted you some in
that book, it appears.

A. Yes. There is a quotation --
actually, it's I from that paper that you
referred to before -- well, from both of them --
"The Theological Explanations and Biology" --
I'm sorry; they quote from three different
papers of mine.

Q. What is your opinion of this work?

A. As I remember -- I would prefer to
refresh my memory -- as I remember, very poor.

Q. I hope in no part due to their
sources, since --

A. No, of course not. Because, you see,

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day Two - Page 4

264

they quote me. And says, "The creationists,
on the other hand," and that's where they
start to go wrong, when they say "on the other
hand," so...

A. In my frank opinion, it's
intellectually very soft, to put it that way.

Q. Did they incorrectly quote you at
all in this?

A. The quotations themselves -- I have
not examined every word of the quotations.
They seem to be all right in there.

If you wish, I will check. I'm sure I
will detect any misquoting, if such has taken
place, by just going through it.

Q. You should be somewhat complimented,
they refer to you as one of the "younger
leaders" of evolutionary thought.

(Short break taken)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In your preparation
of the Seagraves case, did you prepare any
documents for the Attorney General?

A. No.

Q. And have you prepared any for
presentation in this case?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can I have this marked as

265

an exhibit.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 8)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You have in front of
you a copy of what's been marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 8, Dr. Ayala.

Can you identify that document?

A. It's my handwriting for sure, and I
recall what is in there, yes.

Q. Could you translate this for me?
Start at the top.

A. Okay. "Pending, by FJA" -- that's a
note to myself that I still have to do
something about it, and the things which are
marked with arrows --

Q. Right.

A. "Society for the Study of Evolution,
9-24-80" -- that probably is the day when I
had some telephone conversations, September 24,
'90, concerning business of the Society for
the Study of Evolution.

I remind you that I was president of the

266

society at the time. Michael Clegg was the
secretary at the time, and Guy Bush was the
president elect; so I have reason to believe
that I just had telephone conversations with
them to discuss the matters.

The first one says, "Evelyn Hutchinson
for 1981 National Medal of Science." That is a
possibility that it was discussed by the
council at the time of the meeting that
Professor Hutchinson from Yale University be
nominated so as to receive the National Medal
of Science from the President of the United
States. The previous year we had nominated a
person, and that person was awarded such Medal
bu the President of the United States.

Q. That's fine.

A. Do you want me to go on?

Q. If you could just translate some of
this.

A. "Possible people to prepare" -- that
is, to prepare the nomination. "Deevey Brooks
from NSF, James and Karen Porter. Clegg will
talk to the Porters and call me."

I'm making notes to myself to know what
happened. Clegg is at the same university as
the Porters.

267

Number two says, "Have to be personal
member of AIBS." Now, this concerns, now, a
second matter; that is, the nomination for
Distinguished Service to Biology in the United
States, which is a nomination -- I mean, an
award -- given by AIBS, which is the American
Institute for Biological Sciences. So, I was
discussing with them who we might want to
nominate, and we were discussing Mayr as a
good possibility.

Yes. And it must have been the case;
although I don't recall that. I had checked
his membership in the society -- AIBS, not
Society for the Study of Evolution -- and
probably found out that Mayr was not a member
of AIBS; and obviously we came to the
conclusion that I could make him a member of
the society, AIBS, and then proceed with the
nomination.

And then I think our discussion came to
the following points; namely, that Karen could
be the candidate for the following year, but
we should start right now to work on it --
that is, in preparing the nomination -- and
that also Raven could be an additional
candidate. And that, you know, I should

268

consider Steve Gould or R. C. Lewontin as
alternatives.

Finally, reminding myself I should
prepare the nomination of Solbrig. This is a
professor at Harvard University who has agreed
to be nominated.

Q. I take it this has nothing to do
with Creation Science?

A. I think not. But this Harvard
traces back to the same meeting of Society for
the Study of Evolution, which is why I thought
you might have interest in it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to have this
marked as 9.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 9)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. This is Exhibit 9.
Dr. Ayala. If you could just -- without
editorial comments -- just tell me what is on
here, and if I have any questions, I can ask
you for it, because if it's not relevant to
this lawsuit we can move on.

269

A. Okay.

(Reviews document)

I take it the first message is that -- I
am fussy -- the first message is telling
myself to get copies and send them to this
person. Somebody must have told me he is
interested in these matters.

Now, I don't think this refers to the
following three pages --

MS. STURM: Could you hold on one second?

A. Yes

(Short break taken)

A. The message on top is addressed to
my secretary, and obviously this has been
stapled -- I don't know by whom, maybe by me --
to the wrong pages.

My guess is that these were not -- the
following three pages were not the three I was
asking my secretary to xerox.

Q. What does page two say?

A. John A. Moore, as you may recognize,
is the chairman, the person I appointed
chairman of the committee on education of the
Society for the Study for Evolution; so this
must be I was conversing with him, and he was
telling me, yes, he was willing to be the

270

chair.

I think he -- we must have started to
talk; although I do not recall, That is my
best interpretation.

Oh, no no. Well, you can continue with
the testimony.

I believe what it is saying here is that
he may have brought up the matter of expert
witnesses that should be identified. That is --
you recall the charge -- we thought that one
thing that should be done is to identify
people in various parts of the country that
could be served -- could be used as witnesses
when they were needed. And then there are a
number of names that probably were his
suggestions as to possible members for the
committee.

Then it goes on to say that 12 people
would probably be the right number; that we
should make a clear statement, and then mail
them materials.

Q. What is the next statement there?

A. "The arguments have not changed" --
don't copy that.

Oh, yes, these I recall fairly well. he
was telling me that the arguments that

271

creationists are using now are the same that
were being used at the beginning of the
century, and also some 20 years ago. And that
we should disqualify the arguments because
they are repeated every 20 years. They seem
to reappear.

Q. Okay.

A. You want me to go on?

Q. Sure.

A. This one is obviously a previous
conversation with the same person. He was
saying -- this must have been the first
contact I was having with him on this matter.

And he was saying this was a serious
problem, remember Reagan's statements on the
matter; and then he was informing me that the
National Association of Biology Teachers has
appointed a similar committee, the chair of
which is Dr. Mayer and it would be a mistake
to, I take it, rely on this committee, but we
could contribute names and resources and
support to Mayer's committee.

Q. I think there's nothing else on that
page that we want to ask about.

(Discussion off the record)

A. The next one is the name of a person

272

that obviously was suggested to me as a
possible member of that committee.

Q. What's that on the next page?

A. The next one, I think, is a
combination of my notes during the meeting of
the council, that meeting in June, in late
June '80, with additions later, just in a
different pen to, you know, for my own benefit.

Q. What does that first line --

A. "Membership crisis."

Q. You were having a membership crisis
at that time?

A. Different societies are always
having membership crisis.

Q. What society was this?

A. Society for the Study of Evolution.

We should make a campaign, you know, to
members to increase membership.

I was pointing out that our science has
4,000 subscriptions from libraries, maybe we
could get the list from them and send them our
literature.

Q. How many Members are in the Society
for the Study of Evolution now?

A. I would say as a rough guess 1500 or
so.

273

Q. And is that an increase from five
years ago?

A. I would think so, but probably not
by much, because the society has increased the
fees very substantially in recent years --
simply for the increased cost of
publication -- and that simply puts off
people. But you would have to check that if
you would care to.

Then the next point, of course, is
relevant. This must have been when I proposed
to the council that the committee on
Creationism to be a committee dealing with the
issue of teaching of evolution and creation,
and then a number of names that obviously were
discussed at the time, and some suggested
later --

Q. Dr. Ayala, is it -- I notice your
rough notes reflect that you refer to this as
the committee on creationism.

A. Yes. Because that's the way in
which people referred to it, and indeed, I
made a point, to the rest of my recollection,
at that point not to -- that we should not
call it so, and that I very much dislike the
idea of identifying anti-evolutionism as

274

creationism. Because one can be an
evolutionist and a creationist, and I don't
like the idea of the creationist
appropriating -- the so-called creationist --
because -- you see, I'm trapping myself in
this -- I don't like the idea of
anti-evolutionists appropriating themselves
the word of being a creationist. I think
there are good creationists who believe in
evolution. I believe I made a point of it,
and the note is written that way to remind me
of the argument to be made.

Q. Does this reflect that at the
genesis, if you will, of this committee, that
it was concerned with creationism? That's
what was being discussed there?

A. I think in the minds of many people,
probably so. I think in my mind, very much
the opposite, if I understand the thrust of
your question.

It is and has been my conviction for a
long time that we should not call people who
are anti-evolutionists the creationist. And I
was very much trying to make a point of it.

You may recall that we read some document
before where somebody was describing my having

275

said so at some other occasion.

Q. Correct.

MS. STURM: Could you wait one second?

(Short break taken)

A. Again, we encounter number six, and
probably the reason that has a number six
there is so I can maintain the connection with
a six, point number six of the meeting of the
society.

And this probably is notes to myself on
things to do or expressions of thoughts, get a
list of resource scientists, prepare a
statement -- I'm scribbling here notes as to
what the charge of the committee should be.
And then I am -- the farther points I don't
think would have any reference.

I'll go on if you want.

Q. No, that's fine.

A. The next point must have been a
telephone conversation with William Mayer.

Q. Could you just read what it says
there?

A. Says "We have a committed for
evolution education and teaching." That is
the "National Association of Biology Teachers
to help teachers primarily understand

276

evolution and science. William Mayer is chair.
Would be most valuable to have a committee
from the Society for Study of Evolution. Too
many things to do. Professional evolutionists
are apathetic, do not understand the potential
dangers, our SSE committee would carry most
weight. John Moore is a splendid. B. Glass
is great also."

So this is obviously mostly recalling
what he was saying.

Q. Next page would be just a list --
A. Of possible members, yes. You can
see that somebody added my name -- not in my
handwriting. How that happened, I don't know.

Do you want to go on?

Q. Yes.

A. I take it the next page is the first
page of the one that we have seen before.
"National" -- this obviously is not following
up on matters that have been discussed at our
annual meeting; so I think point one is of no
interest to you. I assume point two either.
We went through it above.

Number three is a point that refers to
the appointment of a Washington representative
of our society. You know, with scientific

277

societies meeting often in Washington for
business, so that we could have a
representative there.

Number four concerns a prize to be given
to a student, a very young scientist, for
proposing some interesting research.

Number seven is to discuss the meeting of
the society to take place in '82, which would
occur in Sturn Brook. Futuyama, this is a
scientist. Says "Kohn has ascertained that
the university charges no fee." And the
meeting was tentatively planned for June 27
through 30th. That's obviously the
information, the second one, that I got when
following up.

Then about a new secretary for the
society.

Q. Thank you.

A. You are welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit 10, please.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Defendant's
Exhibit No. 10)

278

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, you have
before you what has been marked as Defendant's
Exhibit 10 to this deposition.

Can you identify that document?

A. Yes, it's an issue of a journal
called the "Watchtower."

Q. Do you know who that's published by?

A. It says -- I believe it's the
Jahovah's Witness's. It does not say that,
but maybe I'm mistaken.

Q. The other day during your deposition,
I believe you stated, the record will reflect,
that part of the information which you had
considered in making assessments of Creation
Science was some document by someone -- by
Garner Ted Armstrong or the "World Tomorrow."

Was this perhaps what you had reference
to?

A. No. Let me refresh your
recollection by my recollection, and the
record will show which one is more correct. I
believe I was being asked whether I had in
recent times read statements about, you know,
Creation Science or creation explanations of
origins, and I was saying, yes, some articles
that I have read were a series of articles in

279

the journal, which I forget --
"Plain Truth," which is published by Ted
Armstrong. There was a series of five or six
articles all dealing with this issue.

Now, this is not the one I was referring
to. You want to ask me something about it?

Q. I want to ask you if this is part of
the documents on Creation Science which you
have read and upon which you form your current
opinion on Creation Science?

MS. STURM: You want to divide it into
two questions?

A. This is -- first of all, let me say
it's a document that I have not read. This
was -- I have fairly good recollection of how
this is in my file.

A student from one of my classes came to
me and said, "This might interest you." And I
spent a few minutes with it, probably was '78,
and put it in my file. I glanced through it
and got some notions that indeed are repeated
again by various people, various
anti-evolutionists, and found that it was not
much new or not particularly interesting, and
the arguments were fallacious and the evidence
often wrong.

280

So, I recall not spending much time and
putting it in my file just in case at some
later time I would have time to get back to it.

Q. So, did you read the article on
"Design Requires a Designer."

A. I glanced through it at the time,
but, you know, I'm sure I didn't read every
word.

Q. Okay.

A. This is what I was referring to. I
don't find anything particularly new or
interesting.

Q. Okay. I have a copy of something
which is marked "Population and Evolutionary
Genetics," a primer, by Francis J. Ayala.

Is this a book which is in publication?

A. In press, yes.

Q. Who is publishing this book?

A. Benjamin Cummings, same publisher of
that book.

Q. To what level is this book directed?

A. This is intended as an elementary
textbook in population genetics. So it will
be addressed primarily to undergraduates,
either lower-level undergraduates, if they are
interested in genetics, or, perhaps, as

281

supplementary reading to advanced
undergraduates taking courses in other subject
matters.

Q. Okay. Do you presently know whether
you would rely on any information in here in
your testimony at trial?

A. It's very likely that some of the
information that is there, some, may be used;
but I don't have any specific plans as of this
time.

To be extremely cooperative, I could say
it contains redundant information, information
that is not very different from the
information that is in some of the other books;
particularly when we are dealing with an
elementary textbook.

Q. I've been supplied copies of some of
your more recent grants, or, at least, some
evidence of the grants.

A. Some cover pages.

Q. right. For example, this one is
dated 1976 and covers some $250,000 in the
grant itself. Is that somewhat in the range --
I was looking at several of these, and they
all seem to be around $250,000.

A. They have large grants, which is the

282

one from NIH, and, as the years go by,
increase in value. It's a collective grant
that four or five independent scientists share.
All the other grants would be considerably
smaller, under a hundred thousand. That is
the ones -- the grants to me individually.

Q. Would it be fair to say that the
grants you have been awarded, you, personally,
but which have been --

A. Part of that is to me personally in
a way, although.

Q. Part of it would pay part of your
salary?

A. Oh, no. It's awarded to me as
principal investigator, but none of this money
comes to me.

Q. I understand.

(Interruption, discussion off the record)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. It would be fair to
state, would it not, that the total dollar
value of grants which have been awarded to
institutions where you have been a principal
investigator would exceed several million
dollars?

A. It would not be accurate, no, the
part of which I am responsible.

283

I made a guess the other day, and said it
was a rough guess at the time, of a million
over the last few years. I think this
definitely was not correct in "several million."

I just -- I tried to point out that there
are several people involved in one of those
grants.

Q. Do you think science can be the
basis for religion?

A. I think it can inspire people to be
religious. In that sense of being the basis
of, yes.

Q. Well, do you think people can
believe in science the way some people believe
in religion?

A. I think so, but I don't think those
people would be scientists.

Q. I'm not asking you to assume that
I'm talking about that some people might.

A. Yes, some people seem to.

Q. Are you familiar with physics?

A. A little bit.

Q. Are you aware of the parallels and
similarities between modern particle physics
and Eastern mystic religions at all?

A. I have heard that they use some

284

terms and some symbols which in very many ways
resemble, you know, symbols in terms of
mystical religion.

(Short break taken)

---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

285

Q. This article that you wrote in the
Journal of Heredity, I take it, is a tribute
or memorial?

A. It's biography, a short biography,

Q. And it sets forth his life as well
as some of his theories, does it not?

A. Yes, to summarize what his main
contributions to science were, as well as
summarizes his personal life.

Q. I have an article, "Genetic
Variations in Evolution." Has this been
published?

A. If I've given it to you that way, I
presume it has not. Not to the best of my
knowledge.

It should appear very soon.

Q. Has it been accepted for publication?

A. Yes.

Q. In what publication?

A. It will appear as a separate booklet
in a collection which used to be called The
Oxford something, and now is called Oxford/
North Carolina something. Just little
booklets in biology. Each one of these will
be an independent sort of booklet, sixteen
pages or so.

286

Q. As will this one, "The Origin of the
Species."

A. Carolina Readers, yes. They are
called Oxford/Carolina Readers.

Q. This is entitled "Origin of the
Species." What do you go into in here?

A. Discussing how species come about,
species originate.

Q. Is this also part of that same
series?

A. No. There are only two, so there
should be no more, no.

This, as it says at the bottom, is a
speech that I gave in Rome almost exactly one
year ago, and they asked me afterwards to
write it down and send it because they wanted
to publish it. So I think it's to appear in
some Italian journal.

Q. Are all of these books still in
print?

A. May I see "Molecular Evolution"?
That is the third one from top.

I think this is out of print now. It's
gone through three printings. To the best of
my knowledge there are no plans to reprint it.

Q. You were a contributor to this

287

book?

A. I organized the symposium on which
the volume is based, and then I edited the
volume and wrote an introductory chapter.

Q. Are these two still in print?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the handbook for faculty
members of the University of California
contain anything on how to teach courses or
professional --

A. Professional standards, yes.

Q. Is there something on here that
talks about the discretion left to the
teachers?

A. I'm sure it does.

Q. Can you recall anything?

A. I'm consulted very often, and when I
have to find something, by secretary finds it.
So you're as able to find something as I, but
I'm willing to give it a try.

Q. Dr. Ayala, perhaps you can assist me?

A. Yes; I will try.

MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

(Concluded at 7:40 o'clock p.m.)

                                  Signature of Witness

288

STATE OF CALIFORNIA                           )
                                                           )   ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO   )

              I hereby certify that the witness in
the foregoing deposition named

                       DR.FRANCISCO J. AYALA,

was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the
within-entitled cause; that said deposition
was taken at the time and place therein stated;
that the testimony of said witness was reported
by me,

                KAREN L. WILLIAMS,

a Certified Shorthand Reporter and
disinterested person, and was thereafter
transcribed into typewriting, and that the
pertinent provisions of the applicable code or
rules of civil procedure relating to the
notification of the witness and counsel for
the parties hereto of the availability of the
original transcript of deposition for reading,
correcting and signing have been complied
with.

                And I further certify that I am not
of counsel or attorney for either or any of

289

the parties to said deposition, nor in any way
interested in the outcome of the cause named
in said caption.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed my seal of office the
       day of                    , 1981.
 
 
 
KAREN L. WILLIAMS, C.S.R. No. 2933

Deposition of Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple

Deposition of Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple (U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA) - transcript paragraph formatted version. (Plaintiffs Witness)

3

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF G. BRENT DALRYMPLE, Ph.D.,

a witness produced on behalf of the Defendant, taken in the above style and numbered cause on the 3rd of December, 1981, before Laura D. Bushman, a Notary Public in and for Pulaski County, Arkansas, at the office Mr. Robert Cearley, 1014 West 3rd Street, Little Rock, Arkansas at 10:35 a.m., pursuant to the agreement thereinafter set forth.

G. BRENT DALRYMPLE, Ph.D.

the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Would you please state your full name, please?

A. Gary Brent Dalrymple.

MR. WOLFE: David, perhaps before we begin we ought to speak about the documents.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right, sir.

MR. WOLFE: Dr. Dalrymple has — has made a document production in response to defendants request for documents. The only two points of interest about the production are that Mr. Williams and I have agreed that all the materials which were not reprints of published articles will be given circulation limited to the purposes of this lawsuit, and I've also informed Mr. Williams that plaintiffs

4

have withheld certain products under the Work Product Doctrine. They are specifically certain letters and notes, and reprints of a few articles which were sent and exchanged

between Dr. Dalrymple and attorneys for plaintiffs in preparing the case, and a proposed question and answer list relating to Dr. Dalrymple's possible testimony.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that it?

MR. WOLFE: That's it.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, I want to object to the claim of Work Product Privilege. I think that this is not the client of the plaintiff — of these — of these attorneys. Mr. — Dr. Dalrymple is an expert witness who is supposed to be testifying objectively. Therefore to claim a Work Product Privilege on parti — particularly documents that he has written, I think it's inappropriate and not supported by the law. Further, I think it is particularly inappropriate in light of what I think will be shown in this deposition that Dr. Dalrymple is not supposed to be testifying for either side but presenting objective facts in this case. Therefore to claim the Work Product Privilege when he is not to be a witness for either side is — is — is particularly inappropriate.

MR. WOLFE: Well, we certainly agree that — that there is no attorney/client relationship here and the Work Product Doctrine is asserted because the questions

5

that were addressed to Dr. Dalrymple and the areas that he was asked to consider we regard as evidencing the workings of the minds of the attorneys on the plaintiffs' side here, and that's the basis for our asserted privilege.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Dr. Dalrymple, have you ever had a deposition taken before?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever testified in court before?

A. No.

Q. Has Mr. Wolfe or some other attorney for the plaintiffs explained to you what a deposition is?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Well, then if I do ask any questions that are unclear, I want you to please tell me so and I will try to make them clear. There will probably be several when I get into some of the — some of the dating methods.

A. Okay.

Q. Also, let me tell you that our purpose here is to simply try to discover what your testimony might be, and as this colloquia we just had over the — over the Work Pro — Product that doesn't concern you personally I don't think, and we are simply trying to make our record in — in doing our job for our clients.

A. I understand.

6

Q. I've been supplied with a copy of a document which appears to be your curriculum vitae. I would like to have this marked as exhibit — defendants' exhibit one to the deposition.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #1 was marked for the record.]

Q. Can you identify that as being your curriculum vitae?

A. Yes.

Q. It includes a list of publications. Is that correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Is that list of publications everything that you have ever had published not limited — I'm not limiting myself now but — now to simply scientific articles?

A. Yes. The only thing I've ever had published has been scientific articles.

Q. Where are your daughters attending school?

A. At Gunn High School in Palo Alto.

Q. Is that a public or private school?

A. That's a public school.

Q. Do you know if they have taken any science courses as of yet?

A. Yes, they have

Q. What courses have they taken?

A. Well, I don't think I can remember a complete list they have taken mathematics, general science courses.

7

My two older daughters have taken a course in biology. My oldest daughter is taking a physics. Two oldest ones have had courses in chemistry.

Q. Uh-huh. Do you know whether the creation-science model or theory of origin was ever mentioned in a classroom?

A. As far as I know, it was not.

Q. Has the evolution-science model or theory of origins ever been mentioned in their classroom?

A. In the — they were taught some evolution in the biology course and perhaps another general science course. I really don't know.

Q. Are you aware that back in 1969, I think it was, that the California Board of Education issued a statement on creation-science as being — it — I'm paraphrasing now so I'm — I — `a scientific alternative to evolution'?

A. I am generally aware that at one time they did make such a statement, yes. Then it was later revised.

Q. That was later revised? But — but to your knowledge as a citizen of the state of California do — do you know whether in Palo Alto public schools for example whether creation-science was presented pursuant to that resolution?

A. I have no knowledge one way or the other.

Q. Is your wife employed? I — she's a teacher according to your vitae I —

A. She's a teacher

8

Q. Where does she — she teach?

A. She teaches at a private school.

Q. What school is that?

A. It's called Pinewood. Pinewood Private School in Los Altos.

Q. Is that — what does she teach there?

A. She teaches mathematics presently to six grade, I believe.

Q. What is her degree?

A. She has a bachelor's degree.

Q. In what area?

A. Education.

Q. Elementary education or —

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a private school or affiliated with any group or church?

A. No. It's — it's purely a private school. It's nonprofit.

Q. Nonprofit.

A. It's not affiliated with any church.

Q. Do you know whether in that school the creation-science model of origins is discussed?

A. I have not heard that it is.

Q. Is that school to your knowledge — well, how long has that school been in existence?

A. I don't know but for many years.

9

Q. Do you know who formed it or the reasons why it was formed?

A. I — I know who — I know who formed it. I do not know the reasons why it was formed.

Q. Who formed it?

A. I'm trying to think of their names and now I've forgotten them. Perhaps it will come to me later, I'm sorry.

Q. Okay. Has it at any time been affiliated with any — any group, any religious sect or any other group?

A. To my knowledge, the school has not.

Q. Why does your wife teach in a public a private school as opposed to a public school?

A. Because at present, positions in public schools are extremely hard to get in California and at one time she did teach in a public school and then she quit to have a family, and when she went back jobs were not easily available particularly in Palo Alto.

Q. Are you a member of any organized religious faith?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been a member?

A. When I was a teenager I attended church regularly, yes.

Q. What church did you attend at that time?

A. A variety. Methodists, Baptists, Friends, a few services in a Catholic church.

10

Q. Were you ever a member of any of those churches?

A. No.

Q. When did you begin attending churches, your — as I best you recall now?

A. I really can't remember. When I was quite small.

Q. When did you cease to attend church services?

A. When I was in my mid-teens.

Q. What is your personal opinion as to the existence of a god?

A. Well, I — hmm. The reason I am pausing is because I don't normally give that question much thought. I have seen no evidence that requires me personally to believe in a god.

Q. Do you have any statement of your religious faith that you would subscribe to or the lack thereof?

A. I have never tried to put myself in a category if that is what you're — what you're asking.

Q. Well, I am sure you are familiar with the terms which are sometimes used such as deist, agnostic, atheist. Would any term or any such similar term be accurate in describing your own religious faith?

A. I have not studied the definition of those carefully enough that I think I want to commit to one or the other. If you would care to define for me maybe I could —

Q. Well, if a deist means simply that someone who believes

11

there is some sort of sub — god but not in the sense of a personality, as a person, as a personality or maybe — maybe agnostic is someone who doubts the existence of a god and an atheistic is one who believes that there is no god. Between those three terms could one more accurately describe your own views?

A. Well, I guess perhaps half way between an agnostic and an atheistic.

Q. Okay.

A. I try to remain open minded on questions like that.

Q. You said you have seen no evidence which would require you to believe that there is a god. Do you — for you to believe that would there have to be some evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. What sort of evidence do you think it would take to convince you?

A. I am a scientist and I tend to deal in scientific evidence but that's a difficult question to answer because, I know people at certain stages of their life sometimes are willing to accept evidence and other times they're not. So I guess the answer to your question is I don't know.

Q. You're not aware of what — of what evidence it would take?

A. No. Because I think that would be a highly personal happening, if and when it ever did happen and I'm not sure

12

how that would happen or what it would take.

Q. Okay. Did you at one time when you were attending church in your childhood and your teens, did you at that time have a belief in a god?

A. I think that I was brought up to have a belief in a god. My family had a tradition of such beliefs. Is — does that answer your question?

Q. Well, you were brought up to — no, I don't think that really it does. Because I asked you did you have?

A. I'm not sure how — how fastly I ever held that belief. One of the reasons I went to different church with what — what I was hearing. So I think that I was more inquisitive then held any belief very hardly.

Q. Do you think that a religious person can be a competent scientist?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Do you think that a person — do you think there is any correlation between the presence and degree of a person's religious faith and their competence as a scientist?

A. I don't think there has to be but it depends on how the individual wants those two disciplines to interact, I think.

Q. Do you have a — heard of a code of personal conduct?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe it for me?

13

A. Well, I think it pretty much probably parallels to the Ten Commandments. I come from basically a Christian background and I think that the morals and code of ethics that are taught there are — are fairly valuable to — including not lying, cheating, stealing, hurting other people and so forth.

Q. Have you ever been a member of any other sort of group such as the ethic — Ethical Society or Society of Religious Humanists or any group like that?

A. No.

Q. Where are you presently employed?

A. I am employed by the Department of Interior, Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California.

Q. And what position do you hold there?

A. I am the assistant chief geologist for the western region.

Q. Okay. Would you just very briefly describe what the purpose of the U.S. Geological Survey is?

A. Well, it has a multiplicity of purposes. It conducts geological research, it makes topographic maps of the United States and its territories, it manages and collects royalties on mineral and oil resources on federal lands and it's concerned with water quantity and quality throughout the United States.

Q. How long have you been involved — been employed in

14

one capacity or another for the U.S. Geological Survey?

A. It's been since about June of 1963. So that would be about what — about eighteen years. Eighteen and a half.

Q. And prior to that time you were with the National Foun — Foundation?

A. No. I was a student at the University of California at Berkeley.

Q. From when to when?

A. Well, that would have been from about September of 1959 until June of 1963.

Q. And you received your Ph.D. in 1963, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you write a dissertation?

A. Yes. I did.

Q. What was the topic of your dissertation?

A. The topic was described in the title. It's the Cenozoic chronology of the Sierra Nevada.

Q. What is Cenozoic?

A. Well, the Cenozoic is a period of geologic time that goes from the present back to about sixty-five or seventy million years.

Q. How is that spelled?

A. C-E-N-O-Z-O-I-C. Usually with a capital C.

Q. When did you first study radiometric dating?

15

A. When I was first a graduate student at Berkeley.

Q. What is Occidental College?

A. That's a liberal arts college in southern California.

Q. Is it affiliated with any private groups?

A. Not — it's a private school if that is what you are asking?

Q. Right. Is it affiliated with any sort of private groups such as religious or specific groups?

A. It has not been affiliated with a religious group for many decades. I do not recall but there originally was, I believe.

Q. As assistant chief geologist, are your duties more administrative than they are research?

A. Yes. I've only held that position for a few months, however.

Q. Since May?

A. The end of May or the first of June, yes.

Q. What area is covered by the western region?

A. It consists of the six western states plus Alaska plus Hawaii and the Pacific trust territories. Would you like me to name the states?

Q. No. That's all right. And prior to that time you were branch representative for the Menlo Park, Branch of Isotope Geology?

A. That's correct

16

Q. Were your duties there more in the area of research or administration?

A. Primarily research.

Q. Of your publications, approximately how many have been written in the course of your employment?

A. With the Geological Survey?

Q. Yes.

A. All but about two, I believe.

Q. I also notice that on your list of publications there is either a P or an A or in some cases there is an O. What do those represent?

A. The P's are publications published in the traditional scientific literature. The A's are abstracts for scientific meetings. We normally don't count those as publications. They are brief paragraphs describing a talk. And the O's, if I remember correctly, are internal administrative type reports but the ones listed in there are — are scientific internal administrative reports.

Q. So you have studied radiometric dating for approximately I twenty-one years, is that correct?

A. That's approximately correct.

Q. When did the concept of radiometric dating originate?

A. It started with a paper by Boltwood in the early 1900's shortly after it became known that there was such a thing as radioactivity.

17

Q. And could you just briefly sketch for me the history of radiometric dating in terms of it's acceptance within the scientific community as you view it?

A. Well, I think it was accepted as a viable possibility from — from the earliest proposal that such a scheme might work.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. But in the early days not all of the physical principles had been developed. For example, when the first lead ages had been — were calculated by Boltwood it was not known that there were things like isotopes and there was not equipment developed then to measure them. I think it's been accepted as an accurate, reliable technique generally for probably close to thirty years now. It's —

Q. For the rate continually —

A. — continually improves.

Q. All right. But there was a period there of — in the early 1900's until approximately in somewhere of the 1940's 50's when it was — it was not fully accepted, is that correct?

A. That's correct. It was highly experimental. There seemed to be lots of problems and gradually those have been overcome.

Q. Is there one point to which you can direct me or one article or event in which — kind of established radiometric

18

dating in your mind as being scientific and eliminated the problems which had been viewed earlier?

A. I don't think so. Because there are a variety of different radiometric techniques and each one has it's own history and most of them have evolved through a series of experiments from things that were highly speculative to an end point which is considered highly reliable. And I don't think there was any single point probably in any of those that would — would have been considered definitive.

Q. Prior to the rise of radiometric dating as a dating technique, what techniques were utilized in the scientific community?

A. To do what?

Q. To date — to date rocks and to date — date the earth?

A. Oh, there were a variety of things that were attempted including rates of sedimentation, cooling of the earth. Geologists used to attempt to estimate the age of the earth based on the general rate at which they saw general processes working and none of those worked very well.

Q. Have all of those now been discarded?

A. Yes.

Q. You are a member, actually a fellow I think of The Geophysical Society of America? Could you briefly describe what The Geophysical Society of America is?

A. You mean the American Geophysical Union?

19

Q. No. The Geophysical Society of America. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. I think I was reading on two lines. It's Geological Society of America.

A. Geological Society of America. Okay. That's I suppose the principal geological organization of geoscientists in the United States perhaps in North America.

Q. What's the active membership to your knowledge?

A. I really don't know.

Q. And when were you selected a fellow? Were you elected first of all?

A. Well, a fellowship in The Geological Society is not elected.

Q. Okay.

A. It's after five years you can apply and I think pay a small fee and you're made a fellow. That's not true of some of the other societies like the AGU. That's a different situation.

Q. The American Geophysical Union. Do you care to describe what that is?

A. That's basically a geophysical society. That consists of an affiliation of oh about a dozen or so sections, each section with different interests. There is a section on volcanology, geochemistry and petrology. There's a section on hydrology. There are sections on upper atmosphere physics. There is a section on planetology.

20

Q. What sections are you a member of?

A. Volcanology, geochemistry and petrology. That's one section.

Q. Okay. And you were selected as a fellow by what method?

A. Fellowship in the American Geophysical Union is — is elective. It's restricted to, oh, I think about three per cent of the membership.

Q. When were you elected?

A. Oh, I don't remember. I think it was about 1975.

Q. And what is the American Quaternary —

A. Quaternary.

Q. —Quaternary Association?

A. That is a group of scientists who are interested in problems of the Quaternary period of geologic history which is just the last few million years.

Q. Have any of these societies taken a formal or informal position on creation-science?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you take any courses in biology in the undergraduate or graduate school?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any expertise in the area of biology?

A. No, I do not. I had one course in paleontology as undergraduate. I don't know if you want to include that in biology or not but I'll mention it.

21

Q. Okay.

A. In case you'd like to.

Q. Do you recall, you know, in your undergraduate or graduate school days studying theories of origin of the universe, of life, of man and of the earth?

A. I guess that depends on what you mean by origin. If you mean by that the way things were shaped as we now see them, then the answer is yes. If you mean by that ultimate origins, then the answer is no.

Q. Could you explain how you see the difference between those two?

A. Well, the first one is basically how the things that we observe today got to be that way by natural processes. How they I hate to use the word `evolve' but will you let me use it in a different sense? How they change —

Q. You mean it in a nontechnical sense —

A. — in a nonevolutionary sense. Yes, that's right. Okay. The other one, the question of ultimate origins of the universe and of matter is primarily a philosophical or religious subject in that — that I did not study in any of those courses.

Q. Have you ever taken any courses in religion?

A. Yes. At Occidental College everyone was required to take a one semester course, I believe, in religion and the the course consisted of the Bible as literature.

22

Q. The Bible as literature?

A. Yes.

Q. Taking then your first definition of theories of origin, how things got to be the way they are today, what courses or what disciplines did you study which would address that subject?

A. Do you mean in a broad sense like geology or specific courses within geology?

Q. First just take the broad sense.

A. Well, I've had courses in geology, some courses in physics and chemistry. Most of them that would fall in that category would be geology.

Q. How many courses in physics or chemistry did you take?

A. Oh, I really don't know. Totalling perhaps half a dozen. I don't remember.

Q. Did you ever study the creation-science model of origins in school?

A. No.

Q. Now, are the three professional societies which you have listed on your curriculum vitae the only groups of which you are a member? Science and non-science?

A. Do I take it then that you mean formalized groups?

Q. I mean formal groups, you know, where you have joined, you are a member.

23

A. I belong to a yacht club.

Q. I assume that they have not taken a position on creation-science?

A. As far as I know, they have not.

Q. What is the Society of Irre — Irre — Irreproducible Research?

A. Oh, that's a sort of lighthearted organization to which one really doesn't belong you simply subscribe to their journal which is series of articles that spoof science.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. It's sort of science's Punch if you — if that's a good analogy.

Q. Have you ever written any articles?

A. No. I have been tempted but I've not yet.

Q. What's the American Nuclear Society?

A. That's — that's a group to which I don't belong but which has — which — is that a committee task that you're — Yes. That's — that's a group that is concerned with factors involving nuclear reactors and nuclear standards, and I was invited to be on a working group to write standards for siting earthquake — for siting of nuclear reactors with specific regard to earthquake hazards. I'm not a member of that society.

Q. You said earlier that there were various methods of radiometric dating, is that correct?

24

A. That's correct.

Q. Could you list for me what you consider to be the main areas — the main types of radiometric dating?

A. I think potassium-argon including its variation of argon-40/argon-39.

Q. So those would be kind of sub-areas of potassium-argon?

A. Yes. Those are based on the same decays

Q. That's argon-40, you said?

A. Yes. Argon-40/argon-39. And those two go together usually with a slash between them or something like that.

Q. Okay.

A. The difference is basically in how the measurements are made. Rubidium/strontium would be another one. I'll write that one down. Uranium/lead concordia-discordia method.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Carbon-14 and there are a few new ones that are now being used because analytical techniques have developed to the stage where it is now possible to make measurements it wasn't possible to do before. And those include neodymium-samarium.

Q. Is that neo?

A. Neodymium, yes. N-E-O-D-Y-M-I-U-M. Samarium. S- A-M-A-R-I-U-M. And lutetium, L-U-T-E-C-I-U-M, I believe. I'm not even sure how that one is spelled.

25

MR. WOLFE: T. L-U-T-E-T-I-U-M.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. T-I-U-M. That's right. Hafnium. H-A-F-N-I-U-M.

Q. Is this the third one?

A. No.

Q. Oh, part of lutetium?

A. Yeah.

Q. Hafnium? Okay.

A. Now, those are not — the last two are not in terribly common use because the measurements are difficult but they are becoming the principal methods for certain kinds of studies. I think that those are the major ones which is —

Q. Are you — do you consider yourself, placing humility aside, to be an expert in all these areas?

A. I suppose it depends on what you mean by expert. Most of the measurements that I've been involved in myself are concerned with potassium/argon, some with rubidium/strontium and I've studied the others.

Q. Have you ever used the other?

A. I've never used the others.

Q. Why have you used essentially potassium/argon and rubidium/strontium?

A. Those are the two that have probably the broadest applicability for most geologic problems in which I've been interested. In particular, the potassium/argon method.

26

Q. A document has been filed in this case earlier which is entitled, Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, and The Age of The Earth. A Reply to Your "Scientific" Creationism by G. Brent Dalrymple, and it's dated 8-4-81. Did you write this document?

A. The title page looks familiar, yes.

Q. Would you like to —

MR. WOLFE: There's another copy here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. If he — you might want to get that for him.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. Yes.

Q. When did you write this document?

A. I started writing that about March of 1981. And the draft you have was typed on the date that you see on the bottom.

Q. And what was the occasion that you began to write this document?

A. I wrote this after the Segraves trial in California.

Q. Why did you write it after the trial?

A. As you probably know the complaint in that trial was changed so that most of the scientific witnesses did not appear. And some of us discussing our experiences over dinner one evening —

27

MR. WOLFE: Excuse me a second —

[Off The Record Discussion.]

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. You — you want to read back what he said?

[Thereupon the Court Reporter read back the preceding answer]

A. — decided to take advantage of the time we had put into preparing for that trial by writing up what we had learned and possibly putting it in a book

Q. And who over dinner discussed this?

A. There was Bill Mayer, Richard Dickerson of Cal Tech, Tom Jukes of Berkeley. I believe Junji Kumimoto was there from UC Riverside and myself. That's all I can remember

Q. Is this going to be published?

A. Yes

Q. Where is it going to be published?

A. We're not sure who the publisher is going to be. We have a tentative agreement with the publisher at the moment

Q. And what publisher is that?

A. It's William Kaufmann Company of Los Altos

Q. And to what audience have you written this? Do you have a plan on to whom it will be marketed and distributed?

A. It's directed primarily at people who have to deal with scientific creationism in their literature It is intended to be a partial reply to some of the criticisms

28

that those people have to some of the conclusions of science.

Q. When did you actually first start writing this?

A. I think I said it was in March.

Q. Has your involvement in this case here in Arkansas, has it affected what you have written here?

A. No. That was completed before I was approached about this.

Q. Have you read Act 590?

A. Yes. I did several months ago.

Q. I am going to refer you to your manuscript. Page 1 the introduction where you state, "scientific creationism as represented by Morris, Kofahl and Segraves and others is a model for the creation and history of the universe based on a literal interpretation of parts of the book of Genesis". Have you made a decision in your own mind if that is what Act 590 requires? The teaching of the literal interpretation of Genesis?

A. Act 590 I think specifies the teaching of scientific creationism and from the body of literature on scientific creationism that I have read that, is the conclusion that that I come to, yes.

Q. Much of the literature on scientific creationism that you have read does include references to religious works, does it not?

29

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that Act 590 specifically prohibits any religious instruction and also prohibits any references to religious writings?

A. Yes. I am aware of that but I think that would be difficult to do.

Q. So many of the — without asking for a legal judgement are you aware that many of the books and articles on the sci — creation-science of which you have read and on which you may rely may very well violate the Act?

A. Would you repeat that for me?

Q. That many of the articles which you have read may very well violate the Act?

MR. WOLFE: Is that a question and if so I didn't catch it.

BY MR. WILLIAMS

Q. Are you aware of that fact whether they will violate the Act? And I'm not asking for a legal judgment I'm just — just —

MR. WOLFE: No. No. I'm — I'm — object to the form of the question and ask whose view that is that that is a fact and I would like to have that specified within the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking him not if it is a fact but I'm asking him if he is aware

30

as to whether many of these publications on scientific creationism which he has read, if he is aware as to whether or not they would violate the Act.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. Well, I — without interpreting the law I don't know how I could answer that.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #2 was marked for the record.]

Q. Let me show you what has been marked as State's Exhibit #2 and ask you to look at it and tell me if you can identify that — those documents, please?

A. Is this the top sheet or the whole package?

Q. The whole package is State's exhibit. Can you identify that?

A. Yes. That's a reply that I received from Bill Mayer.

Q. Do you have the letter that you sent to him?

A. I could not find it.

Q. Did you — could you tell me as best you recall what your letter to him said?

A. Well, I asked him if he could send me any copies of resolutions opposing the teaching of creationism as science from professional scientific organizations. And in reply he sent me that letter and the copies that are attached to it.

Q. Why did you write him for — for those resolutions?

31

A. I was interested in the possibility of drafting a similar resolution for the American Geophysical Union and I wanted to find out what other societies had said.

Q. Why did you become interested in drafting a resolution for the American Geophysical Union?

A. Because I thought it was fairly important that religious subjects not be introduced in the science classroom and I thought it was appropriate for the AGU to at least consider this matter as part of their involvement in science education.

Q. When did you first decide that you were going to try to draft a resolution?

A. Well, I don't remember. Spring or summer. What is the date on Bill Mayer's letter? It would not have been too much before that?

Q. March 30 of 1981.

A. Okay. It would have been in March then.

Q. Do you have any authority within the AGU for resolutions on education?

A. I'm the secretary of the section of volcanology, geochemistry and petrology and as such am an officer of one of the sections. And any member is allowed to submit any matter for consideration by the council. Yes.

Q. But are you charged with the responsibility of either drafting resolutions or being responsible for matters in education within that organization?

32

A. No more so than any other officer or member of the AGU.

Q. Are any other officers charged with that responsibility, either responsibility?

A. Well, the officers of the AGU are charged with the responsibility to oversee all the functions of the society and one of those includes attitudes toward public education. There is also a committee on — on education — science education.

I don't remember the exact title of that committee. I'm not a member of that committee.

Q. Who is chairman of that committee?

A. His name is Chris Russell.

Q. What specifically motivated you to write Bill Mayer and drafting such a resolution?

A. My motivation was that I think it would be very unhealthy for science and the public at large to teach nonscience topics as science in the public schools.

Q. Was there any one event which prompted you to take this course of action?

A. I — not specifically but I think if there was one event it was probably the Segraves trial.

Q. What involvement did you play in the Segraves — role did you take in the Segraves trial?

A. Well, in the end I played virtually no role but I was asked by the Deputy Attorney General of California to appear as witness. And did go to Sacramento and was prepared to

33

appear on essentially the same basis that I am appearing here, but the complaint was changed and I did not in fact appear.

Q. In anticipation of your testimony in that case, did you review books or works on creation-science or scientific creationism?

A. Yes I did. On request from the Deputy Attorney General.

Q. And how did you select which books you reviewed or articles?

A. I started with the ones that he sent to me and some of those books or articles referred to other articles which I then obtained and read in whole or in part.

Q. Was that your first exposure to creation-science?

A. It was not my first exposure, but it was my first involvement.

Q. Do you recall when you were first exposed to creation-science or scientific creation?

A. Yes. It was back in approximately 1975 give or take a year when Duane Gish and Henry Morris of the Creation Research Institute came to Menlo Park to give a talk at the Geological Survey to a group of geologists. There were several hundred present at the evening lecture. And the next morning they requested a tour of the radiometric dating labs which a colleague of mine and I gave them. And I sat down across the table with Morris and Gish and we

34

discussed scientific creationism and the second law of thermodynamics for about thirty minutes. They had a tour of the laboratory and that was the complete extent. After — after they left they had left copies of some of their works including a book by Henry Morris called, Scientific Creationism: Public School-Edition, and I believe a paper by Slusher, "Critique of Radiometric Dating" and a paper by Thomas Barnes on The Decay of the Magnetic Field. And I read through those just out of interest after hearing their talk, and then I put the matter aside and didn't even think about it until contacted by the State of California.

Q. What was the subject of the talk that evening?

A. Well I don't remember what the titles were. Each of them gave, a — gave a talk. It was basically what they considered to be the scientific evidence for creationism.

Q. And do you recall now what your response or opinion was of their talks?

A. Well, I thought scientifically they were extremely poor talks.

Q. Is that all that you can recall about your reactions to it?

A. I was somewhat appalled that they were attempting to pass what appeared to be religious beliefs as science.

Q. Do you know if you plan to rely on any statements that were made during that talk or that meeting that you

35

had with them in your testimony in this case?

A. Not as far as I know, no.

Q. Do you recall if they talked about Genesis during that talk?

A. I don't really remember specifically what the topics were. That's been a long time ago.

Q. In 1975 you had that brief involvement and exposure to creation-science or scientific creationism at least as practiced or espoused by these two individuals?

A. Yes

Q. And then you say your next involvement was not until the Segraves case in California?

A. A few months before the Segraves case when I was contacted by the Deputy Attorney General and he asked me to read and evaluate some of their literature.

Q. When were you contacted by the California Attorney General's office?

A. I don't remember I think it was about December in the year before but I'm not clear. It was — it was a few months before the trial.

Q. What year was that now? That would be September —

A. Well, that would have been in late — late 1980, very late 1980 or perhaps it could have been January 1981. I just don't recall.

Q. During that five year period, did you make any effort

36

to try to read on any basis, regular or irregular, some of the scientific creation-science literature?

A. No.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #3 was marked for the record.]

Q. Dr. Dalrymple, I want to show to you what has been marked as State's Exhibit #3 and ask you to look at that document and tell me if you can identify it?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. And what is it?

A. Well, that's the series of correspondence between myself and other officers of the AGU discussing a draft of a resolution opposing the teaching of scientific creationism as science.

Q. When were you first contacted about possibly testifying in this case?

A. I don't remember, but I think I have that in a notebook which is here today. If you would like me to look that up I probably could find that out?

Q. I would like you to.

A. This may take a little time.

Q. While your looking through let me inquire of Mr. Wolfe —

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the notebook that he is looking through something you claim is a privilege,

37

a Work product?

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Off the Record Discussion.]

BY THE WITNESS:

A. The contact that I have is September 17th.

Q. 1981?

A. 1981.

Q. The second page of the Exhibit #3 to your deposition is styled a, "Resolution Opposing the Teaching of Creationism as Science in the Public Schools Draft 19 May 1981". Did you personally draft this?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you model this after any other resolution?

A. It's a — it's a composite model after many of the resolutions in that exhibit package plus some statements that would be specifically appropriate to the AGU.

Q. In this resolution or draft of a resolution it says, "science is the rational investigation of the physical world and its phenomena". Is that a definition of science to which you would ascribe?

A. That's a fairly accurate single sentence definition.

Q. What else would you add to the definition of science?

A. Well, if I had to broaden that a bit I think I would say that science is a system of thought or endeavor that attempts to determine the history and natural laws of the

38

physical world and its parts, and that it excludes supernatural causes. I think that would be a more complete definition.

Q. Is a definition of science a matter of science? Does it follow within a realm of science?

A. I think so.

Q. Or is it a matter of philosophy?

A. I think the boundary between science and philosophy is a matter of discussion for both disciplines but the definition of science is probably primarily a matter of — left to science. But I say that with the qualification I'm not a philosopher.

Q. On what basis do you define science?

A. I thought I just defined it for you.

Q. I'm — I'm not asking for your definition, I'm asking on what basis you have arrived at that definition? Have you taken it from somewhere else; have you formulated this yourself?

A. Well, throughout my career I've been exposed to various parts of the philosophy of science and I think parts of that definition you also find in Websters Dictionary. In order to practice science one has to know what it is.

Q. What do you mean by the term of rational investigation of the physical world and its phenomena?

A. In the sense that I used it there, I think it's probably, I mean a logical — logical use of physical facts.

39

Q. Is there a difference between science or what a scientific theory is to you?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Could you describe the difference?

A. Well, science is the entire field of scientific endeavor. Scientific theory is one of the tools that scientists work with.

Q. What is a scientific theory to you?

A. A scientific theory is a framework for explaining a large body of physical data. And usually by the time that something becomes generally accepted as the theory there is a rather large preponderance of physical data to support it.

Q. I want to make sure that I got this correctly. A framework for explaining a large amount of physical data, is that what you said?

A. Yes. Connected physical data not random physical data. And I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know of any very tiny theories. Most of them tend to encompass large pieces of science.

Q. You state that science — in your resolution that, "the scientific method prohibits any and all appeals to supernatural or divine agents". What do you mean by the term, `appeal'?

MR. WOLFE: Excuse me. Is that a

40

quote?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is a quote. That is a quote.

MR. WOLFE: Could you indicate that on other parts that you are quoting in the future?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. What do I mean by the word, appeal?

Q. Yeah.

A. Well, I mean one is not permitted to call upon supernatural agents to explain what we see in the physical universe.

Q. You're not allowed to call upon them to —

A. You're not allowed to use those —

Q. — explain them?

A. You're not allowed to use those as an explanation of what we see.

Q. Does that mean that it did not occur?

A. No. That simply means that supernatural causes that science is not equipped to deal with.

Q. What is supernatural?

A. Well, anything that is not natural. Anything that can not be explained by physical laws. And I would include in that appeals to a deity, magic, voodoo, that sort of thing.

Q. When you look at what can be explained by natural law.

41

As you look down the road say twenty years from now, do you think that our concepts of what the natural laws are and our knowledge of the natural laws will have changed in those twenty years?

A. Well, if history is any indication of what is going to happen in the future, of course.

Q. We don't — we don't know about all natural laws do we?

A. Of course not. If we did, scientists would be out of business.

Q. So based on our present knowledge of natural law, might there not be things which today would be considered supernatural which as we know more about the laws would be — come into the realm of the natural law?

A. I suppose that's possible.

Q. I guess another way in saying that would be that in trying to explain the natural laws we're unfortunately limited by our own intellects.

MR. WOLFE: Is that a question. If so I object to the form.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is a question.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. Well, we're limited by our intellects, we're limited the extent to which we can observe things and we're limited by our ability to measure things. And I think those situations

42

are continually changing.

Q. Is there any distinction in your mind between a supernatural and the divine agent?

A. In the sense that it is used there and the sense that is used in most definitions of science, no. The divine agent would be included under supernatural and by that it only means things that are not concerned with physical law.

Q. On what basis have you made a or reached a conclusion creationism is a religious apologetic?

A. On the basis —

Q. Have you reached that conclusion?

A. Yes, I have. On the basis of reaching — reading the creationist literature.

Q. All right. Could you tell me what you understand religious apologetics to be?

A. It's a framework for expanding — explaining one's religious beliefs.

Q. Do you consider yourself to he an authority on religious apologetics?

A. No. I do not.

Q. Then on what basis have you concluded that creationism is religious apologetics?

A. Well, I looked up apologetics in the Webster's Dictionary and it seemed to fit what I had been reading in the scientific creationist literature.

43

Q. Are you relying on any — what you have read anywhere else besides Webster's when you make that statement in this resolution?

A. Well, that plus discussions with colleagues I suppose over things like scientific creationism.

Q. I'd like to show you a copy of Act 590 and refer you specifically to Section 4-a which is the definition of creation science. The 4-a (1). Do you see four by the definition?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Could you tell me where within Genesis — a literal reading of Genesis that would be found?

A. No. I'm not that familiar with Genesis but there are specific references in some of the creationist literature to — to specific passages in Genesis.

Q. Is that essentially what you are relying on when you make the conclusion that creationism, to paraphrase, is an attempt to reconcile the universe with a literal interpretation of Genesis is — what — the statement you have seen in so called creationist literature, is that what you're relying on when you made this conclusion?

A. Well, yes. I think one has to, you know, if one is interested in knowing what chemistry is you have to study the literature and textbooks of chemistry and in doing so you learn what the subject of chemistry is about. The same is true in geology and I presume that the same is

44

true in scientific creationism. I have read within my limited capacity as widely as I could the literature I could get my hands on scientific creationism and I presume that that represents what scientific creationism is.

Q. All right. Have you read any data or read any reports or literature within the referee journals which support creation-science?

A. No. I have not.

Q. Are you aware if there is any?

A. As far as I'm aware, there is none in the trad — traditional scientific literature.

Q. If there were some would that change your opinion?

A. It would depend on how much of it there was and exactly what the evidence was.

Q. Your resolution also states, "it", referring to creationism, "attempts to explain scientific data within the framework of divine biblical revelation as interpreted by certain groups of fundamental Christians". In your reading of Act 590, is there any thing in there that indicates to you that this is biblical revelation interpreted by certain groups of fundamental Christians — funda— fundamental organizations?

A. Well, there again you use the word, creation-science, and I have to take the definition of creation-science from what — from what the creation-scientists provide me.

45

You can't define a branch of science in a — in a law. It has to be based on a body of knowledge and that requires literature and textbooks. And I examined what I could in their literature and that tells me what scientific creationism is.

Q. You are aware though, aren't you Dr. Dalrymple, that we're dealing here with creation-science as defined in Act 590 of the Acts of Arkansas?

A. Yes. I understand that. But this requires that you teach something and if it is not based on the traditional scientific literature and it is not based on the literature of scientific creationism then you have me confused. I'm not sure what it is you are going to teach.

Q. As you read Section 4-a which defines creation-science, and I'd like you to read that now and just take a moment.

A. Okay. Including the ones, and twos and threes?

Q. Right. You don't have to read it out loud. Just please tell me when you've completed reading it.

A. Okay.

Q. 4-a (1) states, "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing". Where to the best of your knowledge of Genesis is that found in Genesis?

A. I could not quote you where that is found. I am not a student of the Bible.

Q. 4-a (2) says, "the insufficiency of mutation

46

and natural selection in bringing about developments of all living kinds from a single organism". Is that dealt with anywhere in Genesis to your knowledge?

A. I have — I — I told you I'm not a student, of the Bible and I don't know if or where any of those things are dealt with in the Bible.

Q. Rather than belabor the point, if I read you 4-a (3-6) as well. Would your answer be the same as to where these portions of the definition are found in Genesis that you could not say?

A. I could not give you the chapter or the verse.

Q. Are they found in Genesis?

A. According the creationists, they are.

Q. According to the creationist literature that you have read?

A. According the creationist literature that I have read.

Q. I assume that you are not the only person in the country who utilizes potassium/argon dating or rubidium/ strontium — strontium?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you read other articles on those methods of dating, haven't you?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Have you agreed with everything that you have read

47

in those articles professionally?

A. Not always.

Q. Do you think that each time you have read articles by other people on these methods of dating that they have always fairly characterized what potassium/argon dating is?

A. I think primarily they, yes, they have.

Q. Are you aware — well, my point and I think that you can see and the question that I was going to ask you is simply because someone uses a label for example of potassium/argon dating doesn't mean that they have used it correctly or that you would agree with them, does it?

A. Well, no. That's why we have scientific literatures so that we can read in detail what they have found and draw our conclusions from that. Otherwise the scientific literature would be a collection of opinions and that's not — that's not permitted. We are required to show the evidence and demonstrate how we reach our conclusions.

Q. When you look at scientific evidence is it reasonable as part of the scientific method to infer from scientific evidence? The general principle?

A. I guess I don't know quite what you mean by infer. Do you mean draw up tentative conclusions?

Q. Right. If that is what it means to you? I — I — I don't want to limit —

A. You know, that's what people try to do. They draw up tentative conclusions from their experiments.

[Off The Record Discussion.]

48

Q. I'm sorry. Could you read back that last statement?

[Thereupon the court reporter read back the last answer given by the witness.]

Q. This draft resolution states, "The religious doctrine of creationism has no place in any science curriculum." If there is scientific evidence for creation or for the other things included in Act 590, including a relatively recent inception of the earth, do you think that should be taught in a — can appropriately be taught in a public school science classroom?

A. Well, if and when such evidence were gathered and at such time when it became preponderant such that it was believable and was sufficient to overweigh the other evidence that suggests the contrary, then at that time and only at that time it might be an appropriate thing to teach.

Q. So only when it really overcomes evolution to use the term in the broad sense?

A. Well, that's the sense the creationists use it. I have never thought of myself or geology as being evolutionists. But if you're using it in their sense, yes.

Q. Well, let me say that we are dealing with Act 590 and evolution-science, as defined in the Act, does include an inception several billion years ago of the earth.

49

A. Several bil —

Q. Yes. Several billion years ago of the earth.

A. Okay.

Q. And that would be your opinion as to the age of the earth; is that not correct?

A. Well, it's not an opinion. It's a conclusion that myself and thousands of other scientists have drawn because the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming in favor of that conclusion.

Q. All right. So to restate, my understanding of your answer is that if there is scientific evidence for creation, it should not be taught in a public school science classroom until such time as it has a preponderance or a majority of the scientific community, or at such time as there is a majority of scientific evidence which supports it.

A. That's a little bit difficult to answer, but let me do it in the best way I can. I think that science classes should teach, as best they can, two things. One is the history of science so we learn the development of ideas. And the second is the present state of scientific knowledge. Now that has to be simplified so much because it's a very complicated subject and you can't teach all of it. Nobody knows all of it.

If any hypothesis, theory, model or set of facts

50

becomes supported by enough evidence so that it is generally accepted by the scientific community, then that assumption becomes part of science and it should be taught. But you see, we don't vote on these things. They become accepted by informal consensus.

And so when you say, you know, what if this happens? It's a little difficult to answer that question because we don't know what's going to happen. You see, at present there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is very old. It's virtually 100% of the evidence. Therefore, it is not a feasible hypothesis to propose or to teach as a theory or a hypothesis or anything else that the earth is only 10,000 years old. That's simply not acceptable.

Q. But as I understand your previous answer — and please correct me if I'm wrong — that you don't think that, for example, if there is evidence of a young earth that it should not be taught until such time as it, in effect, overcomes and replaces the evidence which says that the earth is old.

A. That's — that is typically the way that science works, yes.

Q. So for example, if there is a valid scientific theory in the sense that you have defined it and it's a minority scientific theory, you don't think it should be taught in the public school science classroom?

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple - Page 2

51

A. I don't think there is any such thing as a minority scientific theory and I will tell you why. Because by the time a hypothesis reaches the status of a theory, there has to be a preponderance of evidence supporting it. It has to be almost overwhelming. Now at some later date the situation may change so that that theory has to be modified. But in terms of a minority theory, I can't think of any. Sometimes you will get minority hypotheses.

Q. What's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

A. Well, a hypothesis basically has less, much less support than a theory and it often encompasses a smaller chunk of something.

For example, I might hypothesize that this table is six feet long and I might perform an experiment to determine whether that hypothesis is correct. But I don't think that would ever become a theory just because I proved the table is six feet long.

So there is a difference in both the weight of evidence, and there's usually a difference in scale.

Q. If you have a hypothesis which rises to the level of a theory, at some point is it possible for the theory to rise to the level of a fact?

A. I don't — well, the way I think of a fact is essentially an observation or a set of observations that

52

are virtually universally accepted. I think, again, a fact would be that this table is six feet long or however long it is. Now, that's kind of a personal definition. Usually in science we use things like hypothesis and theory. Facts are primarily a set of data. That's the way I think of fact.

Q. Well, trying to recall one of the more prominent examples from the history of science. When Copernicus hypothesized, I guess, first that we did not have a geocentric universe. But in fact, the planets revolved around the sun. And then at some point I suppose that was tested. Is that to you today a fact or a theory?

A. Well, I think that is sufficiently a simple concept and has been measured to the degree that I would probably consider that a fact. I don't know of anyone who disputes that.

Q. And that was, at one time, a theory was it not?

A. I presume it was, yes. I don't really know the history of evolution of that particular line of thought as well — well enough to tell you at what point it was a hypothesis and at what point it was a theory. I think today most people would regard the fact that — well, I just used the word didn't I? Would regard that as a fact that the planets go around the sun.

Q. All right. So to take your position that there is

53

no such thing as a minority view of scientific theory, at one time the thought that we do have a geocentric universe. The earth is the center around which everything else revolves. Did that hold sway in the scientific community? Are you aware of that?

A. As far as I know, that's correct.

Q. And when Copernicus offered this new theory or hypothesis, whatever you want to term it, it was not immediately and fully accepted within the scientific community. Are you aware of that?

A. That's correct.

Q. So under your view, until such time as the scientific community accepted, by a general consensus, Copernicus' theory, you would not have wanted that to be taught in a public school science classroom.

A. I think that depends on whether I were living in Copernicus' time or whether I were living today. If you asked me that — if that evolution and thought were going on today, I think we would recognize that Copernicus' hypothesis was a reasonable alternative that did not conflict necessarily with any data. And you might hold those two as an alternative hypothesis for a short period of time.

You do have occasionally some overlap when one theory or hypothesis replaces another one. There will be

54

a time when it is difficult to decide between the two.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. There is seldom one definitive experiment, one breakthrough that happens at an instant in time so that you switch instantaneously from one theory to another. The theory of plate tectonics, for example in geology took several years to become accepted and replace the old ideas. So there was a brief period of overlap.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. But it only becomes an alternative when it becomes a reasonable explanation and when it doesn't conflict with an overwhelming amount of fact that opposes it or data.

Q. Well, during the time that there was this overlap or when both were being discussed — both being these two theories of the earth and of the universe — would it have been useful for those students who were studying science to study both theories you think?

A. Well, I don't — I don't know. That's difficult because in those days science and philosophy were mixed up together and I think with religion, too. Degrees in science weren't given, I think, until after Darwin graduated.

I don't think you could go to school and study science and get a degree in it when Darwin went to school. So part of the difficulty in answering that question is because I think there's been an evolution in the way

55

science operates. It's separated from philosophy and religion in a way that it wasn't in Copernicus' time.

Q. The methods of radiometric dating which you have previously listed, are any of those methods — can two of those methods be used to date some geologic formation or rock or whatever — the same type? I mean can you use more than one method to arrive at a conclusion as to the age of something?

A. Sometimes you can, yes.

Q. Are the methods, to any degree, conflicting?

A. I don't quite understand —

Q. Well, is there a conflict in the methods of radiometric dating?

A. I still don't know what you're —

Q. Can you answer the question? Is there a conflict?

A. Well I don't understand the question. That's why I can't —

MR. WOLFE: I guess I find the question ambiguous as well. I'm not certain whether you mean do the methods they use, are in some sense not the same? Are they conflicting? Or are you asking whether the results arrived at, whether they occasionally give conflicting dates, for instance. I'm afraid I would object to the form of the question as presently posed as ambiguous.

56

Q. All right. Let me see if I can rephrase it. Let me ask maybe a different question. Are you aware of generally some of the theories of evolution?

A. Only in the most general sense and primarily as a layman.

Q. All right.

A. I'm not prepared to answer any detailed questions on evolution at all. It is out of my field of expertise.

Q. Are you aware that there is something called the modern synthesis theory of evolution?

A. I'll just have to repeat my previous statement. I'm not an expert on evolution. I'm —

Q. I'm not asking you — I'm asking you as a layman are you aware — a layman in that field are you aware of that?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of something called the punctuated equilibrium?

A. I have heard about it, yes.

Q. What do you understand that to be?

A. Well, my understanding is that — again, this is a layman's interpretation — is that evolution proceeds by a series of spurts and then long periods of stasis or non-change.

Q. And that is opposed — that theory would be as opposed to a slow gradual change; is that correct?

57

A. That's my general understanding, yes.

Q. Do you know as to whether one is held by a majority of people within this field of expertise or not?

A. You'd have to ask a biologist. I don't know that.

Q. Basic mathematics would tell you that both can't be held by a majority. Would you agree with that?

A. Both could be held as alternative explanations, alternative models until such time as there is enough evidence to decide which is which. I'm speaking now in a general sense.

Q. I understand.

A. I don't know about these specific things at all.

Q. Sure. Do you think it would be appropriate in a public school science classroom to study both of these theories?

A. Well, you're really asking me now I think what the — a question that's related to what the present state of biological science is. And I'm not sure enough of what that is. I think that science classes should teach the present state of science as it is perceived by scientists. Now I don't know whether scientists perceive those as being equal or whether more people are in favor of one or the other. So it is difficult for me to answer the question if that's enough of a qualification to explain my difficulty.

Q. Okay. If there is one that is held by more of a

58

majority of scientists and one that is held by a minority of scientists, do you think that the minority view should not be discussed in a science classroom?

A. Well, I suppose that depends on why it's a minority. If it's a minority because it's absurd, then I think it should not be discussed in the classroom. If it's a minority simply because there is slightly more evidence for one than the other and perhaps you have 60% of the people thinking that one may be correct and 40% thinking that the other is correct, then I would suggest that those things probably, then, should be both discussed in a classroom.

Q. Doesn't that conflict with your previous answer that there's no such thing as a minority scientific theory?

A. No, it doesn't. I think I said at time of transition when one theory might be replacing another one or when it is difficult to decide between the two, there may be periods of overlap. But I think those are rare. I'm not even sure that either one of those models has the status of a theory.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. Just because of my own ignorance. I'm not saying they don't have that status. What I'm saying is I don't know what the status of punctuated equilibrium versus gradual and continual evolution is. This is out of my

59

field.

Q. Was your earlier answer, though, to one of my questions that if a hypothesis is held by only a minority of the scientific community, then it cannot be a scientific theory?

A. Would you repeat that for me again?

Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it. I have it down earlier that you said there's no such thing as a minority view scientific theory.

A. I think I later qualified that to say that at times, perhaps, there might be.

Q. Now how do you define — how does science define when there is an overlap, this transition that you mentioned?

A. Well, usually when there's active debate on both models in the traditional literature then there's an overlap. When science has a difficult time deciding between two models or two hypotheses, that's usually fairly obvious because the literature reflects that disagreement or that uncertainty.

Q. So if there is an overlap, do I understand you to say that you would not, at that point, object to two perhaps conflicting theories being taught in a public school science classroom?

A. No, provided they're both scientific theories or hypotheses and provided they're both substantiated with

60

enough fact or observation that they — that both should be taken seriously, at least to a degree. Then I wouldn't object at all.

Q. Well, that last qualification you put on there of — of — could you read that back? That last part of that statement.

[Thereupon the court reporter read back the last answer given by the witness.]

Q. Okay. If there is a debate or publications in the scientific journals on both, would that not be sufficient evidence to you that there is enough facts or evidence for both as you said there?

A. Not necessarily. Every once in awhile a scientist will get an absolutely crazy idea and, publish it in the scientific literature as, uh, "Here's my crazy idea, colleagues. What do you think about it?" Just because that paper appears in the scientific literature does not give it the status of a hypothesis.

I think hypotheses have to be — have to be reasonable. They have to have some reasonable chance of being true before they're worth spending much time on.

Q. How do you define whether they're reasonable?

A. Well, when I think enough scientists look at that and say, "Yeah, that's a possibility." May I use an example?

61

Q. Sure

A. I think today if a scientists published a hypothesis that said that the earth was flat, I think we now have enough data and have had enough data for so long that that's absurd. Now you could frame that proposition in terms of a scientific hypothesis. But it really is not because it's absurd and because it is so totally disproved.

Q. Let's go off the record.

[Off the record discussion.]

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Dr. Dalrymple, do you favor teaching all scientific evidence on theories of origins?

MR. WOLFE: I'll object to the form of the question unless you specify whether it's to high school students, graduate students, whatever.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh. I really want to find out generally. I think we can qualify it later of if he wants to qualify it, he certainly can. But I want to — let's say generally teaching all scientific evidence.

MR. WOLFE: Well, then I want to object to the question.

Q. Okay. You can answer the question.

A. I guess I need to know before I do that what you mean by origin?

62

Q. Talking about theories of origin of the universe, the earth, of life and man.

A. You don't necessarily mean ultimate origin? You see, this is the problem I have. If you ask me how a particular rock originated in its present state, that's a fairly simple question. It might be scientifically complex, but its a fairly simple question. If you're asking me how matter and energy came into being in the beginning, whatever that means then that's a difficult question that I'm not sure is within the realm of science. So that's my difficulty.

Q. Well, please remember that in my question it's a given that we're talking about scientific evidence.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I'll object to the form of the modified or restated question because it may not, in fact, be possible to assume that there is scientific evidence on a — on a, by definition, a non- scientific question.

A. You know, there's scientific evidence that goes back to the "Big Bang" if I can use that phrase. It doesn't go beyond that.

Q. Well, for example the scientific evidence on the Big Bang. Do you think that should be taught or do you favor it being taught?

A. Yes. Yes. Those are scientific observations.

63

Q. What is the scientific evidence of which you are aware which supports the Big Bang theory?

A. Well, you're asking a question in astronomy and astrophysics and this is, again, out of my field. So if you want an answer, it would have to be a layman's answer. And as far as I know, the ideas or the data are primarily based on the fact that the galaxies are mutually receding away from each other and away from a common point in the universe.

Q. What happened to your resolution after you drafted it and circulated it?

A. Well, there's been no action on it yet. It has not been introduced to the council. I don't know whether it will be introduced to the council.

Q. Have you had a meeting of the council?

A. There's been no meeting.

Q. I take it you did get some opposition to your resolution?

A. Basically to the wording. This draft was circulated to try to find out whether there was enough interest in the subject that a resolution in any form should be considered. And this is why I say I'm not sure the resolution will even be introduced.

I think I would also like to say that that is a rough draft. It has the same status as an unfinished

64

manuscript and I fully expect that if it goes anywhere, it will be modified. I don't know in what way except that there'll be other people besides myself involved in it. They will have opinions of their own on how such a resolution might be worded.

Q. In some of your letters in here you state that if it should be defeated and not prevail or be defeated, you told the council that that would be, to paraphrase, disastrous. Why is that?

A. Well, I wouldn't use the term disastrous, but my guess is that the creationists would view that as a victory. That a scientific society has considered a resolution against scientific creationism and rejected it. In a sense, whenever you submit a resolution like this you are forcing a group to take a stand either yes or no. There is no in between. This is why I say I'm not even sure it will be introduced because I'm not sure they even want to consider the question. It maybe a subject in which there is not interest. And if that's so, it will be promptly dropped.

Q. Why would there perhaps be no interest in your opinion?

A. There is a — there are some people in the AGU who do not think that the AGU should become heavily involved in any public issues. That it should stick primarily to

65

the dissemination of scientific information strictly for the consumption of scientists.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And I anticipate that might be the major objection of considering such a resolution.

Q. In one of your letters, this one to Dr. Leslie Meredith, you state that "We..." and from the context of the letter-I think that's Carl Sagan and yourself.

A. Uh-huh

Q. "...think that this is appropriate for the AGU to go on record on this issue, particularly as it is primarily a science education issue and not a political one." Could you tell me why you feel it is a science education issue and not a political one?

A. Because I think the issue is really what is going to be taught in science. That's the only issue that concerns me. I'm only concerned with science education. I have no qualms or reservations about teaching creationism as part of a social science curriculum or as part of a religion curriculum or a philosophy curriculum. But I have objections to teaching it as a science curriculum because I sincerely believe it is not science. That's why I think this is primarily an issue of what is science and what is not science.

Q. You wrote a letter, according to Exhibit #3, to

66

Dr. James A. Van Allen. Did you ever get a response from him on this?

A. No, I've not yet.

Q. Have you talked with him about it?

A. I've not.

Q. One of the letters that you did receive from someone by the name of C. T. Russell and he says that he thinks that Van Allen will be your main problem. Do you know why he has that opinion?

A. No, I don't.

Q. According to this letter, Van Allen strongly opposed the ERA resolution. And do you know from that — are you aware of that fact?

A. Yes, I'm aware of it. And my understanding of that is that Jim Van Allen is opposed to the AGU taking stances on public and political issues. And whether he would consider a resolution on creationism to be one of those or not, I will not know until I hear back from him or have. a chance to talk to him in person about it. The letter by Russell is obviously speculation based on what, I don't know.

Q. Let's mark this as Defendant's Exhibit #4 please.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #4 was marked for the record.]

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit #4 to your deposition

67

which is a letter to you from someone and your letter to a Sister Neal I think it is.

A. Noel.

Q. Noel? Excuse me. Do you recall writing that letter?

A. Yes. I recall writing one of the letters. I think she wrote the other one.

Q. Why did you write the letter to Sister Noel Riley?

A. She had written a column in a Southern California newspaper. I believe it was the Los Angeles Times but I'm not sure. I thought it was very well done and I wrote to her to tell her essentially that. She wrote back telling me basically that she appreciated my letter.

Q. All right.

A. I often do that when people have done things I like. I will often write them and say, "Congratulations" or "I think that was fine." "I appreciate what you've done" and so forth. I try to make that a regular habit.

Q. You stated in your letter to her that "Fortunately the number of scientists who draw religious inferences from physical data and the number of religious leaders who use the Bible as a science text are very small minority."

A. Yes.

Q. Who are the scientists of which you are aware who draw religious inferences from physical data?

A. I'm not aware of any in my personal knowledge. Those

68

were phrases taken out of her column. I don't personally know any who do.

Q. Do you know of any who do?

A. I do not know of any who do and the reason I phrased it the way I did is I'm perfectly willing to admit that there may be some. She, as I recall, said there were and I'm quite willing to grant that possibility. But from my experience they must be a very small minority because I don't know any of them.

Q. Do you recall what she was talking about and what kind of inferences, religious inferences scientists were trying to draw from physical data?

A. I don't recall the details of the column at all.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether religion can be based on science?

A. I'm not sure I have any opinion on that one way or the other. Let me think about that a minute. I guess the answer to that might depend on how religion was defined.

Q. How do you define religion?

A. Well, my — I guess my personal definition is belief in a supreme deity of some sort, or deities.

Q. Do you think it's necessary to have a supreme being or God in order to have a religion?

A. Well, within my upbringing in western culture, I guess the answer to that would be yes.

69

Q. You mentioned western culture. Would you acknowledge that there are religions, particularly some of the eastern mystic religions which don't have a God in a sense. Are you aware of that?

A. No, I'm not aware of that, but I'm willing to take your word for it if you say it's so.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm not a student of religion.

Q. You also used the phrase "religious leaders who use the Bible as a science text."

A. Yes.

Q. Does your reading of Act 590 indicate to you that the Bible could be used as a science text under this law?

A. May I look at this?

Q. Certainly.

A. Well, it says that the teaching must not include any religious instruction or references to religious writings. And I would presume that would preclude using the Bible as a text.

Q. Mark this Exhibit #5 please.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #5 was marked for the record.]

Q. Let me show you Exhibit #5 which is a letter dated June 4, 1981 to Niles Eldredge from you and I believe there is another letter attached as part of that exhibit which

70

is from Niles Eldredge to you.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you recall those letters?

A. Yes. I wrote them if that's what you're asking.

Q. What are the geophysical issues as you use that term in here as they relate to science and creationism?

A. Well, creationism has two geological propositions. One is that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old or less and the second is that all the sedimentary rocks in the geologic column were deposited during the great flood which lasted about a year and occurred sometime between 4,500 and 7,000 years ago. Those are the two propositions against which there is a preponderance of geophysical evidence.

Q. I'd like for you to look at Act 590 and tell me where the first of those propositions that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old is found in Act 590 if it is.

A. Well, it's not. But Section 4.(a)6 says, "relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." And from reading rather extensively in the scientific creationism literature, all of those writings seem to indicate — or most of them seem to indicate that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. There are numerous statements to that effect.

Q. However, as you personally understand the term

71

"relatively recent" given the age which you believe the earth is of some like 4.6 billion years old, "relatively recent" could mean a lot older than 10,000 years old couldn't it?

A. It could but I don't think you would get any scientific creationists to accept that definition. If they would, I've not seen it written down by them.

Q. Is there scientific evidence that the earth is, while older, than 10,000, is younger than 4.6 to 4.8 billion years old?

A. None that I know of.

Q. In Niles Eldredge's letter to you he states, "Your manuscript told me something, with crystal clarity, that (though I knew) I had been sweeping under the table: I have been fond of saying that creation science isn't science — but this is not strictly accurate." And he goes on to talk about that creation-science is science, but it is what he says is "bad" science. Is that your opinion?

A. Well, my opinion is that it's not science because it's religiously based. I think what he was talking about was the kind of treatment I did in here (indicating). In the introduction I said that there were two geological corollaries of what they call their creation model. And we can examine those as if they were hypotheses and see

72

whether they are absurd or whether they are reasonable.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. So often times you can treat things scientifically without them necessarily being science. Now if you look at these as religiously based, it's not science. If you divorce it from the religion, then it only becomes absurd. This is what I think he probably means by "bad" science. If you really want to know what he means in that letter you'd have to ask him.

Q. Well, earlier I think in discussing your draft resolution we talked about what was science and what was a scientific theory. And your resolution made statements about that a theory must be testable, capable of validation, that sort of thing. Now if you look at, for example, the statement that there has been a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds. Let's just take the portion dealing with the earth since that's really your area of expertise as I understand it.

A. Yes.

Q. What you are, in effect, I think saying here in this manuscript is that aspect of creation-science is subject to being tested and you have tested it and think it's false.

A. It's been tested. We've known for over 25 years that the earth was 4® billion years old and the solar system. And at this point, to say that it's very young regardless

73

of whether you draw that line at 10,000 years or 1,000,000 years or even 10,000,000 years, it is an absurd hypothesis. It is in the class of the flat earth.

You see, when things become absurd they cease to be science. We simply can't afford to waste our time reproving things that are already proven.

Q. Now you've added another qualification I think to what is a scientific theory. That is that it must not be absurd.

A. Well, I think I said before that a theory had a preponderance of evidence to support, even though it was still undergoing tests and may undergo modification. I think what I said earlier was that a hypothesis may not be absurd. I think the same thing holds true of a theory. A theory may not be absurd.

Q. And it goes without saying that if it is absurd, it's not a scientific theory or hypothesis in your mind; correct?

A. I think that's a fair statement, yes.

Q. Who is to determine the absurdity of a theory?

A. Well, that's generally done by a collection of scientists, by consensus. There is no formal procedure for doing that.

Q. So that if someone says — a consensus or majority of scientists say a theory is absurd, then at that point the scientific community can dismiss it and not consider

74

it further as a viable scientific theory?

A. That's basically correct, you see, but that's not just based on an opinion. People would come to the conclusion that it's absurd because they know of an overwhelming amount of evidence against it. That's what makes it absurd. It's not really a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evaluating the evidence.

Q. And you state in your letter to Eldredge that "Hypotheses that are clearly false, like above or a 10,000 year-old earth, are not scientific hypotheses — they're silly and the produce of emotionally and intellectually retarded minds." Is that an accurate representation of your beliefs and your feelings?

A. I wrote that, yes.

Q. So that anyone who believes in an age of the earth which is 10,000 years old is retarded?

MR. WOLFE: I will object to the characterization that counsel has just used. The letter was read into the record. The witness was asked whether he had, in fact, written it. He did say that he had, in fact, written it and I believe that it speaks for itself.

MR. WILLIAMS: The characterization is the witnesses, not counsel's.

MR. WOLFE: No, no. The

75

characterization is clearly that of Mr. Williams. The letter is clearly that of Dr. Dalrymple. And I think the record now is perfectly clear as to that distinction. I suggest that you made an effort to blur that distinction, which I prefer you not to do.

Q. Well, let me make sure that the record is perfectly clear. It is your belief that anyone who thinks that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old has an emotionally and intellectually retarded mind?

A. Well, I wrote that and those terms are used very loosely. This was a personal conversation between two people. If I may rephrase it a little bit, I think that people who attempt to put that proposition over as science rather than a personal belief or a personal religious belief can't be very bright because there is a tremendous amount of scientific evidence. Thousands and thousands and thousands of data which tell us that is not true. It's absurd. And they simply can't understand that. Therefore, there is something wrong with their process of thinking scientifically. I'm only restricting that to scientific reasoning. I have no qualms about what people choose to believe as religion or philosophy or anything else. As a scientific proposition, it's absurd.

Q. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? This is from Eldredge. "So, when the ACLU says that the

76

Arkansas law injects religion into the school curriculum, they're right, but they must avoid asserting that creation- science is pure religion. It's science — bad, bad science."

A. Well, I think there are two ways to look at that. It's hard to say whether I agree exactly with that or not. But scientific creationism is clearly religiously based, and in that sense, it's an introduction of religion into science teaching. On the other hand, if you want to try and divorce that and look at it as science, it is rotten, rotten, science. So there are really sort of two ways to look at it. I don't think we want to teach rotten science.

Q. He goes on to state, "But, unfortunately, it is not unconstitutional to teach bad science." Without asking for a legal judgement, do you agree with that?

MR. WOLFE: I would object to the form of the question. I would like to have some greater specification of whether there is any content to that question that does not call for a legal judgement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I think that's fair. I think that's probably inherently legal. WITNESS: I was going to say that the Supreme Court has enough trouble with that. I don't know why you're asking a poor geologist.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. This manuscript which we've previously discussed,

77

for purposes of this deposition, why don't I have this marked as Exhibit #6. I don't want to make it an exhibit to the deposition, but just marked for identification. [Thereupon State's Exhibit #6 was marked for identification.]

Q. As I understand it, is Exhibit #6 going to be part of a book or is it going to be published as a book itself?

A. The present intentions are that it will be a chapter of a book.

Q. Who, if you know, are going to be the authors of the other chapters?

A. I'll try to remember who they are. Bill Mayer, Norman Horowitz of Cal Tech, Richard Dickerson of Cal Tech and I believe Tom Jukes of Berkeley, plus myself. There may be others that I've forgotten. There is one more. Everett Olson of UCLA.

Q. And is Mayer going to be the editor?

A. He has taken the responsibility of editing the volume, yes. The scientific editor.

Q. Do you know who he refers to in "our brave little band"?

A. I think he's referring to the people who were supposed to be the scientific witnesses in the Segraves trial for the State of California.

Q. I notice you have in here some correspondence which

78

appears to be from Kelley Segraves. How did you come to have this correspondence?

A. That was sent to me by Tom Jukes if I recall correctly. Is there a letter attached to the front? I'm not sure but that came in a — I think that came from Tom Jukes. But I'm not sure.

Q. Do you plan to rely on this in your testimony?

A. No, it was put in there simply because it seemed to fit the description of the material that you asked for.

Q. Mark this please.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #7 was marked for the record.]

Q. I show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit #7 to your deposition, which is a memorandum dated September 25, 1981 to the Assistant Chief Geologist, Western Region. from the Acting Assistant Director, Western Region.

A. Yes. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you recall receiving this document?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there a document which you sent to — is it Mr. Swinnerton —

A. Swinnerton.

Q. — in which he, in turn, gave you this one? I note Exhibit #7 says, "As requested, you are authorized to testify. . ."

79

A. Yes. I wrote him a letter stating that I had been asked to testify by the ACLU, gave him the case number and so forth; and I could not find that letter. But it was a simple standard form request for permission to testify.

Q. Could you tell me what you understand to mean by this, the following language in his memo to you? "You are not authorized to testify on behalf of either party. However, you are authorized to present factual data and furnish records in regards to radiometric dating."

A. What he means by that?

Q. What you understand that to mean, particularly that first sentence.

A. That's basically I'm authorized to appear as an expert witness I think is what that means.

Q. But you can't testify on behalf of either party. What does that mean?

A. I don't really know what that means. I think that means is if you had asked me to come and testify, I would have been just as willing to come and testify at your request as at the ACLU's.

Q. It also says that you are authorized to present factual data and furnish record. Is it your understanding that you are not authorized to give opinions?

A. I think opinions that are within the realm of my

80

experience as a scientist are quite appropriate. And what I answer depends on what questions you ask me, so. I should mention that that letter is more or less a standard form reply for request to give testimony in any legal proceedings.

Q. To your knowledge, have you ever reviewed — or have you in the past reviewed articles for publications in refereed journals?

A. Oh, yes. Frequently.

Q. Have you ever reviewed any on the subject of creation-science?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever reviewed any which, to your knowledge, would support the theory of creation-science?

A. No.

Q. What if you were to see one and would be asked to review it by one of the journals which you would review for and — while the scientific data looked competent and good, it did support creation-science.

A. Well, I would apply the same criteria to such a scientific article as I do to all scientific articles. Exactly what my recommendation to the author and the journal would be would depend on the details of the paper. Since that's a hypothetical question, I really can't tell you what my response would be.

81

Q. Would you mark this, please, as Exhibit #8?

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #8 was marked for the record.]

Q. Was there a session on creation-science at the fall AGU meeting in San Francisco?

A. Well, the fall meeting will be next week and the answer is no, there will not be.

Q. Why is there not going to be a session — well, first of all. You did write some letters didn't you proposing that there, perhaps, be a session?

A. That was an initial — an initial attempt to see if there was enough interest to have one and I'm not sure yet whether there will be one in future meetings or not. I haven't decided.

Q. Wouldn't it be fair to say, from looking at these documents, that you have been trying to spearhead something within the AGU on the subject of creation-science?

A. That's correct.

Q. You have proposed a resolution. You have also proposed a seminar or some sort of a session on the subject; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And to date, at least, your efforts within AGU have not met with success.

A. Well, that's not correct.

82

Q. Well, you've already said there's not going to be a session next week on the subject in the meeting. Is there going to be a resolution introduced?

A. I don't know whether it will be or not. I've not seen the agenda for the council meeting. My understanding is that the topic of whether or not the AGU should consider becoming involved in that will come up at the council meeting. But I'm not sure that's on the agenda. The reason there will be no seminar is because I'm the program chairman, and I decided I didn't have time to do it this fall.

Q. According to Exhibit #8, there is something in here entitled "Science and Creationism, Possible Subjects and Speakers." Was that your tentative outline for a proposal

A. That was just a rough —

Q. — for a program?

A. — list of ideas. It's not even what I would call an outline.

Well, you do have some — let's go off the record.

[Lunch break.]

DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Now before the break we took we were discussing Exhibit #8, which is a series of correspondence. There are several letters in there. Why don't you just generally

83

identify what it is.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Would you describe what it is?

A. That's a series of letters discussing the possibility or the desirability for a symposium or a special session on creationism at some future AGU meeting.

Q. And as part of this there is a proposed schedule or rough draft I think you said on a seminar or session on science and creationism.

A. Well, I think that's a list of possible ideas. I didn't intend it to be an outline.

Q. And there are certain ideas or topics and I notice that there are people referenced in parentheses. For example, "Introduction (Sagan, Dalrymple)" Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. These are the people who you were thinking about perhaps....

A. They're possibilities of people that might handle that aspect of the program.

Q. And you are chairman of the program committee?

A. I am program chairman for the VGP section.

Q. All right. And of the names you have on here of people you were thinking about being involved, are any of these people creationists?

A. Let me look at the list. No.

84

Q. Is there any particular reason why you, in this tentative list at least, were not going to involve any people who consider themselves to be creation scientists to attend and present their views?

A. Well, my thinking was that this was not a debate on the subject. It was a program to inform people about what the issues — what the issues were.

Q. Really, my question was not whether you were going to have a debate, but it goes to the fact that you were going to try to present kind of what cre — what creation science is and how it might be viewed by the scientific community or at least these people. Why would you not want to have people of the creation-science community if there is such?

A. Well, they would be free to attend if they wished to.

Q. Well, why would you not want to ask them to attend and present some of their views?

A. Well, the way a symposium like this is organized — and this is one of about — this was a possible one of half a dozen or so that I organize for each AGU meeting. Those are held twice a year. The typical format is to have some people who are invited and other people who can apply and I was unsure in my own mind whether or not it would be appropriate to ask creationists to come at all.

85

I think when you do that, you're immediately in to a debate. That was not the intention. The intention was to inform the AGU membership.

Q. In another letter to Carl Sagan you state that, "Incidentally, I just discovered (to my horror) that Henry Morris of CRI in San Diego is a member of AGU!"

A. Yes.

Q. Why do you make that comment?

A. I was very surprised that Henry Morris, who is the director of CRI in San Diego, would pay dues to a society, a scientific society that has presented a considerable preponderance of evidence to disprove what the man believes. And yet, he supports this organization through his dues. That, to me,- is surprising.

Q. Why is that "to your horror" though?

A. Well, that's a very loose — again, you're reading a conversation. Surprise might have been a better word to use.

Q. Do you think he could be booted out of the AGU?

A. No. Henry Morris is, by training, a hydrologist as I understand it. There is a section in hydrology. Also, anyone who expresses a sincere interest in science and has at least a Bachelor's degree in science is free and in fact, invited to join the AGU. It's a very open society. No one is precluded and I would be the last one

86

to exclude Henry Morris or anyone else.

Q. Could you explain to me what you consider the term "uniformitarianism" to mean?

A. As presently used or in its historical context because the definition has changed considerably over the last 100 years.

Q. All right. Why don't we get both. Let's start with the historical context.

A. Well, this is just the time he took the two notebooks so I couldn't make some quotes.

Q. Oh.

A. Let me try to go from memory. When it was first formulated by Hutton and Lyell it had a variety of meanings. One was that supernaturalistic causes were not permissible explanations in science. One was that the present is the key to the past and that phrase has been interpreted in different ways. Another was that the rates of geologic processes were constant and another was that the physical laws of the universe were constant through time. Those four definitions have been used by different people in different times.

The current way the uniformitarianism is used by geologists has eliminated a good many of those and it boils down to only two propositions. One is that the physical laws are constant through time. And the second,

87

which is really a corollary of the first is that supernatural explanations are not acceptable in science to explain physical phenomena or observations.

Q. Could you define for me "catastrophism" as you understand it.

A. Again, catastrophism is a word that sprang up during early days of uniformitarianism when there were two sort of schools of thought. One was that the rates of geologic processes were constant and the other was that the rates were not constant. That things happen in a series of catastrophes or steps. So that's the historical context as taken from the 1800s.

Today the word catastrophism is not really used very much except that I think we realize that geological processes are not constant and they happen in a series of both constant and catastrophic processes. As an example of that, in the oceans the sediments are raining down and being deposited at a rather constant rate over sometimes periods of millions of years. On the other hand, an earthquake is clearly a catastrophic event and so would a flood be. So we recognize that the rates of processes are not constant at all. That's been recognized for many many years.

Q. You said it has been recognized for many years that the rates —

88

A. The rates of most geological processes are not the same, are not constant through time. And by that I mean things like sedimentation, erosion, uplift, motion of continents over hundreds of millions of years and so forth. I do not mean the rates of certain kinds of physical processes are not constant. I'd like to make that distinction.

Q. Is there a trend now in geology to discussing catastrophism more than there has been in the past?

A. Well, not since I was a student back in the '50s. Catastrophism in the sense that certain things geologically happen very rapidly has been — was — was a clear concept when I was a student in undergraduate school.

Q. Was a what? Clear —

A. Clear concept, sure. And we observed this by, say, observing floods and earthquakes. Those are clearly catastrophic. In other places like the long slow uplift and ocean basin sedimentation, we realize that at some times for certain periods of time processes of time can become constant.

This will be Exhibit #9.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #9 was marked for the record.]

Q. I'd like to show you what's been marked as Exhibit #9 to your deposition and ask if you can identify that?

A. Yes. This is a report of a meeting held at LSU at

89

Baton Rouge accompanied by some correspondence several months later concerning that meeting. And the report of the meeting and all this occurred in EOS, which is the transactions of the American Geophysical Union. Those are copies.

Q. Is that a referee journal? EOS?

A. No. EOS is really a type of newsletter.

Q. As you understand it, what was this symposium held at LSU?

A. I don't know much about the symposium other than what's contained in that article. I had no involvement in the symposium and I only read about it in EOS sometime ago. The purposes I recall had something to do with engineering and the effect of measuring geologic time on engineering problems. Other than that, I really don't know much about it

Q. Why did you come to have this as a copy of these articles? Why did you keep it?

A. Bruce Ennis and Steve Wolfe and I were discussing Gentry's pleochroic halos and whether or not his evidence for polonium halos was conclusive. And I remembered that Paul Damon had written a letter to EOS surrounding this — excuse me. With regard to that meeting and had voiced some criticism of Gentry's idea. I told him I would see if I could find that article and copy it for them, which

90

I did.

Q. Have you reviewed some of the articles that Gentry has written?

A. I've never reviewed any of his articles. As a referee for a journal?

Q. Well, yeah. First of all let me ask you that.

A. No, I've not.

Q. Have you read them?

A. I have read a few.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the articles that you have read?

A. Um, Gentry's work that appears in the scientific literature seems to be based on very careful measurements and I think it's fairly highly regarded.

Q. Do you consider the work to be scientific? The work which you have seen which has been published in any scientific journals?

A. The work that I have seen which has been published in the scientific journals is scientific, yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion more specifically as to whether you agree or disagree with some of the data that are some of his conclusions.

A. You would have to tell me which conclusions specifically you're speaking of.

Q. Are you familiar with some of his studies of

91

coalified wood from uranium bearing sands in the Colorado Plateau?

A. No, I'm not familiar with that at all.

Q. What articles do you recall reading?

A. The only one I read recently was the review article in the "Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science" on pleochroic halos. I should mention that this is a subject that I do not follow very close.

Q. Pleochroic halos you do not follow very closely?

A. That's correct. They are not of much interest to me.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Off the record discussion]

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Are you or have you reviewed the letter written by Paul Damon?

A. I read it over, yes.

Q. Do you agree with what he says in there about Gentry's work?

A. I'm inclined to agree with his conclusion that Gentry's assertion that those particular halos were formed by polonium may not be correct. Damon presents a rather convincing argument that that leads to a conclusion that is probably absurd. But again, I'm reading this as someone who is not really an expert at pleochroic halos and I'm trying to decide between two people who are

92

debating it between themselves. I'm not involved in that debate.

Q. Would you regard Gentry as an expert on radioactive halos?

A. I think he's considered an expert on radioactive halos; yes.

Q. Do you know Ralph Kazmann — Raphael Kazmann?

A. No, I do not know him.

Q. Have you reviewed his letter in this exhibit?

A. I read through it briefly, yes.

Q. In his letter he says that "The point made by the participants in the symposium is that there are great uncertainties in the time scales used by solar astronomers, cosmologists and geologists. No single one of these uncertainties would be sufficient to affect engineering evaluation. However, all of them taken together, which indicate that we have overestimated the period of time that is required for geologic and cosmologic processes serve as a caution signal." That last sentence, the overestimation of the period of time required for geologic or cosmologic processes. Do you have an opinion on that?

A. I don't know what time he's talking about. If he is saying there, as I think he is, that our esti — our measurement of the age of the earth of between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years is an overestimate, then I would say

93

categorically he is wrong.

Q. Do you consider Gentry to be a creation scientist?

A. Based on a couple of statements he made in that letter I would say yes.

Q. Would you mark this as Exhibit #10?

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #10 was marked for the record.]

Q. I show you a document which has been marked as Exhibit #10 to your deposition which you have provided me this morning entitled "Radioactive Halos" by Robert V. Gentry. You'll have to tell me what publication it's from.

A. It's from the "Annual Review of Nuclear Science", volume 23, page 347-362 dated 1973.

Q. That's the article you have previously read?

A. Yes. I've read through that within the last six months.

Q. If — well, first of all. Again, let me make sure I understand. Is this the article you referred to where you felt like his measurements were good and you would say that it was —

A. This is a review article of the state of — as of — well, probably really '71 or '72 considering publication time. This is a review article of the state of research on pleochroic halos.

Q. This is a review article rather than a — it does

94

not contain any original research as such?

A. I don't know how much of it's original. But most of it's essentially a review of the state of that particular aspect of the science. This annual review series publishes such things. It's essentially to allow scientists who want to get up to speed on something or determine what the state of a particular field is to do that.

Q. What would be the implications for the dating or — excuse me. The age of the earth, if any, according to the findings in this article.

A. As far as I know there are none with one statement and let me see if I can find that for you. That's based on Gentry's own conclusion. He says, and I quote, "On the other hand, Gentry reference 24 has shown that even exact agreement between halo radii and corresponding CB sizes does not necessarily imply an invariant lambda," Lambda is the decay constant. "and in fact, uncertainties on radius measurements alone preclude establishing the stability of Lambda for 238U to more than 35%." And what I think he's concluding there is that the measurement of radioactive halos don't tell you whether or not decay rates have been constant, And therefore, in terms of radiometric dating, I think the research on pleochroic halos is probably irrelevant.

Q. Are you familiar with any articles he has written

95

since 1973 on the subject of radioactive halos?

A. No. Not that I can recall.

Q. Do you know if he's written any?

A. Oh, I just don't know. He may well have. He's a fairly active researcher. I suspect that maybe he has. That's almost ten years ago that this article was written.

Q. Have you reviewed any of his work or any of his writings in preparation for this trial?

A. Just that.

Q. Other than this?

A. No. That plus I read his letter in response to Damon.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory?

MR. WOLFE: I'll object to the form of the question unless you ask whether or specify whether you're asking his opinion as to the validity of the content or whether it is a scientific theory as opposed to non-scientific.

MR. WILLIAMS: As to the validity of the theory as a scientific theory?

MR. WOLFE: Yeah. I think the question was ambiguous as to whether you were saying assume that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Is it correct or incorrect?

MR. WILLIAMS: No.

96

MR. WOLFE: Or whether the question is is it a scientific theory or not.

Q. The question is is it a scientific theory or not?

A. My understanding of it is that it is.

Q. Do you know how it is testable?

A. Well, you're getting into a biological experiment and, out of my field of expertise. I'm afraid I'm not competent to design experiments in biology.

Q. Do you know if the theory of evolution is falsifiable?

A. I'd have to give you the same answer. That depends on the experimental design and I'm not competent to do that.

Q. Do you think that the earth's geology is explained by uniformitarianism?

A. Well, uniformitarianism doesn't say anything about the earth's geology. It only says that science proceeds on the basis that natural laws have not changed with time.

Q. Proceeds on the basis?

A. Well, uniformitarianism is a tool.

Q. Proceeds on the basis? Is that an assumption?

A. I think it's a necessary assumption of science. That is if we presume otherwise, then we are allowed to change natural laws any time we wished. And therefore we can have no logical development of science. I think it's a necessary condition of science that we presume that there is a set of laws that governs what we see, and that we can

97

rationally figure out what those laws are.

Q. You say it is a necessary tool that you — well, on what do you base the assumption? What proof is there for the assumption?

A. Well, you're asking me things like what proof is there that the speed of light is constant, has been constant since the beginning of the universe. And my answer to that, I guess, is that I don't know except again I'll say it's a necessary condition of science. If science is to make any headway at all, we have to assume that we're dealing with rational physical laws that don't change in an irrational manner. That's simply one of the boundary conditions.

Q. Well, if the laws have changed, are you saying there could not be science?

A. I think if — if the fundamental physical laws of the universe have changed randomly or capriciously with time, then there is no physical basis for science at all. And I think the reason that we believe they have not changed is because there is fairly good evidence to think that most of them have been constant and there is absolutely no evidence to lead us to suspect that the physical laws have changed.

Q. What is the evidence that they have been constant that you're aware of?

98

A. Well, I think most of it is — a good part of it is theoretical. Part of it, when you're talking about things like radioactive decay, is experimental. So there again, it depends on what physical laws you're talking about. When I say physical laws, I'm thinking of laws of radioactive decay and gravity, speed of light and things like that.

Q. Is it an assumption that radiometric dating methods, that the radioactive decay has been constant through time?

A. That's one of the premises upon which it works and there is evidence for that premise.

Q. What evidence is there for that premise?

A. Well, the first kind of evidence is theoretical. The evidence is that radioactive decay, the type of radioactive decay that is used in radiometric dating arises from the nucleus. And the nucleus is extremely well insulated from its surroundings to such extent that scientists have not been able to change decay rates in the laboratory except by minute, minute percentages even with extremes of temperature and pressure and so forth. So there is — the experimental evidence that we cannot now change decay rates significantly enough to affect any radiometric dating technique. As I say, there are theoretical reasons to believe that those laws should not change. And if you go back in time, there is sufficient

99

concordance between dating methods that use different decay rates and different decay constants; and if rates had changed, you would not be able to get that kind of concordance.

Q. Now maybe you just told me, but I'm not sure. What are the theoretical reasons why you feel that there has been a constant rate of decay?

A. Well, as I just said, the radioactive decay arises. from within the nucleus of the atom.

Q. I thought that was the experimental reasons?

A. Well, theory tells us that it should be extremely difficult to influence radioactive decay rates by more than a tiny, tiny fraction because of the insulation of the nucleus from it's external surroundings and because of the very strong nuclear binding in the nucleus. Experimental evidence tells us that that theory is correct. That scientists who have attempted to change decay rates find that they can only do it by very, very small fractions of a percent.

Q. If I understand what you're saying, Dr. Dalrymple, it is that it is possible that the rate of decay has been constant because of these things that you've mentioned?

A. It's very probable —

Q. Probable?

A. — that it's been constant. I would say it's

100

probably certain that it's been constant.

Q. All right. Is there proof, has it been proven that there has been a uniform rate of radioactive decay over time?

A. I think to the extent that different-decay schemes give us the same age for things like lunar rocks and meteorites when we apply those different types of radiometric dating tools that have different decays from different elements with different decay constants, sometimes different by an order of magnitude or more, we get the same answer on bodies that have simple history. And that kind of coincidence would not be true if those rates had changed with time because we have clocks ticking at different rates.

For example, the halflife of Rubidium-87 is about 48.8 billion years. And the halflife of Neodymium-147 is about 100 billion years. Those clocks are ticking at different rates and yet, they give us the same time. They give us the same answer. And if those rates had changed, we would not get the same answer. That's the nature of the proof.

Q. Can you envision a scenario where the rates would have — if they have changed, you could still come up with those coincidences that you mentioned?

A. No.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple - Page 3

101

Q. Is there also something called the — is there an assumption that the rate of decay has been constant throughout the geologic column?

A. No. The geologic column is essentially the system of rock units that represent geologic history on the earth. So it's remained constant through the geologic column, you're really saying it's remained constant with time. I think, if I understand you correctly, those are essentially equivalent statements.

Q. Would the Big Bang be a uniformitarian event?

A. Well, again that's a question in astrophysics. But if I understand what the Big Bang was, it was probably initially a catastrophic event.

Q. So it would not be an event of uniform laws that are in effect today?

A. No, that's not what I said.. Uniformitarian.— you can have catastrophism and uniformitarianism at exactly the same time. They do not preclude each other at all. So that it's possible that the Big Bang was caused by the same physical laws that operate today in the universe. In fact, I think the theoretical physicists who work on the Big Bang use that presumption.

Q. To your knowledge, has anyone been able to synthesize, in a laboratory, granite?

A. I don't know that anyone's ever crystallized granite

102

in a laboratory.

Q. Would it be significant if they could?

A. It would be significant in the sense that it would allow experimental petrologists to perform new experiments on how rocks crystallize that they cannot now perform because of that limitation. But the reason they cannot synthesize granite in the laboratory is because of the kinetic problem. It's one of getting crystals to nucleate and start to grow. It's really an experimental problem. It may be that someday they'll find a way to do that. But the difficulty is in experimental technique.

Q. Well, if you could get a synthesis of granite in the labs, what would that tell you about the rate of decay, if anything?

A. Nothing.

Q. Nothing? Did you understand radioactive halos to be — since you read that one article, what significance do they have if you studied them? What can we determine from studying of radioactive halos of some of these granites or rocks or whatever?

A. Well, I'm not — you know, relevant to what? I suppose they learn how far an alpha particle will travel through mica and things like that. In terms of learning things about the age and history of the universe, I'm not sure there is much to be learned from those if I

103

understand Gentry's conclusion correctly. That is insofar as it applies to decay rates.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. His statement was that the uncertainties in the measurements are simply too large. You can't tell whether they've changed or not.

Q. On page three of Exhibit #6, at the bottom of the page you point out that a small number of wrong ages are nearly all due to unrecognized geological factors, to unintentional misapplication of the techniques or to technical difficulties. Could you give me an example of the first where a wrong age has occurred due to unrecognized geological factors?

MR. WOLFE: I would like the record to show that the actual quote includes quotational marks around the word "wrong".

A. You want an example of something that's due to unrecognized geological factors?

Q. Right.

A. Okay. Often times when we want to date a rock by potassium/argon, for example, we look at the rock and see if we can see any evidence that the rock has been reheated. And we do that by certain petrographic criteria and geologic criteria. However, the state of that knowledge is imperfect and sometimes we will select a sample that

104

we think has been a simple system that has not been reheated. And in fact, after performing a number of consistency tests, we may find out that all of the evidence indicates that that one rock may have, in fact, been reheated or in some way disturbed. That it has not been an unaltered system. So that would be a — that's an abstract example.

Q. How often does some unrecognized geological factor arise which renders a conclusion about the age of something wrong?

A. — Well, it's not — it's not very often because usually radiometric dating, the way it's done now, is done on large numbers of samples in a controlled experiment with internal checks and geological checks on the results so that we can look for consistency and spot errors. This is done in several ways. The simplest way is to do the measurements two or three times to make sure that there is no error there. We can compare whether rocks are amenable to it. We can compare ages from different decay schemes. We can do ages on rocks that are stacked in sequence so that they know what their proper order should be and so forth.

So I think it's extremely rare that a single age measurement will give us misleading information because usually they are not done singly. They are done in large

105

groups with an experimental design in mind so that the results can be internally checked.

Q. Could you give me the example of where an unintentional misapplication of the techniques have resulted in an erroneous age for a rock or some other part of the earth?

A. Oh, that's a case where scientists will simply make a mistake.

Q. Have you ever made any of those?

A. Oh, sure. It's — this is why we try to build as many checks and balances into our experiments as possible. But if we go out to do a study on a volcano, for example, and collect 106 samples, I suppose there's a small percentage that sometime during the sample processing we may get some samples mixed up. And we may apply, for example, a potassium/argon method to a sample that we never intended to apply it to simply because there was a mix-up in sample numbers or something like that. This happens rarely, but it's still a problem. With any complicated technique people are going to make mistakes.

Q. And the third thing there mentioned is — are the technical difficulties.

A. Well, in isotopic age measurements we need to add a tracer of an amount of an isotopic substance of known composition and amount in order to make the measurements. That's simply a consequence of the techniques. If there

106

is some technical difficulty with the way that isotopic tracer is metered out, for example, then we would not get the right answer. For example, if we thought we had twice as much of that tracer as we actually did in the experiment, then we would get a result that was incorrect. But there again, this is the reason for building redundancy, considerable redundancy in the experiments is to try to pick those things out.

Q. Why is radioactive decay a statistical process? Would you explain that?

A. Well, it's because if you take a single atom, you can't tell when it's going to decay. You can't tell when that particular atom is going to decay. What you can do is specify a probability that that particular atom will decay per unit time, per second and so forth. Therefore, if you have a large — well, that's where the statistical part comes in. But the statistical uncertainties disappear when you have large numbers of atoms. And even in very small amounts of a substance, like tiny, tiny fractions of a grain, you have billions of atoms. And so the statistical uncertainties in the radioactive decay process disappears as far as practical measurements are concerned.

Q. Your statement on page 10 is that radioactive decay must be constant and predictable. You say that's one of the requirements of each of the radiometric systems —

107

methods, excuse me.

A. If the methods are to work that must be true.

Q. In other words, this is one of the — may also be termed one of the assumptions?

A. No, I think I've already explained the reasons for being sure that radioactive decay is constant within any limits that will affect our dating techniques. And by predictable, I simply mean that we must be able to predict that where ever those elements occur, those elements will always decay at the same rate. That's really simply a corollary of uniformitarianism in the sense that physical laws are constant. We can't say that Rubidium-87 decays at one rate in this rock and at another rate in the other rock. That must be predictable. Once we've measured in one rock or 100 rocks, then it needs to be the same everywhere. And again, there are theoretical and experimental reasons for thinking that has to be true.

Q. So to your knowledge, that is true? That where ever an element is found, it's going to decay at the same rate?

A. Within the set of physical circumstances that rocks on the earth and meteorites and the moon experience, that's true; yes.

Q. Was there something — I just recall reading something about some dates which were once determined, as I understand

108

it, around some volcanos which later were determined to be inaccurate. Does that ring a bell with you at all?

A. Are you thinking of Hawaii? Submarine basalts?

Q. Perhaps so. Do you recall something that occurred like that? What happened that would cause the error that you're aware of?

A. The thing that I'm thinking of was not an error.

Q. Oh, okay. Well, you explain what you're thinking about. Maybe that's the same thing and my memory is poor.

A. Well, what I'm thinking about is an example that is used in some of the creationist literature. That is the submarine basalts off of the east rift zone of Kilauea Volcano.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And these lava flows occur underwater. They're known with a fair probability that they're very young, they're still erupting. And the estimates are that these lava flows that occur right along the top of the rift zone are at most within a few hundred — formed within the last few hundred years or so.

A number of years ago Dr. Jim Moore and myself did an experiment. There was another group that independently did the same experiment to determine whether or not these types of rocks could be dated by the potassium/argon method. And the reason we did that was these types of

109

basalts, types of lava flows form large — form most of the ocean crust. And we wanted to know if it was going to be possible to date these type of rocks in order to date the ocean crust in different places in the ocean basin. So in order to determine whether we could use submarine basalts to make these measurements, we first had to do a controlled experiment to see if the potassium/ argon dating technique would work on those types of rocks. So we went to Kilauea where we had samples that were of reasonably known age. That is zero age as far as the potassium/argon method is concerned, and had been dredged from various depths along the east rift zone. We found that these particular type of rocks trapped excess argon so that the potassium/argon system did not behave in such a way that it could be used for dating. And as a result of those experiments, those types of rocks are not dated.

Most of these radioactive dating techniques can be applied only to certain kinds of rocks and certain kinds of geological situations. And what those rocks and situations are depends on the particular technique

Q. Is that an objective decision where you can look at the type of rock that you have and if you wanted to could reduce it to a list and say this type of rock has to use this type of method?

110

A. Yes.

Q. How have you arrived at that determination that it's objective?

A. Those are usually done by a series of controlled experiments similar to the one I just described to you. If you want to date submarine basalts, first you test the method under known circumstances and see if the technique works on those kinds of rocks. In this case it didn't. And through the years this has been a gradual learning experience. We do not have adequate tests on all kinds of rocks yet. There are still large numbers of rocks that we don't know whether the techniques will work or not. But there are also large numbers that we're very confident that they work on.

Q. The second thing on page 10, the second requirement for radiometric dating methods to work is that the rate of decay must be known.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What, do you mean by that statement?

A. That means simply that we have to be able to measure that rate of decay independently in the laboratory so that we know what the rate of decay is. And for all the major dating techniques and apparent isotopes, those decay rates are known to within a percent or better by direct laboratory experiments.

111

Q. Are there any factors which would influence the rate of decay?

A. Not that we know of. Let me qualify that. There are certain types of decay which can be affected by a very, very tiny percentage like a tenth of a percent or less in the laboratory. Theory predicts that these things should be affected very, very slightly.

So when I say the rate of decay is invariant, I mean within any limits that would affect radiometric dating.

Q. Have you written articles yourself, besides this one, which talks about the age of the earth as being approximately 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old?

A. No.

Q. Is that an area of your specialty? The age of the earth?

A. Well, the age of the earth was — the presently accepted age of the earth was made — that measurement was made some 25 years ago by Clair Patterson.

Q. Has anyone since that time done any work to either further that study or to confirm it?

A. There was a recent review of Patterson's model for the age of the earth in Carnegie Institution Yearbook in I think 1980 by Tera. I think it's referenced in there. He did a fairly careful reevaluation based on all the latest data and he came up with 4.54 billion years.

112

Patterson's age I think was 4.55 or 4.56. So in 25 years it's not changed at all.

Q. All of the articles which you have written deal with some form of radiometric dating do they not?

A. Not all of them. I wrote one on the weather once.

Q. Okay. Besides that?

A. Certainly most of them, yes.

Q. And all of them do have these three factors which you-have mentioned as three requirements as part of the radiometric dating method?

A. Well, those requirements are fundamental to any radiometric dating.

Q. What would be the effect if the rate of decay or radioactivity was, in fact, not constant?

A. Do you mean what would be the effect on the results that we have obtained?

Q. Right.

A. I think we would get chaotic and uninterpretable results. We would find that there would be no consistency in radiometric dating. We would find that the geologic time scale, instead of all the radiometric ages agreeing with the paleontologists' determination we would get random results. We would find that the age of the earth as measured by different ways would not agree. It would be chaotic. And in that sense, it's really self-checking.

113

Q. What would be the effect on the presently accepted age of the earth of 4.5 to 4.6 billion years if the rate of decay is not constant?

A. It depends on how much you want it to change?

Q. Well, I don't necessarily want it to change any. I'm asking what effect it would have.

A. Well, the effect is the function of the decay constant. I mean if you want to change the decay constant by one percent, then, that will have a proportionate effect.

But if you want to get the age of the earth down to 10,000 years, then you have to change the decay constant by many, many orders of magnitude. Factors of thousands and thousands.

Q. What if the rate of the decay simply has not been constant?

A. Do you mean if it varies?

Q. If it had varied at some point, it just simply had not been constant throughout the history of this planet.

A. Well, there again, if it has been varying by plus or minus one percent around the mean for the last 4® billion years, then the basic effect would be nil. If it's varied by thousands of percent at random times, then the effect would be unpredictable.

Q. If there had been or if there were a worldwide flood

114

several thousand years ago or more, would that have any effect on the dating methods?

A. No.

Q. How do you date fossils?

A. Well, fossils are datable because certain types of igneous rocks occur either below or above or intermixed with or they may crosscut sedimentary rocks that contain the fossils. There are virtually no dating techniques that work well on sediments with a couple of minor exceptions. But for radiometric dating purposes, sediments are kind of garbage piles. They're pieces of other rocks that have been thrown into the sea or lakes or rivers. So we have to get a rock that we can date in juxtaposition with a sedimentary bed that contains fossils. And we have to know what that relationship is.

In fact, these were the kinds of experiments that were done to check the geological time scale when radiometric dating techniques became available.

Q. I'm sorry. What was that last statement again?

A. I said these are the types of experiments that were done to check the geological time scale when radiometric dating techniques became available. It was one of the first problems that was attacked was the age of the geologic time scale and all of its parts.

Q. Can you date fossils by taking the fossil out and

115

subjecting it to these tests or any other tests that you're aware of?

A. There are some kinds of techniques for dating very young fossils that work sometimes. These include amino acid racemization, which is not a radiometric dating technique, and some of uranium thorium disequilibrium techniques. But they only work on things over the last few hundred thousand years and they often work poorly. Scientists use them because there's nothing else to use. But there are very few circumstances in which a fossil can be dated directly because of the types of rocks in which they occur in and the types of the fossils.

Q. Since fossils are normally found in sediment, if there had been a world wide flood would that have affected where they would be found and then where these igneous would be and then the resulting age which you could determine? Would it affect the accuracy of that at all?

A. Well, I'm not quite sure I understand the question. But if the creationists were right and that all the sedimentary rocks were deposited by a great flood within a period of about a year, then the geologic column would be chaotic. And in fact, we should get the same age for all sedimentary rocks.

I thought you said you really can't date sedimentary rocks?

116

A. We can date them when we find an igneous rock whose relationship to the sedimentary rock is known. There are lots of circumstances in which that happens. That's how the geologic time scales, the various geologic time scales have been dated. Those circumstances are still true. So what I'm saying is if the creationists were right, then all of the dates on the geologic time scale should be the same. And in fact, with our radiometric dating techniques, a very long half life should get zero because we can't — with things like potassium/argon or Rubidium/strontium you can't measure ages of a few thousand years. So we should effectively get zero for everything dated in the geologic column. We almost never get zero except on historic things.

Q. Well, you said — when you say we should get zero, is that based on the assumption that if there was a flood it occurred approximately 7,000 years ago?

A. Yes, that's based on the assumption that — I think I said if the creationists were right and such a flood occurred and, although I didn't say it as part of that, but that it had occurred very recently

Q. What if there was a flood long — a longer time period — longer ago than 7,000, would that still be true?

A. Well, if the flood was — took place 100 million years ago, then we should get an age of 100 million years

117

for all of the rocks that are related to the geologic time scale. If it was 50 million years ago, then all of those rocks should give us 50 million years ago. And in fact they don't.

Q. Without telling me what was contained in your letters, could you describe the letters that you have written to the attorneys in this case?

A. Well, they were basically just letters of transmittal of requests for papers and information. I don't know how to describe them in general any more than that.

Q. What about notes that you have written? Anything else?

A. Well, what do you mean notes?

Q. Well, one of the categories of documents which your lawyer — not your lawyer, but Mr. Wolfe has mentioned was letters and notes from you to Bruce Ennis and to himself.

MR. WOLFE: Perhaps I can clarify this. The distinction between letter and note mean this. One of these documents was typed on stationery and I call that a letter. A couple of them were written by hand on memo size sheets of paper and I call those notes as opposed to letters.

A. It would be things like, "Here is the information requested by the Attorney General's office in Arkansas covering correspondence relating to evolution." Those

118

are the sorts of things they were, I believe.

Q. Have you written and said to the attorneys for the Plaintiffs any sort of explanation of radiometric dating and the age of the earth, your area of expertise, other than this document, Exhibit #6?

A. This is the only one that involved radiometric dating. I can't think of any.

Q. The witness list which the Plaintiffs filed in this case states that you are going to testify concerning evidence relevant to the age of the earth, relevance of geology to evolution and creation-science, catastrophism and your reasons for opposing the teaching of creation- science. Do you know at this point what opinions you're going to be giving concerning the relevance of geology to evolution and creation science?

A. It will depend on the questions, and I don't know what those will be.

Q. Well, you have seen a set of proposed questions and answers based on that, do you know what opinions or answers you will be giving?

A. I was handed that list last night and I've not looked at it. So yes, I've seen it I've not read it. I stuck it in my suitcase.

MR. WOLFE: I would be happy to add that the list — I'm sorry. The description of the

119

testimony, I don't know the date of it but it's a couple of months old now. And I would say that the present expectation is that Dr. Dalrymple's testimony will be more narrowly confined than is that description, specifically to geochronology and the age of the earth. At least I can represent that as my present state of knowledge and expectations.

MR. WILLIAMS: So to the extent of your present knowledge, Dr. Dalrymple will not be discussing generally the relevance of geology to evolution and creation-science, catastrophism or his reasons for opposing the teaching of creation-science?

MR. WOLFE: Well, there may well be some testimony about the — his reasons for opposing the teaching of creation-science. And we've discussed that here today. And to the extent that geochronology is the relevance of geology to catastrophism or to creation-science. That is, I don't expect that Dr. Dalrymple will give testimony about the fossil records, for instance, except as he has today. That is that he knows something about dating fossils. I think that the things we talked about today are an accurate picture of the things that we would expect that Dr. Dalrymple will talk about at the trial.

Q. Dr. Dalrymple, let me be sure that I understand.

120

Could you define for me what the term "geochronology" means?

A. Oh, age measurements on rocks of the earth. And that's usually extended to include the moon and meteorites, objects within the solar system, objects that are accessible to us.

Q. What's your opinion of the publication by Slusher on the critique of radiometric dating?

A. Well, I don't think it's a very good critique of radiometric dating. It's not balanced and it's unscientific.

Q. Are you aware of scientists — let's for convenience sake take creation-scientists out of this question and place them over here and not consider them. Are you aware of scientists who you would consider to be a scientist who do not agree with your view of the accuracy of radiometric dating methods?

A. I don't know of any. I might disagree with some of my colleagues over whether the errors are 2% or 3%. I'm not talking about that kind of disagreement. I'm talking about the kind of disagreement that the creationists propose.

Q. I'm not talking about necessarily the agreement of whether the earth is 10,000 or 4.6 billion years. I'm talking about who question the validity and the accuracy of the radiometric dating method.

121

A. I don't know of any scientists who do that now. All the earth scientists that I know or know of through their writings accept the general accuracy of radiometric dating. I don't mean that they don't look critical at each individual result. Everybody does. But as a general tool, its accuracy and its utility is accepted.

Q. What is your opinion of the article written by Akridge which you read on the Faraday-disc dynamo angeomagnetism?

A. Well, I think that paper involves a "straw man". That paper sets up a "straw man" which has no meaning.

Q. How so?

A. Well, first place, Akridge claims that the Faraday- disc dynamo has been advanced to explain the earth's magnetic field and that's not true. I don't know of any scientists dealing with the magnetic field that's ever said the Faraday-disc dynamo is a reasonable model for the earth's magnetic field.

Second, he claims that the Faraday-disc dynamo will not reverse polarity and that's not true either. There are mathematical models which demonstrate conclusively that the Faraday-disc model can, under certain conditions, reverse polarity. The reason I say it's a "straw man" is because nobody really seriously considers that dynamo model as a

122

realistic model for the earth's magnetic field. The reason scientists work on Faraday-disc dynamos and similar disc dynamos is because dynamo theory is extraordinarily complex and you have to start with the simplest kinds of dynamos and understand the mathematics of those before you can go on to the more complicated ones.

Q. What is this Critique of the Principle Uniformity by M. King Hubbert?

A. That's a summary of the history and current thinking about the usage of the word "uniformity" and the principle of uniformity. It's a very scholarly review.

Q. What are the conclusions as you recall of the article if there are any?

A. Well, it's — I guess the conclusions are that the historical usage of uniformity has varied and some of the definitions are not now acceptable. Probably were not terribly reasonable when they were advanced and that uniformity now means only two things. One, that natural laws are variant with time and two that supernatural agents are not an acceptable explanation for any part of the physical world.

Q. Is this where you derived your definition of uniformitarianism?

A. Yes.

Q. In this article Hubbert says — speaks of the

123

limitations imposed by the law of Thermodynamics. Are you aware of what he is talking of there as it relates to uniformity?

A. I'd have to see the context.

Q. I'm looking at close to the end of the article and just ran across that.

A. I'm not sure what he means by that. It may be that if I were to reread the entire article, that would — but just taking that one paragraph, I'm not sure what he means.

Q. He later says, "A major part of this emancipation" referring to an emancipation from the assumptions of special creation, by divine providence. Again, "a major part of this emancipation has been accomplished by the employment of the principle of uniformity. But this rests upon insecure grounds due, in large part, to its having been formulated in ignorance of the later developed laws of thermodynamics."

A. May I look at that?

Q. Certainly.

A. Which paragraph is that?

Q. Right there.

A. I think in that sentence he's talking about the principle uniformity in its historical connotation. Uniformity is really not a term we use very much anymore because it lost virtually all of its original meaning.

124

That is that the rates are constant rates of geological processes were constant. Things like the second law of thermodynamics tells you that ultimately systems run down. I would guess that's what he's talking about there. See, what he's basically saying is that if you have to define uniformity today, you must define it simply in terms of constancy of physical laws and its corollary of not allowing supernatural explanation. And that is really a principle that doesn't need a name.

Also, I think there's been such confusion because of the historical context of uniformity that it would be better to do without the name entirely.

Q. Do you generally agree with this paper?

A. I think it's a very scholarly review, yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics?

A. Yes.

Q. You are aware then, no doubt, that's one of the things some creation scientists have relied on in trying to say that creation-science is as reliable or more reliable than evolution, that the second law of thermodynamics dictates that there will be increasing entropy?

A. Yes, I'm aware of that argument.

Q. What is your response to that argument?

A. That argument is incorrect. It's a misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.

125

Q. Could you tell me why you feel that way?

A. Yes. The second law of thermodynamics says that heat will not, of itself, flow from a colder body to a hotter body. There's a mathematical expression of that, but that's the most concise best definition of that. A corollary of that is that in any isolated system, the entropy or degree of randomness of a system must increase. That is it must become more disordered. But the fact is that the earth, and biological systems are not isolated systems. That is you can reverse entropy as long as you're willing to put energy into the system. And if that were not true, we would not have automobiles and ice cubes. And the creationists claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is simply wrong because biological systems are open, they receive energy, they are not isolated.

Q. Well, the example you mentioned that we wouldn't have automobiles. That goes a step further, I think, of what some of the creation-scientists have said that there you have a mechanism to convert the energy into something else. In this case, taking gasoline and converting it into power. Is there a mechanism for converting the energy in the earth as a whole into order? To increasing order?

A. When you're talking about the earth as a whole you're

126

talking about an extremely large system. And I think you need to define it a little more narrowly than that. There certainly must be a mechanism for creating energy into order in the human body, for example. That's why we eat. We start as a single cell and we grow because we're given energy in the form of food. So there are mechanisms to do that. There are also mechanisms to order rocks, for example. You can take a sedimentary rock which is a garbage pile of particles from all kinds of rocks, essentially a highly disordered rock, and by applying heat and pressure — in other words, energy — you can convert that into a highly organized rock like a lava flow or like a granite.

So as long as you're willing to put some energy into your subsystem, the entropy is allowed to increase.

Q. Well, is there or is there not a need for a mechanism to convert the energy into order?

A. Well, there has to be some procedure for doing that, yes. You have to get the energy into the system. Let's take a short break.

[Short break.]

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. You have with you an article by Melvin Cook on the Creation Research — excuse me. Radiological Dating and Some Pertinent Applications of Historical Interest,

127

Do Radiological Clocks Need Repair. Do you intend to rely upon this in your testimony?

A. I have no present plans to do that. There again, I don't know what the questions specifically are going to be.

Q. Well, do you have an opinion as to this article? Have you read it?

A. I read that article many months ago. I think I would put it in the same class as Slusher's article about which you asked me earlier.

Q. That being?

A. It's a rather unscholarly critique of certain aspects of radiometric dating. There are numerous errors and serious scientific mistakes in it.

Q. Mark this as Exhibit #11.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #11 was marked for the record.]

I show you Exhibit #11 to your deposition which is an article entitled "A Response to Creationism Evolves" from the November 6, 1981 "Science" magazine.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. How did you come to have a copy of that?

A. One of my colleagues copied it out for me. He saw it in Science magazine and made a copy of it for me. That was in that package simply because I had thrown it in there

128

of things to read.

Q. Have you read this?

A. I read through it, yes.

Q. Are you going to have any involvement in writing a handy-dandy creationism refuter?

A. I have no plans to do that and I've not been approached.

Q. The response which is discussed in here, have you been any part of this, either directly or indirectly, yourself?

A. I think there were two groups. That National Academy and the National Association of Biology Teachers. I have no affiliation with either group and I was not involved in the issues reported there. I read that strictly for interest.

Q. And you have an article in here from the "Annual Review of Nuclear Science" on Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates by Emory?

A. Yes.

Q. Why do you have a copy of this article?

A. That's another review article on the state of scientific knowledge as of 1972 concerning whether or not decay rates change. What the experimental evidence is and what the theoretical evidence is.

Q. What is the conclusion that this article reaches

129

if you recall?

A. It concludes that alpha and beta rates, theoretically, should not be changed in experiments. They have never been changed in the laboratory. It concluded that the electron capture, theoretically, should be changeable by a minute percentage, and in fact, small changes up to a tenth of a percent have been found, but no larger. It concludes basically that the theory and experimental evidence are in good agreement.

Q. I have another file here that you've given me which is entitled "the Woodmorappe Paper" that contains several articles.

A. Yes.

Q. What — first of all, why are all of these in something entitled the Woodmorappe paper?

A. Well, I was given a copy of a paper from a Creation Research Society Quarterly by Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Ennis asked to look at that and give a scientific opinion.

It has a list of some 300 and some odd wrong ages I forget how they're titled, but that's the essence of it. I went through and picked out five of the examples with which I was already familiar and had the literature at hand because some of these examples involved either myself or my immediate colleagues. I evaluated his criticism of

130

each of those five examples. The information you have here are the reprints of the papers to which Woodmorappe refers for his examples.

Q. And you have, in a paper, critiqued this article by Woodmorappe which you have given to the attorneys; is that correct?

A. It's the other way around. They gave a copy to me.

MR. WOLFE: I can make this clearer perhaps. A copy of Woodmorappe's article that was a Xerox from the Creation Research Society Quarterly and on which Bruce Ennis had made notes was given to Dr. Dalrymple and he was asked to comment on the article. The reprint which was given to him and which was in the folder I have withheld as covered by work product doctrine, specifically for the fact that Bruce Ennis's comments are on the thing. The response that Dr. Dalrymple gave to us was partially oral and partially in the letter that I referred to of Bruce Ennis The folder and the other things I did not withhold because I do not regard them as covered by doctrine

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to those documents, I'd like to request if you could, if there are portions of those letters which you feel are not covered by the work product privilege, that you excise those portions which are and turn those over to us.

131

MR. WOLFE: Well, that's fair enough. I'll try to do that. I will look at the letter — there's only one letter — and I'll look at the letter and I try to — there are certainly parts of it that I don't regard as covered by work product. And I will try to mask the parts that I do so regard and send a copy of it down to you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's go off the record.

[Off the record discussion]

MR. WOLFE: I'm giving Mr. Williams now a three page letter dated November 23, 1981 from Dr. Dalrymple to Bruce Ennis from the second page of which I have masked two paragraphs and portions of two others which I regard as covered by the work product doctrine. I'll also add that on the second page I left the first sentence of where I began the masking to show that's it's the discussion of the paper of Woodmorappe.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. What is you opinion of the paper by Woodmorappe?

A. Well, I can only base my opinion on those five instances that I looked into in some detail. I didn't have time to go through his entire list. He either misunderstands or misrepresents the cases that he claims are anomalies.

132

Q. Okay. Could you describe that in more detail why you think he either misunderstands or misinterprets?

A. Well, I went back to the original documents that he cites and, in fact, some of the things he said simply aren't true. In other cases he's not bothered to explain the reason for doing the experiment and the fact that some of them were controlled experiments to test certain types of materials under controlled conditions, He just cited the ages as anomalies.

Q. Do you know if Woodmorappe is considered one of the leading authorities as you understand it on creation- science?

A. I had never heard of him before this article. The footnote says that he studied geology and biology. It doesn't say whether he has a degree in either subject.

Q. So there were five out of the three hundred that you looked at?

A. Yes.

Q. So there were 295 that you didn't look at and have no opinion on.

A. I have no opinion on them one way or the other. I have a reasonable sampling I think.

Q. Would you mark this as #12?

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #12 was marked for the record.]

133

Q. In your letter you do mention that you have enclosed a very rough draft of a paper on Barnes' magnetic field hypothesis.

A. Yes.

Q. Is this reference to this article?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the purpose of this article?

A. It's an evaluation of Barnes' claim that the magnetic field indicates that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Q. What is your conclusion in the article?

A. My conclusion is that Barnes doesn't know what he's talking about. He has ignored most of what is known about the magnetic field and in fact, the magnetic field cannot be used to date the earth.

Q. You say the magnetic field cannot be used to date the earth? Can't the magnetic field be used at all in dating in your professional opinion?

A. The reversal time scale has been used in some instances to tell ages under particular circumstances. But it can't be used to tell the age of the earth or to place limits on the age of the earth.

Q. How has it — can you describe how it's been appropriately used in your opinion?

A. Well, for example, we know that the last major

134

reversal of the earth's magnetic field took place 730,000 years ago. And if you're studying very young rocks, you find that they are normally polarized and that confines their age to those times in the geologic past when the magnetic field has been normal. And if they have reversed polarization that tells you that those rocks are almost certainly older than 730,000 and it confines their age to those periods in the earth's past when the earth's magnetic field has been reversed.

There is a second way and that is these reversals are recorded on the sea floors. It spreads outward from mid-ocean ridges. And the ages of these magnetic stripes have been determined so that you can tell the age of a certain part of the ocean's crust if you have adequate magnetic data to match that up to the time scales. It's a similar type of matching as is done in tree rings.

Q. Do you plan to rely upon this article in your testimony?

A. If I get asked questions about Barnes' age for the earth or about the techniques he uses, possibly. But I think I have in my head everything that's in the article.

Q. Do you plan to have it published somewhere? Has it been accepted for publication?

A. No, it's a ver — yes, I do intend to have it published, but it is a very rough draft and won't be ready for review for at least another month, even for

135

internal review.

Q. Would it be scientific in your opinion if a scientist, using the scientific method of inquiry, determined that it would be impossible for spontaneous generation to have occurred of the first life I'm talking about?

MR. WOLFE: I will object to the form of the question unless spontaneous generation is more fully defined.

Q. Do you know what the term "spontaneous generation" means?

A. No. You'll have to tell me more exactly what you mean.

Q. Are you aware of some of the theories concerning the origin of the first life on this planet?

A. I think you probably mean hypotheses. I'm not aware of them in detail, no.

Q. Are you aware of them in general terms, general outlines?

A. I know that people have been doing experiments to see if they could put together organic molecules from inorganic substances using electrical discharges and so forth. That's basically the extent of my knowledge.

Q. Is that part of Stanley Miller's works?

A. I don't know. You're out of my field again.

Q. Okay. Do you think it's scientific to study the origin of first life or can be scientific?

136

A. If you mean creating life from inorganic substances by normal physical and natural processes, yes that's a legitimate scientific area of inquiry. In fact, as I said before, there are experiments being done on that.

Q. Uh-huh. If someone, in looking at that question of life coming from inorganic substances, concluded that it could not have happened by purely natural laws, do you think that could be scientific?

A. I don't think such a conclusion is possible. I think they might conclude that a certain mechanism was not possible, but then that would leave the way open for people to pose additional natural mechanisms. I don't know that you can categorically rule out all natural causes for something. I think that would be quite impossible.

Q. I'd like to have this marked as the next exhibit.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #13 was marked for the record.]

Q. I show you Exhibit #13 to your deposition which is a letter from you to Robert Tyler, Deputy Attorney General, State of California. Do you recall that letter?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall making a comment in there that there appears to be a strong thread of conspiracy throughout the evolutionist material — creationist material?

A. Yes.

137

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. I mean that the creationist literature makes rather frequent statements that evolutionists have somehow conspired to make radiometric ages and the age of the earth agree with biologists' need for long periods of time. And in fact, that's just not so.

Q. If you look at the response, particularly of late, to creation-science with like the article that we have marked as Exhibit #11 and some of the things that you're doing, the fact that you've got resolutions from Bill Mayer and all these other organizations. Looking at that objectively from someone who's not within the scientific community, would you not agree that there would appear to be some evidence that there is a concertive effort among the various disciplines of science to thwart creation- science?

A. No, that's not quite right. The conspiracy that the creationists talk about or allude to is the conspiracy of scientists to fabricate data and to misinterpret data to fit a preconceived notion. That's what they claim and that's the part that's wrong. I think what you're seeing in articles like this report in "Science" is the fact that science is getting alarmed that there is a group who are trying to get their religious views taught as a science subject. And they are very alarmed about the future of

138

science in this country, and of science education if that should happen.

Q. The idea then — well, first of all, that does seem to be some sort of concerted effort.

A. It's an effort to answer the claims of the creation scientists that science is wrong. And that, incidentally, is a legitimate function of science. These articles that I've written are a legitimate function of science. When somebody comes out with an idea or ideas that are wrong, it's the obligation of other scientists to explain why they're wrong. This is commonly done in the scientific literature. So I think what you're seeing is part of the natural scientific process.

Q. Are you familiar with the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn?

A. I've heard of it, but I've not read that work.

Q. So in other words, as I understand what you're saying, you see in the creationist literature a thread that evolutionists have, somehow, massaged the data or misinterpreted it so it would fit their own preconceived notions. Is that correct?

MR. WOLFE; I will object to the form of the question as ambiguous unless it's made clear that the thread you're referring to is an assertion made by creationists on occasion within the literature rather

139

than one made by Dr. Dalrymple.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I think that's what I'm asking and I thought that was clear.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in turn as I understand your testimony from some of the other articles we have reviewed today, you see in the creationist literature a misinterpretation of data or an effort to massage the data to fit their own preconceived ideas. Is that correct?

A. Yes. It's — most of their works are gross misinterpretations of the scientific data.

[Continuation of testimony on next page.]

140

Q. So, we in a sense have two groups pointing their fingers at each other saying, "You're misinterpreting the data", is that right?

A. Well, yes. Except that I — I can give you my personal example because they they like to claim that person working in geochronology somehow fabricate the data to suit the biologist's need for a long time. Personally, I don't care how old the earth is. I have no desire to have it four and a half billion years old or ten thousand years old. The biologists are just simply going to have to make do with what ever we find out I have nothing at stake whether the earth is very old or very young. It just simply doesn't matter to me.

Q. Well —

A. It probably doesn't matter that much to the biologists.

Q. You say that you have nothing at stake. If — if you have written I think you said over a hundred technical articles and all of them to some degree have been on dating methods or the dates of some particular rocks or something.

A. Uh-huh

Q. I mean if there should be shown to be a — a fundamental error in radiometric dating, your hundred articles may be fundamentally all wrong, isn't that correct

A. That's possible, yes.

141

Q. So to some degree you do have an interest, a professional interest in your own reputation, in your own stature within the scientific community in seeing that what you have written remains accurate in the eyes of the scientific community?

A. No. That's not right. Science is one of the few fields in which it is all right to be wrong. You can't be wrong as a surgeon. That's got serious consequences. And it's not good to be wrong as a judge. That's got serious consequences. Scientists are often wrong and it's perfectly acceptable as long as you admit your mistakes. In fact, if I could prove if I thought there were the remotest chance that I could prove that the earth was ten thousand years old then I would start that experiment today because it would make me instantly famous. I probably would win the Nobel Prize. So I've got a lot more to gain — I would have a lot more to gain if I thought there was the outside chance of proving that the earth were less than ten thousand years old.

Q. Okay. So if you thought you could prove that you would have a lot more to gain?

A. I am compelled to find my own mistakes and I have published papers where I have admitted my mistakes I have said, "I have found this error. Here is what the new measurements indicate". But that doesn't happen often.

142

Q. If you could do a — do a reverse field (sic) and say, "No. I was wrong. It's ten thousand years.", would that make you famous?

A. No. Only if I could prove it with a preponderance of evidence.

Q. I understand. But if someone could turn around and prove it was ten thousand years and you're still out here saying 4.5 billion years. What would that do to your stature as one of the leading authorities on dating?

A. It would depend on how I handle that evidence — evidence. If I evaluated that evidence and if it was really overwhelmingly in favor of the hypothesis that the earth was less than ten thousand years old, and I — and I ignored those facts then it would damage my reputation. If I objectively evaluated it and — and came to reasonable conclusions based on those facts then it would do no damage at all. You — amongst other things, I would be in very good company.

Q. My — my point I think is just the larger point of one of human nature. That — that you have to date, you know, staked your — your professional reputation and in fact your life's work to date has been on articles which talk about the age of the earth as being this many, you know, billions of years old. And if — and if you were proven wrong and you — you didn't agree with that then, then, I mean, your own stature would be — would be necessarily

143

be affected, correct?

A. Well, yes. But you see the chances of that happening are so infinitesimally small that — that it's not something that you worry about. I mean — I mean if the earth blew up from internal causes tomorrow we'd all be dead. But the chances of that happening are infinitesimally small and I'm just not going to worry about it. And so as far as damage to my scientific reputation is concerned, there is simply none to be had I don't think. It's — it's a hypothetical situation which I don't think will ever come true.

Q. But because you have devoted your life's work to this area and to the validity of radiometric dating and if it should be shown with it you have something of a vested interest is really the point?

A. I really don't, no. If someone showed — showed with good evidence that there was serious problem with radiometric dating I could- I would conduct experiments to show if they were right or they were wrong. And thus I would immediately become involved with the proof that they, themselves, had put out. And if right then that would be fine. I would have helped prove it. I — I really have no vested interest in this at all. I have nothing to lose.

Q. Are you aware that Gentry has in some of his writings, later than the ones that you have read, challenged someone

144

to prove him wrong?

A. I am not aware of that, no.

[Thereupon State's Exhibit #14 was marked for the record.]

Q. I am going to show you Exhibit #14 which is a letter I think by you to Deputy Attorney General Tyler?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that written in the Segraves case again?

A. Yes.

Q. In response to information that he sent you

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how he selected what books he sent you?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether they're representative of creation-science?

A. From — from my readings they are, yes.

Q. Now, the two notebooks that you have in front of you creation — ones labeled, "Notes on Scientific Creationism, 1981," and the second is labeled, "Notes on Scientific Creationism, II, 1981," a copy of which has been supplied to me. Could you just generally describe to me the basis — the basis on which you have developed these notebooks?

A. Well — well, these were simply notes that I took while I was reading the information that Mr. Tyler sent me in particular Notebook # I so that I could refresh my

145

memory about the literature that he had sent. And Notebook # II contains some, oh, things like listings of decay constants and a few quotes out of creationist literature that make reference to the Bible and God and other things like that.

Q. Well what I'm not fully understanding, I suppose, is if you have something in here is this necessarily that you — are these always your thoughts or are these things that you may have summarized from things that you have read?

A. Well, they're some of both. Some of it is — Notebook # I is primarily just summaries of their literature, just a summary of what those books and works are about. Number II are thoughts that I have had about — about some of their statements and a few other things that I didn't like to keep in my head that I would rather refer to like decay constants and whatnot.

Q. Let me just refer you to a page I just turned to and identify and I don't even know you can look at mine if you like there where there are, I believe, a quote or a chart taken from one of Morris' books talking there about the second law of thermodynamics?

A. Yes.

Q. At the bottom you state that one, two and four that being an open system. Number two there I can read it?

A. Available energy.

Q. And number four?

146

A. Conversion mechanisms.

Q. Are always present.

A. That's basically true in a general sense for systems.

Q. All right. In three you say, "In a case of evolution which is genetic, this is unnecessary that — that evolution proceeds by mutation".

A. This mutation random changes and DNA, etc., this is another general conclusion that I get from talking to some of my biologist colleagues. That's a little note to myself. That's not the sort of thing I would use in testimony because that's out of my field.

Q. Who — what biologist would you be reliant when you make that -

A. That came primarily out of conversations with Tom Jukes and Richard Dickerson.

Q. If I showed you a writing by a leading evolutionist which talked about evolution as a religion, that evolution was simply a religion. Would that be a valid ground to keep that out of the public schools? Evolution I'm talking about.

A. No. I don't think one article by any person would it would have to be balanced against everything else.

Q. Okay. What do you mean bal — balanced against everything else?

A. Well, I mean that you might get any one person to

147

say almost anything. If you have one person who has a crazy idea you need to balance that against perhaps thousands of others who have different ideas.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. We don't let the future of our society be influenced always by one person's opinion. If you're talking about keeping something out of the public schools then I don't think one person's opinion should he overriding.

Q. How many should it take?

A. Well, I don't know. I would say it would kind of depend on the subject and the — and the circumstances.

Q. Do you think that the notion of a creator is an inherently religious concept?

A. Yes. I think it is.

Q. Are you aware that, in origin — in The Origin of The Species, that Darwin says, to paraphrase in the conclusion, "that there is a grandeur in this form of life with the first few forms having life breathed into them by the Creator"?

A. Yes. I think he made statements similar to that.

Q. Do you think that's an appropriate subject for study in a public school science classroom, that book?

A. As a document that's important to the history of science, yes.

Q. You don't think it's important to study the scientific

148

document itself?

A. Not opinions about a creator, no.

Q. Well, I'm talking about the book itself?

A. I think that The Origins of The Species is a — is a important document for the history of science and I can't say it any better than that.

Q. You're saying that you no longer think it's a scientific document?

A. No. I'm saying it's outdated. My understanding is it's simply outdated. It's over — it's a hundred years old.

Q. Well, do you think because it talks about a creator we shouldn't be studying that in the public schools?

A. I don't think we should be studying the creator in the public schools, in science classes.

Q. Well, Darwin had a concept of the creator in The Origin of The Species.

A. And that book was not written for classroom teaching.

Q. So, should — would you be, in your personal opinion, allow that to be in the public schools classroom?

MR. WOLFE: I — I will object to the form of the question unless it's specified in what — I don't know — are you asking about Dr. Dalrymple's personal opinion as a scientist or -

MR. WILLIAMS: A scientist.

149

MR. WOLFE: — citizen or educational?

MR. WILLIAMS: As a scientist.

MR. WOLFE: All right. So, it's not either a personal opinion or a scientific opinion?

MR. WILLIAMS: His opinion as a scientist.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. Well, my own feeling as a geologist is that — and Darwin is writing on biology — is that — that document is primarily for historic interest. And studied in that way I see nothing inappropriate about it at all. It's an extremely important book.

MR. WOLFE: I don't like to interrupt but I think that only another 2, 3 minutes is all that we can allow.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm sorry.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. The notebooks were they used in drafting this document?

A. Well, partly yes. They were used as one of many sources.

Q. If some — if you were teaching a class in science and some student asked you, "how did the first life come about?" What would you tell them?

A. I would have to tell him that I didn't know.

150

Q. Do you think that science can provide an answer to that question?

A. It's possible. Ask me fifty years from now and I'll have a better answer.

Q. If creation-science could be studied in a classroom without incorporating religious teachings and writings, would you still oppose it's use in the classroom?

A. I don't think that's possible.

Q. But if it could? I — I — asking you -

A. You're — you're asking me an absolutely impossible — what I think is an impossible hypothetical question and I can't simply respond to a hypothetical question that is not within the realm of possibility.

Q. I'm asking you to — to assume that it could be taught without references to religious writings and religious doctrines? Would you oppose it?

A. I would oppose it on the grounds it would still be rotten science even if you could expunge all of the — all of the religious reference from the question but I don't think you could. It would be terrible, terrible science. And I don't think we should be teaching bad science to children. It's a difficult enough subject without confusing them further.

Q. Just briefly what is this article that you received a letter from Russell Arks (sic) do you recall this?

151

A. Yes.

Q. Why did he send these to you, do you know?

A. I asked for them.

Q. What is your opinion of them?

A. I think he doesn't know what he is talking about. He's — he's not a geologist and he clearly does not understand the subject about which he is writing.

Q. What is this document here, "Problems with Mixing Models"?

A. Those are simply my notes on things that are wrong with his model for isochrons which are mixing models. Just a capsule summary of some of the relevant points.

Q. I have no other questions. Thank you Dr. Dalrymple.

MR. WOLFE: I would like to put one question to Dr. Dalrymple. Doctor, Exhibit #14 is dated February 1980, is that a correct date?

DR. DALRYMPLE: Yes. Oh, no. No. That should have been 1981. It's a typographical error.

[Thereupon the taking of the above deposition was concluded at 4:14 p.m.]

Deposition of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

————————x

REV. BILL McLEAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs.

-against-

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al.,

Defendant.

————————x

Deposition of STEPHEN JAY GOULD, held at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Esqs., 919 Third Avenue, New York, New York, on the 27th day of November, 1981, at 9:30 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Notice, before Helaine J. Dribben, a Notary Public of the State of New York.

2

APPEARANCES:

BRUCE J. ENNIS, ESQ.

-and-

SUSAN STORM, ESQ.

Assistant Directors for Affiliate Program American Civil Liberties Union

132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036

STEVE CLARK, ESQ. Attorney General State of Arkansas Justice Building Little Rock, Arkansas

-and-

DAVID L. WILLIAMS, ESQ., Of Counsel SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, ESQS.

919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022

BY STEVEN BARNES, ESQ.

-and-

DAVID KLASFELD, ESQ., Of Counsel

3

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties herein, that filing and sealing be and the same are hereby waived.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that all objections, except as to the form of the question, shall be reserved to the time of the trial.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the within deposition may be signed and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer an oath, with the same force and effect as if signed and sworn to before the Court.

- oOo -

4

STEPHEN JAY GOULD, called

as a witness, having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Could you state your name, please?

A. Stephen Jay Gould.

MR. ENNIS: Bruce J. Ennis, appearing for Dr. Gould. Steve Barnes also appearing for Dr. Gould.

Q. Have you brought any documents with you today?

MR. ENNIS: Yes we have. In addition to the 3 books we have produced, ONTOGENY and PHYLOGENY, THE PANDA'S THUMB and THE ORIGIN, A VIEW OF LIFE, we are also producing several documents.

You previously received a curriculum vitae for Dr. Gould, but I would like to give you an updated current version of that CV, together with a complete scientific bibliography of the many articles written by Dr. Gould. We are also producing various file

5

folders which break down by categories relevant to your request for production of documents, additional correspondence, and documents that were in Dr. Gould's possession.

And we are in addition producing articles written by Dr. Gould which bear specifically on the subject of creationism or creation-science and subjects directly relevant to this lawsuit.

Finally, I would like to state for the record that we would like to at least mention to you that there is one article written in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, which Dr. Gould may have occasion to refer to in the course of his testimony, but for which I do not have a copy. It's called THE CEPHALOPODS IN THE CREATION and THE UNIVERSAL CREATION, and it's written by John Woodmorappe.

In the Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 15, September 1978. I will give you this copy now, but I do not have an extra. If you would like to make one, I would appreciate if you will return the original.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I would like to

6

have a copy made of this.

MR. ENNIS: I would also like to state for the record that we made a diligent effort at Harvard Wednesday to try and find our Creation Society literature on which Dr. Gould might rely in his testimony. We have not been able to determine for certain which things he will be relying on, but he has read many books by creationists, and if you would like we can state them for the record because he may -

A. Yes. The main ones would be Gish's EVOLUTION THE FOSSILS SAY NO. THE GENESIS FLOOD by Whitcomb and Morris: FOSSILS KEYED TO THE PRESENT, by Bliss, Parker and Gish. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, by Henry Morris.

I am not saying I won't read some others before the trial, but these are the ones I have read so far. In fact, the only major creations works I own.

MR. ENNIS: I would like to say for the record that I now understand that you have a copy of another book written by Dr. Gould entitled EVER SINCE DARWIN. And that will complete our document production in response to your request.

7

I would like to state for the record that Dr. Gould has written literally hundreds of articles in his professional career and all of them to some extent or another have something to do with evolution. We have not produced all of those articles because he does not have copies of most of them, and had reprints of virtually none of them. But we have made an effort to reproduce all articles that deal with creation-science or anything related to this case.

We have also produced a list of publications, and if on looking at that list there appear to be any additional publications in that list which you think might be relevant, we will be happy to try and get copies of those as well. We made an effort to screen through and I think we complied in good faith with your request.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MR. ENNIS: We are going to have the standard stipulation reserving all objections except as to form until the trial. We will not waive the signing of the deposition, however. Anything else you would like to add, David?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. Its my

8

understanding though, concerning the details, that the original will be forwarded directly to Dr. Gould; is that right? For his signature.

MR. ENNIS: We will have to figure out. what's the quicker way to do that since he's going to be out of the country.

MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. WILLIAMS: In our off the record discussion, I think we have agreed that the original of the deposition transcript will be sent to Dr. Gould either tomorrow or Sunday by Federal Express or some other overnight delivery service. He will then read it and make any necessary corrections before he leaves the country on Wednesday of next week. Will return it by Express Mail or some other overnight means of delivery to Skadden, Arps, who will conform their copy to any changes made. They will in turn send the original signed and corrected to the Attorney General's Office, Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, to my attention.

Q. Dr. Gould, where are you currently employed?

9

A. Harvard University.

Q. And your position at Harvard?

A. Professor of geology.

Q. Are you tenured?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you receive your tenure?

A. 1971, July 1 - sorry, July 1, 1973.

Q. Your attorneys - the attorneys for the plaintiff, have they explained to you the purposes of a deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you testified before in any case?

A. Never.

Q. Ever had a deposition taken before?

A. No.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes.

Q. What Is your wife's name?

A. Debra Lee, maiden name, Lee.

Q. Is she employed?

A. She's a self-employed artist and illustrator.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. Two boys.

10

Q. Ages, please?

A. One 8 and one is going to be 12 next Thursday.

Q. Where are they in school?

A. My youngest son is in the local public school called the Agassiz School, my older boy is seriously learning disabled is in a special school called League School in Newton

Q. Your 8-year old will be in the second grade?

A. Third grade

Q. Would he have any courses yet in which they discuss the subject of origins?

A. I wish he did, but the state of public education in Massachusetts is such that there is no science at all in public schools now, which is a scandal or other reasons.

Q. Why is there no science in the public schools of Massachusetts?

A. There is in some schools. There was a science specialist, but he was released for lack of funds. I don't say the teacher doesn't occasionally discuss some scientific subjects.

Q. To your knowledge, has the subject of

11

evolution ever been discussed in your son's class?

A. I am it wasn't.

Q. Are you a member of any organized religious faith?

A. Not a formal member.

Q. Informal member?

A. I identify myself as Jewish faith. Not a paying member of any temple or synagogue.

Q. Do you observe any Jewish holidays?

A. In my own way. I fast on Yom Kippur, and that's difficult for a fatso like me.

Q. Have you ever been a member of a synagogue?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever studied what the Jewish faith says about the origins of man and life in the world?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you study that?

A. Informally, personally.

Q. What is your understanding of their position on the origin of the world?

A. As with virtually all matters among Jews there are as many opinions as there are

12

individuals.

Q. Are there some individuals, if not viable groups, within the Jewish faith who subscribe to literal interpretation of Genesis?

A. There are, but it's definitely a minority position.

Q. What is your personal belief as to the existence of a God?

A. Difficult question because it depends so much on a matter of definition. If you ask me whether I think there's a male figure with a beard sitting in the clouds, I certainly don't. But if one were to define God as the source of order in the universe, I might be tempted to say yes.

Q. You might be tempted to. Is that your -

A. I reserve judgment, because that's an issue far too difficult for the human mind to answer.

Q. So to the extent that you would consider the possibility of a God, you would define it as a source of order in the universe?

A. No. I didn't quite say that.

Q. I just want to understand what your

13

position is.

A. I said if one were to define God that way, I might be willing to give my assent.

Q. What is your present opinion as to the existence of a God?

A. It's again a definitional question. If one chooses to -

Q. Define God.

MR. ENNIS: If you can. If the witness has a definition.

A. No, I really don't. It means too many different things to too many people.

Q. That's why I am trying to ask you what it means to you, because I understand that it can be given different meanings.

A. No, I really can't. Mysteries have no definitions.

Q. Would you characterize yourself as an agnostic, an atheist, deist, sir, or any of the other labels which have arisen to put people in nice pigeon holes?

A. The problem with academics is we tend to perhaps traversely and certainly ardently to value our personal approaches so much that we

14

really decline to impose any label upon ourselves, and therefore I have always resisted such characterizations. As the literal meaning of the word, and agnostic is one of them, is unsure. In the literal meaning of course I am, in the vernacular agnostic, and have done many things. Let us say I regard the issues too difficult for either my mind or anyone else's to solve.

Q. To the extent that any of those are a label concerning your position on the existence or lack of existence on a God, would agnostic be the closest that you are aware of?

A. When something is close it's not necessarily good enough. I will certainly admit that agnostic is certainly a closer word than creationist. But any word is so far from my personal beliefs that I decline to be labeled by the terms.

Q. You say that mysteries have no definition. What do you mean by that, that the existence of God is a mystery?

A. However we define it, we know so little that the subject is beyond our comprehension.

Q. Beyond our intellectual comprehension?

15

A. That's the only way I know to comprehend. To comprehend literally, that doesn't mean that we don't have other sources of feeling, et cetera.

Q. Do you think that a religious person can be a competent scientist?

A. Of course. The empirical record proves it. There are thousands upon thousands of religious people who are competent scientists.

Q. Do you think that a religious person who might be characterized as a fundamentalist can be a competent scientist?

A. Depends on what they do. If the science that they do has no bearing upon their belief in the literal interpretation of scripture, then the answer might be yes. If, for example, they worked on the mechanism of the heart, and were only interested in how it functions as a machine, never ask questions about how it got there, how it arose, I imagine that one could.

Q. Do you think that a person who might be characterized as a fundamentalist on religious issues could be an adequate scientist in studying evolution and the subject of origins generally?

16

A. Insofar as at least in my understanding the basis of creationism is a belief that God or some supernatural force placed creatures on earth by an act of miraculous creation, and insofar as a miraculous creation is a suspension of natural laws and insofar as science deals with natural laws only, the answer would be no. Except with one qualification. If for example a creation scientist can find himself in my profession, for example, merely to describing fossils, I suspect since that's a purely empirical endeavor, it could be done.

Q. My question, though, I am not sure if I was perhaps as clear as I might be, is if someone is a "religious fundamentalist" and is a scientist studying origins, if they look at all the scientific data and attempt to analyze it, in the most competent scientific manner that they know, would they be any less a competent scientist because of their religious beliefs?

A. Could you define fundamentalist for me?

Q. I admit the term does not admit of an easy definition for me. It is a term bandied about in this lawsuit, more by the plaintiffs than

17

the defendants, I might say. Let's take one step back and just replace the term fundamentalist with one who has an article of faith, believes in the literal account of Genesis, his article of faith I said.

A. Science of course by definition doesn't deal in articles of faith. So insofar as articles of faith involve empirical claims, as a literal belief in Genesis does, such a person could not be by the usual definitions a scientist.

Q. How does Genesis necessarily involve an article of faith as empirical data, is that what you said?

A. That was your definition.

Q. I am saying as an article of faith — let me rephrase the question. If a scientist believes in Genesis literally as an article of faith and then studies it, studies not it, but the subject of origins generally as a scientist, can he not believe in one as an article of faith, Genesis as an article of faith and then study the scientific evidence without being biased or tainted in your own mind?

A. You mean of course the literal

18

interpretation of Genesis. I believe that Genesis is an inspired account in a different way, and very great literature as well. Sorry, I missed the thread of your question.

Q. What I heard you say earlier indicated to me that you understand that a scientist who believed as an article of faith in the literal account of Genesis could not be a competent scientist to study the subject of origins and theories of origins.

A. If they insisted a priori and an unreviseable belief that the literal story of Genesis had to be true, then since the empirical evidence is so overwhelmingly against certain aspects of the Genesis story, particularly the creation of all life in 6 days and 24 hours, that could not be because that belief has been falsified.

Q. That is the key, isn't it, as to whether they will try to establish or come to their work with a priori conviction?

A. That could not be altered.

Q. If they had this religious belief but they were able to put that aside and look at the

19

data as a scientist there is no reason why they —

A. That's a contradiction in terms, they couldn't. If they really are biblical literalists committed to it, then the scientific data puts to the contrary.

Q. Are you aware that even among biblical literalists that they don't necessarily believe that week of Genesis was a week of 24-hour days?

A. The bill as I understand it, demands that they are not 24-hour day, then the creation of the earth is so recent then it is equally falsified by the evidence that we have.

Q. We will get into the bill in a moment. I have been handed this morning either revised or updated curriculum vitae. Does this vitae include all of your employment since you received your Bachelor's Degree?

A. Yes, it does. It's been a dull life. I have just been at Harvard since I got my Ph.D.

Q. What courses do you teach in geology at Harvard?

A. I teach several courses. I teach either year a large course in the core curriculum, which is the general education program for the

20

college which is called science B-16, which is an overview of the history of the earth and life. In addition, I teach, though not every year and in varying intervals, a number of more technical courses in paleontology, evolutionary theory, and the history of evolutionary and geological thought.

Q. You received your Bachelor's Degree in geology at Antioch in 1963?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you have any subspecialty in your study of geology?

A. Antioch is a strange school. It doesn't really recognize formal majors. I took a fair number of courses in biology as well, with a major in geology.

Q. Did you bypass the Master's Degree? I don't see that listed.

A. Yes. It's customary. At least many schools that are Ph.D. oriented to either have an honorary master's that you really get after having taken a certain number of courses or to dispense with it all together. I may even have it, I don't remember.

Q. And your Ph.D. was in what?

21

A. In geology, with a specialty in paleontology, 1967, Columbia University.

Q. Describe for me briefly how you would define paleontology?

A. Paleontology is the study of fossils. Simple as that, all aspects thereof.

Q. Who was your major advisor at Columbia?

A. My major advisor was Norman Newell, a curator of fossil invertebrates at the Museum of Natural History.

Q. Have you ever taught a course on creation-science?

A. I couldn't. There is no such thing.

Q. Have you ever discussed the subject of creation-science in your classroom?

A. Only in brief allusions in my science B-16 course.

Q. Do you recall what your brief allusions would consist of?

A. They were negative.

Q. I would expect that, but do you recall the content?

A. I in fact will give — come up to Harvard next week. I am going to give 2 lectures

22

on Monday and Wednesday, which is the first lecture I will give on the subject. They mainly consisted on attempts to show that by the definitions of science, creationism did not qualify.

Q. Are you aware of any schools where the subject of creation-science - I am talking about schools which are post secondary schools, colleges, universities, where creation-science has been taught?

A. I know that it is in the abstract, but have never talked with anyone who teaches such a course. I did in Dayton, Tennessee, meet the president of Bryan College, and I believe, though I am not certain, that they teach creationism there.

Q. Do you know if it's being taught in any other colleges or universities say on the east coast, what would be some of the more major colleges?

A. I'm not aware that it is.

Q. Would you be surprised if it is?

A. Yes — depending on how it's taught, I would not be surprised if it were considered in sociology courses an issue of the day. I simply

23

don't know.

Q. Where did you graduate from high school?

A. Jamaica High School. It's a public high school in New York, in Queens. Not on the island of.

Q. What science courses did you take there?

A. The standard very poor offerings that existed before the Sputnik went up. I had in junior high school, a year of general science, and then a year of biology, a year of physics, and a year of chemistry, plus mathematics of course. No calculus.

Q. Did you study theories of origins in high school?

A. Ever so briefly.

Q. What do you recall about your study?

A. Virtually nothing. Evolution was treated in a week or so at the end of the course. That being, by the way, a legacy of the Scopes trial and the textbooks which still exist not many years later.

Q. How did you arrive at the conclusion that that was a legacy of the Scopes trial?

A. Because the book we used was Moon,

24

Mann, and Otto. And we know since that book was around since 1920 that, although the early editions included much evolution, the post-Scopes trial ones did not.

Q. Are you aware that there were other texts which were available which perhaps had a more thorough discussion of evolution?

A. No idea. I was a little child.

Q. Was the creation model or any symbols there of origins treated in your high school courses?

A. No. But there was very little evolution either.

Q. In undergraduate school at Antioch, what courses on theories of origins would you have taken?

A. Theories of origins is a bad term, because we don't really deal with origins in the study of evolution. If you ask me in evolution, the answer is a fair number. I guess I only had one formal course entitled "Evolution," but I had since age ten or 11 made a personal study of the subject.

Q. What books had you read from age ten

25

and 11 that you can recall and that would have been influential?

A. The first book and most influential one was George Simpson's, THE MEANING of EVOLUTION.

Q. When did you read that book?

A. Let us say I attempted to read it at age 11. I doubt in rereading it later that I understood much of it then.

Q. Any other particular influential books in this area?

A. I like Roy Chapman Andrews' ALL ABOUT DINOSAURS, but I doubt very much that it said much about processes of change.

Q. In undergraduate school, did you receive any instruction in creation-science, model of origins or anything similar thereto?

A. Only from personal study. I always had an interest In the subject.

Q. And in your postgraduate studies, did you have any study of the creation-science model of origins, or anything similar to it?

A. Not formally, again.

Q. What was the subject of your Ph.D. dissertation that you wrote?

26

A. THE EVOLUTION FOSSIL LAND SNAILS FROM BERMUDA.

Q. Was that published?

A. Yes, it was. It's item 20 on that list if I remember correctly, a very long and complex title.

Q. When was the first time you heard the term creation-science?

A. I just don't know.

Q. Approximately?

A. The problem is I don't know whether — I certainly am aware of literal beliefs in Genesis. I have read a lot about the Scopes trial as a teenager. I just don't know whether the term was used then. I don't think so, but I don't know.

Q. In response to our request for documents you brought with you this morning some various documents I want to ask you some questions about.

First of all, labeled in a folder entitled American Society of Naturalists, Committee on Creationism, there is a memo and two or three letters. Do you recall what the occasion was that you received this?

27

A. Yes. I became president of the American Society of Naturalists by the death of the man who should have served. I was not so elected. I was vice president. And one of the items of business was the establishment of a committee within the society to study the creationist challenge, and I as president participated in the setting up of such a committee asking Bruce Wallace to be its chairman. That committee functioned sporadically, made the report that you have, and more or less merged with a still ongoing committee for which you have a folder of documents and of which I am a member of the Society for the Study of Evolution. I might say that the Society for the Study of Evolution of the American Society of Naturalists are the two major professional societies of evolutionists.

Q. So you appointed Bruce Wallace to chair the committee; is that correct?

A. Bruce Wallace is too eminent a man. One doesn't appoint him, one begs him to do it.

Q. You were responsible?

A. I asked him, yes.

28

Q. When did the American Society of Naturalists decide to set up a committee on creationism?

A. My memory for dates is terrible.

Q. Approximately?

A. It was 1978 or '79 or 1980. It was at the annual meeting.

Q. Is there any resolution or any other written documentation concerning the reasons why this committee was set up?

A. If so, I don't have them. As I remember, Walter Bock, was a professor of biology at Columbia, wrote to the president of the society asking or recommending that such a committee be established. I had that letter at one time. I don't now, because I passed on my entire files. As I said, I was only president pro tem.

Q. What do you recall as the reasons motivating this committee being established?

A. We evolutionists believe that what you call creation-science is a contradiction in terms and is not science. We were alarmed at its spread in various secondary schools across the nation and set up a committee to look into ways whereby

29

evolutionary biologists might raise questions and oppose this spread.

Q. Was a charge given to this committee?

A. Only to report back the following year as to what they thought effective tactics might be. Let me not say that. What they thought the appropriate stands of professional evolutionary biologists might be.

Q. It was clear at the outset, was it not, that the overall purpose would be to symbol creationism?

A. Oh, yes, indeed. I presume that's not an issue. Sorry if I was pussyfooting.

Q. What is the Voice of Reason?

A. The Voice of Reason about which I confess I know not a great deal, is an organization brought to my acquaintance by Morris Goodman, who is an evolutionary biologist at Wayne State University in Detroit, which has at least one of its charges combating creationism. Dr. Goodman asked if I would sign the statement of purpose and become a member of I don't know if it's the board of advisers or just a list of signatories. I read the list and signed them.

30

Q. These subscribe to this document entitled the Voice of Reason with several subtopics, the American Tradition and another subtopic of the Secular Stage.

MR. ENNIS: Is your question did he by signing subscribe to the entire document or just the statement on creation-science?

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is, there is a two page document there which his name I think the fourth page is listed as on the national board of advisers.

A. As always in signing documents, I do not guarantee that I accede to every nuance of every word, but the resolution section which is the guts of the document I signed because I do indeed support it.

Q. What have been the functions or activities of the Voice of Reason to date?

A. I don't know.

Q. When did you agree to sign on as a member of the National Advisory Board?

A. I think it was last spring, spring of 1981 that is. But I would not commit myself to that. Plus or minus 8 months, which is the

31

academician's statistical fluctuation.

Q. Looking at the National Advisory Board I notice it includes people like Isaac Asimov, Francisco Ayala, Guy Bush, and there are people on the list. Would it be fair to say that all these people would be evolutionists?

A. I am sure they are all evolutionists. Yes, it would.

Q. These other documents that you have provided from the Voice of Reason which include some really outstanding works of art, have you read those before?

A. I have glanced through them.

Q. I notice on one page it says "It is our heritage to continually construct a wall of separation between church and state."

A. The only thing wrong with that is the split infinitive.

Q. But do you agree that's part of our heritage, to have a wall of separation between church and state?

A. I thought that's what the first amendment says, not in quite that graphic language. The best for the protection of religion, as well

32

as everything else.

Q. Has this been published, to your knowledge, any of this information in any other form?

A. I don't know.

Q. It would appear to be perhaps the draft of some sort of pamphlet or something?

A. It did come in a bound pamphlet form. No, that art does not hold a shadow to Michelangelo. I think Michelangelo today would have been an evolutionist.

Q. Does this group have any meetings that —

A. I don't know.

Q. You have not attended any personally. By the way, did anybody ever ask you if you do this last Tuesday?

A. No. I am sorry. I don't like being here either. I want to be with my family.

Q. But you were never contacted to check and see if you could have done this Tuesday?

A. I couldn't have, I had to teach. I don't really remember if we did, since I had a class in the morning, I couldn't have in any case.

33

As I understand it, I am here at your request, not at my personal desire.

Q. I understand that. What involvement have you had with the so-called Committees of Correspondence?

A. No personal involvement. I merely submitted those documents since they were sent to me. I tried to give you whatever literature I had from any formally constituted anti-creationist group.

Q. Are you aware of the purpose of Committees of Correspondence?

A. In a loose sort of way, yes. I have spoken very briefly to Stanley Weinberg in the State of Iowa, whom I understand is their leader, and I know the head of Massachusetts branch, Laurie Godfrey, but have had no formal ties with them.

Q. You haven't done any work or any writings yourself?

A. No.

Q. Do you know why you were sent this material?

A. I imagine they have a mailing list that

34

Includes evolutionists of notoriety. I guess I classify - I qualify as such.

Q. I think you said earlier that you are a member of the Society for the Study of Evolution's education committee. What is your understanding of the purpose of the education committee?

A. To study the creationist challenge and devise means of meeting it.

Q. Again, the purpose is to oppose it, correct?

A. Oh, yes, indeed.

MR. ENNIS: Can I ask you to clarify your question by what you mean oppose it, do you mean oppose the teaching of it in public schools or oppose it more generally?

A. You can't oppose what parents do in their house or what churches do in their buildings. That's no concern of ours.

Q. I notice in some of the correspondence on the committee, education committee of the Society for the Study of Evolution the term the anti-evolutionist is often used. Do you use that term in reference to the creation scientist?

A. I usually call them creationists. They

35

are not creation scientists, because in my view they are not scientists, and they are people opposed to evolution. So I myself use the term creationist.

Q. Do you use the term anti-evolutionist?

A. I haven't, I don't think. But it would not be an inappropriate term.

Q. What duties or activities have you undertaken on the education committee?

A. I attended a meeting at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution held in Iowa this June or July, and beyond that I have been a fairly passive member, merely receiving documents, although I did send out one mailing in which I merely sent copies of the two of the articles that you have to all members of the committee in response to a request that we circulate among ourselves those writings that we have.

Q. What articles did you send?

A. The piece from DISCOVER MAGAZINE, and the natural history column entitled a visit to Dayton, both of which you have.

Q. There is a file with some

36

correspondence in it titled the "National Academy of Sciences."

A. The National Academy of Sciences has a committee. How active or how it's constituted I don't know. It was preparing a draft statement on creationism. I was contacted by Dr. Maxine Singer, and asked to check its wording and make any comments. I suggested a very few alterations, mainly stylistic.

Other than that, they did hold a meeting in Washington, I was invited to attend it but was unable to because I had classes that day. That is the extent of my involvement with them.

Q. Have you had any other — you may have said something on this, perhaps I didn't hear — but other than this reviewing this draft of a statement on creationism, have you had any other involvement with the National Academy of Science's opposition to creation?

A. Not other than being invited to this meeting and being unable to attend.

Q. In the final folder that I have in front of me presently is a National Association of Biology Teachers, which contains apparently some

37

correspondence.

A. Yes. I have had no official contact with them. That like the Committee of Correspondence information that came to me and knowing that the NABT is active in the anti- creationist front, I thought I would supply those documents. I should, however, mention that I did at the annual meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers held in Boston and now again it's plus or minus a year, it was either this year's or last year's meeting, give an address on creationism.

Q. Is there a transcript of that address?

A. I think there is.

Q. Is it included in these materials?

A. I don't own it, but it could be, if such exists it would be a cassette tape and could be obtained by contacting Wayne Moyer, who is head of the national association.

MR. ENNIS: Let me say for the record that in Boston on Wednesday we did ask Dr. Gould if there were any transcripts of any of the addresses or speeches he had given on the subjects covered by your request to produce documents which

38

were in his possession, and the answer is that there are not or to the extent there are, they are included in those document requests. There may have been other brief appearances on radio shows or other speaking engagements, but he does not have any transcripts of those in his possession.

Q. To the best of your recollection, would your talk or speech on creation-science given to the National Association of Biology Teachers contain any information different than what is included in your writings?

A. It was longer, so evidently there would be more words, but I think the content of it covered, particularly the article that you are holding now.

Q. You're referencing the DISCOVER article?

A. Yes.

Q. Have any of the other organizations that you are a member of or have been involved with besides the ones we have gone through taken an official position on creation-science?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. How about the AAAS, are you aware of it?

39

A. I don't think they have, but I don't know for certain. The AAAS, of course, is such a large organization. One is a member to receive the magazine SCIENCE and I am not aware of their official position.

Q. Are you a fellow of —

A. That's an honorary title.

Q. What does it mean?

A. It means that with your document, and 75 cents you can take a ride on the New York subway.

Q. Are you voted on?

A. Yes. You get a little psuedo parchment document in the mail that says you're a fellow and you put it on your CV.

Q. Is that a mark of distinction within the scientific community?

A. It is said to be. I do not regard it as a particularly distinguishing mark thereof.

Q. Do you recall making a remark previously in a speech or a presentation or perhaps at a so-called debate, I don't know if it was a debate or not, on creation-science, that creation-science was not an issue anywhere in the world except in the United States?

40

A. I have said things like that but not quite in those terms.

Q. What is your position on that?

A. That so far as I know, that in no other western nation - I don't know what's happening in China or Sri Lanka — That in no other Western nation though. I know there are individual creationists and even in England a few societies, but that this is not a major political issue.

Q. Are you aware of as to creation-science or some form of creation model is taught in Canada?

A. I guess I always consider chauvinistic, one tends to consider Canada as an extension of the United States. After all, Montreal almost got into the World Series this year. Yes, I think there's a creationist movement in Canada, and I guess I was lumping Canada with the United States.

Q. Are you aware whether creation-science is taught in the public schools in Canada?

A. I don't know.

Q. And you say this is really not an issue, as I understand it, anywhere but in the United States and Canada?

A. As far as I know it is not a major

41

political issue that commands media attention.

Q. Now you have said not a political issue. Is it an issue in the scientific community?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that the, if I have the term right, the Museum of Natural History in London had an exhibit in which creation-science or something similar thereto was presented as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution?

A. I am afraid that's a misinterpretation of what was done at the British Museum of Natural History. There was a fairly cautionary put up in one of the exhibit halls that spoke about alternatives, but it was not an equal time exhibit.

Q. But which said that creation-science, if we can use that term, in the general sense at this point, was an alternative theory to evolution?

A. I have the copy of the wording. I don't believe that that's an accurate representation of it. I don't have it with me.

Q. Could you produce that?

A. I could produce it insofar as it is an editorial in NATURE MAGAZINE that talks about this. I believe I have a copy of it and can produce it.

42

MR. WILLIAMS: If you can produce that, I would appreciate it.

THE WITNESS: However, it was an editorial in NATURE MAGAZINE, which is a fairly common magazine.

Q. If I can have just have a cite.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like this marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1 to the Gould deposition an article from the May 1981 DISCOVER MAGAZINE entitled "Evolution as Fact and Theory."

(Whereupon, document above referred to was marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1 for identification, as of this date.)

Q. In Exhibit 1, on page 34, the second paragraph you state that "The arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions." And then you go on to state that "The creationists have not a single new fact or argument."

Upon what do you base your belief that the creationists do not have any new facts or arguments?

A. Reading their literature and being aware of what was used in the 1920's in the Scopes

43

trial, and the literature of that time, particularly by George McCready Price, who was the leader of the creationists in the 20's and 30's.

Q. Could you describe for me the literature that you are talking about, particularly with reference to George McCready Price? I am talking about George McCready Price. What arguments did he forward?

A. I haven't read this material for a while, but they were mainly including what Bryan and others presented at the Scopes trial, primarily arguments about the presumed young age of the earth and gaps in fossil record, et cetera.

Q. Did he talk about the second law of thermodynamics?

A. Who remembers, but —

Q. Do you recall that?

A. I don't remember. It's a pseudo argument. When I say not a single new fact or argument, a literal meaning of argument to me is something that has, I suppose argument is anything that anyone says, there are new words that weren't used before. By "argument," I mean something that has integral substance.

44

Q. If your statement that the creationists have not a single new fact or argument, if that were not true would your opinion change any on the subject of creation-science?

MR. ENNIS: I didn't understand that question.

THE WITNESS: I didn't either.

Q. One of the first statements that you make in this article is that the creationist have not offered any new facts or new arguments, as I take it —

A. I mean arguments of substance.

Q. I understand that. But if there are in fact new facts since 1925 in the Scopes trial or new arguments, and arguments of substance as you term those, would your opinions be different?

MR. ENNIS: About what?

Q. Your opinions on creation-science as a science.

MR. ENNIS: I don't mean to be obstructive here, but I still don't understand it. It seems to me what you're asking is if in fact there were scientific evidence for creation would you then have a different view.

45

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the witness' article begins on the premise that there are or there is no new evidence.

A. The main premise of the article is that —

MR. ENNIS: I am sorry. If you can answer the question, I have no objection to your answering the question.

A. I still don't really understand it but the main premise of the article of course is that there is nothing going forth. The main point is not a historical one as to when arguments arose. Like any scientist, when an argument that we haven't heard arises we have to assess it. I am unaware, and I have read a fair amount of creationist literature, of anything that I find in the slightest persuasive.

Q. You use the term creationist literature. What do you include within that term?

A. Here I am using the sentence of those who support the literal interpretation of Genesis as an infallible guide to interpreting the history of life in the earth.

Q. I don't understand your definition or

46

characterization of creationist literature. You seem to be describing it with reference to the beliefs of the writers, rather than to the implications of the writings.

A. I think that is what the creationist movement represents, and I think the bill specifies that when it talks about the age of the earth and the flood. So it's that body of literature by Gish, Henry Morris and others I regard as the main body of creationist literature.

Q. Have you read Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. I would like to ask you if you could to look at it again for a moment. And looking at section 4-A, which is the definition of creation-science, before asking you questions about that, from your other testimony I think it's fair to say that you view creation-science as nothing more than a literal interpretation of Genesis under the guise of science?

A. Let me say that creation-science is to me a contradiction of terms. Because creation, in my understanding, refers to the suspension of natural law by some power to place creatures upon

47

this earth.

Q. First of all, let me ask you then, where in the act is creation-science or creation defined or described in such a way that it necessarily includes the suspension of natural laws?

A. Point one, sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.

Q. Now that is one part of what creation-science may include. It says, does it not, that creation-science is the scientific evidences for creation and inferences there from. Is that correct?

A. Not exactly in those words. Creation-science includes the scientific evidence and related inferences that indicate, yes.

Q. Is there anything in that sentence which necessarily requires the suspension of natural laws?

A. In vernacular definition, the production of things from nothing is to me miraculous.

Q. In that first sentence.

A. I think so because to me the term

48

creation-science, defining creation as I do, implicitly refers to miraculous suspension. That's the way I define the miracle of creation.

Q. A miraculous suspension of natural laws?

A. Yes.

Q. That is how you define creation-science?

A. That's the core claim of creation-science as I understand it is the suspension of natural law to place on this earth by the fiat act of a supernatural Creator the kinds of life.

Q. Do you feel like you are familiar with the account of creation given in Genesis?

A. I have read Genesis. I don't know all the exogenical traditions, of course.

Q. Looking at 4-A1, could you tell me if that language is in Genesis?

A. I read Genesis different from creationists. To me it's an allegorical tale of great literary power.

Q. My question is, I think according to your earlier statement that creation-science is derived from a literal reading of Genesis, is that right?

49

A. As I understand it.

Q. I want you to just look at 4-A1, which says, "the sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Is that in Genesis?

A. I don't think it is. Other people do. Remember, any part of the Bible can be read in many different ways.

Q. 2 says, "the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about investment of all living kinds from a single organism," is that in Genesis?

A. I'm not aware of that Genesis speaks of mutation. I don't see how it could.

Q. 3 is, "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals" does Genesis say that only the kinds have only fixed or — does Genesis say that the living kinds changed only within fixed limits?

A. My answer is really the same to all of these.

MR. ENNIS: Are you asking the witness what his interpretation of Genesis is, or are you asking the witness of his understanding of what the interpretation of Genesis advanced by creation

50

scientists is?

MR. WILLIAMS: From his earlier testimony I think he said that he had studied the Genesis account of creation. Genesis account of —

MR. ENNIS: I believe his testimony was that he had read the Genesis account of creation, but I don't believe he said he had studied or studied it or read it recently.

THE WITNESS: I said that I am aware that there are many exogenical traditions of it. I certainly know what the words say, but there are so many different interpretations. There is no book that has been more interpretive in a variety of ways than the Bible. There are 100 different interpretations, as you know. I don't quite see what you are getting at.

Q. Your statement I think earlier was that creation-science, besides the point that you think it's a contradiction in terms, that it is also merely a literal account of Genesis, is that correct?

A. It depends upon the claim that Genesis read literally represents the facts of nature. Specifically in points 5 and 6. And if you

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould - Page 2

51

allowed a little play, that wouldn't change very much.

Q. Where in Genesis, for example, does it state that there has been a relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds?

A. Again, I don't believe that it does.

Q. I know, but if you interpret it literally, where does it say that?

A. One calculates the genealogies, starting with Adam, and gets an age.

Q. Is that in Genesis, to your knowledge?

A. It's not all in Genesis. You might have to proceed through some of the begat sections of Chronicles and some of the other books, but that's how it's been done.

Q. Where in Genesis is separate ancestry from man and apes?

A. My answer is going to be the same to every one of these questions. That represents one possible interpretation.

Q. That's an interpretation, but it is not necessarily in there, is it?

A. It can't necessarily be in there since so many people who regard Genesis as an

[Page 52 is missing - MvADP Editor.]

53

which is a widely circulated publication which would support the theory of creation-science?

A. Could you define the theory of creation-science for me in this context?

Q. Creation-science, let's at this point confine ourselves to the definition given in Act 590, since that's the issue at hand.

A. But you see it's an odd definition. One of the points it makes under definition I regard as inappropriate there. It says 2 kinds. That's a caricature of what evolutionists say. I don't believe the mutation and natural selection is sufficient, but that is surely not part of creation-science.

So If you confine the definition to this set of 6 points, then the answer is yes, but only because the definitions are so poor. Of course there's literature that says mutation and natural selection is insufficient. I forget what its called in logic, but to say that the acceptance of what anybody says is the definition of any one part of it commits one to the definition is false.

(Recess taken.)

54

Q. Your statements concerning your position and conclusion that creation-science cannot be science, could you tell me again why you believe that creation-science is not?

A. Because its core belief requires that natural law be suspended for the sudden or flat introduction of basic kinds onto the earth, and science is defined as an enterprise based on natural law. The suspension there of not being science.

Q. Does the role or the definition and use of the term "kinds," is that precluded from being science?

A. What I said doesn't apply to the word kind. I mean kind to me is a very vague term, the likes of which I don't know. But the fiat introduction of any kind of life, be it a species a genesis or kingdom.

Q. Do you feel that we know all that there is to know about the natural law?

A. Goodness, if we knew everything that there was about the world I guess we would pack up and play golf for the rest of our lives.

Q. So there is more to learn?

55

A. By definition in science, there is always more to learn. What a dull world if there weren't.

Q. Do you think that it would be scientific for a scientist to look at the origin of life or some organism and try to determine whether the origination of that life or organism was possible under the laws of nature?

A. Science, like any other enterprise, has boundaries. Science is that enterprise that attempts to describe and interpret the facts of the world under natural law, therefore attempts to study the origins of things under the laws of nature, and part of science.

Q. So the study of the limits of the laws of nature would be part of science?

A. The limits are not — the limits are not — limits have to do more with definitions of the enterprise, not with the facts of nature. Therefore, nothing about morality is part of science. Natural law doesn't deal with morality. But anything about the facts of nature come under the heading of natural law as we understand it.

Q. What was the last statement? I didn't

56

hear it.

A. That the fact of nature as we understand it comes under the province of natural law.

Q. You use the term as we understand them.

A. Science is always tentative.

Q. If a scientist might resort to some scientific method and concluded that the origin of the first life could not have been by chance or by just the laws of nature operating, could that be scientific?

A. First of all, let me say that I have no professional opinion on the question of the origin of life is not what evolution deals with. So I am not going to be able to go very deeply into technical questions. But domain of science does not include things that don't have to do with natural law. I don't know what else one can say. And therefore, for instance, does not allow one to speak on questions of morality.

Q. Define evolution.

A. Evolution is the study of changes at several levels, either within local populations or from species to species that occur once life is on

57

earth.

Q. Could you restate that? I really want your precise definition of what you consider evolution.

A. The science of evolutionary biology, that's really what I will call it, is the science that studies history of changes that life has undergone, both within populations and between species once it arose.

Q. Between species and what that arose?

A. Within populations. That's not a very elegant definition. The substance is there.

Q. According to your understanding of creation-science, does it deny the presence of evolution or the occurrence?

A. It denies the sufficiency of it to account for the living world as we know it. What literature I have read does not deny that a limited amount of evolution can occur.

Q. The evolution, these are common layman's terms, I mean the evolution of, for example deposition —

MR. ENNIS: I am happy to let the witness answer that question but in view of your

58

earlier questions when you ask him his understanding of creation-science, does it allow some evolution to occur, are you talking about creation-science literature or as defined in Act 590?

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to talk about it in terms of the act unless otherwise specified.

MR. ENNIS: That's why I wanted to clarify that.

A. The act says you've got to believe in changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds.

Q. That could be fairly characterized as evolution?

A. Oh, yes, but the theory of evolution maintains that the whole pattern of life as we see it is a process of change by natural law. Evolution would not be satisfied by any means by the statement that only poodles and chihuahuas can be derived from the basic dog.

Q. But the creation science definition in Act 590 does include evolution to a degree.

A. But that's not evolution as we understand it. It's only a little bit of a change.

59

That's not what the theory of evolution is fundamentally about. Just as, for example — never mind.

Q. You were going to say as for example. You make statements like in negotiations lawyers can't let them try?

A. Nineteenth Century creationists believed in a certain amount of natural selection but they used it only as a device for getting rid of extremely deformed individuals. But they weren't Darwinians. Quite the opposite. So in other words, it's not being an evolutionist to believe point 3.

Q. When you define evolution and discuss the changes that life has undergone between species, is it a necessary part of evolutionary theory that all species are related in some fashion?

A. Genealogically, yes.

Q. And that if you go back far enough there will be a common ancestor?

A. Yes, there are common ancestors. It's not impossible that if life arose from chemical constituents of the earth's atmosphere and oceans,

60

that it might have done so twice, but yes, it's a claim of common ancestry, sure.

Q. So it is part of the theory of evolution, scientific theory of evolution as opposed to social evolution, that all organisms do have a common ancestor?

A. Again I qualify that. It's a claim of theory of evolution that all evolution are connected by ties of genealogy. It is not inconceivable, that life, if it arose from nonlife, could have made that transition a few times. However, it is probable that all life actually had a single common ancestry. In any case, even if there were say a few origins of the lowest level, changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals I think would be excluded. By no stretching of the term kind could a bacterium and human be placed as the same kind.

Q. So while it is not inconceivable that there were more than one — that there was more than one instance of life from nonlife, is it the prevailing view in the theory of evolution that life evolved from nonlife only once from that

61

organism?

A. That's a very unimportant issue. I don't even know whether it's the prevailing view or not. It's not what we deal with. We have in the fossil record going back to 3 and a half billion years forms that we believe are the ancestor of all others. Those are the forms of very simple bacteria.

Q. Where do you believe those forms of life came from?

A. Again, I have to reiterate what I said, that is as an evolutionary biologist we do not deal — I do not have expertise at all on the issue of origins. It's curious, if I may make aside comments, how in a way the professional evolutionary biologists are within the linguistic limits of the debate placed counter to what is called creationism.

An evolutionary biologists as professionals deal with changes in life once life arises. One would have to know a lot more chemistry, for example, than I know to talk about the origins of life from nonlife. I just don't have a professional opinion in that area.

62

Q. I am not trying to have you explain to me exactly how life emerged from nonlife, but is that not part of the general theory of evolution that life did emerge from nonlife?

A. It's not what evolutionary biologists study.

Q. You're limiting it to evolutionary biologists?

A. The theory of evolution as I studied it is a biological discipline that talks about the evolution of life once it arises. The term evolution has been around — the word evolution has been around in many usages for a very long time. Spencer applied it to the evolution of societies. Evolution was a vernacular word, and I don't deal with all those other meanings.

Q. But it does have other meanings, doesn't it?

A. All sorts of words have vernacular meanings that are wider than their technical ones, and people engaged in the technical studies don't necessarily know. Significance has a definition in statistics, but a statistician needn't know whether things —

63

Q. In your study then as an evolutionary biologist, how far back would you say —

A. I go back 3 and a half billion years to the first life on earth.

Q. What's that first evidence that you are aware of?

A. The first evidence is bacteria from the fig tree Zimbabwe. And maybe somewhere else in Africa.

Q. And while perhaps not from that precise bit of bacteria that you are aware of, is it not true that bacteria are the oldest life is according to evolutionary thought presumed to be the ancestors for all subsequent life?

A. That's correct: Yes, the later life arose from.

Q. What within the scientific community, not necessarily within evolutionary biology, who would take us back farther, as a group or a subdiscipline?

A. Those biochemists that were interested. That's not all biochemists.

Q. Is there such a thing as an evolution biochemist?

64

A. That are biochemists who study how life may have arisen from nonlife. I don't know what they call themselves.

Q. What is the theory as to how life arose from nonlife?

A. Again, I didn't even take organic chemistry in college, so I am speaking largely as a layman here. But the general feeling as I understand it —

MR. ENNIS: You can answer the question the extent that you have knowledge or opinion.

A. Is that life arose by natural processes and natural law.

Q. From nonlife?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it correct to say it was essentially a chemical reaction?

A. Awfully complex set of chemical reactions. As you know we can make from the constituents of the earth's atmosphere a lot of fairly complex organics, including amino acids. That's not life.

Q. Then within the, if I could refer to it, as the school of evolutionary thought, as opposed

65

to just evolutionary biology or paleontology?

A. Again, I don't mean to be instructional early. But professional boundaries are very guarded in academia and it's not regarded happily when, people make pronouncements in areas they don't really understand. I don't know what you mean. If it includes the evolution of society, then I disclaim. Darwinian theory, for example, is not the only biological evolutionary theory — there is about genetic change in DNA and its consequences.

Therefore, when we talk about the evolution of society one can only speak by analogy. When we talk about those biochemical changes before the development of DNA, it again can only be by analogy. I don't really know what else to say.

Q. Do you consider yourself an evolutionary biologist?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Perhaps I am being hampered by semantics here. But as a paleontologist you study fossils?

A. Yes.

66

Q. Do you study the molecules of DNA and genetics as a paleontologist?

A. Only on very rare occasions when you get soft parts preserved.

Q. Have you made the study of the — I am just curious, sir as to what your area of expertise is?

A. My area of expertise is fossils. When I said DNA and consequences? No. I need to study DNA when I study the symmetry of the hand.

Q. I think we have established that within the general framework of evolution, and we are talking only about evolution of life here, not society and that sort of thing, that it is believed that life emerged from nonlife, these complex chemical reactions?

A. No. I didn't say that. I said that that is not what my profession of evolutionary biology deals with.

Q. I understand that. You're a professor of — you have a Ph. D. in a field which is obviously in geology and I am sure that you are aware of what are the other parts —

67

A. I said that. I have to insist that it's not part of evolutionary biology. As I said to you.

Q. A part of evolution generally.

A. It is not part of what I define as the field of evolution. It is a part of science, to be sure. It's not my part of science.

Q. I understand that. I can appreciate that, that you would prefer to limit yourself to the area where you are really concentrated. But my question is, as you understand it, where did the matter, the nonlife come from?

A. Oh, that's not even a scientific question. If you want to go back that far. Science itself doesn't deal in ultimate origins. I am sorry, I thought you were giving me the chemical constituents of the earth. You asked me where matter came from, how can science deals with that question. I have no opinion on that. That is the mystery of mysteries.

Q. If I asked you where the matter on this planet came from, does science say anything about that?

A. Science has theories of how solar

68

systems form, sure. That's a very different issue from ultimately where the matter of universe came from.

Q. What are some of the theories of where the matter on this planet came from?

A. Again, I disclaim any formal expertise. I am not unaware of the scientific American level of what people say. But as I understand it the most popular view refers to the origin of planets along with the sun from the condensation of a primordial cloud of dust and gas. I have a very rudimentary knowledge of physics and chemistry.

Q. That's commonly referred to as the big bang; is that correct?

A. Oh, no. The big bang refers to again. As I said it, to a time when all the matter of the visible universe may have been together in a single place and there is dispersion after an explosion from that place, the condensation of the solar system is a later event. You have to talk to the cosmologists if you want the latest word on those issues.

Q. Let me see if I understand you. So you feel natural origin of the first matter is not a

69

scientific question?

A. How could one answer a question like that?

Q. Is the origin of the first matter then necessarily a religious question?

A. That again depends on definitions of religion. I don't think all unanswerable questions are by definition part of religion. From the parts of our own mental structure, I at least could only conceive of two answers. Either that matter — both of which involve a concept of eternity with which our poor minds can't deal. One is that matter was around forever, and two, that some other force was around forever that made matter at some point. We have no answers. I don't know how we get them. To me it is not necessarily a religious question. It's just a question unanswerable.

Q. But it's a nonscientific question?

A. Yes.

Q. And you can think — you can't think of any other alternatives to either that matter always existed or that something always existed which created the matter?

70

A. I can't think of any other alternative. There may be. Certainly not in my subdivision.

Q. Do you think it is inappropriate to discuss in a public science classroom, for example, where that matter came from?

A. I don't know how you could. I defer to my attorney here.

MR. ENNIS: Just when you ask him if he thinks it's inappropriate, do you mean inappropriate asking for a legal conclusion whether it's unlawful?

MR. WILLIAMS: No; personally, in his opinion as a science professor.

THE WITNESS: I would never include it in a curriculum, because we have nothing to say about it. Suppose a student asked me a question about it, I would give my personal opinion as in any other subject.

Q. So if the student asked a question about it, you would give your honest opinion?

A. I would basically say why I didn't think it was science, a question that science can answer, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't have a discussion about it.

71

Q. Could you tell me in kind of a nontechnical sense since I am a layman to science, upon what you base your opinion that the bacteria which we know of to be 3 and a half billion years old or something similar is the ancestor for all subsequent forces of life?

A. It's primary, based on the biochemical similarities that you create all forms of life. DNA of modern, bacteria which seem to be not significantly different from the old ones is the same stuff that of which we are made.

Q. Is there anything about the similarities which necessarily dictates that there is a common ancestry?

A. The only sensible story I can tell based on it.

Q. - It's the only sensible story.

A. I could tell another tale that isn't science. But I wouldn't be able to falsify it. I couldn't think of an observation that could run against it.

Q. But in trying to view the origin or the evolution of life 3 and a half billion years ago, can you think of an observation which would run

72

against?

A. That in principle would run against?

Q. Yes. Run against this concept that —

A. Do you mean an actual observation that does run against or an observation in principle that might?

Q. First of all, are there any, to your knowledge?

A. Observations that run against?

Q. Yes.

A. There may be some that people have claimed have. But I know of none that in my interpretation does. If you ask me can I conceive of one, sure.

Q. Would you give me one?

A. Species it turned out, which I didn't, but it could have, when people started studying biochemical similarities, that based on DNA sequences or amino acid sequences, that humans were as closely related to bacteria and yeast as to chimpanzees. I have a real hard time reconciling that with notions of descent. It didn't work out that way. Biochemical taxonomies bear a marked resemblance to conventional ones.

73

Q. So what you are saying is because biochemically we are closer to a chimpanzee than to a bacteria, then and I assume is the chimpanzee closer to the bacteria than we are?

A. No, no. We are both so far, it's hard to say.

Q. But because we are closer to the chimpanzee than we are to a bacteria that there has been this common ancestry at some point?

A. That's not what I said. Your question was there any statement that can falsify evolution and I gave you which the converse doesn't necessarily hold. I can think of no other reasonable interpretation of that fact.

Q. Do you think that all scientific evidence on theories of origin should be taught in the classroom?

A. One of these is a question of definition. What do you mean by theories of origin?

Q. I am talking about theories of origin of man, of life, and of the universe.

A. See, because again, we talked about theories of the origin of matter. I already said

74

that that kind of ultimate question really isn't a scientific one. We don't teach that. If you confine your questions about origins to those subjects with which science deals, then it's almost tautological. If you confine it to the objects, subjects with which science deals, then yes, all scientific evidence should be taught. Let me back-track. I don't mean that any claim ever made in history that is testable, after all there are testable claims that have been made, that have been falsified, and those needn't be taught. One need not teach that the earth might be flat. One need not teach that the sun goes around the earth. Those are scientific claims in the sense that they are testable. They were tested and found wanting.

Q. If there is scientific evidence which would — if there is scientific evidence for creation, do you think it should be taught?

A. There can't be. No, I can't because it's a definitional point again insofar as creation deals with miraculous suspension of law as we were discussing before. And that isn't science. There cannot be such.

75

Q. For example, under Act 590, one of the portions of the definition of creation-science indicates a relatively recent inception of the earth. Now, would you agree that, first of all there is evidence as to the age of the earth?

A. Yes. And it all points to the falsity of part 6.

Q. But if there should be evidence which points to a relatively recent inception of the earth, do you think that should be discussed? Scientifically, that is?

A. No. If there were real evidence, yes. If there were real evidence that the sun went around the earth, it should be taught. The fact that some people claim it, which some people do, the very fact empirically that some people have that claim doesn't mean it should be taught. I am aware that people make that claim, but that doesn't mean it should be taught.

Q. I am not asking you to adopt that as being necessarily scientific. I am really asking if there is scientific evidence for that statement, or that contention of a relatively recent inception of the earth —

76

A. But it has to be real evidence, it can't just someone's say so. Yes, that's a testable claim, and it's been tested and found false. If any new evidence came around, one would discuss it. But I am aware of none.

Q. If there is scientific evidence on the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about I think you said something to the effect of all living kinds from a single organism, do you think that should be discussed in a public school science classroom?

A. That to me is one of the ways in which the bill is very poorly written, because to me it is not part of creation-science to claim the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection. I think most evolutionists think that mutation and natural selection are insufficient. I happen in my own personal views think they are a little more insufficient than other people. But even the most orthodox Darwinians, Mr. Ayala, would argue that genetic drift plays some role. To me that's an example of how the bill is badly written. For purposes of convenience, I think that we can refer to it as creation-science, and

77

that's what the bill speaks of. I think it might be a bit clearer.

Q. In your article in DISCOVER MAGAZINE, you discuss or differentiate between a theory and a fact.

A. Yes.

Q. What do you consider a theory to be?

A. To me a theory is a set of ideas that attempts to interpret and explain the facts of the world.

Q. If you take facts from the facts you derive or you get or hypothesize theories; is that correct?

A. It's a little more complicated than that. Because not all theories that anyone has ever tried arise as mere inductions from facts. Theories are tested by studying the facts of the world.

Q. Would you say that the fact that the earth is not flat is a theory?

A. No. It's a fact.

Q. At one point it was a theory, wasn't it?

A. Oh, no, it was always a fact. We just didn't always know it.

78

Q. But it was offered as a theory, and then in some way that was measured?

A. Indeed, it was offered as a fact. No. It was offered as a fact and people were wrong. No. Theories are not facts. Theories are structures of ideas that interpret and explain facts. I am aware that in the American vernacular the theory is used differently to mean imperfect fact. It is not what it means to a scientist.

Q. When you use the term American vernacular, are you talking exclusive of the scientific communities?

A. Since scientists always use the vernacular they mix the two on occasion also.

Q. So this concept at the present time of differentiating between a theory and facts is one which may not be commonly held by the scientific community?

A. I am not saying it's never transgressed. I think it is commonly held.

Q. When is the difference between a theory and a scientific theory?

A. That really has to do with incommensurate things, namely again vernacular and scientific

79

usages. A scientist shouldn't use the term accept to mean scientific theory. In the vernacular we say I have a theory about why the Yankees lost last month. That's not the way a scientist would use the term.

Q. When you talk about evolution as being both a fact and a theory, as I understand what you are saying, and let me see if I can briefly summarize it, what you're talking about there is the concept on the first hand that evolution is a fact because we can observe certain changes, and it's a theory in the sense —

A. Can I stop you?

Q. It's a theory in the sense that from these observed changes we can try to extrapolate the larger changes which have occurred over time which we cannot observe?

A. No, that is not a correct characterization.

Q. Correct it for me.

A. Sure. The facts of evolution of which we by no means know all of them, are merely the path ways of evolution, the ones we know and the ones we don't know. The ones we don't know are

80

not yet in our vocabulary, but when we know them they will be the facts. The theory of evolution is how you interpret the causes of those connections. The processes, the ways by which those connections were established, whether by natural selection, whether by some other mechanism. The distinction is not between those genealogical connections we know and those we don't know. It's rather between the mere information which is the tree of life, and the modes of explanation for why that came about. The second being the theory. Darwin made that distinction all the time.

Q. Also on the first page of your article, there is, I think an aside concerning President Reagan's remark that you devoutly hope that his remark was campaign rhetoric. I thought you didn't use devout in a religious sense?

A. Oh, no. Just meaning very much hope.

Q. Devout to some people it does have a religious connotation?

A. Yes. But you will admit it also has a vernacular connotation.

Q. I have a hard problem trying to really differentiate between a fact and theory. You

81

define fact to be confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Now, if that is what a fact is —

A. That's all it can be because science doesn't deal in certainty.

Q. Can a theory then not rise to the level of being a fact?

A. No. It doesn't mean it can't be right, but that's just not what a fact is. Theories are ideas that interpret and explain facts. They are just something else, they don't arise to the level.

Q. In your definition of the fact you kind of describe it without saying what it is. It has been confirmed to such a degree?

A. It's a piece of the world. This is a cup, I can describe what it's made out of. There is not a theory about cups. Facts are data, what the world is made out of. Theories are ways in which we interpret and explain how they operate, why they are here, et cetera. How they got here. Their ultimate why's we don't deal with.

Q. Are creation-science and to use Bill's term evolution science incompatible?

A. Yes.

82

Q. If there were, assuming arguendo, there were a creator at some point, which created that first — that bacteria on the fig tree, and from there life evolves, would they not be compatible?

A. That's not what the bill says.

Q. I understand that. I am asking if there are incompatible?

A. Yes. There is a part of it that is incompatible.

Q. What is that part?

A. The fiat creation of the bacterium. Because that also involves the suspension of law. If you take Newton's law view of God that God is a clockwinder who sets up the laws of the universe, then let it run, is the universe. But again, I point out this act does not permit that version of creation.

Q. But again, you have to look at the definition, and if you look at that definition it says that —

A. But it says separate ancestor man and apes. And if you have a bacterium there would not be separate ancestry.

Q. I take it that you read those A, B — 1

83

through 6 under 4-A there to be an all, inclusive definition of creation-science?

A. It doesn't have to be all inclusive, but I take it they at least include these or it wouldn't be law.

Q. I am just asking how you are reading it.

A. My vernacular as a nonlawyer reading is that if it says these 6 are there, they are certainly part of it, and several of them are directly contradicted by the scenario that you just gave me.

Q. That would be nonetheless an act of creation?

A. What would?

Q. A creator, whatever that might be.

A. Making the bacteria.

MR. ENNIS: Are you asking the witness if there are other religious interpretations of Genesis that are not inconsistent with evolutionary theory?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I never asked that.

MR. ENNIS: It sounded like what you are asking.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it presupposes

84

your whole theory of the case.

MR. ENNIS: If you would like to ask the witness that, we would be happy to answer.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?

A. How do you define the theory of evolution?

Q. I want to take it in its broad scientific sense. Including not only what you have described as the change within populations or between species, but also going back to that emergence of life from nonlife.

A. I don't define it that way.

Q. But are you aware of any scientific alternatives to all, or a portion of the theory?

A. Again, I don't understand that. Scientific alternatives, any one of the particular proposals, there is a proposal called Darwin's or the strict version of Darwin's theory argues that natural selection is about all there is as an agent of evolutionary change. There are scientific alternatives to that. There have been others historically— Lamarckism was the most prominent— but those are all within science.

85

Q. But those are not different than evolution, they are simply —

A. They are different mechanisms of evolution. But they all accept the facts.

Q. Are there any scientific alternatives to evolution?

A. But that' s what scientific alternative is. Lamarckism is a scientific alternative as an explanation of evolution. Scientific — oh, you mean to evolution itself. Again —

MR. ENNIS: Do you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: I think half of it.

MR. ENNIS: I would rather you not answer the question unless you're sure you understand what it is. I am happy to have you answer the question that you understand.

Q. Are there any scientific alternatives to evolution?

MR. ENNIS: You mean to the fact of evolution, theories of different mechanisms to explain it?

Q. The theory aspects of evolution.

A. You see, that's where the problems are.

86

Insofar as evolution is a fact, there are no known alternatives. It's just a fact of the world. We could be wrong, of course. We can always be wrong. Whether there are alternative theories, of course there are, but they are all evolutionary theories. I don't know how else to answer.

MR. BARNES: You're asking if there is a scientific theory that incorporates a view of the world that excludes evolution?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think —

THE WITNESS: I don't see how there could be. If that's what you are asking, the answer has to be no. There can't be scientific theory that denies the facts of the world.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific alternatives to the evolutionary view of the emergence of life from nonlife?

MR. ENNIS: I object to the question because it assumes that the emergence of life from nonlife is part of evolutionary theory and the witness has testified that it is not.

MR. WILLIAMS: He has testified that under the general umbrella of evolutionary theory that is part of it.

87

THE WITNESS: No, I denied that. I thought I said that there are vernacular usages that to me more middle things than clarify. I would not, for instance, allow views on the evolution of society to be encased within evolutionary theory.

Q. I am talking about the evolution of organisms. Is part of the theory of evolution of organisms a theory that life did emerge from nonlife?

A. That's not what I studied.

Q. I am not asking what you studied.

A. I said that it was a common opinion of my colleagues that that was so.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific alternatives to that aspects.

A. People have made other proposals and it doesn't make them scientific.

Q. In your opinion that are scientific.

A. That's not my area. I can't testify to it any more than I can about different theories about the evolution of society about which I know nothing and am dubious in any case.

Q. One of the criticisms that I have read

88

and heard leveled at creation-science has been that it essentially is anti-evolution, that it seeks to criticize evolution. Do you agree with that?

A. As I define evolution, indeed. The claim for a separate ancestry for man and apes contradict evolutionary theory as I understand it, as to do many of the other statements in these six points.

Q. When you quote — was it one of Darwin's basic objectives to try to disprove or not to disprove but to criticize the theory that species had been separately created?

A. Yes, of course.

MR. KLASFELD: I think the point that Mr. Williams is making is that there has been criticism of creation-science that as a science is limited only to criticizing evolution and not offering alternative theories of its own, and I think his question was are you aware of that —

THE WITNESS: Yes. It has offered no alternative scientific theories.

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to ask that one attorney handle the objections or questions or

89

statements or whatever they might be, all right.

MR. ENNIS: That's fair.

Q. I think you have answered my question in the affirmative that one of the main purposes of Darwin in his writings and research was to show that these — to criticize, if you will, the theory that each species had been separately created.

A. Yes.

Q. So he started out in a sense trying to criticize a previously-held theory, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In the history of scientific theories and scientific thought, have theories arisen or began as merely criticizing an existing theory, do you understand that question?

A. Certainly, and I also see exactly where you are driving. But remember that Darwin not only criticized what came before, but offered a whole mode of explanation that was scientific as to why he proposed an alternative. No, in fact Darwin looked at it historically did not do that at all. He developed the theory of natural selection in 1838 largely before he developed most

90

of the criticisms of fact.

Q. That was not my question. In the history of scientific thought have not many theories arisen at least in their genesis, if I can use that term, to criticism of other theories?

A. But not without proposing some scientific alternative.

Q. But you would agree with my —

A. No, I wouldn't. Because the answer is not without proposing some scientific alternative.

Q. What do you define as a scientific theory?

A. Whatever I said five minutes before.

Q. We were talking about — you said a theory in your article is a structure of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

A. Right. I will stand by that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's take a short break.

(Recess taken.)

Q. Look at section 4-B of Act 590 please, which is the definition of evolution science.

A. Right.

Q. Evolution science is defined in Act 590, Dr. Gould, to mean the scientific evidences for

91

evolution, and inferences from those scientific evidences in that it lists several things that it does include. As formulated in Act 590, would you say that evolution science is a theory or a fact?

A. First of all, let me say that some of the statements in 4-B are absurd from the point of anybody's definition of evolution, whether it be fact or theory. For example, point 2, the sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds.

As I testified before, I know of no evolutionist who regards mutation and natural selection as utterly efficient to do that. And five, "Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism," which is in its strict definition is held by no geologist, so therefore I find it — let me say for the record that I find it hard to answer that question because of the definitions here. But therefore I guess I can't. I can only reiterate what I said, that the fact of evolution is simply the bare bones statement that organisms are connected by ties of

92

descent and evolutionary theory — and the theory of evolution are the proposals about mechanisms and processes that explain how the tree of life got to be where it is.

Q. Is the theory of evolution as you have articulated it testable?

A. Sure. Theories of evolution.

Q. Right, theories.

A. They have to be, or they are not science.

Q. Are they falsifiable?

A. That's part of the definition of testable.

Q. Are they observable?

A. Depends on what you mean by observable. Very, very little of science deals in absolutely direct visual observation. I am looking at you now.

Q. So is observability part of a definition of a science?

A. Not direct visual observation, because whoever saw an atom.

Q. What is meant by that term as you understand it?

93

A. I don't know. You have to tell me what you mean by it.

Q. Did Popper use that term?

A. I don't know.

Q. You know who Carl Popper is?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you recall his writings on philosophy of science?

A. In the distant past, one has read a lot of them. I am still vaguely aware of some of what he says. But I am not going to commit myself.

Q. You don't know whether he used the observability as a criteria of science?

A. Read me a quotation and I will tell you what I think it says.

Q. What about predictability?

A. Are we talking about Popper or me now?

Q. Yes.

A. You will have to read me what Popper says. He is no God of course.

Q. Would you agree with Popper's definition of what is a scientific theory?

A. I don't know. You have to read it to me.

94

Q. You are not familiar enough with it to be able to converse?

A. He has written that many works (indicating) and he has also changed his mind on a lot of it. If you read me a definition, I will tell you what I think it says.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's take a quick lunch break.

(Luncheon recess: 12:30 p.m.)

95

AFTERNOON SESSION

12:50 p.m.

STEPHEN JAY GOULD, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

EXAMINATION (cont'd.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Are you aware that Popper in his autobiography, which is entitled UNENDED QUEST, says, "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program— a possible framework for testable scientific theories"?

A. Are you aware that he has modified that view since then?

Q. First of all, you are aware that he wrote that?

A. Yes.

Q. What is his modification as you understand it?

A. I forgot the quotation.

Q. Could you paraphrase what you think he said?

A. That he now regards it as testable.

96

Q. When did he modify that, roughly?

A. I don't know the date of the statement, but it was published in SCIENCE MAGAZINE, Nature or THE SCIENCES. And it was last year, but I am not sure that was the original statement. It was quite recent.

Q. Is science concerned where theories come from?

A. Sociology is. Scientists are interested in it as human beings, but the distinction that scientists and that philosophers make between context and logic of theories are different things.

Q. Scientists, as I understand it — correct me if you think this is wrong —

A. I mean the theory could come to one in a dream, as long as it's testable.

Q. The source of a theory is not really the important thing?

A. Yes. Source is important. One wants to know about it, one wants to understand what kind of an activity science is.

Q. You said earlier you thought theory of evolution was testable.

97

A. There is no theory of evolution. There are a variety of theories. To be scientific theories they must be testable, they must be falsifiable.

Q. There are a variety of theories?

A. Yes.

Q. But if there is a thread which runs through all of those theories

A. That thread being the common acceptance of the fact that what they are trying to explain is the fact of evolution, yes.

Q. And can that commonalty itself be tested?

A. It has been. If the commonalty is merely the basis, the factual basis that they are trying to explain, yes.

Q. I don't know if you answered this question or if I asked it before. Would the evolution or emergence of life from nonlife be testable?

A. You keep pushing me on that one. I am going to disclaim again. It's not my subject, I am not going to tell you about the evolution of science, I don't know anything about it. The

98

things I don't know about I can't tell you about.

Q. Well, you are a historian of science, aren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. I mean, to be a historian of science, don't you have to have some knowledge of science generally and all of these concepts?

A. Do you mean as a historian of science do you have to know about all of science? No, I am a historian of parts of science. There are books on it, I have never read them, reviewed them, I couldn't. The work I have done on the history of science is on the history of evolutionary thought and the history of evolutionary theories.

Q. Who are the most noted authorities, living or dead, on the origin of life?

A. I hardly even know that. I know some of the names. The grand old man is Oparin in Russia. And in this country I suppose the leading person is Leslie Orgel at the Saulk Institute in California.

Q. What, to your knowledge — is that a he or a she?

99

A. It's a he.

Q. What does he say about the origin of life?

A. I haven't read the book in ages. I am really not up on the subject. I am sorry, I don't mean to be evasive. I do not have a strong interest in that subject because of my lack of chemical background.

Q. What observations or experiments would disprove the theory regarding the evolution of life from nonlife?

A. Can't you ask me about subjects I know about?

Q. In your article you state "that I cannot envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory that I know."

A. Yes.

Q. Are you using "know" in the authoritative sense?

A. No. In my definition of evolutionary theory, namely that evolutionary theory deals with changes in organisms once they are around.

Q. You stated in your article in DISCOVER that, "Creationists pervert and caricature this

100

debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it." What is that common conviction that you refer to?

A. That evolution occurred, the fact of evolution.

Q. Are you normally given to calling things convictions?

A. Oh, it's a permissible vernacular use, sure.

Q. How do you define a conviction?

A. In that context of that sentence, a conviction is what we accept strongly. And we accept things strongly for good reasons and bad. The obvious ancillary in this case is that we have that conviction for good reasons. That's what the rest of the article is about.

Q. You quote Duane Gish at the bottom of that page —

A. 35?

Q. Yes. — where it is said he says, this is not you, "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe." Does Act 590 necessarily

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould - Page 3

101

say that processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe were used in creation?

A. This life now being created from nothing?

Q. I didn't say that's what was happening, the processes.

A. It seems that creation-science — the operative line in that quotation is not that one. It's the next one. "We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." That's why that quote is there. It seems to me an admission that studying creation isn't science, plain as could be.

Q. That's what one person said about creation-science. Now you would agree—

A. Leading light of the movement.

Q. That's a subjective judgment as to who is the leading light of any movement, isn't it?

A. As you would include Darwin necessarily as a leading light of evolution, I don't see how you can have creationism without Mr. Gish.

Q. But you would agree that there are

102

theories which have been espoused and supposedly based on evolution which — for example, the superiority of certain races which are not necessarily supported by it, merely because one offers up a theory in the name of evolution doesn't make it a proper evolutionary theory, does it?

A. Indeed, but the strictures of this act are such that most conceivable creationist theories are not included.

Q. From reading Act 590, what could you tell me about the creator?

A. That he suspends natural law to make things out of nothing.

Q. Anything beyond that?

A. Oh, that's enough to make it not science.

Q. I want to know just generally what — if someone said read Act 590 and tell me everything that you can — that Act 590 says about the Creator —

A. You would learn a lot more. You would learn that he made the earth fairly recently, therefore you learn something about his time scale.

103

Q. I am concerned as to exactly what he or she or it did, but what you would know about this creator.

A. All you have to know is that this creator made things from nothing to make it not science.

Q. I understand that, but I want to know what else you could know about the creator.

A. What more do I need to know?

Q. For example, I mean, I think there is — trying to look at the creator there would be a clear implication that the creator had some intelligence, would you agree with that?

A. Oh, I don't know. The creator certainly had some power.

Q. Power and intelligence?

A. I didn't grant you intelligence.

Q. Can we tell anything about the creator as to whether the creator has compassion?

A. That's a question of ethics and morality, which is not — we can't say one way or the other.

Q. What about love?

A. All we know is that he suspends natural

104

law to make things out of nothing.

Q. Do we know that — we don't know whether it's a he or she or it?

A. No. I just used the old sexist vernacular.

Q. Do we know whether the creator is still in existence?

A. I don't get the thread of the question.

Q. Where I am going is really not for you to determine. I am just asking from looking at it can you tell —

A. I have to infer before I can answer.

Q. — can you tell that creation-science requires that the creator is still in existence?

A. If he ain't around any more, it was a very recent event, because he sure was doing a lot just a couple of thousand years ago. I suppose he could have died in 1500.

Q. To answer my question, does creation-science require that the creator still be in existence as is defined in Act 590?

A. If he is not around his constraints still operate. That is, he created things according to fixed kinds and is not allowing

105

natural law to transcend those kinds. Again I repeat the one thing he did that isn't science is to suspend natural law by making things out of nothing and that's how life got here.

Q. In your article you state that, "All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past." And you state above that that —

A. Where is that?

Q. I am referring now to page 36 in the second full paragraph. Which begins "The second and third arguments for evolution."

A. Got you.

Q. You state that those second and third arguments "do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inferences." So in terms of observability of evolution, there are some severe restraints and in interpretability?

A. Observability is not a criteria of science. You can't observe the fall of Rome either, but it fell. The ability to make an escapable inference is.

106

Q. Pardon me?

A. The ability to make inferences, most of the major entities of science are unseen. You never saw gravity, but objects fall. You never saw an atom.

Q. How much do you think we have been able to observe about evolution?

A. As much as can really be expected in the time scale of 100 years, which is nothing, since the publication of THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

Q. But even well in recorded history — let me rephrase that. One of the examples I think that you used was the peppered moths in England.

A. Yes.

Q. How is that an example of evolution?

A. Evolution is defined as change of gene frequencies within natural populations. In the case of the peppered moth, the black allele, which was present at very low frequency before trees got blackened with industrial soot, rose rapidly to very high frequency after those trees were so blackened, and that is evolutionary change.

Q. I read that but I did not really get that change from reading what you wrote here. Do

107

the tests and the data that we have confirm that that black allele changed or is it not possible that simply the black moths simply because they were more concealed, they were camouflaged, if you will, and they bred and produced more black moths and the black moths lived?

A. That's evolution. Evolution is change of gene frequencies.

Q. You're not saying then that the moths really in a sense —

A. Evolutions change within a population.

Q. Is that inconsistent, as you understand it, with the creation-science?

A. It's not inconsistent with point 3, changes within fixed limits. But please understand that within 100 years one would not expect to observe large scale changes under any version of evolutionary theory that I know.

Q. When were species first defined and divided?

A. The word? The word goes back to Aristotle.

Q. No, the modern definition of species?

A. Linnaeus in the 18th Century.

108

Q. In the recorded history, how many new species have been observed?

A. Oh, a fair number, but I don't know. You produce them in the laboratory often.

Q. And by new species, what do you mean?

A. Species are populations that are reproductively isolated from others.

Q. For example, if you had two sets of flies which were distinguishable by some characteristic, but they bred or were sexually reproductive between each other, and then if you were able to make them somehow sexually isolated, it that would be a new species, would it not?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times has that been done, to your knowledge?

A. I don't really know, it's not my field. But ask Francisco Ayala.

Q. He said he's been trying to do it for eight years.

A. You see, you wouldn't be able to do it in eight years. The case of the peppered moth as a single gene change, it makes the population very different in its adaptive value. But to be able

109

to reproduce you have to — you generally must accumulate many more genetic changes. To be unable to reproduce. But in asexual forms, for example, the evolution of disease resistance and bacteria, you can produce very new creatures right away.

Q. The peppered moths, is that an example of natural selection?

A. Yes.

Q. Or is that an example of some sort of genetic change?

A. That's natural change is genetic change.

Q. Are those two necessarily synonymous?

A. Not all genetic change is by natural selection, but all natural selection involves genetic change.

Q. One thing I wanted to ask you about in this article where you talk about "the etymology of September, October, November and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth from the Latin)," what does that have reference to? I just totally don't understand it.

A. If you read the first essay in THE PANDA'S THUMB about how the best proof of

110

evolution are imperfections of auditors that record constraints of past history, we know by looking at those words that they had a different function in the past and that there is rather historical continuity. Likewise, we know by looking at the impure and odd paths of organisms that they were present in different historical contexts that have evolved.

Q. You have a statement in your article that perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. What do you mean by that?

A. That when you see an organ that is perfectly designed, that doesn't teach you a whole lot about how it arose. When you see a structure that is very imperfect, as almost all organic structures are, and when you can trace that Imperfection to an historical constraint based on a previous evolutionary stage, then you have evidence for evolution.

Q. You mention in here this idea about why do rats run and bats fly with the same order of structure, would it not also be possible that the creator who — in the same —

111

A. That's exactly the problem. It's always possible for the creator and therefore notions about the creator such as that are untestable, since there is no conceivable falsifying claim.

Q. Do you consider Australopithecus to have been a human?

A. Australopithecus is an intermediate form, whether it's human not is a definitional question. I believe it to be a creator on the human side of the split between apes and humans, that is after the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. Australopithecus is on the human side following that split, and is there either an ancestor or a close cousin of modern man.

Q. I mean, and the fact that he would differ from human in some respects concerning the 1,000 cubic centimeter difference, his cranial capacity, that could be explained by a sort of evolution in kind that would not violate the creationist?

MR. ENNIS: Object to the form of the question in that you're using the word "kind."

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not trying to get

112

him to adopt the term I am talking about within the context that it's used or mentioned.

Q. You don't think so?

A. That's exactly the problem with point number 3. I suppose any creationist could weasel out of any evolutionary claim by saying those are in kind. I think it violates any reasonable vernacular notion of kind to say that a creature with a cranial capacity no larger than that of an ape is within the human kind merely because it walked upright. But I find that notion of kind to be so ambiguous that it's undefinable.

Q. You also state that transitional forms are generally looking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups.

A. Australopithecus is a lovely intermediate form.

Q. Are you aware that there are other experts which do view Australopithecus as essentially a human?

A. I am aware that there are other human beings who say that. Let me backtrack, because the word human is ambiguous. Some people used the word human to simply mean anything after the split

113

between chimps and humans, so in part it's a definitional question. Those that say Australopithecus is human in the sense of having human intelligence at the level of modern human beings is not — I know of no expert who says that.

Q. Are there experts, to your knowledge, people who you consider to be experts, who say that Australopithecus is not a transitional form?

A. There are those who say, perhaps including myself, that Australopithecus is not the ones we know and is not a direct ancestor. Remember I said its either a directs ancestor or a cousin, we are not clear about that.

But, see, the notion of transitional form doesn't mean that you have to have every single stage in a final-graduated sequence. Evolution doesn't work that way anyway. It means that you have twigs that are lower down on the bush of human evolution than modern man and that's where Australopithecus is.

Q. How many years have you spent studying evolution? Since you were 11, I think you said.

A. No, since I was five. Well, I saw my first dinosaur when I was five, but I don't think

114

I heard about evolution until I was ten or 11.

Q. You think that you have invested a substantial amount of time in the study of evolution?

A. I think I see where this one is going. Yes, I have.

Q. The transparencies of the arguments hopefully don't diminish —

A. No, you're right, they are different. Just like the context of discovery and notion are different.

Q. And until recently have you studied creation-science?

A. There is no creation-science. I have been aware ever since I was a little fellow that there is a fundamentalist movement in this country and I have on occasion read their literature all through that time.

Q. If evolution were determined by the scientific community to be perhaps not a fact, what kind of an effect do you think that would have upon you personally?

A. That's the kind of statement — we have to take it as a hypothetical, you understand, that

115

I regard that as unlikely as the scientific community finding that the sun really does go around the earth. How would I take that? Well, I would be sad. But I was sad when the Yankees lost of the World Series.

Q. Do you think it would have any effect upon, for example, your own stature within the scientific community?

A. Only insofar as it had that effect upon all my colleagues who believe in evolution. I think it would depend very much on our reaction to it.

Q. Would it be fair to say that since you have something of a vested interest in seeing that evolution —

A. Only in the sense that everybody has a personal stake in what they believe, no more, no less. Every human being does. That doesn't constitute bias. Bias or prejudice is unreasonable personal investment in a theory.

Q. From just that one article in DISCOVER I take it your opinions on creation-science are very strong?

A. I just have strong opinions. I don't

116

dislike the creationists any more than I dislike the Los Angeles Dodgers, but I live with them.

Q. Is this a case of trying to oppose creation-science, is it a cause with you?

A. A cause? What's a cause?

Q. Well, what do you consider a cause to be?

A. Something I believe in and work for. I don't know whether cause is the right word. I believe that creation-science is not science. And that's its claims are, insofar as testable, tested and incorrect. And in general that at its core not testable, and therefore not science and that therefore as a scientist when the issue comes up I oppose it. But I didn't bring up the issue. My stance is reactive.

Q. When you look down the road as much as we can, do you think 20 years from now our science knowledge will be the same as it is today?

A. Of course not. It wouldn't be science.

Q. When we look back at time in the history of science, were there ideas and theories offered which were at one time considered a science which today would be considered

117

essentially laughable?

A. They shouldn't be laughable, because when held by scientists there were reasons in the context of those times. There really were reasons in the context of the 14th Century to hold to the earth centered universe. So if one understands the context of the times, one would not laugh. But of course, I see the thread of your question. The fact that science is always tentative does not mean that there is entirely subjective knowledge in the world. I think science does obtain answers. They can never be absolutely certain. But again I would be very surprised if the earth did turn out to be flat after all.

Q. Can you sit here today and say that there will never be any scientific evidence for creation?

A. In a way I can because it's not science, you see. It's really almost a definitional matter having less meaning than the question seems to hold. And if creation is about the suspension of natural law, then it's not part of science. If you ask me might we radically revise our ideas

118

about evolution, sure.

Q. But as we learn more about science, can you say without qualification that some of the various parts of the definition of creation-science such as a relatively recent inception of the earth, even the occurrence of a worldwide flood, those sorts of things —

A. Those things are effectively falsified by what we know now. One is never say absolutely certain because one never can say that in science. To the best of our knowledge today they are effectively falsified to the extent that they cannot reasonably be held.

Q. What about changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals?

A. Insofar as that directly contradicts the facts of evolution, I regard that as equally falsified.

Q. What you are saying when you say it's effectively falsified, there is an assumption there that the scientific data can be presented on those sorts of questions?

A. It's not scientific that one can make

119

claims. Creationists sometimes make testable claims that is the core of the theory. The fiat creation out of nothing is unfalsifiable. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally in their support make testable claims that have been tested and found false.

Q. When you look back over the history of science, do you see that notions of science and scientific theories has been affected by kind of a society of the times?

A. Of course.

Q. Do you think that's any less true today than it was then?

A. No, but that just points to the difference between the sociology of knowledge or the psychology of knowledge, why do we believe what we believe, and the justification of knowledge, which is a different point. That is, ideas may arise within the social context. But their truth or falsity is a different matter.

Q. You stated in the prologue to EVER SINCE DARWIN, at page 15 that "Scientists as overt human beings unconsciously reflect that their theories are the social and political

120

constraints of their times."

A. Right.

Q. What do you mean that they unconsciously reflect it?

A. That the things we believe have complex sources and often we don't recognize our own culturally based preferences, but again I repeat that the source of our ideas is a different matter than their truth or falsity.

Q. Do you think that evolution has been affected by this unconscious reflection of the social constraints of the times?

A. All science is. Always has been, always will be.

Q. Can you give me some examples of where you see this presently?

A. In any science or in evolution?

Q. In evolution.

A. The reason I am an historian is that it's very hard to identify present bias, but in my own career I have tried to show that much evolutionary thinking is biased by the presumptions that most people have in Western culture, that change tends to be slow and gradual.

121

Q. How do you think that is a reflection of the social and political constraints?

A. It's an old tradition of Western thought tied to ideas of progress in the chain of being as an old maxim that nature does not make leaps, for example. And I think that is a reflection of social thought in part.

Q. Do you think that it would be correct to add to your statement there that scientists unconsciously reflect that their theories are social, political and religious constraints of their times?

MR. ENNIS: May I see that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

A. Religious belief is part of that, it's implicit. But again, do make that separation between the source of our ideas and the testing of them. I mean, it may well be, as I said an idea might come to you in a dream, it might come to you in a mystic vision, it might come to you while you are driving your car to work one day, it may come to you because you were reading a textbook in economics and said hey, there is an interesting analogy. The testing of it, its true value is a

122

totally different matter.

Q. And if a theory of evolution came from that individual who used it as — let me rephrase that. Withdrawn. If a theory of evolution had its genesis in some individual's belief in atheism that he was going to try to really go out and prove, make sure there is not a creator, that wouldn't create any problems for science, would it, as long as the data fit the theory?

A. You know, there are people who have developed evolutionary ideas in order to affirm their religion. Truth value is a different subject and all I can do is keep saying that evolution preaches no moral doctrine. It cannot, no science can.

Q. Are you familiar with a book entitled

THE IMPLICATIONS OF EVOLUTION by Kerkut?

A. I thumbed through it about a decade ago. Not very familiar, no. I own it but I have not read it.

Q. Do you consider him to be a creation scientist?

A. I don't know even know who he is.

Q. I think he's from the University of

123

Southampton.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion about that book?

A. How can I if I haven't read it?

Q. Do you recall what his general approach was in that book?

A. No, I haven't read it.

Q. You haven't read it?

A. No. I have a lot of books I haven't read. Don't you?

Q. In your book EVER SINCE DARWIN, when you were writing about Velikovsky and collision in that essay, while — you make some I think you will recall, some criticisms of Velikovsky. You state at the end "I will continue for heresy preach by the nonprofessional." What do you mean by that?

A. The most exciting thing in science is when widely held ideas are wrong. See, you have a root for Loch Ness monsters and ESP, insofar as they are potentially scientific. That doesn't mean you have a root for nonscience.

Q. Do you think we should study these ideas which are viewed by science, as heresy?

124

A. Scientific scientists should study scientific heresies. Whether scientists want to study things that aren't science that has to do with their interest as human beings. I do a lot of things that aren't science. We all have leisure time when we study those things outside science that interest us. But as scientists we are not compelled to look at heretical notions that have nothing to do with science.

Q. If we look at some of the facts say, for example, on the age of the earth, and some of those facts support a relatively recent age of the earth, and we devise a theory to explain those facts —

A. That's an Interesting "if" so far.

MR. ENNIS: I was going to object to the form of the question since it assumes that there are facts that support a young age of the earth. If you ask that as a hypothetical, I am happy to let the witness answer.

THE WITNESS: Same thing I was going to say myself.

Q. I am saying "if." So if they do exist. I am not asking you to tell me if they do,

125

A. I want to make it clear in my judgment I think that they do not exist.

Q. If there are facts which support a relatively recent age of the earth, and a theory is devised to try to explain those facts, would that be a scientific theory?

A. I don't know. It depends on how it's formulated. If the theory formulated to explain those facts called upon fiat creation of things, as a result thereof, then it's not a scientific theory. If it was a theory that explained according to natural law how the earth might be that young, then it would be.

But again I repeat, there are no such facts, to my knowledge. There are claims. That's different.

Q. Do you think that the old Darwinian theory of evolution is axiomatic?

A. It can be axiomatized. Axiomatic at least in the vernacular means almost necessarily true. When people say things can be axiomatized that means that you can set up a formal structure, but I am not a philosopher and I don't fully understand what that means.

126

Q. Are you familiar with a book MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWINIAN INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION?

A. Vaguely. I own it. I have read parts of it, I have not read it all.

Q. What is your opinion of that work?

A. It's got some interesting parts, got some wonderfully mistaken parts.

Q. If the earth was not approximately four and a half to five billion years old, what impact would that have on the theory of evolution?

A. Depends on how old you're going to let me make it.

Q. How old do you think the earth would have to be in order for —

A. I can't give you a figure, but it has to be more than 4,000. I can tell you that, and more than 10,000.

Q. Would one million he enough?

A. To the nether realm, I decline.

Q. Have you thought about that before?

A. You can't put a number on it. You just can't. Let me just say not what any creationist science I know claims.

127

Q. Are you familiar with Paul Ehrlich?

A. Nice fellow.

Q. Are you familiar that he has stated that evolution is not falsifiable?

MR. ENNIS: What is the source of that?

MR. WILLIAMS: The source is an article in NATURE. Which I don't think you would consider to be a creationist publication.

THE WITNESS: Give me the source, where. NATURE is a big magazine. What year, what page?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think 1967.

THE WITNESS: Do you have a page number? Let's see what he says.

Q. He said in the article there "our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false."

A. He may have been — I don't know the context of that quote. He may have been complaining about some particularly strict version of evolutionary theory. Which is different from the facts of evolution.

128

Q. Are you not personally familiar with what his position is?

A. On that, no. That was a long time ago. I will find out. I will give him a call.

Q. Are you familiar with L. Harris Matthews?

A. Yes.

Q. Who is he?

A. L. Harris Matthews is a man who must be in his 80's now who was a major zoo keeper somewhere in Britain, has some interesting ideas on the Piltdown fraud. He once did a very interesting study on the pseudo penis of hyenas, in female hyenas.

Q. Would you consider him to be an expert in the field of evolution?

A. Not really.

Q. What would be his area of expertise?

A. I just said it.

Q. I am sorry, I didn't hear you.

A. I don't know him very well. What did he say?

Q. What would you consider to be his area of expertise?

129

A. The biology of hyenas.

Q. Are you familiar with H.S. Lipson?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall an article you wrote in 1980 in PALEOBIOLOGY?

A. Which one? I hope so. It wasn't too long ago. Is it a new and more general theory of evolution emerging, that one?

Q. Do you have a copy of that article here?

A. Don't know.

MR. ENNIS: Can I see it? What was the title of it?

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have a title. That's what I am looking for.

MR. ENNIS: Is it among the documents that we produced today?

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't see —

THE WITNESS: I don't think we gave you that one.

Q. Do you recall writing an article, since I don't have a copy of it, where you said that Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory of evolution, if accurate, then as a general proposition it is effectively dead despite its

130

persistence as textbook orthodoxy?

A. Remember, the phrase "as a general proposition." That doesn't say that the so-called synthetic theory of evolution is false, it merely says it doesn't account for all the theory of evolution.

Q. You say it doesn't account for all the evolution. That seems to be quite a qualification from saying it's effectively dead.

A. Effectively dead as a general theory. That's what the quote says. Still very applicable to the understanding of small scale changes within populations.

Q. If species or kinds, to the extent that word is used —

A. They are not the same thing.

Q. I understand that — were created, would you not expect to see their sudden appearance in the fossil record?

A. See, again I haven't studied any logic for a long time, and I don't know the name of that fallacy. But the fact that species usually occur suddenly because it's consistent with a theory in their creation doesn't mean that in any sense it

131

favors that theory, because there are many other evolutionary explanations.

For example, Velikovsky argued that the high surface temperature of Venus indicated that it was a comet and issued forth from Jupiter, and the surface temperature was high. That doesn't mean his explanation was correct. It wasn't. There is a name for that fallacy. But I don't remember.

Q. You have, if I might use the term, revived to one degree or another some of the theories or concepts offered by Richard Goldschmidt; is that correct?

A. Only in a very minor way and I hope that you understand the theory of punctuated equilibrium has little to do with Goldschmidt.

Q. You stated in an article in NATURAL HISTORY in 1977 that you predicted that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated while in the past he had been rebuked and derided.

A. Yes. What I meant by that in the article is quite clear. Is that Goldschmidt's hierarchical perspective on evolutionary theory would be the path in which I believe there will be

132

major revisions of evolutionary theory, but I did not support some of the more spectacular of Goldschmldt's ideas, particularly the so-called idea of systemic mutation, which in fact I reject in that article.

Q. What new data or fresh data gives life to some of Goldschmidt's previously abandoned notions?

A. Particularly the concept of hierarchy, which is what I am discussing there. Primarily, the notion that there are properties of species that cannot be reduced to natural selection operating upon individuals. For example, propensity to speciate, that is to make more species. The characteristics of species that make them more likely to produce daughter species are in general not properties of individual members of that species, but of the species as a whole.

For example, population structure, how many there are and what kind of aggregates, and insofar as that's so, and insofar as major evolutionary trends may be powered by different speciation, then to that extent trends will have to be understood as a kind of higher order

133

selection upon speciation events themselves and not by conventional natural selection operating among individual organisms.

To that extent, we need an expanded evolutionary theory that recognizes units higher than individual bodies as agents of selection.

Q. Is there an answer in there to my question as to what new data there is?

A. You want a specific example?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay, there's a group of snails called the volutes. If you go back into the Tertiary, some 60 million years ago, about half the species have floating larvae, planktonic, and the other half brood their larvae as the young develop right in the mother or within the mother's body. Today, all volutes brood their young. So there is a substantial evolutionary trend.

Looks as though that trend, and we have numbers to back this up, it looks as though that trend occurred because the species that brood their young speciate more frequently and the reason for that presumably is that they are better able to become isolated and thereby evolve genetic

134

independence, of reproductive isolation. The ones that have floating larvae, they float all over the world. When a small population gets isolated that isolation is diluted by larvae coming in from the parental population. And if the trend is produced by different speciation, and if that propensity to speciate is not a property of individual volutes, then the trend must be understood as a higher order selection upon species.

Q. When did this information become available on this particular piece?

A. This particular study was published in science by a man named Hansen in the late 1970's. The theoretical basis has been established by people like Niles Eldredge and myself, and by Steve Stanley.

Q. Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn's book THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the debate that is going on now as to whether the modern synthesis theory or punctuated equilibria is the more correct, if that's the right word, as fitting into some of

135

Kuhn's paradigm?

A. I don't like the Kuhn model that well. I think the book was an important one in getting us away from previous notion that the scientific progress was just a steady march to truth. But I I don't really accept in detail his theory of paradigms. I think punctuated equilibrium is a new idea that explains some things we didn't know before and proposes some new phenomenon.

Q. Doesn't Kuhn's say that the paradigm or the model is no longer — when the evidence no longer fits the model of the paradigm, this is a tendency to change or tinker with the model so it will fit?

MR. ENNIS: If the witness knows. Otherwise I prefer that you read a quote.

THE WITNESS: The witness knows what Mr. Kuhn has to say. Sorry, I lost the question. Could you ask it again?

Q. Does Kuhn say that when the evidence no longer fits the model, that the model or the paradigm as he calls it, is modified?

A. Remember that I don't subscribe to all aspects. What Kuhn says is that when anomalies

136

begin to accumulate that the initial attempt is usually to try and invent some ad hoc hypotheses. I do not, because I see where you are going of course, see punctuated equilibrium as ad hoc tinkering at all.

Because what it does is try to add new theory atop the old. It is not an attempt to revise the synthetic theory in terms of what it says about change in populations. It's rather an attempt to argue that you need different kinds of explanations when explaining change at higher levels. So it's really not within the context of Kuhn's model.

Q. I am not sure if I even understand the essentials, but as I understand it the modern synthesis theory is essentially one of slow gradual changes; is that correct?

A. I would say that the modern synthesis contains a preference for gradual change, but it does not require that all changes be gradual.

MR. ENNIS: Again, you can ask the question any way you want, but for purposes of clarity it might be of use if you will find out what is meant when the witness uses the word gradual in

137

this context. Are we talking about ten days or years?

A. As a paleontologist, the theory of punctuated equilibrium refers to events of geological scale, and in fact the punctuations of which we speak in that theory usually take on the order of tens of thousands of years, which is very slow by the scale of our lives, but a second in geological perspective.

Q. When you talk about gradual, not you but when you discuss gradual in terms of the modern synthesis theory, does that refer to just time or the degree of change in the species or both?

A. The main idea to be identified as gradual is not a notion that rates are constant, but for the idea that evolution precedes by the wholesale transformation of a lineage, so if you had species A the whole thing changes steadily until you want to call it something else. Under punctuated equilibrium, while this change does not occur that way, but it occurs during events of branching or speciation.

Q. To use an oversimplified example and

138

one could be said as the hand, does the modern synthesis theory say that the hand evolved gradually? By "gradually," I mean was there an earlier form of the hand where it would look quite different than now and it slowly grew into the form that we know have?

A. It's not a good example because we really don't have a lot of direct evidence for the hand.

Q. The question I am asking is, though, if you are going to look at other parts of anatomy —

A. The general idea, though no one would claim that it holds in all cases, would be under the modern synthesis that most structures arise through a series, not necessarily every, but through a series of intermediary stages.

Q. Would the punctuated equilibrium differ on that point?

A. Not necessarily in that punctuated equilibrium is about species, and the punctuational origin of species. Species are small units, so you might under punctuated equilibrium get a hand through 27 sequential events of speciation, step by step. But each step

139

would be rapid.

MR. ENNIS: Rapid in the sense you're talking about —

THE WITNESS: Rapid meaning tens of thousands of years.

Q. What did the column BORN AGAIN CREATION, where did this appear?

A. In a magazine called SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE.

Q. What is SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE?

A. It's a magazine of scientists who tend to have political opinions to the left of center.

Q. Is that published by some organization?

A. It's published by Science for the People, which is an organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I think it's called Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political—I don't remember.

Q. Are you a member of the group?

A. Yes. Insofar — I am a member insofar as I pay my dues to get the magazine. That's my only contact with it.

Q. Do they have a statement of purpose reduced to writing?

140

A. They may. I don't have it. As I say, the extent of my activities is to subscribe to the journal.

Q. Why do you state in here that the Australopithecines has passed an "equal time law"?

A. Maybe I made a mistake. Does it say balanced treatment here? I could have made a mistake. It wouldn't be the first time. Probably made a mistake. I don't really know what balanced treatment means. What does it mean?

Q. That's one of the issues in the lawsuit. If you were going to balance treatment of two opposing theories, do you have an idea how you would do it?

A. Depends on the theories. I don't know what balance treatment means, but seeing as in my view creation isn't a science, so it isn't an issue of whether you give 20 percent or 50 percent of the lectures on creation-science. Either 20 percent or 50 percent of a nonscience in a science course is inadmissible.

Q. Tell me how would you balance a treatment of two opposing theories.

MR. ENNIS: Two opposing scientific

141

theories?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

A. By presenting the evidence for both.

Q. What if on one side there was more evidence than the other — than on the other side?

A. I would have to give a little more time, but it wouldn't be real fair. Just to mention while the kids were packing their books at the end of the class hour that there was another view. I don't think I can define that. It's like basic kind. It's ambiguous.

Q. But suppose one aspect of the theory there was no evidence for one theory and all of it was for the other.

A. I am really not a legal scholar. I disclaimed on the origin of life, which I know a little bit more about than — I don't know what you mean. You have to tell me what you think that phrase "balanced treatment" means. When I discuss — I don't know.

When I don't know the answer to something and I think there are two competing theories, I tend to give roughly equal time to both. I am not saying that would be so in all

142

cases.

Q. Do you think if you were teaching two opposing theories of science, and you were asked to give balanced treatment and that was left to your professional discretion, do you think you could do it?

A. If they were two scientific theories?

MR. ENNIS: Your question does presuppose that it was left to his professional discretion to determine what he thinks balance means?

THE WITNESS: That's an interesting point. If the legislature tells me to do it, then I don't know what it means.

MR. ENNIS: I want to make sure that's part of your question.

THE WITNESS: That's a good point.

Q. It obviously is —

MR. ENNIS: So you're not attempting to frame that question in the context of this act?

MR. WILLIAMS: As to what it means, we will have to leave for the court's ultimate decision.

MR. ENNIS: If that's so, then I object

143

to the form of the question because I think it assumes that the act leaves that to the discretion of the teacher. So I would object to the form of the question and direct the witness not to answer it and ask that it be stricken from the record. If you wish to ask the question as a hypothetical, then I will let the witness answer the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he has already answered the question. So your objection is noted for the record.

(Recess taken.)

MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to have made as exhibit number 2 to the deposition an article entitled BORN AGAIN CREATIONISM, by Steve Gould from SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE. It's dated September, October, November 1981.

(Whereupon, document above referred to was marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2 for identification, as of this date.)

Q. Dr. Gould, directing your attention to Exhibit 2, I think we have already established what while you use the term "equal time law" in reference to Act 590, that that term in itself, at least, is not found in the act, correct?

144

A. Yes. And we also established that balanced treatment is to be at least in part determined by legislative decision.

Q. And you state that "The creationist leaders may be dishonest in argument and even malevolent. Do you consider them to be that?

A. I think some of the misquotations are so egregious that it verges on dishonesty. One can only make inferences.

Q. In this article you quote Duane Gish where I think you had the same essential quote earlier where he says "We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." There is no reference for that.

A. Page 42 of EVOLUTION, THE FOSSILS SAY NO.

Q. Can I see that, please?

A. You sure could. It is the end line of the longer quotation.

That is in fact not the version I got the quote from. It's basically the same statement.

Q. That quote that you used from Dr. Gish, is it not simply consistent with the earlier

145

discussion that you and I had about the fact that we can only tell from creation-science that the creator has some power?

A. I read the quote as an admission that so-called creation-science isn't science. After all, if you cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative process is an admission that in principle it cannot explain the most important claim that it makes.

Q. But when you look at that statement, can you not distinguish — would it not be possible to distinguish between the determining by scientific investigation the exact creative processes used and the fact that creation did occur?

A. That's not enough. Listen to what it says. "We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes. You can't admit in principle that in principle you can't discover anything about the major phenomenon.

MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Q. You quote in this article from — if

146

not quote or reference some of the information published by the Seagraves and also some things by Gish. You do kind of tend to lump creation scientists together, don't you?

A. They share a set of beliefs.

Q. The same way some evolutionists share some beliefs?

A. To that extent I would lump as evolutionists all people who believe in evolution.

Q. Including those who have said in the past that an average black adult male has the mental capacity of a 11 year old Caucasian or something?

A. So far as they said that, they were not behaving at scientists. But they were not evolutionists. Good guys and bad guys everywhere.

Q. Do you feel like you understand the second law of the thermodynamics?

A. Not in its details, but a hell of a lot better than Mr. Gish does.

Q. Do you think — do you agree that it essentially states that order must decrease through time?

A. No. It specifically doesn't say that.

147

It specifically states the circumstances in which order will decrease, as I understand it. I am not a physicist, and I will not go very far. It states that in so-called closed systems, that the systems in which there is neither input nor outflow of energy, that order will decrease, which is another way of saying entropy will increase.

Q. How do you define what is a closed system?

A. Again, I don't want to go too far because I am not even positive that this is technically the correct definition. I understand it's a system which is closed, that is there is no energy entering or leaving by boundaries of the system.

Q. You state that "Creationism is part of the program of the Evangelical right in America, and this movement, considered peripheral a decade ago, has became central in Reaganland."

A. That's America.

Q. Could you explain to me on what you base your conclusion on that creationism is part of the program of the Evangelical right?

A. Well, that term insofar as that term

148

has been applied to people like Mr. Falwell who has a larger political program, insofar as creationism is one aspect of his political program, then the definition holds.

Q. Do you know whether Jerry Falwell is responsible for the passage of Act 590?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Is the fact that it's part of the Evangelical right one of the reasons that you oppose it that you view it as being —

MR. ENNIS: Oppose what, the teaching in the public schools or the document itself? Do you understand the question?

A. I mean empirically in my own life the answer would have to be no because I opposed it just as much ten years ago when there wasn't an identifiable Evangelical right.

Q. What is Reaganland?

A. It's a metaphorical description of the U.S. of A. And its current political climate.

Q. How do you feel about that personally, not as a scientist?

THE WITNESS: Is that relevant?

MR. ENNIS: At the trial I would object

149

on the ground that it's irrelevant, but we have waived questions as to relevancy until the time of the trial, so if David wants to spend a lot of time asking those kinds of questions, do so.

A. I did not vote for Ronald Reagan. I don't think — I am not very happy with his presidency.

Q. Would you say that's a fair and accurate depiction — description of your feelings about the political climate of the country right now, that you are not very happy with his presidency?

A. Yes.

Q. So you're somewhat happy?

A. Okay. All right. I will be a little more forthcoming. I am not opposed to everything he's done, but in the panoply of presidents I have witnessed, I would rank — since my memory which extends back as a little child to the death of Franklin Roosevelt, one of the first things I do remember, I would rank Reagan second to Nixon in the terms of the ones I didn't like.

Q. You state in your article that "The creationist laws lost a series of court battles

150

between 1975 and 1978, when several statutes for "equal time" were tossed out because they had violated the principle of the separation of church and state." What court battles do you have in mind there?

A. Particularly — I hope my years are right— the overturning of the Tennessee creation bill, which I think was in 1977. I may be wrong.

Q. That's one.

A. Were there not others?

Q. I am asking you.

A. I think there were. I wrote this article several months ago, and I think I had some documents before me. In fact, what I was basing that on, I remember, was a news report from SCIENCE, THE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, that listed the others and I do not know recall what they were.

Q. Are you aware as to whether there were any differences in that Tennessee law and this law?

A. Oh, I say there are. I think there are differences of rhetoric, rather than of substance.

Q. I understand that's the way you feel. But do you agree that there are differences?

A. In statement but not in substance.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. Stephen Jay Gould - Page 4

151

Q. According to your column here that only after — it says, "at this point," I guess that's between the court battles of '75 and '78, "creationists shifted gears and began to argue that creation-science was a purely scientific alternative to scientific evolution." Where did you establish that that is the dividing line between two different approaches taken?

A. I just remember that when I used to read creationist literature a while back there were numerous explicit references to God, religion and Christianity, and those have been notably absent in the last few years, and I made inference, that this was in recognition of a different legal strategy to pass the same kinds of laws.

Q. You further state in your article that "As a sidelight to a correct perception (and cowardly decision) about the politics involved, I was originally scheduled to testify for the State in this trial but was dropped as a witness by the Attorney General because he felt that my leftist political" — I see. The light has struck. You're talking about the California trial?

A. Yes. No, you never called me.

152

Q. Let me finish the - let me start again to get the entire quote in. "As a sidelight to a correct perception (and cowardly decision) about the politics involved, I was originally scheduled to testify for the State in this trial but was dropped as a witness by the Attorney General because he felt that my leftist politics might enhance the impression that evolution is some kind of Commie plot."

MR. ENNIS: Is that a statement or a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's a statement, and I am going to ask questions about the quote.

Q. Briefly describe for me your leftist politics, if there are such?

A. It was all moot because I never got to testify because as you know in the California trial the grounds were so narrowed that none of the scientists were —

MR. ENNIS: Again, let me just note for the record that we would object to this line of questioning if it were attempted to be used at the trial on the ground that it's irrelevant, but for these purposes I will let the witness answer the

153

question.

A. It's too vague.

Q. You are the person who used the term "leftist politics."

A. Yes. My political views tend to the left of center.

Q. Could you be more specific about your political views?

A. I don't know how to be. I am not a joiner, so I am not a member of any organization. So I have always resisted labeling. But if you read my other book, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, which is not included because it is not about evolution, you will get a sense of my political views.

Q. What do you talk about in THE MISMEASURE OF MAN?

A. It's a book about the history of measurement of intelligence.

Q. But it makes the argument, you were saying?

A. It makes the argument that the primary — it makes the argument that attempts to measure intelligence have been politically motivated and represent a misuse of science in

154

order to support existing social distinctions as biologically inevitable.

Q. Have you done much reading in the area of political philosophy?

A. I have not made an intensive study. I expect I have read some.

Q. What books would you say were most influential on you in the area of your own political philosophy?

A. I think the most influential book I ever read was C. Wright Mills. THE POWER ELITE. Some of Chomsky, who is not a political philosopher but writes politics. In fact, over the last many years I have not read widely in this area. It does not hold as much interest for me as it once did.

Q. You go on to say, just to paraphrase, that you are less concerned about the court strategy than the school board strategy, as you refer to it. Why are you more concerned about the so-called school board strategy?

A. Because I think that's where creationists may be more effective in persuading local school boards to adopt creationist texts.

155

Q. Do you know how many schools have adopted some form of creationist text?

A. No, I don't

Q. You also make a comment about the textbook publishers who you say will incorporate almost any nonsense to win orders that may mean millions of copies. Do you think that if this law and others like it should be upheld, that the textbook publishers would meet the need for books which incorporate creation-science without religious references?

A. I assume the main thing they will do is what they have always done, kick evolution out.

Q. That's assuming

MR. ENNIS: You asked the witness a question.

A. It's a justified assumption that happened after the Scopes trial and it's happening now.

Q. How can they kick it out if they require that both be thought? [probably should be "...both be taught?" - MvADP Editor]

A. Or neither. That's an alternative. One way to make it neither is not to include either.

156

Q. Given your views as to the, call them good business sense of textbook publishers, don't you think they would also have volumes of text which would incorporate both?

A. I think the primary thing they will do based on previous experience and things that have happened already, and if you contact Wayne Moyer, he has been monitoring the decrease of information about evolution in textbooks. Based on previous experience, the primary effects of this law will be to decrease the coverage or eliminate the coverage of evolution in textbooks.

Q. So you see that as a result of the law?

A. Yes.

Q. If you had an alternative of either trying to get balanced treatment or eliminating both, which would you prefer?

A. That's very hard to decide between two reprehensible alternatives. I don't know. They are both really frightening to me.

Q. You have no opinion, you wouldn't make a decision on that?

A. I think the human psyche is generally a jolly thing and likes to postpone considering bad

157

things that may not happen.

Q. But if you had to make a decision, what decision would you make?

A. I don't know. I don't have to make it, thank goodness.

Q. The Act 590 does say that you ought to teach the scientific evidences and inferences for both creation-science and evolution science.

A. There aren't any for creation-science.

Q. All right. Assuming that, why are you so opposed to the act, if there is no scientific evidence for creation-science and the overwhelming scientific evidence is all for evolution?

A. Because the act nonetheless requires that what is not science be taught as science.

Q. I think the act says in section one that you ought to give balanced treatment to both if you teach either, then in section 4 it says the scientific evidence—

A. You're not really telling me that one conceivable interpretation of this law is no creationism will ever be taught anywhere in any of the schools?

I am not telling you that, I am just

158

referring you to what the bill says. It says "the scientific evidence and inferences therefrom."

MR. ENNIS: Is your question that if a teacher concludes that there is no scientific evidence for points 1 through 6, then a teacher does not have to say a word about creation-science?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am talking about the act does require balanced treatment for both. But then it says that you defines creation-science as to be the scientific evidence and inferences therefrom for creation.

MR. ENNIS: Your question is if there is no scientific evidence, then what?

Q. If you feel there is none and you feel the overwhelming authority of scientific evidence is on the side of evolution, then what are you afraid of?

A. Because a public school teacher in the state of Arkansas, that despite that conviction I would be compelled to present some pseudo evidence as it exists in books that I think have no intellectual stature, but are published nonetheless for creation-science. I don't read this bill as giving freedom to every teacher to

159

assess the evidence as he sees it.

Q. Would you agree that your, and by your I am talking about your position personally, concerning you don't want this taught, that you oppose this law, does it rise to the level of censorship?

A. No. It is a just a proper separation of disciplines. I have never said that I think parents or creationists shouldn't tell their children what they want. I teach science and I don't want to be told by the State Legislature that I have to teach in a science course that something that in my professional judgment is not science.

Q. What if there is a teacher out there who has reviewed all the scientific evidence in the literature and has concluded that creation-science is a science, should he or she be able to teach it? I'm not asking it legally.

MR. ENNIS: You're not asking for a legal conclusion and you're not asking whether there is a need for a statute to permit a teacher to do that?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not asking anything

160

about that.

A. I have to ask you a question. Before this law was passed what stopped them from doing it?

Q. Those are some of the issues for the trial. I am asking if someone out there thinks it should be taught, do you think they should be prohibited from teaching it?

A. I can't give a yes or no to a question like that. There are grounds for dismissal on competence occasionally. I suspect that if a teacher of physics did insist the earth were flat and presented it as dogma and failed school children who said otherwise, there might be cause. One can be too dogmatic about anything.

But in general, as far as I understand it, the statute should leave teachers free to make their own professional judgments. I will disagree with many of them. What I don't like about this statute is it dictates what a teacher must do.

Q. So if a teacher absent and apart from this statute should decide that creation-science has some validity and wants to teach it in the classroom to balance the treatment, if you will,

161

that you would not want the teacher to be prohibited from doing that?

A. That's a funny hypothetical question. I can't respond to hypothetical questions like that.

Q. Are you aware that one teacher in another state has been fired for teaching creation-science?

A. I don't quite understand the relevance of that to this particular act. I am not on the school board in the state of Arkansas anyway. And that is a different and very difficult issue.

Q. As a matter of academic freedom, should the teacher be able to teach the course?

THE WITNESS: I am still looking for guidance.

MR. ENNIS: I think probably the reason the witness is having trouble answering that question is that would depend upon the particular facts of each case of exactly what's being taught, how much is being taught. If the teacher is supposed to be teaching a course on social studies and teaches creation-science instead, that's irrelevant. If it's a biology course, so forth.

162

I would have trouble answering the question because on those kinds of academic freedom grounds you need to know all the facts and circumstances. The hypothetical doesn't state what they are.

THE WITNESS: If they were lying, that would be one thing.

Q. I thought my question was specific on that. Let me restate it. You have a high school teacher of science in the area of biology who has reviewed all the scientific literature that he or she can get his hands on. Reviewed it and has determined that creation-science is a valid scientific theory.

A. Let me tell you the problem I have. I would not consider such a person any more to be operating as a scientist. That I will be clear on. Whether that constitutes grounds for firing is another matter. There will be some teachers who might not be good teachers and are not teaching the best material, and I don't know whether that's always a grounds for firing.

Grounds for firing have to be quite lenient in my view. I can clearly say that such a person is no longer a scientist or operating as a

163

scientist if they accept a theory that's patently not a science. But whether they should be fired, there is a whole question of tenial laws I don't understand.

Q. I am asking whether they should be free to teach it?

A. No. Because who is to stop them. What's the penalty of not firing.

Q. For example, they can say you can't teach that.

A. And then if they did they are fired. So I mean it is fundamentally about losing one's job.

But you're placing something in my hypothetical that's really not in there. Let's approach it this way. Define academic freedom.

MR. ENNIS: Not the law of, his own view?

A. My personal view of academic freedom is the right for teachers to shape the subject matter of their courses according to their competence and own judgments within the confines of that subject matter as understood by the community within that profession.

164

If a teacher of classical music decides that he is not interested any more and only teaches painting, I think it would be right to say that they are no longer teaching that subject and if that were the only teacher of classical music in the school, and someone moves against that teacher because the subject matter is not being taught, that would not be abridgement of my definition of academic freedom.

Q. How can academic freedom then properly be limited, if it can?

A. I don't regard that as a limit. You contract to teach a certain subject. One has an understanding of what that subject is and within the confines of that subject one does it one's way, as Mr. Sinatra says.

Q. Can the state prescribe curricula for the secondary schools?

MR. ENNIS: Are you asking for a legal conclusion?

MR. WILLIAMS: No.

A. I don't know very much about how a school curricula is set up. I know what academic freedom usually means on a college level. I don't

165

really know much about high school law and how it works.

Q. Do you think a teacher has to agree with a theory personally before they can adequately teach it?

A. Oh, no. I mean, after all, I teach — when I teach alternate theories I may have my preference but I hope I can give an adequate account. However, as a science teacher I only teach scientific theories. Very much different from teaching a theory that is not part of the profession that I agreed to teach.

Q. Have you made any personal studies concerning evidence for evolution?

A. Sure.

Q. You mentioned your dissertation I think. Would that be one?

A. I am a research biologist, sure. I work on the evolution of Western Indian land snails. I am sure you don't want to hear about them, but I would being glad to tell you.

Q. Would all of the research that you have done fits within the evolutionary theory?

A. It certainly does.

166

Q. You provided me with a copy —

A. Wait a minute. The evolution theory fit within the general theory that evolution — that there must be some mechanism for it. I said I don't know what the mechanism of evolution is. All my work certainly fits the conviction that evolution occurred, that it is a fact. As to the mechanism by which it occurred, we have much to learn.

Q. What's your opinion of the creation-science materials that you have read, I am talking about reference to the books that you earlier referenced and this article on Cephalopods.

A. It's not science. In fact, I think it's primarily based on rhetoric and misquotation.

Q. You think it's valid criticism of some of the shortcomings of evolution, or problems?

A. Occasionally within the forest of rhetoric and misquotation they will raise in a tangential way a legitimate point. But the essence of the argument is unscientific and unfair in most of the publications I have read.

Q. Do you think that the evolution theory of origins is an unquestionable fact of science?

167

A. There is no such thing. My definition of fact confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Q. Does evolution presuppose that no creator exists?

A. For what? No, of course not. But wait. This goes back to about 10 o'clock this morning. I mean evolution is a statement about general logical connections. If there was a creator and he made matter 177 billion years ago and then set up the laws of nature, such that they yielded this result by natural laws, and if he even smiles down upon it and says it's good, that's all right. It's occurring within natural law. What is inadmissible in science is the suspension of those laws in order to introduce by fiat creation of life from nothing.

Q. Bear with me for a second. If you would, let's say, go back to the first life and you had these chemical reactions, and as I understand it those are very complex chemical reactions which would have to occur for this first life to arise. If you had all these natural laws operating, and a creator, whatever that might be,

168

kind of intervened but only to the extent to cause it to happen —

A. If God sticks his finger in the soup by suspending the laws of nature, it's not science. It's like a little bit pregnant. Not even a little suspension of natural laws. However, I emphasize many evolutionists believe even in very personal notions of God, but it's a God who doesn't break his own laws. I mean, evolutionists from Asa Gray to Dobzhansky have been atheists, no problem.

Q. But to consider evolution and try to make it consistent with a belief in a creator, does present problems, doesn't it - let me be a bit more specific.

MR. ENNIS: Object to the form of the question because when you say to consider evolution and try to make it consistent with the belief of a creator, I don't think the witness has testified that there is anything at all about evolution and that belief.

Q. I will be more specific. Is one of the essential characteristics of evolution that it has occurred more or less in a random and chance way?

169

A. Nope.

Q. Why not?

A. That's not part of most evolutionary theories. See, in Darwinism for example, and of course there are other theories of evolution, randomness is only called upon to produce variation, to produce raw material. In fact, the direction of change is imposed by natural selection, which is a deterministic force that adapts organisms to prevailing local environments. That's one of the common misunderstandings of evolution. That most theories regard what happened as due to chance. That's not true.

Q. If you are a theoristic evolutionist, and as I understand you would think that would mean that someone who believed that had a creator or some supernatural power set up the laws of nature at the beginning. And if he didn't - if he just set up the laws and just let them operate, does that mean or do we know - strike that. That's incapable of resolution.

Do you think that the theory of evolution is contrary to the religious convictions or moral values or philosophical beliefs of some

170

people?

A. I don't think they can be contrary to properly constituted morality and ethics, because that's a whole other realm, and evolution is about the facts of the world. I don't see how the world's facts can be contrary to ethical and moral belief. That doesn't mean that it ought to be. If you asked me as an empirical fact whether some people feel that evolution runs contrary to what they feel is the foundation of what loosely is called their philosophy, I guess the answer is yes.

Q. Do you think the theory of evolution or the theory or the facts, however you would like to describe it, has affected society beyond the study of biology?

A. It caused a lot of people to think about a lot of things. Whether the theories have actually promoted social change or merely been used to or usually misused to rationalize that social change is going to occur, I don't know.

Q. Do you think that the theory of evolution can be presented in the classroom without reference to any religious doctrine?

171

A. It usually is. By the theory of evolution it varies. I present it without reference to any religious doctrine. Religion to me is about ethics and morality.

Q. How do you define religion?

A. It's about as hard as asking me to define God. I know what it's not, but it's one of those subjects hard to put in a few sentences. To me religion is the set of ideas that fundamentally deals with the way we should conduct our lives in ethical and moral terms. It tries to provide justifications for moral precepts.

Q. Does religion necessarily require a God?

A. Not under — depends on what a God is. It doesn't require some supernatural force that intervenes to break the laws of nature, no. And there are people who call themselves religious, as you know, particularly in non-Western cultures, who do not have a belief in anything that by the Western vernacular would be called God.

Q. Do you think atheism could be a religion?

A. Why are you asking that?

Q. I am just curious, sir.

172

A. I mean, atheism simply means a lack of a belief in God. Atheists have moral values. In fact, ethical values don't come from the lack of a belief in God. That's merely a statement. They derive their moral principles from elsewhere. But evolution does not speak to this issue. There have been atheists who are evolutionists, devout Christians who have been evolutionists.

Q. Do you think that religion can be based on science?

A. No. They are a different sphere, simply different.

Q. Do you know whether anyone has articulated the possibility of basing religion on science?

A. Insofar as people have, I think they are fundamentally mistaken. You can find people to say almost anything, of course.

Q. So while you personally don't think it could be, there are people out there in the scientific communities, for example, who —

A. Not very much and they are wrong and we will try and show them why they are. I have been in a lot of evolution classes in my life, and I

173

don't think I have ever heard any of my teachers make pronouncements about the nature of God with the material in the classroom.

Q. Do you have a definition for faith?

A. Not really, because the word I think means too many different things. If you give me a context, I will give you a definition.

Q. Do you think it means scientists have faith in evolution?

A. Not in the usual vernacular sense of that term, which I take to mean a belief held so strongly that in the absence of evidence it is still accepted. To that extent, evolutionists don't because their acceptance of evolution is based on hard information.

Q. In your article in SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE, you state that this creation battle or creation-science is one part of the coherent political program of the Evangelical right, including anti-ERA, anti-abortion, anti-military and anti-Communism. Is that a correct —

A. Sounds right.

Q. Is that one of reasons why you oppose creation-science?

174.

A. As I said, from my own personal history, since my opposition has become no less intense since before these ties arose, my opposition is not caused by that. I would not say that my feelings — that those points are irrelevant to my feelings about it. But I assure you my opposition was as intense before these connections were clear.

Q. Have you provided the attorneys for the plaintiffs with any reports or any written documentation, have you written anything for them other than what you have given me today?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Do you know at this point what your testimony will consist of, for example, what opinions you will give?

A. We have not discussed that except in the broadest outline. That as a paleontologist, I will deal I imagine with those areas that are closest to my competence, namely the question of how creationists explain the facts of the fossil record, and particularly the issue of gaps in this record.

Q. Could you just briefly summarize how you do view the way the creationists treat the

175

fossil record and the gaps therein?

A. As I understand it, the foundation of the view of those creationists I have read is that the fossil record, with its ordered sequence, is a product of deposition after everything got mixed together in Noah's flood. As for the gaps in the fossil record, creationists cite them as evidence that evolution is in trouble, and I believe those gaps to be a result of those imperfections in this record and the fact that evolution proceeds more by punctuated equilibrium than by gradual change within lineages.

Q. The article on Cephalopods and the creation of the universal deluge, how do you plan to use this in your testimony?

A. Perhaps only to talk about what I regard to be a misapplication of a quotation from one of my works, perhaps as an example of an attempt to explain a fossil sequence by flood geology, but probably only in the first sense.

Q. Are you speaking with specific reference to a quote which says "paleontologists and evolution biologists are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories but they

176

often forget that plausible stories need not be true."?

A. That's the quote, yes.

Q. What do you anticipate your testimony about that quote might be?

A. That statement comes from a paper in which I was with several other authors referring only to stories that paleontologists tell that attempt to interpret in adaptive terms the facts of an evolutionary tree. It is cited in that context to make it appear that I believe the existence of the tree itself to be tentative.

Q. Do you have any idea who John Woodmorappe is?

A. I do not, no.

Q. Your article from PALEOBIOLOGY which is entitled "Punctuated Equilibria, the tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," do you plan to rely on this in your testimony?

A. Yes. Well, I plan to use it.

Q. Could you describe for me how you will use it?

A. To explain the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

177

Q. Does this article fairly give your views, current views?

A. Yes. That's the most extensive statement ever published on the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Q. Are there any assumptions which underlie your punctuated equilibrium theory?

A. That's too broad a question. All science has certain assumptions like the uniformity of natural law.

Q. Anything peculiar to any assumptions which are peculiar to —

A. I wouldn't use the term assumptions. Let me say it's based on certain premises which I don't regard as assumptions but I regard as fairly well documented evolutionary principles. First, that evolutionary change occurs during events of speciation. Secondly, that events of speciation, though slow on the scale of our lives, are geologically instantaneous, tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, that most species during the course of their history tend to change vary little.

Q. I am sorry, what was the third one?

A. That most species during the course of

178

their history tend to change rather little.

Q. Go ahead.

A. That's call stasis. That's all.

Q. So the change comes in essence at the point where the species changes to a new species, as you view it?

A. When one species branches off from another, the ancestor usually persists.

Q. What happens to the ancestors?

A. They usually persist for a while, anyway.

Q. Would they then more often than not die out or would they more often than not continue?

A. Oh, I don't think — it's probably about 50-50.

Q. When you talk about, for example, that the record of human evolution seems to provide a particularly good example that no gradualism has been detected within any hominid taxon, does that not provide — would that not be consistent with creation-science?

A. It would not.

Q. Why not?

A. In the sense that there is a very good

179

evolutionary trend, it just doesn't proceed by slow and steady alteration. But there is a very good evolutionary trend as seen through successive speciation towards hominids with larger brains and larger bodies and if all forms life simultaneously weren't mixed up in the flood, I don't know why they would then sort out in such an ordered sequence of increasing size of brain and body from the australopithecines to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.

Q. Your article — or maybe perhaps it is part of a book on punctuated equilibria, what book is this from?

A. A book called MODELS AND PALEOBIOLOGY, 1972.

Q. Is there anything in here that is not in the first article that I mentioned?

A. That is the first article. No, I don't think there is anything in there that is not covered, but I gave you that because that is the original statement of the theory.

Q. What is meant by the term "world view in relation to Darwin"?

A. What's the context?

180

Q. In this particular copy reference it says "aside from natural selection itself, gradualism became the most pervasive and controlling aspect of Darwin's world view?"

A. It's a translation of a German term weltanschaung, which is used by scholars to signify — as an informal term to signify the basic assumptions that people make about the nature of the world and life, what is in the vernacular often called one's philosophy.

Q. That implies to me, that for example if you're talking about Darwin as part of his world view that evolution as he viewed it was not limited to the neat confines of evolutionary biology.

A. Yes, I would include other things in his world view on gradualism to Darwin was an important part of the way he looked at many other things besides science.

Q. Do you think Darwin's ON ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES can be studied in a public school classroom or should be?

A. Why not, it's one of the great books of Western history.

181

Q. Are you aware that he calls upon a creator in that text?

A. What he says — first of all, he doesn't even use the word in the first edition. But in later editions he uses the term creator much in the essence of a scientist. What is the last line? He says there is a grandeur — "with its several powers have been freed," and I guess he adds "by the creator" in later editions, into a few forms or into one, which would be consistent with the notion of Newton's clockwinder God.

Q. Is the concept of a creator an inherently religious concept in your mind?

A. Depends on how you define it. Again, as I understand —

Q. Is the creator as referenced in Darwin, is it inherently a religious view?

A. The whole question of Darwin's religious views is an interesting one. The best book on that is by Neal Gillespie, published a few years ago, and a very complex one.

Q. But when he uses that term that life having been breathed into the first few forms by a creator, do you take that to be a reference to a

182

creator in the religious sense?

A. One doesn't know, but no, I don't necessarily take it as such. It could be for Einstein's view that what we call the creators, wherever produced, or Spinoza's view, the creators of the laws of the universe. That's a metaphor and the book is full of metaphors. Every book is.

Q. So a creator is not an inherently religious concept?

A. The use of the word creator is not. What becomes inherently nonscience is when you call upon the creators to suspend natural law to put creatures on earth.

Q. Do you think in studying Darwin's ON ORIGIN OF SPECIES that you have to dwell on his references to the creator, talk about that, what does that mean at great length?

A. First of all, if you use the first edition it won't even be there. Secondly, it's a word here, there, whose meaning is ambiguous. I don't know — and thirdly, if it is studied in the science classroom, that's not what you talk about.

Q. So it really brings us back to that question again of first life. And what Darwin

183

seemed to say there was a creator had breathed life into —

A. There is all sorts of metaphor in THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. It's a great work of literature. He says so many times in metaphor — what's the greatest one that's a metaphor of the tangled bank, the metaphor of the tree of life, and the best of all, nature appears to us bright with gladness, he says. But behind that we see the war.

And the book is full of metaphor, and I think it's really clear in the context that that is a metaphor to state that he doesn't know how first life got here. I think the best proof of that is that the phrase "by the creator" is added the into some subsequent editions.

Q. It was added by Darwin, wasn't it?

A. Yes. See, because the creator can be the laws of nature.

Q. Do you recall whether he used the creator with a capital C, if that makes any difference?

A. I don't know. And that's really a typographical issue.

184

Q. So whether it's an a capital C or not doesn't make any difference to you?

A. I don't think so. In Victorian times many things were capitalized that we wouldn't today. I think laws of nature are often capitalized in literature of that time. In fact, nature itself is often written with a capital N.

Q. I want to make sure I understand. Invocation of a creator is not inherently a religious concept?

MR. ENNIS: Are you asking whether in the sense Darwin used it or are you talking about in Act 590?

MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, in the sense that Darwin used it. I think I am talking about in any concept, inherent is an invocation of a creator.

A. What's unscientific is to talk about the suspension of natural law to invoke that concept of a creator. To invoke a creator to state unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Q. Is the indication of a creator by Darwin an inherent religious concept?

A. When Einstein says God doesn't play

185

dice with the universe, a famous metaphor, what he says is that he believes that deterministic laws were discovered to render what we now consider chance. It is clearly a metaphor, as is Darwin's usage in that paragraph.

Q. In summary, what is your defense of Teilhard —

A. My case? My defense?

Q. There is a reference here in PILTDOWN IN LETTERS, and a letter, I think, from you among others concerning a defense, according to the editor, of Teilhard de Chardin.

A. I think he played a role in the Piltdown fraud.

Q. What role did he play, as you see it?

A. I think it quite likely since he was at Piltdown and reasonably friendly with Mr. Dawson, who I think clearly was the primary instigator of the hoax, that he played a role, probably a small one, in it.

Q. What is this paper?

A. That's an untitled essay which will appear in NATURAL HISTORY next February, which I included under your request for unpublished

186

documents because, as you will note, the last page contains some reference to creationism.

Q. Do you intend at this time to rely on this essay?

A. No. I presume that doesn't bar me if it should come up.

Q. I said at this time. What was the article you wrote for the New York Times "on Mankind Stood up First and Got Smart Later"?

A. That's a little commentary from section 4 one Sunday, probably some 700 words or so, on Johanson's DISCOVERY OF LUCY.

Q. Essentially, what was your comment on that?

A. That was a long time ago. That the DISCOVERY OF LUCY fairly well proved what in fact we have pretty well known since the 1920's, that the australopithecines, though quite small brained, only slightly larger than the ape brain, nonetheless walked fully erect.

Q. "Evolution: Explosion, not ascent"?

A. That is a very badly named article, not mine, giving a very short explication of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Nothing there

187

not covered in more detail in the two articles you have.

Q. Are you aware of any other articles on which you might rely?

A. I might rely on the essays in Darwin and THE PANDA'S THUMB, which you have.

Q. Any particular ones in there?

A. I can't anticipate. It will be a cross-examination, I think, more than direct.

Q. Is it fair to say from your essay on Velikovsky and collision that you will not object to Velikovsky being studied as a science although you don't agree with him?

A. Velikovsky stated his hypotheses in a falsifiable way, and they were falsified. I would not teach Velikovsky now because I think the argument is beyond doubt, but I would certainly answer questions about it and would not regard it as inappropriate material for courses studying scientific methodology.

His hypotheses were testable, therefore they were science or formulated in a scientific way though they have been falsified, in my view.

Q. Your curriculum vitae includes articles

188

only up to 1980, I notice. Your writings. The one that I have stops at '57, which is —

A. That's B. Yes, there is an A part and a B part. That's not the main part. I know you had it. That's in fact the small — let me see that.

Q. That's the one I was handed this morning.

A. No. That is everything. See, this is the main part, articles. It's in two parts. And that goes through 1981. I just haven't updated the B part that has little notes and letters and things. There may be one or two items that are not there just because I haven't updated it in recent months. But the A part is the main part. Those are the articles. Too many people iflate(?) — off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Q. "Darwin Novelized"?

A. That's a review of Irving Stone's biography of Charles Darwin called ORIGIN.

Q. Are you familiar with Pergamon Press?

A. I know it.

Q. It's not a creation-science publisher,

189

is it?

A. No.

Q. I don't know if I can say it. ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY, I haven't had a chance to look at it in detail, what is it?

A. It's a history of the current status that old individuals in the course of their growth and embryology repeat the evolutionary stages of their ancestry. It's not true, but it was historically an important point. That is my major technical book. I thought you might want to see it. I rather suspect you won't want to read too much of it.

Q. But that concept has been discredited at this point?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that different than the idea that an embryo passes through all of the different stages and supposedly had gills and that sort of thing?

A. We have gills, that's correct. But the evolutionists have a different interpretation today.

Q. What interpretation is that?

A. That it represents — that the gills

190

represent not the fish ancestor, from which we descended, not the adult fish ancestor, but rather a common, stage in the embryology of all vertebrates which mammals have preserved and therefore it indicates conservative heredity.

Q. What's the Cecilia Society?

A. It's a course.

Q. What is "History versus Prophecy" in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE?

A. That is an article commenting on the work of a geologist whose name I forget, it was a long time ago, who claimed that the book of Isaiah described correctly certain aspects of geological processes. It has nothing to do with the creation debate. It's whoever wrote Isaiah knew a lot about processes of erosion, and I argued that in fact what those passages are about is not geological. It's not relevant. You can have a copy if you like.

Q. I would like to have a copy of it.

A. It's my one exercise in biblical exegesis.

Q. What is the article that you wrote in the American Journal of Science called IS

191

UNIFORMITARIANISM NECESSARY?

A. The very first article I ever wrote. How nice of you to go back to it. It's an analysis of the principle of uniformitarianism.

Q. What's the answer to the question?

A. Pardon me?

Q. What's the answer to the question?

A. As among all academics, the answer is yes or no, that uniformitarianism means several different things. Some aspects of which are part of the definition of science, and others of which are testable claims that are wrong.

Q. Are you aware in geology of any sort of trend, to use that term roughly, toward greater discussion of catastrophes?

A. Oh, yes, and we welcome that. But it's not the kind of catastrophism that creationists talk about. As you know, it has a lot of interest now in the asteroidal theory of Cretaceous extinction. This has nothing to do with — there is nothing in the correct application of uniformitarianism that precludes the idea of local catastrophes, or even occasionally global ones produced by impact of extraterrestrial bodies, for

192

example.

Q. So you would not necessarily as a geologist necessarily deny that there have been worldwide catastrophes?

A. The earth is 4 billion years old, and it must have been hit now and again with large bodies like asteroids and comets, but the creationist account calls upon all the strata to be produced by one single such catastrophe. And that is not part of the theory of any geologist.

Q. Where does it say that in the act, that all of that has to come from the one?

A. It doesn't. The act could be read differently, but in the major literature the explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophe is including the occurrence of a worldwide flood. That does indicate that all the earth's geology can be explained by catastrophism.

Q. You're really superimposing what you think it means from other literature into the act, aren't you?

A. It says explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, which indicates that if there was more than one that still the record has

193

to be the record of its catastrophes and it clearly is not. At least not worldwide catastrophes, which is what the ordinary sense of catastrophism is. And the evidence for a recent worldwide flood is nonexistent, by the way.

Q. Are you familiar with Boyden at all? You're not familiar with that name at all?

A. No.

Q. Can you think of other theories which are not falsifiable or testable which are taught in the science curriculum?

A. Other theories than what?

Q. I think you said you felt like that creation-science is not—

A. Creationism is not taught, it shouldn't be.

Q. But can you think of others which have been taught?

A. Today?

Q. Yes.

A. Do you have an example?

Q. I don't know. I am trying to recall. I have read something about that. It seems like perhaps some of Newton's laws — I really can't

194

recall, but are you aware of any others?

A. No.

Q. Have you made any effort to read all of the creation-science literature?

A. You can't read all of it. There is too much. I read a lot of it.

Q. How have you made a decision as to what you would read?

A. There are works cited more than others by people that are in the news more than others. It seems best I read the people whose work seems to be discussed most. And that is certainly most representative.

Q. Have you made — you mean it's been just kind of a subjective decision? Have you provided any specific criteria as reading every fifth book on creation-science that comes out?

A. The major cited works of the people most in the news, which I think is the way you go about reading in any new subject.

Q. Some of the criticisms which have been leveled even by you during this deposition at the creation scientists, have not some criticisms been leveled at you by some other proponents of the

195

modern synthesis theory?

A. Such as?

Q. For example, set up a strawman, unfairly trying to abstract or summarize a theory.

MR. ENNIS: Do you have any particular example?

A. Modes of argument are similar. The question is whether they have validity.

Q. The modes of argument are similar?

A. Yes. People may say the same thing, but I am prepared to argue the characterization in the case of Mr. Gish is fair. It isn't so much that Gish sets up straw men, it's mostly that he doesn't discuss most of the literature at all. I have never been accused of that.

Q. For example, to my earlier question, are you aware that — I forget what the — Ledyard —

A. G. Ledyard.

Q. — and Stebbins has said that "We object to Gould because he misrepresents the synthetic theory." Are you aware of that quote?

A. Sure. That's from his article — maybe it's from a news report. That's a matter for

196

friendly debate between two people who are friends, me and Ledyard, that is. After all, one can characterize a theory in many ways. He thinks I haven't characterized it fairly and I think I have. And I will meet him in Washington this January and maybe we will resolve it and maybe we won't. But we will stay friends and colleagues on the same side of whether or not evolution occurred.

Q. Stebbins has also said, to paraphrase, that while such sudden erratical changes might grow mutations or — macromutations are common, they almost never spread through further generations to become established. Are you familiar with that?

A. I agree with that. That's not the theory of punctuating equilibrium. That's talking about the theory of hopeful monsters that is not a theory that I have pushed.

Q. Do you think that —

A. But I do emphasize that Ledyard and I have no disagreements with whether evolution occurs.

Q. Do you think that Archaeopteryx was a link between reptiles and birds?

197

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you think any modern birds existed at the same time as Archaeopteryx?

A. It's possible — more modern? No. That's a funny question. You mean modern species? Of course. If you mean anatomically more modern, the answer is probably yes because evolution is a branch of a bush and ancestors tend to persist so you always have the more primitive forms while advanced descendants are around. So it's very likely that it would be true.

For example, the genus Australopithecus in the form of Australopithecus robustus, lived on until it became contemporaneous with Homo erectus. It don't mean the genus itself is not ancestral.

(Continued on following page)

198

Q. Is part of your objection to creation-science a notion that it's based on something which is not tentative and not revisable?

A. Yes. It seems to me what's not revisable is the basic belief that a document, namely Genesis, must contain literal truth.

MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

MR. ENNIS: We have no questions.

(Time noted: 4:50 p.m.)

______________________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this ____________ day of ________________1981.

______________________________________

199

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF NEW YORK )

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

I, HELAINE DRIBBEN, a Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify:

That STEPHEN JAY GOULD, the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a true record of the testimony given by such witness.

I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage; and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of November, 1981.

HELAINE DRIBBEN

200

INDEX

WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE

Stephen Jay Gould Mr. Williams 4

EXHIBITS

DEFENDANTS' FOR IDENT.

1 Article from the May 1981 DISCOVER Magazine, an article entitled "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 42

2 Article entitled "Born Again Creationism," by Steve Gould 143

Deposition of Dennis Glasgow

CASE NO. LR-C-81-322

REVEREND WILLIAM McLEAN, *
ET AL. * IN THE UNITED STATES
Plaintiff *
* DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
VS. *
* DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF *
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, * WESTERN DIVISION
ET AL. *
Defendant *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORAL DEPOSITION OF DENNIS GLASGOW

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES:

MS. LAURIE FERBER, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, 919 Third Avenue, New Yore,
10022

AND

MR. PHILIP KAPLAN, Kaplan, Hollingsworth, Brewer
& Bilheimer, 950 Tower Building, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201
** For the Plaintiffs

MR. CALLIS CHILDS, Assistant Attorney General,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
** For the Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF DENNIS GLASGOW, a witness
produced on behalf of the Defendants, taken in the above
styled and numbered cause on the 2nd day of December, 1981
before Michelle R. Nienstedt, a Notary Public in and for
Pulaski County, Arkansas at the office of Mr. Cearley,
1014 West Third, Little Rock, Arkansas at 12:15 p.m.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LAURA BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
1100 N. University, Suite 223
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) 664-7357

2

I N D E X

TOPIC PAGE

Stipulations 3

Witness sworn in: DENNIS GLASGOW 3

Direct Examination by Mr. Childs 4

Defendant's Exhibits #1 through #10 introduced to
the record. 117

Defendant's Exhibits #11 through #17 introduced to
the record 118

[All exhibits found under separate cover]

Certificate 120

3

DENNIS GLASGOW

the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned
and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CHILDS:

Q. Would you tell the court reporter your full name?

A. Dennis R. Glasgow.

Q. Where are you employed Mr. Glasgow?

A. With the Little Rock School District.

Q. And what is your -- what position do you have
with the Little Rock School District?

A. I am supervisor of science.

Q. Okay. And what do your responsibilities include?

S. First of all, as far as grade levels are concerned,
I am responsible for all science grades K through 12.
Primarily, I am a staff person. I do not have direct
responsibility or authority over the science teachers.
My role is primarily as consultant and helper to science
teachers. My role also includes curriculum, curriculum
development, curriculum revision. I have a large role in
selection of textbooks, development of curriculum
guides. I have a large role in scheduling in-service
courses and in-service meetings and so forth for science
teachers. And I'm the major advisor to the School

4

Board and the superintendent regarding all matters
concerning science.

Q. What is your educational background, college?

A. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Education
from Southern State College in Magnolia. I have a
Master's of Science degree with a major emphasis in
Biology and a minor in Education from Arkansas State
University. I have an Educational Specialist degree in
school administration from the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville.

Q. Do you have any other hours, any other courses
other than those?

A. No.

Q. Okay. What impact will Act 590 have on the science
and non-science curricula in the Little Rock school
systems?

A. I'm not sure what impact it will have on the
non-science curricula. My determination is that, as far
as the science curricula are concerned, of course, at
this time I can't predict exactly what the impact will
be. But my idea is that certainly we do not have
materials within our present curriculum that I think
would meet the requirements of Act 590. So, materials
would have to be secured and/or developed to meet that.
Teachers, in my opinion, are not sufficiently trained

5

at this time to handle the components of Act 590. So,
it's my opinion that teacher training will have to
take place prior to implementation of that Act. From the
administrative end of it, that would be the impact.

Q. Is that the -- is that going to be the viewpoint
that you will be discussing your testimony from?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What -- when you said that -- to meet the
requirements of Act 590 that you would have to acquire
materials or develop materials, what were you referring
to as the requirements of Act 590?

A. Well, in Section 1 of Act 590 there is a
requirement for balanced treatment. And there's a
statement that textbooks, and lectures, and library
materials, and assorted things that are used in the
educational program must be -- or balanced treatment
must be given to those things taken as a whole. So,
since -- to my knowledge, the textbooks, the library
materials, the lectures, et cetera that we are using in
the science program in the Little Rock School District
do not give any treatment that I know of to Creation --
Creation Science as defined in the Act, then those
materials would have to be secured in my opinion.

Q. Where is Creation Science defined in the Act?

A. Section 4.

6

Q. A.

A. Section 4A, right.

Q. Okay. Do you anticipate that there will be any
difficulty in acquiring materials or developing materials?

A. Yes, I certainly do.

Q. Okay. Okay. What difficulty would you anticipate?

A. Well, as supervisor of science and having
responsibility in the area of curriculum, I frequently
attended regional science meetings, state science
meetings, et cetera during which there were exhibit
halls full of science materials; books, phamplets,
et cetera, just thousands of documents, things that
could be used in science. And I have not seen any in
those meetings that dealt with Creation Science. So,
consequently I don't view it as being a very easy matter
to secure materials that could be used.

Q. How difficult is it going to be?

A. Well, I don't know since we haven't tried to secure
any yet, but I anticipate that there will be a great deal
of difficulty since I, like I said, at these meetings,
I've not seen any.

Q. Is it going to be impossible?

A. It will be very difficult. I would hate to say
impossible. I hate to deal in absolute terms like
that. I have not seen anything that would be

7

appropriate.

Q. Well, I know there are various degrees of
difficulty. One difficulty would be presented if it were
not presented in the places that you customarily see
it presented, such as regional conventions. And then
there is a difficulty that you would encounter if it were
impossible. If it's going to be impossible for you to
acquire materials, I'd like you to tell me it is. If it's
just going to merely be difficult or very difficult, I'd
like for you to tell me that.

A. As far as Creation Science, as defined in the Act, I
don't think it would be impossible to acquire materials that
deal with those things as listed in the Act. I think there
is going to be great difficulty with the materials that we
might be able to obtain. I think there are materials
that can be obtained. I'm certainly not saying in any
way that they're suitable materials or that we could use
them. But there are some that could be obtained for the
purpose of preview or whatever.

Q. Okay. What kind of materials can be obtained?

A. The only materials I'm familiar with that can be
obtained that I have seen or looked over in a very --
not a very thorough manner, you know, just glanced over

8

Creation Science Institutes.

Q. Okay. And can you tell me the names of any of the
books that you've looked at?

A. Not offhand.

Q. Okay. Is there anything particularly wrong or
unacceptable about the books that you have glanced through?

A. Yes. The books that I have seen, in my opinion,
would not be acceptable.

Q. And why not?

A. Primarily because I don't think they fit in the
science curriculum.

Q. Is there anything in particular which would keep
them from fitting into the science curriculum?

A. Yes, to kind of go back to the front end of this,
since I haven't made this statement yet. I do not
view Creation Science, as defined in the Act, as
something that's appropriate for the science curriculum.

Q. Okay. And you're referring to section 4A, 1 through
6 where it gives the definition of Creation Science as
including --

A. Materials that would be used to support or that deal
with those particular ideas in section 4A are -- yes,
that's what I'm referring to.

Q. Okay. And -- okay. You had said that the Creation
Science materials were unacceptable.

9

A. In my opinion. I said I haven't looked at them
thoroughly. I've looked through them, you know, to a
greater degree than just thumbing through the pages. I
haven't studied those materials, but from what I have
seen of them I do not think that they would be
appropriate.

Q. Why would they not be appropriate?

A. Because I don't think the books represent science
as I know it.

Q. Okay. Is there any other reason that these books are
not acceptable?

A. Well, this would -- the primary reason is, like I
said, because they don't represent science.

A. I do think that they -- if not directly, they come
awful close to treating religion.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me anything in specific that you
saw in any of these Creation Science books that you
glanced through, which would relate to religion?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what was that?

A. The treatment of the geology of the earth that
deals with sudden changes in the earth or catastrophism
and that would give the earth a very short age, in
general. And specifically, the idea that there was a
worldwide flood.

10

Q. Okay. And you do not thing that that, well for
lack of better words, is within the broad mainstream of
scientific thought?

A. I do not.

Q. And you do not find it acceptable for that reason?
Let me ask you this. Did you object to Creation Science
materials that you glanced through because they referred
to the Bible or did you see any references to the Bible,
or Genesis, or anything like that?

A. Well, I hate to be hazy on this, but I do believe
that I saw reference to the Bible in some of the books
that I looked at. I cannot be specific on it because
it's been quite a time ago that I looked at the books.
And I did not look at them with the idea that I would be,
you know, trying to recall those things. I do -- it
seems like, can't be specific, that I do remember the
mention of the Bible in some of the books. Not only
books, but books and phamplets and so forth and so
on. I couldn't classify them all as text books. A few
of them were textbook sort of things. Some of them were
simply phamplets, handouts, news letters, and things
like that.

Q. Where did you see these?

A. Oh, it's probably been several places. I'm going
to give you all that I can remember. Six or seven years

11

ago, Duane Gish was a -- I can't remember whether it was
the Arkansas State Science Teachers meeting had him as a
speaker, or whether it was a Little Rock School District
Science meeting had him as a speaker. And there were
handouts available on tables for people to pick up at
that time. I believe also Richard Bliss, at later
sometime, was a speaker at one of those meetings. I
can't recall which one. Even at our science meeting this
year there were handouts available on Creation Science. I
secured -- no one sent me those books directly. I think
they were all form indirect sources, meetings and so forth
that I've attended. And I've picked up materials. And
Marianne Wilson had some books that she was using for
preview. I borrowed some through her that I looked through.

Q. Were you doing preview work?

A. Sort of an initial -- I felt like if I was going to
be faced with the issue, Act 590 had been passed at that
time, that perhaps it was time that I....

Q. Started getting ready, for lack of a better word.

A. Yeah, sort of.

Q. Now then, now you're aware that Section 2 prohibits
any references to religious writings, are you not?

A. Yes, I'm familiar with that.

Q. So, by definition, any text material or written
material that referred to the Bible would be prohibited

12

by the Act.

A. That's what's written in the section, yes.

Q. Okay. Would you anticipate recommending use in the
classroom of any textbook that had reference to religious
writings?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now then, as I understand basically you're
going to testify that it's going to be very difficult to
acquire materials setting out the six items in the
definition in Section 4A?

A. That it will be difficult to acquire appropriate items
under that. I think items can be acquired.

Q. Tell me one more time what you mean when you say
appropriate -- or inappropriate.

A. Well, I've not seen anything yet that I deemed
appropriate. The things that I've seen have not, as I
think I said a minute ago, have not represented any
scientific thought that I've been exposed to. They've
not represented any information that I was presented in
any of the many science courses that I've taken. I've
not seen anything in scientific journals that I have
read that deals with this. And I've noticed on the
books that I received that they were either printed
through one of the other -- the Creation Science Research
Institutes, or whatever. There are three or four of

13

those. Or something like Eden productions or something
that does not represent a mainstream or even a scientific
organization that I was familiar to prior to several
years ago when I first heard, I guess, the word Creation
Science. It's not anything I've been exposed to. It's
not anything that's in the journals. It's not anything
that I was ever taught. It's not anything that I'm familiar
with. It seems like a very limited source of material. I
think that anytime anything is developed in the way of
curriculum, you would want a wide variety of materials from
a large number of different sources. And these seem to be
pretty much single source items that are not published by
mainstream scientific organizations. I do not feel like
that the six items under section 4A represent the current
mainstream thought in science. With all that in mind, I
don't find these appropriate for inclusion.

But as far as finding materials that
deal with these things, they can be found from, like I
said before, a limited number of sources that I know
of. So, from that standpoint the materials can be -- you
know, they can be acquired. If someone thought, which I
do not, that the materials were appropriate I would
think that it would be very useful from the standpoint
of developing some sort of curriculum to be able to get
information from more than what I consider one source.

14

Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it
you have two objections to materials that you are aware
of that could be acquired. One, is that insofar as
they have religious references, you think that would be
inappropriate.

A. Yes.

Q. And two, insofar as they're outside the broad
mainstream of the scientific fields, they're inappropriate.
Is that a fair statement?

A. I might be a little more restrictive on your last
statement, as far as it being outside of the broad
mainstream. I might want to make that mainstream a
little bit broader than that. To my knowledge, if -- as
far as -- it's kind of hard for me to say exactly. I'm
not sure they're in the -- you talk about the mainstream.
I'm not even sure that it's in the fringes that I know of.
If it is in the fringes of science it' in the far extreme
fringes. So, as far as something not being in the
mainstream, meaning just the middle part of it and maybe
they're out in the, you know, the boundry part of science,
I'm not even sure they're there. In my opinion, these
things would be probably excluded from what I would
consider science at all. If they do touch on science
it would be just barely the edging into it.

Q. Are there any other objections that you have to

15

the materials that are available?

A. Not that I can think of at the current time.

Q. Okay. Can you develop materials from the scientific
fields which would support item number one in Section 4A?

A. Your question again?

Q. Can -- before I've been asking you about acquiring,
now I'm going to ask you about development within the
Little Rock public schools. Can you develop, from the
scientific journals that you're aware of, information which
would support -- scientific information which would support
number one in 4A?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Two?

A. No.

Q. Three?

A. No.

Q. Four?

A. No.

Q. Five?

A. No.

Q. Six?

A. No.

Q. Are you telling me that it's not in the literature or
that you're not aware of it?

A. Well, naturally that I'm not aware of it because I

16

haven't looked at all the literature.

Q. Okay. What, in your opinion, would be the
attributes of credible evidence in what you call science
of any of the items in 4A, 1 through 6?

A. I think to be credible and to be useful, the
information about our physical world, universe, whatever
is uncovered or discovered or found, or whatever by
a scientist, a legitimate working scientist. Or let's
just say a working scientist. I'm not sure how you would
determine how they're legitimate. I guess you could look at
their background and so forth. The tidbits or maybe even
major parts of information that is unearthed or discovered
or whatever, is interpreted -- usually informally.
colleagues with standing in the scientific community are
aware of it and they have an opportunity to critique it,
informally many times. Sometimes the close colleagues or
the person that maybe made the discovery or that came up
with the concept.

And if all that goes all right,
usually it's either -- the information with the
interpretation is published in a scientific journal or
it's presented as a paper, and is printed in the
proceedings of some sort of convention or conference, or
something. And that gives scientists all over the world
an opportunity to look at the information, to critique

17

it, to duplicate it if they wish, to respond by subsequent
articles in those journals. After it's met all of those
criteria, then depending upon whether it survived all of
that as a legitimate piece of information, if it did
survive all of those steps that I just mentioned, then I
feel like it's a legitimate bit of information that could
be used by a science educator in teaching students.

Q. Okay. One of the things that you said is that it
would be a legitimate scientist. What is -- would be a
legitimate scientist?

A. Well, as you recall, when I said that I said, "I
don't now how exactly how you would go about defining
that." But I would think a legitimate -- I can't say
this absolutely because sometimes, I guess it would
be possible although I'm not personally familiar with
the -- people that have no recognition in the scientific
community, I suppose sometimes might come up with
something that would meet all of these tests. But
usually it's someone that has previous publications in the
respected mainstream of scientific journals whether it's
a -- may be a professor or a teacher at some major or
even minor university.

But I would say that the main factor
that I would use in establishing whether a person was a
legitimate scientist or not is the past work that they

18

had done in an area and the past publications that they
had had. Although I'm not saying -- there may be some
legitimate people that -- you have to publish a first
time. So, you know, even if someone hasn't published
before there's always a first time. I'm not saying that
you -- this is an absolute. But as a general rule of
thumb in my mind, that's what a legitimate scientist would
be.

Q. Well, is it generally -- is it generally true that
-- that you need to -- let's say if you were in physics,
that you would go to -- and I don't even know which
schools which they have the best graduate work in physics,
but is that generally how it works? Do your graduate work
and Ph.D. work.

A. I don't know whether you could say generally. That
would be a major -- one of the major avenues that the
research would be generated, et cetera. I don't think
all of your research is done at the major universities,
but that would -- some of the most prominent stuff, I
guess, would be.

Q. Okay. Anything else that you can think of that would
lend credibility or legitimacy to a scientist?

A. Well yeah, there would be other things. Membership
in professional scientific organizations and academies,
respectability among colleagues in the field, things

19

such as that.

Q. Honors that you might have won in the field?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Anything else you can think of?

A. No, not offhand.

Q. Okay. Would there be -- well is it generally that
-- is it generally true, or most of the times true, or
never true that legitimate scientists basically have a
particular area of expertise that they work within? Or
do they -- I mean, like -- do physicists do chemical
engineering research, or do they pretty well stay within
their fields?

A. Well, I would say it would be a fair statement to say
that they stay within their fields usually.

Q. You talked about you have what would be called
informal review by colleagues. Would that usually be a
situation where you would say if you were to take physics
again at the Physics Department at Berkeley, that you
would send a rough draft around to the colleagues in that
area?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that customarily done?

A. Since I'm not involved in research. I can't say it's
customarily done. I think that it is.

Q. And then you said something about that you do the

20

research and you interpret -- interpretation was involved
in it.

A. Well, you gather data or you discover tidbits
of information. The raw data or the information in and
of itself is not useful in most cases unless it's
interpreted some way. So, I think generally some
interpretation or conclusions of data --

Q. Predictions.

A. Predictions, conclusions or whatever have to be
given.

Q. Okay. How do you -- is there anyway -- any kind of
information that scientists have in reaching their
interpretations?

A. Is there any kind of information that they have in
reaching their interpretations? You mean other than the
information at hand. that's part of the data that was
collected?

Q. Right.

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. Well, like a physicist would -- let's say that a --
that you would -- that you're a physicist and you're
doing research and you find some sort of
sub-sub-sub-atomic particle that is behaving in a
particular sort of way. What -- if you're a physicist,
is there any kind of particular reference posed or

21

guidelines that you'd have in interpreting your data?

A. Of course, there would be all the work that was
done before you.

Q. Okay.

A. You know, most scientific endeavors include a
review of the literature. So, I assume that any person that
was going to interpret that would base that upon
knowledge that was gathered by previous people and that
had been published previously, et cetera.

Q. So, you basically would be -- you would look
to what had gone before and interpreting the data that
you have.

A. You would certainly take what had gone on before in
mind when you interpreted it.

Q. Okay. What do you do if your data, you observe
the data and you apply everything that is -- that has
been published before and you take all the laws, theorems,
and reasoning analysis and you look at all of it. And
what, in your data, cannot rationally be interpreted
based on that information, rationally or logically or
scientifically?

A. Well, I assume that that would be the point that
you would go to your colleagues and so forth to -- for
assistance.

Q. Okay. And they said --

22

A. If you discovered some physical phenomena that's
there, that's behaving in a certain way and you don't
understand or can't interpret why it's behaving that
way or whatever, the fact that it is is useful
information even though maybe no prediction can be --
prediction or conclusions or whatever can be made
regarding that. In this instance, the information in
itself in the example that you gave, if you found a
sub-atomic particle behaving in a certain way, that
information in itself would be worth while and would
probably be published without interpretation.

Q. Okay. Let's suppose that you go to your colleagues
informally, and then you publish your information in a
pure review publication and everybody says that's very
interesting, but it doesn't fit any of the laws, or
theories, or predictions that have ever been made, what does
that mean?

A. Well I'm going to try to answer that. I'm not exactly
sure, so as I answer your questions why don't --

Q. Let me give you an example. There was a lady that
got an award within the last two weeks that came up with
a theory in 1951 talking gene mutation, which was
published and forgotten. And it's taken some, I think,
20 years -- I think the 70's was the first time that
anybody went back and said "Hey, this lady is right."

23

How does that happen that somebody can be absolutely
correct, be published and be totally ignored?

A. Well, the same -- I'm not saying that's extremely
rare. I would think that would be something that might
be reasonably common. Gregor Mendel, for instance, in
his initial work on heredity published a paper, and it
was rediscovered a number of years lateer. In his
case, the scientific technology -- I think some of
Einstein's work was the same way. The technology, at
that time, was not sufficient to allow, you know, a good
interpretation of the information. It might be that the
-- if that is the first tidbit of information that's
unearthed regarding this particular think that there is
simply not enough information that's been accumulated in
order to organize it in anyway that is understandable.
Maybe it has to wait for years for other bits of information
which might be yielded by advanced technology or whatever to
come about -- to accumulate enough information that could be
organized in some meaningful way.

Q. Well, wasn't Mendel's work directly contrary to the
accepted views in the broad mainstream of science at
the time?

A. I can't answer that.

Q. What about Einstein's views and interpretations,
weren't they directly contrary to all accepted views in

24

his field at the time?

A. I can't answer that. I would hazard a guess. I
would say that some of it, in both cases, possibly was.

MS. FERBER: For the record, I must
indicate that we do not intend to offer Mr. Glasgow as an
expert on science, nor on religion, nor as an expert on
education in general. And I will have a continuing
objection to questions which attempt to put him in the
the posture of an expert in science.

MR. CHILDS: Ms. Ferber, anytime that a
witness tells me that he's going to refer to the opinions
of what he considers the scientific peers, the scientific
community, then I think that opens up to show whether or
not he knows what he's talking about.

MS. FERBER: I understand the necessity
for your line of questioning. I just want that on the
record.

BY MR. CHILDS:

Q. Okay. Now then, what about Darwin? Were his
views contrary to all of the -- I think there was one guy
who had published something about his time named Walter.

A. Wallace.

Q. Wallace. And other than those two, and maybe one or
two others, they were contrary to everything that
everybody else believed?

25

A. My understanding is that that's basically correct.

Q. What about Galileo?

A. I think that would be a fair assumption based upon
what I have studied about it.

Q. Newton?

A. I think this would be, like I said before, not an
uncommon occurrence. When something -- something is
discovered that is new and that's maybe isolated that
needs additional data to support it, initial ideas
may not be accepted entirely.

Q. And you think that's a perfectly legitimate
process? Let me rephrase. Do you think that is a
legitimate process?

A. Sure.

Q. You don't see any problem with science, as an
establishment, keeping out new ideas?

A. Science as an establishment doing what?

Q. Keeping out new ideas, new interpretations.

A. Keeping out.

Q. New ideas or retarding their being disseminated.

A. No. I think I answered right. I forget what you
asked. No, I do not think it's the purpose of science to
keep out or retard new ideas?

Q. Well if the legitimacy of new ideas is to be
judged in light of what is currently known, then any idea

26

by definition which is contrary to what is commonly known
or accepted is going to be rejected?

A. None of the ideas that you've talked about are
rejected -- were rejected. They're all still here.
As far as I know they -- of course, I can't -- I don't
know what the situation exactly was back with Galileo, et
cetera. But the common ideas, Darwin for instance. His
ideas were published in legitimate journals and so forth.
And they had peer review. And in fact, most of them,
even though they were contrary to the views at the time,
were accepted among the scientific community, to my
knowledge relatively quickly. Although that wouldn't
have to necessarily be true. I think things can be
legitimate, can be published, can go through that same
process I talked about whether they are uniformly supported
by other people or not.

Q. Well, how long does it take an idea to appear,
become, for lack of a better word, legitimized and
then to appear in a textbook?

A. Well, of course that would vary so greatly that it
would be hard to answer your question.

Q. Can you give me an example, any example of how long
it has taken for any particular idea?

A. To go through the process and to appear in a
textbook. Well, let's take -- I'm just going have to

27

give you a very general idea because that's all I know.

Q. Okay.

A. And I don't even know when the research was started,
so I can't even say that. But from the information on
genetic engineering, et cetera, its just recently been
in textbooks. I don't know how long ago that was
initiated. I would -- the first initiation of it could
have been a long time ago, but I would say, not even
commenting on how long the research took but to get a
textbook printed, to get the ideas and get them in a
textbook and get them printed, would take several years.

Q. I know -- I understand that ya'll have to use the
textbooks that ya'll have for five years.

A. That's right.

Q. So the minimum amount of time that, if you just go
into textbooks not supplemental material or reference
material, but just textbooks, would be five years?

A. Would be five years at the end of our five year
adoption.

Q. Right.

A. The first year of our adoption, of course, would
entail --

Q. Would at least be at least --

A. One to five -- well, how ever long it takes to
publish, probably two to seven years or whatever.

28

Q. You're right, I'm sorry. What do you think the
scientific community's reaction would have been if Albert
Einstein had appeared at the New York legislature? When
did he publish -- when did Einstein publish the
principles of relativity?

A. I don't know.

Q. Let's say 1927. Let's say that he had appeared at
the New York legislature in 1927 and said "I have a
revelation. I have figured it all out, and E squared. And I want you to aquire a law requiring the
physics teachers in the State of New York to teach my
theory." What would have been the scientific community's
reaction?

A. That's hard for me to guess. If I were a member of
the scientific community myself, at that time, and what I
think other members would do is that they would strenuously
object to that.

Q. Okay. Now then, we were talking about developing
materials. And I'm not quite sure how we got off -- and
we started talking about the scientific process, and
how ideas developed in the scientific community, and
interpretation in journals and all of that. And my
question is, can you develop materials, as opposed to
acquire, can you develop materials which would serve as a
textbook or supplemental materials for students which

29

would show the scientific evidence for one through
six in Section 4A?

A. Not in my opinion.

Q. Okay. And as I understand it, your opinion is that it
can't be done because it's not science?

A. That's correct.

Q. What are you going to do if you are given a choice
of putting something together or losing your employment?

MS. FERBER: If you are prepared to
answer that.

Q. If you're prepared to answer that. I think that
that would be a necessity -- a possible situation that
you could very well be faced with if we prevail on
the constitutionality of Act 590.

A. I'm not prepared to answer positively. I can tell
you what I want I hope I would do.

Q. What do you hope you will do?

A. If it came down to -- to doing what I think you
said, and if you mean putting -- well, I guess I better
not answer. I don't know exactly what you mean by
putting something together or losing my employment.

Q. Well, the Act requires that a balanced treatment
for what is defined -- what is called Creation Science
and is defined in one through six. I'm just wondering
what you're going to do.

30

A. Your question is, if I have a choice of -- first of
all, if I had the individual responsibility, which I
do not, but if I had the responsibility of developing
something that would meet the requirements of Act 590
or lose my employment. Is that what your question is
basically?

Q. I hate to ask you that kind of a question, but I think
that that is -- I think that's probably more real an
alternative than Ms. Ferber does, but I think that's
a very strong possibility.

A. I think it's -- I think I have options before
it comes to that. If it did come to that, I presume I
would lose my employment.

Q. Okay. Well, do you think that the legislature
has left you any discretion to decide what science is
under the Act? You referring to the Little Rock public
schools or school districts.

MS. FERBER: Excuse me. to determine what
science is?

MR. CHILDS: Yes. To make any
personal interpretations of what is science or what is
not science.

A. My first impression is that my answer would be now.
But on the other hand, I don't think Act 590 is clear in
many respects. I think that it is up to someone to

31

interpret. But my way of interpreting it is that very
little discretion is left in that area.

Q. Well, the legislature has said that we want the
scientific evidence which supports 4A, 1 through 6
given a balanced treatment within the public schools.
And the people who, in the public schools, have the
responsibility for doing this very thing are people like
yourself in positions similar to the one that you hold. And
if they all lie down and say, "I can't do it." then
that's going to put their school districts and school
boards in a real bind. They're going to have to find
somebody else to do it. And I just don't want that
to have to happen. And I have a hard time believing that
you can't take whatever evidence is available, which
doesn't refer to the Bible, and put it together on
1 through 6.

MS. FERBER: I object to --

Q. Is it something that's personal with you? Is this
a personal feeling with you?

MS. FERBER: I object to the form of
the question. And counsel is basically making a speech
and asking over again the questions which he's already
directed to Mr. Glasgow.

Q. Let me ask you, is this a personal feeling which
you've had? Please disregard what I've said before.

32

A. I've spent quite a number of years in my preparation
in science. And I guess through my experiences with
science, I'm appreciative of what science is. And yes,
it's a personal, professional, ethical issue with me.
And it would be very similar I guess to some medical
researcher saying, "Well, you have to give equal or
balanced treatment to the people that say the creams
in the "Parade" magazine on Sunday that you rub on your
bald scalp grows hair." Their research or their evidence
must be given balanced treatment with
that of your medical research. That's the way I view
it.

Q. Well, do you feel personally offended that the --
that the legislature would suppose to have the expertise
to make this kind of decision?

A. Personally and professionally offended, yes.

Q. Basically, it's not their job?

A. That's my feeling.

Q. Okay.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Childs, whenever
you're at an appropriate breaking place, can I take a
short recess?

MR. CHILDS: You timed it perfectly.

[Recess.]

Q. How are evolution and creationism treated in

33

textbooks currently approved for use in Arkansas and
the Little Rock school systems? And would the best
way to do that be book by book?

A. That would -- yeah, that would be suitable.

Q. Why don't you tell me generally how evolution and
creationism are treated.

MS. FERBER: Would you break that into
two questions, please? How evolution is treated and how
creationism is treated.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you this question first. Is
there a difference between books in use in Arkansas,
approved for use in Arkansas and books approved for use in
the Little Rock school systems?

A. The books approved for use in the Little Rock
school system are chosen from those that are approved
by the State of Arkansas.

Q. So, we can --

A. I can respond to those in Little Rock. I'm not
familiar with all of the books that are on the state list.

Q. Okay. So, your testimony is the books that are
approved -- that are on the Arkansas list that are
used in Little Rock?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. Now then --

MS. FERBER: For purposes of this

34

deposition, that would be the scope of his testimony on
those questions.

MR. CHILDS: Okay. Is that going to be
the scope of his testimony at the trial?

MS. FERBER: I imagine it will be, but
we certainly reserve the right to show Mr. Glasgow other
books approved for use in Arkansas which he may have
seen in the past.

MR. CHILDS: Well, if he's going to
testify about any books other than the ones that we have
-- that copies have been made of, which will be made
exhibits today, we would expect that he be made available
for a limited deposition of those. Is there any problem
with that.

MS. FERBER: I don't anticipate that
there is. I mean we are reserving our right to ask him if
he has other information as to other textbooks.

MR. CHILDS: I don't have any problem
with that. I just want to be able to have a chance to
talk to him about it.

MS. FERBER: I'm sure that we can agree
on the proper procedure for handling that.

BY MR. CHILDS:

Q. Now then, so we're going to talk about the ones that
you're familiar with today, today. Generally, how is

35

evolution treated in the books that are used -- currently
in use in Little Rock school system?

A. Would -- would you want to define or give me some
idea of what you mean by evolution? Are you including
things related to or similar to those things that are
listed in Act 590 as Evolution Science.

Q. Well, I'm merely using the language that counsel
for the plaintiff has used in describing your testimony
to state that you will "survey and testify about how
evolution and creationism are treated in textbooks
currently approved for use in Arkansas and in the Little
Rock school systems."

A. Okay. I'll do that.

Q. I cannot vouch for how they defined evolution.

MS. FERBER: I think we trust using Mr.
Glasgow that.

A. You want me to start?

Q. Just tell me generally, first.

A. First of all, what -- the way we're defining
evolution I think is a legitimate way as far as this
whole proceeding is concerned, are those things that
would be concerned with biological or organic evolution,
plus those things that would be concerned with age of the
earth, origin of the universe, formation of the solar
system, and such things as that. Generally -- generally

36

speaking, at the lower grades, as would be true with any
any subject really any science type subject, there is not
an in depth discussion of anything in particular.
However, there are things that are consistent with my
understanding of what evolution is. And even though you
read that page and it doesn't say evolution, such and
such, such and such, such and such, the implication to
anyone, -- any teacher, would be that this is
concerned with either organic evolution or evolution of
the physical universe of some sort. It starts really --
I think 2nd grade is the first place in which some
mention is made of either -- that which has something to do
with the age of the earth, the age of the universe,
creation of the solar system or evolution of living kinds,
and continues to some degree
in, I believe, 2nd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade and 6th
grade even though it's not an in depth discussion. It's not
a chapter designated solely to discussion of such things,
but it does appear. Things that would concern me, things
that in my mind or in my way, like I said earlier, Act 590
to me is not clear. But you have to interpret what you think
it's about. And these are things that, in my mind, would
require implementation of provisions of Act 590.

And there are quite a few things at the
elementary level. Biology -- or lets go back. Life

37

Science, that's 7th grade, has some things. Physical
Science at the 8th grade has very little concern with
that because that's not the primary focus of that course.
Earth Science, which in Little Rock, we deal with at the
9th grade, would contain considerable information that
would be dealing with evolution as defined. You don't
use the word evolution, but age of the earth, origin of the
universe, and things such as that. A very substantial
portion of that book deals with that. Biology, the -- I
would say threads of evolution run throughout the book,
almost every chapter in the book. Primarily, in this
case, concern with organic evolution, specific species,
or families, or orders, or whatever of animals changing
over time to different species, families, orders, et
cetera. And organic evolution is present pretty much
throughout the Biology book. Chemistry at the 11th grade,
to my knowledge, has very little that would pertain directly
to that. And likewise, Physics at the 12th grade level has
very little that would pertain directly to this. There's
not anything in either Chemistry or Physics that I've
identified as something that would be involved in this. We
have an advanced Biology course that's offered at the 12th
grade, it's an elective course. And it, to even a greater
degree than the 10th grade Biology, would deal with
evolution. It's an advanced, sort of an honors, college --

38

Q. Bound.

A. -- honors, college bound type course that actually
uses college textbooks. And to a very significant
degree, I think, evolution is found in that book from
cover to cover almost.

So, summarizing my answer, I would say
to a significant degree in my mind at the elementary
level, evolution is treated in the forms that I've talked
about. And Earth Science and Biology, both the 10th
grade Biology and 12th grade advanced biology, evolution
is a major portion of those courses. It's not treated
to any large degree in Physical Science, Physics or
Chemistry.

Q. Okay. What about creationism as it's used in the
counsel -- plaintiffs' counsel's description of your
testimony?

MS. FERBER: Excuse me, creationism is
used in the description of testimony as it relates
to its treatment in textbooks currently approved for
use in Arkansas, Little Rock.

MR. CHILDS: Right.

A. There is a reference to creationism in the teacher's
edition part of the biology textbook that we currently
use.

Q. Which says that -- refers to it as creationism

39

being a subject for a paper, possible research project as
to religion. Is that the one you're referring to?

A. Do you mind if I refer?

Q. No, I don't mind at all.

A. I could pick better out of here. I know it's in
here.

MS. FERBER: If you have a copy of that,
I'd appreciate if you could also find it also in the copy,
so that we can put it in the record.

Q. I will. Let's see what page it's on first.
Here it is. Page 3 of the teacher's part of Modern
Biology.

Q. What's that exhibit number on the label?

A. Nine.

Q. Defendant's Exhibit #9.

A. Throughout biology -- the teacher's part -- the
teacher background information of the biology text there are
little sections called challenges in biology. And this
particular one is dealing with the origin of life on earth.
And it states that, "one of the major challenges in biology
is the answer to the question of how life first originated
on the earth. Two of the the most well known are those
expressed by the creationist and the biochemist. The
creationist theory generally theorizes that life was created
by God and that the fundamental teachings of the Old

40

Testament are true in detail. The biochemist's theory, on
the other hand, theorizes that life originated from a
chemical soup. The soup contained such elements as carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and so forth." It simply states
that this question or controversy remains as a challenge in
biology. "Although both these theories have been considered
opposite, many responsible persons do not subscribe totally
to either theory. Recent discoveries in science make this
truely a challenge in biology."

Q. Does that infer that only irresponsible persons
subscribe to only one theory?

A. No. It says, "Many responsible persons." I don't
think it says all responsible persons.

Q. Why didn't it just say many persons?

A. Why doesn't it say just many persons?

Q. Yeah, what does responsible add to that sentence?
It says "Although both these theories," referring to
creationist theory and biochemistry theory "have been
considered opposite. Many responsible persons do not
subscribe totally to either theory." dose that infer that
only irresponsible persons subscribe only to one theory.

A. That's not my interpretation.

Q. Okay.

A. As far as I know, that's the extent and the
substance of creationism in the textbooks that we use in

41

Little Rock.

Q. Is this is it, you're referring to the third column
on page 3 of Defendants Exhibit 9.

A. Yes.

Q. And that's it.

A. I think so. It's the only one I'm --

Q. I'm not going to hold you to that, but that's all
that you're aware of?

A. That's all that I had -- yeah, that I was -- the
only one that I noticed and had ear marked in my book.

Q. I take it you've looked for any references to
creationism or whatever.

A. I've looked.

Q. And that's the only one you found?

A. [Witness nods.]

Q. Okay.

MS. FERBER: Excuse me, I'm going to
have to take another short recess if counsel would like
us to provide the papers that are due.

MR. CHILD: Well, I'm not certain that I
wouldn't rather that those be filed tomorrow. But we can
take a recess, yes certainly.

[Recess.]

Q. Let me ask you a question. Under 4 -- Section 4B
of the Act, 1 through 6, does -- does this definition of

42

evolution science describe evolution as you understand
it?

A. Not entirely and completely. It's an approximate
facsimile of my understanding of evolution.

Q. I'm sure -- are you saying that it is much more
complex than this definition would indicate?

A. No.. I'm just saying that -- well it, of course,
includes subcomponents et cetera that would be much more
complex than that. But my statement that I made is
that some of these aren't entirely 100% accurate as far
as my understanding of what evolution -- as far as my
understanding of a -- what most scientists regard as the
process of evolution.

Q. Are any of them inaccurate in what they actually
say, in what the definitions actually state? And if so,
which ones?

A. First, I would like to --

Q. Okay.

A. As far as inaccuracy, the word "kind" in number
three is not part of my vocabulary as it concerns
evolution. I've never really used that word or heard it
used in the courses that I've taken and my knowledge of
evolution. That's not necessarily an inaccuracy it's
just not the correct terminology Q. Okay.

A. Number five, I don't think is an accurate

43

representation. I don't think number five -- number five
would generally be true. I don't think that it would be
held in complete agreement among scientists.

Q. As to uniformitarianism?

A. I think generally, most scientists and people that
-- teachers that I've had, et cetera, would generally
accept uniformitarianism as an accurate representation
of the earth's geology. I don't think that would
necessarily be true. I think some people are saying that
there might be some times during the earth's geology
that the processes weren't necessarily as slow and
gradual and uniform, possibly, as they are now. But I
think that is generally what that -- generally would be
true with that exception.

A. Okay. I'm not sure that all scientists agree that
mutation and natural selection are entirely adequate
either. Generally, I think that would be reasonably
true.

Q. Okay. I think in two they also use the phrase
"kinds."

A. That's what I mentioned earlier. Yes, I'm not
familiar with what word in the context of evolution.

Q. If -- let's try again. When Judge Overton rules
that Act 590 is constitutional, what kind of changes will be
required in the textbooks?

44

A. Well, according to Act 590, we're not going to have
to throw out our textbooks. Let's assume that it were in
place next year, we are not going to have to throw our
textbooks out that we have now. And we've got three more
years left on our adoption. But in subsequent adoptions,
I would imagine that we would need to choose textbooks
with a more balanced view than what the current ones
have.

Q. What would you be required to do to bring your
textbooks into compliance with Act 590?

A. My opinion is that -- well, let me go back and
make sure I understand what you're saying. The textbooks
that we have now or textbooks that will be used in the
future?

Q. I -- let's talk about what changes would be
required in the materials that you presently have on
hand, what would you be required to do?

A. I think we would be required, first of all, to
purchase additional library materials. You wouldn't
necessarily call those textbooks, but reference books
for the library. I think we could keep the textbooks
that we have, but might need to purchase additional
supplementary books, maybe classroom sets, not
necessarily for each student to supplement what we have
now. I think that additional -- again, not talking about

45

textbooks necessarily. I assume you want a more general
view.

Q. Right.

A. Additional materials in the form of films,
filmstrips, possibly pamphlets or handouts or district --
as far as purchasing things; films, filmstrips, pamphlets,
booklets supplementary textbooks would have to be
purchased.

Q. Do you anticipate that it would be necessary or --
necessary to print up some of your own supplemental
reference material?

A. I think it would be, yes.

Q. Do you think that would be something that you would
have to do or something that you could do?

A. Well, in my -- where I'm coming from, I think that
is something that we could have to do.

Q. Okay. What Creation Science articles are you
familiar with?

A. Creation Science articles, like magazine articles?

Q. Publications.

A. Publications, just anything.

Q. Well, I believe you said that you had -- that Dr.
Gish, and that's G0i-s-h and Dr. Bliss had been here. Are
there any other creationists that you're familiar with?

A. There are some names I'm familiar with, and I've

46

looked through some of the books. I regret to say now
though that I haven't looked through the books, or I
haven't retained or matched names to books and all that
thing now. And I can't quote you what any particular
person said. But I am aware of other people. Henry
Morris has written some books that I have looked over. I
think Harold Slusher is another person that I'm aware of
that has written some materials. Some of them -- I've
already said Bliss. I don't know whether all the articles
I've read, the little pamphlets and handouts have actually
had an author as such, but were -- came from the
Institute for Creation Science or Creation Research, or
whatever.

Q. Okay.

A. I've also -- to answer the question, I read in the
"Science Teacher," which is a magazine that's put out
by the National Science Teachers Association a couple of
years ago had four articles in it. Two of them were by
evolutionists and two were by creationists. And I
don't remember the names of any of the authors on those
four, but they were sort of a compare and contrast to
bring people up-to-date on the things. I read those. I
don't recall the authors though.

Q. What's the name of that publication?

A. That I'm referring to.

47

Q. Yeah.

A. The "Science Teacher."

Q. And when was this?

A. It was -- I can't say specifically. I can find it,
but it was probably three to five years ago.

Q. Would you find that for me, I'd be interested in
looking at it?

A. Sure.

Q. Off the record.

[Off the record discussion.]

Q. Okay. You've testified that -- that you're
familiar with the publications, generally, by the
creationists regarding what is referred to as Creation
Science, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Can you tell me any -- and you've indicated that
you don't think much of it, is that an accurate --

A. That's accurate.

Q. And you don't think that it's science, it's not
even bad science, it's just not science at all; is that
accurate?

A. Well, that's 99 and 99/100% accurate. I said
some of the -- I don't know that the conclusions -- and
the overall view I would say is not even bad science.
But some of the information that they use did appear in

48

scientific journals. I feel it was taken, a lot of it,
out of context. In that respect, it might border in
science. As far as the overall general idea and
conclusions and so forth of the books, I wouldn't regard
them as science. That would be a correct idea of my --

Q. Okay. And I will -- as a preface to my next
question, I want you to answer that I realize now low
your regard and opinion is of this. But with that in
mind, could you tell me one theory that you are aware
of which would support any one of the six items, that is
put forward as supporting anyone of the six items under
Section 4A?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. One, or several, or what?

Q. Let's just start at the beginning, and we're going
to go through them from there.

A. One bit of information that's used is that the
fossil record is not in the -- first of all, the fossil
record has gaps in it according to these publications.
Second of all, the fossil record is not in the sequence
that evolutionists conclude that it might be in. Well,
let me look at these. That there are no current living
interimmediate or transition forms. That there are very
few transition forms in the fossil record. I think

49

that a lot of fossils appeared -- seemed to have appeared
rather suddenly. As I said before, there didn't seem to
be transition forms leading up to them. I don't know
whether you -- I'm just going to go into a discussion.
I don't know that all of these would classify as evidence.
In fact, I don't know whether any of them would be
particularly, but the vestigial organs, that X number of
years ago there were X number of vestigial organs that were
considered present by people in scientific community. And
that since then, some of those that were formerly considered
vestigial organs, which had no apparent use, a use or
function for those had been discovered since then. Those
are some of the things. I'm sure I could brain storm
others.

Q. Would you, please?

A. Okay. The occurrence of marine fossils on areas
that are now dry land. The inadequacy, or inaccuracy, or
inerrorsy [sic.] of radioactive dating. The probability,
mathematical probability of a given mutation. First of
all being successful, and second of all, of enough of
them being put together in a string to have accomplished
the complexity that's present in current day living
things. The presence of feathers on archeoptaryx [sic.],
which would indicate that it is indeed a bird and not a
lizard, or even a transition from a reptile to a bird.

50

The unlikelihood that atoms and molecules could -- that
chance occurrences could ever account for atoms and
molecules joining up and forming more complex things,
and more complex than that, and eventually ending up with
the degree of complexity that we have today. That's all I
can think of at the moment unless you want me just to sit
for a long time.

Q. That's actually very good, actually very good.
Have you made an attempt to read all of the creationist
material that has been published or is available?

A. I have not made an attempt to read all of the material
that is published, no.

Q. Okay. Have you have you made an attempt to keep up
with the current literature to determine whether or not it
would support what's been referred to as Creation Science?
Have you made any kind of ongoing attempt to analyze the
literature to determine whether or not it supports Evolution
and/or Creation Science?

A. In a general manner, I have.

Q. Okay. Have you read -- have you read all of the
publications?

A. Well, I'm sure I haven't.

Q. Okay. So, it would be true that -- when you
say that the evidence supporting Creation Science is
unacceptable to you, as a scientist, you're only

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dennis Glasgow - Page 2

51

referring to that which you've read?

A. I would like to first of all say that I do not
consider myself a scientist, I am an educator. And as an
educator, it's not my responsibility to judge information as
to whether it is scientifically, technically correct or not.
And I don't have the expertise to do that. Generally,
from my background and experience, you know, I have had
some experience in science, some training in science. I
can make some general judgments as to whether something
conforms to what I consider the processes of science, et
cetera. But generally, as an educator and a non-expert
on the very technical aspects of science, I rely upon the
scientific community, scientific publications,
professional groups of scientists, et cetera for my
information.

Q. Well then, do I understand you to say that when you
said when -- you testified earlier that what you had
read was unacceptable; one, because it was not accepted
in the scientific community; and two, because it had
religious references. In reference to the scientific
community you were only saying that it was unacceptable
because it was not accepted in the scientific community? If
you want me to rephrase that question, I will.

A. You might. I think I understand it, but go ahead.

Q. Okay. Did you before say that what you had read
regarding Creation Science was unacceptable to you

52

professionally and personally?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And professionally, was it unacceptable to
you because it was not accepted in the scientific community?

A. That's a major factor, that's not the only factor.

Q. Okay. And what other factor was there?

A. Well I'm not completely unaware of science. And
the appropriate process for discovering information,
publishing, the process of science. That's one thing that
we really deal with in the public schools, the process of
science. And I don't have to be a professional scientist
to realize that the information -- or not the information
as such, but the conclusions or the interpretations of
the information that I've seen supporting Creation
Science have not been published in the mainstream of
scientific journals or really in anything that I'm aware
of that is a scientific journals, not to say that some
tidbits of information haven't been published.

But if you recall, I said the process
is to discover the raw data or collect the information
and then to apply an interpretation or interpret that
information. The raw data -- some of the things that I
mentioned are found in scientific journals and are part
of science. But the interpretations that's put on that
data I've not found in scientific journals. So, as a

53

process, sure the scientists don't accept it. And I feel,
as a science educator I am to teach what is determined as
science by scientists. But on a more personal note,
I realize what the process of science is and I can figure
out from reading and observing the world and reading the
journals and books, et cetera that this has not, in my
opinion, gone through the rigorous process that would cause
it to be legitimate science for teaching the students in the
public schools.

Q. Are you contending that all of the evidence regarding
Creation Science -- excuse me, let me rephrase that. Are
you contending that none of the evidence supporting
Creation Science have been published in, for lack of
a better word, accepted scientific journals?

A. You may have to define evidence or else I'll
qualify my statement with some definition of evidence.
As I said before, the raw data for that, to my knowledge,
has been published at one time or another in different
scientific journals. The interpretation of that data
that would fit it to these six things in Section 4A, I
have not seen published in any scientific journals.
Again, I'm saying I'm not a scientist. And I don't claim
to have read all of it or anything else. But to my
knowledge, that would be a true statement.

Q. In other words, you don't know. Could be, might

54

be, might not be.

A. Well, I'll say with my background in science, and
the courses I've taken, and the seminars I've attended I've
never been exposed to it.

Q. Okay Let -- you have brought today Xeroxed copies
of pages out of some books. And I'd like for you to
go through those books and state the name of the book,
the course name, the grade level, and the impact that Act
590 would have on each of those books.

A. The first book is "Holt Elementary Science." The
course name is just Elementary Science. The grade is
grade 2. I tell you what I'm going to do, mine is all
paper clipped, so I'm going to find this page first
and then that page. Is that all right?

Q. That's fine.

A. On -- now, the things that I've identified are
things that in my mind could possibly, and most of them
likely some of them maybe not as likely but I didn't make
that judgment, brain storm things that would possibly
be affected by Act 590.

The first one in grade 2, the book
that I just referred to, is found on the teacher's
edition, page T-110.

Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you if the copies have been
marked Defendant's Exhibit #10?

55

A. Yes, it has.

Q. Okay. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

A. On that page, as far as teacher matter is
concerned, there is a statement that "animals can be
classified as amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and
mammals." This, roughly speaking, is a phylogenetic
arrangement, not in the exact order. But if teachers deal
with this, as many of them probably will, it will be in an
exact phylogenetic classification going from less complex
forms to more complex forms, which possibly could trigger
Act 590. On page T-111, the very next page, is a statement,
again in the teacher matter, teacher background information,
that states that, "A group of reptiles known as dinosaurs
once lived on earth. These animals could not adapt to the
changing conditions of our earth and became extinct about
sixty-five million years ago. Evidence of dinosaurs is found
in fossil remains and footprints." I think the key phrase
here is that dinosaurs once lived on earth, they are no
longer living, and they became extinct about sixty-five
million years could trigger Act 590 from the standpoint of
the earth being a lot older, I think, than the Creation
Science so called model, or idea, or theories, whatever you
want to call them would suggest. In the same book on page
T-131. Q. Yes.

A. In the student matter is a statement that "A very

56

long time ago animals called dinosaurs lived on the earth."
"A very long time ago," I think would be the triggering
phrase since, in the teacher matter that goes with this and
I think I stated before in elementary books very little
information is given, much of the supplementary information
is given only to the teacher to use in discussion with the
children. In the teacher edition under the motivation part,
right underneath that it says, "Tell the children a long
time ago the earth was very different from the way it is
today. It was much warmer, different kinds of plants grew,
and different types of animals lived. The type of animal
that lived then was a dinosaur." Ask the children, have you
ever seen movies that show dinosaurs? Many times they are
pictured as mean monsters. Explain that people did not live
on earth at the same time when dinosaurs lived." I think --
first of all, just the mention of dinosaurs and that they
lived a long time ago could possibly trigger it. The fact
that it states that people did not live at the same time
that dinosurs lived could possibly be opposed to Creation
Science. And those are the only statements in that
particular book. Q. Would it present insurmountable
problems to prepare instructions for use with this teacher's
edition, Exhibit #10?

A. To prepare what?

Q. A supplement to be used with this teacher's edition?

57

A. For what purpose, to balance those ideas?

Q. Yeah, to balance these ideas out.

A. It would be possible to do that.

Q. Okay.

A. I might say since -- I think I need to say it is
that I do not think it would be appropriate or legitimate
science to do that.

Q. Okay. What's your next book? Is that Exhibit #6.

A. Next is Exhibit #6, "Holt Elementary Science."
Again, this is the elementary science program, grade
4.

Q. Okay.

A. The first page is T-8.

Q. Okay.

A. At the top of the -- at the top of the page,
and I might mention for your information that the student,
the exact pge is in the student text that is found in
the teacher's text. You understand that don't you?

Q. I figured that out on the last book.

A. "Geologists call this movement continental drift.
They think that over many years the continents drifted
apart at a rate of one to ten centimeters a year." It
goes on to discuss that. But that would be the primary
thing, that the continents were once altogether and
drifted apart. And the rate of drift would be something

58

that would trigger Act 590. On the next page too --

Q. Why would that -- why would that trigger 590? A.
Well first of all, drifting at the rate of one to ten
centimeters, I haven't figured it up, I would imagine that
it's going to take quite a number of years for that. And
second of all, the fact that all the continents were once
together, as such. It's my opinion that this is not
something that would be one of the components of Creation
Science?

Q. The only thing that I could see that this would have
anything to do with would be age of the earth, under six.
Am I missing something?

A. That would -- that was the main reason I put it
there.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead.

A. The next page simply has the -- it's the same thing,
I just checked it. There is a little diagram showing
continental drift. The next page T-10, "The plate
tectonic theory has been proposed to explain continental
drift, I think would be a triggerer. Plate tectonics is
a slow process that would go along with the --

Q. Age concept?

A. Well, not only age, but the gradual uniform changes
in the earth.

Q. Okay. Okay.

59

Q. And that explains or is used to explain how such large
masses of land ie., the continents are able to drift apart?

Q. Okay.

A. The next one is really the same sort of thing.
It's on page T-13.

Q. Okay.

A. "Spreading of the sea floor is believed to be the
reason why the plates of the crust move. The continents
are carried along with the moving plates like in your
activity," it's just an extension of the thing I
mentioned earlier.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-23, "Look closely at this picture. It
shows a fossil of a sea animal that lived a long time ago.
This fossil was found in rocks that now are part of a
large mountain. How did a sea animal get to the top
of a mountain." I think that is a potential triggerer of
Act 590?

Q. Which part?

A. Well, the whole thing. "How did the fish get
to the top of the mountain"? If you'll notice, over --
maybe I should have marked that. My background of how to
deal with this would cause me to not include everything,
I guess. But on the lesson background right over to the
right of that, it talks about folded mountains folding

60

together, lifting of rocks, fault-block mountains, so
forth. So, the assumption is from the background
information given a teacher is that the gradual squeezing
together, and lifting, and fault-blocks, and so forth would
have raised the fish that would normally have been found in
the ocean, to an area on dry land which is at the top.

Q. I see how it could relate to item six, which is age
of the earth. But it also.

A. Well, if you'll go to the Creation Science part of
it, it talks about the relatively recent -- number five,
the

Q. Six. Okay. Five, I'm sorry.

A. Five, a worldwide flood. So.... Now, when I'm
thinking of these, I'm thinking of potential things that
could trigger Act 590. It's not only what the teacher
says, but the questions that it might generate in the
students, et cetera.

I can see very logical questions
when you deal with that and when the statement is that
this fish fossil is on top of the mountain, of the student
saying, "How did it get there?" And some of them might
say this, or some might say that. I can see that some of
them might say that there was a worldwide flood. I think
that this could generate something that could get into
the the area of necessitating some sort of balanced

61

treatment of ideas generated in class.

Q. It might relate to catastrophism, but I'm not sure
how it would relate to -- but it's five and six is where
you would see it relating. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. A.
On page T-33, it talks about erosion and over a long period
of time rivers can cut very deeply into rock. And then it
gives you a picture below that of the Grand Canyon, and
asks, "How do you think the Grand Canyon was formed?" I
think this would be a potential triggerer of Act 590 under
the age of the earth?

Q. Okay.

A. Number six. On page T-220, "Dinosaurs lived a long
time ago. They survived for over sixty million years.
Today there is not a single dinosaur alive. Have any
other living things disappeared from the earth?" That
would be same thing, the age of the earth.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #1, "Holt
Elementary Science." The course is elementary science.
The grade level is grade 5. On page T-238, in the
teacher's notes -- this lesson briefly describes
scientific theories about the origin of the universe.
And it goes on to state that there is going to be some
discussion about the Steady-State Theory, the Pulsating
Theory, and the Big-Bang theory. These would all -- I

62

presume would possibly come under number one as far as
Section 4A. Number one, sudden creation from nothing.
And number six, the age of the earth.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-239, "However, the galaxy is millions of
light-years further away from earth than the
constellation." This is a potential triggerer under
Section 4A, number six, age of the earth.

Q. Okay where are you referring to all this
information?

A. No, it's right here.

Q. However, the galaxies --

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

A. On the next page, T-240, there are a couple of of
things, there is one that's underlined. That's all
basically the same.

Q. What page are you on?

A. T-240.

Q. Okay.

A. Is there something here that I didn't underline
there.

Q. Rather than read all of this --

A. Okay. In the student part of it, all of the
information that is listed on page 240, I think would

63

possibly trigger Act 590 in that it talks about the
theories on how the universe originated. It states that
one theory suggests that the universe is at least ten
billion years old. Another theory states that the
universe explodes, comes together and explodes again about
once every eighty billion years.

Q. Okay.

A. Which, again, is concerned with the age of the
earth?

Q. Okay. That is item six.

A. Okay. In relation to Defendant's Exhibit #6, and
Defendant's Exhibit #1, would it pose any great
difficulty to make the materials available that would
give balanced treatment in those.

A. There is no problem in putting something together
that would give balanced treatment. But as I stated
before, I don't think it is appropriate, or
professionally, or even ethical in my mind to do so.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #4, "Holt
Elementary Science," elementary science course, grade
six.

Q. Let me take a suggestion as we're going through
these. If they're marked ing the exhibit why don't we
just -- instead of reading them, just tell me which

64

section you think triggers these sections.

A. Okay.

MR. KAPLAN: You go ahead. I'm going
to excuse myself for just a second, but go ahead.

A. On page T-54, the first paragraph of the student
edition would trigger, in my mind, Act 590.

Q. What section? I mean what number of 590?

A. The age of the earth. On page T-55, the teacher
background information, midway through that information
it says, "Ask: Do you know how long ago the dinosaurs
were on the earth?" The next two or three sentences that
are in black print, I think would trigger Act 590, under
the age of the earth. On page T -- on page T-92 under
lesson background information, all of the materials
that are underlined in the exhibit would under the
Section five, six, three, two, and one. I went through
that rather fast. But I believe those would be because
it talks about age of the earth. It talks about simple
forms of life appeared first, complex form laters, so
forth.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-92, the student matter, the first two
sentences that are underlined in the exhibit talks
about the earth being millions of years old. That would
trigger it under part six, about the age of the earth.

65

On page T-93, there is a sentence that's underlined about
continental drift. I think that would trigger it under
section six and section five. On page T-94 there is
a statement that's underlined in the student edition, in the
exhibit, about the evolution of a horse, with diagrams. I
think this would trigger Act 590 under section six, under
section three, under section two, section one. On page
T-95, all of the printed material in the student part that's
underlined in the exhibit, it talks about the fossilization
of rocks in the Grand Canyon, that the lower layers contain
simple fossils and fossils of a more complex, higher animals
are found in the upper layers. And that simple forms of
life developed first and complex forms later. This would
trigger Act 590 under sections one, two, three, possibly
four although not directly, five, and six. It's really the
same thing -- the same parts that would be triggered on page
T-96 in the teacher matter at the bottom of the paper. It's
simply a summary of what I've talked about on the previous
couple of pages. On pate T-97 under lesson background
information; it talks about index fossils, it talks about
radioactive dating, methods that have been used to determine
the age of rocks. I think this would trigger Act 590 under
section six on the age of the earth. On page T-98, in the
student edition, there are a few sentences underlined in the
exhibit that deal with indexed fossils of strange animals

66

that lived 225 to 600 million years ago. This would trigger
it under section six on the age of the earth. The next page
is T-99. The very first sentence in the student edition
states that dinosaurs were on the earth from 70 million to
225 million years ago. That would trigger Act 590 under
section six, age of the earth. On page T-100 there is a
paragraph near the bottom of the student part of the page
that talks about rocks being 4.5 billion years ago. That
would be -- trigger Act 590 under section six, age of the
earth. On page T-102 -- first of all, although this is not
underlined in the exhibit, the teacher background
information refers to 4.6 billion years, 70 million, that
whole section talks about the age of the earth.

Q. Which has been marked beside of it in blue.

A. Okay. The other part in the student matter talks
about dinosaurs living on the earth 70 million to 225
million years ago, and trilobites from 225 to 60 million
years ago is underlined in the student edition. Age of
the earth would be the part that it deals about. On page
T-103 there's several portions, they're all underlined
in the exhibit. They talk again about 70 million years,
230 million years. That part is age of the earth.
However, the sentence on the bottom of the page that's
also underlined, "most geologists agree that the first forms
of life on earth developed during this period of the earth's

67

past," which would trigger one, two, three, five, six.

Q. Excuse me. Who would you consider the best science
textbook publishing companies in the country, the best
three?

A. I can't say who the best three are. I can indicate
that as far as biology is concerned, Modern Biology that's
published by Holt, Rinehart & Winston is a leading seller.
I'm not even aware who the second best seller or third
best seller are in --

Q. What about in chemistry?

A. I can't say.

Q. Physics?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

A. On page T-104, practically all the information
in the student book is underlined in the exhibit. It
talks about continental drift. It talks about water and
the warm oceans being filled with fairly simply forms of
animals, as time went on the first fish appeared as
sort of an evolutionary sequence dealt with there. That
would trigger section one, two, three, potentially
four, five, and six. At the bottom of the page, on T-104,
there is another statement that talks about the Mesozoic
Age being the age of the great reptiles of the dinosaurs.
That would be concerned with all of those same sections that

68

I indicated a minute ago. On page T-105, the underlined
material in the exhibit is about the Cenozic Age became
known as the age of the mammals. It has a list of certain
mammals that appeared on earth, and it includes humans
during that time. I think that would potentially trigger
all six parts of the Section 4A. On page T-106 is simply a
little chart that indicates the events in the history of the
life -- Events in the history of life. There's a little
arrow drawn in the exhibit pointing to that. And it's
simply a method of using, in this case, a long piece of
adding machine tape to mark off the different events during
the history of the earth, such as the first appearance of
amphibians, et cetera. I think this would potentially
trigger all six components in Section 4A. On page T-107
there's a statement in the little box called main ideas,
that's underlined, that simply states the earth -- it's
believed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I didn't
underline the bottom part, but really all of that section,
it talks about "evidence indicates that within each major
time period changes led to the development of new forms of
life."

Q. What would that trigger?

A. I think the development of new forms of life and the
age that's indicated there would trigger all six parts of
Section 4A.

69

Q. How would it trigger catastrophism under five?

A. Well, it may not deal as directly with that as
it does some of the other ones, but it indicates that
there was a gradual process during which new forms of
life developed over a period of 4.6 billion years. And
to some degree it might -- if catastrophism was indicated
there, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood,
it seems that all of these forms of life would have been
wiped out at that time.

Q. Okay. I understand.

A. On page T-222, underlined in the exhibit is a
statement about oil and natural gas being derived from
the bodies of microscopic animals that lived many
millions of years ago. That would trigger number six
under Section 4A.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-259 is a chart, that's indicated with a
little circle and a blue arrow, that has a time scale
that goes back to four billion years ago, and has people
living -- well, I'm sorry. I'm in error. The four billion
is the number of people, not the number of years ago. It
goes back to -- I believe I was in error when I read this.
That's not a triggerer. I thought it was years and it's
people, that wouldn't be one.

Q. Okay. Would there be any problem with providing

70

balanced treatment in Defendant's Exhibit #4?

A. Yes, I think there would be a trouble in providing
balanced treatment in all of them. As far as, is it
possible to give them some sort of information that
would tend to balance this, I think that that could be
accomplished. Again, I think it would be unprofessional
and unethical, as a science educator, to do such.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #2. The name
of the book is "Life Science," published by Silver
Burdett. The course time is "Life Science," and the
grade level is 7. On the front matter, table of
contents, page -- VI, although it's not that clear
lable in the book with some marks, is the sequence of
chapters which would indicate to most teachers, to
me, and to many students some phylogenetic arrangement
of chapters. It starts out with, Sponges and
Coelenterates and works up in manner that's accepted to
people that subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, and
evolutionary sequence going from simple to animals
up to more complex ones. the vertebrates. That could
trigger, in Section 4A, number one, number two, number
three, number four, number five, and number six. On page
228 at the last three sentences on that page, it mentioned
that fish fossils are the oldest of all vertebrate fossils.

71

Biologists think fish were the first animals and the
ancestors of all other vertebrates.

Q. With your permission, I'm going to put page 228 on
this exhibit because it doesn't appear on this copy.

A. Okay. I think that would trigger all six parts
of Section 4A.

Q. What about page 229? No, I'm sorry you're right.

A. On page 302, and it's not marked, but the
inscription under the photograph on that page talks about
coal being formed from large forrests that existed
millions of years ago. That part of it would trigger
section six, age of the earth. Or part six under section
4A. The student matter on that page is basically
the same thing there, it is underlined and it would
trigger age of the earth, part six of section 4A.

Q. Could balanced material be made available for
Defendant's Exhibit #2?

A. As on the other ones, some sort of material could
be put together that might balance that. I don't think
that any legitimate scientific material could be put
together.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #3. The name
of the book is "Physical Science," published by Silver
Burdett. The course name is "Physical Science." The

72

grade level is 8. And I think there are two parts of
this that might come into play under Act 590. The first
one is on page 191. Well, I notice that has page 190. I
might mention on some of these pages I didn't underline
every single thing, I just picked out the gist of it.
These couple of pages though are dealing with methods of
dating fossils and rocks and so forth. The part that
I underlined on page 191 is talking about uranium dating
and mentions a method that's been used to date rocks that
are 4.6 billion years old. That would be age of the
earth, part six, Section 4A. The other excerpt is
on page 292 under "fossil fuels." It's underlined in
the exhibit, fossil fuels formed from plants and animals
that died millions of years ago. Section -- part six,
Section 4A.

Q. Could that be balanced out in Defendant's Exhibit
#3?

A. You could give the students, again, something
that would balance that. But I don't think you could
give them anything legitimate in the scientific sense
that would balance it.

The next book is Defendant's Exhibit
#5. The name of the book is "Focus On Earth Science,"
published by Merrill. The course name is "Earth Science."
The grade level is 9. The first page is page four. The

73

information is underlined in the exhibit. It talks about
theories, about the origin of the universe, the Big-Bang
Theory. I think most -- most of the front information,
since this is "Earth Science" rather than "Live Science" is
going to primarily deal with the age of the earth and part
five, catastrophism as this particular page number reference
does. On page 15 there is a section that's underlined in
the exhibit that deals with a formation of infant stars
and that they're still being formed at the current time.
That would be age of the earth, section six. On page 19,
underlined in the exhibit, is talking about a galaxy that's
2,200,000 light-years from earth. That would trigger part
six of Section 4A. On page 27, underlined in the exhibit,
are some ideas or some different theories about the origin
of the solar system and the earth, the near-collision
hypothesis, the Kant-Laplace hypothesis. And on page 28, the
third of those, the modern dust cloud theory. These would
all trigger section six and probably number five, too. On
page 151 there is a discussion, a brief discussion of
uniformitarianism, which would certainly trigger section --
part five of Section 4A. On page 163, underlined in the
exhibit, a statement about rocks being 3.77 to 3.75 billion
years old, which would be age of the earth part six under
Section 4A. On page 222 -- did I miss a page?

Q. I've got something here on the missing link to

74

mammoth cave.

A. Oh yeah, the front of that.

Q. What page is that?

A. That's not part of it.

Q. Okay.

A. On page 222 underlined, it talks about glaciers
and the ice ages, and talks about the earliest known ice
age sixty million years ago, et cetera. That would
trigger under age of the earth, part six, section 4A. On
page 267 there are a couple of things. There is a little
statement that's underlined, first of all, that indicates
age of the dinosaurs over sixty million years ago. That
would be section six. It talks about the pterosaurs,
flying reptiles. And that, although not directly,
could potentially trigger some of the other sections
on -- well, section one, two, three, four, and five,
although the main -- main part of that, it would be
section six on age of the earth. There's another little
statement at the bottom of that page, "The rock is
firsthand evidence that the earth is still in the process
of evolving." That would be part five, one -- part one
and five. The next page is 277, age of the earth. The
parts underlined in the book are in the exhibit. And the
next page is 289. There are several passages that are
underlined in the exhibit that talk about continental drift,

75

glacial deposits in South America and Africa 250 million
years ago, and another reference to 250 million years ago.
So, this would all be age of the earth, section six. The
next, page 290, simply as a diagram of continental drift,
which would be -- And on the figure that explains this, it
gives reference to 200 million years ago. Age of the earth
is what that would trigger. The next page, there's another
statement that -- about 200 million years ago. That would
be age of the earth. There is another statement up above it
that I didn't underline about a fossil of a small
hippopotamus like reptile. I don't know if that necessarily
would trigger anything, but it might trigger all components
of this. The next page is 301, age of the earth. It's
underlined in the exhibit. On page 305 it talks about the
geologic column, that part is underlined in the book. That
would trigger age of the earth, to some extent the other
ones in that the geologic column, the sequence of life is
judged by the appearance of fossils in the geologic column.
On page 308 -- I think that page was inadvertently left
out. We can make a copy of that page and give it to you. It
talks about --

Q. Just read what it says in total.

A. On page 308, in the student material, small
differences among individuals may lead, gradually, to the
development of a new species. There appear to be several

76

reasons why species change. And there's some assorted
things that go with that, but those are the main key
sentences.

Q. Okay.

A. Also in the teacher matter in the left hand column
in small print, there is a statement that "The
fundamental unit of classification for organism is the
species. In geologic time species overlap, and species
boundries are difficult to draw. Groups of species with
similar characteristics belong to the same genus.
Every organism has a two named designation with the
genus named first and the species named second." And it
talks about species -- this is not in the book, this is
my opinion of how it would trigger Act 590. It talks
about species overlapping in time. I think that would
pretty well trigger all parts of Section 4A, as would
the part in the student book about individuals gradually
changing into new species. I know what they did. On page
310 is a discussion of some of the key words, and sentences
are underlined in the exhibit, on mutations, changes in
plants and animals over time, algae being one of the
earliest plant like organisms, much simpler than trees. I
think that could potentially trigger all six parts of
Section 4A. The next page is fairly similar. It talks
about index fossils, and this information is underlined in

77

the exhibit. Index fossils are used to divide geologic time
into units, the age of fossils is found by their position in
the rock beds, and there are a few other things there. This
would trigger, I think, all six parts of Section 4A. There
is a little statement that's underlined on page 312 about
index fossils. The best ones are those that are widely
disbursed and that have evolved rapidly. That would
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. The next
page is 314. It has a multiple choice question for the
student there about the age of the earth and the three
choices are, "2.7, 3, 4.5." That would trigger the age of
the earth. It talks about index fossil, down at the bottom
that's underlined in the exhibit, a species, fossil species
abundant over a period of 40 million years by useful as an
index fossil. I think that could potentially trigger all
six parts, primarily, the age of the earth. On page 317,
there are several things underlined that talk about the
geological time periods. It lists 600 million years a
couple of time here. So, that would trigger the age of the
earth. On page 318 is a chart, geologic time scale, that
would trigger all six parts of Section 4A. On page 319, in
the teacher comments, is something about dates over two
billion years old. That would trigger the age of the
earth. On page 320 is a statement that's underlined in the
exhibit about 600 million years ago. And also, that part is

78

found in a discussion of the geologic time periods. That
would trigger all six parts of 4A, specifically part six, on
the age of the earth. On page 322, are several statements
about marine invertebrates being the earliest none animals
and trilobites being related distinctly to crabs and
lobsters. That would potentially trigger all six parts on
Section 4A. The next part on page 323, underlined the --
underlined in -- there is a little mark over on the side to
indicate that really all of the information on this page is
included. It simply talks about when land plants first
appeared some animals moved to the land, the change from
marine to land animals began, fish were the first animals,
back boned animals, amphibians came on later, and so forth
and so on. That would trigger all six parts of Section 4A.
On page 324 is a discussion of plate tectonics, and also the
evolution of plants and animals that could possibly trigger
all six parts of section six, 4A. On page 325, all of the
information on that page again is dealing with the geologic
time periods and the animals that appeared, and developed,
and dominated during those different periods. That could
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. On page
326 there is a mark in the exhibit indicating all of that
page. Again, it talks about the evolution of animals and
plants during geologic time periods. That could trigger all
six parts of section 4A.

79

Page 327 is simply a continuation of the previous couple
of pages. The entire page is marked in the exhibit.
And it could trigger all six parts of Section 4A. I
might also mention on page 327, that there's a little
figure on the side of the page that gives a diagram of
a generalized reptile and a generalized primitive mammal
that compares those two. That again could possibly
trigger all six parts of Section 4A.

Q. Could I see your book on that, I'm not sure about
it? Keep going.

A. On page 329 is a statement that's underlined
concerning the fact that animals did not follow the same
line of development on two separate continents. That could
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. Part 330,
there is nothing on the page indicating, but the entire
page, as now marked off, indicates age of the earth. It has
some things about 65 million years ago. Let's just call it
the bottom printed part of the page. I think the top part
may too, but I would have to refer to other material to
determine that. On page 331, underlined in the exhibit, is
something about primitive man, pro Cro-Magnon man living in
southern Europe from 5,000 to 35,000 years B.C. That could
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. On page
484 there is a statement that's underlined in the exhibit
about fossil fuels being formed millions of years ago on the

80

earth's crust, which could potentially trigger all six
sections in -- all six parts of Section 4A.

Q. How would it trigger four? On page 448.

A. Well first of all, let me admit that I'm not
examining each one of these. I'm just giving you an
overall view. So, let me think about it for a minute.
Fossil fuels are formed from plants and animals that lived
millions of years ago. I don't think it would trigger
section four. Would primarily trigger section A, could
trigger section one, potentially section two, section
three, and section six.

Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you
anticipate that -- Phil, maybe you can help us. Do you
anticipate that these textbooks will be submitted as
exhibits themselves, as marked.

MR. KAPLAN: The pages will, only those
portions which we believe will trigger Act 590, in
accordance with the Judge's earlier feelings that he
would not want to read an entire textbook. We will
submit only those pages which we believe are likely to
trigger the Act. We will also probably not do that
with every witness who has ever referred to a textbook
It will be primarily Wood, and Glasgow, and Coward,
I think, rather than go through it with every single
witness. We'll just do it primarily with those three

81

people.

MR. CHILDS: Well, just assuming that,
which one do you intend to use first, if you can tell
me?

MR. KAPLAN: I have no idea right now.

MR. CHILDS: Well, if Judge Overton
said you were only going to be able to do that with one,
who would it be?

MR. KAPLAN: In all likelihood, right
now it would probably be Roger -- I mean, Dennis, but my
feeling is that we will probably, under 901, put all of
the books in the self authentication provision.

MR. CHILDS: Okay. And then also just
putting in just copies of the pages?

MR. KAPLAN: That's correct. And then
if you wanted to put in copies of other parts of the
book, you could.

WITNESS: I might say, if we are off
the record that --

MR. KAPLAN: We're on the record.

MR. CHILDS: We can go off the record
if you want to. Or you can just say it on the record.

WITNESS: I can say it on the record.
The next three books that I'm going to be dealing with,
regular biology that's taught at the 10th grade and a

82

couple of different books that we use for advanced biology,
almost the entire book, in my opinion, will trigger. And
it's going to be rather time consuming to --

MR. CHILDS: It will get laborious.

WITNESS: Well, if we go through every
single instance it would be impossible. It would take us
several weeks to do that. I can refer to chapters
and give an overview of the chapter or whatever you
want to do.

MR. KAPLAN: The reason is, for
example, in Biology Today, but Kirk, there is --
where says it. Page 18, "after a lenthy discussion,
that is why the principle of evolution is the major
unifying theme of this book. This book happens to
be a thousand pages in length. The same is probably true
of Biology Second Edition, Addison-Wesley.

WITNESS: That's why I say that it's
substantially, on these biology books, substantially
the entire book. Not on every page, but it's quite
frequent.

BY MR. CHILDS:

Q. Okay. In reference to Defendant's Exhibit 5,
which is the book that we just finished, could balanced
treatment be provided for that book?

A. As I've said earlier, something could be put

83

together that would balance it on the surface. I don't,
again, feel like that would be appropriate or that
there is any legitimate scientific information that could
be used.

Q. Is that also true for Defendant's Exhibit 9,
Defendant's Exhibit 8, and Defendant's Exhibit 7?

A. Yes, that would be true for all of those.

Q. Okay. Okay. Now then, I gave you a card earlier
which has some information printed on it -- well, written
on it which says, "Material should never be excluded
or removed simply because it expresses unpopular or
controversial views or because it coincides with
particular religious views. And I want to ask you if --
if you agree or disagree with that statement.

A. I just -- I may need some water in a minute. I
generally agree with that. It's very difficult for me to
totally agree with anything that has the word "never" in
it.

Q. Well, if -- do you think that some unpopular
or controversial views -- or material containing unpopular
or controversial view should, on some occasions, be
excluded or removed?

A. I would say that I think that it would be a very rare
situation that they would be removed. To sort of clarify my
thinking on it just a bit. The value of different sorts of

84

information in a course vary. And if the information is
important information that's necessary and that represents
the main line of thinking in a particular subject area,
then I don't feel that it should be removed or excluded
simply because it was unpopular, controversial, or it
coincided with particular religious views if that material
is appropriate for the students at that level. If the
material is not important or necessary for that course, or
if it is not appropriate for the developmental level of the
student, or it's beyond their comprehension or something,
then I think that it possibly could be.

Q. Possibly could be what?

A. Could possibly be excluded or removed if the material
is marginal material anyway. You know, you have X
amount of -- well, in any course you have entirely more
material than can possibly be covered in a given year.
Some of that material is very important material. It
develops major generalizations and concepts within the
course. The important material, I don't think should be
excluded or removed simply because it is controversial
or unpopular or coincides with particular religious
views. I think if the material is not necessary to
develop important generalizations and concepts in the
course, that some of that fringe material or background
material that's used in a supportive role, if it's very

85

unpopular or controversial or coincides with particular
religious views, in that case I can see or I can think in
my mind -- if it's not really important for the course
that it should be excluded, but not --

Q. Okay. Who -- go head.

A. -- if it's important information and an important
part of that particular discipline?

Q. Okay. Who is qualified to make the decision
on whether it's important or not?

A. Well, there would be several people that would be
qualified. First of all, I don't think -- I said this a
minute ago. I think I touched on it. It should be
appropriate material for that particular course. Now,
who would determine if the material is appropriate for a
given course would probably be a committee of teachers.
On occasion it might be myself as science supervisor or
some other person in the administration. I don't
necessarily think that in earth -- or in the chemistry
that you need to teach things that are found in biology,
or something of that sort. So, that sort of thing, it
might be a committee of teachers or someone in the
administration. As far as smaller tidbits of information,
et cetera, that could normally be included within the
course description, and the goals, and objectives for a
particular course, it's up to the individual teacher in

86

my mind to make that decision.

Q. Okay. I've also given you a opportunity to look at
page 224 from the N.E.A. handbook for 1980-'81. I'm
referring you to D3 on academic freedom. And I'm going to
ask you if you've had a chance to read that.

A. I have.

Q. Do you agree or disagree with that position?

A. As I read it a minute ago, I agreed with it. I'm
quickly scanning through it again.

Q. To make sure the Defendant's counsel hasn't --

A. The statement, taking as a whole, I agree with.

Q. Is there any part of it that you disagree with.

A. No, not taken as a whole.

Q. Okay. What academic freedom do you have or is
available to the classroom teacher in the Little Rock public
schools?

A. The right or the responsibility, the freedom to,
within the confines of the goals and objectives and the
course outline for a given course; and within the
confines of a -- the matter normally considered in a
particular discipline, the teacher has the freedom to
make judgments regarding two things. First of all,
content to be included and excluded. And second of all,
methods to be used in presenting the content.

Q. Does anybody else have any say so on content?

87

A. Well as far as content, that would normally be
included within a given course, it's up to the individual
teacher. As far as including -- as far as determining
what content, the overall types of content that are --
should be included in a given course, other people as I
indicated before.

Q. Ya'll have some sort of curriculum guide?

A. Yes.

Q. And how is that developed?

A. A curriculum guide is is developed by a committee
of teachers, and myself or previous people who were in
my position. There is usually a representative from
each school that's involved. And normally a week or two
weeks or sometimes three weeks during the summer is spent
developing that.

Q. Well, what affect does it have on the individual
classroom teacher's academic freedom?

A. The curriculum guide as implemented in Little Rock
outlines those things that the committee, and in affect
the school district even though the board doesn't have to
approve such things and the administration usually doesn't
look at them, but in the mind of those people, the
important things that should be covered during that
course. It is not really that restrictive of the
academic freedom of the teachers, in that I don't think

88

there is any expectation that teachers can only cover
what's in the curriculum guide. I don't think that
was ever the intent. The curriculum guide is to serve as a
guide for things that are important for students to
know in that particular course.

Q. Well, are they -- I understand it as a guide.
And my question is, can a classroom science teacher
safely ignore the guide in it's entirety?

A. Well, my answer to that is not based upon experience
because we've never had a teacher who has ignored the
guide. My answer is, yes, that the there would be some
severe problems for the teacher if they totally ignored the
guide.

Q. So, it's not strictly what the individual classroom
teacher wants in the contents of the course that matter?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Does the school board ever make any
indications that it wants particular subject matter
covered in the schools?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Could they?

A. I'm not sure. I presume that they could.

Q. What about principals, high school principals?

A. I doubt that they have that authority.

Q. You want to take a short break?

89

[Recess.]

Q. What about the legislature?

A. I kind of forgot the question. Do they have
the authority?

Q. Uh-huh. To indicate to the classroom teacher
subject matter content. And I don't want to leave the
Governor out, the legislature and the Governor?

A. My opinion -- first of all, legally, I don't know I
can't say. As far as I'm concerned, the legislature, the
-- you didn't say state in general, Department of
Education, I don't know whether you meant them or not.
Over the specific content say at that time might be included
within a biology course, I don't think that they should have
any say so about that.

Q. What about the State Board of Education as to
classroom content?

A. As far as content within a particular course, I
don't think they should have any affect. And to my
knowledge, they don't have any affect.

A. Now, they do -- if I may carry on. They do, for
the purpose of accrediting the school, require that
certain courses be offered. I mean you have to offer X
number of units of English, and X number of units of math,
and X number of units of science, et cetera in order to
get a certain accreditdation. But as far as them

90

determining specific day to day content within a given
course, I'm not aware that that's a practice or even
that that's ever occurred.

Q. And the State Board has an indirect affect on
classroom subject matter content in that they have
approved lists of textbooks?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any other indirect affect as to course
content, subject matter content. A. Well, the -- I don't
know about all areas, but in science I don't think it's
up to date. It's several years ago old. There is guidelines
-- some sort of guidelines booklet for science that has a
listing of concepts, et cetera. That is not, to my
knowledge, and certainly in practice, not any sort of a
dictate to the schools. It's just simply from the State
Department level that indicates to the schools. This is
sort of a model science curriculum or something. And it's
offered there for our use in developing our own curricular,
whatever.

Q. It's not any kind of a requirement?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with CARE?

A. With care, is that an acronym?

Q. For Coalition Advocating Responsible Education.

A. No, I'm not.

91

Q. Let me read you some names and ask you if you know
any of these people. Pat Bennett?

A. No.

Q. Ermalee Boice?

A. No.

Q. Connie Bond?

A. No.

Q. Ed Bullington?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Earl Carter?

A. No.

Q. Bob Cearley?

A. I think I know him.

Q. Sheryl Dunn?

A. No.

Q. Gene Jones?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Robbie Keopple?

A. No.

Q. Bettye Kerns?

A. No.

Q. Bobby Lester?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Gene Manfredini?

A. No.

92

Q. Harold Measel?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you know Harold?

A. Harold is in the administration of the Pulaski
County schools. Assistant superintendent, or something.

Q. John Purtle?

A. I'm not sure, the name sounds familiar.

Q. Justice John Purtle?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Frank Smith?

A. No.

Q. Karl Steinkraus?

A. No.

Q. Fred Williams?

A. No.

Q. Mike Wilson?

A. Heard of him.

Q. Are you aware of any move within the Little Rock
school system to have a policy on academic responsibility
or academic freedom adopted by the Little Rock School
District?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Has any -- are you aware of any research which has
shown any use for the appendix in the human body?

A. No.

93

Q. And have you done any research or read any articles
which set out the mathematical probabilities of the
evolution of life from non-life?

A. I have.

Q. And what are those calculations?

A. I don't know.

Q. Where did you see them?

A. I can't identify the source specifically, but
I think it was from one of the Creation Science
publications from some of the research institutes in
California.

Q. Could you give me any information that would help me
identify it?

A. No, I can't.

Q. Are you -- have you been given a list of the
documents that we wanted you to produce?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there any documents on this list that you have in
your possession, custody, or control?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what are those documents.

A. That thing with the little clip on it.

Q. What in the Phi Delta Kappan were you referring
to?

A. On page 95 there is an article By Harvey Seigle,

94

"Creationism, Evolution and Education; the California
fiasco. On page 98 there is an article by Thomas J.
Flygrae entitled "The Case Of Seagraves vs. The State
Of California.

MR. KAPLAN: Spell Flygrae's last name.

A. F-l-y-g-r-a-e.

Q. Okay. Let me have that magazine back, please.
There is a letter here dated April 28th, 1981 from Dr.
Richard B. Bliss, director of curricular development,
Institute of Creation Research where he indicates
that he met with you. When did you meet with Dr. Bliss?

A. I don't recall. Probably -- I think he was very
prompt in sending the letter. I think it was probably is
a week or two prior to the letter.

Q. Okay. What happened a week or two prior to the
letter that you met Dr. Bliss?

A. Ed Gran, from U.A.L.R. called me on the phone
and -- as I recall it was Ed, and said that Bliss was going
to be in town and would I mind meeting with him. And I said,
"no, I wouldn't mind." And -- consequently, the next day or
the next week, I don't remember what it was, but whenever
the day was that he was going to be there that I would say
that I would meet with him, Bliss and Ed Gran couldn't come.

Someone else came, I don't even remember who it is. I
think it was -- well, I don't even know. I thought it was

95

someone else from U.L.A.R., but I'm not sure, brought Bliss
by. And we sat down and chatted for maybe an hour.

Q. Who is Ed Gran?

A. Ed Gran is an instructor at U.A.L.R. in the Physics
Department, I believe.

Q. Is he a creationist?

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Gran.

A. I believe when he called me was -- I think I'd
heard of him before, but --

Q. He called you up out of the blue, basically?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Are you a member of the Phi Delta Kappa.

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Okay. There is a set of documents here, the first
sheet appears at the top "Creation Unit." Can you tell
me what these documents are?

A. This is a rough draft of a unit that was put
together at the direction of the Pulaski County School
Board.

Q. Where did you get that?

A. I believe Marianne Wilson gave that to me.

Q. What was the occasion for you getting that from Ms.
Wilson?

A. I called her as I -- I don't know whether I called

96

her or not, but I contacted her. I don't remember when
it was, early last summer I think. Shortly after -- a
couple of months after Act 590 had been signed by the
Governor. And as the person primarily responsible for
organizing or coordinating curriclum development in Little
Rock and knowing that Act 590 had been passed, I gave
her a call asking her if she had any materials on
Creation Science, and she did. And I borrowed that
material from her. And at the same time she gave me a
copy of this.

A. The -- I've known previously that the unit was being
developed because I teach out at U.A.L.R. at night. And
-- I know him very well, I can't think of his name now.
I'll probably grab it in the minute. One of the faculty
members on the staff out at U.A.L.R. served as a
consultant to Marianne Wilson during the development of
this. And he said that -- had mentioned to me on a
couple of occasions that he was working with her. So, I
may have asked her. I don't recall whether I asked
if she had anything on paper regarding that or whether he
volunteered it. But anyway, I secured it at the same
time I borrowed the books from her.

Q. Which you've previously told me about?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Okay. Can I have that back, please? did

97

Dr. Krain, that's K-r-a-i-n, send you an article entitled
"The 'Creation Science' Controversy in Arkansas: A
Struggle For The Control Of The Science Classrooms."

A. He did.

Q. What would you say is the basic gist of Dr.
Krain's article, or paper? I guess it would be more
accurately described as a paper.

A. Well, I haven't read it in sometime, but I think
the overall approach is one from the philosophical
standpoint of science and religion and so forth. I
don't remember very many specifics. I can say that
the overall emphasis of his was in favor of -- in favor
of Evolution being taught in the classroom and against
the inclusion of Creation Science material.

Q. Okay. And there is an article you've also provided
us with a, three column article entitled "When It Becomes
Science, Teach It." And it appears in the lower right
corner, June 5, 1981. And it appears to be a letter to
the editor of the Arkansas Gazette, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And this is an article that -- a letter that
you sent for publication to the Gazette?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Does this letter accurately state what you believe?

A. Yes, it does. I might add, as a matter of

98

clarification on the letter, I don't know whether everyone
that reads it could detect a little tongue in cheek
comments on the last part. In the letter, I said that I
would recommend that if Act 590 survives, that balanced
treatment be given. I stated, I'm sure somewhere
earlier, that there was no accurate definition in Act 590
that I could find exactly what balanced treatment was
and that could be interpreted many different ways.
And I suggested that my interpretation would be balanced
according to the relative weight or percentage of
scientists that accept Evolution vs. those accept
Creation Science, with the inference being that in the
scientific community very few would accept Creation
Science, thus you could balance it by dealing with
creation science to a very small extent.

Q. One one hundreth of 1% of the time.

A. Something like that.

Q. And that was a -- meant tongue and cheek?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Okay. Anything else in here that can't be
interpreted the way it's written?

A. No.

Q. You've also presented us with a copy of the of an
article by Stephen J. Gool from "Discover," which apparently
is a magazine, May 1981 entitled "Evolution As Fact And
Theory." I'd like to ask you how you came to have this

99

essay?

A. As I mentioned before, I teach out at U.A.L.R. at
night. And I thought of the man's name, Bill Bowen who's
a professor of Botany at U.A.L.R. was the consultant
to Marianne Wilson and others. I'm not sure exactly who
all the others are regarding the development of the
Creation Unit. And I've had a chance for a few minutes --
he's usually leaving when I'm going out to teach at
night. And we've talk about it on several occasions and
he offered that to me. I think it was right after I'd
met with Bliss or something. I don't recall the exact
circumstances, but that's where I got it.

Q. Okay. What do you teach out at U.A.L.R.?

A. Principles of biology.

Q. And what level course --

A. Freshman course.

Q. I'm going to hand you these papers and ask you if --
if they are in order or just tell me what they are.
They don't seem to be in any particular order.

A. Well, these -- Richard Bliss, when I met with
him that one time, which is the only time I've met
with him that I know of, was giving a workshop. I
believe at Conway, is that where Arkansas Baptist
College, some --

Q. Central Baptist College?

100

A. -- college in Conway, that particular weekend and
I wasn't able to attend the workshop. And I asked him if
he had any information on what he was presenting during
the workshop, and he did. And he gave it to me and
I made a copy of it, and that's what this is.

Q. Are you a member of the A.C.L.U.?

A. I'm not.

Q. Did you get a letter from the A.C.L.U. soliciting
your membership?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. And did you also get a pamphlet from the
American Civil Liberties Union entitled "Guardian of
Freedom"?

A. I don't recall getting that.

Q. Would you take a look at this letter which has been
marked as Defendant's Exhibit #1 to Wood's deposition?

A. Okay.

Q. That the form -- does that a appear to be the same
kind of letter that you got?

A. It does.

Q. Okay. Do you know how they got your name?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. Okay. Are there any other documents in your
possession, or your custody, or within your control which
would relate directly or indirectly to any of the twenty

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dennis Glasgow - Page 3

101

categories on the sheet described "documents to be
produced"?

A. Not other than -- I've lost my paper that I had.
There was a series of four articles; two were supportive
of Creation Science and two supportive of Evolution that
appeared in the "Science Teacher" that you asked if I
could get a copy. And I've got that. I failed to bring
it today, I forgot about it.

Q. Okay. Night find a witness there you never can
tell. I would appreciate if you would make those
available to us. Okay. do you teach any other courses
other than the one at U.A.L.R.?

A. No, other than lately I've taught several what we call
in-service mini courses. That's an in service, little
short blocks of in-service training for teachers. But
as far as college credit courses or anything of that sort,
of courses with students in them as such, I don't.

Q. Is there anything you will testify about concerning
textbook selection, decisions that we haven't previously
covered in your deposition? That's one of the subject
matters as being shown that you will testify about at the
trial.

A. I don't think we've covered textbook selection
to any degree. There is not a whole lot to say.

Q. Okay. Then just say it very briefly.

102

A. The State Department of Education selects, by some
method, I would assume by area of the state, et cetera, a
State Textbook Committee. And they select books to be on
the state list, and they're not restricted to the number of
books that they can select. Every book that's submitted,
they can put on there if they want to. But they make that
decision, and the State Department of Education issues a
list of these state approved books. And I'm responsible for
contacting the principals and asking them to recommend
teachers to serve on this committee. Frequently there are
more people recommended than can actually serve. And I
recommend the teachers to be on the committee to the
assistant superintendent wh approves that. I try to balance
them according to to school, sex, race and so forth. The
committee convenes. We have a copy -- write to the
publishers and asked them to send us a copy -- complimentary
copy of those books. They do.

Q. Immediately.

A. Well pretty close, they want our business. And there
is usually some sort of textbook caravan where all the
publishers come around and have a little set-up and a
booth. Some of us usually go to that. And then
finally, we look through the books and usually have some
sort of criteria that is developed within the committee
itself, nothing formal or districtwide or anything. And

103

we judge the books upon the criteria developed within
that committee and eventually decide on a certain book
that we want to use. And those books are recommended to the
Board of Education who approves them or disapproves them.
I've never known them to do that.

Q. Would Act 590 have any affect on that process?

A. No, I don't think there would be any affect on the
process.

Q. Okay. It says that -- the list of witnesses
designation says that you will testify generally
concerning Creation Science. Have we covered that
already?

A. To my knowledge we've -- during the couple of hours
or so that we've been here, I've stated my -- I assume
it's my professional and personal opinion about it. And
I think we've covered all of that.

Q. Okay. Do you know anybody that works for the
Little Rock public schools who disagrees with you about
Act 590?

A. I do.

Q. Who?

A. Irving Seager is a biology teacher at Parkview.

Q. How do you spell his first name?

A. I-r-v-i-n-g.

Q. Last name?

104

A. S-e-a-g-e-r.

Q. Where does he teach?

A. Parkview.

Q. Anybody else?

A. I'm not absolutely sure, I'll give it to you anyway,
Bill Conley, C-o-n-l-e-y.

Q. Where does he live?

A. Where does he live? He's here in Little Rock, a
teacher.

Q. And where does he teach?

A. Booker Junior High.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Anybody else in the -- what we'll call the
management level that disagrees with you?

A. In the Little Rock schools?

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. What about in the Pulaski County school system.

A. I'm -- you know, I can't say for certain. I don't
even know their names. Evidently, there's someone on the
Board of Education that probably disagrees since they
directed Creation Science to be part of the curriculum
there. I don't know who it was.

Q. Okay. What about Pulaski County teachers?

105

A. I'm familiar with --

Q. Larry Fisher?

A. Fisher.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Are you a member of A.E.A., N.E.A., or PACT?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any organizations which have a
position that you are aware of either stated or unstated
on Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. What organization is that?

A. Arkansas Academy of Science.

Q. Okay. What is the Arkansas Academy of Science?

A. I guess it's open to anyone that wants to join. In
affect though, or in practice it's primarily composed
of university professors within the various areas of
science. There's some people from industry in there,
but primarily professors.

Q. Have they taken a position on Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that readily available to the public?
Where would I go and get a copy of it? If it's in
writing, I haven't even asked you that. Is it in writing?

A. I would assume that it is, I can't say that it is.

106

I went to a meeting and I know that there was a model or
a rough draft of some sort of a resolution that they
passed?

A. I assume that -- and I can't even say who the
secretary of the group is. I assume it's in their minutes.
It was noted in a letter or in an editorial column in the
Gazette that they had passed a resolution against Act 590.
The -- Dr. Robinson at Southern State or South Arkansas
University is the president of that organization. I'm sure
one could be obtained, but I'm not -- I don't have one and
I've never had one. In fact, I wasn't even there to vote on
it. They were -- I think there was a reading of the
resolution one day in the meeting, and they were to vote on
it the next day and I wasn't in attendance that day.

Q. Any other organizations?

A. Well, not against Act 590 in particular. I belong
to the National Science Teachers Association, and I know
that they are against inclusion of Creation Science in
the biology classroom. I've not seen anything directed
specifically to Act 590.

Q. Any other organizations that you're a member of?

A. That are -- that have come out in --

Q. Let's just say without reference to Act 590.

Q. Well, I've already mentioned I'm a member of the Phi
Delta Kappa educational fraternity.

107

Q. Is that an honorary fraternity? It sounds like it
is one of the honorary.

A. I guess it is.

Q. Okay.

A. Let's see, I'm a member of the Arkansas Science
Teachers Association, we have not taken any position on
Act 590. I guess that's it.

Q. Have you ever written anything other than this
letter to the Gazette, including papers, articles, or
books on the subject of origins or creationism?

A. I have not.

Q. Have you ever lectured -- have you ever taught a
creation model?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you taught an evolution model or taught
evolution, as you understand it?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever testified in the court of law?

A. Period?

Q. Period.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever testified before a school board?

A. Testified, no; presented reports, yes.

Q. Okay. What kind of reports have you presented?
Let me ask you this. Have you ever presented a report on

108

creationism and/or evolution?

A. I have to a school board committee.

Q. Okay. And when was that?

A. I don't know, within the last year. It was after
Act 590 was passed, but it was several months ago, before
the summer I think.

Q. Was any record made of your report?

A. No.

Q. Who was there?

A. Two school board members, it's called the Education
Committee. There were two school board members. I think
the associate superintendent for educational programs,
Dr. Williams, was there. And the assistant superintendent
for program implementation, Dr. Wettle, as I recall was
there for part of it. And there was some patron of the
district that was there for another report, that wasn't
the only report that day. In fact, there may have been
two or three other people there, but they weren't school
people.

Q. What members of the Board were there?

A. C.O. Magee and Fay Southern, I believe.

Q. What did you tell them in your report?

A. I told them -- I briefly explained what Act 590 was
or the components of that. I think I generally gave them
my opinion as supervisor of science on -- well, I do

109

remember I went over part of -- this was after my meeting
with Richard Bliss and I presented some of this
information to him. The two model approach, some of
the things that are in this as to how he, during my
meeting with him, explained that this -- Act 590 could be
implemented. And then I gave them my personal opinion about
it, which you know what that is. But it's that I thought
was unfortunate that Act 590 was passed. It has a potential
to create some problems in our classes as far as trying to
get materials together. And it's going to be -- probably
cost us some money to do this. I'm against it and I hope
that it never goes through so we don't have to worry about,
generally is what I said.

Q. Have you been a witness in any other situation or
given reports?

A. Well, I've given reports for --

Q. Years.

A. Not in the sense I think you're talking about.

Q. Creationism or evolution?

A. No.

Q. Do you see anything in the Act which would prohibit
a teacher from expressing his or her professional opinion
concerning the relative scientific strengths or weaknesses
of either model?

A. Yes, I do.

110

Q. And where is that?

A. First, let me preface my remarks by saying that the
requirement for balanced treatment is something that
is not clear, in that you have to give it some sort of
interpretation. My interpretation of balanceed treatment
is that equal weight, or equal emphasis, or equal
legitimacy must be given to meet the requirements of
this Act. I think that a teacher, through body language
or any sort of other things, when -- if you're presenting
two things can very suddenly let the students know which the
teacher thinks is the right thing. So, in that context, I
think if two things are presented and the teacher says that,
"my opinion is that this is right and that this is just a
bunch of trash," that that does not meet the requirement of
Act 590.

Q. And that -- and you reached that conclusion based
on your interpretation and understanding of balanced?

A. To a degree. And my interpretation of the entire
intent, et cetera of this plus my conversation with
Bliss, and just everything together, fitting in,
led me to believe that it couldn't be balanced if you
presented two things and then the teacher said, "my
opinion is that this is the right way and that this is
not."

Q. I'm referring to what's in the Act itself. Is

111

there anything other than the use of balanced treatment
that would lead you to believe that a teacher could not
express his or her personal opinion of the validity of
the model?

A. Well, there are a lot of things that are not clear
in here. And I don't know -- I don't see anything
specifically that states a teacher cannot express
opinion.

Q. Okay. Can the creation model, as defined in
section 4A, be presented without reference to any religious
doctrine?

A. I don't believe that it can.

Q. Why?

A. First of all, if a teacher was a computer or if the
students had their mouths taped shut and their ears
stopped up you could get up there and give a lecture
without directly mentioning religion. Although I think
it would come very close to it, in my mind. But classes
aren't taught that way, classes are taught on the basis
of discussion and so forth. And almost everything that I
can see that would be presented in support of Creation
Science would raise questions in the minds of the
students that would be expressed in class. And I think
those -- many of those questions, without a doubt in
my mind, I'm firmly convinced of this, that religious

112

questions will be raised by the students. And on the
other hand, a teacher would have to be, in my mind, very
skillful, exceedingly skillful, maybe even reading from a
prepared script or something to keep from infringing
on religion themselves.

Q. Okay. What does section two say in reference to
that?

A. Section two states that the treatment of either
Evolution Science or Creation Science shall be limited
to scientific evidences for each model, and must not
include any religious instruction.

Q. I mean there's something else it says also.

A. Or references to religious rights. There was a
part I left about about inferences from these evidences.

Q. Can Creation Science be taught without reference to
the Bible?

A. As far as footnoting the Bible, yeah. Without
reference, in the broader sense, no.

Q. Well, I want to ask you some very specific
questions. Can a high school student be taught that
there was a worldwide flood without telling him that it
was Noah's flood?

A. My opinion on that is strictly that the teacher can
get up there and make that statement without reference to
the fact that it's Noah's flood, but it's very obvious

113

to me, and I feel sure that when you talk about a
worldwide flood and the majority of the students, the
first thing that's going pop in their mind is going to be
Noah's flood. And that their little hands or big hands,
or whatever is going to pop up in the air and then
questions are going to result.

Q. Are you saying that they can or cannot be taught
without reference to the Bible?

A. In my mind or understanding of the word teach, it
cannot be.

Q. Can the subject matter be presented verbally
or in textbook form, or in filmstrips without the words
Genesis, Adam and Eve, or Noah to be contained therein?

A. Yes, it can.

Q. Okay. Would it be safe to say that you're trying to
tell me that you think that the student's would naturally
assume that this was a Genesis version of science?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you find that objectionable?

A. I can't say that I find that specific aspect of
it objectionable.

Q. Very briefly, where do you go to church?

A. I do not.

Q. Are you an atheist?

A. I am not.

114

Q. Or do you believe in God?

A. I do.

Q. Are you --

A. I might say I belong -- I am on the membership roll
of a Baptist church. However, I haven't attended church
in several years.

Q. How many years?

A. I attended church regularly probably fifteen
years ago. I have been in church several times, but I
haven't been a regular attender.

Q. Why have you stopped being a regular attender?

A. The reason I stopped is because I belong to a Baptist
church. And as I went to Sunday school and we had
discussions, there was a lot of discussion in our church
about the old Church of Christ or the old Catholics. And
members of our church put down other religion. And I came
to the conclusion, in my mind, that people all different
denomintions and religions have just as good of ideas in
faith as anyone else. And I decided then, that although I
am a religious person, I do pray, I do believe in God, I do
not belong to a denomination for that purpose, the in
fighting that seems to take place in my past experiences
between denominations that one is right and one's not.

Q. How often do you pray?

A. Well, it's kind of hard to put a number on that

115

thing. I don't pray daily. I would say I probably
pray monthly anyway.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes, I'm married.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. I do.

Q. Do they attend church?

A. Yes, they do. The youngest is three months old.
He hasn't been to church other than to be baptized, yet
he was baptized and they do attend church, as does my
wife.

Q. Do they attend the Baptist church?

A. They do not.

Q. Where do they go to church?

A. Catholic.

Q. Do you know Bill Wood?

A. I met Bill Wood for the first time, Sunday.

Q. And where was that?

A. Right in this office.

Q. When you came down for your deposition?

A. Well, I thought this was my deposition.

Q. We had scheduled your deposition before, was that --

A. No, no. It was to discuss with attorneys here, my
testimony at the trial.

Q. Was Mr. Wood there?

116

A. He was in a meeting prior to my coming in and we met
as we exchanged -- he walked out and I came in.

Q. Okay. You know Ron Coward?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. What did you discuss with the lawyers here
Sunday?

A. I discussed what my testimony would be in the trial.

Q. Do you know how they got your name as a witness.

A. Generally, yes. I didn't ask specifically.

Q. How did they get your name as a witness?

A. I wrote my letter to the Gazette. After that I
was contacted by Bob Cearley, and he came up and we had
a discussion about my role as supervisor of science, and
so forth. And during that time, I can't say for sure
this is how it happened, but I was discussing giving my
opinion on it. And he said "Would you be willing to testify
to that?" And I said, "Yes, I would." And it went from
there.

Q. Do you know if anybody else in the Little Rock
school system was contacted about being a witness
in this lawsuit.

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Has -- have you gotten the approval of anybody in
the school district to be a witness in this lawsuit?

A. They know about it, there was no approval given.

117

Q. Okay,. Who did you tell.

A. I told the superintendent, I told the associate
superintendent, I've told the assistant superintendent,
and I've told the School Board.

Q. And did any of them agree that you should be a
witness?

A. No.

Q. Did any of them indicate any dismay that you were
going to be a witness?

A. No.

Q. Did any of them indicate that they thought it was a
good idea?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Okay. I want to make some -- what's our next
Exhibit number? I'm going to move that Exhibits 1
through 10 be made part of the deposition.

[Thereupon Defendant's Exhibits #1
throught #10 were introduced to the record.]

Q. And I'm going to ask that the papers which show
"Creation Unit" be Exhibit 11.

The two articles from Phi Delta Kappan to be Exhibit
12. The letter from Richard Bliss to be Exhibit 13. The
cover letter and article from Dr. Krain, K-r-a-i-n,
be Exhibit 14. The letter to the editor of the Gazette
be Exhibit 15. The essay by Steven J. Gould be 16.

118

And the articles given by Dr. Richard Bliss to Mr.
Glasgow be Exhibit 17. And that's all I have.

[Thereupon Defendant's Exhibits #11
through #17 were introduced to the record.]

[Thereupon the above styled deposition
was concluded at 4:50 p.m.]

* * * * * * * * * *

120

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF ARKANSAS}
}ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI}

RE: DENNIS GLASGOW

I, MICHELLE R. NIENSTEDT of LAURA BUSHMAN COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, a Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated
by me in the caption on the foregoing deposition are true;
and that the foregoing deposition of the witness was
transcribed by me or under my supervision on the STENO-CAT
Computerized Transcription System from my machine
shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out in the
caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and
sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this
the 3rd of December, 1981.

________________________________________
Michelle R. Nienstedt, Notary Public
in and for Pulaski County, AR

My commission expires 1-13-85

LAURA BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
1100 N. University, Suite 223
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) 664-7357

138

WITNESS' SIGNATURE

I, Dennis R. Glasgow, the witness, hereby certify
that I have thoroughly read the transcript of my deposition
taken on the 30th day of November, 1981, and have made any
necessary changes or corrections to make the transcript a
true and accurate accounting of my testimony given on that
day.

______________________________
(Signature)

12-9-81
______________________________
(Date signed)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I, Linda J. McClellan, A Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County of Arkansas do hereby certify that the above deposition
was read, corrected and signed in my presence.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the
9th day of December, 1981.

My commission expires
on June 10, 1984 LINDA J. McClellan
Notary Public

(Seal)

Deposition of William V. Mayer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

---------------------------------x

WILLIAM McLEAN, et al.,            :

                           Plaintiffs,       :

                 -against-                 :

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE  :
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al.,
                                               :
                           Defendants.
                                               :
---------------------------------x

                                         Deposition of WILLIAM V.

                       MAYER, held at the offices of Skadden

                       Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Esqs., 919

                       Third Avenue, New York, New York, on

                       the 23rd day of November, 1981, at

                       10:20 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Notice,

                       before Thomas W. Murray, C.S.R., a

                       Notary Public of the State of New

                       York.

2

APPEARANCES:
          CEARLEY, GITCHEL, MITCHELL and
          ROACHELL, ESQS.
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
                    P.O. Box 1510
                    Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

          By: ROBERT M. CEARLEY, JR.,
                                                          Of Counsel

          STEVE CLARK, ESQ.
          Attorney General of the State of ARkansas
          Attorney for Defendant
                    Justice Building
                    Little Rock, Arkansas

3

W I L L I A M   V.  M A Y E R, called as
a witness, having been first duly sworn by
the Notary Public, was examined and
testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY

MR. CLARK:

Q. Dr. Mayer, if you would, please state
your full name and your address for the record.

A. It is William Vernon Mayer, *** ***
******, ******, ******** *****.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your wife's name?

A. Margaret.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. She is a housewife. She is the busiest
of us all.

Q. By the way, I think I noticed that you
will be celebrating your wedding anniversary in
December.

A. Forty years.

Q. What day?

A. December 23rd.

Q. Do you have children, Dr. Mayer?

4

A. Yes.

Q. Their names and ages?

A. William. He was born May 27, 1947.
Ann, May 5, 1945.

Q. What does William do?

A. He is the comptroller for Northwest
Paper Bag Company in Portland, Oregon.

Q. What does Ann do?

A. She teaches at the Wharton School in
Philadelphia.

Q. What does she teach?

A. She teaches law and Middle Eastern
history. She is a lawyer.

Q. What legal subject does she teach?

A. I know she teaches some introductory
law, but mostly her specialty is Middle Eastern
law.

Q. Where did they attend schools, public
schools?

A. In Los Angeles, in Detroit, in Boulder,
Colorado.

Q. What about their undergraduate and
graduate education, at least in the case of Ann?

A. Ann went to the University of Michigan

5

and Princeton. She has a Ph.D from Michigan, law
degree from Princeton. And Bill did his
undergraduate work at the University of Colorado
in Boulder.

Q. While they were in either secondary
schools or in their collegiate education or
graduate education, do you know what science
courses they took, if they took any?

A. They tool all the science courses
offered in high school and as electives in college
they had science.

Q. To your knowledge, was the subject of
origins ever discussed in any classes that either
one of them took?

A. Yes.

Q. What classes were those?

A. They would be in the science classes,
in some of the classes in the social sciences, and
in the humanities classes. It is a pretty
pervasive subject.

Q. Where were those classes in the
structure of their education? In their secondary
education, collegiate education or graduate
education?

6

A. I imagine it would permeate all three.

Q. Do you know if the creation theory of
origin was taught to them?

A. No, they were not. When they were
coming through this was just a recent thing.

Q. So the best you know that was never
discussed in those cases?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the evolution model taught in any
of those classes?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea of the manner in
which that was presented?

A. It would be presented as a scientific
theory. The exact attitudes and the exact method
of prejudices would be unknown to me.

Q. Do you, Dr. Mayer, distinguish between
scientific theory and a scientific model?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the distinction?

A. A theory is a synthetic explanation of
the facts. It is a state of the art explanation
that is subject to change as we learn more about a
topic. We have had lots of theories. Science is

7

strewn with discarded theories. A model, strictly
speaking, is a construct or a representation.
This is simply a device for illuminating a problem
or giving you something to discuss. But it is not
the same as a theory.

Q. You said that your children were taught
the evolution theory of origin?

A. Yes.

Q. Which is a state of the art explanation
subject to change as to discovery in science; is
that right?

A. Right.

Q. Are you a member of any organized
religious faith?

A. I have been a Christian Scientist, I
have been a Lutheran, I have been a Unitarian, I
have been an Episcopalian. At this particular
moment I am not a formal church member.

Q. Would you identify for me basically the
time frame in which you were a member of each of
these organized religious faiths? Christian
Science first.

A. The Christian Science was the first one.
I remember going to Christian Science Sunday

8

schools as a youth when I was going to grammer
school. Then I switched. I think it had to do
with our moving and no longer being near a
Christian Science church. When I was in Los
Angeles I became involved with the Unitarian faith
and subsequently Episcopalian, and I would guess
for the last ten years I have not been formally
associated with a church.

Q. What do each of those faiths as they
were taught to you say about origin, Christian
Science for instance?

A. None of them made an issue of it. The
Genesis account to which most religions have
referred is largely regarded as allegorical in all
of these. If any of the groups with which I was
associated was more likely to be authoritarian on
this point, it would have been the Lutherans.

Q. Authoritarian in the sense of that
statement as to origin would have been what?

A. It wouldn't have changed the statement
so much as the status of the statement. That is,
it would say that this is an account that
supersedes all other accounts, it is a prime
explanation which covers all others.

9

Q. Do you believe that a religious person
can be a competent scientist?

A. Absolutely.

Q. I would like to, Dr. Mayer, to go over
your employment history in terms of where you have
taught. If you would go over that for me, I would
appreciate it, where you taught, what capacity,
your basic duties there.

A. I first began collegiate teaching in
1948 at Stanford University, where I was a
lecturer and taught comparative anatomy. From
1949 to 1957 I was employed at the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles. My teaching
duties involved introductory biology, general
zoology, comparative anatomy, human and mammalian
anatomy, evolution, mammology, graduate seminars
of various kinds, not all at the same time
obviously. These were over a period of ten years.

I then went to the Wayne State
University in Detroit, Michigan, as head of the
department of biology there, was associate dean of
the college of liberal arts. While there I taught
primarily comparative anatomy. At the University
of Colorado, from roughly 1967 to date, I have

10

been professor of biology. I do mostly work with
graduate students, a few seminars, and teach a
class in the teaching of modern biology.

Q. A class in the teaching of modern
biology?

A. Right.

Q. In your teaching at the University of
Southern California, you said you taught
introduction to biology, zoology, and other
courses. You also mentioned you taught evolution.

A. That's right.

Q. Could you give me some background in
terms of synopsis, I suppose, of that evolution
course as it at least applies to the theory of
origin?

A. When I taught this, origins was not an
issue. As I say, origins is something that has
really come up in the last 10, 15 years. When we
taught evolution, we taught it from a classical
standpoint, beginning back with the Greeks, moving
up through Darwin and into the Twentieth Century
as ways people looked at this phenomenon and how
it developed. Origins themselves were not a major
problem.

11

Q. Did you teach origins in your
introductory to biology?

A. It would have taken at most no more
than an hour when we would talk about theories of
origins.

Q. What theories did you advance in that
course?

A. There were a number. One of them, of
course, is the theory that life did not originate
on earth but, rather, originated elsewhere and
came to this planet through space. That is
sometimes spoken of as the cosmosoic theory.
Another is that this is not an issue at all,
simply because matter and life are eternal, there
is no beginning, there is no end, therefore the
subject of origins is moot.

The theory of spontaneous generation
that was held a hundred or so years ago, where
life was supposedly to arise from inanimate matter
at any point in time. The heterotroph hypothesis,
which postulates that at one time the conditions
on the planet were propitious for the origin of
life, and it so arose and has not done so since.
Those are a sampler of theories, as we would say,

12

held on this topic.

Q. But in your evolution class you did not
teach any theories of origin?

A. I would have mentioned those. I would
have mentioned those, yes.

Q. I misunderstood. I was just trying to
clarify.

In your latest teaching at the
University of Colorado, you said you teach modern
biology. Do you teach those same theories of
origin in that course?

A. We teach those theories, yes, and we
have added now the problems that teachers face
with pressures from biblical literalists to
include their materials in classrooms, because
that has now become an issue. In the past it was
not.

Q. In your teaching the course of teaching
modern biology, do you also teach or expose
potential biology teachers to the other sorts of
contemporary issues as to the values in science?

A. Yes.

Q. Would a goal of that course be to expose
a student enrolled in the course to problems of

13

teaching biology in a contemporary setting, value
judgments versus science versus the political
process?

A. We would attempt to acquaint the
teacher with the realities of the classroom.
Unfortunately, most teacher training is almost in
a vacuum. It runs in a kind of idealized setting,
and the teacher is trained to impart information.
In the real world, the teacher is subject to all
kinds of pressures from various groups to do
various things. We live in a contentious and
litigious age, and education is as much subject to
this as any other discipline.

Teachers who are not prepared to find
themselves in this kind of setting usually get
exceptionally unhappy with their jobs and quit at
a very early age. We would like to open their eyes
to the problems that they face, that they are not
unsoluble problems, that there are ways of
handling them.

In short, we want to make them more
effective teachers who will dedicate their lives
to teaching and not find it such an unsatisfactory
and demanding profession that they quit.

14

Q. Dr. Mayer, do you also in that course
make observations or comment about materials that
are available, texts, other sorts of teaching aids?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you something about your own
personal education background. Where did you
graduate from high school?

A. Grant Union High School in Del Paso
Heights, California. That is a suburb of
Sacramento.

Q. When did you graduate?

A. In June of 1937.

Q. What science courses did you take in
high school, Dr. Mayer?

A. I took all the science I could get. I
took general science, I took biology, I took
chemistry, I took physics. This was all they
offered, that was all I could take.

Q. Did you study origins in high school?

A. No.

Q. In none of your classes did you study
theories of origin?

A. No. Of course, you are dealing with a
fallible memory now. We are talking about

15

something that was 40 years ago. But whatever it
was, it was not an issue, it was never anything
that caused any perturbation in the system.

Q. So if whatever was included in any
materials, if there was anything, it was not of
controversy or of great debate?

A. No.

Q. But to the best of your recollection,
you do not recall an evolution model of origin or
theory or anything else that was taught to you in
high school?

A. There was undoubtedly mention of
evolution. Whether it was mentioned as a theory
or an idea or a concept or whatever, I could not
remember. But it would be almost impossible to
teach a biology course either without implicitly
or explicitly dealing with the problems of
evolution.

Q. Let me ask you about your undergraduate
education. Where did you attend school?

A. University of California at Berkeley.
Majored in zoology.

Q. When did you graduate?

A. In June of 1941.

16

Q. What degree did you receive?

A. I received a Bachelor's degree in
zoology.

Q. Did you study origins in undergraduate
school?

A. The word "origins" is the thing I am
hung up on. Did I study evolution? Yes. The
origin argument is a basically recent one, because
when I was going to school we didn't have much
knowledge, scientific knowledge, about what would
be origins. So it was kind of a nonpoint at the
time.

Q. You have a degree in zoology?

A. Right.

Q. From University of California at
Berkeley?

A. Right.

Q. I am trying to understand. You are
saying that at that time during your study there
was not much discussion as to the origin of life
or origin of man; there might have been of
evolution but not of origin of species?

A. This is what I am hung up on, the way
"origins" is used. At Berkeley we would have had

17

an exposure to evolutionary theory and all that
that implied. But I don't recall anyone at the
time talking in terms of origins such as they do
today. They would have talked about the
scientific evidences that would have supported a
thesis that organisms change through time.

Q. Would you define for me what you
believe "origin" means?

A. It can have several meanings. It can
have the primary or primordial origin of life,
universe, the earth, and all things on it, that is,
an event in the past that occurred apparently one
time. It can have the meaning of an origin of a
new species or a new type of organism. For
example, in today's laboratories one can get a
patent on a new life form. In a way, that has to
be considered an origin. I just made something
new and I can take it to the U.S. Patent Office
and I can get a patent. That's an origin.

So the term has different uses in the
literature depending on who is using it.

Q. Using "origin" defined as first life or
beginning of life in whatever form, in your under-
graduate education were you ever presented with a

18

creation model or theory of origin?

A. No.

Q. Were you ever presented or confronted
with the evolution theory or model of origin?

A. There wouldn't have been an evolution
theory of origins. This subject became a point in
science in the very late thirties and early
forties with some experimentation that had been
done to develop what was known as the heterotroph
hypothesis. So as a piece of subject matter it
really didn't exist until at the very best 40
years ago.

Q. About the time you were finishing your
undergraduate education?

A. About the time. Of course, we didn't
know about DNA. There were a lot of things I was
never taught and had to learn subsequently.

Q. Where did you do your postgraduate work?

A. Stanford University.

Q. When did you graduate there?

A. I received my Ph.D in 1949.

Q. Do you hold a Master's Degree?

A. No.

Q. What was the subject matter of your

19

dissertation?

A. It was a thesis on comparative anatomy,
and it had to do with a way of identifying
organisms as to genus and species, that is,
species of mammals, by examination of their hair.

Q. Is it published somewhere?

A. It was published in -- a piece of it
was published in the American Midland Naturalist
sometime in the early fifties. I can't remember
the date.

Q. I want to go back to an earlier
question when we were talking about your
employment history, teaching history. You are now
a director of BCSC, right?

A. BSCS.

Q. Excuse me. Does BSCS have a statement
of purpose?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you happen to have a copy of that
available or that can Mr. Cearley make available
to me?

A. Yes. We have an admission statement,
yes.

Q. Can you summarize that for me?

20

A. Basically, it is the improvement of
biological education at all levels.

MR. CEARLEY: Would you index requests
for documents and objections, and if there are any
exhibits, index the exhibits also in the
deposition.

Q. In your graduate work at Stanford, did
you study evolution or origins?

A. I studied evolution, and about the time
of my graduate work there began to be a
significant body of scientific data that was
suggesting a way in which life could have
originated, yes.

Q. In what classes did you participate in
those studies?

A. Cellular physiology would have been one.
The courses that would deal in any way with
evolution would be others. I am not sure at that
time it had permeated into general biology,
because it was a fairly new bit of information.

Q. In that study of the origin of life,
was an evolution theory or model a part of that?

A. The evolutionary theory certainly was,
yes.

21

Q. Can you describe to me basically how it
was in each of these? These were new studies.
Was there anything different from what you have
already told me, I guess is what I am asking.

A. One always tries to push back the
boundaries of knowledge. In my earlier education
people just weren't working in this area. These
were the kind of thoughts that you didn't think
because there was no way to handle them.
Particularly during World War II there were many,
many biochemical advances that went along that led
us to believe that there were processes operating
at the molecular level that we had had heretofore
thought only operated at the organismic level. In
other works, we were reducing our view of life to
a molecular level, and that was a new and
intriguing and interesting idea. So it was
evolutionary theory expanded into a molecular base.

Q. Was there ever a presentation of a
creation theory or model of origin?

A. No.

Q. What other training have you received
in your field of zoology or others outside the
education you have just discussed?

22

A. I suppose most of it has been
experimental, sort of on-the-job training that we
all get: Reading, attending seminars, meetings,
various workshops, programs of one kind or another
to update. My acquaintance with scientific
colleagues, discussions with them, we learn from
one another.

Q. Did you do any training or have any
training when you were at the Aviation School of
Medicine when you were in the Service?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that training?

A. Of course, I got all the standard
military training and some specialty work, but
this was primarily in medical aspects. And then I
taught at the School of Aviation Medicine as well.

Q. What did you teach?

A. I taught survival. Because I was a
biologist and was familiar with organisms and what
you might call the ecology of various strange
places, I was teaching people how to survive in
these areas.

Q. In your undergraduate and in your
graduate work, did you have a principal professor

23

or someone whom you looked to as a --

A. Yes, several. At the University of
California at Berkeley Dr. E. Raymond Hall, who
was head of the Museum of Vertebrat Zoology there,
was my mentor and the man under whom I did my
first piece of research.

When I returned to Stanford University,
my major professor was Charles Haskel Danforth,
who was head of the department of anatomy at
Stanford.

Q. Are either one of those gentlemen
presently living?

A. Hall I believe still is living in
Lawrence, Kansas. Haskel Danforth is dead,
unfortunately.

Q. Did either one of those two gentlemen
ever advance a theory or model of creation of
origin?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever received any training in
the area of origin of life other than the
education which we have gone over or the
experimental or on-the-job training you discussed
in terms of seminars and those things you

24

participated in?

A. No.

Q. What I was basically looking for, Dr.
Mayer, was special institutes, the sorts of things
that from time to time, because of your academic
profession -- I used to teach at the law school in
Arkansas, for instance. There are summer
institutes held for three or six weeks in length
or three months in length. Any special training
of that sort?

A. I would have included these under
workshops or seminars or something of that nature.

Q. Would any of those particularly have
dealt with the theory of origin or evolution or
creation or any of those?

A. They would have dealt with evolution
and the heterotroph hypothesis and scientific
evidences, yes.

Q. Any of those that stand out particularly
in your mind that you remember?

A. I suppose the man who had -- two men
had the greatest influence on me in this regard.
One was a Dr. John A. Moore, who was at Columbia
and now is at Riverside, University of California

25

at Riverside. The other is Dr. Hiram Bentley
Glass, who was formerly at the State University of
New York at Stony Brook and has now retired. I
think those two had the greatest influence on me.

Q. Are you licensed to teach in Colorado
or any other particular state?

A. In California. I have a general
secondary certificate in the State of California.

Q. Are you licensed by their state board
of education?

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you held that license?

A. 1947, 1948, back in there somewhere.

Q. Is it a license for a specific area?

A. It was for science.

Q. That would include --

A. Biology, chemistry, physics, general
science.

Q. What were the requirements to obtain
that license?

A. First of all, you had to complete a
course of studies at a university, recognized
university with the college of education, in both
subject matter and pedagogy. You had to have

26

classroom experience. You would have had to have
done what we called at that time practice teaching
and be supervised. And on the basis of all of
these -- it took five years. It took an extra
year. One year after you got your Bachelor's
degree you went on and got your teaching
certificate.

Q. Do you have any special certifications
beyond those?

A. No.

Q. Could you please tell me the names of
professional associations of which you are now a
member?

A. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Q. How long have you been a member of that
organization?

A. Forty years.

Q. What is its purpose?

A. As its name suggests, it is a group of
scientists who are dedicated to the advancement of
science. It is primarily concerned with the
dissemination of scientific information to
scientists and only secondarily to the lay public.

27

Q. Do you hold any position in that
organization or have you held any position?

A. I have been on some committees. I can
not remember them. Wait a minute. I was on
Section Q, which was education, and I have held a
few positions relative to meetings, and I am a
fellow of the group.

Q. Being a fellow is appointed, elected?
What sort of position is that?

A. It is some sort of recognition to your
having made some kind of contribution to science.

Q. Section Q, you said, dealt with
education?

A. That's right.

Q. In what fashion?

A. In all fashions. It deals with it at
the collegiate level and at the secondary level
and at the graduate level.

Q. This is actually the presentation of
instruction?

A. Yes.

Q. Formulation of instructional materials?

A. Yes.

Q. What other organizations?

28

A. National Association of Biology
Teachers. I am past president of that
organization. I am honorary member of that
organization. And I am chairman of their
committee for education in evolutionary biology.

Q. What is the purpose of that
organization?

A. It is to assist biology teachers in
presenting the discipline in an effective and
accurate fashion.

Q. What is your role as chairman of the
committee on education and -- what else?

A. Evolutionary biology.

Q. Yes.

A. We have a national group concerned with
the improvement of education in evolutionary
biology. Our role is the preparation of materials.
We serve as a monitoring group, that is, a review
group for articles that appear in the publication
The American Biology Teacher dealing with
evolution. We organize meetings and symposia. I
organized, for example, all the evolution papers
or papers relative to evolution that were presented
at the October 1981 convention of the National

29

Association of Biology Teachers.

Q. You said you are charged with the
responsibility of preparation of materials. What
kinds of materials specifically?

A. Currently we are engaged in the
preparation of a compendium of information on the
evolution/creation controversy, to illuminate it,
to present the data that is under question or
involved in this argument, so that teachers,
school boards, others can have a reference source.
Because I find them woefully uninformed.

Q. Is any of that information available
presently?

A. There is a current compendium. I am
not sure whether it is in print or not. But it is
available from the National Association of Biology
Teachers.

Q. Would you make that available to Mr.
Cearley so he can make that available to me?

MR. CEARLEY: I have one of those at my
office. I will be happy to copy it for you.

MR. CLARK: Thank you very much.

Q. You also said the purpose of this
committee was to review materials. Are those

30

materials prepared by others who are not members
of the National Association of Biology Teachers?

A. Not primarily. It was a review for
publication in the American Biology Teacher. All
the papers that appear are refereed, that is, they
are reviewed by what you might call a peer group.
We review all of the papers submitted on the topic
of evolution.

Q. Then to organize various meetings and
symposia, you suggested. Have you done any others
on evolution other than the 1981 symposium?

A. Not for NABT, no.

Q. All of the papers that were presented
at that national meeting are available?

A. I believe so.

Q. Were they published somewhere?

A. The meeting was just held last month,
so I don't really know the status of the papers
right now. some of the people are willing to
present a paper but don't have the time and energy
to prepare it for publication.

Q. I understand that. Could you furnish
to Mr. Cearley so he can give to us a list of
those persons who presented papers and the topic?

31

We might want to inquire what was there.

A. Yes.

MR. CEARLEY: What date was that?

Q. October of 1981.

A. I can give you the exact date, if you
let me.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. That was Friday, October 23. I don't
have the names of all of the people right here.
But that was the date at which this presentation
was made. I will get you that list of people, the
names, their addresses, their titles of papers.

Q. Did any of those papers deal with the
theory of origin either based in evolution or
creation?

A. Yes.

Q. Did all of them deal with those?

A. No.

Q. Were you present for the presentation
of those papers which did deal with the issue of
evolution and creation?

A. Some of them, because the way the
meeting was set up there unfortunately were
conflicting sessions, and you couldn't be two

32

places at once.

Q. Did any of those papers that were
presented take a position promoting or defending a
creation model of origin?

A. No.

Q. Did any of those papers presented take
a position of attacking, if you will, or
"questioning" perhaps is a better word, an
evolution model of origin?

A. Yes, I think so, in the sense that they
would have dealt with certain evidences or
discoveries that were considered of greater or
less importance than originally thought.

Q. That paper would be consistent with
what you told me the purpose of NABT and I guess
AAAS also, to push back the -- I forgot your
choice of words.

A. Frontier, cutting edge?

Q. -- frontier of knowledge.

A. Yes, it would be designed to acquaint
teachers with the newest discoveries and the newest
interpretations, yes.

Q. If a scientist advanced a position on a
theory of origin or creation based in science, do

33

you find that as a scientist inconsistent with the
coals of either one of those two organizations?

A. If a scientist presented scientific
evidence that would support a position at variance
with the theory of evolution, I would think that
appropriate.

Q. What other professional associations do
you belong to than those we have mentioned?

A. National Science Teachers Association.

Q. How long and what is the purpose of
that organization?

A. It is to promote better science
education. It deals with all the sciences. How
long I belonged, 20 years, 25 years, I can't
remember.

Q. Are you now or have you ever been an
officer in that organization.

A. No.

Q. What other organizations, Dr. Mayer?

A. I am just trying to think. I have been
a member of the American Society of Zoologists,
Western Society of Naturalists, Sigma Zi, Phi
Sigma, Phi Delta Kappa. These are all
fraternities or organizations. And my memory

34

fails me.

Q. Do any of the organizations which we
have just gone over to which you belong, have they
taken a position on whether the creation model or
theory of origin should be discussed in the
classroom?

A. Yes.

Q. Which organizations and what position?

A. AAAS, NABT, National Science Teachers
Association, American Society of Zoologists. And
the position is that the creationist position is
religion and not science and has no place in the
science classroom.

Q. Is that written down anywhere?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are those position papers available for
me to get copies of?

A. Yes. Not only those, but numbers of
others. I can just Xerox them.

Q. I would appreciate that very much, Dr.
Mayer.

A. I would have to say that practically
every major scientific and educational
organization in America has taken the same

35

position.

Q. What other major scientific or
educational organizations that the ones we have
already covered would you be making reference to?

A. American Institute of Biological
Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Chemical Society, various state academies,
and so on.

Q. In the positions that have been taken
by the groups to which you belong, did you
personally have any input or influence in that
position as was adopted?

A. Probably with the statement of the
National Association of Biology Teachers. The
others seemed to be independently derived.

Q. What was the nature of your
participation with NABT and their position on the
teaching of the theory of origin or evolution?

A. This occurred in the early seventies
primarily in response to pressures in California
to change the state's science framework to include
creationism. At that time I testified before the
state board of education in San Francisco, and
that testimony was also buttressed by the then

36

executive director of NABT, a man by the name of
Dr. Jerry Lightner. And this developed into a
position statement which was adopted by the
organization by ballot.

Q. Do you recall the vote in terms of how
this was adopted by NABT?

A. I don't recall the exact numbers, but
the membership approved it. That's all I can
remember.

Q. What is the size of NABT in terms of
membership?

A. About 6,000.

Q. What are the requirements for membership?

A. Basically that you are interested in
biology teaching at any level.

Q. Does one have to be a biology teacher,
practicing teacher, to be a member of NABT?

A. No. You could belong if you so desired.
But we would assume that you would belong because
you had some interest in what the organization was
doing.

Q. So it is really a matter of making
application and expressing that interest?

A. That's right. I am sure, for example,

37

that many creationists belong to the NABT.

Q. Do you know that for a fact?

A. I know it at one time. I don't know if
they belong today or not.

Q. Anyone in particular or persons in
particular?

A. I can remember John N. Moore of
Michigan State belonging, and several of them have
had papers that appeared in the journal. The
journal is normally limited to contributions of
the membership.

Q. John N. Moore is a professor of --

A. He was a professor of biology in the
general college at Michigan State University.

Q. Is he still a professor there?

A. I understand he has retired.

Q. Do any of the organizations to which
you belong have a position on whether the
evolution model of origin should be discussed in
the classroom?

A. I am not trying to avoid the issue. I
think the answer is perhaps, in the sense that I
don't recall anyone having a resolution demanding
or mandating it. But it is implicit in the

38

subject matter of biology and it is one of those
things that unless you voted against it, it would
be there.

Q. Then there is nothing written down as
to a policy that specifically says, as you say,
mandates or requires the teaching of evolution
model of origin?

A. No.

Q. Is there anything that makes a
statement that it is good professional practice or
in some way summarizes or characterizes what you
have just stated to me, that is, it would be
implicit in being complete in biological
instruction to include this section of instruction
or this area for instruction?

A. Among professional biologists the
theory of evolution is as important to biology as
the atomic theory, let's say, is to chemistry or
physics. It would be very difficult to imagine
that biology would make sense at all without some
kind of evolutionary framework as a synthetic
explanation of the facts.

Q. Is it then accurate to characterize the
theory of evolution to biology as either a

39

presumed matter of fact or an assumption in its
most elementary form, not subject to question?

A. All facts of science are subject to
question. I cannot recall a single instance where
something has been said to not be questioned. So
in terms of whether it can be questioned, the
answer is it is questioned all of the time. I
have kind of lost the thread of your question now.
I picked up one piece of it. I'm sorry, I seem to
have lost the rest of it.

(Record read.)

A. Then I answered that it was always
subject to question. Now can I deal with this
presumed matter of fact?

Q. Please, Doctor.

A. This has to do with interpretation,
basically. Fundamentally, evolution says organisms
change over time. In short, that the organisms
that are on the earth today were not the same as
organisms on the earth thousands or millions of
years ago. That is a fact in the sense that it is
as good as any other scientific fact. Because you
dig up dinosaurs and obviously they lived sometime
in the past and they are not alive today, so there

40

is a change there. We dig up out of the past
various organisms that indicate to us that they
were alive then and not now, the process of
extinction.

So, if you are dealing with a fact -- a
fact is relative, a fact is never fixed -- then
you would have to say the fact that organisms
change through time is a demonstrable thing. If
that is factual, then so it is.

The account of how that came into being
is quite another matter. That gets you into the
theories and the hypotheses, and so on.

Q. Do you subscribe to any professional
publications?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Can you at least identify for me most
of those or some of those or provide a list? That
might be easier.

A. I could give them to you. Science, The
Science Teacher, The american Biology Teacher,
Bioscience, Natural History, and then there are
generalizable magazines like Science '81 and
things of that nature. So I get a great number.
Plus the fact I see all copies that come to

41

our library, and that makes it even more gross.

Q. Are you on the mailing list of any
organization which supports the teaching of a
creation model or a theory of origin in public
schools?

A. I have been. They seem to take me off
all the time.

Q. What organization or organizations have
you been in?

A. The Institute for Creation Research out
of San Diego. They publish a number of things,
Acts and Facts, their Impact series, and so forth.
I used to get those. I don't anymore. But I come
across them tangentially anyhow. I have purchased
a lot of their materials to see what they say.

Q. Are there any other organizations
besides the Institute for Creation Research?

A. Oh, yes. There is the Bible Science
Association in Caldwell, Idaho. There is the
Science Research, whatever it is.

Q. Center.

A. Center. And that is in San Diego.
These things are very close together physically
but a little apart philosophically. The people in

42

Loma Linda publish a work called Origins, which I
have gotten from time to time. In Buffalo, New
York, Creation/Evolution is a journal that deals
with this problem, and I am on the mailing list
for that. So I get things formally and then
people send me a lot of things informally.

Q. Those which you receive formally and
have sought to receive formally, your interest is
what?

A. My interest is educational primarily,
scientific secondarily, because these people are
proposing that this is an alternative to evolution
that should be in schools.

Q. Are you on the mailing list of any
organizations which is opposed to the teaching of a
creation theory or creation model of origin in the
public schools?

A. Yes, those organizations I mentioned
earlier that have taken that position. If I
belong to them and receive their journals, except
that those journals don't hammer home the point.
It is not their major thesis.

Q. Are there any organizations where that
would be their major thesis that you are on the

43

mailing list of?

MR. CEARLEY: Would you ask that
question again?

MR. CLARK: Dr. Mayer characterized
NABT and AAAS and others as organizations which
are opposed to the teaching of creation theory or
creation model, but they did not hammer it home,
is his choice of words, as to their major thesis.

I am asking him if he is on the
mailing list of or has sought any information from
any organization whose major thesis is hammering
home opposition to this construction.

A. I don't know of an organization that is
anticreationist, that that is their raison d'etre.
There are a number of organizations that have a
tangential interest in this and say that it is not
good science, but they don't say that
creationism should be driven out of existence. I
suppose there may be some atheistic groups, but I
am not on any atheist mailing lists.

Q. Have you ever taught origin in a
classroom?

A. When I taught evolution I dealt with
what we know of origins at the time.

44

Q. That was when you were at Southern Cal?

A. Yes.

Q. In that instruction and origin, have
you ever discussed in the classroom the creation
model or theory of origin?

A. No. It didn't exist when I was doing
this teaching.

Q. In any of your professional teaching
career have you ever discussed or taught the
creation theory or model in a classroom?

A. I have discussed it at various meetings
and gatherings of teachers and scientists. I have
included it in my course in modern biology
teaching.

Q. How do you go about teaching that or
what actually do you cover in terms of the block
of instruction in your course on teaching modern
biology?

A. Our primary aim is to acquaint teachers
with the fact that pressure groups exist that wish
to add something to the curriculum, change
something that is in the curriculum, or take
something out of the curriculum. And this is a
very good example of people who want to add

45

something to or take something out.

We deal with the creationist position
in the sense that it is asking for equal time in
the classroom for this explanation and why it is
not a good thing to do.

Q. In identifying why it is not a good
thing to do, do you instruct your class in basic
educational philosophy or in science?

A. Both.

Q. Would you tell me what you tell them?

A. Can I give you a condensation?

Q. Yes, sir, please.

A. In education there are a variety of
ways of knowing about the world. We call ways of
knowing or the principle or the discipline of ways
of knowing, this is referred to as epistomology.
Liberal arts colleges were originally organized
along this basis. A student had to come in and
take certain work in the humanities, certain work
in the social sciences, certain work in the
natural sciences, and so on, in order to acquaint
him or her with how people look at the world.

A poet looks at a mountain and sings of
purple mountain magesties. A mineralogist looks

46

at it and says there is tungsten there. a
forester sees trees, a fisherman lakes and fish,
and so on. None of these people are wrong. They
are just looking at the mountain from different
viewpoints, and each has a conclusion.

In the structure of knowledge people
with religious beliefs look at the world one way
when they look at it from the religious attitude.
Scientists look at it another way. They are not
necessarily contradictory or wrong, they are just
different ways of knowing.

When the creationists look at the world
and say that the Genesis account in the bible is
an accurate scientific account, they are
overstepping epistomological bounds. If they want
to say we believe that the Genesis account is the
way things were and that is an accurate
representation, I can understand that.

And I can also understand that it is at
variance with other religious ways of knowing
about the world. For example, a Catholic might
not agree with that, a Jew might not agree with it.
Certainly a Hindu or a Taoist or a Buddhist may
not agree with that. But that is a recognizable,

47

reasonable way of looking at the world.

If they were right, and there is a big
"if" in there, if they were right, their
explanation would still not be a scientific one.
In other words, they might be correct, but it
doesn't lend itself to scientific discourse.

So what I am telling my students is
that these things belong in proper ball parks.
For the same reason we don't play football on a
field with three bases and a pitcher's mount, we
do not bring into classrooms material that is
inappropriate. I have absolutely no objection to
the creation position taught as religion. I have
spoken many times of the fact that I believe that
we should have in schools courses in comparative
religion.

Religion is an exceptionally important
item in people's lives, and it would be
illuminating if you could understand how different
religious groups viewed the world. You wouldn't
have to believe it, but you could understand and
perhaps deal with things in a more open way if you
knew what actually a Catholic thought or a Jew
thought or various Protestants or American Indians

48

or whatever. It would give you a little better
insight as to why people are the way they are.

So with my students it is not to
ridicule or depricate the belief systems of
individuals, but merely to say that that does not
constitute a scientific explanation and therefore
has no place in the science classroom.

Q. Do you go into references to specific
scientific authority? You seem to be indicating
to me that the first thesis that you offer to your
students is that this is not good educational
philosophy in the sense this is not science. Do
you go one step further and say these are
authorities to prove this is not scientific
discourse or disprove or whatever?

A. I don't like the word "proof" or
"disproof." What I say to them is that it does no
service to either science or religion to get them
mixed up in the minds of students so that it isn't
clear what type of knowledge one derives from a
scientific process versus what type of knowledge
one derives from a theological process. When you
mix them, homogenize them, I think you get muddy
waters and confuse things.

49

Q. You seem to feel very strongly, Dr.
Mayer, that even if the Genesis account of
creation were accurate, it would not be science.

A. That's correct.

Q. Could you explain that to me a little
further?

A. Yes, sir. Science, regardless of what
its faults are, and it has a lot of them, never
resorts to the supernatural for its explanations.
No scientist ever presents a block of data and
says at this point a miracle occurs, because it
isn't within the realm of the way scientists deal
with things.

The creation explanation requires a
supernatural creator and processes of which we can
by definition not know, because they were special
processes of this creator not operating today.
This simply takes it out of the field of observation,
experiment or discourse. We are simply told that
this is the way it is and that we cannot
understand this. You can't accept this in science.

We can say that we don't know about
something. But I don't believe we can accept the
fact that we will never know about something.

50

Q. Do you believe in a creator?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you define for me what your concept
of a creator is?

A. My concept of a creator would be the
overriding principle, as it were, that governs the
universe.

Q. I am trying to understand, Dr. Mayer.
The overriding principle that governs the universe?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that or could that be a law of
science?

A. I doubt it.

Q. Why?

A. Because I couldn't get a scientific
handle on it. If I could, that would be one thing.
If we could actually understand all that has
occurred, it might lead to something that is so
far beyond my comprehension, so far beyond my
knowledge at the present time that I can't
envision it.

Q. Is that supernatural as you defined it?

A. That creator could or could not be
supernatural.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of William V. Mayer - Page 2

51

Q. It could be either then?

A. It could be either simply because I
don't know. If you envision a god as an
omnipotent being, an omniscient, omnipotent being,
this is so far beyond my comprehension, there is
no way that I can envision omniscience. I have a
difficult time with envisioning abstractions.

Infinity, for example, bothers me. My
mind boggles at the concept of something that goes
on forever. I like to think of a boundary out
there, but there can't be, and therefore I simply
throw up my hands and say I can't explain this.

Now maybe ultimately -- 50 years ago
there were a lot of things that I couldn't explain
that are now explainable. Maybe ultimately these
will be explained, maybe they won't.

Q. That infinity concept, is that a part of
the one theory of origin you mentioned earlier,
which is there is no beginning, there is no end?

A. Yes.

Q. The creator as you defined it -- again,
what was your definition? I'm sorry.

A. I would just refer to a governing
principle that I can't understand.

52

Q. The fact that you cannot understand it,
however, does not necessarily make it supernatural?

A. Not necessarily. But, on the other
hand, it doesn't make it science either.

Q. In your classes in your professional
teaching career, have you ever taught or discussed
the evolution model of origin?

A. The evolution theory of origin.

Q. All right, theory.

A. Yes.

Q. How did you go about discussing it?
And in particular as it relates to man or life or
earth or plants.

A. I presented the evidences that indicate
the unity of living things, the structures, the
chemical processes, and so on, that are inherent
throughout the living system and indicate that
this is undoubtedly an indication of relationship.
The more things have in common, the more we
normally think of them as related one to another
and the changing of organisms through time and the
implications of this for making a synthetic state
of the art explanation of classification of
organisms, their diversity, and their

53

relationships.

Q. Is it accurate to state that the
results achieved by any scientific inquiry into
any area are only as good as the underlying
assumptions?

A. The underlying assumptions based on the
available factual evidence, yes.

Q. Have you written any papers, articles
or books other than those which I have copies of
which deal with the subject of origins in
particular? I think you have given us everything
we asked for.

A. I am not sure that I have, that is what
is bothering me.

Q. All right.

A. I am not sure what you have in all of
this pile of things.

Q. Take a minute and look at it.

A. I am sure that I have more than this.
One of my big problems was that I got back to
Colorado Saturday night 9 o'clock and left my
house about 6 a.m. the next morning and didn't
really have much time to pull all of this material
together.

54

I would say this. These materials here
certainly present an accurate summation of
whatever it is I have written.

Q. What are your underlying assumptions as
to the general theory of evolution?

A. First of all, it is a part of science
in the sense that it is derived from the processes
of science. Science is a way of knowing, Science
is a way of finding out. Its assumptions are based
on observation initially, experiment latterly, and
those assumptions, I think, are fairly well
grounded, but mot immutable. All are subject to
change. If a better scientific explanation for
organismic diversity were to come along, there
isn't a scientist I know who wouldn't jettison the
theory of evolution and go with the better thesis.

So the important thing to remember is
that all of these are state of the art explanations
and are all subject to change.

Q. If these are state of the art
explanations subject to change, then are what you
are telling me that science is presenting two
models or three models or four models as to the
evolution process or the theory of origins -- you

55

enumerated, I think, four principles -- that
compete with each other within that body of
science for acceptance, I guess, as being fact.
Those models as advanced by a scientist which
chooses one theory over another, is any of that
predicated on a statement of faith?

A. No. It is predicated on the evidence,
which presents the better evidence. It is like a
court case. The side that presents the best
evidence is going to win the day. And it is the
same in science. The thesis that is best supportd
by the evidence is the one most likely to be
accepted.

Q. But where there is room for debate, as
there is in the theory of origin, as you have
enumerated at least four theories that you have
said you have taught, when one chooses among those
four -- or go back to the first question. I won't
presume anything. Does a scientist choose among
those four as to the one that that scientist
accepts or believes has the most validity?

A. Yes.

Q. When a scientist then makes that
judgment as compared to the other three, is there

56

some statement of faith associated with that?

A. No.

Q. Then what is the basis for that
judgment?

A. The facts of the case.

Q. I am having a hard time, Dr. Mayer. I
asked you to advance theories of origin that you
had seen taught or you talked about. You talked
about cosmic, you talked about -- I forgot the
four. There were four that you mentioned.

As a scientist, do you accept or prefer
one of those theories of origin above others?

A. The evidence weighs me to accept the
heterotroph hypothesis.

Q. The evidence weighs you to accept that?

A. Yes.

Q. If one of your colleagues in science
were to say the evidence persuades that person to
accept another one of those theories, is that
scientist wrong?

A. If he picks the theory that is least
well supported, I would say he is wrong.

Q. Why?

A. He is betting on the wrong horse.

57

Q. Why? Because he disagrees with you?

A. Not because he disagrees with me but
because he is not considering all of the evidence.
You can prove almost anything if you wish to
select the evidence. If you are being truly
objective and look at the vast panoply of evidence
and look at all of it, then certain theories are
best used to explain all that evidence.

Q. Then why do these other theories exist
in science and are referenced in science by
reputable persons as yourself if all the evidence
leads to support objectively this one theory as
being correct and the others as not?

A. You want to acquaint students with how
we came to know what we know. For example,
Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics is
accepted by almost no scientists at the present
time. But we nonetheless present it to show the
development of an idea. This person thought this,
that person thought the other, and yet with the
passage of time we can say that these theories
have not stood the test.

Q. May I interrupt for just a second,
though. You said virtually no scientists accept

58

that theory. Do you know of any who do?

A. Yes. In the Soviet Union Tropf n
Lysenko, who was a great favorite of Joseph Stalin's
was what you would call a Lysenkoist. This became
involved in the politics of the state because it
fit the state social model very well and did more
to set back Russian biology than any single thing
I can think of. With the passage of Stalin,
Soviet biology is attempting to recover. Mr.
Lysenko is out now. And this was an example of a
person embracing an idea or a theory that simply
didn't stand the test.

Q. I was asking in terms of diversity of
thought among the body of science and scientists
as to theories. When a scientist takes a position
differing from that of the majority of those in
science, does that necessarily indicate that
position held in science by that scientist is
inaccurate or incomplete or wrong?

A. No.

Q. That gets me back to this question of
statement of faith. The fact that a scientist
takes a differing position from that of the
majority and the fact that that does not guarantee

59

PAGE 59 MISSING

60

present you any evidence at all. I just tell you
this, I believe thus and so.

Q. Taking the definition of faith as being
a statement that does not require proof, then if
there is diversity of opinion within a body of
science as to a theory, as to the accepted theory,
those scientists who do not agree to the
predominant or accepted theory base their belief
on something that is proved?

A. No. We have another problem here with
"proof." No thing in science is ultimately proven.
Let me give you an example that doesn't have
anything to do with biology so it is kind of
neutral.

For a long time Newtonian physics and
the Newtonian explanation for gravitation were
regarded as almost givens. In other words,
Newtonian physics was the physics, and there were
no serious alternatives. Until Einstein came
along. Now Einstein explained things differently
from Newton. He used a theory of relativity.
Instead, therefore, of Newtonian physics accounting
for gravitation, we have changed to a relativity
theory of gravitation.

61

But in the meantime, all apples fell to
the ground, none of them ever fell up. In short,
the gravitational observation that things fall
toward the center of the earth is a valid
observation. Our explanation of it changed not
based on faith or belief but on the fact that
Einstein could demonstrate that his was a better
explanation than Newton's. That is what I mean
when you discard one theory for another. You do
not have to realign the whole universe to do so.

Q. Would that be your definition on the
basis of better proof?

A. Better explanation. Because, as I say,
some people would have told you at the end of the
last century that Newtonian physics had proven
thus and so. I dislike the word "proof" because,
let's face it, science is a tentative thing. This
is the idea. No matter what I tell you today, it
is subject to change tomorrow. When I went to
school I was told that human beings had 48
chromosomes, and that was a fact and I memorized
it, and I know it today despite the fact that it
is wrong. They have 46 chromosomes.

Q. Let's go back to my original question.

62

If there are four theories of origin --

A. There may be a lot more. I only gave
you four.

Q. I understand, you only gave me four.
Using those four theories of origin, if I as a
scientist choose to believe as a scientist that
one other than the one you suppose is a better
explanation, am I wrong?

A. If you tell me you believe it, you are
wrong. If you tell me that you find it supported
by certain kinds of evidence, we now can have a
discussion. But if you just tell me you believe
it, I am powerless to argue with your belief.

Q. I don't want to argue semantics with
you, but I understand what you are saying.

A. I think one of the problems that we
have in this whole arrangement is a semantic
problem. We are using words a little bit
differently. Not you and me, but the contestors
here are using words differently and they are
talking this way (indicating). It would be very
helpful if we could get kind of a little
dictionary of what we mean and stick with it.
Then we could talk about the same thing. But I

63

have a hunch we are using the same words to mean
different things to ourselves.

Q. Does the occasion arise or would it
arise where a scientist in support of an
explanation of a scientific phenomenon has a
vested interest in promoting that explanation as
the best explanation?

A. Scientists are human like everyone else
and they are subject to the same frailties as we
are all. And there are evidences not only that
scientists have used certain things for their own
self-agrandizement, there have been unfortunately
a few instances where the facts have been
falsified to make it even better. Fortunately,
science is a self-correcting process and these
things are exposed after a while.

Q. Have you ever lectured on the subject
of origins on evolution versus creation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the title of that lecture, or
titles if more than one, where and when?

A. There have been so many I would have a
hard time reconstructing them all. But let me
just give you several. At the 1980 Toronto

64

meeting of the AAAS -- excuse me. That was 1981,
it was early this year. My time is off. I gave a
presentation called "The Reaction of the
Traditionalist Movement," which is here in this
paper, and I contrasted the creationist and the
scientific views.

I have given others. I just gave one
in the NABT meeting in October of 1981 that dealt
with theory, its use and misuse. This was on the
semantic problem, but how one got to the area here.

I gave one just this last past Saturday
at the NSTA meeting in Nashville, called "The
Falacious Nature of Creation Science." And I have
done numerous others to primarily education and
scientific groups.

Q. The lecture of last Saturday, do you
have a copy of that?

A. It is right here.

Q. Could you summarize for me just the
general thrust of those lectures?

A. The major thesis is that we are being
asked to put into science classrooms things that
do not meet the test of science. To me this
constitutes a confusion and a muddying of

65

intellectual waters, to call things by the wrong
names and introduce them in the wrong situation.

Also, it is one biblical literalist
view to have access to classrooms at the expense
of all others. This is not an open kind of thing
but, rather, it is a closed kind of thing. When
we speak of opening the classroom to a variety of
discussions, this limits the classroom to one
specific religious view and eliminates all the
others.

I don't feel this is an argument
between science and religion, I don't see it as
that at all. It isn't that kind of an argument.
What it is is an attempt to smuggle a specific
fundamentalist viewpoint into classrooms as
science.

I am perfectly willing to let these
people have access to schools and courses of
comparative religion where their views can be
compared with other similar types of explanation.
But to put them in a science classroom when they
don't follow any of the processes of science
bothers me a very great deal.

As I said earlier, even if they are not,

66

theirs does not constitute a scientific
explanation. It might be the world's greatest
theological explanation, but I am not sure that
the world's theologies are willing to follow it.

Q. Again can you state for me, just taking
the assumption that they, as you used the term to
apply to fundamentalist or the Genesis account of
creation, are correct, why it would not be science?

A. Because it is subject to none of the
processes of science.

Q. Dr. Mayer, may I ask for your opinion
on the origin of man or life? What is your
opinion?

A. I would have to say that as far as I am
concerned, there is nothing in the Bible that
prevents me from accepting evolution as God's way
of creating.

Q. That is really not what I asked. Let
me be a little more specific. What is your
opinion of the origin of man, as a scientist?

A. Based on the scientific evidence, I
would have to say that man is related to all of
the other organisms, more closely related to the
primates than any others, more closely related to

67

mammals than to, let's say, fish or whatever, and
that the evidences seem to indicate that man is a
derivative of a long line of ancestry.

Q. What about the origin of life, the
existence of life, the first life?

A. It is conceivable to me as a scientist
that that could have been derived through
mechanistic processes. But this does not mean
that, as I said earlier, that these aren't the
methods that God used. The bible is moot on the
methods that God used.

Q. Can you define for me a little better
what you mean by mechanistic processes?

A. Mechanistic processes are ones that do
not require or propose any supernatural or extra
powerful interventions.

Q. What about the origin of the earth?
What is your theory in science or belief in
science?

A. The evidence indicates that the big
bang theory, as it sometimes is called, is an
explanation that is supported by the facts as we
know them today.

Q. Is that an explanation that you

68

personally accept as a scientist?

A. I would accept it as a scientist, yes.

Q. What are the assumptions that underlie
that explanation in terms of the big bang?

A. I am not a cosmologist, but I presume
to speak out of my field. The problem is that the
condensation of matter in the universe, one
assumes that originally there was a kind of an
even dispersal of materials which then condensed.
As they condense, they get hotter and hotter, and
finally what has been termed a cosmic egg, because
of the implosion of all this material, simply by
the heat in the process simply explodes and blows
this material all over the universe, which then
begins to coalesce in aggregations outside this
initial egg of matter/energy, and there is a lot
of scientific evidence that supports this.

I don't say it is the correct version,
but it is the version which at the present time is
best supported by the evidence.

Q. There could be other versions, but this
is the one that is best supported by scientific
explanation?

A. Yes, sir, today.

69

Q. Today.

A. Today.

Q. Have you ever done any consulting work
as a biologist, as a zoologist, as an educational
specialist?

A. Yes.

Q. For whom?

A. For a variety of organizations. I have
consulted for the Federal Government, for example,
with the National Science Foundation, and with a
number of other organizations at the state and
federal level. I have consulted on a kind of an
ad hoc basis with industry on a variety of
products or processes. I have consulted to states
and to local school boards on educational matters.

Q. The consulting work you did with the
National Science Foundation, what area was that?

A. It was primarily in the area of
curriculum development in education.

Q. For biology specifically?

A. For biology specifically.

Q. When was that done?

A. That was done in the early 1960's. I
can't remember the date. It was about 20 years

70

ago.

Q. Are copies of that work still available?

A. I would try to find it. I will just
write it down here, copies of NSF studies to which
I contributed. I will try to dig them up. They
are kind of out of date right now.

Q. I understand, yes, sir. You said you
did some consulting work for private industry.
What was the nature of that work?

A. It had nothing to do with evolution,
obviously. For example, as my specialty in my
thesis had to do with mammalian hair, I consulted
with industry on the best ways to use hair for a
variety of products. I was an expert witness for
the Federal Trade Commission on bogus furs and
things of that nature. This had nothing to do
with what we were talking about, but it was an
interesting interlude.

Q. You said you did consulting work for
various state and local school governing bodies?

A. School boards, yes.

Q. What was the nature of that consulting
work?

A. The most recent one was in Lemmon,

71

South Dakota, in a case that dealt with a teacher
of biology and his competence. I was called in as
an expert to evaluate the work of this individual.

Q. What was your evaluation?

A. I thought he was not doing a proper job.

Q. Was the issue in this instance the
teaching of creation or evolution or both in the
classroom?

A. This was primarily one of creation, yes.

Q. Can you give me some of the facts that
led you to conclude that this biology teacher was
not doing his job?

A. Yes. The school board was extremely
generous in the sense that they did not prohibit
the teaching of creationism and asked him to take
about a week of his time and sort of, as they said,
get it out of his system and then go on with
teaching biology. They were not against his
teaching creationism. However, he took this as a
mandate to throughout the year do this, and
admitted in testimony that he spent 30 percent of
his classroom time dealing with creationism. This
meant that the time that the students were
supposedly getting other biological information

72

that would allow them to pass college entrance
exams, and so on, they were not getting.

I felt that his emphasis on this
subject was so excessive as to present a skewed
course that did not allow the students graduating
from the school to compete well with other
students whose time had not been so taken.

Q. The individual involved only taught
biology or only taught science, he did not teach
other subjects?

A. I can't say that for sure. It was a
small school, and I would assume he had taught
others. He was not doing that at the time, but I
I assume that sometime in the past he had. In
little schools, people double in brass very
frequently.

Q. You were retained by the Lemmon --

A. Lemmon school board.

Q. Have you done other consulting work of
the same nature where you make evaluations of
teaching skills or competence?

A. Very seldom do I make evaluations of
teachers. That is not something I like to do. I
have been with the North Central Association

73

evaluation systems. I do not like to evaluate
individuals. I am very uneasy with doing that.

Q. Just for my information, what was the
outcome of your recommendation in Lemmon, North
Dakota?

A. I am not sure it was an outcome of my
recommendation. I was only a small part of this.
But the man was terminated as a teacher in the
system.

Q. Did you in that work evaluate the
creation materials and/or subject matter that was
offered by the instructor?

A. As much of it as was available, yes.

Q. Did you make any written findings in
your professional judgment as to its scientific
basis or merit.

A. No, I was not asked to make written
findings. I did testify.

Q. In a court of law?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the style of that case, do you
know?

A. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you
mean by that.

74

Q. Name of the case. I'm sorry. What was
the name of the case?

A. I have this all written down, but I am
very sorry, I don't know whether it was Dale
versus the Lemmon School Board, or how it was.
But if you would like, I could get you that.

Q. I would appreciate that.

MR. CEARLEY: It is a reported case.

MR. CLARK: That is what I wanted to
know.

Q. You testified as an expert?

A. Yes.

Q. As a science expert or as an education
expert?

A. Both.

Q. What other consulting work have you
taken in regard to school districts or school
boards? Not North Central, but I mean
specifically with an entity.

A. Orlando, Florida, I was down there
consulting on their science curriculum. I am
trying to think of all of these. They kind of,
unfortunately, blend. I was just up at Dickenson,
North Dakota, at the request of the university

75

there, to look at their science curriculum and
make recommendations there. I have been consultant
abroad in the Philippines and other countries on
educational systems. But these consultantships
really have nothing to do with creationism, it
just has to do with the structure of their science
programs.

Q. The structure of their curricula?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that include the courses that
should be taught and the content of those courses
or does it go that far?

A. It normally doesn't go that far. But
basically it does say these kinds of things: Does
this curriculum meet the needs of the student in
that particular community? For example, in
Dickenson, North Dakota, it is changing from a
farming community to an energy-oriented community,
as oil, coal, and so on are found. It would seem
reasonable that the curriculum in science focus
more on energy than it has in the past when this
was not an issue in the area, energy, environment,
and the things that are correlated with that
particular new activity. So that would be the

76

kind of recommendation I might make.

Q. Have you ever testified in any other
legal proceedings than the one you just mentioned?

A. Yes. I was a witness in the California
Seagraves case that was earlier this year.

Q. That was a creation versus evolution
case?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you sort of summarize your
testimony for that.

(Recess taken.)

Q. I had asked you, I think, to summarize
your testimony in the California case where you
said you testified.

A. The thesis that I presented was the
nondogmatic nature of science. In the judge's
opinion that he rendered he quoted what he
considered to be the salient features of this
testimony. I don't have that with me.

MR. CEARLEY: That portion is quoted in
the written opinion.

A. Beyond that, the case did not really,
strangely enough, end up dealing so much with
creation/evolution as with the structure of the

77

state's science framework and what constituted
science.

Q. What was your testimony as to what
constitutes science?

A. I indicated that science was a body of
changing knowledge, that it was tentative, that it
was a group of state of the art explanations that
were derived by a certain methodology, and that it
was not dogmatic, was the main thrust of the
testimony.

Q. In that lawsuit or in any other lawsuit,
if a scientist could give an explanation for the
creation theory of origin that was a state of the
art explanation, would that be science?

A. First of all, there is no such thing as
a creational theory. The creationists themselves
have admitted this. So to use the term "creation"
and "theory" together is a nonproductive thing in
the sense that you are describing something that
doesn't exist. So anything that began with a
reference to the creation theory I would have to
say would be inappropriate.

Q. For the sake of discussion, assume that
there could be a creation theory. Then if that

78

theory could be offered as an explanation, would
that be science?

A. No, it still wouldn't, because the
theory would not be based on any scientific
evidence. The problem I have with this is that
the creation explanation not only doesn't account
for the data, it demands that you reject data, and
that I find intolerable from the scientific
standpoint.

Q. That you eject data?

A. Reject data.

Q. Specifically what?

A. Specifically radiometric data, for
example. Radiometric dating is a completely
legitimate, well-supported, documented, useful bit
of scientific evidence and process that the
creationists tell me is wrong, that basically you
are not supposed to use that. They give me
explanations that I can't regard as effective for
discarding that data.

Q. Have you had the opportunity to read
the Arkansas Act 590 of 1981?

A. I have read it.

Q. When did you first read it?

79

A. It came out in the spring of this year,
was that it? Someone sent me a copy of it in some
early form. I don't even know that it said Act
590 on it when I got it. Then I received
subsequent, I don't know if they were editions or
whatever. But I have seen this document.

Q. The first time that you read Act 590
was when someone sent you something. Do you
remember who sent it to you?

A. I can't remember who sent it. But
someone in Arkansas sent me a copy of this Act.

Q. To Boulder?

A. To Boulder, yes.

Q. When was the last time that you read it?

A. Several weeks ago.

Q. Having read that Act as recently as a
few weeks ago, what does "balanced treatment" mean
to you?

A. It is exceptionally vague. I don't
know. That was one of the first things that
bothered me, what is balanced treatment? Is it
balance of equal number of words or equal amounts
of written material or equal hours or minutes or
days? I cannot define "balanced" and I don't

80

think anyone else can either.

Q. In the Lemmon, South Dakota, case in
which you testified as an expert, were hired as an
expert, you stated I think earlier that you felt
that the treatment that was given to the creation
theory by this one teacher was not balanced.

A. I don't think I said it was not balanced.
I think I said he spend 30 percent of his time
dealing with creationism.

Q. Did you make a judgment as to the
propriety of that much of classroom time being
devoted to this one theory or this one issue?

A. I don't see there is a single bit of
subject matter in the whole field of biology that
I would devote 30 percent of my classroom time to.

Q. Do you as an expert or can you as an
expert identify portions or proportions of time
that should be identified for the teaching of any
issue in biology?

A. Most programs come with what they call
a scope and sequence chart, which shows various
topics and the amount of time that is devoted to
them or can be devoted to them. These vary a
great deal, depending on the emphasis of the area.

81

For example, in an agricultural community you
probably spend more time on plants and
fertilization of plants and growth of plants and
development of plants than you would, let's say,
in the urban area of New York. So there is a
fudge factor in there.

America, unlike other countries, has no
central education authority, and this is at the
same time the strength and weakness of our
educational system, that it is completely local.
One of the strengths is that it allows us to
tailor the course to the given needs of a
particular community.

Q. The words you used were what?

A. Scope and sequence. It is a bit of
educational jargon that tells you how much time
and emphasis you give to certain things.

Q. Your efforts at BSCS, do those go to
defining the scope and sequence of the teaching of
evolution?

A. In a way, yes. We identified a dozen
major themes that we felt should be pervasive
throughout the study of biology, and one of those
twelve was evolution.

82

Q. That scope and sequence for those dozen
major themes would be twelve issues to be taught
over the period or a semester, a school year?

A. A school year, which is at very best
150 days. When you look at a student's school
experience and you say I have 150 days to tell him
all there is to know about biology, you are in
trouble when you make the statement, and you try
to do the very best you can to do what you think
is most important in 150 days.

Q. Does the scope and sequence set out
what professionals in the field consider a balanced
treatment of issues that must be presented or
should be presented?

MR. CEARLEY: Let me ask you if you
would clarify what you mean there. One of the
issues here is what "balanced treatment" means, so
I would prefer if you can use another word so Dr.
Mayer can understand.

Q. To try to rephrase that question for
Mr. Cearley, scope and sequence, is that a
recognition of a priority or establishing a
priority?

A. Yes, it establishes priorities. It

83

says certain things are more important than others,
correct.

Q. Does it establish in that priority
either, as its name suggests, the sequence or the
amount of time that should be spent on each of
those priorities?

A. It does both. Because biology is a
progressive discipline, certain things need to be
covered before certain other things. You need to
know a little bit of chemistry, for example,
before you can understand nutrition. You need to
know a little bit about cell structure before you
can understand heredity, and also the time is
important.

Q. Where in that sequence in terms of
priority does evolution fit?

A. In terms of priority, evolution is
usually one of the latter subjects discussed. You
tend to talk about organismic diversity, you tend
to talk about a number of other things before you
get to evolution. In the bulk of the
presentations, evolution is always late in the
course.

Q. In response to my question earlier, you

84

have no opinion as to what "balanced treatment"
means under Act 590?

A. I probably have a dozen opinions as to
what it means, and none of them are clear. One of
them is a time balance. If you spend 5 minutes on
A, you spend 4 minutes on B. Another would be
equal emphasis. Another would be text material.
If we have a paragraph on A, we have to have an
equal paragraph on B. The balance requirement
just bothers me so much because I don't see how
you can handle it and I don't see how it can be
monitored.

Q. In Act 590 there is a phrase
"Prohibition against religious instruction." What
does that mean to you in that Act?

A. If I read it correctly, it says that
there will be no reference to religious writings.
Unfortunately, everything that I have seen that
has been put out by the creationists makes
reference to religious writings. If this is
actually correct, you couldn't use any of the
creationist materials in the classroom.

Q. Are there materials that you are aware
of that could be used in the classroom if the

85

scientific explanation of creation were to be
taught?

A. I have seen none.

Q. In the Act there are definitions of
evolution science and creation science. I would
like to go through the Act with you on each of
those definitions, starting with the evolution
science definition first, and ask you what each of
the parts of these definitions means. If we could
start with evolution science meaning the
scientific evidences for evolution and inferences
from those scientific evidences, includes
scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate, 1, the emergence by naturalistic processes
of the universe from disordered matter and
emergence of life from nonlife. What does that
mean to you, Dr. Mayer?

A. The thing that bothers me, this is an
exceptionally awkward thing. It is almost
tautology: Evolution science means the scientific
evidence for evolution. That doesn't say anything
to me. It is a bad and awkward wording. The
people who wrote this Act did both the Edgar
Bergen and Charlie McCarthy parts. They have

86

written both sides of the issue. I am not sure
that they have given this side at least a fair
shake.

I have no objection scientifically to
saying that evolution science could include
emergence by naturalistic processes of the
universe from -- I don't know what "disordered
matter" means, but I would certainly buy emergence
by naturalistic processes and life from nonlife.
These are types of scientific explanations, and
they exist, I could say that.

Q. What about the second one, the
sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about the development of present living
kinds from simple earlier kinds?

A. I am not sure I buy the sufficiency.
Certainly mutation and natural selection are parts
of the processes of development of living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds. I assume that means
simpler earlier living kinds, although it doesn't
say so. The only word that would bother me there
was the "sufficiency," because there are other
processes involved here.

Q. How about No. 3, the emergency by

87

mutation and natural selection of present living
kinds from simple earlier kinds?

A. I am just trying to distinguish 3 from
2, because it seems to say the same thing. First
of all, I don't know what it means by "emergency."
Maybe it means emergence. "Emergency" is an
improper word at that point.

Present living kinds from simple
earlier kinds seems to be a recapitulation of 2.
I don't know why it is separated out.

Q. What about No. 4, the emergence of man
from a common ancestry with apes?

A. Emergence of man from a common ancestry
with apes. The wording is awkward. Does this
imply that man descended from apes? If it does,
it is not correct. If it says somewhere that
primates had a common ancestor, I would buy that.

Q. As a scientist, do you have an
explanation of that common ancestor?

A. There are postulated ancestors. It
depends on how far back you would want to go. But
there are hiararchies of ancestry that are in the
literature and are fairly well accepted, although
I wouldn't say they are incontrovertible. They

88

probably will change as we get more data.

Q. What are some of those postulated
ancestors?

A. The most frequently postulated one
would be some kind of insectivorous mammal,
probably something very similar to what would
today be regarded as a lemur because of the
generalizable structures that are involved in a
pattern.

Q. Let's go back to the definitions in No.
5, explanation of the earth's geology and the
evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism.

A. Uniformitarianism implies that all of
the processes of the past are similar to the
processes of the present. Within limits, that is
reasonable. But if carried to the extreme, it is
unreasonable. Let me try to enlarge on that a bit.
We know, for example, from the evidence of geology
that at one time volcanism, lots of volcanoes and
all were present in greater numbers than today.

Now it is true we have volcanoes today
and we had volcanoes in the past and as such we
could say that is uniformitarian because the
situation today is shown in the past. But is it

89

uniformitarianism when you have so many of them
this time and so few of them at that time?

I am not trying to play semantic games,
but it is the kind of thing you think of when you
say uniformitarianism. If you assume that
uniformitarianism is just a kind of even
progression kind of thing, I would say no. If you
are saying that the processes might be similar but
in different degree, then I would say yes.

Q. No. 6, an inception several billion
years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.

A. I would say yes.

Q. Are any of those definitions consistent
with your own religious beliefs?

A. None of those would in any way offend
my religious beliefs.

Q. Now let's go through the definition of
creation science, if you will. The Act states
that, "creation science means the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences from those
scientific evidences. Creation science includes
the scientific evidences and related inferences
that indicate: (10) Sudden creation of the
universe, energy, and life from nothing." What

90

does that definition mean to you?

A. It bothers me a very great deal,
because I don't see how you get something from
nothing, and I don't know any scientific
evidence -- remembering that this says that this
is based on scientific evidence, I know no
scientific evidence relating to the origin of
something from nothing.

Q. "(2) The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of
all living kinds from a single organism."

A. First of all, I have never seen the
establishment of a single organism as the
progenitor for everything. But secondly, I can't
agree that mutation and natural selection are
insufficient. Maybe their interpretation of it is
insufficient, but I have not seen scientific
evidence that would support that statement. I
haven't seen any scientific evidence that
postulates a single organism, for example.

Q. You are not aware of scientific
explanation that refutes the sufficiency of
mutation and the natural selection process? Is
that what you are saying?

91

A. Yes.

Q. No. 3. "Changes only within fixed
limits of originally created kinds of plants and
animals."

A. I don't know of any scientific evidence
that supports that. Besides that, it bothers me
in being similar to an explanation of a little bit
of pregnancy. If you can allow certain changes,
why can't you allow other changes? This seems to
be terribly restrictive. You can have these kinds
of changes but not those kinds of changes, and I
don't understand that. I think if you can have
changes, you can have them in any quantity.

Q. No. 4. "Separate ancestry for man and
apes."

A. I know of no evidence for it.

Q. No. 5. "Explanation of the earth's
geology by catastrophism" --

A. Catastrophism.

Q. -- "including the occurrence of a
worldwide flood."

A. There is no scientific evidence for a
worldwide flood. That is the Noachian flood of
the Bible. The assumption is that the world was

92

covered above the tops of the highest mountains by
a flood whose waters came from I know not where.

Q. No. 6. "A relatively recent inception
of the earth and living kinds."

A. To me that requires that we simply must
reject radiometric dating, all of cosmology, all
of paleontology, all of the fossil record, all of
sedimentation. That I simply can't buy for one
instant. There is no scientific evidence that
shows that the earth is young. Normally they
figure about 10,000 years.

Q. Are any of the parts of the definition
of creation science inconsistent with your
religious beliefs?

A. Yes, they would be.

Q. Which ones and why?

A. First of all, as I say, there is
nothing in the Bible that tells me that God started
with nothing. I don't recall anywhere reading
that. Now the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection is just poor science, and as
poor science it offends my science and makes me
believe that these people are not playing with a
full deck.

93

Changes only within fixed limits. I
would say God created all of these things with the
potential to change to any limit. I don't see
anything in the Bible that says God created things
and ordered them within fixed limits. That isn't
there.

Separate ancestry for man and apes, I
think the Bible was moot on this.

Worldwide flood I have regarded always
as allegorical, and there isn't a single date in
the Bible, nothing is dated.

Q. I don't want to be trying to trick you
or anything, but I want to go back to my question.
My question was whether any of these parts of this
definition of creation science was inconsistent
with your own personal religious beliefs. You
answered yes and went through all of the six. The
first one you said you did not belief something to
the effect that God created something from nothing.

A. That's right.

Q. But you went on and referred to God in
several other instances. Were you speaking of
your own personal religion or were you speaking
academically from the standpoint of those too?

94

A. I am speaking from my own personal
religion. I thought you were asking me how I felt
about this.

Q. That is what I was asking you. I just
wanted to make sure of your answer.

A. That is how I feel.

Q. In your review of Act 590, do you find
anything in that Act which prohibits a teacher
from expressing his or her professional opinion
concerning the relative scientific strength or the
weakness of either model or origin?

A. If we can pause for a minute, I have to
go back and take a peak at this.

Q. Sure.

A. I'm sorry. I really did find something
offensive in here, and I am trying to go back and
find it again.

Q. That's all right. Take all the time
you need.

THE WITNESS: I have now forgotten the
question.

Q. The question is, do you see anything in
this Act which would prohibit a teacher from
expressing his or her professional opinion

95

concerning the relative scientific strength or
weakness of either model of origin?

A. Yes. Because it requires instruction
in both scientific models. That is in Section 5.
This makes the assumption first of all that there
are only two scientific models. It makes the
assumption that the creation model is a scientific
model. And it is putting a gun at the head of the
teacher to teach something that is science that
the teacher would know was not science. This
leaves the teacher with the alternative of saying,
I am going to present you with a nonscientific
scientific model because the State of Arkansas
asks me to, and I think that is bad teaching and I
think that does affect the teacher.

Q. Dr. Mayer, in a recent publication of
yours, you noted that the creation theory of
origin was contained in textbooks, biology
textbooks approved by the textbook committee for
the State of Arkansas. I believe those are your
words.

A. Did I say creation theory?

Q. Scientific creationism, excuse me.
Currently in the State of Arkansas, and I am

96

reading from, by the way, Creationist Impact is
the title, Creationist Impact on Science Teaching
in General and Biology Teaching in Particular, by
William Mayer, chairman, NABT, et cetera. I don't
know when this was presented.

A. It was presented in late October.

Q. Of this year?

A. Yes.

Q. "In this effort they seem to have been
successful in only 20 percent of the cases in
getting creationism into textbooks. Currently in
the State of Arkansas, 20 biology texts are on the
list for grades 9-12. Of these, four include
creationism, but in no case can the inclusion be
considered to give equal time to the
anti-evolutionist." It goes on to say, "The
maximum number of pages devoted to creation is 3
in one book where 49 pages are devoted to
evolution," and so on and so forth, it finishes
out that paragraph.

Based on those remarks that you gave, I
want to go back to my question again to ask you,
do you see anything in this Act which would
prohibit a teacher from expressing his or her

97

professional opinion concerning the relative
scientific strengths or weaknesses of either model
of origin?

A. Yes, I do, because it consistently
comes back to balanced treatment. If you are
giving a balanced treatment to nonscience, I think
that you are preventing a teacher from giving his
or her honest opinion. If you allow the teacher
the option of presenting this, then you might have
a different situation. But you are not giving
them an option, you are giving them a requirement.
Then you say does this prevent them from
exercising their abilities as teachers to
interpret, and the answer is yes, I think it does.

Q. In the four textbooks that are on the
approved list in the State of Arkansas -- that you
have reviewed, I assume?

A. Yes.

Q. -- is it your judgment that they
reflect balanced treatment?

A. No. But remember, I never know what
balanced treatment is.

Q. Is it your judgment that should a
teacher in Arkansas using one of these texts

98

assign that material for reading and include it in
a discussion, that they would be acting in
violation of this Act?

A. They would if somebody said it wasn't a
balanced presentation. It would seem to me that
they are leaving themselves wide open to a problem
of balance, and the Act gives me no indication of
how this is going to be monitored in the first
place.

Q. Let me go back then to an earlier
statement you made about scope and sequence.
Scope and sequence goes to the priority of
subjects to be taught and the amount of time spent
on those issues within that subject taught. Is
that not also subject to the same sort of inquiry
and challenge based on the development of those
priorities -- I am trying to stay away from the
words "balanced treatment," you understand -- but
in terms of those priorities so that one could
question the validity of the priority and the time
assigned under that priority system for each
subject taught?

A. Absolutely. Everything you do in a
classroom is subject to revision and command and

99

criticism. The difference here is that this is a
state piece of legislation, this is law. A
teacher can't get in trouble legally for giving a
little more time, let's say, to plants than to
animals, because there is no legal requirement
that they give balanced plant/animal treatment.
But this is a different matter entirely. This is
introducing the force of the state into what the
teacher teaches.

Q. What is your definition of academic
freedom?

A. My definition of academic freedom is
the ability of a teacher to teach a discipline as
outlined by its practitioners without fear of
reprisal.

Q. Ability to teach a discipline as
outlined by its practitioners without fear of
reprisal?

A. That's correct.

Q. Does academic freedom in your opinion
guarantee a teacher the right to teach without
qualification whatever he or she desires in the
classroom?

A. No.

100

Q. What is that qualification?

A. The qualification is the teacher should
be competent in the area for which he or she is
certificated.

Q. Is a further qualification the
discipline as it is outlined by its practitioners?

A. Yes.

Q. In every instance?

A. This is where the content of discipline
comes from. The individuals are doing the
research who are involved in the discipline. In
other words, biology is what biologists do.

Q. Can academic freedom, in your judgement,
ever be limited?

A. If a teacher gets into an area in which
he or she is not qualified, for example, if a
mathematics teacher decides instead of mathematics
he wants to teach art, I think he has overstepped
the bounds of his academic freedom, because the
school requires that mathematics be taught.

Q. In the Lemmon, South Dakota case, had
the instructor in that case spent less than 30
percent of the class time on teaching a creation
theory of origin, would that have been a violation

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of William V. Mayer - Page 3

101

of academic freedom?

A. Academic freedom is more than just
something the teacher has. The academic freedom
is also something the student has to receive the
discipline unfiltered by prejudice. In this case
I think it was filtered.

Q. Let me go back to that same case. Was
there an issue of academic freedom, in your
professional judgment, in the Lemmon, South Dakota
case?

A. No, because the school board did not
prohibit the teacher from teaching creationism.
This was really not an issue. What they were
concerned with was that the teacher refused to
teach the discipline of biology as outlined within
the curriculum guides of the school board.

Q. Then is the standard for academic
freedom one that is prescribed by the governing
body in every instance or only some?

A. The legal requirement is in the hands
of the school board. The school board is
responsible and does delineate, the difference
being that in most cases they delineate only the
broad picture and not the details. This gets down

102

into the legislature mandating specific subject
matter and the time to be spent with it.

Q. In the Lemmon, South Dakota case, had
the Lemmon, South Dakota, school board said to its
instructor you may teach creation science provided
that it does not exceed ten percent of your total
classroom time, would that have been a violation
of academic freedom?

A. Of course, my attitude is that the
teacher was not teaching biology, he was teaching
his religious views.

Q. But the question is, is that a
violation of academic freedom?

A. To specify the amount of time that a
teacher will devote to a subject, I don't believe
that is a violation.

Q. In your opinion, may the state
prescribe curriculum in secondary schools?

A. It depends on the state. In the State
of Colorado, the constitution specifically forbids
them from so doing. In some states they have this
right. In most states, however, they are content
with saying we will have a course in state history
or mathematics or whatever, and most states as far

103

as I am familiar simply do not tell what is going
to be taught within that course. They don't say,
for example, in the course of history that you
must teach that Columbus discovered America.

Q. But as an educational expert, cognizant
of educational philosophy, and I assume cognizant
of issues of academic freedom and law in education,
in your opinion may the state prescribe curriculum
for secondary schools?

A. Yes.

Q. In your opinion, should the classroom
in a secondary school be open to all academic
discussions?

A. It can't be, simply because there is an
infinity of content and opinion and only a finite
amount of time available in a classroom. So you
are immediately constrained. All education is a
selection of materials. If you have a million
things to choose from and you have 150 days, the
question is which of those are you going to choose.
So the situation is impossible to begin with. You
cannot open a classroom to all opinions on a
subject simply because you would never get through
a school year past the first bit of information.

104

Q. Is your opinion that you have just
stated that of a teacher and a teacher's teacher
rather than that in the role of a student?

A. Yes. The student isn't in a position
to make a comment on this simply because the
student doesn't know what is available in the
first place.

Q. Did you not say to me a moment ago that
a student has a right to academic freedom?

A. A student has a right to receive
information unfiltered by the biases and prejudices
of the teacher.

Q. Then in your earlier statement to the
effect that because of the infinity of ideas that
can be offered in any one given discipline, the
responsibility then falls upon the teacher to
define the scope and the sequence?

MR. CEARLEY: I am not sure that Dr.
Mayer said infinity of ideas in any one given
discipline. I took it that was his point, that
there is an infinite number of ideas and finite
time.

MR. CLARK: I think that is probably
more accurate, I agree.

105

Q. I don't think you said in one
discipline, I agree with that. The infinity of
ideas that had to be taught in the 150 days for
whatever purpose.

Back to my question. In terms of the
responsibility of that teacher to develop the
scope and the sequence of ideas to be presented as
an educational expert, is it your opinion that the
classroom in secondary schools should be open to
all academic discussion including that that might
be started by students which exceeds the scope and
the sequence as outlined by the instructor?

A. It would be good educational practice
to pursue the questions of the students when they
come up insofar as it is possible to do so within
the time available.

Q. In your opinion, should teachers be
free to evaluate the validity of subjects
discussed in the classroom?

A. Within certain limits. Many times
teachers don't have the background, training or
experience to evaluate various controversial or at
least unresolved issues. The situation, for
example, on DNA experimentation, unless a teacher

106

is very familiar with this kind of thing, I am not
quite sure he or she would be in a position to
make a good judgment as to whether DNA
experimentation should be controlled or
uncontrolled, because they are not familiar enough
with the process.

Q. What are those limits, then, that you
described? You said within limits they should be
free to evaluate the validity of such. What are
those limits? Use your example of DNA. Do you
have an opinion as to whether that research should
be controlled or not controlled?

A. You are asking me for a personal
opinion. all of the data we have right now
indicates that there is no need for control simply
because the kinds of problems anticipated have not
appeared.

Q. I am not sure you answered my question,
but it was a good answer anyway. What are the
limits within which a teacher should be free to
evaluate the validity of subjects? You said
within limits. What are those limits?

A. The limits would be primarily the
competence of the teacher, to begin with. You

107

have to make the assumption that if a teacher is
making an evaluative judgment, the teacher has
already studied both sides of the issue and is
familiar enough to do that. Unfortunately, in the
real world of teaching, a teacher who has 150
different students a day, 30 in a class, 5 classes
a day, and many of the other things that are
required, doesn't really have much time to
acquaint himself or herself with all of the sides
of an issue. The only thing I am asking is that
they be in a position to make an informed judgment.
I don't think anybody has the right to make an
uninformed judgment for classes.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Mayer, should the
evolutionary model of origins be subject to
criticism in public school classrooms?

A. Absolutely.

MR. CEARLEY: Could I ask something
here? Do we have earlier in the record any
explanation of what the word "model" means?

MR. CLARK: I asked Dr. Mayer the
difference between theory and model early on, and
he gave me the difference as being --

A. I did give you my opinion. I don't

108

like the word "model," but that is a personal
preference.

Q. I have written it down here, but I
would have to look at it.

MR. CEARLEY: That is fine, as long as
the record reflects what Dr. Mayer means by that
word.

MR. CLARK: A model is a construct, a
device for illumination, I think are some of the
words he used. And a theory, I don't remember the
exact words, but it was an explanation of the --

A. An explanation of the state of the art.

Q. That's correct, I remember that,
subject to modification.

A. Anyhow, to get back to your question,
any theory should be subject to criticism. There
is no piece of science that is above criticism,
none.

Q. How did you come to be involved in this
lawsuit?

A. I suppose primarily because of my
writings in this area, my interest in this for the
last 20 some odd years, and I have some sort of
reputation as an authority on evolutionary theory

109

and its place in education. My past experiences I
suppose in places like the California Seagraves
case, and so on, have brought me to the attention
of others.

Q. Were you contacted prior to the filing
of this lawsuit or after, do you know?

A. I would believe I was contacted
afterwards.

Q. Do you have a personal code of conduct
or ethics that you follow as a scientist?

A. I think everybody in the world has a
personal code of some kind. The answer is yes.

Q. Could you identify what that is for me?

A. I would like to see the world a little
better place to live in when I leave it than when
I found it. And I try, insofar as possible to be
as objective and as honest in my dealing with
people and things as I possibly can, to be as
clear and clean as I can, and be as helpful as I
can.

Q. Dr. Mayer, how do you define the study
of origins? I know that that word gives you
trouble, but how do you define that as it is
discussed or debated in science?

110

A. The simplest definition of origins, of
course, is the question that everybody asks, where
does it come from, whatever it is, whether it is
ourselves, whether it is the universe, whether it
is whatever. The accounts show from time
immemorial man has wondered these questions.
there is nobody who hasn't said to himself at one
time or another, where did I come from? Where did
this come from, where did that come from?

The study of origins attempts to answer
that in a number of ways. It attempts to answer
it mystically, theologically, supernaturally,
scientifically, in every way possible. And
because it is a difficult question about which we
know relatively little, no one has come up with an
answer on which we all agree.

Q. Should it, where it came from, be
discussed in the classroom?

A. I think it depends on what it is.
Depending on how we define it, I think the answer
is, yes, it has a place.

Q. What is that place, by your definition?

A. I think first of all it is a place
where students have the maturity to deal with the

111

problem. It would be useless to bring this issue
up to students who don't have the background or
abilities to handle the information. So I think
first of all you are talking about a time.

Then secondly you are talking about a
place. As I said earlier, I would love to see at
the secondary school level a course in comparative
religions where students would be acquainted with
various theological approaches to origins. I
think this would be exceptionally valuable. I
think they should have a course in which the
scientific explanations of origins were discussed.
But I don't think that one course should try to do
both, because I think it is confusing and
misleading.

Q. You said a time where this material
should be presented or this issue should be
presented. I inferred from that a level of
academic achievement or age. Where is that?
Where do you define that?

A. It differs with different students.
Anybody who has ever taught knows that within a
class of a same theoretical age group, one kid
isn't ready and another kid is far beyond. It is

112

the same problem we have in dealing with sex.
Some kids are further advanced than others and
their time is past when you are ready.

But normally I would say that a student
of the sophomore level or above in high school
could handle this information.

Q. In what classes should that study of
origin be discussed?

A. Because there are more nonscientific
than scientific explanations of origins, my
favorite spot would be the social sciences,
because it is more of a sociological phenomenon or
social phenomenon than a scientific one.

Q. Any particular class in social sciences
or just the social sciences in a broad sense?

A. Most schools now have combined things
together in what they call social studies or
social science, and therein was all the stuff we
used to consider separately as history and
philosophy, and so on. So by default it would
have to go there.

Q. Would there be a proper place for a
discussion of the study of origins in science?

A. Scientific explanations, yes, would

112

belong there.

Q. You have identified for me earlier in
this deposition at least four theories of origin.
Would those be proper discussion?

A. They would be proper, and to that, if I
were going to develop this idea further, I would
add many more theories. I would put in the
Lemarckian one that I did not put in the original
group. I would put in some of the others that
have come along that are worth of at least
mention for which there was some scientific
evidence, even though it has been superseded. I
think even a theory that has gone by the boards is
interesting from the history of ideas standpoint.

Q. Then if one could show scientific
evidence for creation theory, would it fit then in
a study of origins in science?

A. If one could show scientific evidences
devoid of that supernatural base on which this
thing rests, in other words, if someone is coming
along with a better theory that is better founded,
explains more facts, I think that would have a
place, yes.

Q. I don't mean to be redundant and go

114

back over some things, but I took a long time
making up my list and I want to make sure I don't
miss anything. I may ask you some things twice.
If I have, please tell me, and we will move ahead.

What is meant by your definition the
term of "evolution"?

A. Evolution implies change of organisms
through time.

Q. Change of organisms through time. How
many different types of evolution are there or are
there types of evolution?

A. I frankly don't understand where you
are going with that.

Q. What I am trying to say is there are
some who might suggest that there are evolutions
of kinds which are distinct from other kinds, that
is, in the sense of -- I will use these two
examples. This is a kind, this is a kind. There
is an evolution track for this kind and an
evolution track for this kind. Are there types of
evolution, one species or another?
A. Let me say first of all this term "kind"
is not a scientific term. This derives directly
from the King James version of the Bible in which

115

it is used. It is not used in the Catholic
version, by the way, of the same chapters, so
Catholics can't really deal with "kind" in the
sense this is used.

This is one of these confusing things.
This is why I think creationism is more bothersome
than helpful, because it tends to confuse.

If you want to talk about these things
as species, fine.

Q. All right, let's try "species."

A. Among explanations for species you
would have a current argument in science between
macroevolution and microevolution. Remember, we
are not arguing whether evolution took place or
not. That is a given for this purpose. We are
saying how it came about.

Microevolutionists postulate small
changes over a long period of time, and they say
that given a long period of time anything could
change, like that (indicating). The
macroevolutionists postulate bigger jumps in
shorter periods of time. They talk of this
saltatorial, leaping, that things go along smoothly
and unchanged for a time and then a change occurs,

116

a rather goodly change. That is a different kind
of an argument.

So are there kinds of evolution? Not
kinds of evolution, but there are different
explanations for evolution, different accounts as
to how it takes place, yes.

Q. Are there more than these two accounts
for evolution?

A. Yes, there would be a number of them,
not all of which I can recall right now. There
are people who place greater emphasis on one
mechanism than another. Some people would place
greater emphasis on mutation, some would say it
works differently from this, you would have
translocations rather than mutations, considering
that translocation is a moving of a piece of a
cumbersome rather than a new introduction of
material. There are a number of ways in which
people attempt to account for the changes they see.

Q. Of these accounts is there one with
which you agree more strongly than others?

A. I would have to say that all the
evidence isn't in. I have a hunch that when it is
all in it won't be one or the other, we will find

117

that ultimately it is a mixture of the two, that
sometimes it does this and sometimes it does that,
under certain conditions it behaves differently.
I wouldn't want to put all of my eggs in one or
the other basket at this time.

Q. Dr. Mayer, what is your definition of
"science"? What is science?

A. Science is a process and a way of
knowing about the natural world.

Q. Does the scientific method of inquiry
reject all claims to final truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Because we are not in possession of all
of the facts at any one point. When new facts
come -- it is the Newtonian physics problem again.
Looks good, fully serviceable. Another one is the
so-called Bohr atom. Before we really understood
much about atoms, there was a nice little model of
an atom that was comfortable, worked fine. Until
we found out more about atoms, and the Bohr atom
wasn't really where it was at, it works differently
from that. So those are examples of our ability
to change on the basis of new evidence.

118

Q. What do you know about the evolution
model of origin?

A. You are using the term "evolution model."

Q. Evolution theory.

A. What do I know about evolution theory,
is what you are asking me?

MR. CEARLEY: I would have to say that
that question is a bit broad.

Q. It is broad, I suppose. What I am
trying to do is in terms of whether is this theory
or model observable, testable, falsifiable,
repeatable, is it a valid science?

A. If you would break that question down
into each one of those words, I would be delighted
to try to answer.

Q. Let's start with observable.

A. Yes, it is observable. We have all
kinds of evidences. We can calculate time,
calculate sedimentation rates, we can see fossils,
we can measure radiometrically age, we can make
all kinds of observations in terms of evolution.

Q. What about testable?

A. It is testable in the sense that one
can test one part of the theory against another.

119

For example, it is testable with new evidences
that come in. Darwin originally postulated the
theory of evolution knowing remarkably little
about many things, such as inheritance.

When the inheritance model was created,
that is, developed by the work of Mendel and
subsequent people, that was a test for evolution,
because at this point the theory of inheritance
could have sunk the theory of evolution if these
things were not transmissible. But they were, so
it provided a testable yardstick for the fact that
the Darwinian explanation in this instance was
correct. And subsequently every new scientific
field, unknown to Darwin, has provided a testable
program against which to measure the theory of
evolution, and all are congruent.

Q. What about falsifiable?

A. Falsifiability is a term that is used
by a philisopher by the name of Popper. I have
never been a fan of Popper's, so I really am not
enamored of his use of the term "falsifiability."
But I know what he means. I would say that the
theory of evolution would be eminently falsifiable
in the Popperian sense even though I don't like

120

Popper.

Q. Explain to me how it is falsifiable.

A. The thesis involves this: You can
prove it wrong with specific experiments,
assumptions, and so on. And of course it can be.
For example, if you were to find that fossils were
in the inverse order, for example, if you were to
find human fossils in the earliest rocks and
simpler fossils in the newest, most recent rocks,
that would just turn the theory upside down,
because that would show that humans were on earth
before dinosaurs. That would certainly be a
falsifiable observation. We have not done that,
but in theory -- you see, this is in contrast to
the creationists' position, where theirs is not
contestable.

Q. What about repeatable?

A. All of the experimental materials and
all of the measurements and observations have been
confirmed many times over, which is a repeatable
bit of information.

Q. In your opinion, is the evolution
theory of origin a valid science?

A. It certainly is a valid theory. It is

121

as valid as any theory we have in science.

Q. You say it is a valid theory, which you
say is a statement of the art.

A. Yes.

Q. About understanding the process and the
way of knowing about our natural world.

A. Yes.

Q. So the answer would be yes to the
theory aspect of it?

A. You asked me what again?

Q. I said, is the evolution theory of
origin a valid science?

A. Yes.

Q. What are the probabilities of life
evolving from nonlife?

A. Disraeli made a nice statement about
this. He said there were lies, damn lies, and
statistics. When you use probability, you first
of all have to recognize that the earth is not a
random series of events. Creationists very
frequently like to mention the randomness of this
thing. It is not random.

Carbon, for example, will combine only
in certain ways with other elements such as

122

hydrogen or oxygen. It is not a random process.
It is not just putting them all in a box and
shaking them up. It doesn't work that way at all.
It is very well defined. So the the probability
changes.

But if you use these statistical
arguments, I can prove statistically that we
aren't here because the probability that one of us
are here out of all the people in the world is one
in four billion. The probability that two of us
would be here is one over four billion times one
over four billion, and pretty soon after you have
done this you get a gargantuan number which
numerically indicates we can't be here.

The use of statistics to do this kind
of foolishness I think is stupid. Yet when we
talk of what are the probabilities that this could
happen, you can come up with any number of numbers.
But it is like saying we can't be here numerically.
It is a meaningless statement. Statistically it
is a meaningless statement because, first of all,
you are not subject to randomness.

Secondly, we know that regardless of
probabilities that we can calculate, things happen

123

anyhow, apparently improbable events occur all the
time. That is where you get this it's a small
world phenomena. Two people meet who have no
business being at the same place at the same time.
So the probability question is one of how one uses
statistics. And the probability is unimportant,
because we can see evidence that these things have
happened.

Q. But, again, asking you in your
professional judgment, what is the probability of
life evolving from nonlife?

A. I think it is very good. I think it is
a high probability.

Q. I have asked you a number of questions
about the work that you have done and the studies
that you have participated in, but I want to go
back to ask again are there specific studies you
have done concerning origin, the theory of origin,
either evolution or other?

A. I have written papers on the subjects.
I am not a researcher in the field of biochemical
origins.

Q. These papers, have they been presented
at conferences or are they some of what we have

124

here?

A. Yes, and I think you have some of them
here. I am just looking for one here. I don't
see the one I am talking about, in which case I
would get it for you. But there is some of it in
here.

Q. What conclusions did you reach in those
papers?

A. That evolution is a valid scientific
theory, that is essential to the study of biology.
Without it biology just doesn't make sense.

Q. As we went through the evolution theory
of origin, I would like to go through the creation
theory or model of origin, going to observable,
testable, falsifiable, repeatable. So I would
start by asking you what do you know about that
creation theory of origin as to its
observability?

MR. CEARLEY: Could I ask here, Dr.
Mayer has said earlier that there is no such thing
as creation theory. If you are going to define
what that means, then I wouldn't object to the
question in its present form. Otherwise, if you
will just call it something else that he can deal

125

with, he can probably answer your question.

A. How about "explanation"?

Q. That's fine. The creation explanation
of origin, is it observable, in your judgment?

A. No, because they tell me that it was
done by a supernatural creator using processes
that are not now extant, and it makes it
impossible for me to deal with this supernatural
creator and with processes that I can't have any
handle on. I don't even know what they are. They
don't give you an explanation of what they are.
They just say that they are processes no longer in
existence.

Q. How about testable?

A. There is no way you can put a creator
on a dissecting table to work on.

Q. Falsifiable?

A. The entire creation position cannot be
dealt with scientifically simply because of the
fact that it removes itself from science. So it
is not falsifiable either.

Q. Repeatable?

A. They say God did it once.

Q. What materials have you read, other

126

than those that you have indicated you have
received from various organizations, concerning
the creation explanation of origin? In particular
I am looking for books or treatises.

A. There is a creationist textbook called
Order Out of Complexity, I believe. It is written
by John N. Moore, published by Sonderman
Publishing Company, which is a Bible publishing
house in Michigan. It was published as a creation
expert.

Q. Professor Moore is at Michigan State?

A. He is the one who retired. Seagraves
of Kofahl and Seagraves have something called The
Creation Explanation, which is a paperback book.
Henry Morris has written a number of things that I
have read, the titles of which escape me right now.
Duane Gish has written about fossils and a number
of other things. So I am familiar with these
publications.

As I say, these are the ones I have
purchased to look at to see what they have to say.
Bliss's two-model approach is a book, two models.
And numerous other publications, some of which
have come from a place called Chick Publishing,

127

and these tend to be more or less comic books that
deal with the issues of creationism. So I have
tried to find as much of their material as
possible and pay attention to it to ascertain if
indeed there is something there.

Q. What is your opinion of these materials?

A. They are blatantly religious and they
are poor science. They deliberately misrepresent.
I used to think that this was simply a lack of
knowledge on the part of the individuals concerned,
but I find it doesn't make any difference, they
make these statements even if they know better.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Mayer, is the
creation explanation of origin a valid science?

A. No.

Q. Why?

A. Because it removes itself from the
scientific arena. It postulates supernatural
intervention, it postulates the operation of
processes that we cannot deal with and for which
we have no information. It it just takes itself
out of the scientific arena by so doing.

Q. If there were any scientific evidence
in support of that creation explanation of origin,

128

would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

A. I favor discussion of all scientific
evidence. Whether it would lead to a creation
explanation or not is another question. But no
scientific evidence should be denied the
possibility of inclusion.

Q. Which would include that if it were
scientific evidence that would support a creation
explanation of origin, you would not deny that
either?

A. I don't see how it could happen.

Q. I am going on the assumption or
presumption. I am asking you to assume that if
there was scientific evidence, you would not want
to preclude that from classroom discussion.

A. If there were scientific evidence of a
creator and these unknowable processes, I would
like to know it, for sure.

Q. Is criticism of a scientific theory a
valid way in which to study scientific theory?

A. Yes, if it is valid criticism.

Q. What would you define as valid or how
do you define valid criticism?

A. It has to be in the same arena. You

129

can't criticize a football player because he
doesn't hold his bat correctly. There is just no
bat in the game, so it makes no difference. It is
a stupid criticism. One may stupidly criticize
theory or anything else.

I suppose we all use this term,
constructive criticism. We like to see criticism
that is constructive, that leads to something. On
the other hand, conversely, there is destructive
criticism that is just kind of verbal harassment.

Q. In the event a creation explanation or
model of origin would be discussed alongside an
evolution theory or model of origin in a classroom,
I would just like to run down a list of courses,
and see where you think it might be properly
taught. In biology?

A. No.

Q. In life science?

A. No.

Q. In anthropology?

A. No.

Q. In sociology?

A. Let me ask one question.

Q. I have social studies down here.

130

A. All right. then no.

Q. Physics?

A. No.

Q. Chemistry?

A. No.

Q. World history?

A. Yes.

Q. Philosophy?

A. Yes.

Q. And social studies?

A. Yes.

MR. CEARLEY: Can you repeat that
question?

MR. CLARK: Sure. I said should the
two be taught in the classroom, creation theory or
model of origin, and an evolutionary theory or
model of origin, in which classes did he think it
would be proper to present the material. He
answered no to biology, life sciences,
anthropology, sociology, physics, and chemistry,
and yes to world history, philosophy, and social
studies.

A. The reason for that is that I regard
creation as nonscience and having no place in the

131

classroom.

Q. Let me review with you the legislative
findings of fact. You will see those at Section 7,
Page 3 of the Bill. These questions go basically
to those, but you might want to second to just
read through that.

(Recess taken.)

Q. You have had a chance, I hope, Doctor,
to look at those.

A. Yes, I have looked at it again.

Q. I want to ask you a series of questions
as they apply to these legislative findings of
fact. In your opinion, when origin is discussed
in the classroom, which explanation, if either,
should be discussed?

A. You say in the classroom?

Q. Yes, or in a classroom?

A. It depends on what classroom it is.

MR. CEARLEY: I would like to know what
you mean by origin. Of what?

Q. I mean origin in the sense as we have
used it most of the day, origin of life in a
scientific sense, not in a social studies setting.
In your opinion, if an explanation of origin of

132

life is to be discussed in the classroom, which,
if either, should be discussed? That is, a
creation explanation, an evolution explanation,
theory, or either one.

A. If I can follow along these findings of
fact, I think evolution in biology, life science,
anthropology, both perhaps in sociology, evolution
in physics and chemistry, and both in history,
philosophy, and social science. I am just
following the Act here.

Q. In your opinion, is the evolution
theory of origin an unquestionable fact of science?

A. No theory is an unquestionable fact.
It is questionable, always.

Q. What are those questions?

A. The questions could be the mechanisms
of evolution, the questions could be relative
relationships, questions about when certain events
happened. You could have all kinds of questions.

Q. In your opinion, is the evolution
theory of origin contrary to the religious
convictions or moral values or philosophical
beliefs of some people?

A. Well, it obviously is, or they wouldn't

133

be concerned. It is not, however, contrary to the
religious convictions or moral values or
philosophical beliefs of most people.

Q. You base that judgment on what?

A. I base that judgment on the fact that
no other religious groups except biblical
literalists seem to have this difficulty.

Q. In your opinion, can the evolution
theory of origin be presented in a classroom, in a
science classroom, without reference to any
religious doctrine?

A. Evolutionary theory, yes.

Q. How is that done?

A. It is simply moot on religion. It
doesn't invoke a creator or a god. It simply is
like saying how come a Boeing plane can fly
without divine intervention? Well, it just does.
It is not a religious issue, it is a science issue.

Q. How do you explain to that student
questioner the "it," I think was the
characterization you used, I was going to use
"first cause," who or what existed in the very
beginning, as you explained that evolution theory
of origin?

134

A. I would attempt to tell him what we
know about the question scientifically, and then I
would refer him to his priest or his rabbi or
whoever is in his religion to make sure that he
has touched base there to make certain that he has
the proper training --

I could not deal with the person's
religion. That would put me way beyond the pale
of acceptability, because I wouldn't be the
authority. I would have to have all kinds of
religious training that I don't have. I would
never attempt to explicate somebody's religious
beliefs for them.

Q. In a summary, if you could, what would
you say to that student student of what we know in
science as to the first cause or the origin? What
would you say?

A. I would acquaint him with the big bang
theory, I would acquaint him with the heterotroph
hypothesis, acquaint him with various scientific
explanations, and say that is the state of the art
at present in science.

Q. The heterotroph and the big bang theory.
What other? You said other.

135

A. I might mention this cosmic theory,
I might mention inheritance of acquired
characteristics, just to give him some idea of the
way people have thought scientifically about this
issue.

Q. But then in response to a follow-up
question from that same student, which one in
science should I accept, how would you answer?

A. I wouldn't ask him to accept any of
them. I would say the one that scientists find
most reasonable at the present time is the
heterotroph hypothesis.

Q. But you would not ask that student to
accept your judgment on that?

A. I would have to tell him that it is
simply an hypothesis.

Q. In your opinion, can a creation
explanation of origin be presented in a classroom
without reference to a religious doctrine?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Based on your knowledge of the creation
explanation of origin, what explains the "it," the
first cause, in that explanation?

A. Divine intervention by an omniscient

136

God.

Q. To you does the concept of a creator
carry with it or must it always carry with it a
religious connotation?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of any scientist who can
discuss the concept of a creator without delving
into any religious belief?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of any scientist who
discussed the concept of a creator, defining that
creator as some intelligence with an ability to,
with one of your terms, give order?

A. No. We are just playing with word
games when you do that. Whether you call it a
supernatural, a god, a creator, a divine
intelligence, these are words, and attempt to keep
God out of it by calling him something else, and
it just doesn't work. Because when you get behind
the verbiage, you get God again.

Q. If a creation explanation of origin
could be discussed in the classroom free of
religious reference, would you oppose that
presentation?

137

A. You are asking me to make an exception
I can't make. It cannot be presented devoid of
religion because that is what it is based on. I
can't deal with that because I can't imagine --
that is like saying can you imagine religion
without God, and the answer is no, I can't.

Q. Do you favor a neutral position by
public educators in secondary schools in any
classroom discussion of religious, moral or
philosophical matters?

A. I think that Constitutionally they
would have to do that.

Q. I asked you earlier in the day what was
faith, and you defined that for me. What would
you define as religion?

A. I would define it as a belief system in
which one has faith.

Q. Would it be proper to define your
participation in this case, in the Seagraves case
and the Lemmon, South Dakota, case as evidencing
not only a belief in principle but a cause with
you to oppose to any mandated requirement to teach
a creational explanation of origin in any
classroom?

138

A. No. I have said it a hundred times, it
is on record in many of these documents, that I
believe a creation explanation has a place in
courses in comparative religion, and I will
support that right on down the line.

Q. As an educator, not as a scientist now,
as one who helps mold and shape educational
philosophy, do you believe it is good educational
policy -- let me back up. Do you believe it is
sound educational policy for this issue of the
explanation in science of a theory of origin,
either based in creation or evolution, to be
decided by public bodies, legislatures, or
academic bodies such as curriculum committees?

MR. CEARLEY: Wait just a minute. You
lost me.

Q. It is kind of a convoluted question.
Let me see if I can go back and rephrase it.

What I am looking at is your Creationist
Impact, Page 6. You make this statement, Dr.
Mayer, the last two paragraphs in particular, but
the next to the last paragraph:

"Well-funded and full-time staffs are
now at work to discredit evolution and no

139

reputable biological scientist is funded full-time
to rebut them. Arkansas and Louisiana of the type
of an iceberg. Anti-evolutionists, having failed
in their attempts to develop a viable scientific
alternative to the theory of evolution, now bypass
the scientific enterprise and take their case
directly to a scientifically naive public and
scientifically illiterate legislators to convince
them of the validity of their position.

"Science has already lost control of
the situation and the controversy is now loose
upon the land to be decided by politically
oriented nonscientific legislators and the
communities of voters who are easily swayed by
nonscientific apparent data, misrepresented
interpretation, and spurious conclusions that they
cannot differentiate from those derived through
the corpus of science."

What I want to ask you is, as an
educator, do you believe it is sound educational
policy for those judgments as to courses of
instruction to be decided by those legislative
bodies and/or those communities of voters, which I
am adding to my question, and/or to committees of

140

the educational structure such as the one in
California that adopted that standard?

A. You lost me in California.

Q. In California it was the curriculum
committee, was it not, of the State Board of
Education?

A. Yes, I see what you mean. I don't
think that educational issues should be decided by
legislators or the uninformed. I just don't see
that that has any validity. And we have seen
again and again that this does not work. When the
Catholic church tried Galileo and he was forced to
recant, remember, he said, "and still it turns."

Because it doesn't make any difference
what they decide, they are not in a position to
make good decisions. The legislature could decide
that the sun does indeed go around the earth, and
it wouldn't make any difference. This is not the
forum to decide what is science and what is not
science. The scientific community decides that,
just as the legal community decides what is valid
law or not. You just don't turn it over to the
uninformed.

Q. Does the uninformed include such as the

141

curriculum committee of a state department of
education?

A. The curriculum committee of the State
of California, as I recall, had some educators and
well-informed people on it. It was a selected
group. It was not just a random selection of
citizenry.

Q. Does that uninformed, as you have
defined it, include a committee such as a
curriculum committee for a state board of
education or a state department of education?

A. It depends on how that is constituted.
If these people are knowledgeable in the field, it
would not include that.

Q. In the California instance, have you
ever made a statement to the effect that that
committee was stacked with creationists appointed
by then Governor Ronald Reagan?

A. That was the board of education, not a
curriculum committee. That was the board of
education, and the answer was yes, it was stacked.

Q. Then depending on the composition of a
curriculum committee within the state department,
you would make a judgment as to whether they were

142

informed or uninformed to make this kind of a
decision?

A. I believe in leaving the decisions in
the hands of the informed, yes. Therefore, if the
curriculum committee is picked from recognized
educators and people with a track record, I would
tend to go along with them.

Q. If I told you that the curriculum
committee of the State Department of Education of
the State of Arkansas was comprised of educational
professionals, that is, persons who had pursued
academic training and coupled that with experience
in the field of education, they were not lay
appointees by a political process, that they were
employed because of their educational training and
experience, would you consider that to be an
informed or uninformed body?

A. I would consider it to be a potentially
informed body. I would have to know what their
backgrounds were. If none of them had any
background in science, that would constitute an
uninformed body if they were making science
decisions.

Q. Assuming that they were informed and

143

they had some background in science, if that
committee approved textbooks which gave inference
or reference to a creation explanation of origin,
do you find that then offensive to academic
freedom?

A. I would fine that offensive, yes.

Q. Do you find that inconsistent with your
definition of academic freedom?

A. No, because these people are not
exercising academic freedom, they are imposing a
standard of their own devising.

Q. Let's pursue that a little bit, Dr.
Mayer, because by your own statement in this
Creationist Impact speech that you delivered, you
indicate that Arkansas has some 20 approved
biology texts approved by the curriculum committee
for the State Department of Education, four of
which give some reference by degree to the
creation explanation of origin, down a couple of
paragraphs. You say further in this same article
that this battle has shifted from the scientific
evidence and enterprise to the arena of the
uninformed legislators, community of voters, and
so on.

144

Yet in what I have set up for you as a
hypothetical, as a curriculum committee in the
State of Arkansas comprised of educators by
experience and training who -- assume it to be
valid experience and training and having some
knowledge in science, who then decided to approve
some text which covered both theories of origin, I
asked you if you found that personally offensive,
and you said yes. I asked you if that violated
personal freedom, and you said yes or no?

MR. CEARLEY: I want to point out
something here. You are assuming that decisions
were made by the curriculum committee to present
both creation and evolution in biology texts. The
fact is, as I recall it, that the creation
explanation is identified as being religious in
each of those instances in those textbooks. I
just wanted the record to reflect that.

Q. What I am really trying to do, Dr.
Mayer, is state the fact that the texts were
approved by that committee for their inclusion in
the classroom for purposes of discussion in
science.

A. There are several problems here. First

145

of all, they approved a panoply of things from
which individual school systems boards can select.
And they have the choice of selection from those
that have no creation information in them to those
that do. That gives them a choice. This Act
gives you no choice. That is the difference.

Q. Do you read that Act to say that you
must teach some theory of the origin of life?

A. I read this Act to say that if you
mention the subject at all, you have to teach both.

Q. But do you read it to say that you must
teach either?

A. No, and that is the insidious part of
it, because this results in, in many cases, the
elimination of the discussions of evolution
entirely, which of course is what the creationists
wanted in the first place. This Act is a two-edged
sword. You get it coming and going.

Could we go off the record a second?

MR. CLARK: Sure.

(Recess taken.)

(Continued on following page.)

146

MR. CLARK: Dr. Mayer, I don't think I
have any other questions that I need to ask you.
I want to thank you for your cooperation. I
appreciate your making yourself available.

MR. CEARLEY: I have no questions.

___________________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _____ day of _____________ 1980.

___________________________________

147

                                 C  E  R  T  I  F  I  C  A  T  E

STATE OF NEW YORK      )
                                     ) ss.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK    )

                     I, THOMAS W. MURRAY, C.S.R., a Notary
         Public within and for the State of New York,
         do hereby certify:
                     That WILLIAM V. MAYER, the witness
         whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth,
         was duly sworn by me and that such
         deposition is a true record of the testimony
         given by such witness.
                     I further certify that I am not
         related to any of the parties to this action
         by blood or marriage; and that I am in no
         way interested in the outcome of this matter.
                     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
         set my hand this 23rd day of November, 1981.

                       ________________________
                       THOMAS W. MURRAY, C.S.R.

148

                       PRODUCTION REQUESTS
                                                                   PAGE
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
statement of purpose                                      19

Compendium of information available from
National Association of Biology Teachers            29

List of papers, authors, topics presented
at October 23, 1981 NABT symposium              30

Position papers re evolution/creation of
various organizations                                      34

Lecture on "The Falacious Nature of
Creation Science," given at NSTA meeting
in Nashville, November 14,    1981                    64

National Science Foundation studies
contributed to by D. Mayer                                69

Lemmon, South Dakota, school board case        74

Deposition of Norman Geisler

Deposition of Norman Geisler - transcript paragraph formatted version. (Defendants Witness).

Special thanks to the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville for providing a copy of this deposition from their special collections.

No. LR-C-81-322

REV. BILL McLEAN, ET AL. *
*
Plaintiff *
* IN THE UNITED STATES
VS. *
* DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, *
ET AL. * DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
*
Defendant * WESTERN DIVISION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. NORMAN GEISLER
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES:

MR. ANTHONY SIANO, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom, 919 Third Avenue, New York, 10022

For the Plaintiffs

MR. RICK CAMPBELL, Esq., Assistant Attorney General,
Attorney General's Office, Justice Building, Little
Rock, Arkansas 72201

For the Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF DR. NORMAN GEISLER, a witness produced on behalf of the
Plaintiff, taken in the above styled and numbered cause on the 14th of November, 1981 before Elizabeth
S. Spitzer, a C.S.R. and Notary Public in and for Pulaski County, Arkansas at the office of Mr. Cearley,
1014 W. Third, Little Rock, Arkansas at 10:40 a.m. pursuant to the agreement thereinafter set forth.

I N D E X

[Index removed by editor]

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

S T I P U L A T I O N S

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of DR. NORMAN GEISLER, may be taken at the time and place for discovery purposes, and that all formalities with regard to the taking of said deposition are hereby waived, excluding presentation, reading, subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc; objections as to relevancy, materiality and competency are expressly reserved, except as to form of question, and may be raised if and when said deposition, or any part thereof, is so offered at the trial of this case.

DR. NORMAN GEISLER

The witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows:

MR. SIANO: The counsel for the State of Arkansas, and I have had a conversation off the record, in which it has been agreed that this is a discovery deposition; that all objections except as to form are preserved until the time of trial; that the Plaintiff will obtain from the reporter the original deposition transcript, and will convey it to the Attorney General's office, who will then send it to Dr. Geisler, and it will be returned to the counsel for the Plaintiffs within five days of receipt, and that we expect the deposition to be signed by the witness, but we would waive signing in front of this particular notary. We would also waive the sealing and filing.

MR. CAMPBELL: The only addition I would make to that statement would be that we will get it back to you all as quickly as possible, not necessarily within five days, but as quickly — perhaps it could be in less than five. We'll make every effort to, immediately upon receipt send the deposition to Dr. Geisler by Federal Express. He will send it back to us after he reads it and signs it, and we'll turn it over to Mr. Cearley here in Little Rock.

MR. SIANO: I understand what your saying, Mr. Campbell, is that you'll make an effort to return it in five days.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. Yes.

MR. SIANO: It's not so much the possibility of getting it sooner, but not getting it at all which concerns me.

MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, you'll get it. Certainly.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SIANO:
Q. Good morning, Dr. Geisler.

A. Good morning.

Q. Is that the preferred form of address, is Dr. Geisler?

A. Norman is fine.

Q. Thank you, sir. Dr. Geisler, have you ever been deposed before?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you understand, sir, that you're giving testimony under oath?

A. Yes.

Q. And that this testimony is being taken down by this court reporter here?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you will have an opportunity to review the transcript which she prepares, after it's been
prepared?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you will then be asked to sign the deposition in front of a notary and to return it to us?

A. Yes.

Q. I'd ask that this be marked as Plaintiffs' Geisler Exhibit 1.

(Thereupon Plaintiffs' Geisler Exhibit 1 was marked for the record.)

Q. I have asked the reporter to mark as Geisler Exhibit 1 a two-page document captioned with the caption of the action and described as Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories. Dr. Geisler, I would show you Exhibit 1, and ask you, have you ever seen this document before today?

A. No. I have not.

Q. Now, in connection with your appearance today as a witness, could you describe for me with whom you have spoken?

A. I believe just the two gentlemen from the Attorney General's Office, Tim Humphries and uh —

MR. CAMPBELL: Rick Campbell.

A. Rick Campbell. I talked to them on the phone a couple of times.

Q. So your contact with the Attorney General's Office has been limited to telephone conversations with these two, gentlemen?

A. And they sent me at least one letter. This is the letter right here, October 28th, 1981, I guess basically asking me if I would participate in this trial.

Q. And could you identify the number of the telephone conversations as a frame of reference for us today?

A. Well, where we actually talked — a number of them were conversations where they didn't get a hold of me, and they conveyed word by my secretary or something like your plane will be leaving in such and such a time. But I would gather maybe four roughly, plus or minus two in the last month.

Q. In the last —

A. Which is the total amount.

Q. So you have — your contact has been limited to the last month or so?

A. Yeah.

Q. Today being November 14th.

A. Yes.

Q. In connection, sir, with your testimony here today, has anyone asked you to review a statement of the subject matter of your testimony?

A. Well, I was sent Act 590 — this also says Senate Bill 482, and I read that carefully a couple of times, and that's all the information I have, and all that I have looked at.

Q. Have you provided the summary of your testimony to anyone?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you reviewed the substance of the facts or opinions, about which you are going to testify, with anyone?

A. Well, first of all I don't know exactly the specific areas in which I'm going to be called upon to testify. I know the general area of religion and its relationship to science and creationism. And that I've discussed in a general way with Rick this morning at — on the way from the airport here. But other than that, no, I haven't

Q. So your testimony is that the substance of the general area in which you are about to testify was discussed this morning with Mr. Campbell for the first time.

A. Yeah. That's right.

Q. I would like — have you given anyone sir — Dr. Geisler, a summary of the grounds for every and each opinion you're going to give in this case?.

A. No. I haven't — I haven't even done that myself yet. In other words, I haven't gathered all of the material together since this is relatively new to me, and I am just in the process of thinking it through and gathering the relative material. So I don't even have it yet, let alone to give it to anyone.

Q. All right. I would like to make a statement for the record, Mr. Campbell. I have been informed this morning, by my co-counsel, that we have been told that the counsel for the State of Arkansas have filed an application of some kind with the Court in connection with Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories. I would state for the record that a representative of counsel for the Plaintiffs was in the office of the Attorney General yesterday, when we have been told this application was mailed to Mr. Cearley's office.

No copy was provided to the representative of Plaintiffs' counsel at that time. I have now determined by inquiry of Dr. Geisler that the first substantive conversation he appears to have had with connection with his testimony was this morning. The interrogatories which have been marked in this instance were served 30 days ago on the counsel for the State of Arkansas. In fact, there, to my understanding, has been an agreement between counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the State, that the answers to interrogatories would be accelerated and received by counsel for the Plaintiffs on Wednesday. There have been no responses whatsoever received to date, and this (a) disables the Plaintiff from adequately preparing, in connection with this deposition, and it is in our mind, not a proper course of action with regard to expert witness testimony. And I put you on notice that we are seeking appropriate relief from the Court.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, I certainly respect your opinion concerning that. Yesterday the state did file objections to the first set of interrogatories. Since those objections were to the fact that the information sought by the interrogatories had already been provided to you, in that we had identified the general area of testimony which Dr. Geisler and all other witnesses for the state would testify to at trial. In addition, we provided his educational background to you. Also over the past several weeks we have provided to local counsel for the Plaintiffs all vitae, resumes, a written list of all our expert witnesses, which we had in our possession. We have tried to fully cooperate with the Plaintiffs in this matter, and certainly we can take that up with the Court at sometime in the future.

MR. SIANO: I would obviously not want to clutter the record with the colloquy in this respect. I feel it appropriate to put you on notice with regard to our application at the earliest possible moment. And I have satisfied myself that it is appropriate to seek redress from the Court in this respect, and I merely mean to address that issue before we begin today. I'd like this marked as Geisler Exhibit 2.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 2 was marked for the record.)

BY MR. SIANO:
Q. I have had marked as Plaintiffs' Geisler Exhibit 2, a six-page document with the caption of this action, entitled, Notice of Taking Depositions Upon Oral Examination. Dr. Geisler, I would direct your attention to the 4th, 5th, and 6th pages of this document. I would ask you sir, first, have —

A. You mean schedule A?

Q. Yes. Caption Schedule A. Thank you, sir. I would ask you sir, have you ever seen this document prior to today?

A. No, I have not. I'm looking at the 4th and 5th pages, 6th page — no, I have not seen that.

Q. All right. Now, in connection with your appearance here, before me today, have you had occasion to look through your files in order to bring any documents with you?

A. Yes, I have. Just briefly, though. I have not had adequate time to call every possible thing that I was asked for, because I received the information only yesterday. That is the request to call out of it, so — and I had an engagement last night, and had to leave at 5:30 this morning, so what I could pick up real quickly last night and this morning, I have brought with me.

Q. What is it that you brought with you?

A. Okay. I have brought — of course, my copy of the Bill, Act 590, the Senate Bill 482. It was sent to me by the Attorney General's Office. And then I brought with me the letter, October 28th, that requested — from Tim Humphries, requesting my participation in the Trial. I brought with me a copy of the Humanist Manifesto, to which I will be referring in my testimony. I brought with me my Personalia Sheet, which I've also provided a copy previously to the Attorney General's office, which gives my background, and writings and so forth. I brought with me a copy of the Secular Humanist Declaration, of 1981. I brought with me a paper entitled, Christianity VS. Humanism, which is the — my part of a dialogue at Rice University with a noted Humanist, Dr. Michael Kolenda, K O L E N D A. And then I brought with me two unpublished notes from sections of courses that I teach, with regard to — that touch on the topic of creation and evolution. And then I brought a bibliography that I sometimes hand out on the question of evolution, and then I brought out — I brought a one sheet comparison between humanism and Christianity on ethics. Then I brought with me also, a copy of three of my books that I could grab off of the shelves. Philosophy of Religion, which has material that I'll be using in my testimony. A book entitled, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, which has some comments on creation, origins in. And then a book entitled, Christian Apologetics, that I wrote that has some relevant material. And I have many other books, but none of them were available. I was at the other office and I do have — I did bring a list — a copy of all of the books that I have written, and that's attached to my Personalia Sheet..

Q. That's the second page, I believe, or is that an additional page?

A. Well, it's on there, except that that page wasn't complete, but the list is complete. And the list has asterisks on the ones that aren't yet released; they're at publishers, and all the rest are published and available through bookstores and libraries. Those I have — the only thing I cannot leave today are my textbooks that I use to teach my classes out of, but you're welcome to copy the information from them.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And let the record reflect that Mr. Campbell has provided to me copies of certain of the documents, which Dr. Geisler has referred to. I would — I would suggest that the remainder of the shorter materials, i.e. other than the textbooks be copied at a break, unless there is some reason why we haven't been given certain things.

MR. CAMPBELL: You've been given everything that Dr. Geisler brought with him. I should say for the record also, Mr. Siano, that I think the testimony today will show — I don't mean to be testifying for Dr. Geisler, but all relevant information — all information concerning origins in Dr. Geisler's possession were presented to you today. His lifetime, obviously, has been spent in studying philosophy and religion, and that would be his entire library. But everything having to do with origins has been provided to you as you requested.

Q. I'm sure. You indicated some correspondence with the Attorney General's Office in your file?

A. That was just that one letter.

Q. Might I see a copy of that?

A. Sure. That's the original right there.

Q. Thank you. Could I have this marked as Geisler Exhibit 3?

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 3 was marked for the record.)

Q. Dr. Geisler, this is — Geisler Exhibit 3, which you have handed to me, is a letter on — a one-page letter on a letterhead of the State of Arkansas, Office of the Attorney General; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it's dated October 28th.

A. That's correct. 1981.

Q. 1981. And the letter indicates that you and the author of the letter, Mr. Humphries, had a conversation on the phone, apparently within the week before the date of the letter?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, that would put that conversation somewhere in the period October 21 through October 28; is that correct?

A. I'm sure that's right.

Q. Now, prior to that conversation, sir, have you had any conversations with anyone whatsoever, in connection with the matter as to which you are appearing here now?

A. Absolutely none.

Q. All right. So the matter of the Action of McLean VS. Arkansas, and the action of the dispute between evolutionism and creation science in Arkansas, has not been discussed with you, other than in a context that we've described here, i.e. Mr. Humphries' letter?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, do you recall the substance of your telephone conversation with Mr. Humphries?

A. I think the substance of it was that your name has been recommended as a possible witness in the forthcoming trial in the State of Arkansas, regarding the balanced teaching of creation and evolution. And certain questions were asked me about my expertise in that area, and my interest to — if I had an interest in testifying. And I provided some general background information that would indicate that I did have expertise in that area, and indicated my willingness to testify.

Q. Now, did Mr. Humphries indicate to you who had recommended your name to him?

A. Yes, he did. He indicated that my name had been recommended to him by a fellow teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary, where I teach. His name is Dr. Charles Ryrie, R-Y-R-I-E.

Q. Now, did you — have you had occasion to discuss with — is it Dr. Ryrie?

A. Dr. Ryrie.

Q. Dr. Ryrie, the context of his conversations with Mr. Humphries?

A. No. In fact, I haven't talked at all to Dr. Ryrie about this since my first contact to the present time.

Q. So you haven't verified whether, in fact, that was the case or not?

A. No. I have not verified whether, in fact, that was the case. That's what — Tim Humphries, I believe, was the one that called me. I've received calls from both Tim and Rick, and sometimes — I didn't know their names and their voices, so I'm not sure which one. But either Tim or Rick called me, and that's what one of them told me when they called me, that Dr. Ryrie had recommended my name.

Q. Was there any other discussion as to what their background information about you was, said that they had heard X or Y about you?

A. No.

Q. What questions did they ask you in that conversation? In other words, what did they say to you, and what did you say to them, about the possibility of your appearing as a witness, or about the substance of your testimony?

A. They just asked me — nothing about the substance of my testimony was asked, but they asked me if I was a — was interested in testifying after they had more or less, I guess, checked out from Dr. Ryrie — uh — his recommendation and then just some general qestions from me, whether I would indeed have any expertise in that area. So I think they were just trying to feel me out and see if I did; I have any expertise, and then to see if I was interested and they seemed to be satisfied on the first, and I told them, yes, on the second.

Q. What was the area of expertise?

A. Religion. The general area of religion as it relates to this topic of evolution and creation. I'm not a scientist. I'm a philosopher and — by training, and a student of religion and philosophy, but they touch on this topic and overlap. So therefore, by interest in philosophy and religion, I'm tangentially interested in this topic, and touch on it in my teachings and in my writings from time to time. And so I gathered the interest that they had was to testify to the point of the relation of religion, and creationism, evolution and so forth.

Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that based upon your teachings of philosophy and religion, you have some exposure to concepts like evolution and creation and those areas?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. I take it then, that you speak, when you speak in testimony here, as an expert in religion, an expert in philosophy?

A. An expert in philosophy; that's correct. I'm not an expert in science.

Q. Mr. Campbell, I would ask for a stipulation agreeing that Mr. Geisler if he — Dr. Geisler, if he appears in trial will be appearing solely in the capacity of a philosopher and theologian and not in any other capacity?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. I think that could be stipulated to.

Q. Did they ask you, sir, about your views substantively in connection with creation or evolution?

A. No. They did not.

Q. Subsequent to this phone conversation or series or conversations, which I'll describe as introductory, when was the next time you spoke to anyone from the Attorney General's Office about this case?

A. Just this morning, as I indicated earlier, on the way from the airport here.

Q. About how long was that conversation?

A. Well, we stopped for a cup of coffee at the restaurant, so I'm sure it probably wasn't over 20 minutes to a half hour.

Q. Between the time you agreed with Mr. Humphries to testify, had you spoken to anyone outside of the Attorney General's Office in connection with the case?

A. Uh, yes, I have. I've told several of my friends and students that I would be testifying in the case. I have mentioned that there was a trial coming up, and that I would be testifying, and that I was going to Arkansas today for a deposition, and later on, in the first part of December, sometime when they told me later, for the actual trial.

Q. Any discussion of the substance of your testimony?

A. The discussion of the substance of my testimony? No. No discussion at all on the substance of my testimony with anyone.

Q. Do you have anybody doing any research for you right now?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Have you written away for any materials from anyone?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you been shown anything by anybody in connection with your appearance as a witness?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Could you describe for me, sir, the substance of your communications this morning with Mr. Campbell?

A. We just talked generally about the areas of creation, evolution. I had the copy of the bill before me. I made a comment to the effect that it looked like the bill was quite detailed. I asked some questions as to why Section 7 was there, Legislative Finding of Facts. It seemed to me that that was supportive, but as a nonprofessional in the field of law, I wondered why that was necessary in a bill to have Section 7. I made some comments on the definition of creation-science and the sub-points of it. Just general, definitional, clarificational type of questions, regarding the bill, and the — We had some conversation with regard to the nature of the procedure — the — what is a deposition? That type of thing. Since I'd never been deposed before, I wondered what it meant.

Q. Could I have marked as Geisler Exhibit 4, this document?

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 4 was marked for the record.)

A. I mentioned one other thing to him on the way over here and that is that under membership in my Personalia Sheet, I joined, about a year ago, a scientific organization called the American Scientific Affiliation. Joined approximately 1980; it may have been the first part of '81. But I just — when I was looking at it, it wasn't written on there, but I do belong to a scientific — professional scientific organization, since around 1980, about a year ago.

Q. I have marked as Geisler Exhibit 4 a five-page document taken from Dr. Geisler's file, captioned Act 590, 1981, a bill, Senate Bill 482.

(Off the Record Discussion.)

BY MR. SIANO:
Q. I'd like that marked as Geisler Exhibit 5.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 5 was marked for the record.)

Q. I have had marked as Geisler Exhibit 5, a five-page document bearing the caption of this case entitled, Defendants' Second List of Witnesses. And can we agree, Mr. Campbell, that the date of the service of this document, as indicated on the last page, is the 20th day of October, 1981?

MR. CAMPBELL: That might be the 26th of October.

MR. SIANO: Might be — that's what I'm trying to determine.

(Off the Record Discussion.)

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. Dr. Geisler, let me direct your attention to this document and particularly the 3rd — 4th page of it, paragraph 16. Now, you see your name there and a description about what you will testify about, and a little bit about your background. Is that a fair summary?

A. That's correct. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. Did you earlier tell me that the first time you talked about the substance of my testimony was this morning?

A. I told you that the first time we had gone in detail about the substance of your testimony was this morning. This — if by substance of my testimony, you mean that I would be testifying about religion in a trial on creation evolution, that was of course from the very first phone conversations.

Q. All right. So the fact of your testimony was described to Mr. Humphries in that first —

A. The area of my testimony was described as is correctly stated here in point 16, that I would be testifying as to what constitutes religion, et cetera and secular thought, and that I'm a professor of Theology, and I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University.

Q. So this is accurate as a —

A. This is accurate. This is accurate information.

Q. And there's no statement in there about the substance of your opinions though?

A. Oh, no. If you mean by — if you meant earlier by substance of my opinions, that was not discussed at all in those phone conversations, or in any correspondence between the Attorney General's Office and myself. The only time I gave anything that would even amount to an opinion would have been this
morning in our conversations.

Q. And there's no statement in there at all about the facts —

A. No.

Q. — about which you are going to testify?

A. There's no statement in here about any facts. This is — they will testify as to what constitutes religion. The area — it seems to me this designates the area and the content, but not the supporting evidence.

Q. That's what I think too, Doctor.

A. Yeah.

Q. Is it a fair statement, Dr. Geisler, that if and when you appear at trial, you will testify about what constitutes religion?

A. That's true.

Q. And would you state for me, sir, what your view is of what religion is, without reference to any particular religion, at this point?

A. That's a very difficult question. And it's probably difficult because that's what I wrote my doctoral dissertation on, and the more you know about something, the harder it is to make it simple. Probably one of the simplest definitions is the definition given by Dr. Paul Tilloch (sic.) [probably: Paul Tillich (1886-1965), Ed.] of Harvard. Religion is an ultimate commitment; that someone is engaged in religion, or has a religious attitude, or has made a religious commitment; if he has something that he considers of ultimate value in life. Another way to put it, which is the way I really put it in my doctoral dissertation, was that religion involves a devotion to some transcendent value. That — uh — something that transcends the immediate experience of the individual, something that is more than, something that is worth pursuing, worth making a life commitment to. That's the essence of religion.

Q. I take it sir, to be a fair statement, that in different religions there are different additional components?

A. That's correct.

Q. The concept of a deity, is that a serious component in the definition of certain religions?

A. Of certain religions it is, but not all religions. You can — there are religions that do not believe in any specific kind of deity or religion as so defined by Paul Tilloch, which I concluded was correct, does not demand the belief in any kind of deity.

Q. In what are known to laymen as western religions, is a deity an important concept?

A. In most of them it is, but not all of them.

Q. I take it Judeo-Christian religions have as an important element a deity?

A. Most branches of Judeo-Christian religions do.

Q. For our purposes, sir, what branches might not, so that I can have a frame of reference.

A. Oh, a Unitarian, for example. Humanistic religions would be another example of non-God religions.

Q. Would they fall within the broader category of Judeo-Christian religions, the Unitarian Church?

A. In terms of historic branches, yes.

Q. From a historical perspective?

A. Historically they came out of Judeo-Christian background.

Q. I take it that answer means they might not be today as a present tense matter, a Judeo-Christian religion?

A. They might not be, and some might be.

Q. All right. The Unitarian Church, for instance?

A. The Unitarian Church comes out of a Christian — Judeo-Christian heritage, but today, does not claim as a tenet of its religious commitment, a belief in God.

Q. Leaving aside what we've just described as non-theistic Judeo-Christian Sects, i.e. Unitarians, and I believe the other one was —

A. Humanists.

Q. — Humanists. My definition of Judeo-Christian, for the purpose of this deposition — we'll leave out those religions for the rest of the deposition. And I'd ask you, in Judeo-Christian religions is there any other core concept that you can identify?

A. In Judeo-Christian religions, they — other than the Humanistic, Unitarian types, there are — is a core concept of a belief in God, some kind of a supreme being beyond the world, who created the world.

Q. Is there any other element, like a community of worship that might be considered a core concept?

A. In most of those religions, with the rare exceptions of isolated individual manifestation of it, where some individual may have broken off, and it's almost always — community type belief, that is a community of believers that have gathered together around their core concept for the purpose of pursuing their ultimate object of devotion.

Q. How about the concept of dogma, is that a -

A. Uh, it's — it's a debatable term. Some like it; some don't. If by dogma you mean, something to which they are ultimately committed, then they all have a dogma. If by dogma you mean a specific list of X number of teachings then they vary. With respect to some would say, yes, there's a list of two, some five — you know, I'm just guessing arbitrary numbers, 12, 50, but there — really the argument is about how many, not whether. Because in one sense of the word of dogma, all have an irresolvable sine qua non, that without which not that they're committed to, and if you stated that in some kind of propositional form, one could call it a dogma.

Q. All right. Does that definition of dogma, i.e. a sine qua non of membership, if you will, is that sometimes described by a document?

A. Yes. In terms of creeds, which is the normal word — uh —

Q. Does the Bible form dogma in any Judeo-Christian Sect?

A. Yes. There are many people who — in Judeo-Christian Sects, who have no statement outside of the Bible. I heard of one recently, that when the Internal Revenue contacted them for their statement, they just sent them a copy of the Bible. So — and there are others who are very hesitant to put anything down on paper, whatsoever, but make the Bible their primary document of reference.

Q. Are there any other core concepts that —

A. To various Judeo-Christian religions, yes. The more precisely you define it, the less will be in that group. If the broad circle is religion, everyone who is ultimately committed to something — then a little narrower circle would be, everybody who is committed to something, including a supreme being. Then a little narrower circle, everyone who is committed to something, including a supreme being, who created the universe, and then you just keep — the circle gets narrower and narrower as you get to the center. The more specific you make the beliefs, the narrower the group of people are.

Q. What you have just described to me as — might be described as a denomination, if you will? Is that another word you might use on that?

A. Yeah. It's when you get into the inner circles of this, after you've left the outer circle of religion, committed to something, and the circle of a belief that there is some supreme being or creator. Then once you get into more specific beliefs like — uh — should we baptize or should we not? If we baptize, should we baptize by dunking them under water or sprinkling water on their head? Then you're getting into denominational differences.

Q. I see. Now, you listed, just at the beginning of that answer, Dr. Geisler, ultimate commitment and the existence of a supreme being, a creator. Is that ultimate existence of a supreme being or creator, is that a transcendent concept? Is that what you would list, in your opinion, as being beyond denominational limitations?

A. Yes. The commitment to a creator and the commitment to an ultimate, which is not described as the creator, are both beyond denominational limits.

Q. Is that within or without Judeo-Christian religions?

A. Uh, both. There are Judeo-Christians who are on both sides of this issue.

Q. Let me ask the question again, since I'm a little unclear now.

A. Okay.

Q. If you started your description of what is religion, in your opinion, by describing for me an ultimate commitment, an ultimate value —

A. Right.

Q. Few moments ago in your testimony, you described to me, as a parallel concept to ultimate commitment and ultimate value, the concept of a supreme being. And I asked you if the concept of a supreme being or creator was on a par in your mind?

A. And I said, no.

Q. You said no. All right.

A. See, it's a smaller circle.

Q. It's a smaller circle.

A. That's right.

Q. So therefore there is in fact a definition of religion in your mind, which does not include a creator?

A. That's right. It goes beyond that.

Q. All right. Now, I'm clear. Could you, sir, as a statement from your background as an expert in religion, what your understanding of the term orthodox is?

A. Well, literally it means straight. Uh, that which holds to the fundamentals or essentials of that particular religion. It has a number of terms — a number of ways, that you can define it. You could define it historically by the original group that held that. You could define it doctrinally, in terms of the fundamentals or essentials of that group. Or you could define it — uh — what shall we say, sociologically as a group on the right as opposed to the group on the left. So it depends on how you slice the pie. If you're looking at it sociologically they're the ones — they're the conservative. They're the ones on the right as opposed to those on the left. If you're looking at it historically, they're the original founders or the closest to the original founders. And if you look at it doctrinally or theological they're the ones who say, "Here we stand. Here are the sine qua nons. Here are the essentials, and you deviate from these, and you're no longer orthodox.

Q. Going back, sir, to a discussion of what is religion, is there anything else that in your opinion would describe or define a religion in addition to this fundamental value and this ultimate concern?

A. Well, there are some other things that you could unpack from that. For example, there's an implication there that we as individual human beings are not ultimate, that there's something more than me in the universe. So if I'm making a commitment to something beyond me that is more than ultimate, that implies that I am not ultimate, otherwise, I would make that commitment to myself. Uh, so there is a sense of contingency, a sense of finitude, a sense of I am not the all; I am not the ultimate — along with this. And then, of course, implied in it, is that this ultimate is worth making a commitment to. There's a value judgment being made. It's an axiological commitment, having to do with value. There's a — this has — this is worthwhile me pursuing. It's not just an ultimate that's there. For example, one might say that the — uh — a mathematical infinite is ultimate, but very few, in fact I know of no one, who has made a religious commitment to a mathematical infinite you know. Prepare to meet thine Einstein or love = MC2 with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength, is not the tenet of any religion so far as I know. So it's a — because they see no ultimate value in that mathematical theorem. But somehow there is some ultimate value perceived in this moribund. (sic.) It is perceived that I am not of that, and that it is worth pursuing and giving my life to in some way.

I'd say those are probably the three essential elements, and you can go into sub-points from those. Some — some would define give my life to an involved prayer. Others would say, no, just involve some kind of meditation or recognition or admiration. Then you're getting into more specific differences. But as I studied all religions, it seemed to me that all of them had at least those three common denominators, and they would all transcend toward this ultimate in some direction. They transcend differently. Some would transcend backward. That is the more (sic.) or the transcendent would be back to the origin. Some would transcend up, some transcend down, some transcend forward. And I worked out a typology of transcendents, that there were some seven different ways to skin the religious cat to transcend, but everybody was transcending.

Q. Uh-huh. This — the typology, is that -

A. Typology, meaning that — uh — I tried to work out a comprehensive way to indicate how many different kinds of transcendents — if all religions involve a sense of the transcendent — how many different kinds of ways can people transcend? And I concluded there were about seven different ways, and that's spelled out in my Philosophy of Religion book, in the first part, which is really the distillation or the condensation of my dissertation.

Q. Could you identify those various ways for me here today in as I haven't —

A. Yes. Four of them I did, right there. Uh, transcending backward like Eliade, E-L-I-A-D-E, talks about transcending to myths of origin, that looking back to the ultimate origin in religious roots. Transcending downward to a depth of being. Paul Tilloch talked about the ground of being, and also Bishop Robinson, in his book Honest to God, talked about transcending downward. Someone satirized it by saying, "Well, maybe we shouldn't have steeples on our churches; we should have cisterns. Everybody look down into the depth, rather than looking up, but that's just indicating that they failed to recognize that there are different ways to transcend. You can think of God or your ultimate as down, or up, or back, or in some modern thoughts, after Hagel (sic.) there's a forward transcendence, looking forward to the end, that we call eschatological from the Greek word, eschaton, which means last things. Eltizer (sic.) who was famous in the death of and movement was a Christian atheist. He believed there was no God in the traditional sense, but that we should transcend forward. Then there are those who transcend toward a center — uh — of Chardin in his Teilhard de Chardin. And so that would be five ways there; up, down, back, forward and center.

Then there were — then there are those who talk about transcending in terms of the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs. Negee (sic.) for example, said that he would will eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs, so even though he was an atheist in the traditional sense, I think he had a religious commitment. He — he was committed to willing the eternal recurrence, the eternal is more than time. Then there are those who just — you might say just kind of transcend outward rather than just upward. It's just that the transcendent is out. There are mystics, like Mystar Ekhart (sic.) who talked about God as being both the center and circumference of reality. And you could think of God by transcending towards the center where all lines meet in an infinity of transcendents or where they go on out forever an infinity. So as I saw it, there are seven different ways to transcend, at least, and all forms of religion can be put somewhere or other on this typology.

Q. Now, in-connection with your testifying in this case, you had occasion — did you have occasion, sir, to examine what I have marked as Geisler Exhibit #4?

A. Uh, Yes. That's the one I gave to you. I read it twice, at least, and looked over parts of it more than that.

Q. Now, for our purposes, sir, if I refer to this as Act 590, you'll understand what I'm talking about, won't you?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And did you examine anything else other than the documents you've brought with you today, including Act 590, and the formulation of your views of the Act?

A. Uh, no.

Q. all right.

A. By that, I mean, my whole life and research and everything is part of the formulation of my views, but not specifically, since in the last — if I — if I were contacted on October 26th, or whatever that date was, not since then.

Q. All right. What you're saying is, you're drawing on your experience?

A. That's right.

Q. Okay. Now, did you formulate any opinion, sir, about Act 590?

A. Yes , I did.

Q. All right. And are you going to testify at trial about any of these opinions?

A. Yes, sir. If I'm asked to.

Q. Okay. What opinions are you going to testify about?

A. Well, I — I think it's a good act. I think that it's constitutional. I think that it is a step forward in terms of academic freedom. I think that it is — uh — if I may use the term that's used in the bill, it is a balanced act about balanced treatment on the subjects of creation and evolution. And that it really seems to me to be a kind of model that ought to be emulated elsewhere.

Q. What is the basis — are you going to testify about anything else about the bill; or just that?

A. Uh, well, I may testify to something else. It doesn't come to my mind now, other than what would be a subdivision of that, unless you ask me about some specific parts of the bill, as to whether I agree, for example, with everything that is said in specific parts. Uh, I think certain things should be taught, for example, creation, evolution, that I don't accept; and there are certain categories under the creation-science part that I think should be taught, in a sense of a student's exposed to that I personally don't hold to. For example, I am not personally committed — these don't have pages. Second page. Oh, Section 4(b) "Evolution-science" I am not personally committed, although it may be true, and I'm open to it, to believe that the earth is young, thousands of years old. I personally believe the earth is billions and billions of years old. I am not personally committed to believe that you can explain all of geology by flood-geology or catastrophism as it's called here. I personally — that's point 5 under 4, 4(b), 5. So — but those are —

Q. Is that — that might be 4(a), 5, might it not?

A. You're exactly right. It's 4(a), 5. I was looking under the right — in the wrong section. 4(a), 5. I personally do not believe either 4(a), 5 or 6. It might be true, but it's a viable model, and there are people with credible scientific credentials, and I'm open to be convinced by the evidence that those are true, and I think they ought to be taught. People ought to be exposed to them.

Q. Now, let me — let's go back to the beginning of the act, since there are some things that you agree with and some things you don't agree with. Now, first of all I want to ask you, are you going to give any other — any opinion as to anything else within the area of religion in connection with this act?

A. Yes. Yes. Anything other than what we've already talked about?

Q. Yes.

A. Oh, yes.

Q. All right. What are you going to testify about?

A. Well, I'm going to testify about the relation of religion and science. The area of the relation of religion and science. That seems to me to be an important issue, because, if indeed teaching a tenet of religion in a scientific way is teaching religion, then of course, it would be unconstitutional. So I'm going to testify to the fact that one can teach a tenet of religion in a scientific way without thereby teaching the religion. So that whole area of the relation of religion and science, I think is crucial, I'd testify to. The nature of religion we've already talked about. I'll testify to the nature of Humanism as a religion. That Humanism, at least certain forms of humanism — uh — is religious, and has religious beliefs that include areas that overlap with this bill. I'll testify about the nature of — of specific kinds of religion as they relate to this, like fundamentalism, et cetera. Let's see. Those are the only ones that come to mind right now.

Q. Have you talked to Mr. Campbell about any others, anybody else in this organization about any others?

A. Just in the 20 minutes we had this morning.

Q. Those four though?

A. I don't know if we touched on all those four. We may have touched on all of them, but just — you know, just brief conversations saying that it seems to me this is an area of interest, and I think that the crucial thing in the trial will be some statements — like the crucial thing in the trial will be, is re — is teaching a scientific thing that overlaps with religion a religious thing? I think I made some comments like — uh — if teaching any tenet of a religion in a scientific way is automatically religious, then both the teaching of creation and the teaching of evolution are wrong in schools.

Q. That goes to the second point you raised, and that is that one can teach a tenet of religion in a scientific way without teaching religion?

A. Yeah. Yeah.

Q. So we have — you are going to testify about what is religion. That's Point #1.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you'll testify about what one can teach tenets of religion without teaching —

A. The relation of religion and science.

Q. That's the relation of religion and science. #3 is that you're going to describe what Humanism is?

A. I'm going to testify that certain forms of Humanism are religious, are religions or are religious, both. And they're related beliefs to this topic, evolution and creation. And also, to the relation of fundamental religions to this topic, so called American Fundamentalism and their relation to it.

Q. And that's what I have listed as 4, 4th topic?

A. Yeah. Those seem to cover what I: can think of right now, unless I am asked specifically about my views. The data I gave you I do touch on and overlap with the scientific questions, Though I'm not an expert in science, I will testify to whatever I believe and teach about this in my own teaching and writings.

Q. You — you said you were going to testify about certain forms of Humanism are religious?

A. Yeah.

Q. Would you define Humanism as a religious movement, for me?

A. The document I gave you, the Humanist Manifesto, does that, for example, the Humanist Manifesto #1, written in 1933, and signed by the people in the back of it, says, in my copy here, which is from atheist books, 1973, says on page 8, "To establish such a religion" and such refers to Humanist, obviously there. It's the Humanist Manifesto. "Is a major necessity of the Present." And then they go on and talk about the first article, Religious Humanist Regard. And they talk several times through here about being religious humanists, and it's a necessity to establish a religion of Humanism. So that's one thing that — uh —

Q. Specifically, could you now sitting here, tell me, based on your scholarship and matter of opinion, what — how you would describe or define Humanism as a religion?

A. Just the way they do. I think the best thing to do is to take it from the horses mouth. Uh, the way they describe themselves as a religion, would be in the same sense in which I defined religion for you earlier. There is an ultimate commitment. There is a commitment; to some transcendent value, in this case the values of Humanism.

Q. So you would then by — in testifying would refer to the Humanist Manifesto?

A. Uh-huh. And other humanist writings; I gave-you also the Secular Humanist Declaration, and other writers — writings by the people who signed these. There are a number of signatures in the back — uh — refer to their writings and their belief that Humanism is a religion.

Q. And —

A. And others.

Q. What are you going to testify about in connection with the topic of fundamentalism?

A. Uh, try and define it, trying to distinguish different kinds of fundamentalists.

Q. Could you define it for me here?

A. Uh, yes, I think I could. Fundamentalism, defined historically by its founders, which is — as I told you before, you define things sociologically, doctrinally, and historically. If you define fundamentalism by the first two of those three things I told you, the original people who held it, the doctrines they held, rather than the sociological way, then fundamentalism means — the people in the late 1800's and the early 1900's, such as Charles Hodge, (sic.) A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, who were in engaged in what was known as the fundamentalism liberalism debate. Most of these people taught at Princeton. And they said in essence, that certain people have deviated from historic biblical Christianity, which includes about five basic doctrines, and therefore they do not any longer deserve to be called orthodox, because they no longer hold these founding essential doctrines. And those essential doctrines were: the virgin birth of Christ, that Jesus was virgin born; the deity of Christ, that Jesus was God; the atonement of Christ, that Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world; the bodily resurrection, that Jesus bodily rose from the grave; and the inspiration of the Bible, that the Bible is the word of God. Now, some added a 6th one, but these were the five fundamentals. The 6th one that they added is that Jesus is going to return to this earth someday, the Second Coming of Christ. So there are either five or six. So historic fundamentalists were people who believed five or six basic doctrines, and if anyone denied one or more of those, they considered them unorthodox, and excommunicated them from their churches. If the minister denied them, he was — his ministerial license was taken away in that denomination, et cetera.

Q. So to use a phrase we've described earlier, fundamentalism as a historical concept is marked by strict doctrinal orthodox?

A. On these five or six at the most doctrines.

Q. On these five or six?

A. That's right.

Q. So these are, in your words, sine qua nons of participation in the —

A. Of fundamentalists.

Q. — fundamentalists.

A. That's right.

Q. All right.

A. Now, I should add this. Notice I only defined in terms of two of the three ways of defining it. You could define it sociologically in terms of contemporary phenomenon. Now if you define fundamentalism sociologically today, that is, those people today, who call themselves fundamentalists, and/or who are called fundamentalists by others, then we've got a different group.

Q. All right. As a matter of sociological determination, what is — will you be able to opine as to that?

A. It's a little harder to specify, but I — it can be done, and I will speak to that issue. Uh, of what — how do they differ from the historic fundamentalists, they obviously believe all those things, but they believe some more things to.

Q. So doctrinally they are synonymous with historical and doctrinal —

A. That's it — that's exactly right.

Q. All right. And at — where — in what manner do they differ, then?

A. They differ in that they have added some more things that they consider to be, if not fundamental, on the same level with those historic fundamentalists; very important, crucial, things that they also feel are defining characteristics of their movement, and if someone doesn't hold them, they do not wish someone to be identified with their movement.

Q. What items are those?

A. I think they would — well, they would include a number of things, and they would vary from group to group. They would include things like a more detailed doctrine of the future — uh — eschatology. They would include things like, when Christ is going to come back, before a thousand year reign, after a thousand year reign on the earth. These are called pre-millenarians or post-millenarians, and then there are the au-mills (sic.) who say there isn't going to be any thousand year reign at all. Au-mill, au-millenarian, meaning no millennium, or he's coming back before the millennium, and normally, though not universally, these fundamentalists will be pre-mills, although some of them are also au-mill, but they will make it a part of a defining essential of their group, so to speak.

Then another characteristic will be of — much of — and none of these are universally true. If I say it of one group of fundamentalists, then I can name another group that don't hold this, but many will hold as a defining characteristic of fundamentalism, that you must be separated from all non-fundamental churches and have no ecclesiastical ties, no religious ties with anyone who doesn't hold your belief. This is called — in their circles it's called separation from the world. And the world includes anyone who is apostate, and apostate means anybody who doesn't believe these doctrines. And therefore, they will not go to their churches, or have them come to their churches, there will be no reciprocation between the groups.

Another defining characteristic of much of contemporary fundamentalism is — are a number of political issues. Now, these are not on the same level as the five fundamentals, but they're kind of crucial, very important things. They are anti-abortionists, strong antiabortion is one of the defining characteristics. Most of them are very strong creationists. They believe in a literal creation in the book of Genesis, 24 hour day, God created the world in a 144 hours, 10,000 B.C. 4 to 10,000 B.C. There is — that's one of the things that they believe very strongly, and anyone who doesn't believe that and then sign the dotted line, isn't accepted as a part of their group.

Q. That's a — that concept of being very strongly creationist, is that also articulated as being very strongly anti-evolutionist?

A. Simultaneous. If you're for one side of the coin, you are against the other side.

Q. Is that from their perspective or is that your opinion?

A. No. I'm just describing what they believe, right now.

Q. So that is —

A. You haven't asked me about my opinion yet.

Q. Are there any other — any other aspects — now, you were in this subcategory of additional elements, talking about political issues?

A. Uh-huh. They define contemporary fundamentalism sociologically understood, those who either attribute the name to themselves, or it's attributed to them by others. Yes, there are — it's hard to know where to end that list — uh — some of — on political issues they would be generally conservative on most political issues; the homosexual issue, the ERA. They would be generally conservative. You'll find people in the churches — and that's not part usually of their doctrinal statements but the people as a whole in those contemporary fundamentalist groups are almost always conservative on almost all issues.

Q. Does this conservatism on social and political issues, which is a contemporary aspect of fundamentalism, does it have any analogue in the historical aspects of fundamentalism?

A. Uh, it has no one-to-one parallel. There are analogues, of course, but there are exceptions both in the contemporary scene, and more so in the ancient scene. For example, one characteristic of the contemporary fundamentalist up until about — uh — let's say roughly two years ago, was almost a political isolationism, until Jerry Falwell got these fundamentalists aroused, and said, "Hey, let's get in there and take care of this homosexual issue and abortion and ERA." They were basically political isolationists. Their personal beliefs might have been conservative, but they weren't political activists. But the difference in the last two years is that Jerry Falwell, and Tim LaHaye (sic.) and others have politically activated them. They've become a potent force in the political world.

Q. Historically, does the concept of anti-modernism have a place in the description of fundamentalism?

A. Oh, yes. Sure. Because if you were — historically that 1880 to 1930 period there, when this whole debate was going on at Princeton, and the split ultimately occurred. That was it, because liberalism theologically understood is synonymous of the term modernism. See, the modernists were those who denied one or more of the fundamentals. The orthodox or fundamentalists were those who affirmed all the fundamentals.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Norman Geisler - Page 2

Q. So basically what you're saying is, fundamentalists had a core of these five or six values, and they defined themselves by exclusion of anyone who did not subscribe to those?

A. Anybody who didn't hold the truth held error. You know if you're opposed to the truth, you're for error. Just as it is true of any group, you know. Say for example, there's very little defining characteristic of Unitarianism, but there is some broad statement to Unitarianism. Well, if you — if you went in the Unitarian Church and said, "Now, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. You can't get there any other way. Can I join your church?" They'd exclude you. They'd be anti-you.

Q. That seems to be very dualist in its approach to religion?

A. It is. It is basically dualist, because it's built on the fundamental rule of all reason. That if you're for X, you have to be against non-X. See, the fundamental law of logic is that if you're for something, you have to be against its opposite. You can't be both for and against the same thing at the same time in the same sense.

Q. Do all religious denominations — are they all marked by this dualist?

A. Yes. Every single one. Because if you're — whatever you're committed to — you are ultimately committed to, you're opposed to its opposite.

Q. The question then becomes, what the fundamentals are?

A. That's exactly right. I think another defining characteristic of much of contemporary fundamentalism outside of the political — uh — that we talked about and some of the doctrinal things, and its so called separation, is that up until recently, most modern fundamentalists were kind of anti-academic. They were kind of — uh — against higher education type of mentality. That has been, you know, a defining characteristic of the — of a lot of the contemporary sociological fundamentalism.

Q. Anti-science, is that another phrase?

A. Many of them were ant — were anti-scientists, too. Yeah. There is no question about that.

Q. Directing your attention to Geisler Exhibit 4, does this bill reflect the dualist tension that we've just described about fundamentalism and its views towards evolution and towards the concept of special creation?

A. Not at all.

Q. Not at all?

A. Not at all.

Q. Dr. Geisler, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about your background as set forth in the resume, that we've been provided.

A. Would you like to look at mine?

Q. I have a copy of it. I think I have a copy of it, except for the — the additions you noted at the beginning of the deposition, but I'll have this one marked so that we'll know what you're talking about.

A. Okay.

Q. Geisler Exhibit 6, please.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 6 was marked for the record.)

Q. Now, it says on your — on your resume, Dr. Geisler, that you went to William-Tyndale College from 1950 to '55?

A. That's correct.

Q. Where is that school, sir?

A. It's — at that time it was in Detroit. Now it's west of Detroit, in Farmington, I believe.

Q. And at that time, sir, when you attended that school, what did you study there?

A. I studied what would broadly be called religion, specifically courses on the Bible, Bible backgrounds, related courses in the — how to interpret the Bible, some courses in science, some courses in philosophy, English, history. It was a kind of a liberal arts education from a private religious school point of view.

Q. Was it — that institution accredited by any organization at that time?

A. At that time that institution was accredited by the State of Michigan, but not by the North-central Accrediting Association.

Q. So it had a state license?

A. It had a state license.

Q. And it then says academically, you went to the University of Detroit for a year?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. The resume doesn't indicate what you studied that year.

A. I studied philosophy. I had a lot of religious studies; and I needed to broaden out, and so I studied — majored in philosophy.

Q. And then you — was that a transfer to Wheaton College?

A. Then I transferred to Wheaton College and finished my degree in philosophy. I majored in philosophy.

Q. You got your Bachelors there?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You then returned to TyndaleCollege in 1964, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And I'm not familiar with what those initials are, Th.B?

A. Bachelor of Theology Degree.

Q. So you obtained another degree —

A. My first degree. I only had diplomas, because they didn't have any right to give degrees back in '50, '55. They only had the right to give diplomas, from the state, and then, in the intervening time they gained the right to give a Bachelor of Theology Degree, so I took the remaining courses needed and picked up the degree.

Q. I see. And you then went to the University of Detroit Graduate School —

A. Wayne State.

Q. Wayne State. It should be Wayne State Graduate School in 1964?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were there for how long?

A. I think I took courses there part-time for two years, studying again, philosophy. I was working toward, at that time, toward a doctorate in — well, actually I was still on the Master's level in philosophy.

Q. And you were part-time at the University — I mean at Wayne State?

A. Yes. Uh-huh.

Q. And you were — were you part-time at William-TyndaleCollege then?

A. I was teaching full-time, at that time, at William-Tyndale, and then I was studying part-time at Wayne State.

Q. Is Tyndalerelated to Detroit Bible College?

A. Okay. That discrepancy is, at that time it was called Detroit Bible College. It has subsequently changed its name to William-TyndaleCollege. So that is one and the same institution. The name was changed about a year or so ago.

Q. So when — when your resume reflects Detroit Bible College in the professional experience sections, that's' really the same institution?

A. That's one and the same, with a new name.

Q. All right. And do you know when Detroit Bible College, now William-TyndaleCollege became accredited by anybody other than the State of Michigan?

A. It is not yet accredited by the North Central. It is accredited by two organizations, one is the State of Michigan and the other is the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, which is a recognized, a nationally recognized, also recognized by the Regional Accrediting Associations like North Central, in that area for accrediting that kind of school, a religious school. So it's accredited by those two groups, Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, and the State of Michigan But not by the North Central.

Q. In fact, you are an officer of the Alumni Association of the Detroit Bible College?

A. That's correct.

Q. I see further down the resume.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You then went to the University of Detroit Graduate School after Wayne State. You worked on your M.A. there for a year, is that about right?

A. In the reverse order. I went from William-Tyndaleto the University of Detroit and then to Wayne State.

Q. Then to Wayne State. You obtained your Masters in Philosophy from —

A. I never obtained a Masters of Philosophy, because I bypassed it and went right to the doctorate. I had finished all the work except one course at the University of Detroit, at which time I transferred to Loyola, bypassed getting it and went into the doctoral work.

Q. And you obtained your Doctoral Degree in Philosophy in 1970; is that right?

A. Uh-huh. That's correct.

(Off the Record Discussion.)

Q. Dr. Geisler, you — in the area of professional experience you had part-time positions, first at Wheaton and then at Detroit Bible; is that right?

A. That's — I never taught part-time at Wheaton first. I taught later part-time at Wheaton, actually only one course, but my first teaching position was back at William-Tyndale, which is the new name for Detroit Bible, and I taught part-time there beginning in 1959.

Q. That's uh 1959-1962?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And what did you teach?

A. I taught some religious courses and some philosophical courses, because I was doing the work in philosophy at that time. So I taught some of these. I taught logic, for example, a philosophy course called Logic, and I taught a course in Introduction of Philosophy, and then some religious courses.

Q. At the time you went to William-Tyndale, which is then Detroit Bible College, how many students were there at that school?

A. It had both a day, and an evening school, and the evening school, as I recall at that time, had probably about 4 or 500, and the day school had probably somewhere around 300. I'm sure the sum-total wasn't more than 7 or 800.

Q. When you were teaching there, in 1959, and 1962, how many — what was the student population like?

A. I would say about the same.

Q. How big was the faculty?

A. Boy, I don't know. I really don't know. I could guess that the faculty was about, let me see, I'm trying to picture a faculty meeting with everybody sitting in there, 20, 25, people.

Q. How many of them full-time and how many of them part-time, if you recall?

A. Almost all of them were full-time. A few were part-time.

Q. This is the period '59 to '62.

A. Uh-huh. Yeah. They were — they were already accredited by those two organizations which pretty well took care of that type of thing, you know, if you had too many part-time teachers, they said, "Hey, you got too many part-time; get more full-time." So they wouldn't have been accredited if they had had too many
part-time people.

Q. All right. You then took a full-time position at Detroit Bible in '62?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you worked there through 1966?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And was the school about the same size?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And what — you taught the Bible and apologetics?

A. And philosophy.

Q. And philosophy. Philosophy. You then had occasion to move, I see, in 1967, to Trinity College?

A. That's right.

Q. What was the occasion for that transfer?

A. Twofold. Advancement in teaching opportunity and then desire to finish the doctorate; which I hadn't yet finished at Loyola University.

Q. Where is Trinity College?

A. Trinity College is about 35 miles, mostly north of Chicago, near Deerfield, Illinois.

Q. And you taught there in a full-time manner for two years?

A. No.

Q. No. I stand corrected. How long did-you teach there?

A. Well, all total, at that time, the two institutions the college and the seminary were one when I came there. And I taught at the college and seminary together for 13 years. Now the first, roughly six or seven years I taught only at the college, a few years in the middle I taught both, and then the last five or six years taught only at the seminary, so I was kind of at a transition in the middle there.

Q. All right. And was this the bulk of your — what I'll call gainful employment, if you'll pardon that expression?

A. Yeah. Yeah. That was my full-time job, other than a little moonlighting by lecturing on the weekends or elsewhere, that's how I made my living.

Q. This Trinity College, I then take it, is really the same institution of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School?

A. At the beginning they were under one administration, but they were two separate schools, and then they later they divided the administrations too. And when I came there they were just seeking their Regional Accreditation, and about a year after I got there, they received North Central Accreditation. And the seminary also was accredited, and I taught there for the remainder of the 13 years.

Q. So you came there — at the time you started there the school was unaccredited by North Central and then ancient processing —

A. Right. They had candidate status, as it's called, because it was a young school, just a few years old, and they had candidate status.

Q. Does Tyndalehave candidate status with North Central, do you know?

A. No. North Central has never accredited a religious school, a Bible college of any kind. They've always turned them down on the grounds that they're religious schools, or — well there are two grounds. One has been eliminated and the other one still remains. The first one was that there is an accrediting association for Bible colleges, called the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, go to them and get your accreditation. We recognized them for transfer of credit purposes. The other grounds was we don't want to accredit any school that has a religious major in it, and you still have a religious major, even though you teach your education and everything, therefore, we are not going to accredit you. That is not true, incidentally, of the other regional accrediting associations in the United States. North Central is more strict on that than the others are.

Q. At the time you were teaching at Trinity College, and then Trinity Evangelic Divinity, what was the student population? How large a school was it?

A. Oh, I would say at the college it was roughly in the 7, 800 range, and at the seminary — uh — it at that time was going through tremendous growth. It was going from the 6 to 800 range at that time. It now has a thousand. It's one of the largest seminaries in the United States.

Q. Are the ordinations in any particular denomination?

A. My ord — first ordination was undenominational. It was a just a community church, nondenominational. And, the second ordination was by the Evangelical Free Church of America, which is a denomination. And they happen to be the denomination that sponsors Trinity College, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Q. And I take it then, that the ordinations in Trinity Evangelical are in this same church?

A. That's right. That's right.

Q. Okay. How long is the course of study for somebody at Trinity Evangelical?

A. It's the same as all seminaries in the country are for a Master of Divinity program, three years.

Q. So this — this divinity school gives a three year Master's program?

A. All divinity schools give a three year Master's program,

Q. What is that?

A. We sometimes wonder too. Seriously, systematic theology is teaching the basic doctrines and truths of the Christian religion in a systematic rational way, trying to put together all the facts both inside and outside of the Bible in a systematic coherent way, so that one can see the whole picture.

Q. How many students are in Dallas Theological Seminary?

A. We have a thousand students. We are the 4th largest seminary in the world.

Q. And the faculty, how many people on the faculty?

A. There are 60 some members — uh — recently — I couldn't remember if it was 64 or something. I heard it recently, but —

Q. Into what denominations do your students place their ordinations?

A. Almost all — the school is a nondenominational school. Trinity was a denominational school to which many other denominations came, but Dallas is a nondenominational school, and roughly the breakdown would be something like this. About a third of the students — or a little more than a third go into community nondenominational type churches. A little less than a third go into Baptistic type churches, that would either be Baptist in name or doctrine or both. And the other third from Heinz variety. I have all kinds: Presbyterians, Methodists, what have you.

Q. The Baptistic Churches, do they generally tend to be aligned with Southern Baptists, or independent Baptists?

A. Uh, both. Both. Although you must remember that you can go to — if you're a Southern Baptist you can go to a Southern Baptist Seminary free, so if you come to Dallas Seminary, and you're a Southern Baptist, you came because either you were rich, or you thought it was much better than the Southern Baptist Seminary or both.

Q. So you had sort of something special they wanted?

A. That's right.

Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Geisler, about the books that are recited here, can you tell me a little about — uh — the General Introduction to the Bible, put out by Moody Press —

A. Uh-huh.

Q. — in 1968. Tell me —

A. Yes. That was the first book that I wrote, actually coauthored with a friend of mine, Hyme Nix, (sic.) and we were teaching that course, at that time, at Detroit Bible College, now William-Tyndale College, and there was a very poor textbook, and we decided to write a better textbook, so that's a textbook written to teach a specific course that's taught in most Bible colleges around the country, to give the full history and background of the Bible, from its origins to the present. So we go into the earliest manuscripts and to ancient history, medieval history, the earliest manuscripts, trace it right down to the modern translations. It's kind of a history and nature of the Bible.

Q. What languages do you speak, sir?

A. Well, speak or read?

Q. Well, why don't we start with speak?

A. Speak? English.

Q. And read?

A. I read English, a little bit of Hebrew, a little bit of Greek, a little more of Greek. I've had three years of Greek, one year of Hebrew, and enough of the German and French to pass the doctoral exams to read the stuff in scholarly journals in German and French.

Q. Where is Moody Press located?

A. It's located in Chicago.

Q. The next book there is Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, could you tell me a little bit about that book?

A. Uh, that book is a textbook written on college level to teach a course in ethics. And the first half of the book discusses the various alternative positions that are taken in ethics by everyone. In other words, I make a typology of ethical systems there. You can believe that there are no absolutes. You can believe there is one absolute. You can believe there are many absolutes. You can believe that they never conflict, that they sometimes do conflict. I come up with six different kinds of ethical views, expound the proponent, whether it's Sartre (sic.) or Nietzsche or whoever. It's not particularly Christian, or religious, and then after explaining these six different views, then I explain my own view and apply it to issues in the last half of the book — is now from my ethical perspective, what do I think of war, what do I think of abortion, birth control, euthanasia, issues like that.

Q. Would you describe or summarize the ethical position you take in that book?

A. Yes. I defend the view that there are ethical absolutes. That some things are binding on all men at all times in all places.

Q. Zondervan Publishing, whereabouts are they?

A. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Q. Are they affiliated with any creation-science organization?

A. No. Not to my knowledge.

Q. The next book is the Christian Ethic of Love.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Could you describe that — the topic of that book for me?

A. Uh, that's the way to get two books out of one. Uh, it's a spin-off from the original book on a more popular level for laymen.

Q. Do you take the position in that book as well?

A. Same title — same position. Uh-huh. I take the position that love is a universal absolute, and that all men should love at all times and all places, under all conditions.

Q. Uh, the next book is the Philosophy of Religion.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Would you describe the topic of that book for me?

A. Uh, that book is really a redoing of my dissertation. Instead of publishing the dissertation in its exact form which wasn't as publishable, I just redid it and that book is the results of my research in what is religion and some tangential topics, like how — what is religious language? And what — how does reason and philosophy relate to religion? Can you be reasonable about your religion? Can you prove the existence of God, or not prove the existence of God? If God exists what about evil in the world? So basically it's God and evil, God and language, God and religious experience, and God and reason. Four sections.

Q. Do you take a position or can you summarize briefly?

A. I take the position that, yes, we can talk about God, religious language is meaningful. Yes, it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God. There are evidences — philosophical evidences that bear on it. Yes, evil does exist, but it is not incompatible with the existence of God. Uh, and yes, there is such a thing as religion and it can be defined, and it's defined in the way I defined it earlier.

Q. The next book is From God to Us, again by Moody Press.

A. That's a spin-off, a more popular writing of General Introduction to the Bible on a lay level again, rather than the more scholarly textbook type.

Q. That's a spin-off of Philosophy of Religion?

A. General Introduction to the Bible.

Q. Oh, from General Introduction to the Bible.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. All right. The —

A. Now, when I say spin-off, that doesn't mean there's nothing new in those books. There are some new things that we added as we went along, but it's basically the same area, and similar conclusions.

Q. The next book is Christ: The Key to Interpreting the Bible, by Moody Press.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Can you tell me a little bit about that topic of that book?

A. Uh-huh. The topic of that book is really hermeneutics or how do we interpret? And it suggests that the way to understand the Bible from a Christian perspective, is to look at it as it relates to the person, nature, ministry of Jesus Christ. Look at the Old Testament as looking forward to Christ, look at the New Testament as looking on Christ. Christ is the unifying theme of the Bible.

Q. And is that the position you take, that Christ is the unifying theme of the Bible?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. The next book is Christian Apologetics. Where is Baker Book House?

A. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Q. Are they affiliated with any organization that you know?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Could you describe the topic of Christian Apologetics?

A. Apologetics means defense, comes from the Greek word apologea (sic.) It's the same thing a lawyer would do in the courtroom, defend. And if somebody made some complaint against, he would defend, and uh, these examine all of the major objections leveled against Christianity that I am aware of, and defends
Christianity against these objections.

Q. Could you describe the position you take in that book?

A. That Christianity is true, and the objections fail.

Q. And the next book is A Popular Study of the Old Testament. Could you describe the subject matter of that book?

A. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament is the title, and that is —

Q. Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt. It says here study. Is it supposed to be study?

A. Well, then, there must be a mistake.

Q. Okay.

A. You caught a mistake. I read ideas and you read words. Let's see, where is it here?

Q. It's on the resume. It says a popular study.

A. Yep. That's a mistake. That should be A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. That's the problem. You can't proofread your own material. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. That's the book I brought with me today, and that is a — it goes book by book through the Old Testament, from Genesis to Malachi, and it gives a basic outline and background of each of the books, discussing who wrote the book, when was it written, to whom did he write, what is the content of the book, what was his purpose, or why did he write? So it's a guide to studying the old Testament.- It gives some archaeological historical background material. Touches on — in the Book of Genesis it touches on the topic of creation and who wrote Genesis? Is Genesis literally true? Et cetera.

Q. Do you take a position with regard to who wrote Genesis in this book?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that position?

A. Moses wrote Genesis.

Q. Do you take a position as to when Moses wrote Genesis?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is that position?

A. Roughly around 1,500 B.C., 1,450's.

Q. Do you take a position as to why Genesis was written?

A. Yes. At the end of each of the books I give, usually three whys. I divide it into the theological purpose, and the Christological purpose, and the historical purpose, and I suggest that Moses had — the book can be understood in terms of these three.

Q. Do you take a position as to whether Genesis is a historical book?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What position do you take?

A. I take the position that it's historical.

Q. Do you take a position as to whether it's inerrant?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What does the word inerrant mean to you?

A. It means without error.

Q. Do you take a position as to factual inerrancy?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What position do you take?

A. I take the position that the Bible is factually inerrant.

Q. That includes Genesis?

A. That includes Genesis. Yes.

Q. The next book you have here is The Roots of Evil, by Zondervan?

A. Zondervan.

Q. Yeah.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Could you tell me what the topic of that book is?

A. Technically speaking, the topic is called theodicy, T-H-E-O-D-I-C-Y, and theodicy is the philosophical category that deals with the books on the problem of evil. And the topic of that book is to discuss the problem of evil, as it relates to various religious positions, and particularly the Christian position. If God, why evil?

Q. Do you take a position in that book as to that topic?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is that position?

A. My position is that evil is not incompatible with the existence of God, and that we do know some possible and/or plausible reasons for the existence of evil in the universe.

Q. Do you articulate those?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What — could you articulate them for me?

A. Surely.

Q. Would you please?

A. Uh-huh. The purpose for permitting evil, we divide into several categories. The metaphysical problem people, the physical problem people, and the moral problem people. The metaphysical problem people is if God is the author of everything and evil is something, then it would seem like God is the author of evil. My response to that is, that the minor premise of the syllogism is wrong, namely that evil is not a thing. I hold that evil is not a thing or a substance, the same view that Augustine (sic.) held, and that evil is just a lack or a privation in things, that evil is like a hole in the garment, that, there is a good garment there, and evil is a privation in it, but that evil doesn't exist in and of itself. It only exists in other things.

And then on the moral problem of evil, the question is why did God create a world where there were free creatures who would commit evil? And the answer I give to that is, that freedom is the cause of evil, man's free choice. And that it's good to be free. That we don't carry signs back to bondage away with freedom. Even Humanists believe that freedom is good. And if freedom is good, freedom makes evil possible. And then with respect to why God permits evil to continue, I say that he would have to destroy freedom, in order to destroy evil. That he could destroy all evil, but he would have to destroy all freedom too, and that would be destroying the good of freedom, and it's not good to destroy the good of freedom.

Q. Dr. Geisler, you have a book here called The Inerrancy.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Could you describe for me what the topic of that book is?

A. It's exactly what we said before. It's on the factual inerrancy of the Bible. I edited that book and wrote one chapter in it, and the book is a compilation of scholars defending the inerrancy of the Bible.

Q. I take it you subscribe, then, to the positions taken in there?

A. I subscribe to the general position taken by the council that sponsored it, which is called the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, out of Oakland, California. In fact, I'm a member of that council, and they have a 19 point statement, which was the result of a conference of 300 scholars from the United States and various places in the world, about three years ago in Chicago, and that 19 point statement defines exactly what we mean by inerrancy.

Q. Could you — not to test your memory beyond the realm of reason, but could you identify for me as many of those points as you recall?

A. Well, I'll simplify the matter. I'll identify the points that relate directly to this. We believe that the Bible is inerrant, that it is without error in everything that it teaches on every topic that it teaches anything on, including science and creation, in the Book of Genesis.

Q. That's a fairly clear position.

A. Fairly clear.

Q. That — you described that as you believe the Bible is inerrant. The basis for those 19 points — could you describe the basis for those 19 points for me?

A. If you mean the justification for my belief, the justification for my belief is spelled out in detail in my Apologetics book, and the heart of the argument goes like this. It is reasonable to believe in God on the following grounds, which I'd be glad to go into. If God exists, miracles are possible. We examine history to see if there are any miraculous confirmations of any truth claims. Jesus Christ made certain truth claims to be the Son of God, and there was miraculous confirmation of those truth claims, therefore Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus taught that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, with respect to the Old Testament that existed, and he promised the same for the new, therefore it is true that Jes — that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. That's the essence of the argument.

Q. The concept of faith is extent there in which points of that?

A. The concept of faith is not extent in any point thereof. It's all based on historical or philosophical argumentation.

Q. Is there a concept of revelation present in any there?

A. Revelation is the conclusion of the argument, not any premise in the argument.

Q. You have a book here called Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Can you describe for me the topic about that book?

A. That is a textbook for colleges on philosophy with an honest subtitle. Most textbooks on philosophy could be called an introduction of philosophy, a Humanist perspective, but don't put it in their subtitle. We just honestly wanted the readers to know that we were two Christians that were writing the same field, both having expertise in Philosophy on the same topics. It could be used as a textbook, but reminding them that our point of view was a Christian point of view.

Q. And I take it you've just described to me a position you take in the book, too?

A. The position we take is that you can be a philosopher and be a Christian. And that a philosopher — a Christian philosopher can adequately engage and handle honestly and openly all the philosophical problems that any other contemporary philosopher faces.

Q. And the last book that I have noted on this list in the resume, is Options on Contemporary Christian Ethics.

A. Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics, is really an updating of the first half of Ethics: Alternatives and Issues. It has additional chanters. About a third of the book, or 2/5's is new. And the rest is an updating and sharpening of the arguments and additional arguments for and against the various positions.

Q. What — when you say updating, what position do you take in this book?

A. That there are ethical absolutes, same position. No major change in my ethical position on that topic. I've had minor changes on some minor topics.

Q. Looking at Geisler Exhibit 6, and the books you've given us asterisks on, you have a book called How History Views the Bible: Decide for Yourself. That book is in manuscript form?

A. That is in galley proof form ready to come out imminently.

Q. The — what is the topic of that book?

A. It is a compilation — a systematic compilation of quotations from the early centuries up to the present on major theologians' views with regard to the Bible.

Q. Do you take a position in that book?

A. No.

Q. That's merely narrative?

A. I don't take a position, you know, to be perfectly honest. When you put a book together on any topic and put headings on and organize it, you are indirectly taking a position. But there is no overt position taken. Obviously I can't abstract myself from my own convictions, but I try — but the book is really nothing but quotations and my headings. And the heading is there and then the quotation and the source from the quotation, so if somebody looks up the quote and says it doesn't agree with the heading they can look it up for themselves. But it's an attempt to be a purely objective summary of what almost every major father from the early fathers of the church right on through the middle age up to modern time have said with regard to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible..

Q. So it's basically directed towards Biblical inerrancy?

A. It's directed toward a topic a little broader, inspiration and inerrancy, whereas inerrancy is a specific kind of view of inspiration. Inspiration is a broader topic than inerrancy. Many people believe in inspiration that don't believe in inerrancy.

Q. All right. What is your definition of inspiration?

A. The word inspiration comes from the Greek word, Theopnustas, (sic.) which means "God breathed." And it comes from II Timothy, Chapter 3, verse 16, in the New Testament, which says, that all scripture is breathed out by God, that God was the one who is the ultimate source of giving these truths, and that the authors of scripture ultimately got their truths from God.

Q. You agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. So what I might be describing as divine revelation, you describe as inspiration?

A. Divine revelation is related to inspiration in the following way. Revelation is the actual conveying of divine truth. Inspiration is the way it was conveyed.

Q. So revelation is the what and inspiration is the how?

A. The how.

Q. The book you have recited here, Miracles in a Modern Mind, what is the topic of that book?

A. That was a working title at that time, and it's exact title is going to be Miracles and Modern Thought. And the manuscript is finished and it's in the process of being edited by Zondervan now, and the topic of the book is an examination of the objections against miracles from the time of Spinoza (sic.) to the present. And I take every major philosopher to my knowledge from the time of Spinoza to the present, examine his arguments against miracles, and find them all to be inadequate. So it could be thought of as a defense of super — a rational defense of supernaturalism.

Q. In what stage is this book?

A. The stage — as I said, the manuscript is completed, and the editor has it and he's editing it.

Q. The book you have here, World Views: They Make a World of Difference.

A. That is just in the process of being written. We have a tentative commitment by a publisher, and we have a couple chapters written, and the whole book outlined.

Q. What is the general thrust of the book?

A. The general thrust of that view is to enable someone to understand the various perspectives from which people speak. Pantheistic perspective, a theistic perspective, a deistic perspective, an atheistic perspective, and the point of the book — there are really two points. One point is that the same statement made from a different world view perspective has a different meaning. For example, when Jesus said, "I am God." From a theistic perspective that would prove the deity of Christ, because God is the transcendent being beyond the world, and no man can be identical to God, unless he is indeed God.

But from a pantheistic perspective the statement I am God, means something entirely different. We're all gods; we're all part of God; God is all, and all is God. So what we want to show is that you have to know somebody's world view perspective to really understand what they're saying.

Q. Does your analysis of world views focus on the concept of a deity?

A. Uh, Yes. All world views have something to do with a deity, either affirming or denying one kind or another. See, it will be again, a typology of world views. And we'll try to give an exhaustive typology of all of the possible ways you can relate to the question of the existence of God. God doesn't exist at all, atheism. God exists and he's out there, but he doesn't involve himself here, deism. God exists out there, but he also involves himself here, theism. God is all, and all is God, pantheism. And then a view less popularly known, panentheism, E-N, in the middle. That all is in God. God is in the world, but there's more to God than the world. And polytheism there are many gods. And then we'll take — have a chapter explaining each of these views and helping the reader to understand the differences.

Q. Take a position on a world view of atheism, non — denying the existence of God —

A. Uh-huh.

Q. — is that described in there too?

A. That will — there will be a chapter on atheism. Right.

Q. You then have a book called Humanism: A Christian Evaluation.

A. That one is already written. The manuscript form is into the editor, and it's being edited right now.

Q. Did — what is the general topic of this?

A. It's divided in two halves. The first half is a survey of various kinds of Humanism. We survey what we call Egocentric Humanism of Ian Rand, (sic.) Pragmatic Humanism with John Dewey, (sic.) Behavioral Humanism, of V. F. Skinner, (sic.) Evolutionary Humanism of a Huxley variety, Existential Humanism of John Paul Sartre, (sic.) what we call Coalitional Humanism such as the manifestoes, people who get together and say, "Hey let's pool our resources and make a statement for our purposes." And Cultural Humanism of Coralis LaMant, (sic.) type. I may have forgotten one, but that's just mainly exposition with a few evaluatory comments at the end of the chapters. And the last half of the book is my critique of what I call Coalitional Humanism, or Secular Humanism from a Christian point of view.

Q. What — could you give me the sum or substance of that evaluation?

A. That it is a religion, but it is religiously inadequate; that it is scientifically inadequate; that it is culturally inadequate, and that it is philosophically inadequate.

Q. So in laymen's terms, that's a religion, but it's not very good religion.

A. That's right. It's not — it's not a rationally justi — it's not rationally, scientifically justifiable, nor is it spiritually and socially helpful.

Q. You're scientific analysis of Humanism is drawn from what source?

A. Let me cross one word out I just said. I don't mean not helpful, because we have a whole chapter there pointing out that it does have many helpful things to say. That Humanism has many positive contributions, but that it is insufficient — is a better word — as a total system. Pardon me, I missed your question.

Q. Could you read my question back?

(Thereupon the reporter read back the immediate previous question.)

A. Scientific analysis of Humanism is drawn from taking basic principles of Humanism with regard to its commitment to scientific issues like creation. And incidentally, the main thrust of my argument on that, is the material I gave you, that one chapter entitled — let's see, what is it entitled here? I don't have it in front of me. You have it. Well, here it is. Christianity vs. Humanism, this exhibit that you might want to give a title to, now, is the essence of my argument, and what I do is I take basic principles, such as the second law of thermodynamics, basic principles articulated by scientists like Michael Polanyi, who was not a creationist, and take these basic fundamental principles and apply them to the Humanistic and the creationist conclusions, and see that the first is inadequate, and the second is adequate.

Q. Do you examine any other scientific element, other than creation?

A. Uh, any other scientific element of Humanism?

Q. Yes.

A. In one of — in the chapter on Cultural Humanism, we go into great detail by way of a recent book entitled, The Arrogance of Humanism, in showing that Humanism is scientifically arrogant.

Q. Again, Doctor, I'll restate my question. When I asked you what — what scientific issues you addressed, do you address any other scientific issues other than creation?

A. Oh, yeah. Sure. Because they — the scientific issues about control of the — genetic control, scientific issues that relate to the — the use of science by Humanists as its — as its Messiah. The messianic use of science by Humanists, and that covers a whole broad gamut of things, you know, like cloning — and we do that also in the Ethics book too, you know, cloning, genetic control, and I — my general conclusion, then, in agreement with the Arrogance of Humanism book, is that science is — is not capable of doing what the Humanist wants it to do.

Q. What is your understanding of what the Humanist wants science to do?

A. They want it to save the world, in a broad general way. The means of salvation according to a Humanist, for the human race are: (a) Humanist values, which means we've got to propagate them and teach them the education and humanist values. (2) the scientific method which can help us solve our problems. So there are mainly two sources of salvation by Humanists for mankind. Proper use of Humanist values, and scientific process, combined with — some of them will add combined with common sense, which is also part of science too.

Q. So when you're telling me that you addressed the inadequacy of Humanist values on scientific issues, what you're addressing is a scientific method?

A. Uh, no. No. They're — They are conclusions built on faulty scientific reasoning. In other words, I'm saying they are not scientific in their conclusions.

Q. What — what is the scientific method that you just referred to?

A. It's the method of proper inference of conclusion from substantial evidence.

Q. Can you define in a generalized way, what the faulty conclusions are?

A. Well, evolution, for example. Macroevolution is understood by modern Humanists as a faulty conclusion from the scientific evidence.

Q. And you draw this conclusion from the perspective of a philosopher?

A. Yeah. Uh-huh. I have to — I have to accept the available scientific principles from the scientific community. In other words, they tell me the second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental scientific principle, and I say, "Well, if it is, let's see what that leads to, and I philosophize about that, and I say, "Well, it looks to me like that leads to God and creation."

Q. And you do this — does this inspiration that we referred to earlier impact on the philosophizing?

A. It has no part in the argument whatsoever.

Q. Besides the second law of thermodynamics, are there any other scientific principles you analyze?

A. Uh-huh. I analyze the result of the paleontological record, the geological column, the result of the fossil — the fossil record.

Q. What exactly — what exactly in the fossil record does — do you examine, or have you examined?

A. I have examined — I've studied geology on the college level and also am an amateur rock collector. I've examined the Gaps, the fixity of kinds that are there, and read books by both evolutionists and nonevolutionists on that.

Q. Now, we have your college theology course?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Your rock collecting — you said you examined the Gaps?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What exactly did you look at or see?

A. I looked at the evolutionary text books such as Dunbar's textbook on geology, which he showed where the fossils were, which ones were found and which strata, where the Gaps are in these?

Q. You looked at — all right. Now, that's Dunbar's book. What else have you looked at in connection with the paleontological record?

A. I've looked at some of the creationists' material.

Q. What particularly?

A. Well, the writings of Morris and Gish, (sic.) from the Creation Research Society. I've looked at — I've also examined personally, and read the book on the dinosaur footprints. The book on the dinosaurs that came out by Whitcomb (sic.) John Whitcomb, Jr., and that was a study of the Glen Rose, Texas Dinosaur footprints by human footprints. I have made a trip to Glen Rose to examine these myself. I have viewed the film that was produced on that particular —

Q. Is that Paluxy River?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. This gentleman Morris that you — is that Henry Morris?

A. Yeah. Henry Morris.

Q. Is he in your mind an authority on creation?

A. He's one of the authorities on scientific-creationism, yeah.

Q. He's recognized in your mind as an authority?

A. Well, he's — he has a Doctorate in Science, and he has done a lot of research on this and written books, and studied and lectured and debated on it, so I'd call him an authority, yeah.

Q. You'd recognize him as an authority?

A. Yeah. I would recognize him — I don't agree with all of his views, but I would recognize him as an authority in his point of view as a matter of fact I disagree with a couple of his views, the same ones that I pointed out earlier in the bill, on the Section 4a, 5 and 6.

Q. I'm just trying to get if you recognize him as an authority on scientific-creationism?

A. Yes. Yes. Yes, I do recognize him as an authority and so — Gish also.

Q. You recognize Gish as an authority?

A. Yes

Q. How about a gentleman by the name of Gary Parker, do you recognize him.

A. I don't know Gary Parker.

Q. Okay. Have you had occasion to examine a book called Scientific-Creationism?

A. Uh-huh. I think that's — I think that's a very credible book from their point of view.

Q. All right. Have you had occasion to examine any other books in the area of scientific-creationism?

A. Yes. Uh, one of the things I brought, and I think I gave you, is a bibliography on evolution. It's called Select Bibliography on Evolution. And there are a number of books on here that I have examined. A good one on this topic is by Wilder-Smith, the second one from the last, called Man's Origin, Man's Destiny. Another excellent one is by Wysong, W-Y-S-O-N-G, entitled, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1978 I've also looked at a number of other books on this list, but they are two that I would recommend as credible books from that point of view.

Q. Now, would you mark this, please, as Geisler Exhibit 7, and this as Geisler Exhibit 8, so we'll know what we're talking about.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibits 7 and 8 were marked for the record.)

Q. Dr. Geisler, have you had occasion to examine the books on this list, I mean all of them?

A. No. I have not read all of all of those books. I have read some of most of them, and all of some of them.

Q. Where did this list come from?

A. That list was compiled by me through the research that I did, plus research that students of mine did on topics where they wrote maybe a thesis or term papers under me, and if they would quote a book, and it had a good idea, I'd look up the book and say, "Hey, there's a good one and scan it or read parts of it or
all of it, and add it to the list.

Q. So you generated this list?

A. That particular list is my compilation, that's right.

Q. When did you make this list?

A. Well, that list was made up some time ago: For example, you'll notice that Morris' and Gish's book are not on that list yet, and that you'll notice in the bottom the books are typed in different type. Those were just put on, so that list, if you will forgive the expression from a creationist, evolved gradually over just five to eight years, probably.

Q. If we say this list, we're referring to Geisler Exhibit 7, a one-page document, captioned, Select Bibliography of Evolution. So we have Henry Morris' book and Duane — What exact did we say about Henry Morris? What book was his?

A. Scientific-Creationism.

Q. And Mr. Gish, what book of his?

A. Well, there's a little one and a big one by similar titles. I think — if I'm not mistaken, they are both called Scientific-Creationism. There is a little one called that, and there's the thicker one, but they may have slightly different titles. I don't know, because I don't have it written down in front of me.

Q. Do you have all those books?

A. I don't possess all of them, no. I possess maybe about— I would say possess, in my personal library, which is a selection, not a collection. I only buy books that I think I'm going to use over and over again. Otherwise, I borrow them from the library. I probably have a dozen books on creation-evolution.

Q. But you think all of these books are — are —

A. Something that somebody who is interested in that topic ought to look at. And the — and the ones that I've read, present a credible case for their point of view.

Q. All right. I'd like you to — if you could, just go down this list, and tell me on each one which books you've read, which books you have, which books you've just written down, based on the quotes that somebody has given to you?

A. Okay. The first one, Anderson, Fossils in Focus, I've read the whole book. That's — is that all you want me to tell?

Q. Yes.

A. Biology is cert —

Q. Now, if there is a book on there that you think is an authority, would you tell me about that? Would you just say that for me so I'll know which books you consider to be authoritative?

A. Uh, authoritative meaning what? What do you mean by authoritative?

Q. Well, meaning do you recognize them as an authority in the area of creation-science or evolution?

A. Well, under my definition of authority?

Q. Yeah. Well, you give me your definition of authority.

A. Okay. What I understand as an authority is someone who, has some scientific credentials, that is who has studied science and has done research into the scientific data that relates to this topic.

And I recognize the first one Anderson, Fossils in Focus, as having scientific credentials and credibility.

The second one, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, I have not read the whole book. I have looked at that, scanned it. It's a textbook intended for colleges. I have not read the whole book, so can't comment on the specific contents of it.

Clark — Robert E. Clark, The Universe: Plan or Accident? I have read that whole book. That speaks only to the point of the creation of the universe, not the creation of life itself, and he argues — and think that on that point, he has credibility, because that's largely a philosophical point.

The next one, Prehistory and Earth Models, by Coak, C-O-A-K, I have not read. That one was recommended by a student who had some interesting quotes from —

The next one by — on Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Grand Rapids. I read and do not consider to be a scientific authority on it.

The next one, Arthur Custance, Evolution or Creation, Zondervan. I consider to be a good book I've read, and consider it to be a credible scientific presentation.

The next one, William Dankenbring, First Genesis: A New Case for Creation, I have not read.

The next one, Donald England, A Christian View of Origins, Baker Book House, I have not read.

The next one, George F. Howe, H-O-W-E, "Creationist Botany Today: A Progress Report." I have read, as well as some other things that he wrote. He's a credible scientist-creationist.

The next one, James Jauncey, Science Returns to God. I have read the whole book, and it's credible. He's got about six scientific degrees.

The next one, Martin Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to NeoDarwinian Interpretation of Evil, I have not read. I have just read parts of, excerpts.

The next one, The Creation Explanation, I have not read.

The next one, Walter Lammerts, Scientific Studies in Special Creation, I have read parts of, and consider that to be a good book.

The next one, Walter Lammerts, Why Not Creation? I have also read parts of, and consider it to be a good book.

Henry Morris, Evolution and the Modern Christian, Grand Rapids; read; good book.

Symposium on Creation, Henry Morris, read; that's a good book.

Donald Patten, Symposium on Creation I've read. That's a good book.

Bernard Ramm, Christian View of Science and Scripture. I've read that whole book. That's a good, book.

Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Time and Space. I read that, and that is not a credible book from a scientific standpoint, because he is not a scientist. That's written from a theological standpoint.

Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, is a credible book from a scientific standpoint.

And Wysong is an excellent book from a scientific standpoint, because it's a two-model approach. He doesn't come to any conclusion. He just presents both sides of it. What if — and it's, think, an excellent book.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Norman Geisler - Page 3

Q. Two models of what?

A. Creation model, evolution model.

Q. The creation-science model?

A. No. He — uh — the book presents both models. He'll present an evolution-science model, and go through what it holds and what it would believe and what we can expect. And then go through a creation-science model, what it holds, what you would expect if it's true, and just examines the evidence and comes to no conclusion about either one?

Q. Are you aware of any other models for creation?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific support for any other models?

A. Well, the scientific support bears on all of the models, so it's a matter that the models — how defined your knowledge gets. For example, if you say creation, you've got to ask what kind of creator, pantheistic creator, theistic creator, panentheistic creator, all those world views. Almost all of those I have a view of creation. So when you're teaching scientific creation, you are not thereby teaching any of those world views, you are just teaching that some of these creators — uh - somehow, somewhere — my theory is built on the evidence — must have created this. So sure, there are a lot of other models. A progressive creation model, as Barnard Ramm, in his book on this list, Christian View of Science and Scripture is not an old theory; progressive creation over millions of years type models, from the theistic evolution models. Uh, Teilhard de Chardin, and many other people hold a theistic evolutionary model. In fact, I personally belong to a scientific organization in which many of the people are theistic evolutionists.

Q. That's the American Scientific Affiliation?

A. Uh-huh. Yeah.

Q. Why don't we take a break for lunch.

(Lunch Break)

Q. Before the break, Dr. Geisler, we had gone through Geisler Exhibit 7, and you had identified for me the various people and books you considered authoritative in the area of the subject of creationism VS. Evolution, and is there anyone else besides Mr. Marsh (sic), Mr. Gish and Mr. Whitcomb (sic), which you recognize as an authority in the area of the scientific aspects of creation?

A. Well, actually Whitcomb is not an authority on the scientific aspect of creation. Whitcomb is a Biblical scholar. He is an authority on the Bible and Genesis, and these areas — that is the Whitcomb that wrote the book with Morris, The Genesis Flood. He is the theologian of the team. Yes, there are other people that are authorities on this topic — from a creationist's point of view, you mean?

Q. Yes, from any standpoint.

A. Oh, from any standpoint, okay, good night. There are all kinds of authorities —

Q. From which you are aware, sir —

A. Oh, sure, sure. I am aware of a fellow by the name of Doolittle, who is an authority. In fact, he and Gish had a debate recently on creation/evolution. Carl Sagan, who is a famous proponent. Huxley, — as a matter of fact I have read Huxley's book, Evolution In Action — an authority. There are no end to the. — there is no end to the list of scientific, to authorities on the evolution areas, because most scientists are evolutionists.

Q. Now in the area of creationism, creation science, can you identify any other experts on the scientific aspects?

A. Than the ones that mentioned there?

Q. Yes.

A. Uh, I would only have less acquaintance with them, if they are not books that are mentioned there or names that we have already mentioned. There is a fellow at the University of Michigan, that teaches the, at the University of Michigan, the creation-science model, uh, double model system. I know his name, read his thing on origin of life. I can't bring up his name right now.

Q. Is that John Moore?

A. Yeah, John Moore, that's right, that's his name. John Moore is an expert on it, and there are other people associated with the Creation Research Society in California at Heritage College, that are strong creationists. Uh, some of them I've heard interviewed on TV programs, so forth, that make a credible case.

Q. Are you a member of the Creation Research Society?

A. No, no I'm not.

Q. We were talking earlier on the basis for your views of the scientific processes, and that you missed errors therein. You told me about your analysis of the second law of thermodynamics, and your examination of the paleontological record. What other basis, what other information did you base your views?

A. I was just beginning to tell you about Michael Polanyi, who is not a creationist. But, see what a philosopher does, is take a principle from a scientist. He says, well here is a scientific principle, believed widely by scientists, and then he reasons from it and argues. Now, which case is more plausible in the light of this principle? Michael Polanyi lays down some principles in his book, Tacit Dimension, that I think argues strongly for a creationist's point of view. One of the principles is that lower forms, uh, never produced higher forms.

Q. That's just a matter of logic?

A. Well, uh, the principle, he says, is by — not to accept his scientific authority, and that even more credible to me because he is not a creationist, as a non-creationist scientific authority, uh, and he gives the illustration that an alphabet never produces, uh, a dictionary, and a dictionary never produces a Shakespeare sonnet, or whatever, something like that. It always takes intelligent intervention to make an alphabet into a dictionary and to make a dictionary into a sonnet. And if that is so, it seems to me that, that, uh, is a good argument for a creationist's point of view.

Q. That's a logical argument?

A. It's a logical argument. Except I'm a philosopher. I'm a philosopher; I'm just making a philosophical conclusion from that scientific premise. You know, you feed me the scientific premise, and I'll reason about it. I can't justify, falsify or verify the truth of the scientific premise because am not a scientist.

Q. Different philosophers might view the scientific premise as different?

A. They — they would have a different model — that's right.

Q. Other than the creationist's model?

A. Uh-hum.

Q. Now we had, now, the second law of thermodynamics and the paleontological record, and this gentleman's, Polanyi's analyses, which you've examined. What else have you examined?

A. I might save you some time, because that is in one of the notes that gave you there. Uh, and in the series of notes that gave you from my anthropology course, where I said, "I allude to creation", on pages six and seven of that — page six, starting with 'c'. It says, "Reasons for Rejecting Evolution", in the middle of page six, point 'c'. And then I give one Biblical reason, because this is really a course in the Bible, and then give one of those verses, uh, supportive from the Bible. And then, number 2, on the next page, seven, "Philosophical and Scientific Reasons Against Evolution", and then I list 'a' through 'g', "Nothing can produce something" that's a philosophical premise — "Non-Living can not produce the living", that I accept from Michael Polanyi — "the non-personal can not produce the living or the personal", "everything produces after its kind". I am told from scientists that everything produces after its kind.

Q. Can we stop there? What scientists have told you that?

A. All scientists. I don't — I have never read a scientist who ever said that a monkey gave birth to a pig. You know, they all say that everything produces after its kind.

Q. You, you are talking here about births? Is that what you are talking about?

A. I am talking about generation. Yea. Generations — uh, one, parents, the children, uh, always resemble the parents.

Q. That's the only basis for that? That's not —

A. That's scientific — well you know, you have trillions and trillions of examples that every time that anyone has ever been born, from any animal, anywhere — uh, outside of rare mutants that die or are infertile — they always produce after their kind. If that is so, then I think the reasonable assumption from that is that evolution did not occur, macroevolution, but creation occurred. (Is that macro?) Macroevolution, uh huh. And then all basic forms of life began suddenly and abundantly. That, I take from evolutionary textbooks like Dunbar and others, that say paleontological record And then —

Q. Wait. Dunbar is the reference that you give for this inclusion here, that this is a scientific reason against evolution?

A. Uh huh. Uh huh.

Q. All basic forms of life began, suddenly and abundantly.

A. Yea. The basic phyla (sic) in Dunbar's chart, in the front of the book — all the basic phyla (sic) begin in the same time period. And when new life forms begin, they begin with no known ancestral remnants in the fossil record. There are great gaps in the fossil record between the kinds, not just small gaps. In fact, the chain is missing — all we have is a few links. It's not quite missing links, it's missing chains. That's a fact. Now one of the theories that can explain that is creation. And then the second law of thermodynamics. So there are my three, six, seven basic philosophical of scientific reasons that I would give. None of which are, as you can see — the other categories — Biblical, number one — these are all scientific or philosophical origins.

Q. In your view, these are all scientific reasons?

A. That's right. That's correct. They are all premises borrowed from philosophers and scientists that are widely held to be true.

Q. We did touch on the fact that you have a year of Hebrew, is that what it was?

A. Yes.

Q. And, three years of Greek?

A. Yes.

Q. And enough French and German to pass the examination?

A. Right.

Q. No other foreign languages?

A. No.

Q. Have you had occasion, sir, to examine any of the original autographs of the Bible?

A. There aren't any original autographs of the Bible in existence.

Q. What texts of the Bible have you examined in the course of your studies?

A. Hebrew and Greek texts. Kittles' (sic) Hebrew Old Testament is the standard old Testament. And uh, the New Testament. The American Bible Society has one. Uh, uh, there is also, uh, Nessles' (sic) Greek New Testament text. There are other ones available, but those are the main two New Testament texts and the main Old Testament texts accepted by almost everybody, with various additions of it.

Q. Have you had occasion to examine this Kittle (sic) text?

A. Yea. Sure.

Q. On what occasion?

A. Oh — like — I refer to it often. It's right behind me in my chair.

Q. Are you aware, sir, of any debate within the philosophical, theological community with regard to the translation of the Hebrew text?

A. Uh-hum.

Q. what is your understanding of that?

A. Oh. It's a broad question. Where do you want me to jump in? There are those who translate quite literally, word for word, or those who translate it paraphrastically, idea for idea. There are translations all the way in between. It's kind of a continuum from how literal can we get to how ideological or idiomatic can we get. And translations vary from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Q. Have you had occasion to attempt a translation of Genesis?

A. Uh, as a matter of fact, yes. I've worked on Genesis, particularly the first part of Genesis, the creationists passage.

Q. And, have you in fact done a translation of that?

A. I don't have any published translations of that. No.

Q. Uh-huh. Whose translation do you rely on?

A. I rely on a number of them. There are many translations. For the purposes of this topic, I would say almost any major committee translation of the Bible is adequate, for all practical purposes. The individuals — when one man translates it, it's always a question of, you know, that one man's opinion. But when you get a committee, I think it is safer, so I have in my office — well first of all there were over three hundred English translations of the Bible. I do not own all of them, but I have studied the history of all of them, and I know the titles of them — not by heart, but I can give you a list of it. And, of those, I have maybe twenty, thirty of them. And the ones that I rely on, are the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible. I think that those are good, modern translations. Or the new international version of the Old Testament, or for that matter, the Hebrew translation of the Old Testament, The Torah, which was put out by the — I forget what Jewish society it was that put it out, but I used that a lot. They are all roughly the same. They are roughly identical on these points.

Q. Would you mark this next exhibit, Geisler exhibit 8? Have you a copy, doctor?

A. This one?

Q. In the right order?

A. Yea. The one that begins, "Anthropology"?

Q. Uh, yes.

MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, I think that it is going to be Plaintiff 's Exhibit 9, isn't it, "Christianity vs. Humanism"?

Q. Yea. You're right. That's incorrect— eight to nine.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 9 was marked for the record.)

Q. You have it as a seven page document. I seem to have a great many more pages of it.

A. Oh no. I see you have several other documents — you have several other documents that are really separate documents stapled on to that one.

Q. Oh. Wait a minute, the seven page document, captioned "Anthropology", and with your name at the top.

A. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven — that's right. The seven page document, entitled "Anthropology", and my name at the top, is document 9.

Q. I ask you to look at that, sir, and could you tell me how this document came into existence?

A. It evolved gradually over many years — by my studies, and was finally put together in present form, I think with a very minor changes about two years ago when I started to teach the Anthropology Course at Dallas Theological Seminary, and needed to put some notes together for the students.

Q. Do you teach an anthropology course at your seminary?

A. Uh-hum.

Q. Is that a physical or a cultural anthropology course?

A. It is theological anthropology.

Q. You teach theological anthropology. Could you define that for me, please? I am not familiar with that course.

A. Yes. It is — well, of course, I am a systematic theologian and systematic theology means to systematically put together all of the data in the Bible, related to what we know about man outside of the Bible, into a comprehensive whole. So what we do is use a Biblical base what does the Bible teach about man, and what does everything that science outside of the Bible teach about man, and try and put these together in a meaningful, comprehensive whole. So this is where religion and science overlaps — systematic theology is, by it's very nature, dealing in both fields.

Q. When you say that you use a Biblical base, what does that mean?

A. It means that since I believe the Bible is the word of God, a revelation from God, that — and I have rational justification for believing that — such as I present in my 'apologetics' book — that I accept the Bible as an interpretive clue, a model or framework by which I can understand reala — reality. I test that hypothesis by the reality that I encounter.

Q. To what end?

A. To the end of understanding the truth.

Q. What do you understand the truth to be?

A. As a result — you ask me what is the end of my project? I understand man to be created by God, in the image and likeness of God. Therefore it would have freedom of dignity. That he has been placed by God with infinite value, therefore it's absolutely wrong to hate man, to racism, hatred, or murder, rape, cruelty, justice, because man is made in the image and likeness of God and he has dignity.

Q. That sounds to me like the treatment of ultimate concerns that we started earlier in the definition of the religion.

A. That's correct. That's exactly right.

Q. So your analysis therefore is pursuant to a religious purpose.

A. I, uh, definitely have a religious purpose, and I also have, at the same time, a scientific purpose, following Socrates' statement that the unexamined life is not worth living, and I would add that the unexamined religion is not worth believing.

Q. So you're telling me, now under oath, that what you're doing is pursuing science in this analysis?

A. That's right. Pursuing science. I am pursuing truth, no matter whether it is discoverable by science, by revelation, by experience, or however you discover it. Truth is what we are concerned with.

Q. You start with your belief, as you describe it, your belief that the Bible is revelation of the word of God.

A. I start with my justified belief, built on rational arguments, that the Bible is the word of-God. Yes.

Q. Do you, sir, as to the consequences or the result of a failure to accept what you just described as a justified belief in the inerrancy of the Bible?

A. Yes I do. The consequences or results of failing to accept this justified belief in inerrancy are that the Bible is not the word of God. Therefore, one would have to decide for himself, on his own subjective basis, what is and what is not true in the Bible. So, one of the consequences is forevermore we would not be sure of any word from God. That revelation is forevermore rendered uncertain because if the Bible is not the word of God in it's entirety, then part is and part is not. If part is and part is not, then I am left forevermore to my own subjective choices as to what part is and what part is not. So I think the consequences of not accepting that are to leave man wholly uncertain as to what God has spoken to mankind.

Q. Are there any other consequences?

A. Well, all of the consequences that accrue to that would come. That he has no basis for the belief in absolutes. I did not say that he could not believe in absolutes. I said he had no basis for it, because once you have lost your absolute groundwork for your belief in absolutes, then you no longer have an adequate
groundwork for the absolutes.

Q. What are the other consequences that flow from what you just described?

A. In what areas? I could mention psychologically, I think that people are going to fall apart — just as Sartre, and Camus, and the whole Existential movement show. I think that if we have no theistic groundwork for our ethics, that ultimately man is left spiritually, psychologically and socially adrift.

Q. Now, what you just said was that if the Bible is not literally inerrant, there is no theistic foundation?

A. What I'm saying is that if the Bible is not literally inerrant, that means there is no God who has spoken — if there is no God who has spoken as the basis for those values, then all of these results follow. Uh, for example, Nietzche said, "God is dead and when God dies, all values die with him". I agree with Nietzche, the famous atheist.

Q. I want to go back again, Dr. Geisler, and start over again. I asked you what — you told me that if the Bible was not literally inerrant in all respects, then there would be no basis for —

A. There would be no sure word from God — part of it is and part of it isn't, and I would have to decide which is and which isn't. If there is no sure word from God, then we have no absolute basis to know what to do in all of these areas. I mean how do I know that I am not supposed to kill all the Jews, for example.

Q. Well, well, I appreciate your example. What I am asking you is there a basis for believing in God if the Bible went on inerrant?

A. Yes. Yes. I have in my books, in several places, offered philosophical proofs of the existence of God.

Q. Apart from the — inerrancy of the Bible?

A. Apart from the Bible. Yes, yes. They have nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Q. So, what you are suggesting is that there is no basis for knowing what is right and wrong unless the Bible is there?

A. No. All I am suggesting is if there is no God, who has revealed himself in a sure word, there is no basis for us knowing what is right or what is wrong.

Q. I don't understand that concept of knowing, as you just used it.

A. Well, I could exist, and never open my mouth and speak. You would have no basis for knowing what I believe, even though you have good evidence that I exist. You can see me. So if God has not opened his mouth and spoken, we don't know what God, the absolute — if there is a God, then he is absolute. He is the ultimate authority in the universe. And if he hasn't spoken, then we — you know, if there is a God — but it isn't doing us any good with regard to direction for our life. So unless there is a God, and he has spoken, and we can clearly delineate what he has spoken, we won't know what to do. Maybe killing the Jews is the thing to do.

Q. And clear delineation, in your mind, translates into strict factual analysis?

A. That's one of the aspects of it, because if the Bible cannot be trusted in everything, it cannot be trusted in anything for the following reason. If my wife claims to be God, and then I find her making one mistake, what do I know for sure? I know for sure she is not God. Because God cannot make one mistake. So if the Bible claims to be the word of God, and makes one mistake, I know for sure it cannot be the word of God. Because God can't make one mistake.

Q. That's a view not shared generally though.

A. That's a view shared by millions of people around the world. In fact, that view is shared probably from the largest movement of Christianity in America — is the evangelical movement in which that view is shared almost universally in that movement.

Q. I take it from your answer that you mean all non-evangelical churches don't share your view?

A. That's most non-evangelical churches don't, but many non-evangelicals do share it. Orthodox Jews share it. Into various degrees, a certain non-evangelical group — they are normally called cults, like Jehovah Witnesses share it. Yes, so there are many non-evangelicals, who believe that too.

Q. Uh, you said Orthodox Jews share your view of the inerrancy of the Bible. Reformed Jews do not.

A. That is correct.

Q. And, there are also other Christians' denominations, which do not share it.

A. They do not, yes.

Q. Could you identify a few of those for me?

A. Sure. Movements rather than denominations would be New Orthodox.

Q. Why don't we start with Roman Catholicism?

A. Roman Catholicism is divided on this. Historically, Roman Catholicism believed in inerrancy. And —

Q. Today, does — is it an aspect of the Roman Catholicism to believe in the strict factual inerrancy of the Bible?

A. Since Vatican II there are many Roman Catholics who do not.

Q. Perhaps, I did not make myself clear, Dr. Geisler. Is it the view of your understanding of the view of Roman Catholic Church as opposed to individual Catholics, that the Bible is strictly factually inerrant?

A. Yes. To the degree that the Roman Catholic Church has spoken on this, down through the years. It has always spoken in favor of factual inerrancy of Scripture.

Q. Today, that is the position of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. Today, the Roman Catholic Church has not made any official pronouncements on that.

Q. And as the basis of your conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church —

A. So, I am going by all the Epistle —

Q. If I might finish my question, Dr. Geisler. Only because it is clearer for the record. It is your position today, as a theologian, that based upon your scholarship, and as an expert being tendered by this State. That it is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that the Bible is scripturally — strictly factually inerrant.

A. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church whenever they have officially pronounced on this topic they have pronounced in favor of the factual inerrancy, or a view that is commensurate with it, and have never said any view that denies.

Q. That is your view as an expert.

A. That is correct.

Q. Now let us take Methodists. How many different denominations of Methodists are there in the United States, in your view as an expert?

A. I have never counted the number of Methodists in the United States, but there is, of course, the United Methodist Church which is the main historic body from which most other Methodist groups have broken off. There are the Free Methodists. There are the Wesleyan Methodists. There are three main ones that I am aware of.

Q. Are you aware of any Methodist denominations which do not adhere to this strict factual inerrancy of the Bible?

A. Yes sir. The United Methodists do not.

Q. I see. And are you aware of any others?

A. Any other Methodist denominations — possibly the, I am not sure of this statement but I would not be surprised that the Methodist-Episcopal does not adhere to the inerrancy of. Then there is the African-Methodist church, and I doubt seriously whether they adhere to the strict inerrancy of Scripture. On the other hand, the Wesleyan and the Free Methodist generally do. So the four groups that I am aware of right there, two do and two do not.

Q. How about Presbyterians? How many denominations of Presbyterians are you aware of that embrace strict factual inerrancy?

A. Well, there are a number of them that embrace it. Of course, those associated with Covenant Seminary in St. Louis do. Those associated with Jackson's Seminary in Mississippi do. I am more familiar in terms of seminaries, because that is in what I deal with — and the denominations — there are various denominations that feed into these. The United Presbyterian do not. The United Presbyterian is the main body of those who do not. There are smaller groups like the ARP that is fighting this battle right now, back and forth. So it's kind of undecided there. So, some are undecided, some are decided against and some are decided for.

Q. Without, without belaboring you or the record any further, Dr. Geisler. It is pretty clear in your own mind that your analysis of the strict factual inerrancy of the Bible be the only basis for concluding the existence of the God, is not a view that is ubiquitous. And that is encompassing all religions.

A. Yea. For the record, I didn't say what you just said.

Q. I recognize that. But I am suggesting to you that you do not have to ascribe to strict factual inerrancy of the Bible.

A. You can believe in God without subscribing to inerrancy. Yes.

Q. Are you suggesting that there is no basis for believing in God?

A. No. I said that you can prove that philosophically apart from the Bible.

Q. Uh-huh. Are you concluding, doctor, that there is no basis for believing that God has spoken in the Bible, unless the Bible is strictly factually inerrant?

A. I am saying something very close to that. I am saying that we cannot be sure of the revelation of God in the Bible, unless the Bible is inerrant.

Q. But you would agree with me that that is a view not shared by those churches — which even you have named.

A. Which I named. That is correct.

Q. And so to that extent, the view of strict factual inerrancy, at least in some respects, is a sectarian view.

A. Uh, it is not a sectarian view. It is a view probably held by the masses of Christians, probably the majority of Christians, in the United States.

Q. So there is a minority that do not hold that?

A. That is correct. If you are adding up numbers, for example, the largest denomination in the United States, Protestant denomination, is the Southern Baptist. And at their recent convention, they just reaffirmed their statement of faith that says the Bible is true without any add-mixture of error.

Q. And the Northern Baptists do not subscribe to that same position.

A. That is correct. But they are a very small group.

Q. But they are also a group?

A. That's right. There are small groups that don't, but the largest groups of seminaries and evangelical Christians, and Christians, period, of any variety, I would say do.

Q. What is your definition of sectarian?

A. Well, I think that it is an ambiguous term that you can define in many different ways —

Q. But, you were quite clear in answer to my question that strict factual inerrancy was not sectarian.

A. That's right. Because strict factual inerrancy is the historic, fundamental, orthodox position, and I would define sectarian as that which is broken away from the orthodox position.

Q. And it is on that basis that you conclude that which you have just described now is a strict fundamental position, i.e., the factual inerrancy of the Bible.

A. i.e., the five historic fundamentals. Yes. Not contemporary sociological fundamentalism, but historic theological fundamentalism.

Q. And, it is because your position is that the fundamentalists were there first, if I might use a colloquial expression. That they're not sectarian.

A. No, that is not correct.

Q. All right. Why don't you address it for me. I suggest to you that sectarian means having a view not shared by others. Not shared by all others. And if you would like to explain it for me a little differently, I would be willing to listen.

A. Yea. If that is what sectarian means then everyone is sectarian. Because everyone has a view of some kind or another, and their repertory not shared by others or all others.

Q. What is your view of the word, sectarian, in the context of religion, now?

A. Those who have broken away from the orthodox position.

Q. I see. And then that is the basis for your conclusion, that those who believe in the strict factual inerrancy of the Bible are not sectarian.

A. That is right. They are the orthodox.

Q. And is there any other — is there any other definition of the word, sectarian, in your view?

A. I am sure there is. Uh, I usually use the word, cultic or cult, if the view takes some major Bible teaching and denies it. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses, I would take to be a cult because orthodox teaching is that Christ is God. And they deny that Christ is God. So I normally use the word, cult, for those groups that deny one or more of the fundamentals. The word, sectarian, is a little broader than the word, cult, because the word, cult, connotes some other idiosyncratic characteristic that is not necessarily connected with the denial of some fundamental. Like the snake charming cult, or the Moonie cult.

Q. I take it then that I would correctly describe you as a fundamentalist?

A. In the historic, theological sense, I believe in the five fundamentals. That is correct.

Q. And you subscribe to them, as you testified to them earlier today?

A. That is correct.

Q. In a sociological sense, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. So, therefore, you might not ascribe to some of the political views that —

A. That’s right. I do not to some of them.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 10 was marked for the record.)

Q. Will you mark this for me? Dr. Geisler, I ask you to look at the book, Geisler Exhibit 10, The Bible Has The Answer. And I ask you, have you ever seen that book before?

A. Umm. No. —

Q. You are aware that the author is Henry Morris?

A. I just see that now on the cover. He is one of the two authors.

Q. Indeed. Uh, I direct your attention, sir, to page eighty, wherein, Mr. Morris is discussing evolution. Page eighty, paragraph number three.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. I ask you. That paragraph reads, “the evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-Christian and anti-God systems that have plagued mankind for centuries. It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism and Marx as the supposed scientific basis for communism. It is the basis of the various modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely as a higher animal, and which have led to the misnamed “new morality”, and ethical relativism. It’s whole effect on the world and mankind has been harmful and degrading. Jesus said, “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit”, Matthew VII, XVIII. The evil fruit of the evolutionary philosophy is evidence enough of its ultimate origin in Satan’s age-long rebellion against his creator.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

A. I disagree.

Q. In what respects, sir.

A. Uh, he overstates the case. The first line he uses the word, all. That’s surely false. It’s not the basis for all anti-Christian, anti-God systems. There — there are bi-Pantheistic and Existential, and theistic, and all other kinds of cases. And then I disagree with his — uh — conclusion, later on where he says, let’s see, the word, whole, is the one that stuck out — words. Its whole effect. That’s surely false. It’s whole effect isn’t — it has some good effects, too.

Q. Anything else that you disagree?

MR. CAMPBELL: At this point, I will object. If you would like to go through and read one sentence at a time, I think it might be more useful. It’s a very broad statement to have an individual look at it and make one general analysis of it.

MR. SIANO: Well —

MR. CAMPBELL: I think the question might be ambiguous. That’s all I am saying —

A. Yea. I can see another sense already, if you want me to make one more comment on a specific line?

Q. Go ahead.

A. “It served Hitler as the rationale.” I don’t — I don’t think that was the total rationale. It may have been part of the philosophical presuppositions behind Hitler, but certainly he had — there were other things there. I think that it is just way overstated.

Q. I direct your attention, sir, to page ninety. And particularly the paragraph which reads — first paragraph on the page — “evolution is thus not only anti-biblical and anti-Christian, but is utterly unscientific and impossible, as well. But it has serve effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous other false and dangerous philosophies over the past century. For anyone who respects the Bible as the word of God, there is certainly no reason to reject the historical accuracy of the account of Adam, confirmed as it was by Christ, himself, in favor of the self-serving speculations of evolutionary philosophers.” Do you agree with that?

A. Not entirely, no.

Q. In what respects do you agree with it?

A. Well, he says evolution is thus not only anti-biblical and anti-Christian, but is utterly unscientific and impossible. That is surely overstated. I think it is scientifically improbable, but I surely wouldn’t say that it was scientifically impossible.

Q. You make that statement, sir, by your own admission — not being a scientist.

A. Oh yea. Just being a philosopher, looking at facts. I don’t see any — see, a philosopher says, that the impossible is the contradictory. It has to be contradictory to the impossible. Square circles are impossible. The kind of evidence that bears on the question of origins is not that kind of evidence, that reduces it to the impossible, either way. You can’t absolutely prove evolution and you can’t absolutely disprove it. So it is probable — when you are talking in science, you are talking in probable evidence. You are not talking in absolute certainties.

Q. Now then, you are speaking as a philosopher?

A. I am speaking as a philosopher. But don’t forget that evolution is a philosophy.

Q. Evolution, in your mind, is a philosophy?

A. Evolution in the minds of all credible evolutionists is a philosophy. Very few people, including even in the Humanist Manifesto, and credible modern scientists will claim that evolution is an absolute proven fact. Almost all evolutionists are humble enough. And if they are scientists, and acting as scientists, to acknowledge as a theory.

Q. Morris is a scientist.

A. Mr. Morris, uh, is a scientist. That’s right.

Q. Mr. Morris seems to have a rather absolutist view of, uh, — evolution.

A. I think he overstates his case.

Q. But he has stated it that way.

A. I think he overstates it.

Q. And you have identified him earlier as an authority in area of scientific creation.

A. That is correct. He is an authority in the sense that he is aware of the scientific facts, and that he has drawn generally valid scientific conclusions. Here, he is making sweeping, philosophical, sociological statements. He is speaking out of his field. And scientists who speak out of their field, like any other person, generally get themselves on the end of the limb and watch somebody saw them off.

Q. And Mr. Morris, as you described him earlier, you said had a doctorate in some scientific field to your understanding.

A. Yes. I think he is a hydrologist. And in his field, and as it bears on the subject of evolution, he has made credible conclusions. I think. But when he is speaking out of his field, I think he overstates it.

Q. What is the bearing of hydrology on evolution and creation-science?

A. It is a legitimate physical science. It has to do with understanding of the world’s surface, catastrophism, which also bears directly on the question of evolution, and whether the uniformitarianism is right or catastrophism. And I think it directly bears.

Q. What you’re saying is Mr. Morris is entitled to his views on science, just as you are entitled to your views on philosophy.

A. That’s right.

Q. And he is not entitled to state some of these philosophical positions.

A. He is entitled to state them. Everybody can — you know there is freedom of speech, but I think when he did, he overstated it. And he is out of his field. Because he is making sweeping, sociological, ethical and philosophical statements.

Q. Just as you might be a little less comfortable with some of the scientific statements.

A. Just as the same thing that evolutionists do. You know, they make sweeping, philosophical, sociological statements just like Morris does here. I could give you the same kind of quotes out of evolutionists that sounds like they are speaking ex-cathedra with final authority. And what they are saying is totally false.

Q. Dr. Geisler, I am not arguing with you about what other people say. I am merely asking you if, as to you. You are not a scientist, and therefore, what you just described as to —

A. In analyzing his philosophical conclusions, based on what I do know about the various — it seems to me he overstated it.

Q. But, you are not a scientist, and therefore, your scientific views aren’t — are — might well be considered in the same light as you are considering Dr. Morris’ philosophical views.

A. It is totally dependent on the premises that the scientists gave me. But once the scientist feeds a philosopher a premise. He says this is scientifically accepted or established. Then I am just as much an authority as anyone else, as to what kind of conclusions can be legitimately drawn. And, in fact, more so because philosophers are trained in the art of drawing valid conclusions from premises.

Q. That is your view from that statement that you just made?

A. And that is the view of philosophers in general.

Q. Dr. Geisler, let me address your attention to page 107 in Geisler Exhibit 10. And, uh, direct your attention to the last two sentences — last sentence of that paragraph which comes above question six. And the sentence reads, “the decision to accept or reject any part of the Biblical record, (confirmed as fully and histor — fully historical and factual, even in the stories of Creation and the blood by Christ and his apostles in the New Testament), is therefore not a scientific decision at all, but a spiritual decision.” Do you agree with Dr. Morris’ statement — Mr. Morris’ statement?

A. The decision to accept or reject any part of the Biblical record, confirmed as fully historical and factual, even in stories of Creation and the blood by Christ and his apostles in the New Testament is therefore not a scientific decision at all, but a spiritual decision. No. I don’t agree with that.

Q. Dr. Morris is a scientist, though.

A. Yea. But see he is speaking about the double aspect of it. I think there are two aspects of that. There is a scientific aspect —

Q. Doctor. Dr. Geisler. I did not ask you a question, and I am sure your counsel or the counsel of the State will ask you alot of questions about that —

MR. CAMPBELL: Certainly, Dr. Geisler is entitled to answer questions — I believe — that

MR. SIANO: If there was a question, Mr. Campbell — He was —

MR. CAMPBELL: He is responding to your first question as to whether or not — you —

MR. SIANO: No. I asked you — no, we finished that. I asked him —

MR. CAMPBELL: He was still expounding on that particular answer —

MR. SIANO: No — I think that the record will indicate —

MR. CAMPBELL: I think that the record will indicate that he is answering — your question —

MR. SIANO: Let’s have the record read. Let’s have the record read —

MR. CAMPBELL: No. There is no sense in that. Just ask the question again and let him answer it —

MR. SIANO: Uh. Is Mr. Morris a scientist?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SIANO: Thank you. That was my question, Mr. Campbell, as you well were aware. I will take the book back now. Thank you.

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. Are you aware of an individual by the name of Kelly Seagraves?

A. No. The name I’ve seen around, but I don’t recall — I have never met him and I don’t, uh, uh, nothing specific that he said. I — Seagraves. I don’t have it on the bibliography. I don’t recall anything, uh

Q. Dr. Geisler, what if, what if anything might be the basis for this difference of views with regard to the inerrancy in the Bible?

A. Philosophical presuppositions.

Q. What does that mean?

A. It means that they have different philosophical frameworks from which they are approaching the Bible.

Q. All right. Let’s talk about the they, first of all. Do others — generally, other than fundamentalists?

A. Well, inerrantists and non-inerrantists, you know. An inerrantist approaches the Bible with this set of presuppositions. I am not saying that they are only presuppositions. I think they can be argued about rationally justified. But, one that God exists. Two that miracles are possible. So, he approaches it from a theistic, supernaturalist perspective. Three, that the Bible, like any other book or person in the world, is innocent until proven guilty. That you approach the Bible the same way you approach the person in the courtroom. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Now, if you approach the Bible with those three presuppositions, I think — and if you look at the evidence, I think it comes out inerrant. If, on the other hand, you approach the Bible with the presupposition that God doesn’t exist, then you have already ruled out of court immediately the possibility of it being the word of God. Because if God doesn’t exist, he obviously can’t speak. The Bible can’t be his book. Or secondly, if you approach the Bible with the presupposition that miracles aren’t possible, or don’t happen, either one, and then you read about miracles in the Bible, then immediately you are going to think it’s incredible. So, I think it’s the anti-supernatural and/or anti-theistic presupposition, and the wrong presupposition with regard to the claims of something. If I see a sign that says exit, I presume that’s telling me’ the truth until proven otherwise. Now, if I walk through and find myself in the women’s john, I am going to say, You know, that something is wrong here and I am not going to trust that sign the next time I see it. And I think that’s, what makes the non-inerrantists different as conclusions from the inerrantists because he has three different presuppositions. Two or three of those are either anti-supernatural and guilty until proven innocent, or also anti-theistic.

Q. So what you’re suggesting is there is no way to ascribe to those presuppositions, you have just described, and not be a Biblical literalist.

A. There is no logical way, in the light of the evidence, is what I would add. There is always the illogical way to do everything, but if you follow the proper logical conclusions in the light of the evidence, and use those principles, you ought to, and all rational man ought to come out with the conclusion of the Biblical inerrancy. That’s what I would say.

Q. These presuppositions, as you just described — are these part of that inspiration you talked about earlier?

A. Of course. Inspiration presupposes at least the first two and if not the third one. The Bible cannot be an inspired word of God unless there is a God, unless he can act supernaturally, and if you don’t trust the documents as telling you the truth until proven otherwise, you are not likely to come to the conclusion that’s inspired.

Q. So you are telling me that inspiration is part of acting through this vehicle of revelation?

A. Inspiration means God supernaturally conveying that truth. And that — the first two presuppositions are there, and supernatural.

Q. But you have to believe in those.

A. You have to believe in those before you are going to believe in inspiration. Obviously, the Bible is not the word of God, if there is no God who can speak.

Q. In this quote I read to you — from one of the quotes that I read to you from Mr. Morris in connection with evolutionary philosophy, he uses the term, Satan. As an expert, do you have a view of the meaning of that word?

A. Uh-huh, I do. I believe that the word, Satan, described in the Bible, and as held by orthodox Christians down through the years, refers to an intelligent, personal supra-human being, who rebelled against God, and with him a whole host of other beings called angels, who are now called demons.

Q. Do you believe that Satan exists?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. What is the basis for that?

A. The basis for that belief is that the Bible is the word of God, and the Bible teaches it. And my basis or belief in the Bible as the word of God, I have already indicated earlier.

Q. That’s true.

A. And I might add that it is confirmed by experience, as well.

Q. What experiences have confirmed it to you, sir, as an expert, the existence of Satan?

A. Uh, dealing with demon possessed people, exorcisms, the study of the UFO phenomena, the study of the occult.

Q. Could I have that answer read back?

(Thereupon the Reporter-read back the immediate previous answer).

Q. What study have you made of the occult, sir?

A. Uh, I have, uh, read books on the occult, and then also an encounter with people who have had occult experiences. And uh —

Q. Has this been done in a systematic way?

A. Uh, well so far as all of my work is systematic — done in a systematic way. I have, uh, looked at the phenomena, looked at the theories, looked at the evidence pro and con, come to conclusions based on the facts that I have, available — the hypothesis —

Q. How much have you — how much have you — time, would you say in the last twenty years, has been spent studying the occult?

A. I would say less than 1/10th.

Q. Less than ten percent of your time?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And what sort —and how many books have you read on the occult?

A. Uh, probably a couple dozen books that either are on it or related to it. Uh —

Q. How many people have you interviewed?

A. Oh, I would say probably, if you count as interviewed all those people who have shared with me in experiences and counseling, and discussing about it — probably fifty to one hundred.

MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, I object to these questions on the occult, as to their relevance.

MR. SIANO: Your objection is noted.

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. Now about — you discussed UFO’s — I take it those are initials?

A. UFO’s? Yea.

Q. What do those initials stand for?

A. Unidentified flying objects.

MR. CAMPBELL: I make my similar objection to UFO’s.

Q. What is the basis for your — have you studied UFO’s in a systematic way?

A. I have read books on UFO’s, seen films on UFO’s. And analyzed various theories that have been presented on the basis of the evidence.

Q. Did — interviewed people?

A. Not systematically. No, I have not systematically interviewed anybody. I have talked to people, who have had experiences and who have related what they had. But I have depended mainly on the evidence, as provided; by the — Dr. Heinich (sic) from Northwestern University who has done systematic —

Q. How do you spell that?

A. H-Y-N-E-K, I think.

Q. Have you read his book or talked to him?

A. I have just read his material, I haven’t talked to him.

Q. What is your experience with demon possessed people?

MR. CAMPBELL: I make my same objection to the relevance on this point.

WITNESS: My personal experience with demon possessed people is limited to probably about a half a dozen or so cases of people, that in my opinion, on the basis of the evidence I had, probably were influenced by demons.

Q. And do you have any professional opinion, as to the existence of demons?

A. Yea. Yea. I believe that demons exist.

Q. Do you have any professional opinion, as to the existence of UFO’s

A. Yes. I believe that UFO’s exist.

Q. And how are they connected with Satan?

A. I believe that they are part of a mass deception attempt, that they are means by which Satan deceives because he is a deceiver and he is trying to deceive people. He did it from the beginning in the Garden of Eden, and he has been doing it now through the years. And this is one of the ways that he is deceiving people.

Q. Your description of demons, I take it, are those other angels that fell with Satan. And they exist now?

A. Yes.

Q. And your experience with the occult — how did that relate to your view of the existence of Satan?

A. I think occult phenomena, such as the moving of physical objects through the air, and so forth, such as is manifest, for example, in the Empire Strikes Back. The Luke Skywalker, the ability to move physical objects. I think that this is a demonic power that you get by occult practices. It has been done in time immemorial. It is condemned in the Bible. And it is still manifest in the world today.

Q. Have you ever had any conversations with Dr. Edward Boudrenu?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Dr. Geisler, you have here, given to me copies of some pages, numbered 33, 34, 35 and 36. Are they — these four pages - are they supposed to be one document?

A. Yes. This forms an appendix in my Apologetic Anthropology notes, that we gave you — the first part before. And this is an appendix that deals with various views on the days of Genesis, as they relate to science.

Q. So, if I stapled them together, that would be okay wouldn’t it?

A. Yes. Yes, it would.

Q. Could we have your copy of these marked as — I guess it is number 11 now? And, ten was Mr. Morris’ Bible.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 11 was marked for the record.)

Q. And what you have — you have those pages too? In addition to me —

A. No. Ten I don’t have.

Q. No, eleven. Eleven. Do you have the originals of eleven, is what I am trying to say.

A. No, Somebody else.

Q. No —

A. There — The paper clip —

Q. Right here? Oh this is the original of eleven? Oh, I see, I see what you mean.

MR. CAMPBELL: You mean these notes for you to deliver —

WITNESS: I am going to have to have a copy — you are going to have to make a copy.

MR. SIANO: Yea. We will make a copy of the one — I tell you what we will do. Why don’t — why don’t — can we get another copy of this? And I will have this — and I’ll have this one — we’ll make a copy — we’ll treat the exhibit — make one more copy so we can mark it.

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. Dr. Geisler, I have put in front of you a four page document — page numbers 33, 34, 35 and 36. Now, I ask you to tell me what this document is?

A. This is a part of my notes in a course called, Anthropology — a systematic theology course called Anthropology that I teach at Dallas Seminary.

Q. Now, what else do we have in that file of documents, there?

A. Secular Humanist Declaration and a chart that I use when making a contrast between Humanistic ethic and Christian ethic.

Q. Could we have those two documents marked as twelve and thirteen?

A. Okay, let’s see. Here they are right here.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 12 and 13 were marked for the record.)

Q. I’ll show you what has been — I marked as a one page document with a pencil notes, Humanism at the top. And the multi-page document — actually five pages — captioned the Secular Humanist Declaration. Could you just identify those for me?

A. Yes. The first one, with a pencil note Humanism on top, is really a Xerox copy of an overhead projection that I use when I come to the section on Humanistic Ethics in my Ethics course. And I show a contrast between the Humanistic Ethic and the Christian Ethic on various — aspects. And the other one, Secular Humanist Declaration is the most recent declaration by Humanists in a new Humanistic journal, called Free Inquiry, that came out in 1981 — the winter of 1980-81, which has their declaration somewhat similar to a succession of Humanist Manifesto I & II. More or less a Humanist creed.

Q. Humanism. Is that also referred to, on occasion, as secular humanism?

A. By people, who speak imprecisely. It is. Yes.

Q. Why is that, in your view, imprecise?

A. Because they are religious humanisms and nonreligious humanisms. There are Christian humanisms and non-Christian humanisms. There are all kinds of humanisms, and I think it is imprecise to lump — to call secular humanism, humanism.

Q. Yea. In Geisler Exhibit 12, you have Humanist Ethic. What sort of Humanism are you speaking about, there?

A. I am talking about secular Humanism.

Q. Oh. So, this Humanism, in your document, could be called secular Humanism.

A. Yes, that’s right. See, that is just a chart, with just words on it. So you have to — the dichotomy of words demands that you have to fill in the blanks. So I’m really talking there about secular Humanism.

Q. Now, your testimony today. Has that been about Humanism or secular Humanism?

A. Well on various points, we have talked about both. So you would have to go over them one by one.

Q. Okay. The — Act 590, which we’ve marked here. What number is that down as -

MR. CAMPBELL: Uh, Four.

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. Geisler Exhibit 4. Is there reflected anywhere in this document, a description of any tenets that you conclude are consistent with secular Humanism?

A. Well they describe evolution-science, which is one of the tenets of secular Humanism, yes.

Q. Now that description is contained in Section IV-B?

A. Uh-hum.

Q. Now is that — do you agree with that definition of evolution-science?

A. It’s — I would say generally that a valid definition — you could say more, it could say less. For that space there, I would say that it is a pretty good definition of evolution-science.

Q. Have you ever heard the phrase, evolution-science, ever used other than the context of this Statute?

A. Yea, sure. Evolution-science is a common description. After all, you can look at evolution in many ways scientifically, sociologically, psychologically, theologically. So, evolution-science, I think, is meant to zero in on the scientific aspects. For example, Spencer was a philosophical evolutionist in the 1800’s. So, evolution-science, I think, is a pretty common —

Q. Perhaps, I did not make myself clear, Dr. Geisler. I realize that we have been doing this for a few hours. The phrase, evolution-science, is used in quotes in IV-B. Now, I ask you, other than in the concept of this Act, have you ever seen that phrase, evolution-science, used anyplace?

A. No. I don’t recall specifically whether I have or not. In other words, I cannot recall specifically having seen it anywhere. I may have, but I cannot recall specifically having seen that. In that exact form — “evolution- science”.

Q. You’ve seen the word, evolution, used?

A. And the word, science.

Q. And the word, science, used.

A. And scientific evolution, and so forth.

Q. As opposed to these other concepts of evolution that you have articulated.

A. Yes, Uh-huh.

Q. Uh. Do you use the word, psychological evolution? What is that?

A. Well, some evolutionists believe that after the physical evolution occurs, there actually is going to be further psychological evolution in man. That his psyche is going to evolve. Some study evolution in a sociological way. The evolution of cultures. Some study it in a broad philosophical way like Spencer did. So, I’m used to using — seeing it used in an adjectival sense — scientific evolution — or psychologic or sociological or physical.

Q. Okay. I think I understand. Now, are you prepared, if you testify in trial in this case, to state anything with regard to evolution and Humanism?

A. Yes. Uh-hum.

Q. What would you be prepared to testify?

A. Well, I would be prepared to testify that most secular Humanists, and indeed, most Humanists in the Western world, believe in macroevolution. And that it is — that macroevolution is a central tenet of secular Humanism.

Q. What is your definition of the phrase, macroevolution?

A. By macroevolution, I mean evolution between various kinds of animal life. Evolution on the total scale from micro to man. You know, from the reptile through the crocodiles up to the Gentiles, as someone humorously put it. The — the total evolution.

Q. I don’t understand the phrase, kinds. Could you describe to me what your understanding of that word is?

A. Sure, kind means a meaningful generic unit. A taxonomical unit of biological understanding that has certain kinds — certain characteristics of — inherent characteristics of life pattern. And —

Q. You using that phrase in a scientific way?

A. Uh, if scientific isn’t pressed too much. I am using it in a scientific way. If scientific is pressed, you will find that scientists, themselves, disagree with the question. For example, scientists generally use the term, species —

Q. In fact —

A. Instead of kind.

Q. In fact, in the phylogenetic organization, the word, kind, doesn’t exist.

A. That’s right.

Q. So you are not using that word as a —

A. An equivalent of any given thing in the phylogenetic tree.

Q. So you are basically — I — if you will pardon the expression, coined a word, which you are using to describe —

A. The same as the scientists coined the words that they used to describe — this phylogenetic tree —

Q. Right. But agreed. And what I am suggesting is that we have defined macroevolution, and have used the term kinds. And I’m — you have your own meaning for what that word is.

A. Right.

Q. You — as you testified earlier, you are a philosopher —

A. Not a scientist —

Q. That’s right. Now is there any other characteristic of — of macroevolution or anything else other than evolution between various kinds of animal life?

A. Well, as I understand macroevolution, it is the belief that all living forms are the result of a process of development from previous animal life. And that this ultimately derivable from nonliving things. So that you move from a process from nonliving things to living things through the whole phylogenetic tree up to all the existing families, and genera and species that we have today.

Q. Now, this understanding — is this your definition of macroevolution?

A. No. I’m not alone in that. That’s commonly accepted — definition of macroevolution.

Q. I understand Dr. Geisler. Other people may share your views. You’re here testifying and I am trying to understand your views of what this term means.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, your view is that macroevolution, as you use the term, to be an essential tenet of secular Humanism, is defined by evolution between various kinds of animal life or all living forms developing upward on a phylogenetic scale, and ultimately living things developing from nonliving things.

A. Almost correct. I did not use the word upward. And many evolutionists don’t use that term anymore. And I used the word species — that all living species, as understood by scientists, today, evolve from lower kinds or forms of species. And that these ultimately arose out of nonliving matter.

Q. And that is your description.

A. That’s my description of macroevolution.

Q. And —

A. And of course, you — one should add without any divine intervention for the production of these new kinds, when they did arise. That all present species or kinds developed from lower kinds. And that out of nonliving, came without any divine intervention for the production of these kinds.

Q. Now is that the presence or absence of divine intervention — is that part of your description of macroevolution?

A. My — my description of macroevolution would include that as — with the possible exception of some theistic evolutionists agree that the first living kind was directly created. And that everything else evolved with the possible exception of the other end that God may have intervened once the body of the ape had developed into a hominoid form and created a soul in it. So that theistic evolutionists is a partial exception to my definition - that he does have intervention of God at two points, at the beginning and at the very end of the process, but the middle of the scale is the middle of macroevolution. That everything else developed — from — one from the other without any intervention of God in between —

Q. Let’s go back Dr. Geisler because I’m a little confused now. We started out by — by my asking you whether you would opine about evolution — opine about evolution at the trial. And you testified that you would state that macroevolution was a central tenet of secular Humanism.

A. Right.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Norman Geisler - Page 4

Q. Then I asked you to describe what your understanding of that phrase was. Macroevolution.

A. That’s right.

Q. Now, I would like you to again state for me what your understanding of that phrase, macroevolution, is. You, your testimony. Not what other people think.

A. Yes. Yea, what I will testify to that secular Humanists believe that all living species evolve from lower forms of animal life, which arose out of nonliving matter, without the intervention of any divine intervention at any point to produce these new kinds of species, forms. Now that is secular Humanists, remember. I am answering a question about what secular Humanists would say. Now, there are some — evolutionists who are not secular Humanists, who don’t believe that. Theistic evolutionists.

Q. I’m, again, you are going to opine about evolution at trial —

A. Right.

Q. And you are going to talk about secular Humanists? And you are going to tell — you are going to testify what you just said? And one element of that appeared to me, as to secular Humanism, without divine intervention.

A. That’s right.

Q. Now, that’s an affirmative element, I guess I would call that answer. Its a key part of it.

A. Uh-hum.

Q. Now, that’s — which part of that description is the part of it that makes it secular Humanism. Is it evolution?

A. That’s it. Both.

Q. Both.

A. There are two parts of it that are a part of the secular Humanism. Part one is that the lower forms gave rise to the higher forms. And the other is that they gave rise without divine intervention. There are really two essential elements to the secular Humanist contention. Vis-a-vis, the creationist’s contention. Creationists’ contend both that the lower forms did not give rise. There is no genetic connection between the lower forms and the higher forms by way of production. And that divine intervention is the key to the future.

Q. Doctor, could we talk about evolution without reference to creation-science. And I don’t mean to — to challenge your testimony, other than to answer the question. Can you describe evolution other than in reference to creation and special creation?

A. If you are talking about the evolution of animal species and their origin, no. Because, see, once the question of origin is raised, then the question of creation or evolution comes in. Either it did or did not result from divine intervention. If, it did not arise, then that yields to an evolu — evolutionary model. If it did, it fits with a creation model.

Q. But, you, yourself, just testified that there are theistic evolutionists who believe in that.

A. That’s right. But, that’s because they say there is intervention at the very beginning, and at the end of the process. But they agree with the secular Humanists in the whole middle of the process. Darwin, himself, believed that God created the first one or few simple forms of life. So Darwin, himself, was a theistic evolutionist.

Q. So, then it is possible for some people to talk about evolution with God, and other people talk about evolution without God. And some people can not be able to talk about evolution.

A. Now, I don’t know what you mean by the third one. But the first two are correct.

Q. So, when you describe secular Humanism. You’re describing evolution of living things, highest forms —

A. Arising out of lower —

Q. Arising out of lower —

A. Without —

Q. Without divine intervention.

A. That’s it.

Q. And I asked if both of those elements are essential to secular Humanism.

A. I would say yes.

Q. Ah. Now, the first part of that, lower forms to higher forms, that, standing alone, is that secular Humanism?

A. That lower forms preceded higher forms? On the paleontological record?

Q. No. No, I didn’t — I didn’t bring paleontological record anywhere into this, Dr. Geisler. I asked you in the description of evolution, you said that there were two concepts.

A. That’s right.

Q. One of them was evolution of living — lower living species, developing into higher living species.

A. Uh-huh. Right.

Q. And the second one was without divine intervention.

A. That’s right.

Q. And the first concept, that’s not secular Humanism, standing alone.

A. No. I would say that standing alone, even of itself, you have a radical difference between two views because a creationist would not hold that lower forms give rise to higher forms. And a secular Humanist does hold — so, sure, even in and of itself, standing alone, that would be a secular Humanist tenet.

Q. So, anyone who believes that higher forms or evolution of higher forms of the species evolving from lower forms is, by definition, a secular Humanist?

A. No.

Q. So let’s go back again. That’s why I’m —

A. Because theistic Humanists don’t believe that.

Q. Ah, the —

A. Ah, they’re not secular Humanists.

Q. So, that in order to find somebody who is a secular Humanist, you have got to find somebody who believes in evolution up to the phylogenetic ladder, if I might use a layman’s phrase because I’m certainly not a scientist —

A. Uh-huh —

Q. And also without divine intervention?

A. I would say what both of those are part of it. But one of them or the other would still be a defining characteristic. It’s — It’s —

Q. Standing alone?

A. Standing alone, it is still a defining characteristic.

Q. So standing alone —

A. Without divine intervention —

Q. No. No. No. Let’s pick the other one because I understand that part of it.

A. Yeah.

Q. Evolution of living creatures, higher forms from lower forms, standing alone, defines a secular Humanist.

A. No, It is one of the tenets of secular Humanism.

Q. So, it happens to be something that secular Humanists believe?

A. And is an essential tenet of what they believe. That’s right.

Q. It happens to be something they believe?

A. And creation happens to believe that something that Christians believe.

Q. Are you telling me there are no Christians who believe in evolution?

A. No. I’m saying that there are — that most orthodox Christians do not believe in total evolution.

Q. So there are some orthodox Christians, who do?

A. Who believe in some varieties of evolution.

Q. So there are some orthodox Christians who believe in evolution of higher forms from lower forms?

A. That’s correct. They are called theistic evolutionists.

Q. So there is evolution consistent with Christianity?

A. With the belief of some orthodox Christians. That is some orthodox Christians think it is consistent with their beliefs.

Q. That’s like —

A. Now whether it is consistent or not, we could debate. I’d be glad to talk about that, but —

Q. I’m sure you would —

A. They surely believe that. H. H. Strong, for example. James Orr, for example. Believe that — they were orthodox Christians and they believed in theistic evolution.

Q. You think that’s wrong though?

A. I think that’s wrong.

Q. So you think there are only two things then, special creation with secular Humanism?

A. No. I think there are five views on creation, as I outlined in the notes that you have there. But I happen to believe that four of them are wrong, and one is right.

Q. But. The four that are wrong all involve evolution?

A. The four that are wrong. All involve macroevolution.

Q. All involve evolution of higher kinds from lower kinds?

A. That’s right.

Q. And the one that you think is right, does not?

A. I think that two or five — two could possibly be right but — of those — and both of those do not involve any macroevolution.

Q. And so the two that — so that the two that could possibly be right don’t involve any macroevolution?

A. That’s right.

Q. And the three that are wrong involve evolution?

A. That’s right.

Q. And the two that are right involve special creation?

A. That’s right.

Q. And the three that are wrong don’t?

A. That’s right.

Q. So it comes down to whether or not God created things.

A. It comes down to whether or not there is any scientific evidence for the higher forms evolving out of the lower forms.

Q. Doctor, we have just been talking for about thirty minutes. And we haven’t — I haven’t talked to you about the science of this. You are not a scientist and I’m not a scientist, is that right?

A. Well, we have been talking about scientific aspects of this, and neither of us are scientists.

Q. I haven’t talked about science.

A. Oh, yes we have.

Q. No. I haven’t used the word, science, once. I’ve tried to talk about your definition of — macroevolution —

A. I think that the record will show that you used the word, science, several times.

Q. Well. Let’s go back again now, since I’m a little confused again. You said that you would testify that macroevolution is the essential tenet of secular Humanism. Secular Humanism, in your view — secular Humanism in your view is a religious movement, isn’t it?

A. I think that’s correct. There are many secular Humanists who even claim to be religious.

Q. Dr. Geisler, you are going to be tendered by the State as a — an expert on religion. What is religion? I’m asking you for your opinion about whether secular Humanism, is a religion.

A. Yes.

Q. And as an expert, you are going to say that macroevolution is the central tenet of secular Humanism?

A. No. I’m going to say the a-central tenet.

Q. It is the a-central tenet of secular Humanism?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, what other central tenets of secular Humanism, are there?

A. All of those listed in the Humanist Manifestos, which have already — we’ve already entered into the record. Or have we entered that into the record, yet? Humanist Manifesto.

Q. I’ve think we have marked that. So, you’re telling me that what’s ever there is —

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, just please don’t argue with the Witness quite so much.

MR. SIANO: Well, Mr. Campbell. I object to your characterization. But, if you feel I am objecting with you, Dr. Geisler, you feel free to tell me, and I’ll stop doing what I’m doing, okay?

WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. All right. Just so Mr. Campbell’s confused. We can continue with —

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano. Listen, we don’t have to get like this. All you have to do is ask your questions without raising your voice, and merely permit Dr. Geisler to answer them.

MR. SIANO: And I continue to object to your characterizations you have —

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I’m objecting to your arguing with the Witness.

MR. SIANO: Good. And your objection is noted.

BY MR. SIANO:

Q. Now, whatever is in the Humanist Manifesto is coterminous with your understanding of what’s secular Humanism.

A. Not whatever, because even in the Humanist Manifesto they state that not every single thing there is held by every single secular Humanist. But, that if you take the common denominators of Manifestos I & II. And even Secular Humanists’ declaration that we gave you. If you take the common denominators of all of those, and narrow down to four or five basic fundamentals of Humanism. That evolution will always be one of those.

Q. What are the other three or four?

A. Well. I used that number just off the cuff. A naturalistic approach to the world. A non-theistic approach. That’s not the same as atheistic. Just non-theistic. Either there is no God or there is no need to invoke God into the picture. There are two. Three. Evolutionary origin of man and life. Four. Centro-Humanistic values such as freedom, tolerance, so forth. There are four that I find common and there may be more, but there are four central ones.

Q. Now. You defined then macroevolution as one of these central tenets.

A. Yeah. That’s right.

Q. I also get for the record. That definition is one.

A. Macroevolution?

Q. Yes.

A. The same as we said before, on the record. Macroevolution is the belief that all living species evolve from lower forms of animal life, and that that in turn arose out of nonliving matter. Without divine intervention.

Q. And then I asked you if it’s the evolution part of it or the without divine intervention part of it —

A. And I said both.

Q. — and you said both. And then I said to leave out the divine intervention part of it and you said that continues to define secular humanism.

A. And so does the other one.

Q. So does the other one?

A. Right.

Q. But standing alone, the evolution part of it, higher kinds, a layman’s word by our own acknowledgment here —

A. Right.

Q. — from lower kinds, our own nonscientific word also.

A. Right.

Q. That one standing alone would be sufficient?

A. That’s right.

Q. And then we stated that there were some orthodox Christians who think they believe in it.

A. There are some orthodox Christians who think that they believe macroevolution as we defined it with the exception that they believe in divine intervention at the very beginning and at the end of the process. But the whole middle that once you have the first form or forms, then they all evolve into the other ones and you don’t need God to divinely intervene until perhaps maybe to create the soul of man at the very end.

Q. That’s Theistic evolution?

A. That’s Theistic evolution.

Q. Do you think that’s right or wrong?

A. I think that’s wrong.

Q. All right. And your basis for that is what?

A. As I indicated in the notes that we already entered into the record, I think that it’s Biblically false, scientifically improbable and philosophically implausible.

Q. So what we’re left with is special creation being right.

A. There are five views. I think three of them are definitely wrong and one of the other two is correct.

Q. That means four are right and one’s wrong.

A. well, ultimately that’s right since they are mutually exclusive, one of the two Creationist views is right and one is wrong.

Q. And you think that Theistic evolution is wrong?

A. Is wrong.

Q. And you think Special creation, which you have here listed on Exhibit 9 I believe that’s supposed to be Fiat creation.

A. Fiat creation, yeah.

Q. Here I think it’s creation.

A. Creation is the word.

Q. And whether we pronounce it “Fe-aut” or “Fi-aut” (sic.) it’s still creation.

A. Right. Or progressive creation. One of those two I believe is true and the other three I believe are false.

Q. Which one of four and five do you think is right?

A. I believe in Progressive creation. That’s why I rejected article section 4A.6.

Q. On Exhibit 9, Sub B, is there an explanation of — what is that an explanation of?

A. Let’s see. What is Exhibit 9 and I will tell you what that is. I don’t have a number on it.

Q. It is the Anthropology document of several pages.

A. 9 what?

Q. Exhibit 9, Roman numeral I, capital letter B.

A. Biblical account of creation. That’s the account in Genesis. This is a theology course where we’re taking what does the Bible say about it and then what does science say and how do we harmonize.

Q. These statements that are here in this anthropology, would you call this Theistic anthropology?

A. Systematic theology.

Q. The top of the page says “Anthropology.”

A. Uh-huh. That’s the — that’s one of the subdivisions of systematic theology. Systematic theology is divided into the study of God, that’s called theology proper; study of man, which is called anthropology and so forth.

Q. So in the anthropology part of this course you have various Biblical — various references to the Biblical account of creation?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And that goes on for three —

A. Pages.

Q. — four, five. About five and a half pages?

A. That’s right.

Q. And all of the references there in this anthropology course are to the Bible in that section.

A. That’s correct.

Q. And there are no — in that section there are no scientific statements whatsoever?

A. That’s correct. This is a theology course.

Q. And then we have Subdivision C, Reasons for rejecting evolution.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you have Biblical reasons.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Then you have philosophical and scientific reasons there.

A. Right. Let’s just remember that this is about, oh, I would say one day’s lecture of a total course. So it’s just that it overlaps there so we treat it. Then I had them read a book on evolution for outside of class reading.

Q. What book do you have them read?

A. I have them read Wilder Smith’s book on your bibliography Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny. And then I also allude to and encourage them to purchase Wysong’s book, also in the Bibliography there. Creation Evolution Controversy’ so they get a balanced picture of both sides.

Then we explain all five views. In the first page we go through all of those views.

Q. Now, does anything in Exhibit 9 or Exhibit 11 form the basis for the opinion that you just stated to me about secular humanism as it relates to Act 590?

A. Only what is on page 7 under point 2, philosophical and scientific reasons.

Q. You don’t have any citations under any of those do you Doctor?

A. No. This is just a course outline and I lecture from it. Then some of that is in the books they’re reading, the two texts. So this is just to kind of organize it for them.

Q. So if you’re going to testify to this at trial, this will be the basis for what you’re saying?

A. Those seven arguments there are the scientific philosophical basis that I would have; yeah.

Q. All right. Why don’t you tell me what the citations for 2.a. “Nothing cannot produce something.”

A. I use the most-ardent skeptics that ever lived, David Hume for example.

Q. All right. Anything in Mr. Hume’s work?

A. Yes. He just generally, but falsely, thought to believe that that principle is false. And somebody wrote Hume and asked Mr. Hume if he believe in the principle of causality (sic.) because he appeared to deny it. And he wrote back a letter to John Stewart and said he never ever denied the principle of causality or that things could arise without a cause.

So I feel if you can use somebody on the other side of the fence — now David Hume was hardly a born again Bible plumping Christian. He’s known as the most famous skeptic in modern times. And yet he never denied that principle. It’s a fundamental principle.

Q. Did he embrace the principle?

A. Yeah.

Q. In that letter you just described?

A. Yeah.

Q. All right. Now 2.b., what authority are you going to cite for that?

A. 2.b., 2.c., and 2.d. really all go together. Michael Polanyi, the one we cited earlier. The reason he gives that lower forms don’t produce higher forms, alphabets don’t produce dictionaries, dictionaries don’t produce Shakespearian sonnets.

Then gaps in the fossil record, Dunbar would be the authority. Second Law of Thermodynamics, just, you know, any scientific source. That’s just widely accepted scientific law. The amount of available energy in the universe is decreasing or things are tending toward disorder.

Q. Is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

A. That’s right.

Q. That’s your understanding of the Second Law —

A. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated many ways. But two of the ways of putting it is the amount of available energy decreasing or things are tending toward disorder. This is a basic scientific premise, and to the degree that it is, I will argue that creation is a more reasonable conclusion than evolution.

Q. Any other basis other than these, Doctor?

A. Not that wouldn’t be a subdivision of them.

Q. Nothing worth writing down?

A. No, otherwise I would have included them in my notes.

Q. All right. Doctor, how would you go about proving or annulling the existence of God without the Bible?

A. I’ve gone into this in detail in two chapters. One in “Philosophy of Religion” and one in “Christian Apologetics” two books noted earlier. In brief, if you begin with some accepted fact of reality such as something exists, there is a world. Something that’s accepted by all scientists. For example, they wouldn’t be doing scientific research on something that wasn’t there. So you begin with the existence of a world, of a changing world which, of course, evolutionary scientists accept the changes occurring. And you argue that every event has a cause, principle of causality even accepted by Hume. Every event has a cause and the world is the sum total of all events, then the sum total of all events must have a cause.

Another way to put it is something exists, nothing cannot produce something, therefore something must necessarily and eternally exist. If nothing ever existed, nothing ever would exist since nothing can’t give rise to something. Then only something must give rise to something. Therefore, there must be the eternal necessary being who was the cause for the world that exists.

Or thirdly, either the universe has a beginning or it doesn’t have a beginning. If it has a beginning, it must have been created because nothing can’t produce something. Therefore there must be a creator beyond the universe.

Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that the universe had a beginning because it’s running down. Whatever is running down can’t be eternal, therefore there must be a beginner of the universe. That’s the three short summaries of the —

Q. What’s the basis for you can’t have nothing create something?

A. Take, as the song put it in the “Sound of Music,” nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. The basis for that is it takes something to make something.

Q. What’s the basis for your statement?

A. The basis for my statement is that that is a — it is contradictory to affirm that nothing can produce something because “can produce” implies that you have something. So that you’re saying that nothing can produce, and can produce implies something so you’re saying nothing and something simultaneously, which is contradictory.

Q. So the limits of your logic and reasoning indicate to you that that condition exists.

A. Well, I would say that the principles of reasoning are common to all men, philosophers use them. We’re just using the valid principles of human reasoning as known by all rational men to draw the conclusions.

Q. So that’s an absolutist rule you just stated?

A. All philosophy is predicated on the truth of the principle of noncontradiction; and that nobody can even think or deny the principle of noncontradiction without using the principle of noncontradiction. Therefore, anything contradictory is false, it is contradictory to affirm nothing can produce something. Therefore, it’s false to affirm nothing can produce something.

Q. That’s just a logical argument?

A. I hope so. That’s what we’re trying to do is give logical arguments.

Q. What other topics are you going to acclaim about if you appear at trial, Doctor, other than what we’ve talked about today?

A. We’ve already covered this question before and I’ve already answered it. I have nothing new to add.

Q. So you’re going to testify — in section 4.a of Exhibit 4, subdivision 1, “Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing.” That’s creation ex-nihilo (sic.) isn’t it?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Now that would seem to run afoul of that little lesson in logic you just gave.

A. That’s incorrect.

Q. Why is that?

A. Because the lesson in logic I just gave said nothing cannot produce something. This is saying that someone produced something from nothing. That’s an entirely different thing. This is saying God; with nothing in his hands, produced something. So that’s someone producing something whereas the secular humanist would have to believe that nothing produced something.

Q. So you’re suggesting to me when you read subdivision 2 here, you say that God created the universe, energy and life based on your position as a philosopher and theologian.

A. That’s correct. Sudden creation, the word creation is here in point 2 right under it.

Q. And point number 1, is that reflected in Genesis?

A. I think that the book of Genesis also teaches sudden creation.

Q. So the answer to my question is yes, then?

A. No. The answer to your question is that a similar statement is also taught in the book of Genesis, but not that the book of Genesis is teaching this statement.

Q. Subdivision 4.a. (2) “The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.” Now we’ve already agreed “kinds” isn’t a scientific word. Isn’t that right?

A. Well, you and I have for the sake of our discussion. But I think the-word “kind” can be endowed with scientific meaning. Even though it is not commonly accepted scientific term and doesn’t appear in under , phylogenetic (sic.) tree, I think it is a meaningful scientific term and can be given a definable meaning.

Q. That’s your opinion?

A. That’s my opinion.

Q. Now does subdivision 2 indicate to you the existence of a God?

A. I think the whole creationist science model implies the existence of God. I think that’s what it’s all about. I would find it absurd to talk about creationism with no God. After all, creation implies a creator.

Q. Doctor, earlier you indicated to me you took issue with two of the elements of 4.a. If you would just give me the numbers of those.

A. 5 and 6.

Q. What is it about 5 that you disagree with?

A. They’re really both linked together and there are two theories that my opinion, which is open to change. I mean if you met me a year from now, I may have changed my opinion to agree with 5 and 6 if the evidence leans that direction. But right now, the evidence as I know; it, I tend to disagree with 5 and 6 on two grounds. One is I think the evidence supports an old Earth. I think the evidence supports that the Earth is at least ten billion years old. Both of those seem to imply a young Earth, thousands of years old.

The second thing I disagree with is catastrophism, as understood by geologists, is a total geological system. It’s not just that some catastrophes occur here and there, which even uniformitarians (sic.), who are the opposite of catastrophists, admit. But that you can explain the whole of the geological column by a one year catastrophe called the Flood in the Days of Noah. And I tend to reject that theory.

Q. You don’t reject the occurrence of a worldwide flood?

A. No. I just reflect that catastrophism is the explanation for it

Q. For the flood?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you have an explanation for what I believe the Bible describes as “Noah’s flood.”

A. Yeah.

Q. Can we refer to it as Noah’s flood?

A. Yeah. Sure.

Q. Do you have an explanation for Noah’s flood?

A. I don’t have any scientific proof of how it occurred. My own opinion is that it probably is to be a reinterpreted glacial theory. That is that the last glacier that scientists date ten or fifteen thousand years B.C. is probably the scientific equivalent of Noah’s flood.

Q. Can you refer me to any scientific treatise or book that relates that?

A. There are scientists who hold that and who teach it. There are also the book — a book that teaches it. It’s been a long time since I read these flood books. I can’t remember a specific name of a book, but I do remember a teacher who held that at the college I attended years ago. Let’s see. What was his name? A teacher of science who taught at Wheaton College. One was Boardman. He held the other view. The other one’s name eludes me now who held that view. Also I believe a Dr. Lerd Harris who is a scientist and theologian who taught at Covenant Seminary. I think he held a form of that view. There are about — last time I counted there were about, oh, one, two, three, four different explanations. Scientific explanations. The flood, Velikovosky’s (sic.) World in Collision. A guy by the name of Patton wrote a book on the flood. And then there is this glacier theory and then there is Morris and Whitcomb who wrote the book “The Genesis Flood.”

They may be right. They have had some interesting, fascinating scientific arguments that need to be heard. So, I wouldn’t object to — at all to their being heard.

Q. What — I would like you to take a look at 4(b). Is 4(b), Sub.(1) consistent with Biblical inerrancy?

A. No.

Q. Is 4(b), Sub.(2) consistent with Biblical inerrancy?

A. I do not believe so.

Q. Is 4(b), Sub.(3) consistent with Biblical inerrancy?

A. I do not believe so.

Q. Is 4(b), Sub.(4) consistent with Biblical inerrancy?

A. I do not think so.

Q. Is 4(b), Sub-(5) consistent with Biblical inerrancy?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. So therefore, what you are saying is: The earth’s geology and its evolutionary sequence was not impacted by catastrophism?

A. I am saying that that is not inconsistent; that that could possibly be true and you could still hold a Biblical inerrancy.

Q. Could?

A. Yeah, you could behold a Biblical inerrancy and believe that — and be a uniformitarian in your geological views. You just have to explain flood in a different way and explain creation in a different way.

Q. What way would you explain the flood?

A. Glacial Theory - local flood.

Q. Does the Bible state that the flood was Glacial Theory?

A. No.

Q. What does the Bible say?

A. It doesn’t speak to that particular issue. All it says is what it says. There were eight people that went in an ark, and two of each kind of animal, seven of the clean kind, and that the whole world was destroyed. All the animals outside of the ark and all living things outside of the ark were destroyed.

Q. Doesn’t it say something about rain?

A. Well, yeah, it was destroyed by water. The flood of the earth and covered the tops of the mountains.

Q. But does it say it was rain?

A. Yeah. Well, it says it was water: It says it came, from heavens above and from the earth beneath, both.

Q. So it was rain plus something else?

A. Yeah.

Q. Does the strict factual view of the Bible, in particular the Old Testament, give rise to any particular age of the earth?

A. Not in my opinion.

Q. Not in your opinion?

A. No.

Q. Is that a view shared by all fundamentalists?

A. No. Many fundamentalists think that there are no gaps in the genealogical record, nor are there any gaps between the days and the days are 144 hours. So once you start with Genesis 1:1 you can add up the genealogical record . Genesis 5 and Genesis 10 and you have an unbroken, non-gap record. And you can add it up and it comes out around 4,000 years B.C. Others believe there are small gaps in the records that maybe comes out to 10,000 BC., but you can’t stretch it indefinitely. And there are others of us that believe that there are possibly large gaps in there and it could be billions of years.

Q. Do you have any basis for your belief that there are I take it that your belief is that there are gaps?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any basis for that?

A. Yes. I think there are both Biblical and scientific bases for believing there is gaps.

Q. Why don’t you give me the Biblical basis.

A. Matthew Chapter 1 Verse 8 says that Joram begat Uzziahs or Ozziahs, depending on which translation you are following. If you will compare that to First Chronicles Chapter 3 you will notice that there are three generations left out; that is that that very record that is being quoted he is summarizing and leaving out three generations. If you have one demonstrable gap where three generations are left off by extrapolation that could exist in other such genealogical tables.

Q. But you demonstrated that gap to your own mind by looking at one Biblical reference to another Biblical reference.

A. That’s half of my reason for believing that.

Q. Fine. But that’s the only one you found by examination of the Bible or —

A. No, There are others.

Q. Why don’t you tell me about those.

A. Well, Luke 3 mentions Cainan in the genealogical table. It should be recorded in Genesis 5 and 10, but Cainan is not mentioned there. So there is apparently a name left out of the Genesis 5 or 10 record. So, I have scientific reasons. It seems to me there are credible reasons for believing earth is old.

Q. I wanted the Biblical reasons first.

A. Those are the two Biblical reasons.

Q. Are there any others?

A. Well, there are some others — other comparisons, but those are the most important two right there.

Q. would you describe Section 4(a) as being a model for origins?

A. 4(a), a model for origins. I am not sure what you mean. Give me — like a scientific model?

Q. Well, just sort of one story of creation.

A. Well, 4(a) and — I understand 4(a) and 4(b) as being two models for origins. One is a creation model and one is an evolution model. And I understand the word model to be a theory that purports to have scientific evidence and subject to verification and falsification.

Q. Are you aware of any other model for origins which have scientific evidence in support of it which is subject to verification, falsification?

A. Well, there are other models and they have scientific aspects to them, but generally speaking, they are subsumable under these two unless you ask the question, “What kind of god is being supposed,” and then, of course, there are all kinds of answers. As I see this, this has nothing to say about our distinguishing one kind of god from another, say for example a Pantheistic God or a Pantheistic God from a Theistic God. I see this as leaving that question open. So apart from that question about what kind of god, may be the god who created us that this doesn’t speak to, these are the major two models because they are mutually opposites, either it was by divine intervention or it was not by divine intervention.

Q. So you are suggesting that evolution-science, as it is defined here, forecloses the existence of God?

A. Well, it does not foreclose it entirely, but it implies it. And apart from the theistic evolution model, you know, we’re back to our old question about the two aspects now. It doesn’t foreclose theistic evolution, but it certainly — theistic evolution is a macroevolution model. Once the first life is created between that and the creation of man’s soul it is macroevolution in the middle.

Q. So theistic evolution permits the existence of a god in the context of what you define as macroevolution?

A. Yeah.

Q. Would theistic evolution, in your view, come within this description in 4(b) in this statute?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. It would?

A. Uh-huh, because — let me look at it again. I don’t see anything in there with respect — I don’t see anything in there with respect to the existence of God directly implied or directly negated. I would have to look at it more closely. Let me look at it. The only thing that would be problematic is .4, the emergence of man. It all depends on how you define man. If you define man there just in a biological sense — if you define man in a theological sense as having a soul and that was created then that would be subsequent. Other than that, I don’t see anything in there that rules out a theistic model, which is part of the good feature. See, it includes both. It includes — it doesn’t eliminate the teaching of the theistic evolutionary model either, right along with the other models.

Q. That’s in 4(b)?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. 4(a) assumes the existence of a creator, you testified?

A. Yeah, that’s right.

Q. And you define creator as God?

A. As some supreme being who has creative power.

Q. Doctor, you are a theologian and a philosopher. Using that phrase, what do you mean? You mean a deity?

A. Yeah.

Q. Dr. Geisler, I am going to show you Exhibit Number 14, a book I have marked which is Evolution And The Fossils Say No, Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 14 was marked for the record.)

Q. Have you ever seen that book before, sir?

A. Yes, I have seen this.

Q. Is that the same Duane Gish you testified earlier today was an authority in the area of creationism?

A. That’s the same Duane Gish.

Q. All right. I ask you, sir,— directing your attention to page 28, and then the book reads, “It is apparent that acceptance of creation requires an important element of faith.” Do you agree with that statement?

A. If you mean — if he means by that the Biblical account of creation, yes.

Q. So you don’t know from reading that whether he is speaking as a philosopher or a scientist?

A. I haven’t read this entire book. I have seen it but I have not read it and I know — I say know — I know of Dr. Gish. I am not even sure I ever met him. But I am just questioning and I would have to read the context. I see him quoting verses just before and verses after it, so, I assume he is talking of Biblical context; and surely that’s so because not every detail of the account in Genesis has been proven by modern times. So there is an element of faith. If you accept the Biblical account you are accepting some of it on faith.

Q. Now, I would direct your attention, Dr. Geisler, to the second page of the Preface of that book. You will note — it seems to indicate that Mr. Morris — that gentleman that we’ve also had your testimony is an authority in scientific-creationism —

A. Right.

Q. — and seems to have written that. Mr. Morris seems to indicate here and I quote, “This book has gone through several printings of its first edition and has already been eminently successful in its mission of convincing men of the truth of creationism. In this new enlarged edition it is still more convincing and will no doubt have a greater acceptance than ever before. Anyone who reads this book and who still — who then still rejects creationism in favor of evolutionism must at least acknowledge that he believes in evolution in spite of the massive witness of the fossil record against it.” That seems to indicate that Mr. Morris and Mr. Gish are speaking as scientists?

A. Uh-huh, I would say. I would say that Mr. Morris is speaking as a scientist here. And even if — I can think of a sense in which Mr. Gish may be speaking as a scientist, because all scientific theories involve an element of faith. Even those who believe in evolution there is an element of faith, because there are aspects about it that they have not proven, for example, that there are missing links which have never been found. That’s an element of faith. We don’t have any evidence for them. We haven’t found them.

Q. You don’t have any evidence one way or the other?

A. Well, if you don’t have the evidence for it and you believe it, it’s an element you believe by faith.

Q. Believe what?

A. That they were there. If you believe that there are missing links there and you have never found any of those missing links then you believe it by faith.

Q. We are talking again about the paleontologic record?

A. That’s the record we are talking about.

Q. And what do you base your conclusion saying that there are no what you describe as missing links in the paleontological record?

A. I base that conclusion on the fact that a hypothesis must be verifiable or falsifiable or does not deserve to be called scientific. One of the things that you must do is a hypothesis must propose ways that it can be tested. And for over 100 years now the hypothesis of evolution was proposed a way that it could be tested, namely, finding missing links. It has come up negative — empty-handed.

Q. What I am asking, Dr. Geisler, is the basis for that last statement, i.e., there are no “missing links” as you use the term.

A. That’s the basis for it right there. The basis for it is that after 100 years of searching for confirmation of a hypothesis, which predicted by its very nature as a hypothesis, and predictions are to be testable, that there would be missing links. There have been none, therefore, the hypothesis has been falsified.

Q. What, sir, is the basis for your statement that there have been no “missing links”?

A. Evolutionists themselves admit that the fossil record shows, — and they have not discovered, after 100 years the so-called missing links.

Q. What evolutionists are you referring to in that statement and what statements by them are you —

A. Well, for — just for example, a very recent example, the program Nova (sic.) that was on television last week, in which Dr. Gish participated with evolutionists. And the conclusion of the program, the most recent “scientific” conclusion is that the fossil record has not brought out any missing links, and that there were several evolutionists who appeared on the program, and who admitted that. And they said, “But we’ve gotten a different explanation.” Darwin was apparently wrong, and now we have a different explanation. So in effect, Darwinian evolution, as hypothesized, has been dis-confirmed.

Q. That’s the basis for your statement?

A. That’s one of the bases. The other is, by looking at the evidence, as reflected in books like this, The Fossils in Focus, the book that I did read, that I mentioned before in the bibliography, relates the evidence in there, and anyone is welcome to take a look at it, to look at the evidence.

Q. So your basic —

A. Let me finish that answer. My basis is the study I’ve done in geology, based on evolutionary textbooks, such as Dunbar, the statements made by evolutionists, who believe in evolution that nevertheless admit that there is no evidence in the fossil record for the missing links. And the recent conclusion by evolutionists, as reflected in the Nova program that that is a dead end street, and there probably are none, and we should come up with a different theory.

Q. Dr. Geisler, you testified earlier that you’re an amateur rock hunter.

A. That’s exactly right.

Q. That you went down the Paluxy River and looked at the footprint; and that you’ve read some books, some of which you’ve been able to identify and some of which you can’t. But you’ve also told me you’re not a scientist.

A. That’s right.

Q. And you also told me you can’t remember the names of the statements that you’ve read from evolutionists, other than this gentleman by the name of Dunbar, whose book you’ve cited to me several times.

A. No. That’s wrong.

Q. All right. Why don’t you tell me some of the statements that you just relied on, in the answer you just gave me.

A. I told you where they can be found. They’re in the book, Fossils in Focus, which I have read, and they’re all documented there with the chapter, verse, and book.

Q. All right. So it’s Fossils in Focus and Mr. Dunbar’s book, and the television program?

A. And many other sources too. In all of the books — there are many other books on here. For example, Wilder Smith has sections in there. Wysong had a section in his book that is written on — uh — several other books on this list that I mentioned here, too.

Q. You don’t seem — how about — how about —

A. I haven’t read Duane Gish’s book — uh —

Q. But you accept that he’s an authority?

A. Yes. I accept he’s an authority. I’ve heard him debate; I’ve seen his academic credentials; I have — uh — you know, looked at other material he has presented, and he is not only an accepted authority in creationist circles, but he is a reputable science, (sic.) and has — had a good reputable scientific career before he became active in this movement.

Q. And he says, on page 28, of the book I have put in front of you that, “An acceptance of creation requires an important element of faith.”

A. True.

Q. So you don’t differ with that statement?

A. I don’t. I —

Q. I would like to direct your attention to page 27 of that book. And on page 27, Mr. Gish says, “In this revelation found in the first two chapters of Genesis of the Bible, the account of creation is recorded in a grand but concise fashion.” Do you agree with that statement?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Does that statement indicate to you, Dr. Geisler, that Mr. Gish is talking about six days’ special creation?

A. Not in and of itself, no.

Q. No. All right. Dr. Geisler, you were describing the theory of the age of the earth, and your concept of Biblical literalism as being consistent with an earth of great age, and that you indicated there might have been spaces in the Bible story?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Are those spaces attributable to the days being different lengths?

A. Uh, my answer to this is given in the notes that we — now — that we entitled number something. Let’s find the number. That we entitled #11, and on the #11, Problems in Anthropology, page 33. I list 12 views of the days of Genesis for my class.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Of these 12 views, only one is directly incompatible with the orthodox Christianity. Of the other 11 views, which are therefore, compatible with our view, there are relative merits assessed. This is good; this is bad; this is weak; this is strong. And then I make a conclusion to it, and my conclusion to it is on the last page, and it says — page 36 2a, “Only one view is categorically opposed to evangelical theology, the ‘religious only’ view.” That makes no factual statements here at all. (b) “No single view should be used as a test of evangelicalness.” I don’t think that any of these other 11 views, one should say is the only view an evangelical could hold. 3, “Crucial problem is the age of the earth.” If we could decide how old the earth is, we could narrow down the views considerably. But that’s an open scientific question. The Bible doesn’t speak to it. It’s debatable scientifically, so it must be left open. (D) “Exegetical arguments for the ’24 hour days’ seem stronger, but are not absolute.” For example, the 7th day is not a 24 hour day in Genesis. Because it says God rested on the 7th day, and he’s still resting, so it’s definitely longer than 24 hours. (e) “Granting long time periods, millions or billions of years, does not help evolution.” And Wilder Smith in his book, that’s the book, Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny, points out that the longer time we have, the more random things should be without Divine Intervention. Now, which view is accepted, whichever view is accepted, we should be careful to preserve the historicity of Genesis 1-2, and the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture.’ So that’s my conclusion.

Q. Now, I’m going to ask my question again. Do you, as an expert have an opinion as to whether the days were longer, or whether there were ages between the days?

A. Yes. My opinion is that the days were longer than 144 hours, that is six direct 24 hour days. I do not — it is my opinion that the creation of the earth did not occur in 144 hours.

Q. So those six days of creation did occur?

A. Yes.

Q. But they were longer than 24 hour days?

A. Or there were gaps between them. Or they were days of revelation, not days of creation. See there are several 24 hour day views. You could hold that there are 24 hour days in which God revealed, say to Adam, or to Moses, what he did. But what he did took millions of years, but he just sat down and explained day by day in a sequence, so that he would have a pattern. So they could be days of revelation not days of creation. Or they could be days of creation but have gaps between them. He created in this 24 hour period, and long ages rolled by, and then he created again, and long ages rolled by. Or they could be longer periods of time. A day is with the Lord a thousand years, a thousand years is a day. Can we be absolutely sure that they must be 24 hour days from a Biblical point of view, my opinion is no.

Q. So, I’m asking you, Dr. Geisler, your opinion, as a philosopher and theologian of what the Bible means when it refers to the story of creation in Genesis. What is your opinion? You have been very kind to me in giving me all of these alternatives. I would like you to tell me what you believe.

A. With respect to days themselves, or the rest of the story.

Q. Let’s start with the days.

A. Okay. With respect to the days, my opinion, lightly held with no tinge of dogmatism, open to falsification tomorrow, if I got some good evidence tomorrow to the contrary, is that the days of Genesis are probably, a literary framework. That they are something like slides to a motion picture. If you had a half hour motion picture of your family picnic, and you wanted to encapsulate six major things you did, you could get six slides: One at the beach, one eating the lunch, one playing the ball game, that would really be a good summary framed in of the whole 30 minute picnic. So I take them to be an ancient literary device, saying something like chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3 of God’s dealings, a literary framework of the great creative events of the past for the purpose of outlying organization, memory, teaching man what God did.

Q. So the days weren’t 24 hours long?

A. That’s my opinion.

Q. Well, you state you are a philosopher and a theologian, and I asked for your expert opinion, and although you said it was lightly held, is it in fact your opinion.

A. It’s my opinion at the present.

Q. And was it your opinion before we started today?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether there are gaps anywhere in the account of origins. Now, you’ve given me a couple of them.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, your opinion remains that there are also gaps?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So we now have days which are not 24 hours long, and we have gaps —

A. That’s my opinion. That’s my opinion.

Q. — in the history. Now, this opinion, is it based upon your analysis of the Bible and your philosophy training or is it based upon your view of the scientific record and the work of others?

A. Both.

Q. Both. So you feel those are consistent?

A. Well. Well, after all, science — scientific evidence in the minds of most scientists is for a long earth.

So far, in a way, most scientists agree that scientific, evidence supports billions of years, so if you accept that as a fact, and you accept that there are gaps in the Bible, then some such reconciliation would be feasible.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, just approaching that time, Dr. Geisler needs to board his plane.

MR. SIANO: I’m sure. Dr. Geisler, again, I show you Mr. Gish’s book, Evolution of Fossils, Say No, and I direct your attention now to pages 59 and 60. And I will read you a paragraph there again, and ask you. Some creat — the paragraph reads, “Some creationists accommodate the Uniformitarian concept of historical geology, by assuming that the creation days of Genesis were not literal 24 hour days, but were creative periods of time. It is assumed that God allowed varying periods of time to intervene between successive creations, and that animals and plants were created in sequence required by the geological column. This concept has severe Scriptural problems as well as scientific difficulties.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement, sir?

A. Well, it all depends how much weight you put on severe. I think the word severe is too strong. But in general I agree with it, and I would — the only change I would make is that this concept has Scriptural problems as well as scientific difficulties. I agree with that. Because there are scientific arguments for a young earth too. And severe is too strong a word, because there are Scriptural problems, so that there’s no doubt. For example, one Scripture problem is that in Exodus Chapter 20 it says, “In six days God made the Heaven and the earth. He rested on the seventh. So you work six days, you rest on the seventh.” Now that looks very much like it’s comparing 24 hour days and —

Q. But it seems here, that Mr. Gish is also speaking as a scientist though, doesn’t it?

A. No. I think you’re wrong in your assumptions in all of Your questions about Mr. Gish. I think that you’re wrong, because Mr. Gish is also a Christian. He speaks about Genesis as a Christian. He speaks about scientific creationist as a scientist.

Q. Now I asked you earlier in the deposition, Dr. Geisler, if — who the authorities in scientific-creationism were. You indicated to me Mr. Gish was one of them.

A. That’s right.

Q. I certainly don’t mean to argue with you, but this book talks about evolution and a refutation of evolution by a gentleman that you described as being an authority on scientific-creationism. And he uses the phrase scientific difficulties. And I’m asking you, do you agree with his analysis or not?

A. Well, On that phrase — I said I agreed with that phrase. There are scientific difficulties, because there are a lot of scientific arguments for a young earth.

Q. All right. And the second part of your analysis as given to me before was that in addition to days of greater than 24 hours duration, there were also gaps between the days or in various parts of the origin account. And I would like to read you another paragraph from Dr. Gish’s book, and ask you if you agree or disagree with that. The gap theory — “The gap theory: According to his theory, Genesis 1.1 describes an initial creation spanning geological ages. A great time span then intervened between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.2. The geological column is believed to have formed during this initial period of creation and subsequent time spans. Genesis 1.2, is then translated to read, ‘And the world became without form and void.’ Thus God is said to have destroyed his original creation for some reason, perhaps at the fall of Lucifer or Satan. A second creation in six literal 24 hour days has been described in succeeding verses. It is believed the Gap Theory is accepted by many conservative Christians, and is an attempt to accommodate both the geological column, with its vast time span, and the six 24 hour day creation described in Genesis. This theory has scriptural problems as well as serious scientific difficulties.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

A. Well, it has difficulties. Again, the word severe, I think, is too severe. But I — my answer to that is given on Exhibit 11, page 33, under Gap Theory. And I analyze the Gap Theory there, and say, its merit is that it recognizes vast times, fits them between Genesis 1:1 and 2. But its weakness is, it’s a poor exegesis of Genesis 1:2. And in geology the chaos is not there at the beginning. It’s — there is no evidence in the geological column for it, in other words. So I have scientific and Biblical objections to the Gap Theory myself. But the Gap Theory should not be confused with the statement that there are gaps. The Gap Theory is a technical theory that applies only to a gap between the first two verses, not between the days. And that Gap Theory, I think is wrong, geologically and Biblically.

Q. So what you’re saying is Mr. Gish is right here, but you have a different theory?

A. That’s right.

Q. Dr. Geisler, I direct your attention to page 64 of Mr. Gish’s book, and I direct your attention to the quote at the top of the page. “It is this author’s belief that a sound Biblical exegesis requires the acceptance of the catastrophist — recent creation interpretation of earth history.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

A. I disagree. I mean, I agree that it’s this author’s belief, but I disagree with it —

Q. You think Mr. Gish is wrong?

A. — with the belief. Yeah. I think he’s wrong.

Q. We haven’t marked that yet, have we?

A. We didn’t mark that the next one?

Q. Would you mark that the next one please?

(Thereupon Geisler Exhibit 15 was marked for the record.)

Q. Dr. Geisler, I show you what has been marked as Geisler Exhibit 15, and I ask you, have you ever seen that book before?

A. Oh, this is the one I was referring to before, that there appears to be two editions of, a shorter version and a longer version. I, — unless the book has grown since I saw it, I’ve read the shorter version; not this version.

Q. Have you seen the public school edition?

A. I’m — I’m not sure. If I saw the cover, if you have one, I might recognize it. But there is a smaller version of this that I did read by Morris, but I don’t think I have seen this more amplified version, unless it just happens to be a fatter edition.

Q. Well, he’s got some other books, but I think that’s that — that’s the book. That doesn’t seem right to you? Where’s your bibliography?

A. It’s not on my bibliography. Those are — I remember I mentioned two books that I’ve read since I compiled that bibliography. But I am sure there is a smaller version of this.

Q. Is this what you’re —

A. Oh, that’s — that’s right. I knew the titles were similar, but — yeah. That’s the one I read. The Scientific Case for Creation, and not — I have not read this one, Scientific-Creationism.

Q. Let me see if I can get a couple questions out of that before we — before you have to disappear.

A. You gave it to me on page 224 and 225, for some reason?

A. Yes, but you haven’t seen the book before. Why don’t — why don’t I ask you —

A. That’s all right. I haven’t seen that one before either I believe.

Q. The book I have in front of you, Dr. Geisler, you haven’t seen that book before have you?

A. I’ve seen it but not read it all.

Q. Not read it. That’s by that gentleman Morris?

A. Right.

Q. You identified to me as being one of the authorities in the area of scientific-creationism?

A. Right.

Q. And I direct your attention to page 225 of that book, and I ask you, if you agree or disagree with the following statement which appears thereon? “In view of all the above considerations, it seems quite impossible to accept a day age theory, regardless of the number of eminent scientists and theologians who have advocated it. The writer of Genesis 1 clearly intended to describe a creation accomplished in six literal days. He could not possibly have expressed such a meaning any more clearly and emphatically than in the words and sentences which are actually used.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

A. I disagree. Notice the chapter is entitled Creations According to Scripture, though. He’s not giving a scientific opinion there, he’s giving his Biblical interpretation.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Siano, we’ve got to —

MR. SIANO: All right. I will state for the record that this examination is not over, and that I have indicated off the record, to Mr. Campbell, that I object to the witness leaving, and that I expect him to be reproduced at a mutually convenient time when we can continue.

MR. CAMPBELL: I will state for the record, that when this deposition was set up, we were — we did inform Mr. Cearley, the local counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case, that Dr. Geisler would be available from 10:30 until approximately 4:15. It’s 4:20 now, and you’ve had an adequate amount of time, in our opinion to examine him on his testimony. These last several set of questions have been on science, where Dr. Geisler is being offered as an expert on religion.

MR. SIANO: I’ll state for the record, in response, Mr. Campbell, only so you’ll know the basis upon which I disagree with you. And the first is that as you well know, I spent the first hour determining in fact, that the State in this case has made utterly no attempt in the last 30 days to comply with the expert witness interrogatories, which were served on the State. That took a substantial amount of time. Furthermore, the failure of the state to comply with our expert witness interrogatories has made this into a much more laborious and much more time consuming. And finally, the last few questions in Dr. Gish’s own words, have related to matters of Scripture and science, all of which relate to questions of credibility, and I do not think that my — my inquiry should be limited in the manner you suggest.

MR. CAMPBELL: Finally for purpose, of the record, the first set of interrogatories, I told you we had objected to. Simultaneously we asked for an extension of time to complete those. We gave you all the information, which we had, concerning the testimony of Dr. Geisler, in the trial, which we hoped to have him testify to at that time, and we believe that you have elicited from him the substance of his testimony, and the assumptions that he is going to make and rely upon in his testimony at trial.

MR. SIANO: Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, indicate we’re entitled to the substance and facts of the opinions, to which the expert is expected to testify. Those have in no way been provided, other than the mere few documents, which have been thrust upon me this morning in the beginning of the deposition, or any time prior to what you describe as your application. And I guess this is the kind of thing that’s going to be resolved some other time in some other place.

MR. CAMPBELL: I guess it will.

(Thereupon the above styled deposition was concluded at 4:20 p.m.)

Deposition of Dr. W. Scott Morrow

                                 No. LR-C-81-322
 
REV. BILL MCLEAN, ET AL.      *
                   Plaintiffs             *      IN THE UNITED STATES
                                            *
VS.                                       *      DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
                                            *
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS,     *      DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
ET AL.                                   *
                    Defendants        *      WESTERN DIVISION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

        ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. W. SCOT MORROW, PH.D.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES:               MS. LAURIE R. FERBER,
                                            Attorney-at-Law
                                                    AND
                                     MR. DAVID KLASFELD,
                                            Attorney-at-Law, Skadden, Arps,
                                            Slate, Meagher, & Flom, 919
                                            Third Avenue, New York, New
                                            York 10022
                                            ** For the Plaintiffs

                                     MR. CALLIS CHILDS,
                                            Attorney-at-Law, Assistant
                                            Attorney General, Attorney
                                            General's Office, Justice
                                            Building, Little Rock,
                                            Arkansas 72201
                                            ** For the Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ALSO PRESENT:                     DR. JOHN W. CRENSHAW, JR., PH.D.
                                            DR. NORMAN GILES, PH.D.
                                            MR. KEVIN MALLERY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF DR. W. SCOT MORROW,
PH.D., a witness produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs,
taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the
22nd day of November, 1981, before Certified Court
Reporters and Notaries Public in and for Fulton County,
Georgia, at Atlanta Marriott Hotel, Courtland and
International Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia, at 2:45
p.m., pursuant to the agreement thereinafter set
forth.

MR. DAVID KLASFELD: There are certain
stipulations we want on the record, that is,
signing is not waived; that our expectation
is to get the signed copy back prior to the
trial.

All objections are waived except as
objections to form. The deposition is being
taken for all purposes of discovery.

MR. CALLIS CHILDS: I don't think
that's what we stipulated.

MR. KLASFELD: No.

MS. LAURIE FERBER: All purposes
allowable under the Federal Rules.

MR. CHILDS: There's no stipulation
that is it to perpetuate testimony.

MS. FERBER: Okay.

3

MR. KLASFELD: Okay.

DR. W. SCOT MORROW, PH.D.
the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly
cautioned and sworn to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth testified as follows:

EXAMINATION
BY MR. KLASFELD:

Q Dr. Morrow, would you please state all the
scientific evidence that you're aware of which supports
Creation Science?

A All right. Do I have time to think about
this one, or do I have to --

Q Certainly.

A Well, previously, I've expressed myself
to the effect that Scientific Creation is -- as I see
it, is not a coherent body of concepts, and it, as I
see it, consists of a complication of what could be
called insufficiencies in evolutionary theory.

Now, to try to answer your question directly,
I would say, the strongest argument against evolution
is probably a statistical one based upon what I think
is the low probability, the complex systems -- complex
living systems could develop that degree of complexity
in the time that apparently was available.

Q How much time is that?

4

A Well, not being a cosmologist, I'd have
to rely upon what other people have told me or what
I have read. And presumably, if we take five billion
years as the age of the earth and if we believe the
evidence for fossil bacteria is about three billion
years, we have two billion years to go from nothing
to the first cell. I don't think that's enough time.

Q You don't think that two billion years
to the development of the first cell was enough time
for the first cell to be developed.

A That's exactly right.

Q How much time would have been enough time?

A I haven't the slightest idea, but I'm
certain that two billion years is not enough.

Q Why?

A Why?

Q Yes.

A Well, for the first cell to be a viable,
living, reproducing cell, you would have to have a
working protein synthetic system, DNA replicating
system, RNA replicating system, and you'd have to
have a generic road in place; and I don't see how this
is going to happen, given -- well, at least to my
knowledge -- the loss of chance.

Q And that's how life came together, by the

5

loss of chance?

A Well, it depends upon what you're choosing
as your starting concepts.

Q My problem is that if you don't know how
long that it would have had to take, why do you think
two billion years wasn't enough time?

A That's a perfectly good question. I would
myself turn it around and say that if you think it
isn't enough time, then it's your obligation to show
me the mechanisms and the time spans and show it
adequately.

Q But why is two billion years not enough
time?

A Why is it not enough?

Q Yes. What are the probabilities and the
mathematical functions that suggest that it's not
enough?

A I'm not a statistician. I don't make
those calculations.

Q Well, somebody else made them in the way
that you were satisfied with?

A In general what I have read about that;
yes.

Q Whom?

A Who?

6

Q Yes.

- - -

7

Q What have you read?

A Well, some recent statements by Hoyle.

Q That would be Fred Hoyle?

A Right. I don't have a long documented list
of what I read and what said what to back this up.

Q I may be wrong, but is it Mr. Hoyle's area
of expertise of astronomy?

A Sir, I don't see that that is any particular
deficiency on his ability to sit down and make statis-
tical calculations; that that's one of his specialities.

Q Doesn't it affect his ability to make statis-
tical calculations about subject matters other than
astronomy?

A No.

Q If he was going to use statistical abilities
to pick race horses, would that be okay?

A I don't know if I quite understand what you're
saying. If you are asking me whether or not Hoyle is
capable of making intelligent scientific statements
outside his formal area of expertise, I would say yes,
he is.

Q Who else besides Hoyle?

A Something I read attributed to Echols indi-
cated that he felt that there was insufficient time for
the brain to develop.

8

Q Who is Echols?

A Sir John Echols is a Nobel Price winner and
neurophysiology or biochemistry.

Q Where did you read this?

A I can dig it out of my briefcase, it was an
article sent to one of my colleagues at Wafford College.
Those are recent things. Like I can put names to
articles, so to speak, or a name to an event.

Q Who else?

A I don't remember. But let's just put it this
way: A simple type of calculation, as I see it, would
be something like this. Let's say you have a polypep-
tide, it's fifty amino acids long. That's a reasonable
length for an enzyme.

If you have 20 different amino acids, I would
presume you would put these amino acids into a specific
order. I guess you would have something like twenty
to the fifty power combinations.

Q Un-huh.

A Now, if we assume, for example, that molecules
-- all of these molecules are viable and they collide,
let's say, one per second, I would tend to doubt that
you would get that enzyme in two billion years.

Q Tend to doubt is -- at least to my mind --
an unscientific choice of words.

9

A Not at all. Scientists not in exact field.

Q I understand that. But to say that your
most serious argument against the Theory of Evolution
--

A The Theory of Molecular -- I think you know I
am an evolutionist. I am talking about the difficulty
from going from no polymer species to a living cell in
two billion years.

Q How do you define evolution? You say you are
an evolutionist. How do you define that?

A How do I define it?

Q Yes.

A Let's say there's two different realms that
you would be dealing with. One would be what I call the
chemical evolutionary days which would take us from the
beginning of the planet Earth -- or whatever that might
be -- to the point where you have a cell that's capable
of reproducing itself.

Then beyond the cell to what we have today
would be the Darwinian phase. So what I direct my
attention to is the earlier part.

Q When you say you are directing your attention
--

A Yes.

Q Is it what you direct your attention to in your

10

attention to in your professional life?

A I am a biochemist. Insofar as I have to teach
biochemistry in these topics, these are part of what I
teach, yes.

In other words, I don't see a difficulty with
the Darwinian aspect of evolution once you have the
cell. I see some central difficulties getting to this.

Q What has all this got to do with Creation
Science. I mean, the fact that you don't think that the
cell would have lived in two billion years --

A That's not exactly what I said. I said -- not
being accustomed to talking in a legal terminological
way. I don't think there's enough time to produce the
first cell, that's what I said. Now, what that had to
do with Creation Science?

Q Yes.

A Well, presumably your scientific creationists
don't think there's enough time either, and I would
presume that my fellow evolutionists feel there is enough
time.

Q But creation -- let me start at the beginning.
How would you define Creation Science?

A Creation Science is a set of concepts that's
pretty much based upon what I would call a sudden un-
folding of events leading to the formation of life on

11

the planet as we know it.

Evolutionary Science is based upon a much more
gradual unfolding. So we are really talking about how
much these things happen.

///

12

Q Does Creation Science have any kind of
scriptural basis, or is it purely a scientific --

A As I understand, it's quite scientific.
I don't see any necessity to bring the Bible in it
at all. Frankly, I think it's irrelevant.

Q The Bible is irrelevant?

A As far as these particular arguments are
concerned, yes.

Q Well, the Act 590, Section 4A and 4B,
Section 6, contrasts what is characterized as the
Evolution Science Notion of how long all of this
took to the Creation Science function.

The Evoluation Science Notion is, quote,
an inception several billion years ago, the earth and
somewhat later of life. The Creation Science Notion
is, quote, an irrelatively recent inception of the
earth and living kinds.

Now, in earlier depositions in this case,
witnesses for the Defendant, expert witnesses, have
testified that they believe that the relatively
recent inception of the earth, of which the statute
speaks, took place between eight and ten thousand
years ago.

Do you believe that to be true?

MR. CHILDS: David, we will interject

13

one thing, and that is, that some of the
witnesses went over -- one witness went to
a million, and another witness went to a
hundred thousand, so within that range.

MR. KLASFELD: Okay.

MR. CHILDS: I think that will be a
fair statement.

THE WITNESS: You are asking me if I
think that's true. My own understanding of
the evidence is that, that is far too recent.

MR. KLASFELD: Okay.

MR. CHILDS: Remember, I was talking
about five billion and three billion.

MR. KLASFELD: Right. I understand.

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Well, let me just take
you through the definition of creation of science, as
it reads in this statement.

(Pause.)

Section 4 says, quote, Creation Science
means the scientific evidence for creation and
influences from that scientific evidence. Creation
Science includes the scientific evidences and related
influences that indicate, one, sudden creation of the
universe, energy, and life from nothing.

What is the scientific evidence that you

14

are aware of that supports that statement?

A Well, I would have to delete "life" from
it, and I would say that pretty much sounds like the
basic concept; in other words, I don't see any
difference between that statement, if you delete
"life" and what is called the Big Bang Theory.

Q And if you include life?

A Now, if you include life, then we have to
worry about what the word "sudden" means.

Q Okay.

A Now, if the universe is 25 billion years
old, and all this takes place in five billion years,
that might qualify as being sudden.

Q Too, the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of
all living kinds from a single organism.

Let me just for a second skip down to
B2.

A Well, I would, myself, say that I don't
see anything wrong with Item 2. Remember, I'm an
evolutionist.

Q I understand.

A Okay. I think that mutation is fine.

Q Do you think that mutation of natural
selection are sufficient to bring about the development

15

of all living kinds or a single organism?

A I'm convinced of the evidence of mutation
or natural selection of being sufficient, yes.

Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence
that supports 4A, that is insufficient?

A The insufficiency, only insofar as time
goes, on the people that are in that field, do change
the model.

Q Well --

A But they don't change it enough to make
the model invalid.

Q But are you aware of any scientific
evidence?

A I'm aware that the evolution scientist
or the scientists that do this work have not settled
among themselves exactly how mutation and natural
selection brought these processes about.

Q Well, that's a different thing. That
sort of speaks toward the mechanism.

A Well, there are insufficiencies in their
model. But I'm not persuaded that those insufficien-
cies are enough to throw those out as the Bible
processes.

Q Three, changes only in fixed limits of
original kinds of animals. Are you aware of any

16

scientific evidence that supports that?

A No.

Q Four, separate ancestries of apes. Are
you aware of any scientific evidence that supports
that?

A There are the two people that are
preeminent of that aspect who are alive today, and
I cannot remember their names.

Q Do they disagree as to whether or not
there was at some point a common ancestor for man and
apes?

A As far -- now, they don't disagree about
that, but they certainly disagree about how that
common ancestry was.

Q I understand that, but are you aware of
any scientific evidence that supports a notion of
a separate ancestry for man and apes?

A None that I think is sufficient enough
to persuade me to change my mind on it, so I would
say none.

Q None.

A I mean, there's no point in bringing
up half arguments and conjectures.

Q My point exactly.

Five, explanation of the earth catastrophism

17

including the occurrence of world-wide flood.

A I know of no evidence for a world-wide
flood, that I find persuasive.

Q Okay.

A As far as catastrophism, what do you mean
by catastrophism?

Q I think the question is what the Statute
means. The Statute means to say essentially that the
processes are going on here and taking place much
more suddenly than the evolutionists would have occur
in their model.

Q Well. to the extent that you are familiar
with the Creation Science model --

A Right.

Q -- are you aware of after the emotion of
a world-wide flood, that --

A I know the creationists interpret the
fossil evidence that say, and I know that as an
evolutionist, I interpret the evidence a different
way.

Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence
that lends credence to the science model of --

A I'm aware, or that there's no scientific
evidence proving either one, and that's more to the
point.

18

Q But there's no scientific evidence --

A There's no scientific evidence proving
either of those concepts.

Q Do you have any expertise in theology?

A I don't need it.

Q Why don't you need it?

A Because what I said stands on its own
merits, as a principle of science.

Q You are not aware of any scientific
evidence that supports the notion that the fossil
record --

A There is plenty.

Q Excuse me. Let me finish.

A No. You are putting words in my mouth.

Q First, let me finish the question, just
for the record, so the record accurately reflects
what my question is and what your answer is.

A Okay.

Q My question is, is what you said, that
there's no scientific evidence which supports the
notion that it took more than a year to lay down the
fossil record?

A I know of no scientific evidence that I
find persuasive that supports the idea of a world-wide
flood of the kind that scientific creationists believe

19

in.

Q Okay. My second question: What I
understand 5 to be about, from my taking of
depositions in the case, and my studying of Creation
Science, and if you have a different perception, you
should make that clear, is that the evolution --
excuse me -- the creationists believe that there was
a world-wide flood that took place over approximately
the course of a year, and that the entire geologic
column and the entire fossil record throughout the
world was laid down during the course of that flood,
and the subsequent drainoff of evaporation of the
water from that flood.

Are you aware of any scientific evidence
which supports that theory?

A No. None that I find persuasive. Look,
I've discussed this with creationists back for about
the last 30 years. Okay. And their own thinking
has changed over these 30 years.

Q But it hasn't changed --

A I know that there are creationists that
don't think that all this took place in one year.

Q How long do they think this took place?

A I bet they are talking about 10,000 years.

Q Ten thousand years?

20

A I would guess.

Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence
that would suggest it could happen in 10,000 years?

A No.

- - -

21

Q And you've already said that you're not aware
of any scientific evidence that -- relating to No. 6,
a relatively recent conception of the Earth, when
"Relatively Recent" means less then a million years.

A That's correct.

Now, can we go back to that thing about pale-
ontology expertise?

Q Certainly.

A Find. Now, as I understand it, you were
asking me whether I had expertise in paleontology, and
I said I didn't need it.

Q Right.

A Now can we clarify that point?

Q Please.

A All right. One does not need expertise in
paleontology in order to make the statements that I did
that neither of these models can be proven scientifi-
cally.

Q Well, what is there about the -- shall we
call it the standard paleontological model that remains
unproven, in your view?

A You mean about origins? We don't know how
we got here. That's the insufficiency.

Q I know. I understand that.
I'm talking here about the fossil record, which

22

I understood you to be talking about.

A Fine. The fossil record has gaps in it that
all paleontologists will be agreeable to. Now, the
importance of the gaps are unsettled. If you use
evolutionary contacts, the evolutionists feel that
Evolutionary Theory would propose you to find the gaps;
and there's no way to bring those two groups of people
together. But I think that's irrelevant, whether those
two models are scientific or not.

Q But the Creation of Theory goes considerably
further. I mean, it talks as I understand it, about
two things that they view as important -- one, gaps in
the fossil record between species and reptiles and birds
and then what they sort of characterize as the sudden
appearance of life in complex form in Cambria.

A Uh-huh.

Q Now, that's two aspects of it, which I suppose
we could argue about whether or not you could scienti-
fically falsify one or the other. But they go further
and say that the entire geologic column was laid down
during a period of, you say, at an outside, 10,000
years.

Are you satisfied, from a scientific manner,
that it took more than 10,000 years?

A Oh, I am; yes. But if you want someone to

23

speak that point, obviously you need to talk to someone
like Gish. That wasn't why I brought up that point a
minute ago. What I said was that neither of these
models can be proven scientific.

You can do work on individual processees like
natural fossils and prove what their origins were. You
can't prove what our origins were. We can't do that.
And something scientific which is in direct proportion
to a degree of falsifibility is something called the
principle of falsification; and for something to be
scientific, it must be -- at least theoretically be
capable of being shown to be false. Now, you can't
show either of these things to be false.

Q Well, if I found --

A And you can't do that, because you can't
run the creation off again. There's nobody around to
do it.

Q Yes. But if I found a human fossil among the
Trilobites, would --

A It would not be something that would fit into
the Creation Science at the present time or the --

Q I think it would fit into the Creation Science
model.

A I think both models --

Q But the Creation Science model, as I understand

24

it, would simply say -- as a matter of fact, one of
their major articles with which you may be familiar is
the argument about whether or not there are fossil --
human fossil footprints on the Poluscy River with the
dinosaurs, and their argument, as I understand it, was,
look, that is humans and dinosaurs at the same place at
the same time. That's what the Creation model suggests,
and they are looking for these kinds of arguments; and
they would argue that if you found human fossils with
Trilobite fossils, that would show that you know men
and Trilobades were at the same time.

A Okay. To that extent, I stand corrected. If
you find a good old human skull, preferably recent,
okay, back that far, that would be a thunderbolt.

Q My point then, is that classic paleontology
would be falsified if they were true.

A Not in terms of origins. Now, if you're
talking about origins as if they began, for example,
in the Cambrian or pre-Cambrian, that's a very insuffi-
cient use of the term. I'm talking about origins of
life; not just origins of man.

Now, if the origin of life occurred five
billion years ago or if it occurred one billion years
ago, there's no way we can test that. We have no obser-
vations at that time about anyone. So we're extrapolating

25

back into the past in both models.

Q Now let me go back to where I started. You've
talked about one area of criticism you have of the
evolutionary model, which has to do with the amount of
time that it might have taken place until the first
life forms.

All right. What other scientific evidences
are there against evolution and in favor of Creation
Science?

A Well, again, the strongest things are the
statistical improbabilities that you would have complex
systems arise in the way that would be required. Okay?
The second thing, I guess, would be the problem with
what are called gaps in the record. One thing I don't
particularly like is the fact that Evolutionary Science,
in what I think is circular reasoning, uses the gaps to
support itself.

Q You're speaking now of gaps in the fossil
record?

A Yes. But I would be much happier if there
were more transitory forms.

Q What are archaopterists?

A What about it?

Q Is it a transitional form?

A It may very well be, but we need more transi-

26

tional forms than just one.

Q What about intermedial structural forms?

A Well, I mean, those things are there if you
look strongly enough at them.

Q What about -- I mean, it's something like
this. You could look at the comparative anatomy or
physiology among, let's say, all chordates. That's
c-h-o-r-d-a-t-e-s. Now, you can look at those similar-
ities and say, ah, they all had a common origin; however
some are more advanced than others, so they came later.
Or you can look at that sort of thing and say they
pretty much occurred at the same instant in time and
some appeared initially as more complex than another.

Now, there's two different ways you can look
at the same evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

Q Do you have any expertise in physiology?

A Insofar as I'm a biochemist.

Q Well, have you ever -- what courses have you
taken in physiology?

A What have I taken in Physiology?

Q Yes.

A I haven't taken any in physiology. I'm not
a physiologist.

Q And you have no courses in paleontology?

A No. You don't need it to make the statements

27

that I did. You don't need to take a course or have a
degree in something to be able to talk about it.

Q Well, that's correct. But in order to give
expert --

A Expertise comes through study and work; not
just through formal practice in a classroom.

I'd like to throw in that typically, the people
who contribute most in this life contribute in fields
other than where they got their Ph.D.

Q What studies have you conducted on our own
in the area of paleontology?

A I haven't done any. I'm not a paleontologist.

Q And in physiology?

A I haven't done any. I'm not a physiologist.
I think those are irrelevant questions.

Q Okay. What about the area of fossils them-
selves, what studies have you done?

A That's also irrelevant.

Q Okay. We have the length of time it took to
create life, the gaps in the fossil record. What other
evidence --

A I think those are quite sufficient.

Q Are there others?

A There may be, but they've escaped me right
now.

28

Q Would you anticipate and testify in the trial
that you'd be testifying in these two areas?

A Possibly, if I thought I was strong enough
in that area; yeah.

Q And other areas?

A If they come to mind, I'll be glad to communi-
cate that information to you.

Q But right now, you can't think of anything
else.

A Right now, I can't; no. But I don't think
that those are important. My support of this piece
of legislation does not rest only on the things that
I've said; they rest on other things.

Q Okay. We will go to the other stuff later.

A Okay.

Q Why did you change your name?

A Frankly, that's none of your business.

Q Why did you change your name?

A I still think it's none of your business.
Now, if you can show me that that's pertinent to this
particular topic, I'll be glad to answer your question.

Q You know, it's something that leaps off your
resume, and I'm entitled to ask about essentially any-
think that I want to.

A And I'm entitled to withdraw an answer if I

29

see fit.

Q Well, I understand that. I mean, basically,
eventually what happens at the trial is, if somebody
asks you the question --

A I'll suggest you go back to Chapter I and
check the legal record, and they'll have the reason
there.

Q Okay. Your resume indicates -- at least this
copy of your resume that I have -- no publication since
1977. Have you published anything since 1977?

A Huh-uh.

Q Was that a "No"?

A No.

Q Is the "Bulletin of the South Carolina Academy
of Science" a refereed journal?

A I doubt it. I mean, I expect that the papers
we submit for publication there are read and reviewed,
but they're not read and reviewed with the type of
rigor that you'd have with, let's say, the "Journal of
the Book of Biology."

Am I allowed to ask you questions? No.

Q No.

A So be it.

Q That's one of the glories of the deposition
process -- the lawyer asks the question, and the witness

30

gives the answers.

A I take it you're on the other side. You know,
I don't really know.

Q I'm on the other side.

A Okay.

Q What is Snow's two culture concepts? What
are --

A The general idea, as I understand it, is
that Snow divides academic or intellectuals into two
different categories -- scientific intellectuals and
literary intellectuals -- so that we have, in the
intellectual world, these two realms of intellectability.

Q Have you found out anything about the bio-
chemical methodology for the Gambling Addiction Inter-
vention and --

A I would like to know why that is interest
first with Snow's thing.

Q It simply occurred to me as you were answering
the question.

A Thank you for answering.

MR. CHILDS: It's perfectly legitimate
for the lawyer to -- if a question occurs
to him, to go back to it.

THE WITNESS: That's also a technique
that's used in brainwashing.

31

MR. CHILDS: I don't think we ought to
say anything about that.

Q (By Mr. Childs.) Are you familiar with brain-
washing?

A I've read a little bit about it.

Q What kind of work are you doing with the
Gambling Addiction Intervention and Research Center?

A Right now, I'm not doing anything. I'm waiting
for them to ask me what they want me to embark on. This
center, I think, was set up within the last two or
three months, and the psychologist who is responsible
for putting it together is a good friend of mine, and
he would like somebody with some biochemical expertise
to provide him with some, say, provisional answers and
some criticism of any grant proposals that he might
come up with. So it's just a consulting position where
there's no remuneration.

Q What biochemical methodology might be involved
with gambling addiction?

A Well, it's been proposed, for example, that
you, shall we say, get fatty fluid samples from people
that are compulsive gamblers and then body fluid
samples from people who are not compulsive gamblers,
and look for biochemical differences. And he asked
me my opinion as to whether that is feasible, and I told

32

him, to the best of my knowledge, it's feasible, but
involves a lot of work, and I don't know if it's worth
the effort yet.

///

33

Q How did you come to be offered as an
expert witness in this case; what was the first
knowledge that you had of this case?

A I believe I received a telephone call
from a gentleman named Ed Gran.

Q Could you spell that, please?

A I think his last name is G-r-a-n.

Q Who is Mr. Gran?

A If I remember correctly, he is a physicist
professor at the University of Arkansas.

Q What did Mr. Gran say to you?

A He introduced himself, I think, and
indicated that he had received information that I was
favorably disposed toward this type of legislation and
asked me if I would be willing to assist in Arkansas.

So we discussed it in general terms and
I said sure because I had done that kind of thing in
South Carolina.

Q What happened?

A What happened?

Q Yes. Who was the next person that you
spoke with?

A Frankly, I don't remember. It may have
been Gran again or it may have been Wendel Berg.

Q Was this in relation to your testimony in

34

this case or your possible intervention in the case
as an intervenor?

A I guess -- I don't know what you mean by
intervenor. I offered my services, I will put it that
way. Since I am an evolutionist -- I am also not a
Christian -- I dare say that would be important for
people on what could be called our side.

Q There was a Motion to intervene in this
case made by Mr. Berg on behalf of a number of groups
and individuals of who, I believe, you were one in
which you sought to become a party to the case. Are
you familiar with what I am speaking about?

A Probably not sufficiently for the legal
aspects of it. Essentially what I had to say was
something like this: I laid out probably to Gran
what I believe in, what I was in favor of, and what
I was willing to do. And I probably said something
to him like: If you can use this thing in some sense,
I will be glad to support it. I don't know if you
find that satisfactory.

Now, I had a long talk with Byrd, I
think, over the telephone for someone in Byrd's
office, and he took down a lot of what I had to say.

MR. CHILDS: Was he an intervenor?

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

35

MR. CHILDS: Why don't you tell him
what that means.

THE WITNESS: That would help.

MR. CHILDS: I am not sure he under-
stands.

(Thereupon, and off-the-record discussion
was held.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Who don't we both
look at these copies which we will mark as Plaintiff's
1, the affidavit of Dr. W. Scot Morrow, a science
professor, evolutionist, and agnostic. This is a
supporting motion to intervene.

(Thereupon, Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 1 was marked
for identification.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Have you ever seen this
document before, Dr. Morrow?

A Probably. It looks like -- have I seen it?

Q This copy, does not have your signature.

A I probably said something like that.

Q No, no. My question is: Have you seen
this document?

A What I am trying to tell you is I don't
memorize things flat out. And if you give me a moment,
I will tell you whether or not -- I probably did it.

This is probably the kind of thing that I

36

would have said to someone like Wendel Byrd in the
course of that conversation. But I didn't sit down
and take dictation on it.

Q I am not asking you whether or not you
said what is in the contents of this document, I am
asking you if you have seen this document before.

A I would say yes. I mean, how can I tell
you otherwise? I told you that I talked to Byrd --
I guess this is the document, I don't have any way of
proving it one way or the other. I would have probably
signed it.

Q I am asking you if you recollect seeing
it before?

A This sheet of paper?

Q Not this particular sheet of paper, but
the original from which this document is a copy.

A I don't know how to answer your question
within the legal framework. I suppose so; I mean, I
don't know how I can prove to you whether I have seen
it or not if I didn't sign it.

Q I am not asking you to prove anything
to me. I am only asking you whether or not you recall
seeing this document.

A Can I talk to that gentleman?

Q Sure.

37

(Thereupon, a short break was held.)

MR. CHILDS: I want the record to
reflect that I have advised Dr. Morrow
that he is not a party to this litigation
and that I do not represent him here.

He is here as a witness voluntarily;
but he will be a witness for the Defendants'
side of the lawsuit in Little Rock.

And he asked my advice on what he
should do. I advised him that I was not
his lawyer, and then I did tell him to
answer the questions; that it would be
better for all if he answered the questions
as clearly as he possibly could. And if
there was any question in his mind about
what was happening, I would be glad to
discuss it with him.

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) My question, as I
recall it, was: Have you seen the original of this
document?

A I believe so. However, the piece of
paper that I saw before I had signed. And this does
not have my signature on it. That was the difficulty.
I am reluctant to answer that type of question with
a simple affirmative answer because it implies

38

something other that what I think is implied.

Q That's fair. It says in Paragraph 1 that
you were the Vice-President of Arkansas Citizens for
Balanced Education in Origins. Are you a citizen
of Arkansas?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Where do you reside?

A South, Carolina, Spartanburg.

Q When was the Arkansas Citizens for
Balanced Education in Origins formed?

A Roughly the same time that Ed Gran called
me on the phone, and that date I don't remember.

Q Approximately when was it?

A The fall.

Q This fall?

A I imagine so.

Q 1981?

A I believe so. I don't really consider
that of substantial importance.

Q Okay. Was the Vice-President an elected
office for the Arkansas Citizens for Balanced
Education in Origins?

A I nave no idea.

Q You are Vice-President?

A Yes.

39

Q Were you elected?

A I have no idea. Mr. Gran asked me if I
would be Vice-President and I said, "Sure." What's
wrong with that?

Q There's nothing wrong with it. But it
suggests that it wasn't elective.

A Being elective or not doesn't have anything
to do with it.

Q The point of the questioning and the
answers is not for you to define the importance of it
but to answer the question.

A Fine. I said I didn't know.

Q Why did you want to be an intervenor in this
case?

A Now, if you mean by intervenor, a party
to defend the Arkansas law -- is that what you mean?

Q Okay.

A It's something that I believe in very
strongly.

Q How does it come that a nonresident of
Arkansas is the Vice-President of the Arkansas Citizens
for Balanced Education and Origins?

A You have to ask Gran that. I am not
aware that there is a geographical limitation on
whether I can become an officer in an out-of-the-state

40

organization.

Q Are you aware of other members of this
organization who are not from Arkansas?

A No.

Q You went on to say in Paragraph 4: "I
am an evolutionist and I believe strongly in public
schools teaching both Creation Science and Evolution
Science.

"I personally believe that Evolution
Science possesses more experimental strengths, and
in the origin of life area I believe that the initial
life forms evolved by the various mechanisms offered
by Oparin and Fox.

MR. CHILDS: Could you spell that.

MR. KLASFELD: O-p-a-r-i-n.

MR. CHILDS: And Fox?

MR. KLASFELD: F-o-x.

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Earlier you testified
about the lack of time on earth for life to evolve
from nonlife. What are the opinions of Mr. Oparin
and Fox about that?

A As far as I know, Oparin -- since he is
an atheist -- would certainly not accept the idea
of any type of Creation Science.

Q That's not my question.

41

A As far as I know, Oparin and Fox are
evolutionists. And considering the writings of both
men in the general field of molecular evolution, they
are molecular evolutionists.

Q You previously testified that there wasn't
sufficient time.

A That's my opinion. And Fox disagreed
with me.

Q They disagreed with you?

A I would guess so. I haven't asked them
personally.

Q Well, in this document that says: "I
believe that the initial life forms evolved by the
various mechanisms offered by Oparin and Fox."

A If you are asking me how I could make that
statement and also assert there wasn't enough time --

Q That's right.

A All right. What I am trying to say is
that those proposals of Oparin and Fox and other
people in that general field of inquiry, those things,
I think, were the kinds of things that had to go on.
They will represent our best understanding or best
hypothetical guess today on what went on.

But the thing is it might have required
more time to carry out those kinetic activities than

42

Oparin and Fox thought it was necessary.

You could put it this way: I could say,
for example, that the number of people that are
involved in automobile accidents is a certain number,
let's say, in the State of South Carolina. Then we
could, perhaps, argue about whether or not a sufficient
amount of traffic would be sufficient to greet those
accidents or whether more traffic would be needed to
greet those accidents.

The mechanisms would, perhaps, be the
same; the time frame in which they took place would
be different.

Q How do you believe life came into being
on this planet?

A I think there is a very strong possibility
that this planet was seated for extra terrestrial
forces.

Q When would that have occurred?

A My guess would be roughly within that
two billion year time period that I said was insufficient
to produce the first replicating cells.

Q Do you believe in unidentified flying
objects?

A What do you mean do I believe in them?

Q Do you believe they exist?

43

A Yes.

Q Have you ever seen them?

A Probably not.

Q Have you spoken to anyone who has ever
seen them?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q What is the basis for your belief that
they exist?

A Things that I read.

Q By whom?

A Eminently a man called Hynek.

Q Would you spell that?

A I believe it is H-y-n-e-k or H-y-e-k.
And there is a rather pretty good French astronomer,
Jacque Vallee, V-a-l-l-e-e. Those are two people
that have been quite convincing.

- - -

44

Q Is this belief of yours about the origin of
life here similar to that expressed by Francis Creek, I
think the name of -- the name is directed to Panspermi?

A Panspermiogenesis was advised by Arrhenius
quite a few years ago, I guess around 1925, and Creek
is a more contemporary exponent of the idea, so there
are several different possibilities.

Q But that's your notion of how the life began
on the planet?

A That's, I think -- let's just say I favor
that. My feeling is that that is perhaps the simplest
way to explain how life was able to become so organized
in the time available.

Q And this all happened about how long ago?

A Well, somewhere between the time the Earth
formed and probably the time we note the first fossil
bacteria, although there's no absolute requirement for
that, if this planed had been seeded. It could have
been seeded later. We could have had a whole series of
seedings.

Q Is there evidence for more than one seeding?

A I'm not aware of it. This is rather hypothe-
tical.

Q But you are satisfied that the evidence for
-- for that is better than, stronger than the evidence

45

for life having evolved on the planet on its own?

A Let's just say that I find it rather more
interesting and probably, you know, it's more -- there
seems to be -- there's more fruitful opportunities to
answer the insufficiency, the statistical insufficiency
by going to extraterrestrial sources.

Q I guess I just don't understand at all why
you mentioned Oparin and Fox in your --

A Because Oparin and Fox have proposed a model
that involves relatively simple chemical species becoming
increasingly more complex, until the polymerian mole-
cules of characterized living things appear, and pre-
sumably by some kind of selective and --

Q You don't believe that happened, do you?

A I think it may very well have happened, but
I don't think they allow those processes to occur.

Q And how long do they --

A There's a kinetic difference something can
take place, but it may not take place fast enough for
a certain type of connection to occur.

Q And how long do they --

A There's a kinetic difference that something
can take place, but it may not take place fast enough
for a certain type of connection to occur.

Q Do Oparin and Fox think it took place?

46

A Well, the last thing I remember reading on it
was that they certainly felt two or three billion years
was plenty of time.

Q What's the difference between a coaceruate
and a proteinoid?

A Well, there are several differences. One has
to do with stability. A coaceruate is by and large,
as I remember it, is much more unstable. A proteinoid
is plenty stable.

Q What is that holds the coaceruate together?

A That, I guess, is rather hypothetical. I
would expect you would be talking about hydrogen bombing,
ionic bombing, etcetera.

Q And the proteinoids?

A Proteinoid, that I can't be certain of. I
would presume that the proteinoid is something equivalent
to a three-dimensional colloid polypeptide. See, what
you do know is this: Typically, Oparin's coaceruate,
as well as I remember it, had a finite lifetime, in
terms of their chemical stability under normal tempera-
tures. You might find in a laboratory, whereas pro-
teinoids, as far as we know, is quite stable. If the
stuff we've made, be it, however, so simple, did not
decompose as far as we could tell by the normal test
we had available to us. But there's other differences,

47

too.

Typically, Oparin's coaceruates were put
together using molecules are much more complex, whereas
proteinoid started with much more simple molecules.
Oparin would make a coaceruate molecule system, using
his D.N.A. and his tone. These are basically any ionic
polymers. Your thermal proteinoid would be made by
the coaceruates.

Q Okay. How many students are there at Wofford
College?

A Approximately a thousand.

Q Is it a church affiliated institution?

A I would say so in an phenominal sense, yes.

Q What church is that?

A What church? Methodist.

Q Is it accredited by the State of South Carolina?

A Well, I don't know that the State of South
Carolina is in the business of accrediting colleges.
If it is in the business of accrediting colleges, I
would find it difficult that Wofford College was not.
We are a member of something like the Southern Associa-
tion.

Q Are you an officer of the Libertarian Party?

A Definitely not.

Q Does the Libertarian Party have offices?

48

A Probably, but I consider those people stoic.
I think they are Epicureans.

Q What is the difference of an Epicurean and a
Stoic?

A It has to do with whether your philosophy is
based upon personal pleasure or not.

Q And the Libertarians, I guess, is the greater
or the great?

A In my opinion, the Libertarians that I have
typically met are more interested in personal pleasure
than the more important things.

Q What are those more important things?

A First off, honor; secondly, doing what could
be called the right just thing.

Q How does one determine what is the right just
thing?

A You figure it out and use your own values.

Q But it's all something one decides for him-
self?

A I would like to think so. I mean, if you are
a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, you
should be fundamentally either an objective or either
an agonist, which means you start with what we would
like to call the self.

Q When you say we, will you --

49

A Well, teaching as a Libertarian, as far as
I'm concerned, what I know best is myself.

Q Do you have any other kinds of teaching posi-
tions or consultant positions, which you are paid at
the present time.

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Since you graduated from North Carolina State,
have you taken any continuing education courses?

A I graduated from the University of North
Carolina.

Q I'm sorry --

A That's not the same place. Have I taken
continuing education courses, what do you mean?

Q Have you taken any other courses -- have you
been a student in any courses since you graduated?

A No. I had quite enough. I was in college
for 20 years. I haven't stopped studying; however, I
now study for my own purposes.

Q Did you receive any honors at North Carolina?

A I'm unaware of any.

Q Have you received any grants during the time
you've been a professor at Wofford College?

A Let's see, the first three summers I was
there, I had three separate summer research grants.

Q Who funded them?

50

A Let's see, I guess the Federal Government.
Fundamentally, there was something called the C.S.I.P.
Program, and it's something like the College Science
Improvement Program, I think that's what it was called.
So the college had money to fund appropriate research
activity, if your proposals were accepted, and you were
allowed to do this for three straight years, if they
approved your work, and I had three consecutive grants.

Q Did you apply to the college or to the
Federal Government?

A Well, I applied to the college.

Q The college had the money?

A Yes.

Q And then you applied --

A To the Federal Government, and they got it
from the taxpayer.

Q Do you have any philisophical objection to
that?

A Hell, no. There is something I have called
the "Chicken Noodle Concept." Do you want to hear
that?

Q I do.

A The general idea is if a society has decided
to take money from you, then you have a perfect right
to get it back again.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. W. Scott Morrow - Page 2

51

Q Why the Chicken Noodle Soup Theory?

A All right. It goes something like this: I
happen to like Chicken Noodle Soup. Supposedly there
was a program that was designed to give everybody as
much Chicken Noodle Soup as we wanted, so I went ahead
and decided that Chicken Noodle Soup was good for every-
body. So every day, they brought the wagon by, and
you trotted downstairs with your pail, and had as much
Chicken Noodle Soup as you wanted.

Now, you have people who are faced with the
fact that this was a poor decision on the part of the
government, like myself. Now, what do they do, do they
partake, or do they not.

Let's say the Libertarian Party, he says, go
down and eat the Chicken Noodle Soup and gat all of the
people, you know, to get Chicken Noodle Soup, and there-
by, you'll put sufficient stress on the financial or
monetary support for the program, and this will force
people's attention to the enterprise, and it will event-
ually be voted out.

If, indeed, you have benefits, as our govern-
ment has determined, claim them. That's the best way
to show that type of government benefit program is
absolutely a waste of time. If you don't claim your
benefits, then the people who are in favor of these

52

things will continue to lead you on.

Q What was the amount of those grants for either
of those summers?

A Well, let's see, they probably -- I would have
to guess at this -- it paid my salary for the summer,
it paid the salary, I think, of two assistants, each
summer. and they probably came up with five hundred or
a thousand dollars worth of equipment, something like
that.

Q And what would the total of that be?

A What would my summer pay be? Well, I don't
remember right off the bat. We might be talking about,
what, two to five thousand dollars, I mean, I forget
what I was making in those days, and I don't remember
what the kids were making. That's a small amount of
money, if you compare it to, let's say, a large univer-
sity. It's not a small amount of money for a small
college.

Q That was the first three summers you were at
Wofford?

A Yes.

Q Since then, have you received any grants?

A No.

Q Have you applied for any?

A No. As far as I know, the C.S.I.P. Program

53

dried up.

Q Were there grants available?

A Sure. I've applied for grants, and this sort
of thing, but, I mean, they have not been accepted.

Q To whom have you applied?

A Well, we have typically applied as a depart-
ment. Okay. And I believe we applied to the National
Science Foundation probably a couple of times and --
we've also applied to the Research Corporation.

Q What was the nature of the work that you
applied for a grant with the National Science foundation?

A If I remember, as long as -- I remember two
grants which were instrumental grants that we were
requesting the money to buy specific pieces of instru-
mentation that would be used by the whole department.
And then there was a grant that I put together with a
physical chemist, that would be designed to allow us to
implement what we would call a non-traditional teaching
center at Wofford College. And I applied at N.S.F.,
and it might have been the Research Corporation, or
some other type foundation that was interested in that
kind of thing, but they weren't accepted.

Q Have you applied for any grants to do research
in the field of biochemistry?

A In biochemistry?

54

Q Yes.

A The three that I got from the C.S.I.P. Program
were biochemistry.

Q Other than those three?

A Other than those three, no. I've been working
on a grant for the study of the analitical biochemistry
of certain insect forms, but the thing is, I haven't
had time to put the thing together. It takes quite
awhile to do that, when you have the teaching like we
do.

Q What is the teaching?

A Well, it's a minimum of 21 contact hours, not
counting other duties. And typically what I have done
in the summer is teach.

Q What is Fermi's dictum?

A It's something to the effect that a really
good scientist changes his field of inquiry every ten
years.

Q Okay.

A That was meant to be humorous, you realize.

Q Do you think that there's any relationship
between the origin and evolution of living systems and
the conflict between the Western Civilization and the
Communist Society?

A Wait a minute. What is that again, any rela-

55

tionship?

Q Yes.

A I would doubt it. If there is such a relation-
ship, it escapes me at the moment. Scientists can be
interested in things besides your science, you know.

Q I know. I have read Creation Science work
that does draw a conclusion about the relationship --

A Oh.

Q -- between evolution --

A Oh, that's correct. Let me say that I'm --
you recalled to my mind that I have read parallels
that some people have drawn between Marxism, Darwinism,
if you want to call it that, Oparin's work, Fox's work,
and so on. I don't see those parallels, I mean.

Q My experience in reading a lot of these books,
it usually takes about eight pages before they say
Communism is a direct result of evolutionary thinking.

A Well, I call to your attention that the
enterprised people, as well as Marxists have used
Darwinian principles.

Q I agree with you a hundred percent. I'm only
saying, I have seen books that do say --

A Well, it's an intellectual right of these
people.

Q But it's not a right that you share?

56

A i think it's a lot easier for people to be
an evolutionist, if they are a totalitarian. Okay?

Q Why is that?

A Which is the same thing as a socialist. I
think it's easier, but the thing is, I don't fall on
those lines.

Q Why is it easier?

A Why is it easier? Well, there's more emphasis
certainly on collective processes and collective changes
with Darwinian evolution than if you have, let's say,
in a Scientific Creation concept, where maybe the em-
phasis is on individual type things happening.

Q What is the collective process that's made
reference to the Darwinism?

A Well, your Darwinism ideals relate to popula-
tion effects and the overall influence on what will
happen to a population, organisms, given enough time,
and let's say, the chance for mutation. So you are
looking at a vast group of living things, as if there
are one entity.

Q What's that got to do with Socialism?

A Well, Socialists are typically collectivists
and usually quite totalitarian. If you give me enough
time, I think I can establish that.

Q But you're an evolutionist; and you don't share

57

any of those views?

A That's absolutely right, because I happen to
be, like I said once before, a Stoic Libertarian.

(Pause.)

Q You say in your resume that your goal is to
achieve a proper caliber between teaching and research?

A That's correct.

Q What research are you engaged in now?

A Well, let's see, I've got two active projects,
the first consists of developing analitical methods to
detect certain protozoa. They are called histones, in
lower life forms, where they have not been found before.
Okay?

Q And the second one?

A And the second one is -- how can I summarize
that. There's a specific bacteria. You want the name
of it?

Q Sure.

A Okay. It's Agrobacterium tumofascins.

Q Okay.

A Now, this bacterium is known to produce plant
cancer, and what we call galls, in plants and trees.
that's a very interesting bacteria.

Now, there is considerable interest in the
research group which I'm a part to use this bacterium as

58

a testing agent for anti-tumor agents. In other words,
the bacterium can produce tumors in plant tissue, if
you want to know whether a specific chemical compound
can stop tumor activity. We think we have a very nice
little assay that can't take place on a petri dish.

Now, a third project has to do with the
developing, what could be called microbiological processes
to make either interesting or important industrial
chemicals or to use microbiological processes to detoxi-
fy waste that are industriously important.

Q Do you anticipate publishing papers on these?

A Yes. If we get something that can be
sufficiently complete, I'll be glad to publish it.
Everything I do is for publication. It's very difficult
to do it, given the limitations and the time and money
and student help.

Now, you asked me about this proper balance.
See, I happen to think that a teacher should also be an
active scholar. Now, if you are an experimental scien-
tist -- if you are an experimental scientist, you
should be doing research all the time, and getting
students interested in this Science, as well as just
teaching a classroom. Far too often I observe that the
people who are research scientists are not very good
teaching scholars, and many of the best teaching scholars

59

are not active in research. And I would like to try
to remedy that. That's why I left industry 20 years
ago, to go into the college of teaching. Or it's one
of the reasons why.

Q You list three professional societies which
you are a member?

A Yes. Could you rattle them off for me?

Q American Chemical Society?

A Yes.

Q American Association for the Advancement of
Science?

A Yes.

Q South Carolina Academy of Science?

A Yes. I don't belong to the S.C.A.S. anymore.

Q Is there any reason for that?

A No. Quite frankly, I had to delete certain
things from the family budget, which an increasing
family made necessary.

Q Are you a member of any evolutionary socities?

A Not to my knowledge, unless you include the
Arkansas organization.

Q Have you ever held any office in any of these
societies?

A Well, let's see, I was -- what was it now --
these are quite insignificant. I mean, do you still want

60

that?

Q Sure.

A There's a Western Carolina American Chemical
Society, and when you are a member of the National
Organization, you are sort of automatically a member,
as I understand, of a subdivision association. I was
asked to be on there, what was it called, you know,
like new members committee, okay, sort of thing.

Q Okay.

A And I believe I was on the same or an analo-
gous committee for the South Carolina Academy of
Sciences. I think it's called a membership committee,
or something like that.

Q Were you ever denied membership in any scien-
tific organization?

A No.

Q Are you a member of any of the various
Creation Science organizations?

A Other than the Arkansas group, no.

Q Were you on the mailing list for any of
these?

A Yes.

Q Which group are you on the mailing list?

A Let's see, I get something from Paul Elanger's
group, the name of which I forget, and I'm on the mailing

61

list of the Institute for Creation Research.

Q Is this Mr. Elanger with the Citizens for
Fairness in Education?

A Yes, that's right.

Q How did you come to be on those mailing lists?

A Those poeple put me on them.

Q Without speaking to you about it?

A Yes. I mean, quite a few years ago, for
reasons I don't quite remember why, before any of this
sort of thing became popular, I suddenly found I was
getting acts and facts, and every six months, if you
want to keep getting it, you send a little card back,
and I did that. And it's a purely voluntary thing. It
doesn't cost me any money, and I find the stuff inter-
esting, and they keep sending it to me.

Q Do you have an opinion as to the Civil
Liberties Union?

A Yes.

Q What do you think about it?

A Well, to be perfectly frank, I do not like the
organization.

Q Now, why is that?

A To what extent should I get into this?

Q To whatever extent you think is appropriate.

A I do think they have objective concepts of

62

Civil Liberties.

Q In what way?

A In what way? Well, some of the things that
they are interested in defending, let's say, I'm
interested in attacking.

Q Which are those things?

A In some of the things I'm interested in having
defended, they attacked.

Q What are examples of those things?

A I did not like their support for the marching
of the Nazies in Skokie.

Q And what else?

A What else? Well, within the Spartanburg area,
one of the field directors had an office right next
to mine. Now, I like the guy very much. We get along
fine. He was an inorganic chemist, and generally
speaking, I did not like the local rule that the local
ACLU was taking with respect to, let's say, discipline
in the Public School System. I felt they were far
too lenient.

Q Were there cases that they were involved in?

A Yes, as far as I know. I have to go back and
be very specific. I find it to be very difficult because
I don't typically retain that kind of thing.

But one had to do with whether or not the

63

principle of the school was able to dictate the dress
of the students and the length of hair, and I'm sure
it had to do, also, with discipline and spanking, and
things like that.

Now, I don't consider myself a medieval
torturer expert, but I do think much more solid dis-
cipline was certainly needed in the Spartanburg School
System, at the time that my peer next door was working
for the reverse.

Q And Epicurean Stoic?

A I don't know what an Epicurean Stoic is.
I'm a Stoic.

Q I'm sorry. A Stoic Libertarian?

A In order to try to clarify what I believe in,
I used those terms, stoic libertarian.

Q Does a stoic libertarian believe it's impor-
tant to have short hair?

A No.

Q Or dress in a certain manner?

A Not necessarily.

Q But you think that the government should
impose --

A I think --

Q -- short hair and dress codes?

A Certainly not.

64

Q So what is your disagreement with this?

A The disagreement is this, if you have a
Public School System, and if you have people that are
put in charge of that Public School System, and among
other things, they are supposed to maintain a good
atmosphere for learning, you must have a certain amount
of learning discipline. Now, this includes things
like laying down dress and conduct codes. And as far
as I'm concerned, the ACLU was interested in having no
dress, no conduct codes worth talking about.

Now, from a national standpoint, I regret
to say, that the various things that I think the ACLU
have gotten involved in are --

Q What are those things?

A Preservation of our security and our freedom.

Q How has the ACLU interfered with the preser-
vation of our security and freedom?

A I think it would make it very difficult to
make any law to be sensibly enforced.

Q Are you thinking of any specific examples?

A Well, just recently I read in the newspaper
of the bond which was reduced from twenty million dollars
to five hundred thousand dollars for a specific dope
smuggler. He probably jumped bail. Now, if what I've
read in the paper is correct, and if the ACLU typically

65

is in favor of reducing such bonds, I don't consider
that in the best interest of the United States of
America.

Q Are you familiar that the ACLU plead no role
in that drug smuggler's case?

A According to the newspaper, the ACLU was
responsible in getting the bond reduced, and not just
in that case, but generally.

Q Are you aware of any involvements of the
ACLU that are --

A Again, from what I read and remember, and
a preferial fashion, the ACLU seems to be in favor of
rather lenient sentences for -- for people accused or
convicted of crimes, where I think the sentences should
be much more severe. I also think that the ACLU is
overly interested in defending people whose apparent
purpose is to frankly undermind this country.

Q Who would that be, please?

A Pardon?

Q Who would that be, for instance?

A Roughly people like Algil Hess.

Q Who else?

A Rosenberg, all the way down.

Q Who else?

A Well, it would take me a little while to sit

66

down and recite a whole list. Wouldn't that be, at
least, a good example of what I'm talking about?

Q I guess. I guess I was looking for more
current people.

A Well, what's wrong with those guys?

Q Well, nothing is wrong.

A Why not go back to some of the classical
situations. I mean, if the ACLU, and if the ACLU makes
it possible for it to be difficult to prosecute Algil
Hess, that bothers me.

Q But he was prosecuted and convicted --

A Of a rather minor crime, right.

Q And the Rosenbergs were prosecuted and con-
victed --

A And eventually put to death, yes. And typi-
cally, I think you have people in the ACLU today who
would like to erect the whole Rosenberg thing and make
them into martyrs and heroes and quite frankly, they
were spies.

Q Are you aware of any activity on behalf --

A Not specifically. Right now, it is a question
of reading over the years what people either who were
in the ACLU had to say about it or what the organization
had to say about it in a formal way.

Q What have you -- I mean -- who do you link with

67

the ACLU with the defense of the Rosenbergs?

A Well, again, we are talking -- you are asking
me to be specific, and these are the kinds of things
where you don't remember things specifically. You
remember a fact in the past, and you remember the con-
clusion, but you don't remember the specificity thereof.

I also find the ACLU also, most insufficiently
in its activities, let's say, in defending the right
to work laws. I had a long discussion with my friend
next door, whose no longer there, but my friend next
door, who felt that the right to work laws, of course,
were not a proper, what, realm for the SCLU activity.

Q What are you referring to, the rights to
work law?

A The right of a person to join a union and not
to join a union, and not to be coerced one way or the
other. And I would be amazed if you could find me any
ACLU members who are not opposed to the not to work
laws.

Q How long have you been opposed to that?

A Well, I didn't start out being opposed to
them. I was a radical socialist until I was 30 years
old. And when I found out a little bit of what was
going on, I changed my mind.

///

68

Q Are you a member of any church, Dr. Morrow?

A No.

Q Do you read the Bible with any regularity?

A No.

Q When was the first time you had any contact
with the Arkansas Attorney General's office in this
case?

A The last time?

Q The first time.

A The first time. Well, I don't remember
the date. I guess it may have been about a month or
so ago. Somebody called me up from the office --
let's see. What was the guy's name. I'll have to look
at my briefcase to dig it out.

Q Tim Humphries?

A It was a guy before Tim.

Q Rick Campbell.

A I think it was Rick Campbell.

Q And what did he say to you when you called?

A I don't remember exactly, but it was
something -- I guess it was something to the effect
about me appearing in the case as a witness, and I
guess he asked me what I thought about it.

Q Did he say how he got your name?

A I don't remember, I really don't. I would

69

guess he had been given it by Wendel Byrd, I think,
who called me up earlier. That's just a guess, though.
That's --

Q Did Mr. Byrd ask you to be a witness in
the case or if you would be a witness in the case?

A I don't know if he asked me. I may have
volunteered before he asked me.

Q Has Mr. Byrd been in contact with you
since then?

A I don't believe so.

Q Well, when you got in touch -- when Mr.
Byrd got in touch with you in relation to this case,
is this the first time you had spoken with him?

A I believe so.

Q Is it the only time that you have spoken
with him?

A Well, I may have spoken to him more than
once, but I doubt if I have spoken to him more than
twice.

Q Did he visit with you in Spartanburg?

A No.

Q Who drafted the intervenous document
that we were looking at before?

A You mean this thing? (Indicating).

Q No, no. I mean this (indicating).

70

A Frankly, I don't remember. It may have
been Byrd.

Q But did you basically speak with him
over the phone and relate this --

A I know I spoke with Byrd at length over
the telephone. Now, it could be that as a result of
that consequence, he put this together. That would
seem to fit. I don't think it was Humphries, though,
and I don't think it was Campbell.

Q Have you ever testified in any court
proceeding?

A Any court proceedings?

Q Yes.

A I testified in the suit once.

Q What was that suit in relation to?

A Well, on February 23rd, 1963, a very
precociousness boy, age 15, burned down an apartment
house that I was living in, and about three weeks
prior to that time, the superintendent of the building
found the same boy setting a similar fire. He stopped
the boy, admonished him not to do it again, and didn't
tell anybody else.

Three weeks later, the boy pulled off a
coup de grace; whole place went up like a Roman candle
at 6:00 o'clock in the morning with me on the top floor.

71

Damn near killed me and a lot of other people; produced
a lot of material damage; almost wiped out my Master's
thesis.

This bothered me a great deal and also
bothered the other people who lived there; so we
sued the apartment manager -- or I should say, you
know, the owner for restitution of damages, since we
maintained the manager was, of course, incompetent.

Among other things, we lost the suit.
And there was a trial, and I had to appear at the
trial and, I guess, what, testify.

You know why we lost the suit?

Q Because?

A One witness who overheard the boy
confessing had a heart attack and died before the
trial. The heart attack had been brought on by the
stress of the fire. The manager, who freely admitted
his negligence to the commissioner -- the fire
commissioner of the City of Philadelphia vanished
and was not available for the trial. The judge did
not allow the fire commissioner to testify for
reasons I found most perplexing.

Q Hearsay, I suppose.

A No. He interviewed the kid. He inter-
viewed the kid on the day of the fire and got a sworn

72

testimony from him. Now, the boy refused to testify
on grounds of the -- what was it, the Fifth Amendment.

Q Yes.

A And so the judge threw it out. That
bothered me a great deal; made me rather less liberal
in such things.

Q Have you testified in any other kind of
quasi judicial proceedings?

A Not that I can remember.

Q Before a Legislature.

A Oh, oh. Well, I testified before the
South Carolina General Assembly Education Committee
with respect to the South Carolina Creation Law --
South Carolina Creation Evolution Law.

Q When was that?

A Let's see. It was either one or two years
ago in the spring.

Q Did you prepare a written speech for that?

A No.

Q Do you know if there's a transcript of
that proceeding?

A If there exists one, I don't know of it.
I typically do not like to write things down. I
prefer to speak.

Q Was the testimony that you gave before the

73

South Carolina Legislature, do you anticipate it will
be similar to the testimony that you would give in
this case?

A I'd like to think I had more time. I
think they gave me ten minutes; and essentially what
I said was that I found no difficulty -- I foresaw
no difficulty teaching biology, shall we say --
modern biology, if I had to work under the South
Carolina law. I also pointed out that the principle
of falsification applied equally to evolution and
creationism.

I also said something to the effect that
in my experience, very few high school biology
teachers really knew enough about evolution to teach
it intelligently. They didn't like that. They were
all out there in the audience and treated me as some
kind of pariah.

Q Any other kind of testimony similar to
that --

A I don't think so --

Q Before any school boards or --

A No. I've told a few people I'd be glad
to talk if they wanted me to, but they haven't asked
me.

Q Have you ever given speeches on Creation

74

Science and evolution?

A I, shall we say, sort of lectured in an
ad hoc way around school on the controversy and on
what could be called what we should be doing in
teaching science, and I remember once I had a
luncheon talk before the Spartanburg Ministerial
Association.

But none of these were prepared -- you
know, I prepared what I was going to say, but I didn't
have any written down. I learned years ago that I
simply didn't follow a written text anyway.

Q Have you ever been charged or convicted
of any crime?

A Not that I know of.

Q Have you discussed the specifics of your
testimony with anyone from the Arkansas Attorney
General's office?

A Oh, a little bit with Mr. Childs here
before we came in here.

Q What did you discuss?

A What did we discuss? Oh, I would say,
in a general way, the kinds of things I might be
asked. But I think he rather spent much more time
asking me about myself, the kind of things I found
interesting.

75

Q What about your testimony did you discuss?

A Very, very general things.

- - -

76

Q What were the general things that you
talked about?

A Let me see. I remember something to the
effect that an important aspect, I guess, of your
challenge to the law rests upon academic freedom.
And I guess also that we may have spent a little time
talking about what creationism means or is involved
and how it posed evolution.

He didn't put words in my mouth or
something like that, it's very difficult.

Q Are there specific areas that you anti-
cipate testifying about?

A I would expect three. I think I told him
there were three.

Q What are they?

A I would like to testify or would feel
comfortable testifying -- this is not in order of
increasing or decreasing importance or anything like
that.

First to a certain extent as a scientist
on what I would think would be the scientific aspects
of the dispute, if there is any.

Secondly, I would like to testify as a
teacher; and thirdly, as a private citizen, parent.

Q What would be your testimony as a private

77

citizen or parent?

A I see absolutely no inconsistency with the
First Amendment. I think singularly, unmoved by
judicial decisions, to the contrary. And I also
believe there's a concept of fairness and fair play
that's a part of what I call the American Concept.
And I think you guys are against it.

Q Does the Arkansas Citizens for Balanced
Education in Origins believe that the Flat Earth
Theory should be taught in school --

A I thought --

Q -- the Phlogiston Theory.

A I doubt it.

Q Why not?

A There is rather poor evidence for those
things.

Q Is there good evidence for Creation of
Science?

A I think it is better than the two things
that you mentioned. We can certainly disprove the
Flat Earth Theory by flat out experiments. Phlogiston
was discarded quite a bit ago.

Q So was Creation of Science.

A Only in the minds of certain people. I
would call to your attention that vitalism was also

78

was also discarded a hundred years ago and it keeps
popping its little head up.

Q I guess that gets me back to where I
started. What's the scientific evidence that supports
Creation Science?

A The science that supports Creation Science
would be those pieces of evidence that would appear
to explain things better than Evoluation Science.

Q What would that be?

A Preeminently the statistical difficulty
with having those reactions occur, as I see it. That
to me is enough; that to me -- there is enough
difficulty with the statistics to allow or to insist
upon the inclusion of an alternative model in a
compulsory government-run school system.

Q An alternative model, is that the earth
10,000 years ago, an alternative model that there is
a massive world-wide flood that lay down the geologic
column in one year?

A Well, if they wanted to present the
evidence for it, it would be very interesting.

Q I guess what I don't understand is --

A It becomes to what you are trying to foster
in a school classroom.

Q That's exactly the point.

79

A Now, we get down to basics, as far as I
am concerned. You guys essentially are putting
yourselves in the position of the State of Tennessee
about the middle of the 1920's. You want to close
out other ways of reasoning through the evidence.

And rather interestingly, what could be
called our side is in the position that scopes that
in a very broad general way of understanding. You
fellows want a close forum for your own pet model.

And if I may continue, you want to do it
at public expense, yes. Government schools are run
by taxpayers' money. You won't make it voluntarily.
It's like a lot of other things that I think again
that the ACLU wants.

You don't like voluntaryism when it
touches on the things that are really important.
You fail to see relationships where they are absent.
And also difficulties where they are absent.

(Thereupon, an off-the-record discussion
was held.)

MR. CHILDS: Just because David is
representing ACLU does not mean that he
necessarily agrees with all of the contents
that they stand for.

He is an advocate. Don't direct anything

80

personally to David.

THE WITNESS: I don't mean it personally,
I just happen to get that way.

MR. KLASFELD: No offense taken and
I am sure not intended.

THE WITNESS: When I get in debates
with people, the same thing happens with
me. Let's just say that I feel very strongly
about these things and I am not accustomed
to discussing totally dispassionately.

MR. KLASFELD: Fair enough, neither
am I.

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) I guess my problem is
from a frankly just a sort of intellectual scientific
point of view is if there is -- as a scientist, you
are unsatisfied about the possibility of the Creation
of Life from nonlife during the two billion years
that's necessary.

Why not just say that's a problem with
the evolution model? Why contrast it --

A For several reasons.

Q Let me finish. Why contrast it or allow
it to be contrasted in school with other models which
you testified earlier which you know of no scientific
evidence to support five of the six criteria for the

81

model?

A Well, there are several reasons that are
involved here, reasons of my opinion. One has to do
with what you should be doing in a classroom, okay?

Now, what you should be doing as a teacher
is fostering, understanding, and learning and
facilitating on the part of the students that develop-
ment of what could be called an inquiring mind. You
should be developing what could be called healthy
intellectualism. I don't believe you do that when
you only have one explanation for any phenomenon.

Now, we go back to Phlogiston. Quite
frankly, if you take the trouble to present to the
students the arguments for the Phlogiston Theory,
Lavoisier argues to the contrary. You foster on
the part of the students an understanding of what
the scientific method involves.

Now, I don't think you would be opposed
to presenting Phlogiston in that light, and I don't
see any reason to be opposed to having scientific
creation presented.

I could name several other things where
typically if you have a multiple-working hypothetical
approach, better learning, better teaching, and
better education can be one of the consequences.

82

Q My question really is: Why not contrast
Oparin and Fox's thinking with directed panspermiogenesis?

A Why just have two models, why not have
several?

Q But if your concern is simply limited to
the notion of whether or not two billion years is
sufficient time for life to have developed from nonlife
on the planet, why is it necessary to get involved
with a theory in which you don't believe in any of the
aspects of it?

A Well, there are other things that are
separate from the technical aspects of the question.
And these include the sensitivities of the people in
the country who help support the public school system.
I mentioned a while ago that we have a concept called
"fairness in this country." And one way that you allow
fairness to occur is to allow parents or allow
taxpayers who are a minority group to have their views
expressed.

You don't just have a simple presentation
of one explanation for a whole series of things which
apparently are factual in a classroom.

Q Based on the scientific evidence, isn't it
insane to think that the world was created 10,000
years ago?

83

A I think insanity requires only one kind
of thing to be presented to developing intellects.

Q Maybe insane was too strong a word.
But isn't it the epitome of nonscience to think that
the world was formed 10,000 years ago and to teach
that to schools?

A The epitome of nonscience is a closed-
mind presentation of any topic. Now, if there is a
body of opinion that asserts that the world is 10,000
years old, I think there is plenty to be gained in a
course in science to handle the evidence for that.

What do the evolutionists have to be
afraid of? Are they afraid, for example, that the
evidence is so strong that some people may think the
earth is only 10,000 years old? What's the fear?

Q Do you think there is any evidence that
the earth is 10,000 years old?

A Personally, I don't know of any. But
that doesn't mean to say that I don't think people
ought to be allowed to present it.

And the other thing is that people have
to get the kind of education that they think their
kids ought to have. The education that kids get in
a classroom should not be picked by the teacher up
front.

84

Q How would you decide what is taught and
what isn't taught in a classroom?

A Ultimately, the people who vote in a
state or school district. We have what could be
called a democracy. You present your ideas and
express your strength or influence through all sorts
of indirect mechanisms like school boards, okay?

Q Yes.

A If you are going to have a public school
system, then you have to decide what's going to be
taught. The only way you can decide that in a fair
way is let the people decide.

Q We should vote?

A Not just the practitioners.

Q We should vote as to what gets taught in
the classroom?

A You should vote for people who represent
your views. You can't vote on every nit-picking
thing obviously. But the people who make up the
backbone of the country should be able to pick who
they want to represent their views, the view shouldn't
come down the other way.

Q If Arkansas and South Carolina voted to
teach that we were at war with England and Germany
was on our side in World War II, that should be

85

taught in history class?

A If the people of Arkansas are paying for
the education, ultimately they are the ones who should
be able to decide what's taught.

Q If they wanted --

A If they want nonsense taught, they should
be allowed to teach nonsense.

Q That would be okay with you as an educator?

A I wouldn't be happy with that specific
teaching, but we would be much better off having
the people of the state teach nonsense since they
are paying for it than a totalitarian way of learning
things that they are also having to pay for.

In other words, I am a believer in
freedom, young man, not the idea of teachers doing
anything they like.

Q I understand and appreciate that.

A I find the alternative argument is most
reprehensible; that indeed -- I can't ask any questions.

Q You can ask me questions.

A How will you decide what's taught in a
biology classroom?

Q How would I decide?

A Yes.

Q That isn't the question that i was

86

anticipating.

A That's the one that I asked.

Q Some questions are appropriate for me to
answer and some aren't. That I view as one that's
not.

A Okay. There is a very simple way out of
this whole problem: You don't teach either.

Q You don't teach either?

A Right, isn't that rather obvious? Is it
critical to the safety or sensible progress of this
country that we always treat all controversial things
in public education?

Q No, of course not.

A Well, I point out to you that the
typical pieces of legislation are in favor that
we don't require the teaching of Creation Science;
we require it as a balance.

Q But as far as you are concerned, whoever
the Arkansas taxpayers want taught in schools is
what should be taught in schools?

A You have oversimplified it. It has to
do with the public school system and, let's say, the
court as a last resort should again do what the
people want taught.

Q Regardless of the factual merit of what

87

they want taught?

A Yes, because they are paying for it.
What is a fact to one group of people is not a fact
to some other group of people.

Q Is there some specific incident that
changed you from a radical Socialist to the
philosophy that you hold today?

A Several things happened over a period of
about, roughly, ten years.

Q What were they?

A In the first place, I made the acquaintance
of a man who was one of the ten best chess players
in the world, Paul Schmidt.

Dr. Schmidt was a chemist in a laboratory
where I was an assistant. And as you probably suspect,
I like to talk about things. When I was the lowest
guy on the tandem pole in this lab, I bothered all of
the chemists with the ideas of Lenin and Marx and
so on.

By and large, they ignored me and treated
me with, let's say, a great deal of amenities. I
was the best guy they had that ever cleaned the
place up.

One day Schmidt came over to me and said,
"Bill, have lunch with me and read a little book that

88

I will give you." I proceeded to do it. Over
approximately one year, Schmidt and I had lunch
a few times each week and discussed the book.

Being essentially young and stupid, his
ideas didn't really sink in until I was a bit older.
The little book was Frederick Hyek's The Road to
Serfdom.

Then I also made the acquaintance later
on when I was 29 years old of a fellow who was much
younger than me who was my lab assistant. He had
no real complete college education. His name was
Harold. Harold and I liked to talk about politics
and political theories and economic theories. No
one else in the lab liked to do this.

So Harold and I had lunch every day for
a long period of time. I found much to my discomforture
Harold was a better analyzer of human behavior in the
marketplace than I was. Now, let's see, were there
other people in between? Somewhere along the line,
I picked up Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. Let's see.

Those are the things that remained in my
mind. Harold, Dr. Schmidt, and Ayn Rand.

Q Did this conversion take place around
the same time that you changed your name?

A No, totally unrelated.

89

Q I asked at the same time, not whether or
not it was related.

A No, I essentially changed my opinions
when I was approximately 29 to 30 years of age. And
the name change occurred later.

Q What's the first contact that you had
with the Creation Science movement?

A The first contact?

Q Yes.

A I guess the first time they ever sent me
a copy of Acts and Facts.

Q How did you come by that?

A Frankly, I don't remember. I am not trying
to be evasive, but all kinds of stuff is sent to me
all the time. I have no idea how I get on many of
these mailing lists.

Q How long was that?

A I am sure it was several years ago, I
guess. But I really have no idea how I got the
first copy of it; I really don't know.

Q When was the first time you initiated
any kind of contact?

A Let's see. It probably was this letter
to Major Rhodes which I told you I can't find. And
I wish someone would find a copy so I can have a copy.

90

MR. CHILDS: I am sure they will
have it.

A (Continuing) Okay. It seems to me that
my friend, the botanist downstairs, may have had
something that he circulated -- and I know I have
got it in my briefcase -- a whole series of statements
one, two, three, four, five, and, I think, the appended
letter had something to say like if you agree or
disagree with any of these things, please contact
Major Rhodes, the President of the South Carolina
Biological Teachers Association.

So I sat down and typed out a letter to
Major Rhodes telling him where I stood. I also
challenged him to debate it. I never heard from the
guy, of course. That's how I got started with Rhodes.

I don't remember how Wanger first heard
of me, but it would be conceivable that somehow or
another I had gotten on the mailing list of the
Creation Research Society or whatever you call it;
that they may have automatically sent Al Wanger all
of the names of the people in South Carolina. And
maybe he contacted me that way, I just can't remember.

Q Are there any other criteria that you have
that you view as indicia of science?

A As what?

91

Q As indicia of science.

A I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the
word you used. Indicative of?

Q That's another form of the word.

A By and large, I think something is
scientific and direct proportional to how well you can
test it.

Q So testability?

A I think that's the ultimate thing, the
fundamental thing.

Q You had made reference before to falsifi-
bility.

A That has to do with testability. If you
can by tests show something is incompatible with the
facts, then that satisfies the falsifibility criteria.

Q Is evolution testable?

A Some processes of it are, yes.

Q Which processes?

A Mutation and, I think, certain aspects of
natural selection.

Q Which other processes of evolution aren't
testable?

A I think the other sort of thing is
observational. In other words, You said essentially --

Q Another criteria.

92

A Well, observation is not as good as
control testing obviously. I mean, the essence of
doing a scientific experiment is to be able to
manipulate viabilities and see what their relative
relationships are.

I don't think you can do this observation-
ally with evolution, not in the past.

You dig down and take out a core of what's
down there and try to make sense of what you are
looking at. And you try to fit that into what we
know about such processes --

Q But you don't think that's testable?

A What I said previously was that I don't
believe we have a way of testing how life began on
the planet, okay? Once you got a cell, I can accept
the idea that the cell could have evolved and given
us, let's say, advanced life forms that characterizes
the earth right now.

But I don't see any way that we can test
or prove how that first cell got here. I think it is
all speculation.

Q Okay. But after the appearance of life
on the planet -- however that occurred -- is the
rest of evolution testable?

A The processes are testable. We can show

93

that mutation occurs. We can presumably make
calculations to approximate the rate of mutation
in terms of solar radiation, for example.

And then we try to fit that into what
would be needed to create the rather large genetic
changes that are needed and going from, let's say,
a bacterium to a simple bucarriotic cell and up to
Phlogiston.

We can test those processes in a very
limited way. I find those results very encouraging.
And I think they are a very useful and excellent model
to account for that Darwinian-type of evolution.
Now, the earlier part is where the problem is.

Q Is the three billion years or so from the
first appearance of life on the earth to the present
sufficient in your mind to have accomplished evolution
from the basic forms to life as we know it on earth
today?

A Probably, although I see some stumbling
blocks. I find it very difficult to see how the human
brain could have evolved all right. That's a very
complex structure and I find that very difficult to
understand. Anatomical variety and physiological
complexity, separate from the brain, I have intuitive
sense that this is not too difficult.

94

Q Do you have a theory about how the brain
got to its present capabilities?

A No. You have to rely on the ideas of
other people.

Q Is Creation Science testable?

A I would say it is testable; it is non-
testable to the same extent that evolution is in
during that early period.

Q In the early period?

A In the early period. Now, in the later
period, my reasoning would be something like this:
If the creation scientists say there was a world-wide
flood 10,000 years ago, then it is incumbent upon
them to show us the evidence for it. Then when we see
the evidences, then we deal with the evidences. It
is not incumbent upon me to show nonevidences, although
it wouldn't work.

Q Have they shown you any evidences?

A No. The creation scientists have not
been particularly interested in converting me to being
a creation scientist.

Q To the extent that you have done reading
on it, have you seen any evidence that supports the
notion of a world-wide flood in the last 10,000 years?

A No, not that I found persuasive. Typically,

95

as I said previously, Creation Science is based more
upon identifying and maybe interrelating what looked
like inconsistencies in evolutionary theory.

The fact that the creationists don't,
to my way of thinking, have a coherent model, that
does not make their approach intellectually unacceptable.

Q How would you distinguish between the
creationists' model and sort of a model that would
hypothesize that a Creator made the world yesterday
and implanted within us the memories that there
existed a time before that? How would you distinguish
those two models?

A I'm unaware that any creationists
proposed that the world was made yesterday.

Q I am proposing my own model.

A I would certainly say fine, let's see
your evidence for it.

Q I have no evidence for it.

A Then I can't very well do much with it.
I can't prove the lack of availability of your evidence
if you can't show me the evidence.

Q What's the evidence for --

A In a dialogue like this, it is incumbent
or it's the responsibility of the person that makes
the assertion to offer the first evidence.

96

Q What is the evidence that the creationists
have asserted which suggests that the world was made
a million years ago?

A What is the evidence of that?

Q Yes.

A Well, among other things, the creation
scientists do not believe or do not accept the dating
methods as far as I know. And I would say they like
to believe -- they point out insufficiencies in,
let's say, the operating physics that make possible
carbon dating.

Q Do you have any of your own personal
doubt of the efficacy of carbon dating?

A No, I don't. But the thing is I am not
a specialist in radio carbon dating. Generally
speaking, in science, what we have is a lot of
faith in science. We typically called it confidence
in other people and what they do. Okay.

Now, if I read, for example, the work of
Willard Libbey on radio carbon dating, I am left with
two alternatives: Either Willard Libbey knows what
he is talking about or he doesn't. I prefer to believe
that Willard Libbey knows what he is talking about.

Q Whose writings do you believe on the
problems created by the gaps in the --

97

A Try that again.

Q You testified earlier --

A That there are gaps --

Q In the fossil record that are not
satisfactorily explained by evolution science.

A I would be happy if there are more
transitional forms.

Q My question is: Which writings that
question the gaps in the fossil record lead you to
believe that the creation scientists have a better
solution to those gaps?

A I don't believe they have a better solution
to those gaps. We are again on the Darwinian side
of things. I don't think they have a better solution,
but that does not mean to say that again in a classroom
that those views should not be expressed.

Q I guess we spent a few hours talking.

A Let me try this one on you. Let's say
we are talking about what caused the Great Depression.
Now, as far as I know, nobody knows what caused the
Great Depression. But the only way to try to find out
what caused the Great Depression is to show in model
explanations and try to test them, that's the thing.

Q We have been talking for a few hours.
We will talk for a few more hours.

98

THE WITNESS: Can we take a break?

MR. KLASFELD: Sure.

(Thereupon, a short break was held.)

- - -

99

Q Let me not take up where I ended off.
I'll get back to it, but not just now. I do, however,
want to get back to what we spoke about just at the
beginning, which is your belief that there wasn't
enough time in the two billion years or so before
life appeared on the planet for life to have been
created from nonlife.

Just what are the calculations that you do
to lead you to believe that that was unlikely, if not
impossible?

A Well, one would have to estimate how
long, let's say, a piece of DAN would be needed for
self replications. This would be one approach, now,
just one approach. Then you would have to estimate
what the probable concentrations were.

Q Concentrations of what?

A Of the molecular building blocks of the
DNA. You'd have to estimate these concentrations on
the primitive earth. Then you would have to estimate
how frequently these molecules would collide or come
into contact. You'd have to estimate how frequently
they would form, what we call dynode nucleotides.
Like, you have a mononucleotide here and a mononuc-
leotide here; two come together; it they attach
properly, you get a dynode nucleotide. You'd have

100

to make the calculations that would indicate how
successful these calculations would be toward building
a long chain.

Now, I don't think that I could make those
calculations from a kinetic standpoint. It would
take a kineticist to do it. But intuitively, I strongly
feel that there's not enough time for that to occur.
Now, that would just be a piece of DNA.

Q What leads you to this intuitive belief?

A It's a sense of statistical probability.
Let's see. How can I explain it? I don't know any
way that we can show that mononucleotides will build
up a long chain by simple molecular contact in the
absence of a catalyst, and then the catalyst would
not be available unless it had the form.

Q What catalyst are you referring to?

A Well, today, we have enzymes; so we would
be talking about whether an enzyme were available to
foster the formation of a nucleotide polymer.

Q What about -- what do you find unsatisfactory
about Stanley Miller's experiments?

A I don't find anything unsatisfactory about
what I know of Stanley Miller's experiments. Are you
talking about the famous Urey-Miller experiment?

Q Yes.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. W. Scott Morrow - Page 3

101

A That's a very admirable experiment. I
wish I had done it.

Q Well, why doesn't that experiment satisfy
you with respect to --

A Oh, that's your thrust. Miller was able
to show, for example, that hydrogen, methane, and
another synthetic could produce polypeptides of a
molecular kind. As far as I know, there has been
an insufficient amount of catalytic activity on the
part of those synthetic polypeptides to account for
what would be needed for DNA synthesis to occur.

Q Are there other authorities in the field
who have done these calculations and satisfied them-
selves that there wasn't enough time?

A I don't know.

Q Is there anybody in the field who agrees
with your position that there wasn't enough time?

A I don't know.

Q But you're not aware of any?

A No. I haven't really looked around for
people.

Q Are there people in the field who do
believe there was enough time?

A I would expect that someone like, Seygud
or --

102

Q Now, Seygud's not a biochemist.

A Well, that doesn't keep him from having
the opinion of the statistical validity of other
people's work.

Q Are there people in this area of expertise
who do believe there was enough time?

A Well, I would expect Miller or Steinman
and Fox, of course, any of Oparin's students -- any
of the people that are particularly in molecular
evolution, I would guess that they are working with
the assumption that there is sufficient time. This
is the prevailing belief; okay?

Q Okay. Are all of the combinations that
you would take into account in doing this study,
this statistical study, are all of those collisions
random?

A As far as I know, they're random. In
order to be nonrandom, you would have to be able to
show a chemical -- a preferential chemical affinity
for certain groupings; okay?

Now, I don't really think, from what I've
read, that there's a sufficiently strong argument
for a preferential chemical affinity.

Q So that even once it got started in a
very basic way, that the advance from there was

103

completely random?

A Well, see, randomness, in chemistry, may
or may not be operating in a given system. Typically,
what we call randomness has some preferential
possibilities over others. But I don't really see
that there's enough evidence for that preferential
activity to support an accelerated formation of a
polymer.

Q Are you aware of anyone who has done
these calculations which --

A I would assume that Kenyon and Steinman
have made such calculations, and I would assume that
they found them insufficient and had been to propose
another factor.

Q Have you read any of these studies of
calculations?

A I've read an interesting textbook by
Steinman and Kenyon. It's called "A Predistical
Calculation."

Q But in that text, don't they believe that
there was enough time for all these things to take
place?

A I don't think they discussed it that
way. I don't think they were concerned with the time.
I don't remember it being in there.

104

Q Why did you make reference to the text?

A Because I said that I presumed that they
needed to postulate another factor.

Q Do they postulate another factor?

A They postulate what I think would be
equivalent to another factor.

Q Which is?

A The general idea that there is an
accelerating tendency for molecular organization as
a function of molecular weight. At least this is
what I get out of what they wrote.

Q What do you understand the science of
Creation Science to be? How would you define it?

A I would say it's an accumulation of
asserted inconsistencies or insufficiencies in the
evolutionary model.

Q Sort of a negative science?

A I think that's too harsh.

Q Well, are there any positive theories that
are --

A I would say the fact that the criticism
comes from people with respectable credentials makes
it a positive contribution to science.

Q But do they postulate any kind of
positive kind of notions that replaced the areas that

105

they criticize?

A Well, they look at the same evidence
that the evolutionists do and draw different conclusions.
Now, I find this a positive activity if, for no other
reason, as an evolutionist it would make the evolution-
ist's work a bit harder to prove their case and find
additional evidence.

Q Well, this about the creation of the
earth 10,000 years ago, is that part of Creation
Science?

A I'm certain it is in the minds of some
people, but I don't consider that of any particular
importance in holding my own position.

Q Well, but the Statute -- I mean, we're
talking about the Statute here. That's what this
case is about.

A Does the Statute say that? What does
it say in here that --

Q It says "relatively recent."

A Well, does it say 10,000 years?

Q No.

A Well, then, relatively recent, to me,
might mean two billion years.

Q How would you feel about the teaching that
the earth is 10,000 years old?

106

A I think that would be very interesting.
I think it would be very difficult for someone to be
able to establish to the satisfaction of a group
of scholars that the earth was 10,000 years old.

Q But we're not talking about a group of
scholars. We're talking about a group of eleventh
graders.

A Okay. Let's make it a group of five-year-
olds. Let's put it that way. Any way you want. If
the experiment is properly designed, you bring in your
evidence and you state your case, and then you let
the people sit there and make their decision. I
wouldn't want to have to prove that it's 10,000
years old.

Q But this bill would require the teaching
of separate ancestry from different --

A Fine. I think that's perfectly satisfactory.
A teacher does not have to be an exponent and a
believer of everything that he presents; all right?
If we want to foster understanding on the part of
students, you let alternative hypotheses exist and
be weighed in the balance of the classroom.

Q Well, why these alternative hypotheses?

A Why not?

Q Why these?

107

A Because I think they affect a substantial
number of people who send their children to school
in this country in a government-sponsored program.

Q What is the source of all these people
believing these six listed things?

A The human intellect.

Q Anything else?

A No.

Q Does it have anything to do with Genesis?

A Oh, I suppose some of them believe in
Genesis literally, and some don't; but I think that's
quite preferable.

Q But you think these six things don't have
anything to do with Genesis.

A They don't have to.

Q Well, what if --

A It's irrelevant.

Q Well, what about my theory about God
creating the world yesterday?

A Fine. Then get out there and use your
legal/political pressure and use it in your school
system.

Q And if I could pass it in Arkansas, then
that would be okay with you?

A Yes. If, indeed, you're paying taxes

108

and we're talking about a government-sponsored system.

Q Would you be for any bill that -- let me
ask you this. Were you for this bill before it passed?

A I'm for the concept of people being able
to control the education that their children receive
at taxpayers' expense, and if they want something
taught, it's taught; if they don't want something
taught, you don't jam it down their throats. If
something is deeply controversial, believe me, the
knowledge can be gotten by other means than the public
school system.

Q Why did you testify for the Act in South
Carolina?

A Because I believe in the necessity for
openness in education; I believe in intellectual
fair play --

Q But why this particular belief system?

A What belief system?

Q Why this particular theory?

A Because it has a coherent body of --
there's a coherent body of opinion in the State of
South Carolina manifested by people who are taxpayers
in South Carolina and that are satisfied with the
existing state of affairs.

Q Okay. I guess where I started was, I was

109

asking you what Creation Science was, and you said
that it was --

A Right.

Q -- more or less an accumulation of
asserted inconsistencies in the evolutionary model.

A As I see it.

Q Well, the Statute says -- defines
Creation Science as, among other things, the
explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism,
including the occurrence of world-wide flood.

A Right.

Q So is that part of the science of Creation
Science?

A Presumably. And if I were teaching in a
classroom, I'd go off and try to find the evidence
and present it to the class.

Q And separate ancestry for men and apes
is part of Creation Science?

A I would presume so.

Q And changes only within fixed limits
originally created kinds of plants and animals?

A Yeah; all the things there.

Q That's part of Creation Science.

A I would presume so.

Q Is there any scientific evidence in

110

support of any of those things?

A I don't believe it's my responsibility
to produce the evidence. I'm interested in making
the possibility available for the people who think
they have the evidence to come forth and make it
available in a classroom.

Q And you would support any bill that
offered the teaching of a different model in any
course?

A I would support legislation that improves
the chance that there is dogmatic presentation of
anything in a public institution.

Q Do you have any expertise in the area of
brain evolution?

A I doubt it.

Q Why does the complexity of the brain
lead you to believe that there wasn't enough time
to have it evolve?

A Well, it has to do with the formation
of brain circuits. I don't know how many billions
of neurons and neuronal circuits exist in the human
brain, but let's say it's ten billion; all right?
How do these things spring up? It's incumbent upon
people who believe in some type of slow development
of complexity that produce the circuits available on

111

a molecular level.

Q Do you think that evolution in and of
itself in any way contradicts the Second Law of
Thermodynamics?

A That's a very interesting question. It
depends on how you interpret the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.

Q Does it have anything to do with evolution?

A I certainly think it does.

Q Do you see any conflict between the Second
Law and evolution?

A I see potential conflicts, yes.

Q What are the potential conflicts?

A Well, it has to do with how you define
the system.

Q What's the problem with defining the
system?

A You can pretty much get anything out of the
Second Law, depending upon how you define your terms.

Q You're talking about whether it's an
open system or a closed system?

A Only in part.

Q What other aspects of the definition of
the system?

A Closseous referred, I believe, to an

112

isolated system.

Q How does the sun's interaction with the
earth affect those issues? Isn't it an open system
in the sense that the sun is always providing energy
to the earth?

A Again, it depends upon how you define your
terms. You can have a system that's essentially and
almost completely closed, as opposed to one that is,
you know, much more in contact with the rest of the
universe.

Q I understand all of that.

A Right. Okay. So if you --

Q But what possible conflict do you see
between the Second Law and evolution?

A Well, it's -- I don't see any way to
prove the bloody thing.

Q Prove what bloody thing?

A I don't see any way to prove that evolution
is in concert with the Second Law.

Q Well, do you see any problem with it?
Do you see any inconsistency?

A The inconsistency is that you can't prove
it. The Second Law -- as far as I know, the Second
Law seems to best work for relatively straightforward
cases in nature.

113

Q And?

A And when you start in making the system
larger and larger and larger, it becomes more
universally applicable, but increasingly difficult
to test.

Q Yes. But what conflict is there between
the Second Law and Evolution?

A Well, that's what I'm trying to tell you,
that -- well, what -- I can't answer that many questions.
To be able to answer that, you have to tell me what
you mean by "the Second Law."

Q Well, I'm reading in this letter to you
from --

A All right.

Q -- Duane Gish. It says, "I have read the
book 'Biochemical Predestination' by Kenyon and
Steinman, as well as many others books on the
origin of life and on the Theory of Evolution. I have
yet, however, to find a rational explanation of the
apparent contradiction between the Second Law of
Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution."

Are you aware of any apparent contradiction?

A Well, it's a question of how you define
the system.

Q Do you know what Dr. Gish was making

114

reference to in his letter to you?

A Dr. Gish, if I remember correctly, feels
that evolution violates the Second Law; okay? And
there is various ways to understand the Second Law.

Now, if we take, as a presentation of
the Second Law, the idea that there's a natural
tendency in the universe for physiochemical processes
to go in a direction of increased disorder, that
appears to be in violation of the evolutionary concept
where you have disorder moving toward more order.
Okay?

Q But that will only be true in a closed
system, wouldn't it?

A As far as I know, it's true in an
isolated system.

Q Well, is the earth an isolated system
relative to the sun?

A I think that that is difficult to show one
way or the other. I think the best guess would be that
it is not an isolated system. But I'm not a thermo-
dynamocist.

Q Plants grow, don't they?

A What's that got to do with it?

Q Well, it's increasingly complex from the
seed to the plant. Doesn't that violate the Second

115

Law.

A Not necessarily.

Q Wouldn't it if the earth was an isolated
system?

A If the earth were an isolated system
and if you saw, let's say, as an overall net effect
on this planet, increasing complexity, that would be
a violation of the Second Law.

Q Do you see increasing complexity?

A Yes. Well, now, wait. We see other
things too; right? You see more that increasing
complexity out there.

Q What else do you see out there?

A You see a whole host of phenomena that
are very difficult to sum up in terms of a net effect.

Q Are the aspects of Creation Science, as
defined in the Statute, testable?

A You mean right here (indicating)? To a
certain extent.

Q Which ones, and to what extent?

A Well, I presume that -- let's say, .1
here, we could envision designing an experiment to
produce living systems very, very quickly starting
with, let's say, the most fundamental elementary
particles and energy.

116

Q How would you disprove that the universe
was created from nothing?

A You can't.

Q Okay. So that's not testable?

A Well, you can design experiments that
parallel what we think a hypothetical scenario would
involve, and you could run the experiment and look
at the conclusions and extrapolate back into the
unknown.

Q What sort of experiments would you propose?

A I don't have any such experiment to propose.

Q So you couldn't devise an experiment that
would test that?

A I don't think so. But I'm not saying it
can't be done by other people.

Q How would you test the explanation of the
earth's geology by catastrophism, including the
occurrence of a world-wide flood?

A Probably, this would be an observational
activity. You'd go out there and look at the geology,
take core samplings all over the planet, and then,
let's say, hypothesize processes that would be consistent
with a world-wide flood. It's incumbent upon the
people who accept these and believe these things and
go do them.

117

Q But you're testifying on behalf of this
Statute.

A I'm testifying on behalf of the
Statute in terms of the importance of the Statute
fostering learning in a public school system.

Q But you don't care --

A I'm not testifying in support of
Creation Science, so to speak.

Q As you understand it, is your testimony
going to be limited only to the educational value of
teaching an alternate model, or are you going to
testify about the science problem?

A I say there's three, let's say, pins
on which I could base my testimony; okay? To a
certain extent, as a scientist, as an educator or
teacher, and as a parent or citizen.

Q To what extent as a scientist?

A To the extent that I believe I can present
or at least give support to the statistical problems
in going from a sterile planet to a replicating cell.

Q Through these mathematical computations
that you've never done.

A I think that's an unnecessarily harsh way
to put it. There are many things that we feel to be
right in science and other fields that we cannot embody

118

in specific experiments or mathematical formulas,
equations.

Q How do you define the study of evolution?

A It's the study of processes that are
either Darwinian or pre-Darwinian.

Q Well, is evolution what took place from
the formation of life up to the present, or does it
necessarily include the formation of life in the
first place?

A I think if you want to study evolution,
you have to concern yourself with the very, very
beginning of all things, and then you continue on to
where we are now and project it into the future.
And, also, you try to make some type of relationship
here, let's say, to culture.

Q To culture?

A Right; yes.

Q In what regard to culture?

A Sociobiological extensions of Darwinial
concepts.

Q What do you mean by "sociobiological
extensions"?

A Well, sociobiology is essentially the
science of evolution of human behavior and culture
and all the things that lead up to it.

119

Q Is it satisfactory to you that a science
only be negative? I mean, other examples of science --

A In the very beginning of a science,
I think that's the perfectly logical way to begin.

Q Is this the beginning of Creation Science?

A What. I don't know what you mean.

Q Well, you're saying that it would be okay --

A Creation Science may be in its infancy
right now, I think is what you're asking; and I think
if you would take the time to study the development
of scientifical concepts, you'll typically find
that the best progress is made where people find
insufficiencies in existing explanations, so in
nomalies, and attempt to explain them. There's nothing
wrong with starting with a negative position at all.

Q This theory embodied in the definition
of Creation Science, wasn't that a theory deposited
in the 1820's and 1830's by the geologists in England?

A Possibly. I don't know.

Q Are you familiar at all with the historical
debate among the geologists in England in the 1820's
and --

A Not familiar enough to discuss it
intellectually.

Q Are you familiar enough to recognize that

120

this theory embodied in the definition of Creation
Science is approximately the same argument that they
were making then?

A I would say no. I would rather study
that a bit more to give a sensible answer.

Q Are you familiar with any other scientific
discipline which is made up only of inconsistencies
and --

A Well, off the top of my head, I'd say no.
But the thing is, given enough time, I mean -- I would
say that probably all science has grown by people
focusing on what's not known and what insufficiencies
are in existing explanations.

Q I think that I would agree with you about
that. Is there some insufficiencies in our knowledge
about whether or not man and apes evolved separately
from our ancestry?

A There are certainly debatable opinions
even among evolutionaries in this as to how it
happened and when it happened and --

Q And I think those are important questions
to study.

A Why, I do, too.

Q Aren't we past the point of studying
whether or not it came about that way?

121

A Not necessarily. Not necessarily.

Q What information are you aware of that
leads you to believe that that would be a worthwhile
scientific pursuit, to study separate ancestry from
man and apes?

A Well, a scientist does not study
necessarily with a specific goal in mind. He goes
and looks for evidence, and he hopefully has the
courage and the intellectual openness to take -- to
go where it takes him. Then he interprets the evidence.

Now, if I'm in applied science or
technology, I might be trying to make a better glass
to hold a Coca-Cola. That's directed science. We're
not talking about directed science here. As far as
I know, we're talking about what is appropriate for
scientists to do.

Now, if scientists find it interesting
and valuable to look for separate lines of divergence,
fine; they go look for it.

Q They are not talking about separate lines
for divergence; they are talking about --

A Or separate lines of origin.

///

122

(Thereupon, a short recess was held, and
Dr. Norman Giles and Dr. John W. Crenshaw
exited the deposition.)

EXAMINATION

BY MS. FERBER:

Q Dr. Morrow, do you know when the Arkansas
Citizens for Balanced Education in Origins was founded?

A No.

MR. CHILDS: I want the record to reflect
that we object to more than one attorney con-
ducting the depositions. It hasn't happened
in the last week. This is the first time,
and I just make that for the record.

MS. FERBER: Off the record.

(Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion
was held.)

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Are you an officer in the
Arkansas Citizens for Balanced Education in Origins?

A I believe so.

Q What office do you hold?

A Vice President.

Q How did you come to be Vice President?

A I was asked to be Vice President by Professor
Gran.

Q And how did you first come in contact with

123

Professor Gran?

A The phone rang and I picked it up, and he
was on the other end.

Q Do you know why he called you?

A I would suspect he called me because he had
found out that I was generally interested in supporting
this type of legislation.

Q Do you know how he would have found that out?

A Not specifically, but it was certainly no
secret in South Carolina that I was in favor of it.

Q What is the purpose of the organization?

A The purpose is to require a balanced treatment
for the topic of origins in the public schools of Arkansas.

Q And how does the group seek to achieve this
purpose?

A Passing a law to require it to be done.

Q Do you know where the organization gets its
funds from?

A No, not specifically.

Q Is it connected with any other Creationist
organizations?

A I would imagine it is. I would find it diffi-
cult to believe that they were working on an independent
effort here.

Q What organization is it connected with?

124

A Well, I don't know. I said I imagine that
they --

Q What has been your duties as Vice President?

A Up to now, they have asked me to do nothing.

Q Okay. Why did you agree to be Vice President?

A Because I believe in their cause.

Q So it is a token office only?

A I wouldn't want to say that.

Q But you haven't done anything as Vice Presi-
dent?

A Maybe just sitting here doing what I'm doing
here this afternoon. That is what they wanted me to
do. I did tell them I had an awful lot of time to
travel and lecture and things like that, but I presume
they are simply agreeing with my original request.

Q What other persons are involved in the organi-
zation?

A I would assume that Miran is, since he's the
President.

Q Anybody else that you know of?

A I don't know anybody else.

Q Are there attorneys that represent the group?

A I would imagine so.

Q Do you know who they are?

A As far as I know, Wendell Bird may be one. I

125

think the gentleman sitting behind me, he is probably

one.

Q Are you indicating Mr. Childs?

A I believe so. I would assume that Humphries
and the others --

MR. CHILDS: Not so, not so.

THE WITNESS: Well, I stand corrected
there.

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Was it explained to you why
anybody wanted you to co-chair the organization?

A Was it explained? Well, if I remember correctly
I had a conversation with Gran. We seemed to be in
agreement on the purposes of the organization, and I
would have, I guess I could say, that he was pleased
that as an evolutionist I take the position that I do.

Q Was it ever explained why they would ask
somebody from South Carolina to chair the Arkansas
Citizens for Balanced Education in Origins?

A I don't think so. But I don't find that
unusual. I mean, if the organization has to have some
name.

MS. FERBER: I would like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 a one-page letter
to Dr. Morrow on Wendell Bird's letterhead.

///

126

(Whereupon, the document was
marked by the court reporter
as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2
for identification.)

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Dr. Morrow, this is a copy
of a one-page letter to you from Wendell Bird. Have
you seen this letter before?

A I don't remember specifically, but --

Q I believe --

A -- if it's in the bundle of stuff I gave you,
yes.

Q Okay. And this letter indicates he is trans-
mitting to you a copy of the affidavit requesting that
you notarize it and return copies to Wendell Bird and
Curtis Thomas. Is this the cover letter that would
have come with the affidavit in support of your inter-
vention?

A I would imagine so, yes. If I have a copy
of it, it ought to be in that pile of stuff.

Q Okay.

MS. FERBER: I'd like to mark as Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 3 a copy of handwritten notes which you
provided to us today.

(Whereupon, the document was
marked by the court reporter
as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3
for identification.)

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Dr. Morrow, I show you

127

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3. Are these a copy of your
handwritten notes?

A Very definitely.

Q Where it indicates, I believe, transportation
and lodging expenses to be paid by Defense Fund --

A Yes.

Q -- do you know what Defense Fund that refers
to?

A I would presume the A.C.B.E.O.

Q And that is a defense in support of this
legislation?

A I am guessing that. I told them I did not
have the money to pay for the expenses myself.

Q And these are notes of a conversation you had
with Rick Campbell, Assistant Attorney General of
Arkansas?

A Let me take a look at it.

(Pause.)

No. I remember -- I remember something like
this, where he asked if I charged a fee, and he said
no.

Q And Mr. Campbell indicated that the Defense
Fund would pay your expenses to Arkansas for trial?

A I've written down to be paid by defense
Fund. Well, I guess he indicated it if I wrote it. It

128

could be -- I don't know if I heard him correctly, okay,
but I wrote down that, sure.

Q Thank you.

How long have you known Paul Elanger?

A I guess a year or two, probably a couple of
years.

Q Do you remember how you first came in contact
with him?

A I seem to recall getting a letter from him,
or some other type of correspondence, and I would guess
that he asked me if I would appear or give support to
the South Carolina law that somewhat is similar to the
Arkansas law, and he may have called me on the phone,
I forget. But one way or the other, I said sure.

Q Who is Mr. Sisk?

A Sisk?

Q Have you ever heard of Mr. Sisk?

A I don't know anybody called Sisk. Who is Mr.
Sisk?

Q In a copy of a letter between Elanger and Mr.
Gish, he refers to correspondence from Dr. Morrow and
Mr. Sisk.

A Billy?

Q Did Paul Elanger write to you and describe
any probable control mechanisms you could conceive which

129

would --

A I don't know if it was Elanger. I think maybe
Gish asked me that, or something like that.

Q When was the first time that you saw Act 590,
the Statute that was passed in Arkansas?

A I think it was today.

Q Okay. Had you ever seen a similar bill?

A I would say the South Carolina bill was
similar.

Q Do you know if it was almost exactly the
same or exactly the same?

A If I remember correctly, the South Carolina
law was not as specific or definite, I'll put it that
way, and probably not as inclusive.

Q At the time when you signed your affidavit
in support of the Motion to Intervene, --

A right.

Q -- had you ever seen Act 590?

A I didn't see a copy of it.

Q Okay. Had somebody explained to you what the
bill was about?

A They would have had to, or I would not have
agreed to support it.

Q Do you remember how that bill was explained
to you?

130

A No, not as such. I would guess it had been
explained to me by Wendell Bird, the guy that was maybe
taking the deposition. I may have said, well, what is
it that you people are trying to do, and somebody pro-
bably explained to me. And I said that sounds pretty
good, if it sounds like the South Carolina thing, I
would certainly do it.

Q What is your understanding of what 590 requires?

A It mandates a teaching in the balanced way
of these two different models in the public schools of
Arkansas.

Q What is --

A Now, I've got to correct that. It does not
require the teaching of both, but it does assert that
if you are going to teach the evolution model, then you've
got to teach the balanced.

Q Okay. What does balanced mean to you?

A An evenness of approach that provides alter-
native scenarioes or explanations for origins that
ideally is, you know, not dogmatic.

Q In Section I, Act 590, it states that balance
is required if material deals in any way way with the
subject or origins.

A Yes.

Q What is meant "in any way"?

131

A If the topic comes up, then you have balance.

Q Section II of the Act prohibits religious
instruction. What does "religious instruction" mean?

A I would say directed teaching of religious
concepts, say, direct teaching of religious concepts
period.

Q What are religious concepts?

A Well, concepts based upon metaphysical beliefs
that are typically not scientific testible.

Q Is Creation Science scientifically testible?

A I've answered that quite a few times.

Q And am I correct that you answered, no, it's
not testible.

A I said, in my opinion, it is -- it would be
difficult, or is difficult to test many aspects of
Creation Science, if not all of it, in somewhat the
same fashion that it's difficult to test similar aspects
of evolution science.

Q Okay.

MS. FERBER: I'd like to mark as Plaintiff's
Exhibit 4 a one-page document with the heading
"Citizens for Fairness in Education," a
document which you produced to us today.

(Whereupon, the document was
marked by the court reporter
as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4
for identification.)

132

Q (By Ms. Ferber) I call your attention to
the lower half of the chart head, "Scientific Creationism
Creation Science," and under that chart, there is a
box headed "Inherent Religious Implications."

A Okay.

Q I understand that to be referring to the
Inherent Religious Implications of Creation Science?

A Yes; kind of directly.

Q Okay. Do you believe that there are Inherent
Religious Implications to Creation Science?

A Yes. And also in Evolution Science.

Q Thank you.

Section II of Act 590 also prohibits reference
to religious writings. What does religious writings
mean?

A Writings by people whose primary vocational
activity is religious belief or theory or actions.

Q Does this mean merely that a teacher can't
refer to the Bible or textbook, can't quote scripture?

A It would include that, but not really restricted
to that.

Q What are kins?

A Kins?

Q Yes.

A Well, the way this seems to be used by Creation

133

Scientists is an alternative to, I guess, species.

Q Okay. Do you know what the origin of the
term "kins" is?

A I would suspect it's -- well, I would expect
it to be in a religious writing.

Q The Bible, perhaps?

A Probably. In fact, I think it does.

Q Okay. What does catastrophism mean?

A It means processes that happen rather suddenly,
perhaps unpredictably, in such a way that the effects
are enormous, relative to the system that's being
affected.

Q Does it have anything to do with the inter-
vention of God?

A It would be consistent with it, but it doesn't
require it.

Q Does Creation Science necessarily infer the
concept of the creator?

A I would say, no, not the way I see it. It's
consistent with it, but it's not a necessary require-
ment.

Q So you -- how would you teach Creation Science
without reference to a creator?

A Without reference to a creator? Well, I
would concentrate on what evidences there would be for

134

and against different scenarioes for the appearance
of life on the planet. Okay?

Q And when a student asks you where that life
come from, what would you say?

A I would have to tell them, of course, that's
unknown, and as far as we know, it's untestable.

Q How do you feel as an educator as leading a
student to a question that you can't answer?

A It's a perfectly valid way to do things, my
goodness. In your -- in teaching at all, most questions
that you are asked, you can answer, and what I try to
do is foster an intellectual activity in the student
and yourself to try to get answers.

Q Would you agree that teaching the concept that
the Earth was created by a supernatural creator is a
religious idea?

A Well, let's just try that again.

Q Isn't teaching the concept that the Earth was
created by a supernatural creator instruction in a
religious idea?

A Yes.

Q At 590 states that it prevents the establish-
ment of theologically liberal, humanist, Nontheist,
or Atheist religions.

A May I see that somewhere?

135

Q Yes. It's in Section VI of the Act.

A Okay.

Q In the middle.

A Okay.

Q What is a theologically liberal religion?

A Didn't you ask me a question on that?

Q No. I stated the Act said that, as a pre-
ference to my question.

A Okay. Go ahead.

Q What is a theologically liberal religion?

A A theologically liberal religion? It's kind
of a funny question to ask and agnostic. I would say
that a theologically liberal religion is one that is
rather non-stringent in the specific dogmas that must
be accepted to partake of -- to partake in that relig-
ion.

Q What is a humanist religion?

A I think that's a religion that's based upon
man being the ultimate center of the universe and it's
a religion of by and for human kind, for mankind.

Q By the way, these may be strange questions to
ask and agnostic, but I'm asking them of somebody that
is a supporter of Act 590.

A Sure.

Q What is a Nontheist religion?

136

A I guess it would be a religion that does not
require the belief in a God or, shall we say, does not
require a belief in a specific or traditional God.

Q Section VIIB of Act 590, states, Public
Schools generally censor Creation Science and evidence
contrary to evolution.

A As far as I know.

Q Does censor mean to suppress or Creation
Science arguments haven't been argued as a Creation
matter to warrant inclusion in a text?

A I think it's a combination of those things.

Q Creation arguments have not had sufficient
secular merit to warrant inclusion in textbooks?

A I would phrase it somewhat differently. I
would have no doubt that there is a certain degree of
conspiracy involved. And the second thing would be,
insofar as there being secular support -- in order to
have such censorship, you only really need, let's say,
an understanding or a belief on the part of the people
that are responsible for the teaching that that is so.
In other words, what I'm trying -- what I'm trying to
deal with is a certain aspect of what you said.

Q Okay.

MS. FERBER: I'm sorry, could you read
back his answer so far?

137

(Whereupon, the court reporter read the
record as requested.)

THE WITNESS: I would not want to support
the idea that a majority of people were opposed
to the teaching of Creation Science. What I'm
trying to say, is, that's taught in the class-
room, and is left up to the teacher within the
teaching community today, I think there's a
general bias against teaching Creation Science.

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Why?

A Largely because if what they were taught.

Q Since the time that these teachers were
taught biology, let's say --

A Yes.

Q -- have there been significant advances that
would lend more credence to Creation Science?

A Not necessarily. Not necessarily.

Q Therefore, students of biology today would be
taught the same as your term "biases" as teachers of
today who were students several years ago?

A Possibly. But let me phrase it a little
differently. In conversations with people who teach
all sorts of things, and perhaps especially those aspects
of biology, I have found too few teachers who know
enough about evolution to really teach it appropriately.

138

Okay? And I think there's an unacceptable degree of
the non-acceptance of Evolutionary Theory on the part
of biology teachers, rather than an understanding that
science is a developing-type knowledge, and as a
general tendancy on teachers to teach things that are
proven facts. And then we go to the next thing.

Q How much contact do you have with elementary
and secondary school teachers?

A Well, over the last 15 years or so, off and
on, I've talked to biology teachers and other teachers.

Q Preferably, how often?

A How often? I guess maybe about every six
months I run into one or two of them.

Q And do you feel you have a good grasp of
what they are teaching in biology?

A I think so. I -- let's put it this way: I
remember one occasion where I was asked to do some in-
service teaching and Chesnee in South Carolina, and I
wasn't particularly satisfied -- those teachers were
fine people and all that, but they werent' really
science teachers, in the sense that I would want them
to be science teachers.

Q How would you want them to be science teachers?

A I would want them to be much more interested
in teaching kids how to learn things than just teaching

139

them specific bodies of information.

Q Do you think it's important that students
learn what science is?

A I think it's very desireable, yes.

Q Do you think Creation Science is a good
science?

A It can be as good as the person teaching it,
just as evolution can be as lousy as the person
teaching it.

Q Is it possible that Creation Science isn't
a science at all?

A To answer that, I would simply have to say
that something is as scientific again as how well you
could test it.

Q Okay. If Creation Science isn't testable,
and it's taught along side something, which educators
believe should be taught as science, what does that
do to students' ability to understand what science is?

A Well, the way you phrase it, Creation Science
would fall flat on its face, wouldn't it, and the
students should be able to observe that. On the other
hand, if the same degree of skeptisism is presented to
the evolutionary ideas, I think you'll find the typical
student would not accept that either. He concludes
that science has nothing really to offer him in regards

140

to these things.

Q Why shouldn't the same healthy degree of
skeptisism be applied to evolution?

A I think a healthy degree should be applied to
all healthy aspects of proven things.

Q I'm having trouble with understanding how a
high school biology student, most commonly a tenth
grader, is equipped to deal with this healthy skeptisism.

A You are having trouble with that?

Q Yes.

A Well --

Q I'd like to know what tools a tenth grader
brings to the classroom by which he's going to under-
stand that what is being taught to him is a science,
and what is not a science, is emerged as a science?

A Well, I think that the typical tenth grader
today finds enormous difficulties with many intellectual
concepts which are introduced prematurely to them.

Now, ideally if a teacher is trying to handle
these kinds of things, the teacher might pose a series
of problems that require explanation or solution, then
the teacher should try to foster student inquiry to
accumulate the evidence for an organic hypothesis. In
teaching them the scientific method --

Q Okay. If you teach students about science,

141

and you teach them the scientific method, and then
you teach them in a science classroom something that
is not science, how are they going to understand what
science is?

A Now, you present them with a problem. You
try to explain to students what the scientific method
is. Okay? Then you present a problem, can science
offer us information for understanding in this, on this
specific phenomena.

Q Act 590 requires that Creation Science be
taught as science.

A Fine.

Q You have thus far indicated some problems of
the Theory of Evolution --

A Yes.

Q -- which appear to me to be the evidences that
you have offered in support of Creation Science.

A Yes; in a sense, yes.

Q Okay. Are there any other evidences, scien-
tific evidences for Creation Science, other than the
problems with the Theory of Evolution?

A I think those are quite sufficient.

Q Okay. If what you teach students is a scien-
tific evidence for Creation Science is far more than
the evidences, the problematic evidences for evolution,

142

why is that science?

A I don't see why it's not. What we should be
trying again is to foster this healthy skeptisism.

Q Okay. Didn't you earlier say that some
kind of panspermiogenesis is another possible theory
of origins?

A Yes.

Q Are there any other Theories of Origins?

A Well, there's a whole flock of them, but I
don't think they necessarily are all testable poten-
tially as, let's say, panspermiogenesis.

Q Are the scientific evidences that suggest a
problem of evolution also evidence in support of pan-
spermiogenesis?

A To a certain extent, I guess.

Q Okay. Why does Act 590 only require that
evolution and Creation Science be taught?

A Those are the things of most concern pre-
sumably to the people of Arkansas.

Q Okay. If the problematic scientific evidences
about evolution are evidences in support of panspermio-
genesis, why are they also scientific evidence in support
of Christian Science?

A I don't know if I understand.

MR. CHILDS: I don't think you can expect

143

him, and I very rarely say anything, but I
really don't think you can expect him to tell
you what members of the Arkansas legislature
were thinking, and that's assuming they were
thinking about this. The Arkansas legisla-
ture, by our 1876 Constitution, can only meet
for 60 days every two days.

MS. FERBER: Yes.

MR. CHILDS: Except for, I think, they
can -- there's some way that the Arkansas
Supreme Court says they can have a 15 day or
a 30 day extension.

MS. FERBER: Right. Or a special session.

MR. CHILDS: Emergencies -- no, not for
a special session.

MS. FERBER: Okay.

MR. CHILDS: The Governor --

MS. FERBER: I'm sorry, I don't know
what that has to do with his opinion as to
the scientific evidences that Act 590 requires
to be taught.

MR. CHILDS: Well, you asked him why the
Act did not have panspermiogenesis.

MS. FERBER: No, I didn't. I asked him
why the scientific evidences that he taught

144

would have to be taught under Act 590, why
those were scientific evidences for Creation
Science, and not for something else. And my
next question would be, how are school children
to understand that?

MR. CHILDS: I'm sorry. I misunderstood
your question. I thought you asked why the
third theory was not being taught. I with-
draw that.

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Okay. If the only evidence
in support of Creation Science are the same evidences
which also support panspermiogenesis, or any other
Theory of Origin, other than evolution, how does the
school child understand that those are evidences in
support of Creation Science?

A The school child is going to experience a
considerable amount of confusion on these topics.

Q Thank you.

A May I add something?

Q Sure.

A But that is unrelated to this law.

Q Do you think confusion in school children is
a good thing?

A It depends on what we are talking -- what kind
of confusion we are talking about. I think it's obvious

145

to me in talking to students that come to Wofford
College, there are largely South Carolina students,
but they do come from outside the state, too, their
understanding of origins is rather muddled.

Q Why?

A Quite frankly, I think the teachers that
have taught it have been asked to teach something that
is most difficult and perhaps in perfectly misunderstood
at best, even by the experts in the field.

Q Isn't it likely that their understanding of
origins is muddled because not of what they learned in
the classroom, but because it conflicts with religious
teachers and origins?

A Not at all. I find the same type of muddle-
ness in understanding the American Economic System.

Q Act 590 states that Evolution Science is
contrary to the religious convictions or moral values
or philisophical belief of many students and parents,
including individuals of many different religious
faiths and with diverse moral values and philisophical
beliefs.

A It certainly can.

Q Does it hinder religious training and moral
training by parents?

A I think the dogmatic teaching of anything can

146

have that effect.

Q Will hinder religious training?

A I think the dogmatic training of anything can
have that effect, yes.

Q Does the presentation of evolution alone
produce hostility towards many religions?

A It can have that effect.

Q How?

A Students can be rather vunerable to what's
presented to them in a classroom, and a teacher has
an obligation to understand their intellectual vuner-
ability, and not to capitalize on it for, say, they're
teaching specifically philisophical purpose. A teacher
has to recognize that a balance is needed in many
things, and to teach students, perhaps, how to get to a
state where they can pick in a more unbiased way their
final understanding of things.

Q Is evolution a religion?

A It can be, and frequently I think it's taught
as if it's the equivalent of religion.

Q So that teaching of evolution underminds the
religious belief of fundamentalist students?

A It can, yes.

Q Does a presentation of Creation Science support
the belief of fundamentalist students?

147

A It can.

Q Is the desire to prevent the underminding of
religious belief one of the major reasons for requiring
that Creation Science be taught?

A It's not one of mine. Other people who are
in support of it would have to answer it in their own
way.

Q What's your major reason?

A I believe in openness and fairness in educa-
tion, and I believe that it makes good sense again to
teach, say, a multiplicity of explanations or models.

Q Do you expect that belief in literal interpre-
tation of Genesis would be --

A I doubt it. It would be exposed to arguments.

Q Have you ever taught in the elementary or
secondary level?

A No.

Q Okay. Are you familiar with Creation of
Science writings textbooks?

A To a certain extent.

Q Have you ever read any of that that don't
contain biblical references?

A Not that I can think of.

Q Are you aware of any Creation Science teaching
materials that would be available to implement Act 590

148

in public schools?

A It seems to me that the -- I will say I have
in my files enough material that I could put together
a cogent summation of Creation Science without --
without reference to scripture.

Q Okay. For your own teaching?

A Yes.

Q But not materials you would hand out to your
students?

A Oh, I would have to put these materials
together.

Q And this is material that would enable you
to present Creation Science on the college level?

A I would think so, yes.

Q Are you ever involved in training teachers?

A Well, once again I was involved in an in-
service effort, which was like a one day shot.

Q Okay.

A I have had an occasional student at Wofford
College who has gone on to high school teaching.

Q Do you believe that teachers are properly
trained to teach Creation Science?

A I would have to say that I have some reserva-
tion that teachers are properly trained or educated
today to teach most things, including all forms of

149

science.

Q Do you think that most teachers know how to
teach Creation Science without relying on the religious
tenements?

A I sort of answered that with my previous
statement. It would be a rather incompetent teacher
who has to lean on religious materials to teach Creation
Science.

Q So teachers would be incompetent to lean on
religious materials, or not know how to teach it?

A They would have to learn how to teach it.
They would have to sit down and study the topics rigor-
ously.

Q In your experience, do teachers sit down
rigorously and present them in a --

A Not as much as they should.

Q Are any unsettled areas, scientific disputes,
currently taught to school children?

A Yes -- wait a minute, unsettled areas in
scientific disputes?

Q Similar to the Creation Evolution controversy.

A Possibly the sociobiologist discussion, that's
at least controversial as Creationism and --

Q What is sociobiology?

A Again, it's the study of the evolution of

150

human behavior and culture.

Q Is that taught in high school biology courses,
as far as you know?

A It can be fashionable for teachers to intro-
duce a certain cutting edge of scientific inquiry, and
I would expect some sociobiology to be taught or
discussed, at least, in pre-college level work.

Q Okay.

A And then in a certain sense, if you are
dealing with the influence of science and technology
on human decision making and human civilization, that's
very controversial.

Q Can you think of any other scientific disputes
that you think are taught to pre-college level students?

A I can't think of any, but I really doubt that
the teachers in this level of instruction are that
knowledgeable in those disputes. I think they have
their hands full with a lot of other things.

Q So the Creation Evolution controversy would
be one of the first, or the first such dispute that
most teachers would be teaching in science courses?

A Could very well be, yes.

Q What does academic freedom mean to you?

A Well, let's see, the best answer to that, I
think I've already put that down in one of these documents.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dr. W. Scott Morrow - Page 4

151

Could I look at that document?

Q Which one?

A That affidavit that was circulating around
here someplace.

Q Certainly.

A Thank you.

(Pause.)

Now, what I said before was something like
this: A teacher should be able to present a scientific
topic that's under investigation in such a way the
teacher should not feel reservations about the accuracy
or the completeness of the material that was being
presented. Okay. Now, I think that -- that's a
pretty good idea there. I think it pretty much reflects
my feeling.

Q How does mandating that a teacher teach the
scientific evidences for Creation Science foster aca-
demic freedom as you have just defined it?

A Well, I would say that you are assuming that
the teacher has great reservations about the accuracy
and completeness of Creation Science, and I don't think
that evidence is available.

Q Would it surprise you if a lot of teachers
had reservations about the accuracy?

A No; it wouldn't surprise me.

152

Q If teachers had serious reservations about
the accuracy of the evidences they were required to
teach, in fact, serious Creation Science was, in fact,
science, wouldn't it violate their academic freedom
rights to require them to teach it?

A Academic freedom is not a Constitutional
right. It's an academic privilege. And such teachers
would be advised to seek alternative employment in an
alternative school system.

Q So if a teacher is true to their own belief
in academic freedom, a teacher who did not believe
that Creation Science was science, ought to seek
alternative employment that teaches science as a
science?

A Well, teachers should not attempt to teach
things that they are uncomfortable in teaching. If
they have severe intellectual reservations, they ought
to do something else.

///

153

Q Are you suggesting that in the face of
the Statute that a teacher who doesn't believe in
creationist science ought to find alternative employment?

A What I am suggesting is that if a teacher
cannot obey the law, they may very well find himself
looking for alternative employment, yes. That's a
common thing, school boards mandate all sorts of
teaching.

Q Do you know of any other subject area
where a Legislator has mandated specific contents
of courses?

A I don't know about direct legislative
mandating, but I would say in an indirect way, the
requirement for specific goal levels of achievement
in precollege work is the equivalent.

Q But what I asked is were there any other
indications where they mandate the specific subject
matter, content of a subject?

A Well, I guess I would have to say no.

Q I was just making sure I didn't miss any
laws.

A Okay.

Q do you believe that there is a concept of
academic freedom which attaches to students that
students have any academic freedom rights?

154

A To a certain extent.

Q Would you describe those?

A Well, fundamentally, I would reason from
the standpoint of who is paying for the endeavor.

Q Would it be easier if we started with
the question of whether parents have academic freedom
rights?

A I think parents have a very definite right
to govern the education of their children in a govern-
ment educational system.

Q How do they endorse that right?

A Ultimately, I guess, by the power of the
ballot.

Q All right. As a scientist or as a science
educator, do you have a definition of religion?

A Do you want me to give you a definition of
religion?

Q Yes.

A I thought I did that earlier. Now you
are asking me to come up with the same definition,
perhaps?

Q I'm sorry. What I am trying to know is
if religion is forbidden to be taught in the public
schools, how does a teacher know religion when they
see it?

155

A That's a good question.

Q Thank you.

A I guess I would say that something is
religious if there are no ways that we can deal
with it scientifically.

Q But it is okay if the only way we can
deal with it scientifically is to reject another
theory; that's scientific?

A I don't know if I understand what you mean
there. My concept of what could be called the
scientific fields are those things that can be studied
by the scientific method. It requires interest,
objective testability, and the doing of experiments.

Now, things that aren't able to be treated
that way may very well be religious. Certainly,
religious things fall to that category of things.

Q Is the reason that you believe Creation
Science is science -- if you believe that -- is that
because it's no less science than it is evolution?

A In many respects, I think that's correct.

Q It's no more religious than evolution
is religious?

A I think either of those models of origins
can be a religious or a scientific as the ability of
the person doing the talking to make it.

156

Q If a student asked you: Who is the
Creator, how would you respond?

A Who is the Creator?

Q Yes.

A I would simply say that I, of course,
don't know. I don't know how to find the answer.
But I don't mean by that to imply that there is one.
Let's include that.

Q I do not want to mischaracterize your
testimony, but I think you said earlier that Creation
Science can be taught without explicit discussion of
a Creator.

A In my opinion, yes.

Q I am trying to understand the differences
in the way you could teach on a college level and the
way that high school science is taught, and, therefore,
to understand how a teacher would implement the
actual requirement --

A Teach the corresponding evidences for
Creation Science without reference to a Creator.
How did we get to the college level? Unless they
are a publicly financed institution --

Q The bill applies only to the elementary
and secondary level which does not mean to imply
otherwise.

157

A How would you --

Q You indicated that you could teach it
without reference to a Creator. But you teach on a
college level, not on a high school level.

A I do, yes.

Q And I understand that your testimony
will center on an approach to teaching the two mouths
of origins in a nonreligious manner?

A Yes.

Q So what I am trying to --

A As far as the scientific aspect and the
teaching aspect, that's separate from me speaking as
a citizen and as a parent.

Q I understand that. What I am trying to
understand is whether your ability to teach two
mouths of origins in nonreligious manner can be
generalized to a high school teacher's ability to do
the same.

A I would certainly hope so.

Q Then I have to go back to what scientific
evidences for Creation Science a high school teacher
is going to present that are within the understandings
of a high school student?

A Well, I suppose we would have to do
something like this: It has been decided presumably

158

to teach topic X and presumably in the very beginning
of such an effort there's not a body of coherent
knowledge about topic X that allows us to pick up a
book, open it up, and there it is.

So you go to the learned individual in
the field that is related to topic X, you put together
-- if topic X is indeed controversial at all, you
go to the learned individuals on each side of the
question and ask them to accumulate or formulate the
evidence that can be used for and against their
specific feelings about the matter. And then you use
that.

Q How does a teacher know who are the
learned individuals to look to?

A I don't think there is any difficulty
in finding those people in the areas that we are
talking about. There is a significant number of
well-qualified scientific people who are studying
creation research as they see fit. And it is
certainly an equivalent number of people.

Q An equivalent number of qualified
scientists?

A Let me back up. There is enough people
available on both sides of this controversy with good
credentials to make those materials available.

159

Q Who are the scientists with good solid
credentials who are writing about or presenting
evidence in support of Creation Science?

A I think Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris, probably
Dr. Parker.

Q What are Dr. Gish's credentials?

A He has a Ph.D. in biochemistry at Cal
Tech.

Q Dr. Morris?

A I don't know where Morris got his degree,
but I heard him lecture on evolution and creation.

Q Do you know what his field of specialization
is?

A Thermodynamics.

Q What about Dr. Parker?

A Parker, I don't know. I think he may be
a biologist.

Q If this bill had not been passed, do you
think Creation Science should be taught?

A I think so, yes.

Q Why?

A Well, we go back to this business of
teaching science as a way to find out about the
world and things and not just as a dogmatic endeavor
to present accepted theories and accepted facts and

160

also from the standpoint of basic American fairness.

Q But why Creation Science?

A Why not? That's the apparent antithesis
of noncreation science.

Q Creation Science to the exclusion of other
theories of origins?

A If theories of origin have a significant
body of scholarly opinions behind them, fine, bring
them in.

Q Are there other theories of origins
besides evolution which have an equivalent amount of
scholarly endeavors behind them?

A Not to my knowledge. However, you just
stated evolution.

Q Evolution and Creation Science.

A In other words, there is a theory of
the origin of the world, universe, and mankind that
the American Indians and Hindus have had and so on.
If, indeed, there is enough of an interest for all
of the Hindus to present, they ought to get their act
together and bring the scholarly material together
and bring it in.

Q Specifically, what writings of Dr. Gish
and Morris do you think are scientifically valuable?

A Well, I was impressed with two public

161

lectures and debates that I heard Morris involved in.

Q Can you identify those?

A Huh?

Q Can you identify those more specifically?

A When I was teaching up at Concord College,
Morris came twice.

Q When was this?

A Let's see. Between 1968 and 1970. And I
was unfamiliar with Morris in every way, shape, or
form up to that time. And on one occasion, if I
remember correctly, he debated on evolutionists --
wait a minute. I believe he debated the chairman of
my biology department. I was very much impressed
with the way Morris handled his topic and also evolution.

Q Is he a good debator?

A I think he is excellent.

Q And do you remember what kind of scientific
evidences he presented that impressed you?

A Again it has to do with resulting what
he thought were the insufficiencies of the fossil
record and the interpretations by the evolutionists.

Q Why were you impressed by what he said
that day?

A Well, I would have to say that he gave
a cogent argument that led me to conclude that he knew

162

what he was talking about, although I didn't neces-
sarily agree with it.

You can be impressed with someone's
ability to discuss and explain their point without
agreeing with them. And I came to the conclusion
that if I had to debate somebody, I would hate to
run into Morris.

Q Do you believe that all minority viewpoints
should be taught?

A If they are significant in the culture
and terms of the expression of public opinion, yes,
in a publicly-financed endeavor.

Q Are there any written works of Dr. Morris
that you find scientifically persuasive?

A There is some stuff that I got from Acts
and Facts that were pretty good where he sort of
summarized his criticisms of evolution and summarized
what he thought were the evidences for Creation
Science.

Q Any published works of Dr. Gish?

A I don't know that I can recall those
things by Gish. I have read extracts from debates
that Gish had. And it sounded, let's say, scholarly,
let's put it that way. It was good stuff, scholarly,
worth dealing with. If I am an evolutionist, okay.

163

It was worth dealing with.

Q Morris also had one book that I read when
I was at Concord College -- I forget the name of it.
But it had a good bit of scientific reasoning in it.
I forget the name of the book.

Q Could it have been the Genesis Flood?

A I think I read that, too, but I don't
know if that was the only thing that I looked at.
We taught evolution there from a controversial
standpoint.

Q What do you mean by that?

A Well, the fellow that I worked for was
the chairman of the department and he liked to teach
from the standpoint of a method of inquiry with respect
to science. You state a problem and then in a
discussion group, you separate -- the students would
sort of wrestle with how we would go about trying to
prove this pro or con. And the guy was more or less
fair with it.

The evolution argument was given in the
biology textbook that we used. And then he would
allow any discussion groups, anything else he wanted
to be brought in as sort of an antidote, if you want
to put it that way.

Q Who controls what you teach in a classroom?

164

A At Wofford College?

Q Yes.

A Well, Wofford is quite laissez faire about
it.
Q So you control what you teach in your
classroom?

A At Wofford College. If I really got out
of hand or did something that the kids were very much
opposed to, you can bet your sweet life that the dean
would hear about it.

Q Is there a process whereby scientific
theories gain acceptance in the scientific community?

A I think so.

Q And can you describe that process for me?

A I would say that in any given time, there
is probably a working general concensus of what is
acceptable in terms of scientific hypotheses or
principles in the whole body of scientific practitioner
Okay. It is sort of a concensus state of affairs.

Q Do scientists publish articles?

A Yes.

Q Is that part of the process whereby
theories get acceptance?

A That's right. And if you are very
persuasive and it looks pretty good, you achieve a

165

certain amount of popularity.

Q Do textbooks have significant influence
on what's taught in the classroom?

A They certainly can.

Q Is there a process whereby materials must
gain acceptance in the scientific community before
it is included in science textbooks?

A I have been told there was such a process.
As far as the actual mechanisms of it, I don't know.

Q Do you know of any textbooks that give
balance treatment to Creation Science?

A There is one that I had in my possession
for a short period of time, but I forgot who published
it.

Q Could it have been Biology, a Search for
Order and Complexity?

A It could have been, I don't remember the
name. This was quite a few years ago, and I remember
looking through some and it looked pretty balanced.

Q Why has Creation Science gained significant
acceptance in the scientific community?

A I will have to answer this in a couple of
different parts. First, I am not so certain that
there is that much opposition to it. I am unaware
that there has been really valid polls taken among

166

scientists with respect to the specific problem.
Okay. That's the first thing.

The second thing would be that there
has been a general development of evolutionary
explanation for things over about the last 50 years
or more. And people and scientists are included in
here, of course, and I think they tend to pretty
much believe what they have been taught. And I think
that, say, following the turn of the century an
increasing number of scientists -- shall we say --
believed in or felt that the evidences for evolution
were superior to the creationism that was more popular
than before.

And they taught people who taught other
people. There's been a gradual acquiescence or
acceptance of these revolutionary ideas.

Q Do you receive scientific journals?

A Do I receive them?

Q Yes, regularly.

A I subscribe to a couple of them.

Q Which ones do you subscribe to?

A To the Scientific American and Science
and also Chemical Engineering News.

Q Are there any other ones which you, in
the course of your employment, would review?

167

A When I read Biochemistry -- that's the
name of the journal. On sort of an irregular basis,
as I have time, as part of my research work, my
students and I do a continual literature search through
chemical abstracts. When we find abstracts of articles
that are of interest, we get photocopies sent to us
of the original documents and I read those.

Q Are these journals that you have just
identified scientific journals that you respect?

A Yes, very much so.

Q Have you found articles by creation
scientists?

A No, typically not, no.

Q Do you have an opinion as to why not?

A Well, to get something published, it is
necessary to get it past some type of review committee.
And generally speaking, if the ideas or topics or the
evidences that you have written about are unacceptable
to the review committee, you don't get published.

Q Are there criteria that those review
committees use?

A I have been led to believe that that's
the case.

Q Do you know what those criteria are?

A Not really. I would say in the last

168

analysis, the review committee would have to have a
sense of validity and appropriateness, you might say,
of the material.

Q Do you teach Creation Science?

A I do not now.

Q Have you ever?

A No.

Q Do you teach anything of the origins
of life, man, earth, or the universe?

A I touch on it peripherally in my biochemistry
course.

Q Do you teach any scientific evidences in
support of any creationists' explanation of the
origins of life or universe?

A That's not my mission at Wofford College.
I mean, that doesn't very well fit into teaching
general chemistry or something like that.

Q Do you teach about the origin of first
life?

A I touch on it as part of teaching a
course in science for nonscience students. But I
don't reach evolution, that's not in my job
classification, so to speak. That's in the biology
department. It would be fun to teach it there, I
would enjoy it.

169

Q What competing theories do you teach in
your own classes?

A What competing theories? Well, of course,
I have three different classes plus research. Now,
in my general science class, what I try to foster
is objective analysis. And essentially what would
qualify as competing theories would be alternative
ways to explain certain natural phenomenon or to
explain or predict the consequences of certain ways
of thinking.

Q Can you give me an example?

A To be specific, I take my general science
people out -- and none of these are science majors.
They would be poets and actors, most likely.

I take them out and we look at a proposed
extension to a highway. And we study the environmental
impact at the same time. So we trot them over the
area of the proposed highway and I try to point out
to them certain salient features of how the environment
will be changed if the highway is extended.

And then I ask them to think of consequences
beneficial and detrimental as a consequence of having
this highway.

Q Okay.

A For example, if they say -- well, students

170

have a tendency to say it would be a good idea to have
these highways because it facilitates transportation
from here to there. I try to have them also reason
to the fact that transportation may be hindered
because more traffic will be enticed to come into
this area since the extension of the highway is
available. You might still have the problems that
you thought you were going to cure by building the
highway.

Q I understand that. That's a kind of
controversy.

A Yes.

Q But that is a different kind of controversy
than the creation of evolution controversy.

A All right.

Q Are there any controversies of the
creation evolution type that you teach in your course?

A If I have an opportunity, if things
develop properly in the course, I get to the biological
kinds of things. And we discuss current models --
how life originated on the planet. And then I try to
take off the evidences for and against or the
insufficiencies or the advantages of specific
explanations of how life got here on this planet.

Q So you have taught Creation Science?

171

A To a certain extent, not as a topic.
But insofar as how it might come into the subject of
teaching kids about science because I like to teach
from an argumentative standpoint, let's put it that
way. If you read my resume, I think I said that.

Q Why not be satisfied with just teaching
the evidence for and against evolution?

A I don't think that gives a complete
picture. I don't think it gives it a complete
intellectual experience of the kind we ought to foster.

Q If you tell me that you are doing more
than just teaching the evidence for and against
evolution when you teach Creation Science, what
additional evidence are you teaching?

A What I do in my class?

Q Uh-huh.

A Essentially, I try to turn it back and
hand it to the students and say: Okay. What do you
think we would have to do to support this hypothesis?

Q What kind of scientific evidences do you
come up with to support --

A We try to envision by sitting down and
thinking about it, the kinds of experiments or studies
or observations that would be needed.

Q So you are not teaching actual scientific

172

evidences but rather determining what kind of
proof, if discovered by scientists, would support
a Creation Science model?

A That's part of it. I try to teach the
closest proximation of the scientific method whenever
controversial-type things could be imagined.

Q Were any additional scientific evidences
that you teach in support of Creation Science that
you wouldn't teach merely by teaching the evidences
more for and against evolution?

A It seems to me they fall in the same
category. Some set of facts that stands in opposition
to evolutionary theory may or may not fit into
creationists theory. Okay.

Q Do you hold a personal belief as to
the scientific validity of Creation Science?

A The scientific validity of it, I think,
it is weaker than evolutionary science which means
to say that I find more acceptable or stronger the
evolutionary model.

Q When you teach, to you express an
opinion as to the scientific validity of evolution?

A When I teach anything for which there is
a controversial component, I always tell the students
where I stand; I always try to present more than one

173

explanation. I do this as a principle of teaching.

Even, for example, in my biochemistry,
there is a controversy about the origin of the
mitochondria, and I have a personal opinion. However,
there are at least two schools of thought on this.

Q Have you expressed to your students the
environmental validity of Creation Science?

A Yes, I told them substantially what I
told you. I think that the arguments are interesting,
they have a certain amount of consistency. But they
do not persuade me that that is the preferable model.

Q I believe that you told me that you have
read Act 590.

A If that's the thing in front of me.

Q It is, that thing.

A Okay.

Q And you understand that Act 590 requires
balanced treatment of Creation Science and Evolution
Science?

A Uh-huh.

Q Is a teacher under Act 590 frre to express
an opinion as to the scientific validity of Creation
Science?

A I would imagine so. I don't see anything
specifically in here that makes a teacher teach

174

something or not -- at least say what the teacher
believes in.

Q So the teacher who doesn't think that
Creation Science is science could give some token
balance treatment, teach some scientific evidence
of scientificness and say; Oh, I think that's all
hog wash?

A I think expressing it that way would
be inappropriate.

MR. CHILDS: It certainly wouldn't
be professional.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. FERBER: Thank you.

MR. KLASFELD: I think it would be
less than professional to do anything else
but.

MR. CHILDS: I agree with you fully,
David.

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Could a teacher say:
Some author has presented these scientific evidences
for Creation Science, but I am unpersuaded or I don't
think that they are, in fact, scientific evidences
in support of Creation Science?

A I don't see any problem with that -- I
think a teacher should essentially tell the students

175

where he is coming from. I think of myself as a
can of beans and you tell them what's on the label.

Q What does it do to a student who has a
teacher all year long and who respects that teacher --
this is a teacher who teaches them what science is --
and then this teacher stands up there and says: This
is what some people think are scientific evidences
and I have to teach them to you, but I don't believe
them?

A What does it do to the student? I would
like to think that it decreases, reduces the degree
of respect that the student has for the teacher.
And it would also indicate that the teacher is
intellectually incapable of dealing with things in
an intellectual way.

I would be very suspicious of a teacher
who didn't have that much intellectual flexibility.
You could extend this other criticism of literature,
the analysis of economic positions, and the political
science class, many things.

Q Do you think that evolution which is
thought of in public schools denies the existence of
God?

A I suppose it can lead to that conclusion.

Q Does the teaching of evolution reinforce

176

any negative values or beliefs in children?

A It certainly can.

Q Raises them?

A Well, see, you could essentially take
practically anything that's taught and end up with
all sorts of negative and unpleasant and undesirable
consequences on how it is taught.

Q How about belief in abortion?

A I suppose so. I will have to stretch
my imagination to see how you could get to that
state of affairs.

Q What input should an educator have to
the development of science curriculum?

A What input? Well, it depends on what
aspect of the educational enterprise they are teaching.
Now, if we are in a public school system, the educators
ideally would make their views known as to what is
appropriate to be taught in a specific class under a
specific topic.

Then presumably, the people who would
have the children in the school should make their
views known again at the ballot box, indirectly through
the election of the school board.

And then there has to be achieved some
sense of agreement between -- shall we say -- what

177

the customers want to be taught to their children and
what the practitioners are willing to teach.

Q Would you agree, though, that most
curriculum is determined outside of the ballot box
process?

A As a matter of fact, far too much is
determined that way. Parents in general pay very little
attention to what's taught to their children and, of
course, they are surprised at the consequences.

Q Isn't our American educational system
basically built on a system whereby, for instance,
practicing scientists and educators jointly determine
what should be taught in a science curriculum?

A I think this is true. But what you are
also saying is that the American public, by and large,
has indicated the sublime indifference in most respects
to what's being taught.

///

178

Q What credentials does a parent have that
enables them as to what to be taught to a student in
a science class?

A It is their children and that is a credential.

Q Because it is their children, they are
capable of determining what is science?

A Because it is their children that are recip-
ients of education, they are qualified to pass judge-
ment on whether the things should be taught or not.

Q Is there a difference between deciding what
should be taught and deciding what should be taught as
science?

A I would say fundamentally, no.

Q Do you believe Flat Earth Theory?

A The Flat Earth Theory, I am unaware that
there is strong scientific evidence in support of the
Flat Earth.

Q Does support for the Flat Earth even fall
into the category of science, as far as you know?

A I would say essentially, no. However, if
there were enough people out there that wanted a Flat
Earth Theory presented in a public institution and
their kids were there, we would present the Flat Earth
Theory.

Q As science in a science classroom?

179

A Wait a minute. We would deal with the topic
as fairly and -- you might say -- benignly. We would
try to deal with it in a sensible scholarly way.

Q The legislature could pass a Statute that
required the teacher to give balance treatment to the
scientific evidence in support of the Flat Earth
Theory and the scientific evidence in support of the
theory that the Earth is round.

A The legislature could, indeed, pass such a
law. And I doubt that it would be unconstitutional.
And it would stand as long as the people in that state
wanted it.

Q Would it offend you as an educator?

A It would bother me, yes.

Q Would it offend you as a scientist?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

A Because I don't think the evidences are worth
bringing in.

Q Okay.

(Thereupon, a short break was held.)

MS. FERBER: I would like to mark as
Plaintiff's 5 a two-page letter stamped
with Paul Ellwanger's name and address at
the top. It is a letter to Dr. Morrow from

180

Paul Ellwanger.

(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit
No. 5 was marked for identifi-
cation.)

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Doctor, is this a copy of
the letter that you produced to us today?

A I think so. I remember some little note
like this; I think that's correct.

MS. FERBER: I would like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 a two-page docu-
ment on stationery headed Citizens for Fair-
ness in Education. It is to state legislators
and others who support academic freedom on
the subject of origins and public schools;
from Paul Ellwanger; dated October 1981;
re revised model (uniform) bill, now entitled
"Unbiased Presentation of Creation Science and
Evolution Science Act."

(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit
No. 6 was marked for
identification.)

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Doctor Morrow, is this a
document which you previously produced to us today?

A Probably.

Q Okay.

MS. FERBER: I would like those marked
as Plaintiff's 7 and 8.

181

(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit
Nos. 7 and 8 were marked for
identification.)

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7
in a one-page letter to Dr. Morrow from Tim Humphries
of the Office of the Attorney General, State of Arkansas.
Dr. Morrow, is this a letter which you received --

A Yes.

Q -- requesting that you produce documents at
this deposition?

A Yes, I remember that.

Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 is an article from
the October 28th, 1981, edition of the Spartanburg
Herald, entitled Creationists Vs. Evolutionists, Local
Professor may testified on his views.

Dr. Morrow, have you seen this article?

A Yes.

Q Does it accurately reflect an interview which
you had with the author of the article?

A Pretty much so, yes.

Q Are there any inaccuracies in it?

A Well, I did not look over the notes that the
fellow put together and I did look over his final com-
position before it was published.

Q But is there anything that is inaccurate as
to your statements or beliefs?

182

A I would have to look through it here.

Q Please, sir.

A Oh, he quotes me as saying: As far as I
know, I am the only one with my beliefs, that is, a
biochemist who is in favor of the Creationist Theory
being taught. He forgot that I told him that Gish,
for example, was a biochemist with similar views.

There is a part where he quotes me as saying:
I feel that the Creationists are a functional minority
in their degree of influence. Okay. I think that's
what I said.

He also said, "It is possible that most
people in this country are Creationists, but you
wouldn't know it by the biology that's being taught.
I suppose I said that to him, although that was not
one of the three reasons for my viewpoint.

Q But is your viewpoint otherwise accurately
reflected?

A Pretty much so; about as far as you would
expect a reporter with limited scientific background
to put together.

Q Are there any statements attributed to this
which you would want to at this time retract?

A Let's see. I think that's pretty fair.

Q Should religious implications be considered

183

along with deciding whether Creation Science is taught?

A I would say yes.

Q Have you ever read anything by Richard Bliss
on his two mile approach to teaching of origins?

A The name is familiar. I may have read
something, but I don't recall specifically.

Q You are not familiar with it?

A Way back, I think I have read something by
Bliss on this, but I don't remember.

Q Have you ever been involved in writing text-
books?

A In writing textbooks?

Q Or other teaching materials.

A I don't think so. It made very little
impression on me at the time.

Q Is evolution currently approved by all of
the textbooks?

A The ones that I have used or read, yes.

Q Act 590, as you have explained it, gives
teachers the option of either giving balance treatment
to evolution and Creation Science or ceasing to teach
evolution.

A All right.

Q How much of biology curriculum would this
cut out?

184

A Very little of real importance at that level
of education.

Q By that level, you are referring to --

A At the pre-college level anyway.

Q Evolution is a small portion of pre-college
biology?

A It can be as important as you want to make
it, I will put it that way.

Q Is evolution a uniform think in biological
forces?

A Yes.

Q But cutting it out would only destroy a small
portion of a curriculum?

A It depends on what you are teaching. There
is a great deal that you can teach in terms of anatomy,
physiology, and there's a great deal of biology taught
without dealing with evolution.

Q Is the idea of unifying concepts important
in education?

A It can be.

Q Do they aid students to understand and remember
information?

A Properly used and properly presented, yes.

Q Is evolution an important unifying concept
in biology?

185

A It can be, again, if properly used.

Q Do you think that modern biology makes sense
to a student in the absence of evolution as a unifying
theme?

A It is very difficult to find out how much of
biology, modern or otherwise, makes sense to students
if you objectively try to test them all.

Advanced students, very capable, high-achieving
students, I believe, can typically grasp a lot of con-
cepts. However, it can be very difficult with the
other students.

Q Do you think it is professionally proper to
teach theories for information as science which have
not gained acceptance in a scientific community?

A Sometimes, yes.

Q Given the limited number of hours that you
have to teach a student?

A Of course, you can't buy off more than you
can chew. But I would like to think that teachers are
willing to teach things that are not necessarily
commonly-accepted if, indeed, the teacher feels that
that topic merits consideration.

Q Do you want accountability based education is?

A I would have to guess what it means.

Q What do you think it means?

186

MR. CHILDS: Don't guess.

Q (By Ms. Ferber) Do you have an opinion as to
what it means? You are free to answer.

A Well, he just said don't answer it.

MR. CHILDS: I'm sorry. If you want to
guess, just say that you are guessing.

A I would guess. I would assume that what you
are driving at would be there would be some way to
examine the students on what was taught and how well
it was taught. And then to hold the teacher responsible
for those achievements be they beneficial or detrimental.

Q Do you have any existing biological textbooks
to teach without teaching evolution?

A I can't think of one right now.

Q Do students have the academic background to
weight the relative merits of evolution and Creation
Science and to make a judgment as to each?

A It depends on what level they got through
their education.

Q High school biology students.

A High school biology students again I find
that they have difficulty grasping all sorts of concepts
quite separate from these. The job of the teacher
would be to facilitate achieving that level --

Q The job of the teachers who don't know how to

187

teach it is to facilitate --

A If they wanted to teach biology, they have
to get their act and learn enough to teach it. I don't
care if it is mathematics, biology, or economics, they
have to be stronger scholars.

Q This is a new concept to teach --

A Science is a growing body of knowledge, and
you have to keep up with this stuff.

Q As I understand it -- I have not taken science
in some 15 years -- the formation of oil or coal, as
it is conventionally understood and taught, requires
that the Earth be very old or requires that a great
number of years have passed for these minerals to
form?

A Yes.

Q How does a student who learns that the Earth
is relatively young, six to ten thousand years old,
learn to explore for oil or understand where coal would
be formed and found?

A How do they do this? I would suspect they
would find several inconsistencies between the young
Earth and those requirements that are needed to look
for oil.

Q What happens to the student who is taught
Creation Science, believes Creation Science, and wants

188

to grow up and work for Mobile and/or Exxon?

A They probably won't be very good working
for Mobile and Exxon drilling for oil.

Q What does the term "model" mean to you as
an educator?

A What term?

Q Model.

A Model, it is an intellectual construction
that makes it possible to mentally visualize processes
or concepts in your mind requisite to a certain end.
It's an intellectual construction.

Q In your teaching, have you ever used any
materials that came from Creationists' Organizations?

A Well, off hand, I have referred to them like
in my general science classes again when I try to be
talking about the evidences for or against these two
models. I would use those. But I haven't photocopied
them or distributed them.

Q But you have consulted them?

A Yes, I consulted them, sure.

Q Do you know which materials?

A Right off, no, to be very frank. I would
simply take most of the stuff that you saw that I had
in the bag there plus Acts and Facts all the way back.

Q So Acts and Facts are among the materials

189

that you did not produce today that might be within
the document request?

A Did you want me to bring Acts and Facts?

Q What I would have liked is all of the docu-
ments in your possession and that would fit within the
document request.

A I don't have a whole set of them. You could
get them better from Gish or Morris.

Q The document request --

A It also said convenient.

Q No, no. The Attorney General's cover letter
said convenient; the document request asked you --

A I didn't deliberately mean to withhold any-
thing.

Q I don't mean to imply that you did. But I
would like to understand what other materials you have
in your possession, custody or control that would fall
within the document request.

A Would I have given you today. I don't think
there is anything I haven't given you today that would
be bear substantially on what I would say.

There could be one Acts and Facts some place
back in some notes that I may have used, but I don't
think it is a substantial thing.

Q I would request that if at any time you

190

determine that the facts or opinions which you will
state at trial will be based on any of the materials
in your possession that you notify the Attorney
General's Office and us of that.

A Find, that's fine. I would do that anyway.

Q Okay. Are you familiar with a writing of
Tim LaHaye; have you ever heard of him?

A No.

Q Are you familiar with the writings of Henry
Morris?

A To a certain extent.

///

191

Q Are there any goals for Christian funda-
mentalist education?

A Any goals? Well, I'm not a Christian
fundamentalist. I would suppose that -- and I'm
guessing at this, but the -- a goal would be the
reinforcement of fundamentalists' belief and the
general development of the individual toward helping
them stand against a rather -- a world that can be
rather alien.

Q Do you think that Act 590 promotes
those two goals that you've just articulated?

A Not necessarily. I mean, I think it
gives a better opportunity for a kid to feel that
there's a sense of fairness going on in the classroom.

Q Earlier today, you testified regarding
the South Carolina Statute that sought balance
treatment for Creation Science and evolution.

A Right.

Q And you testified that you foresaw no
difficulty teaching modern biology under that Statute.

A I doubt it; no.

Q But, in other words, you would have
testified that you wouldn't foresee a difficulty in
teaching --

A I think I testified to -- to something to

192

the effect that if I were in the public school system
and if I were trying to teach modern biology, I would --
I believe I would comply with that bill. I'm in a
private school, by the way.

Q And do you teach biology?

A No. I teach chemistry. You know, if
they ask me to teach biology, I would do that.

MR. FERBER: I have no further
questions. Thank you very much.

(Deposition concluded.)

- - -

Deposition of Jim Townley

                              NO. LR-C-81-322

REV. BILL MCLEAN, ET AL.  *
                      Plaintiffs      *      IN THE UNITED STATES
                                        *
VS.                                   *      DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
                                        *
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, *      DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
ET AL.                               *
                    Defendants    *      WESTERN DIVISION
                                        *
*,* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

             ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR. JIM TOWNLEY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES:

                                   MR. ROBERT CEARLEY, Esq., Cearley,
                                         Gitchel, Mitchell & Bryant,
                                         1014 West 3rd, Little Rock,
                                         Arkansas 72201

                                                        AND

                                   Ms. LAURIE FERBER, Esq., Skadden,
                                         Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
                                         919 Third Avenue, New York
                                         10022
                                         ** For the Plaintiffs

                                   MR. DAVID WILLIAMS, Esq., Deputy
                                         Attorney General, Attorney
                                         General's Office, Justice
                                         Building, Little Rock,
                                         Arkansas 72201
                                         ** For the Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                 LAURA BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
                      1100 N. University, Suite 223
                      Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
                                (501) 664-7357

                              I N D E X

TOPIC                                                                           PAGE
Witness sworn in: MR. JIM TOWNLEY                                 2
Direct Examination by MS. FERBER:                                   3
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        35
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        46
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        54
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        55
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        59
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        61
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        72
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        79
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                        86
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      110
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      112
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      135
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      155
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      158
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      159
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      160
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      161
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      172
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      183
Objection made by Mr. Williams                                      196

2

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF MR. JIM TOWNLEY, a witness
produced on behalf of the Plaintiff, taken in the above
styled and numbered cause on the 14th of November, 1981,
before Michelle R. Nienstedt, a Notary Public in and for
Pulaski County, Arkansas, at the office of Mr. Robert
Cearley, 1014 West 3rd Street, Little Rock, Arkansas at
9:30 a.m., pursuant to the agreement thereinafter set
forth.

[No stipulations.]
MRS. GLADYS HOLMES

the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned
and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth testified as follows:

3

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. FERBER:

MS. FERBER: This deposition is being
taken for all purposes permitted under the Federal Rules.
All objections except as to form are waived until trial.
Do you want to waive signing?

MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MS. FERBER: Okay. Then we will provide
an original to the witness for signing, which should be
signed within five days of receipt or we will be able to
use it without signing.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know about that.
I know the rules aren't five days, it is after thirty.
We will get it signed as expeditiously as possible.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Okay. Mr. Townley, first off I want to thank you
for coming today. I'll try not to keep you longer than
necessary. If I ask any questions which you don't
understand feel free to ask me to repeat them or to
explain it.

Were you shown any documents -- asked
to bring any documents with you today?

A. No. Actually -- I take that back. I was asked at
breakfast, if I had any with me. And I did bring down
this information, but I wasn't sent any documents through

4

the mail.

Q. Okay. Okay. Would you state your full name for
the record, please?

A. Jimmy Don Townley.

Q. And your address?

A. **** ***** ***** *****, **** *****, ********
*****.

Q. How old are you Mr. Townley?

A. Forty-one.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. Two.

Q. Are they in school?

A. One.

Q. How old?

A. He's six.

Q. Is that first grade?

A. First grade. The other one is actually in school
too, but it's not public.

Q. What kind of school?

A. Christian school.

Q. And how old is that child?

A. Four.

Q. Would you briefly summarize your educational

5

background for me?

A. I graduated from Fort Smith Senior High. I
graduated from Arkansas State Teacher's College, which is
now called the University of Central Arkansas.

Q. What year was that?

A. That was 1962.

Q. And what was your degree in?

A. Bachelor of Science & Education.

Q. Okay.

A. I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a
Master of Natural Science, M.N.S.

Q. When was that?

A. That was 1974.

Q. Any other degrees?

A. I've attended several other universities;
University of Bridge Port, off campus in Peurto Rico,
University of the Phillipines in the Phillipines, and --

Q. Briefly, what did you study at those other
universities.

A. I studied administration from the University of
Bridge Port for high school principles, or junior high
school principals, secondary principals. I studied, from
the University of the Phillipines, educational courses.
One in statistics, one in programed instruction.

Q. Okay. Do you have any academic honors from any of

6

those institutions?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever applied for any grants of any kind?

A. Yes, my Master's Degree was on a National Science
Foundation grant.

Q. Okay. Did you do a thesis for your Master's?

A. We did a paper.

Q. What was your topic?

A. This was on "Oil Pollution."

Q. Was there a specific topic assigned to the grant
or a specific purpose for the funds?

A. This was to educate science teachers so that they
might be better informed to teach children.

Q. In general or in regards to oil pollution?

A. No, this was in general. Many teachers on the
Science Foundation were in various subjects in science;
physics, chemistry, biology, natural science, general
science.

Q. Okay. Did you ever determine to go for an advance
degree beyond your Master's?

A. Not at this time.

Q. Okay. When you attended the various universities
after you got your Master's Degree, were you ever working
towards a degree?

A. I had already received a degree.

7

Q. Okay. So they were continuing education rather
than further degree studies?

A. Right.

Q. Would you briefly summarize your work history for
me, or not briefly?

A. Starting way back when?

Q. Back when.

A. Back when. Okay. Would this would this mean after
college or --

Q. Start with after college.

A. Okay. I taught first of all at Fort Smith when I
graduated from high school. I taught --

Q. Give me a time frame, please.

A. 1962 through 1964. I taught mathematics and
chemistry. Geometry specifically, in mathematics.
In 1964 I was offered a job by the United States
Department of Defense teaching children overseas. I
was offered a job specifically in Spain in Rota.
Spain where our naval base is at. I taught there one
year. I taught physics, chemistry, physical science, and
general science. After one year I transferred to
Germany; Frankfurt, Germany. Taught again on military
bases for two years there, 1965 through '67. I taught
specifically; chemistry and geometry for two years. I
then transferred to England. I taught chemistry, and

8

introduction to physical science. I then transferred to
Bermuda, where I taught for two more years. I taught
physics, chemistry, earth science. I then transferred to
Japan.

Q. I'm jealous already.

A. Tsuchiura, outside of Tokyo where I taught physics,
chemistry, and introduction to physical science. After
one year I transferred to the Phillipines, to Angelis
[sic.] City, out of Manila where I taught I.S.C.S.

Q. I.S.C.S.?

A. I.S.C.S level two, which is a course which teaches
chemistry to junior high students.

Q. What does I.S.C.S. stand for?

A. Intermediate Science Curriculum Study.

Q. Is that a particular curriculum?

A. Yes, it is. It's -- it's a -- the most important
thing about I.S.C.S is the method of study by the
students rather than what is taught. The method of
study is one of individualized learning by students
with the teacher being a resource person, organizer
type of person who makes available the opportunity to
learn on an individual basis. It has to be a highly
organized -- highly organized program. Teacher does not
lecture, is not in the traditional sense a teacher.
Okay. Then -- I taught there three years.

9

Q. What years are we up to now?

A. Okay. I have to go back. I went overseas in '64.
I taught a year in Spain, that would be '64 through '65.
'65 through '67 in Germany. '67 through '69 in England.
'69 through '71 in Bermuda. Is that right? '71 through
'72 in Japan. '72 through '75 in the Phillipines.

And then we moved back to Germany to Bonn, Badgodesburg
[sic.] which is the capital of West Germany. Badgodesburg
is the suburb where all of our embassies are located.
And at that time I taught physics, chemistry, and
introduction -- introduction to physical science to 8th
graders. And a physics course to 12th graders. And
chemistry to 11th and 12th graders. Thirty-three different
embassies were there, their children -- I think it was
thirtythree, many. After one year there I moved to San
Juan, Puerto Rick, that would be in '76 and taught
there for two years until 1978.

Q. Where did you teach in Puerto Rico?

A. Fort Bucannon.

Q. Military base?

A. Military base. I taught 8th grade science. And in
1978 I resigned from overseas and moved back to Fort
Smith, Arkansas. And I taught junior high science,
general science in the 8th grade for two years. And
last year, which was '80-'81, I moved up to the senior high

10

and taught general chemistry and advanced chemistry. And
that's the same thing I'm teaching this year.

Q. Okay. Do you hold any outside employment at
any of the Fort Smith schools?

A. No.

Q. What district is your school in? What school
district? Is it a Fort Smith school or county wide
school?

A. It's called "Special School District of Fort Smith.
It's in Sebastian County.

Q. Have you ever applied for a job and been turned
down for a position?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been released from a position,
ever been fired in a position?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever applied for a promotion which you
didn't receive?

A. No.

Q. Is there a tenure system in the Fort Smith schools?

A. There is no tenure in Arkansas, to the best of my
knowledge. We do have a state law which puts teachers on
probation for three years. And after three years you're
no longer a probationary teacher.

Q. So you are no longer a probationary teacher?

11

A. I'm off as of last year.

Q. Congratulations. Have you ever published any
articles?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever submitted any articles for
publication?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any writings at all?

A. No.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Williams, we have
served you with expert interrogatories. Can you tell me
when you're going to respond to the interrogatories?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I responded to them
yesterday. I filed a motion for extension of time, and
objections.

MS. FERBER: Have we been served with
that motion?

MR. WILLIAMS: It was mailed yesterday.

[Off the record discussion.]

MS. FERBER: How long an extension did
you request in that motion.

MR. WILLIAMS: To December the 4th.

MS. FERBER: To December the 4th,
three days before trial?

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

12

MS. FERBER: Being that you have a
motion pending we will respond in appropriate fashion.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. I apologize Mr. Townley, I may have to ask you some
additional questions since I have not been provided with
anything which will tell me what your testimony is going
to be.

MR. WILLIAMS: You have been provided
in the list of witnesses. I think that we provided there
what his testimony would be.

MS. FERBER: Are you representing that
his testimony will be limited to the precise description?

MR. WILLIAMS: It will be simply
limited to that, that's correct.

MS. FERBER: Essentially.

MR. WILLIAMS: Obviously, the testimony
we will present will be in some fashion determined by the
testimony presented by the plaintiffs. Therefore, I
cannot exactly limit it only to what is in there.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Okay. Mr. Townley, are you a member of any
professional organizations?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you describe them for me, please?

13

A. I'm a member of the National Education Association for
Teachers, the Arkansas Education Association for teachers,
and the Fort Smith Classroom Teachers Association, local.

Q. Have you ever held an office in any of these
organizations?

A. Yes. I am -- are you talking currently?

Q. Start with currently.

A. Yes. I am president now of the Fort Smith
Classroom Teachers Association.

Q. How long have you been president?

A. Since June 1st.

Q. Okay. And what are your duties as president?

A. To run our organization, to appoint people to
serve on various committees that we have.

Q. What kind of committees do you have?

A. Publications Committee; we have also a Political
Action Committee; we have Rights and Responsibilities
Committee; Negotiations committee; Publicity committee,
we have Golden Apple Committee; we have -- We have a
committee which I've forgotten the name of.

Q. What does it do?

A. Provides tea and cookies.

Q. What is the Golden Apple Committee?

A. This is the committee that selects four people usually
per year for an award for outstanding contributions to

14

education from our local school district and from -- not
from -- either from the educational viewpoint or for
professional educators within the system to business people
who may have contributed worthwhile contributions to
education in our school district.

Q. Are you a member of any of these committees?

A. Yes, I am. I am -- by appointment, I am a member
of all committees. I specifically head only one.

Q. Which committee is that?

A. Negotiations.

Q. What does the Political Action Committee do?

A. Political Action Committee interviews candidates
specifically for school board positions, finds out their
positions, and ask each -- ask each candidate the same
essential questions for the interview. And then based
upon their responses chooses the candidate that we
wish to back in the -- in the race for school board
position. And we recommend this to our general assembly,
the pace [sic.] committee does, recommends it to the
general assembly of teachers which meets in spring. And
the general assembly then will vote to sustain the
recommendation or not to sustain the recommendation.

Q. Does that committee take any position or conduct any
interviews in regard to pending legislation?

A. Not to the best of my knowledge.

15

Q. And what is the Rights and Responsibilities
Committee?

A. This would be the rights of teachers, what rights
they have relative to education. Responsibilities, would
be what responsibilities that they have in their teaching
field, what duties they must perform and how much leeway,
I guess, they would have to perform these duties. That
is one of our least active committees.

Q. I was about to ask you how often it meets. Have you
held any position in a -- in any of the organizations you
listed prior to this time?

A. I was vice president of our own Fort Smith local
teachers organization last year.

Q. What is -- I'm sorry you had mentioned before
that you were a member of the N.E.A., the A.E.A., Fort
Smith Classroom Teachers Association?

A. Right. I am currently a member of all of those.

Q. Now, was that a different organization you just
mentioned?

A. I was Vice President last year of the Fort Smith
Classroom Teachers Association, before. And previous to
that, I've been a board member of the S.E.T.A, Southeast
Asia Teachers Association.

Q. Okay. You mentioned that the Fort Smith Classroom
Teachers Association has a publications committee.

16

A. Yes.

Q. Does the organization have it's own publication?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that.

A. "The Informer."

Q. And what kinds of articles of information do
you publish?

A. Anything that is pertinent to our local
organization.

Q. How often do you publish it?

A. Once a month.

Q. Have you published any articles relating to Act 590?
Do you know what I mean when I refer to Act 590? Have
you heard of the -- let me get the title right, The
Balance Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution
Science Act?

A. Yes, I have heard it. And we haven't published
anything with regards to that.

Q. Have you ever published any general articles about
the teaching of Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. Or the teaching of Evolution?

A. No.

Q. About science curriculum, in general?

A. No.

17

Q. About Academic Freedom?

A. No. Our newspaper just started in September. It
has had three publications

Q. Thank you. Do you ever intend to publish any
articles about it?

A. I don't -- my -- the publications chairman is Ann
Scott Gray, and I do not interfere with what she does in
the newspaper. If she wants to, she may.

Q. When you were contacted by the Attorney General's
office in order to arrange for your deposition today, was
there any discussion of you furnishing documents or
bringing any materials to this deposition?

A. Not that I remember.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me state for the
record that I think we mailed him and apparently did not
get there, did not have my schedule as attached there.

MS. FERBER: When did you know about
that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Sometime this week, I
don't know. And I've gone over it with him. You can go
over it with him if you like, as far as knowing anything
responsive to it, I don't think he does.

MS. FERBER: I will accept your
representation that he does not. If it -- of course, if
it comes up in the deposition that he does, we'll have to

18

leave the deposition open.

MR. WILLIAMS: No problem.

MS. FERBER: In fact, I think we will
have to do that since you have provided me with four tapes
which I'm about to identify.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me state -- okay.
You can identify the tapes. You can ask him if they
belong to him. Technically, they are not responsive to
that either because they are not his own tapes. Those
are something he happened to have borrowed and had with
him. And I asked him to bring them with him.

MS. FERBER: I think they will be
relevant to future questions. And since they are
here on tape -- and unless we take a break for me to
listen to all of them I may have questions which come from
the tapes. And we'll probably have to leave the deposition
open until I review the tapes.

WITNESS: Wait just a minute.

MS. FERBER: Yes.

WITNESS: I cannot give you those
tapes, they're not mine to give.

MS. FERBER: Okay. We can deal with
that later.

MR. WILLIAMS: They'll make copies of
them.

19

MS. FERBER: We can copy the tapes.
The four tapes which Mr. Townley has provided to me all
come from the Institute for Creation Research in San
Diego, California. The first one is "Dinosaurs And The
Deluge" I believe by Henry M. Morris, P.h.D. The second
one is, "Evolution Mechanisms: Do They Really Work?" by
Duane T. Gish. The third tape is, "Creation, Evolution,
And The Fossil Records" also by Duane T. Gish. And the
final one is, "Latest Research On The Origin Of Man" by
Duane T. Gish.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Mr. Townley, how did these tapes come into your
possession?

A. My school district is -- I borrowed them from my
school district.

Q. Do you know where your school district got them
from?

A. Well, I assume that they got them from California.

Q. Do you know why they got them?

A. Yes. They got them because your teachers -- the
school system is currently, on a voluntary basis, offer
the teachers the opportunity to review materials on
Creation Science.

Q. Do you know who in your school district is responsible
for providing those materials?

20

A. Mr. Floyd and a Mr. Sherry.

Q. Mr. who?

A. Floyd and Sherry.

Q. And who are these gentlemen? What are their
positions?

A. They’re -- they work in the admin office.

Q. Admin, administration?

A. Administration office.

Q. And how is it communicated to teachers that there
are materials available?

A. Each school receives papers that come out stating that
these programs will be available on a voluntary basis to
review Creation Science in case the law is passed, so
that teachers can be better informed as to what the views
of creationists are.

Q. When were these materials -- when were teachers
first informed the materials were going to be made
available?

A. Sometime this fall. I can't give you a specific
date because I don't remember, but we've been -- we've
been -- we've attended two sessions as this time, which I
guess, maybe was three weeks ago, the first one. That
would be a guess. At that time we saw materials. These
haven't -- we haven't used these yet. And that's the
reason I borrowed them is because these haven't been

21

utilized yet by the school.

Q. Who attended these sessions?

A. Science teachers of Fort Smith education session,
not all but some.

Q. Were -- what -- do you know what materials were
made available at a meeting?

A. There were -- there was two filmstrips with audio
cassettes. But I do not --

Q. Did you review the film?

A. Yes, we did. We reviewed the film and had
discussion.

Q. Do you know the names of those films?

A. I really do not.

Q. Were you provided with a list of available
materials?

A. No.

Q. If I mention the name of the filmstrips, do you
think you would recognize them?

A. It's possible.

Q. Do you know what organization the filmstrips
came from?

A. I think from the same place. I think we have all of
the materials from the same place.

Q. That would be from the Institute for Creation
Research?

22

A. I think, but I'm not sure. One was about a
butterfly.

Q. About a butterfly. What grade level were the
filmstrips designed for, if you know?

A. I don't think they were designed for children. I
may be wrong in that.

Q. I'm sorry. When you say children, are you
referring to a specific age group?

A. No specific age group. I think they were designed
for background -- again I'm not sure but, somehow or
another -- and my memory maybe wrong in this, but I think
that it may have been as background material.

Q. For teachers, you mean?

A. Yes, I think so or for adults.

Q. I'm going to read off a list of names and just
answer yes or no whether any of these filmstrips sound
familiar. "Whose World?".

A. [Witness nodds.]

Q. "The Miracle Of It All"?

A. [Witness nodds.]

Q. Answer audibly, the recorder can't record a nodd.

A. No, I don't --

Q. "Winged Royalty"?

A. That may be if that has to do with the monarch
butterfly.

23

Q. The title is "Winged Royalty: Life Cycle Of The
Monarch Butterfly"? "How The Sun Effects Our World"?

A. No.

Q. Did you see a description of the winged butterfly
filmstrip?

A. It was about the life cycle of the monarch
butterfly.

Q. Let me read you a description and then you can tell
us.

A. Okay.

Q. "The life cycle of another beautiful creation of
the master designer is examined, including ecology and
migration routes. Junior to adult, Suitable for public
school, 22 minutes, 142 frames."

A. That could possibly be the description.

Q. "Creation And Evolution, A Comparison Of Two
Scientific Models"?

A. Would you read the description there?

Q. "An excellent sound and color presentation that
compares the two primary scientific models for origins.
Suitable for public schools, 22 minutes, 74 frames."

A. That very well could be the one we saw.

Q. "The Ark Of Noah"?

A. No.

Q. "The Heavens Declare"?

24

A. No.

Q. "The Earth, God's Home For Man"?

A. No.

Q. "The Moon, God's Gift To Earth"?

A. No.

Q. "The Planets, God's Reminder To Men"?

A. No.

Q. "The Stars, God's Mirror"?

A. No.

Q. "Foot Prints Of God"?

A. No.

Q. "Rocks Reveal Noah's Flood"?

A. You want to read the description?

Q. Geological documentation showing that there is
sufficient evidence on earth today to indicate that there
was once a worldwide flood. Discusses logistics of
of building and surviving on the ark.

A. No.

Q. "Fossils, Strata, And Evolution"?

A. Would you read the description of that one?

Q. Prevents an extensive investigation of "wrong
order" strata regarding the dating of geological
formations by so called index fossil."

A. No, but I think one of these -- the reason -- one
of these I think refers to that.

25

Q. By one of these, you're indicating one of the tapes
which you brought with you?

A. Right, uh-huh.

Q. "Design In Mature Probable Or Improbable"?

A. We may have.

Q. Will the description help?

A. Yes, maybe.

Q. "A scientifically descriptive review of design and
nature with respect to the origin of life. Junior high
to adult."

A. Maybe. There -- we did have a filmstrip on
probabilities, but I don't remember what the name of it
was.

Q. And your understanding was that both -- there were
two filmstrips and they both came from the Institution
for Creation Research?

A. We may have seen three, you know.

Q. Did you review any books or pamphlets?

A. None, none.

Q. Were there materials there if you wanted to review?

A. None.

Q. Were you told that the school had gotten other
materials that would be made available to you?

A. Yes, these are going to be made available. And I
think they have some other -- I think they said that they

26

had several sessions that they're going to put us through.
We've been through two of those sessions. These particular
tapes that you have in front of you is going to be the next
session.

Q. Third session?

A. And then -- obviously, there would have to be more
materials in order to have more sessions. So, I assume
they have other materials.

Q. Mr. Townley, you told me the first session was
three weeks ago?

A. I think so.

Q. You saw two filmstrips at that time?

A. I'm getting --

Q. Two or three?

A. Yeah.

Q. And there was a second session?

A. The second session -- the second session, I think
we may have had another filmstrip. And I think that one
may have dealt with -- there was a filmstrip there on
probability -- we had some -- in one of those sessions we
had a filmstrip that dealt with probabilities.

Q. Could you tell me a little bit more about that?

A. I'm trying to remember back. I have to think back
a little bit.

Q. Take your time.

27

A. Okay. It's -- the reason I hesitated, it's sometimes
difficult for me to remember what was discussed there and
what I read in other books.

Q. That's fine.

A. Because we did have a long discussion after each
filmstrip in which everybody shared views and ideas. And
sometimes you get confused what we shared and what was
actually in the filmstrip.

Q. That's okay.

A. One of the filmstrips discussed the various types
of -- of men Peking men, Chromagnum, Neanderthal. One
went into probabilities, but I cannot remember exactly in
what respect it went into it.

Q. Can you tell me what probabilities means?

A. Probability of an event occurring.

Q. Do they use a specific event as an example?

A. For instance, I can give you an example of
probability that wasn't used in the film. If you had a
roll of the dice and you have two die, each with six
numerals atttached, and you role the die. The
probability of a specific number coming upon the
die is called probabilities.

Q. Can you give me an example from the filmstrip?

A. I've forgotten, not offhand.

Q. Do they discuss the probability of the earth being

28

millions of years old?

A. It may have come up in the discussion or it may have
been in the filmstrip.

Q. Okay. All right. Approximately how long did
each of these two sessions last.

A. Hour and fifteen minutes.

Q. And how many teachers, approximately, attended each
one?

A. Fifteen.

Q. And who led the discussions?

A. Well, I would not say led. Tony Sherry and Mr.
Floyd were the people who carried on the sessions, but
they simply said, what do you feel about this. And then
the dialogue between the teachers carried it on from
there.

Q. Can you tell me what you remember about the
dialogue?

A. Well, there were of course, people who felt like
that the filmstrips were presenting material which was
not scientific. And there were people who felt like that
the filmstrips presented material which were. And we had
dialogue and discussion about the importance of the
filmstrips and their possible validity.

Q. Did you believe that the material presented in the
filmstrip was scientific?

29

A. Yes I did, some of it anyway.

Q. Can you tell me what you thought wasn't scientific?

A. Well, of course, it's not scientific to say that
something is true unless it can be experimented on,
unless it can be proven to be repetitious, can be
validated. That doesn't mean to say that something which
cannot be validated, cannot be repetitious isn't scientific.
It just means that you're continuing to work on it. Okay.
For instance, let's say that I hypothesize some theory.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Science would run experimentation to validate or
not to not validate, to invalidate the hypothesis.
That's what science is to validate or to invalidate
the material that's hypothesized.

Q. Okay. I'm a little confused. You -- I think, and
I do not mean to mischaracterize what you said, that you
thought some of the material presented was not scientific
because something isn't scientific unless it can be
experimented on, validated, repeated. But that's not to
say something is not scientific if it isn't those things.
So, I'm not sure what was in the filmstrips then.

A. For instance, if you have -- if you make a
statement that something has occurred in the past and you
cannot experiment on it, it would be very difficult
to validate that. All you can do is to make a guess or an

30

assumption. For instance, if I were to say to you that the
the world was purple in the beginning, it would be very
difficult to disprove that. We could do a lot of
experimentation to -- that would show that that would
probably not be true, that that would probably have no
credence at all, but it would be impossible to -- to
absolutely invalidate.

Q. Okay.

A. So to me, there are worse statements made that
it is impossible to validate. It's impossible to find
out on -- involving both creation and evolution.

Q. Okay. Did you believe that these filmstrips were
suitable for use in public school classrooms?

A. In some cases there was material that I would not have
used.

Q. Can you give me an example, please?

A. They made -- again, I think they made specific
references to biblical material.

Q. Okay. Did other teachers express an opinion as
to whether or not they thought the material would be
usable in the classroom?

A. No. I didn't express that opinion either. That's
just an opinion which I expressed to you.

Q. Did the school district indicate whether these
materials would be available for use in the classroom?

31

A. I think they indicated that they would prefer that
they not be used in the classroom.

Q. Can you remember anything else about the discussion
that followed the filmstrips?

A. It was lively.

Q. Did teachers express any opinion as to how they would
teach creation science?

A. No.

Q. Did they express any opinion as to whether or not they
would teach creation science?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Can you remember what comments you made?

A. Some.

Q. Would you tell me about those comments, please?

A. Let's see. I remember stating that that I felt like
ideas which are brought forth about how man came into
existence, how life came into existence on this earth
should be fully explored. That science, in the best that
I can -- can do, should do experimentation to either
validate the theory or not as best as possible in the
hope that you can clear up the miss -- any misconceptions
about the belief as to how life came to earth.

Q. Do you have a personal belief as to how life
came to earth?

A. You mean on the mechanism by which life came to earth?

32

Q. Okay. We can start with that.

A. Okay. I personally believe that -- that there is a
God that created life here on earth. The mechanism that
God used to create that life, I'm not sure of. It is
acceptable to me that God could have created life on
earth in any way. And I will not be -- or not
place myself in the position of trying to be all
understanding. I do not understand how God created earth.
It is within the realm of possibility that God created
all life instantly. It is within the realm of
possibility that God created life in an evolutionary
process. I -- if -- for me to exclude one or the other
would be making a judgment on God.

Q. Have you ever, in the course of your science
studies, encountered any explanations of how life was
created that you did not agree with or could not agree
with?

A. In the study of science? Not that I can exclude
the possibility of. There's been only, in my existance
in the study of science, two possibilities for the
creation of life on earth. And one is the creation
theory and one is evolution.

Q. I'm sorry, would you repeat that please?

A. As far as my basic understanding, there's only been
made mention of the two possibilities for the way life can

33

-- have been brought about here on earth. One is through the
mechanism of creation, that God created everything, life as
it was, instantaneously in basically the form it is now. Or
second of all, that God created -- or that God didn't create
life to be formed from inanimate material and progress on up
through man, which is called evolution. And the second
belief, evolution precludes the need for an exterior force.

Q. Evolution, I'm sorry.

A. There is no need for an exterior God in evolution.
On the other hand, I don't think in my own personal
belief that evolution excludes the possibility that God
used that as a mechanism by which life was created.

Q. So, the only two alternative scientific models of
origins that you are aware of are the creation model and
the evolution model?

A. That's the only two basic theories that I'm aware
of. I know that there are others, but I haven't studied
them. Such as -- I've heard that there are eastern
philosophies on life, that life was created from -- in
other ways, but I'm not familiar with them.

Q. Have you ever heard of Eric Von Donegan?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you ever heard of a theory that life was
transported here from another planet?

A. If life were transported here from another planet, it

34

would still necessitate that life had been created some
place else in one of the two ways that I referred, either
through evolution or through creation.

Q. Okay. Have you ever had a student ask you what
mechanism God used to create life?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Have I exhausted your memory about your
comments following those filmstrips?

A. I think you have. It's difficult to remember between
what kind of conversations take place when you're having
one discussion and when you're having -- you have had
other discussions with teachers at break, recess.

Q. Mr. Townley, were you ever asked to respond to a
set of interrogatories?

A. You have to explain.

Q. Okay. Were you ever asked by the Attorney General's
office to state the subject matter on which you would
be expected to testify?

A. You mean write it down?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever have a discussion with anybody where
they were writing down what you would testify about?

A. I don't know if they wrote it down or not. Most our
conversations have been on the phone.

35

Q. Okay. Were you ever asked to state the substance
of the facts and opinions on which you were expected to
testify?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that.
That's kind of a legal conclusion calling for on what he's
going to testify. And obviously, we may talk on
general terms and we would derive from that what we would
expect him to testify to.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Williams, counsel for
plaintiffs was in your office yesterday. Nevertheless, I
understand that you've mailed to us a copy of a notice of
objections and a motion for extension of time to respond to
interrogatories. We have not received those papers and I'd
like you to explain to me the grounds for the objection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The grounds for the
objection, and I'll be glad to get you a copy, it's my
understanding that first of all this was not available --
was not completed when Joan was in the office yesterday.
We are objecting on the ground that the earlier orders
of the court requiring parties to disclose the name, the
subject matter of the testimony, et cetera, of the
witnesses has essentially muted the need for the
interrogatories. Further, to the degree that any more
specific information is desired, that information will not
be obtained until such time as the discovery depositions are

36

completed. And we simply are not in a position at this
point to respond to those interrogatories. I think we have
responded to the extent available in our earlier pre-trial
defendant's list of witnesses, one and two.

MR. CEARLEY: Let me interject here
since I am the one that any understanding would have been
had with. The purpose of these interrogatories, without
regard to the purpose of the Court's entering an order
requiring the exchange of the names of witnesses and
other information, was to put the plaintiffs in a
position -- or plaintiff's counsel in a position of being
prepared to define the scope of the testimony to be
offered by the defendant's witnesses at the trial and
to be prepared to take their discovery depositions with some
advanced notice of the areas within which they were going to
testify and with regard to experts, in particular with
regard to experts. The opinions which they intended to
state and the basis for those opinions.
The interrogatories were filed by the plaintiffs not ordered
by the Court. They were not in anyway muted by anything
that the Court did. And there is no law that would have
done that and no rule of procedure which would have done
that. And we are severely prejudiced with eight depositions
scheduled in the coming week of expert witnesses because we
do not have this information. Not only was this the topic

37

of discussion as late as November the 4th, and then perhaps
several times after that, but I wrote a letter to you as
counsel -- to Mr. Williams as counsel confirming an
agreement that the answers to interrogatories would be
furnished by Wednesday, November 11th, stating that this
agreement is to accommodate the depositions scheduled which
was presented which contains depositions scheduled to begin
on November 13th. There has been one deposition canceled
for the 13th, and another one canceled for today since that
time.

And it appears to counsel for
plaintiffs that the Attorney General's office is
meeting with its witnesses on the day prior to depositions
and making decisions then that should have been made
before now, and putting counsel for plaintiffs in the
position that we're going to have no advance knowledge of
the area in which a witness is going to testify or the basis
for his opinions. All in contravention of our agreements
and noncompliance with the answer date or response date on
the interrogatories. And frankly, I feel so strongly about
that and so prejudiced by it that I want to try to contact
the Court today and request a telephone conference in regard
to that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have no problem with
that. Let me tell you that I -- our agreement and our

38

understanding, as I understand it, was that we would provide
you with what we had. Now, we have talked with our
witnesses by telephone to the extent that time and
circumstances allow. The information that we essentially
have on their testimony is what's contained in the
defendant's list of witnesses. And we simply are not in a
position to respond with any more specificity.

I think that the purpose for which
those interrogatories were issued has been obviated
by the -- by the list of witnesses. But secondarily, if
the objection should not be sustained, we are requesting
additional time in which to respond pursuant to Rule
33B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where the
Court has the authority to order that.

Further, if you look at the depositions,
particularly of expert witnesses, Rule 26, it says that
those interrogatories which can be issued concerning
their opinions can be -- can be issued and then after
that time the Court may order further discovery for
depositions. Now, we have agreed to depositions which
essentially mutes that because the rules specifically call
for the interrogatories and then that. But we have gone
ahead and established depositions by agreement. So -- and
there has never been an order of depositions from the Court.
I'm telling you that we are giving you what we've got.

39

MR. CEARLEY: I understand that, I'm
just not satisfied with it David.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I can only
do so much as humanly possible.

MR. CEARLEY: Well frankly, my position
is simply that you've given us a list of twenty witnesses
that are all over the country. And if you don't have
time to determine what those witnesses are going to
testify to at the trial prior to the time that you find
out when we take their discovery depositions that you've
put the normal sequence of things in reverse order. And
we shouldn't be in a position of structuring your
testimony for you. We ought to know in advance why
they're being called so we can question them with regard
to that.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have given you that
information.

MR. CEARLEY: Well, I don't have that
information other than what you responded with that
was ordered by the Court, which is just a very general
statement of the area of claimed expertise of the witness.
It's not in any semblance a proper response to the
interrogatories.

MR. WILLIAMS: We also supplied -- We've
also supplied curriculum vitaes for all of the witnesses

40

which we now know.

MR. CEARLEY: Which was also ordered by
the Court. They were ordered by the Court at the pretrial
of October 1st.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm scheduled to
take a deposition of Frances Ialah on Tuesday, and I don't
have his curriculum viatae yet.

MR. CEARLEY: That's one out of all the
witnesses.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. That's the first
one. That's the first deposition of your own expert, I
don't have his.

MS. FERBER: Excuse me, this is the
first deposition of one of your experts and I do not have
Mr. Townley's curriculum viatae?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Townley, do you have
a curriculum viatae? Do you have a resume prepared?

WITNESS: No.

MR. CEARLEY: None the less David,
I think objections at this date come a bit late. It's an
eleventh hour effort. And the normal sequence of events was
not necessarily followed here because of the time frame at
that time we're operating in. And asking for an extension
to respond to these interrogatories until three days prior
to the trial --

41

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking for an
extension, that's the only alternative. I'm objecting on
the first ground.

MR. CEARLY: I understand that, but
furnishing this information to us three days prior
to the trial is absolutely useless. And by that time it's
all over but the trial and we could do absolutely nothing
with that information at that time. So, the reason
I'm going through all of this is I wanted to make a
record of our conversations. And I do want to discuss it
with the Court. And I'm going to make an effort to
do that and see if I can set up a telephone conference.
And if you have other information, I'd like to have it.
If you don't, I want to know that. Recognizing you filed
an objection, if you want to stand on that, then fine.
But I'm not asking this information of you in an effort to
harass your office or take advantage because you just have
two lawyers working on it, if that is the case. The fact
is, we have forty depositions scheduled in the following --
three weeks following this date. And unless it's done in an
orderly fashion, it's not going to get done, or not get done
properly.

And I want that information.

MR. WILLIAMS: We've given you the
information as to what the witnesses' qualifications are and

42

the subject matter of their testimony. Obviously, as to the
exact basis for each of their opinions, that's something you
can inquire into and you're going to inquire to in your
depositions. And it's entirely duplicative to try to do
this when we've already given it to you once you've had a
deposition.

MR. CEARLEY: There's no sense in our
arguing about it --

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's burdensome in
view of the time frame allowed. I am going to be out of
the -- you know, I could get a brief extension. Let's say
I got a brief extension of a week. One week from today,
I'm going to be taking Carl Sagen's deposition in New
York. I cannot conceivably respond to them from New
York.

MR. CEARLEY: I understand that. They
were filed, however, thirty days ago -- not filed, but
prepared thirty days ago. And the -- the plaintiffs gave
no direction to the defendants on who to call as
witnesses, expert or otherwise. If you don't know what your
own experts are going to say, then we ought not to be placed
in the position of taking their depositions just so you can
find out.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know what they're going to
say. They're going to testify that Creation Science is

43

supported by scientific evidence within your own particular
field of expertise. And they're going to testify why it
should be taught.

MR. CEARLEY: Well, that's all I need to
get on the record. We can go forward with this
deposition and I'll see if we can get ahold of the Court
and see if we can get something settled on it or have a
hearing on it. But I have fully stated our position. Go
ahead.

[Objection noted.]

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Mr. Townley, do you know whether your school
district purchased the filmstrips which you reviewed at
the two meetings you've described?

A. Yes.

Q. They did purchase?

A. As far as I know, they purchased them. I assume
that they didn't borrow them.

Q. Did they purchase the four tapes which you have
provided to me today?

A. As far as I know, they did.

Q. And have they purchased other materials, as far as
you know?

A. As far as I know -- it would be my opinion that they
have.

44

Q. Have you ever been told the names of other
publications which they have?

A. No.

Q. And did you tell me that you thought all the
materials were from the Institute of Creation Research,
including the books which have been -- books or pamphlets
which were --

A. I don't really know. As far as I know, that's
true. But I don't really know whether they've gotten
materials from other places or not.

Q. Was any statement made to the teachers at these
meetings or in the notices that were sent out that
described the kinds of materials that would be available
to them?

A. To the best of my memory, they stated that there
would be workshops on Creation Science. I don't remember
if they said any specific materials would be used.

Q. When you say workshops, are you referring to
the two meetings that you described or --

A. Right, that kind of thing where they would show
filmstrips. And then, of course, after we had the first
meeting they've told us what's going to occur at the next
meeting. Like they told us that at the next meeting we'd
listen to some cassettes. And then after we listened to the
cassettes, we'd talk about them.

45

Q. At these meetings, has there been any discussion of
what The Balance Treatment for Creation Science and
Evolution Science Act requires teachers to do?

A. It required -- It was stated that, to their
understanding, it would require teachers to teach both if
they taught one, or to teach neither. If they would
teach one of the sciences, one of the explanations for
life that they'd have to teach both. But if they didn't
teach one, then they couldn't teach the other.

Q. If I understand you --

A. If they taught one, they had to teach both. Or
they had the option of not teaching either.

Q. In other words, the teacher either has to give
balance treatment to Creation science and Evolution or
refrain from teaching evolution?

A. Right. That they had to teach both or to not each
either one.

Q. Now, were you told what teaching both meant?

A. No.

Q. How much of each do you have to teach?

A. No.

Q. Were you told that you had to give balance
treatment?

A. I don't remember that word being used.

Q. Were you -- was anything said other than you're

46

going to have to teach both Creation Science and
Evolution?

A. As far as I can remember, nothing was said except
that we would have to teach both.

Q. Did you -- do you have an understanding of what
teaching both would mean?

A. My -- you want me to give a personal opinion as to
what teaching both would mean?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I want to -- he
can answer that question, but I want to make sure he is
not giving -- he's not qualified to give a legal
interpretation of what "teaching" both means under the
act?

Q. No. Your personal opinion as to what you would be
required to teach.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. That calls for a
legal conclusion and I object of what he would be required
to teach.

[Objection noted.]

Q. No. I'm asking your current understanding, today
as a teacher, of what you believe you will be required to do
pursuant to Act 590.

A. To teach both theories as fully as possible. To

47

teach -- if I taught one -- if I were to teach one, that
I would teach the other also. That irregardless of how
much time it took me to teach one, I would utilize that
amount of time to teach that one.

Q. I'm sorry. Irregardless of how much time it takes
you to teach one --

A. That's the amount of time I would take to teach it.

Q. To teach that one?

A. That one.

Q. And then how much time would you take the other?

A. However much time that it would take to teach it.

Q. In other words, you have to teach each one fully?

A. Fully, to the best of my ability to teach each one
fully.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm talking about in the narrow regards to that
specific part of the theory that applies to what I'm
teaching.

Q. I understand that. And I will ask you about that
in a little while. Are you a member of any Creation Science
organizations?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever heard of the Creation Research
Society?

A. I think so.

48

Q. Do you remember when you first heard of the
organization?

A. I think when I started reading the materials.

Q. Okay. And reading what materials?

A. I borrowed some books of which I can't remember the
name.

Q. From whom?

A. From a community college teacher, from their
library. And -- for my own personal reading. Not to
teach, but just for personal interest.

Q. What was that teacher's name that you borrowed the
books from.

A. His name was John Deaton. And I can't remember, I
may have talked to a man named Clark, I don't remember.
He also teaches over there. They both teach physics
and chemistry over at the school?

Q. How did you know that they would have books on
Creation Science?

A. A course has been taught on Creation Science at the
school for several years. And I thought that would be the
best place to get some information on it. I can't remember
exactly what I was reading at the time that caused me to
become more interested. But I did become more interested in
creation, the ideas. I wanted to read more on their ideas
when I read it in some publication. And so with this in mind

49

I started asking around and trying to find out where I could
get that kind of information. And I can't remember who, but
somebody said that, you know, that it was being taught at a
local community college. And so I called up out there and I
said, "is there anyone here who can give me some literature
which I can read?" I don't remember the exact books they
loaned me, it's been a year ago. And I borrowed some books,
I read the materials through. Quite frankly, as in any
reading of any text type materials, you forget a lot of it,
you know. Quite frankly, if I were going to teach it, I
would certainly go back review the text material. I would
make notes. I would not, at all, try to teach from what I
currently have committed to memory.

Q. Okay. So, you do not feel that you presently
have the knowledge necessary to give full treatment to
Creation Science?

A. Oh, on. I would have -- definite have to do
research on my own as I do in any subject. Right now I'm
teaching advanced chemistry, and yet when I teach organic
chemistry, I certainly have to go back and pour through text
materials to refresh myself, to jot down those things that
are important to make plans.

Q. Would you look to your school or school
district to provide materials or training for the teaching
of Creation Science?

50

A. I would not expect them to. If they did, I would
certainly utilize the materials.

Q. Do you think that your fellow teachers are --
presently have the knowledge required to reach Creation
Science?

A. No

Q. Now, you said that you first heard of the Creation
Research Society when you started reading those materials
about a year ago?

A. About a year ago, I guess.

Q. Were some of these written by the Creation Research
Society or published by them?

A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. Do you remember any particular names; Duane Gish,
Henry Morris?

A. Gish certainly comes to mind. Morris would not have
come to mind, but I did hear a tape yesterday evening
from Morris called "Dinosaurs And The Deluge."

Q. Why did you hear the tape yesterday evening?

A. It was one of the ones that's going to be presented by
our school system. And it's -- I borrowed them to listen to
them on the way down here, particularly because of this
interview.

Q. Okay. Does the name Slusher mean anything to you?

A. No.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Jim Townley - Page 2

51

Q. Have you ever heard of the Creation Science
Research Center?

A. I assume that's what you said awhile ago.

Q. No, I'm sorry. That was the Creation Research
Society.

A. Okay. The only ones that I'm familiar with and, you
know, if you rephrase them in any way, and I certainly
wouldn't even me the names of them. I mean I could
get them confused or whatever. But the ones I'm familiar
with, there are two or so existing places in the United
States for creationist materials, one is in California.
I do not know the address or the name.

Q. San Diego sound familiar?

A. Could be. I mean it could be Los Angeles, I
really don't know. And there is also one, it's my
understanding, in Michigan. There maybe others, but --
and I speaking without authority, but I mean those are
the -- I've -- comes to mind that those are two places
where there are activities of research being done by
people on that particular theory.

Q. And how do you know that there are these two
centers?

A. I've read it someplace. It seems to me that in my
reading it's -- those areas come to mind.

Q. Did you ever see a book called "The Creation

52

Explanation"?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Does the name Kelly Seagraves mean anything to you?

A. Not a thing.

Q. Robert Kophal?

A. No.

Q. How about "Evolution, The Fossils Say No"?

A. I've definitely heard of the book. I don't know if
I've read it or not.

Q. It could have been one of the books that you
borrowed?

A. Could have been.

Q. How about, "Biology, A Search For Order And
Complexity"?

A. No.

Q. "Creation, A Scientist's Choice"?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Okay. "Creation And Evolution, A Comparison Of Two
Scientific Models"?

A. Maybe.

Q. "Fossils, Key To The Present"?

A. Maybe.

Q. Does the name Bliss mean anything to you?

A. Sounds familiar.

Q. Or Parker, Gary Parker?

53

A. Doesn't sound familiar.

Q. How about "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter"?

A. I've heard the name.

Q. Do you know when you heard of it?

A. In the past year or so.

Q. Was it one of the materials that your school
district could have mentioned to you at these sessions?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. How about "Origin Of Life Evolution Creation"? I
know the titles all sound alike.

A. You could read me off ten of those and some of them
are going to sound familiar. And maybe, you know....

Q. I'll try a couple of more. How about "The
Scientific Case For Creation"?

A. Maybe.

Q. Or "Scientific Creationism," by Henry Morris?

A. Maybe.

Q. Are you a member of the moral majority?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any political groups?

A. Political groups. Well, I guess my own teachers
organization would have to be considered somewhat
political. We make political statements, certainly.

MR. WILLIAMS: A.E.A.

A. A.E.A. certainly makes political statements.

54

Q. Okay. What is your religion?

A. Protestant.

Q. Are you a member of a church?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you an active member?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Do you attend church regularly?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that mean every week?

A. Every week.

Q. Are you active in other church activities?

A. I'm a deacon. Actually I have been a deacon. Our
church has its deacons on rotation of every three years
and then they're off a year. I am currently off a year.

Q. Have you always been a Protestant?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you belong to any church groups?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just for the record, I'm
going to object to all of this as being irrelevant.

[Objection noted.]

Q. You can answer the question.

A. You mean like Sunday school class.

Q. Sunday school class or --

A. Sunday school class, certainly.

Q. Do you have any bible study groups?

55

A. We have -- for instance, last year we had an
informal group of people that met at our homes and
discussed various books of the bible as Sunday school
classes do. We met about every two weeks at
night and discussed books of the New Testment.

Q. Okay. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

MR. WILLIAMS: Object to the question
as being ambiguous.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Do you have an opinion as to what a fundamentalist
is?

A. You mean by fundamentalist, that you interpret that
as believing specifically exactly every word of the
bible?

Q. Do you think a fundamentalist believes every word of
the bible?

A. That's what I'm asking you. You're asking me if I'm
a fundamentalist, and I'm asking you to defined what
you mean by fundamentalist.

Q. Well, why don't you answer the question of whether
you're a fundamentalist then you can qualify that answer if
you want to.

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to the question,
it's too ambiguous.

[Objection noted.]

56

A. I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior.

Q. Do you believe that the bible is literally true?

A. No. Could be. There are places in the bible
that -- I'll leave it at that, I guess I should. There
are places in the bible that I would -- I would -- for
instance, where it says that my brother -- if I were to
die without male children that my brother would marry
my wife and provide her with male offspring. I certainly
would not go along with that as a rule by which my
daily life should be lived or his?

Q. Do you believe that the creation story as told in
the bible --

A. In Genesis.

Q. Genesis.

A. Could be, very well could be. I believe it's true
the mechanism by which, of course, that it takes
place is what is in question.

Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor or
advisor?

A. My minister, Howard Marshall.

Q. Do you consult with him regularly?

A. He's the leader of my Sunday school class.

Q. Is Creation Science, per se, ever discussed in
your --

A. Has been I think. On one occasion I spoke to Howard

57

on it. I don't think Howard has any -- I don't think
Howard places any limits on the ability of God to do
what he does.

Q. Do you place any limits on the ability of God to
do his work?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Would you consider yourself a born-again Christian?

A. I consider myself Christian.

Q. Okay. Have you read the bible?

A. In total?

Q. In total.

A. Or in parts?

Q. Well, start with in total.

A. No.

Q. You've read it in significant parts?

A. Yes.

Q. Which versions?

A. Well, we have several versions; American Standard.
The version is the version that I have in my home and
it's the version that is used in our church.

Q. So, is that the American Standard?

A. American Standard, right. We have our standard --

Q. King James version?

A. We have King James Version. We have The Way which I
don't know what -- I just -- The Way is a version. It's

58

certainly more modern than King James or Standard Revised.

Q. Okay.

A. I should say American version, Standard Revised
version I think is the....

Q. How often do you read the bible?

A. We read the bible every week.

Q. Do you ever, as a teacher, consult the bible?

A. Never.

Q. Is the bible a source of personal revelation to
you?

A. Do you mean by personal revelation, that gives me a
better insight of myself?

Q. That's one thing on --

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the question is
ambiguous and you need to be more specific. What do
you mean by "personal revelation."

Q. Is it a source of insight as to yourself?

A. I think so.

Q. Is it a source of constant or renewed understanding as
to how God is working today?

A. Would you repeat that question again?

Q. Is it a source of revelation to you as to God's
role in modern society as to the presence of God?

A. I certainly try to use it to interpret that meaning
today.

59

Q. Okay. Does the bible provide for you a personal
code of conduct?

A. Yes.

Q. And does it provide a common basis of worship with
other individuals?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe the bible is inerrant?

A. What?

Q. Do you believe the bible is inerrant?

A. You mean in error?

Q. No, not in error.

A. Not in error.

Q. Correct.

A. Correct.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think I'm going to
object. I think --

Q. I didn't mean to confuse you on it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think there is a
-- maybe, I'm not sure, but I think there may be a
difference between in error and correct.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Yeah, I'll struggle with that. Infallible, I
suppose is a --

A. I believe that the men, through their revelation
through God, were infallible? Men are infallible -- I mean,

60

men are fallible. And they -- of course, God made his
revelations to men. And if you mean, do I think that those
men are fallible, I do believe those men are fallible

Q. Okay. Is the bible literally true?

A. Well again, the bible -- I don't know how familiar
you are with the bible.

Q. Not nearly as familiar as you are.

A. But the bible was formed from people who, by word
of mouth, memorized the laws, histories. It wasn't
until after Christ's death, many, many years that it
came into written form. Again, I would love to be
able to get some books and recall specifically dates,
times, so forth, but not being able to do that because I
didn't know those questions would come up, there were --
there is a Greek version of scripture. There is Hebrew
version, interpretations in English from those languages
can disagree. As to the interpreters as being fallible,
that's a possibility.

Q. Does the bible predict future events?

A. The revelation does predict future events.

Q. Has it, to your own knowledge, predicted future
events?

A. The Old Testament does predict the coming of Christ.

Q. Any other events you can think of?

A. Are you asking me to list all the events that I think

61

the bible predicted?

Q. Give me a couple of examples.

A. Well, it does predict many events in revelations,
although I would be the first to admit that it's very
difficult to interpret what those predictions are. It
does predict that there will be turmoil, conflict.

Q. Do you believe that the bible is free from error?

A. Didn't you ask me that question? You didn't ask me
that question before?

Q. Well, we were struggling with what inerrant

A. Free from error?

Q. Yeah.

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that. I
think that's ambiguous too. What's inerrant?

Q. Can you answer the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I'm objecting on
the ground that it is ambiguous because what his idea of
an error is and what your idea may be totally different.
So, you need to define what you mean by an error.

[Objection noted.]

MS. FERBER: The witness is welcome to
qualify his answer if he has an understanding as to the
question.

A. It's -- I tried to state that -- that there are
various interpretations in English from Hebrew and from

62

Greek words. And certainly there can be divergent opinions
as to what those interpretations are.

Q. Is the bible a source of scientific learning?

A. Is the bible a course of scientific --

Q. Uh-huh.

A. I don't use it as such.

Q. Do you believe it describes events which --

A. Happened.

Q. Yes.

A. I believe the bible describes events which very
well could have happened.

Q. To your knowledge, does the bible describe any
events which happened and which science then verified?

A. Well, the bible has described events such as the
flood, which science has -- some scientists have made
attempts to verify. It has made statements which I think
that science has attempted to verify, yes. Noah's ark
is an event which I think -- there are writers, there are
explorers who have looked for Noah's ark, and are trying to
verify. I'm not really for sure what you're trying to get
me to answer to.

Q. Do you believe that Noah's ark existed?

A. Yes, I do believe that Noah's ark existed.

Q. And that there was a great worldwide flood?

A. Yes.

63

MR. WILLIAMS: I voice that I object --
well, I object to the question on the ground that -- are
you asking him as personally or as a scientist.

MS. FERBER: I'm asking him personally,
sitting here today.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Personally, not
in his professional opinion as to whether there is
scientific evidence.

MS. FERBER: I did not ask him his
professional opinion as to scientific evidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Do you ever, in your classroom, discuss the Nowakian
[sic.] flood?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed Noah's ark?

A. No.

Q. When was your first contact with the Attorney
General's office?

A. I don't remember exactly. Eithin the past two
months.

Q. Okay. Who contacted you?

MR. WILLIAMS: To your best of your
knowledge. To the best that you recall.

Q. Who contacted you, if you recall?

64

A. Maybe David. I don't remember, I really don't
remember.

Q. Okay. Did you at that time discuss your testifying in
this case?

A. To some extent, I think.

Q. Okay. Do you represent yourself as an expert in
a particular field?

A. As an expert in any particular field?

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say for the record,
while we would consider Mr. Townley to be an expert in some
senses of the word legally, we do not plan to offer him as
an expert in this trial or have him qualified as such, if
that will expedite matters.

MS. FERBER: That would, thank you.

Q. Have you had any contact with any of the defendants
in this lawsuit?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any contact --

A. Wait, I'm sorry. By defendants, you mean the state?

Q. Yes.

A. I've had contact with David.

Q. Other than with the Attorney General's office?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation Science
groups?

65

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any contact with someone named
Windal Bird?

A. No.

Q. Or John Whitehead?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever testified before?

A. No. Wait. Yes, I have testified before.

Q. When was that?

A. Well, I brought before the Court -- I made a
complaint about a landlord once to the Court. And the Court
sustained me.

Q. Congratulations.

A. Okay.

Q. Have you ever testified in a legislative
proceeding?

A. In a legislative proceeding?

Q. In front of a legislative body?

A. No.

Q. Or an administrative proceeding, or school board,
or any --

A. Yes, I have.

Q. When was that?

A. Several times. I went before the school board
to plead a case for many issues.

66

Q. Tell me about those.

A. All of those?

Q. Tell me the issues as best you can remember.

A. That elementary school teachers should be given
time to prepare for lessons during the day, that they
teach without preparation time, that they receive no
lunch break in which to eat their lunch except for being
with their children and that they should be given
adequate time to eat so that they can relax mentally. And
that they should be given adequate time to prepare for
their lessons, and they were not, and that we felt like
it was the responsibility of the school system to furnish
that time so that they could adequately be -- teach the
children. And we lost.

Q. Was -- did you appear in front of the school board
in your capacity as an officer of the Fort Smith
Classroom Teachers Association?

A. Yes, and as a member of your negotiating team.

Q. Did you believe in that an elementary school teacher
had a right to time to adequately prepare for classroom
discussions?

A. I believe that it should be given to them. I think
that it's a responsibility of the leadership of our school
system to recognize that teachers need adequate preparation
time, and this is not being given. It is being given on a

67

secondary level, but is not on the primary level. As far as
to the rights of teachers, of course, I firmly believe that
we have a right to bring forth to school boards our needs.
And I believe in the right that we have to express that we
have those needs. As to their rights, no they don't have
any rights other than what they sign a contract to and what
the school board says. If the school board says that they
will not get any preparation time, they don't have the right
to then arbitrarily on their own desire to take that time
off. They agree to that contract and they must follow it.

Q. Are there any rights provided in your contract?

A. I get time off, prep time.

Q. Any other kinds of rights guaranteed by your contract
other than the preparation time?

A. In my own? Yes. I'm for salary, we have an
extensive personnel policy, which I don't have in front
of me which guarantees that your organization has the
right to speak for teachers. This is recognized by our
school board.

Q. Your contract with the school board recognizes the
Fort Smith Classroom Teachers Association?

A. Right, as being the legitimate spokesman for teachers
in our school district. And we have a procedure by which if
the school board wishes to speak to us they can. And if we
want to speak to them we can, although it's a very weak

68

policy. This -- this state does not have that school
teachers have the right for collective bargaining. It
doesn't preclude it from individual school districts, but
our local does have a form of bargaining rights.

Q. Now, when you refer to the local, what organization
are you referring to?

A. I'm referring to our local school district. There
are 370 or so school districts in this state.

Q. Is there an organization that bargains with the
school district --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in regards to your contract?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that organization?

A. Fort Smith Classroom Teachers Association.

Q. Does the Fort Smith Classroom Teachers Association
have any policy statements or a constitution which addresses
the rights and responsibilities of teachers?

A. We do have a constitution which designates
what the responsibilities are of the officers within the
organization.

Q. Do you have any policy statement or anything that
discusses academic freedom?

A. I can't -- I can't state that. I don't know for
sure.

69

Q. Do you have anything that discusses the
responsibilities that a teacher owes to students?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Okay. Do you have a understanding as to what the
term academic freedom means?

A. Yes.

Q. As a teacher, what does that term mean to you?

A. That within the confines of the law that I should have
the freedom to teach my course in a responsible manner.

Q. What do you mean by confines of the law?

A. Well, my academic freedom to teach is limited by
the law.

Q. What kinds of laws limit what you teach?

A. Well specifically, the law can say that I cannot teach
this or that. So, within the confines of the law that's
what I can or cannot teach. The law says, for instance,
that you cannot have religion in -- so, within the confines
of the law.

Q. Do you believe in that particular law which prevents
you from teaching about religion?

A. You mean relative to science or relative to --

Q. In the public schools at all?

A. Well of course, I wouldn't be placed in that
position because I would never have to teach religion.
As far as teaching religion, I see nothing -- I'm not

70

sure the law states that you can't teach religion in
the school in the form of a social studies course, okay.
Only in the law -- only that in science, we don't teach
religion in science.

Q. What do you teach in science?

A. We teach science.

Q. Okay. Have you ever attended any debates about
Creation Science?

A. Formal debates, set up as debates?

Q. Or discussions about it?

A. Well, only those that I have already told you
about.

Q. Any discussions or debates about Evolution?

A. I've never attended a formal debate on --

Q. Okay. When you say formal, have you attended
informal discussion or debate about --

A. Yes, those that I told you.

Q. So, that's the two meetings.

A. There are many, many informal discussions. I mean
we have informal discussions on science all the time in
our teacher's lounge amongst teachers. So, I mean how many?
Well, there would be probably thousands. So, I mean if
you're talking about a formal set up, you know, not so many.
But if you're talking about informal discussions on
science, I couldn't possibly --

71

Q. Have teachers expressed to you opinions as to
whether or not Evolution should be taught?

A. Sure.

Q. Can you tell me those opinions?

A. I think they feel like they think Evolution should be
taught.

Q. Have they expressed opinions whether or not
Creation Science should be taught?

A. Yes.

Q. And what are those opinions?

A. Some say no and some say yes.

Q. Has a teacher ever said to you that they wouldn't
teach Creation Science?

A. In seriousness, I don't know. I don't recall
anyone saying that -- I better say I don't recall any
teacher ever telling me that they would not teach Creation
Science.

Q. Did they say they'd prefer not to?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they say that they couldn't teach it?

A. No.

Q. Tell me -- could you tell me where those
conversations were? Obviously, there was some doubt
expressed to you about it.

A. That is just conversation amongst teachers, science

72

teachers. We get together and we talk informally.
There are questions as to how well they've been prepared
at this point to teach.

Q. So, some teachers feel that they are not prepared
to teach Creation Science?

A. Most surely.

Q. Okay. Is there any indication that you are going to
be properly prepared to teach it?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that
question. I think it calls for speculation on the part
of the witness.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Do you believe that your school or school
district is going to adequately prepare teachers to
teach Creation Science?

MR. WILLIAMS: Still calls for
speculation, I think.

MS. FERBER: If the witness has an
opinion as to whether or not --

MR. WILLIAMS: I think you should ask
him, do you think it's possible that they can be prepared.
I think --

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. As I understand it, your school district has
already indicated to you that they are going to do

73

certain things --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- as regards to Creation Science. From what
the school district has told you, do you feel that
that alone will prepare you to teach Creation Science?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have other teachers indicated to you that they will
Do any additional research on their own --

A. Yes.

Q. -- to equip themselves to teach Creation Science?

A. Yes.

Q. Have they mentioned any difficulties in getting
materials to do that?

A. No.

Q. Have they indicated any problem finding materials
that aren't religious in nature?

A. No. But I haven't had that very -- you know, that
question as to how well they're going to prepare themselves
really hasn't been a question.

Q. I understand. You told me that you consulted some
materials over the last year --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that discussed Creation Science. Did those
materials contain religious references?

A. Some did.

74

Q. Did you believe, as a science teacher, that those
materials were accurate?

A. Those materials were accurate.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that you
recall even looking at them and reading them?

A. I'm sure the people that made the statements felt that
they were accurate.

Q. I asked --

A. Did I feel that they were accurate? I felt that
they were possible. Much of what I read I felt was
possible.

Q. Did you ever read anything which you, as a science
teacher, did not believe was accurate?

MR. WILLIAMS: For clarification, by the
term accurate, do you mean that's the way it actually
happened? Or that it's accurate in terms of good science
or a competent scientific theory?

Q. Did not -- well first, was it good scientific
theory?

A. Some not.

Q. Okay. Can you remember what?

A. And you're going to ask me to ask what was not.

Q. To the best of your recollection.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you can't recall you
can so state.

75

A. I can only say that some things which cannot be
validated both in Evolution and in Creation is not
science.

Q. Okay. Were they presented as science.

A. I think in some cases both, in my opinion, are
presented as science.

Q. Both meaning?

A. Both meaning there are parts of Evolution and there
are parts of Creation that are presented in some cases as
science which are not. They cannot be validated, they
cannot be repeated, experimentation cannot prove it.

Q. What in evolution --

A. So, it's strictly hypothesis.

Q. Can you give me an example of something that you've
read or encountered in Evolution that you believe was
not scientific?

A. I can give you a hypothesis in Evolution that -- that
cannot be proved.

Q. For example?

A. They cannot prove that there has been -- man evolved
from a single cell.

Q. Have you personally reviewed any scientific data which
contradicts the evidence that man evolved from a single
cell?

A. No.

76

Q. Do you believe that the scientific data which you
have read about establishes to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty that man evolved from a single cell?

A. No.

Q. What would it take, in your mind, to show to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty that man evolved
from a single cell?

A. That some other organism -- I think first of all I'd
have -- for my own certainty, I'd have to see us recreate
a single cell, a living single cell animal from inanimate
material. Now, to me, that would create the certainty that
it's possible.

Q. So, your problem is that we can't create anything
from inanimate --

A. Right. We cannot duplicate the process of making
living material from inanimate material through random
collision, through randomness.

Q. What about -- okay. If we forget life from
nonlife?

A. Okay. Well, that's basically though what I would
be teaching. I would not be teaching basically from the
formation of the cell on because I'm not a biologist. I
would be teaching basically chemical reactions. And
basically, this would be inanimate material forming life, I
have great difficulty with that.

77

Q. So, you can't teach to the reasonable degree of
scientific certainty where first life came from?

A. That's right.

Q. How do you present that to your students?

A. Well, for years I've presented it and still present
it to be as -- that through random collisions, the
possibility of protein structures and then life or more
sophisticated molecules could have occurred. And it
could have happened that a single cell was formed in that
way. Probability does not exclude it.

Q. Do you deposit other ways that first life could
have arisen to your students?

A. No.

Q. Do I understand you, therefore, to present that to
your students as a theory of the way first life occurred?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And do you know of any other scientific theories as to
how first life occurred?

A. Well, certainly. Creationism. That a creator,
a power, a force not understood by man, beyond the
understanding of man created life in it's current form. That
there have been changes in that current form, but that the
current form did not start off as inanimate, progressed to a
single cell, and evolved through slow evolution to the forms
we have currently on earth.

78

Q. What is science to you?

A. What is science to me? Explaining natural
phenomenon, basing our explanations on experimentation,
validification through experimentation of events that
happened, and to a lesser degree to events that have
happened.

Q. Do you believe that science has depended on natural
laws?

A. I believe that that our science that we teach is
dependant on natural laws.

Q. Okay. Is Creation dependent on natural laws?

A. I believe that you can validify, through
experimentation, either that Creation could have occurred
or could not have occurred, with enough experimentation.
I believe that our continued experimentation, for
instance on Evolution, can lend more credence to the fact
that Evolution could have occured.

Q. Can it validate Evolution?

A. I don't think it can validate Evolution. I think --

Q. But experimentation could validate creation?

A. I don't think so.

Q. I'm sorry, I thought I understood you to say that.

A. I think that you can lend credence to it, that you
can make it acceptable. But you can also make something
unacceptable. If we could ever, in any way, show that

79

things couldn't have happened and you can invalidate even
the hypothesis of the theory.

Q. Do you say we can ever disprove Creation?

MR. WILLIAMS: You're talking about potentially or
conceivably, not whether it will be done.

A. It's possible.

Q. Would your religious believes allow you to accept
that evidence which disproved or, I think you said, lent
credence for -- led us to believe that Creation did not
occur?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to object to
that question. I think you're mixing Creation in a
religious sense and Creation Science in a scientific
sense?

[Objection noted.]

Q. I believe I understood you to say that we could gather
scientific data that would lend credence to --

A. Either theory.

Q. Either theory, Creation Science or Evolution. And
that it would be scientifically possible to disprove
Creation, that it might be?

A. It might be. It might be. I don't see how it can
be done now, but it might be.

Q. Okay. You told me a few minutes ago that you
presently teach your students that through random

80

collision --

A. Chemical reactions occur.

Q. -- chemical reactions occur and first life may have
been formed in that way?

A. That's a possible way that the first celled
mechanism -- the first celled organism may have occurred.

Q. And do you present any other scientific explanation
to your students?

A. Not now.

Q. And you told me a few minutes ago that Creation is
an alternative scientific explanation of first life.

A. Right. That it was not random, but that it was
planned by some force, some external force to nature.

Q. Okay. And you told me that science is dependent, I
believe, on natural laws?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Creation dependent on natural laws?

A. No.

Q. Then how is Creation an alternative scientific
explanation of first life?

A. Because science can experiment, through laboratory
experimentation, and see if they can validify if there is
the possibility that some external force did create life.

Q. What scientific evidence are you aware of in
support of a creation explanation of first life?

81

A. What scientific evidence am I aware of that is in
support of --

Q. Creation.

A. There has been work done on the probabilities of
particulate matter coming together and forming molecules.
Statistically, to show that it would have been a very
small probability that inanimate matter could have formed
a living system through randomness. If that is not so,
that leaves you with what alternative? And the only
alternative that I'm aware of, through the process of
logic, is an outside force.

Q. So, it is through your logical reasoning and
evidence --

A. And experimentation on statistics.

Q. -- on an evolutionary explanation of first life,
which causes you to say that Creation is an --

A. As a possible -- as an alternate explanation for
how life was created. There are examples of this in the
past. The theory, for instance, that the earth was not
the center of the universe, it was not geocentric, but
instead that the cosmos, as we know them, were heliocentric.
Even that has been disproven, but that was the theory at
that time.

Capericus thought that the world was --
as a center of the universe, was not reasonable

82

explanation. And he felt like that the sun, being the
center of the earth, was a much more reasonable
explanation. No experimentation had been done at that
time. he couldn't come up with experimentation to give
that explanation, but because of experimentation that had
been done on the current system to show that it lacked --
it was lacking in his eyes. He believed in the
heliocentric system as a possible explanation for natural
events. Work continued to be done, and it wasn't until
several hundred years later that it was ever validated,
verified that what he actually thought to be true was
true.

Scientific experimentation continued by
means at that time that they didn't know until they did
finally prove that theory and prove that it was not
geocentric. And yet, the geocentric university, which was
the theory at that time explained to within like 2% of the
movements of the stars and the heavens, the planets and the
heavens, and all the moons. It was extremely difficult to
get anybody to even listen to the other theory, to the event
that Galileo, who is one of the most learned people in his
day, was locked up in house arrest until he died because of
his beliefs, or at least partially because of his beliefs in
a heliocentric system.

So, now to ask me to be an authority on

83

this, I think is -- I'm giving a personal view point, I
think is incorrect. To ask me to be an authority on
what I teach currently, today, I think is incorrect. I
currently teach organic chemistry. I am a teacher, I
learn it to the best of my ability. As soon as somebody
tells me, this is what you are to teach I read books and
materials and teach what is known.

Q. You told me earlier today that even though you had
heard of some mention of other theories of how life began
that the only two scientific explanations that you knew
of were Evolution and Creation?

A. That's correct. The only two basic -- there are --
if somebody tells you that life comes from -- from a bug.
Somebody says we were all created from a giant bug, that
we evolved from a bug. Well, that in a sense is
Evolution.

Q. I understand. I just want to be certain that what
you're telling me is that because you believe that there is
evidence which shows that there is statistically a small
probability that an inanimate matter could have been formed
into living systems through randomness, that that diminishes
the probability that life began through an evolutionary
process, and therefore supports the scientific theory of
Creation.

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean you're just

84

trying to summarize his testimony. You're not saying
that's the only evidence.

Q. Can you tell me any other scientific evidence
that would support the creation model of how life began?

A. If you have matter which is an unorganized,
disorganized, no organization at all completely and
totally random, there should be -- there should be
randomness someplace. There should be total
disorganization of all existing material. But no matter
where we look in nature, from the smallest rock, smallest
grain of sand, to any living thing highly organized and
highly patterned, you may think that something is random
and disorganized but when you look at it further it
is totally organized and patterned.

To ma, this is not acceptable. It's
not acceptable that we can't find total randomness when we
look at the stars on a large scale. I know when we first
look at it they look random. But yet when we look at it in
greater detail there seems to be great patterns.

Q. So, are you telling me that because we can't find --
A. There doesn't seem to be total disorganization. And
yet through evolution, there should be -- there should be
disorganization. There should be lack of pattern.

Q. Are you saying -- is the problem with the second
law of thermodynamics?

85

A. You're bringing in -- I know you're bringing in a
second law of thermodynamic, but that doesn't -- when
you say that matter tends to go from organized to
disorganized, matter does tend to go from organized to
disorganized.

Q. I did not mean to confuse you or bring in the second
law. I'm trying to understand what is the impact, to you,
the fact that we can't find this total randomness?

A. It doesn't disprove evolution, but it certainly
doesn't lend --

Q. Additional support?

A. It doesn't lend support to it. I -- to me there
are serious questions with evolution. There always have
been in my mind.

Q. Okay. Now, one way that I understand that you
teach subject matter relating to the origin of life
is in a discussion of where first life came from in a
chemistry class, is that correct?

A. Yes, that could come up. Yes.

Q. And under The Balance Treatment For Creation
Science And Evolution Science Act, you would then be
required to teach fully the creation explanation of where
first life came from?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Excuse me.

86

A. Yes.

Q. How would you teach fully the Creation explanation of
how life began?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to object.
Because he's already stated he does not -- at this time
he's done enough study on his own to be able to do that.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Mr. Townley, you've read some books on the matter.
I understand it was in the last year and you can't
remember everything, but you do -- do you feel that
you read a representative sampling of the material that
was available?

A. I've read some, right.

Q. And --

A. I'm sure that there is much more, quite -- a
tremendous amount more material that I haven't read.

Q. How many books did you read, do you remember?

A. I think I read three books.

Q. And you're not aware of any other scientific evidence
that would -- that you could present in your classroom in
support of the creation explanation of the origin of life?

A. There has been work done on -- you know, your own
observations would be, for instance, that here on earth
we have many billions of people. And that through
interaction with each other should show that -- one, that

87

this species cannot change to another species, or that
possibly we could change to another species. And as far
as with billions of interactions, which there has not been
at least that we know about. Sometimes when someone makes a
theory we work on that theory and work on that theory, and
as long as we can't disprove it we have to consider it a
valid theory, such as atomic theory. We've never seen the
atom, we do not know what the atom looks like. It is a
theory. We do much experimentation on the atom --

Q. Uh-huh.

A. -- to substantiate that it does follow the patterns
that we think it should because of what we've theorized.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. But we've never seen it. All of our evidence
is indirect, but we still have the theory because, why,
we can't disprove it not because that we can prove that
it's exactly this way. Okay. We cannot disprove much.

Q. Okay.

A. Now, we can hypothesize many things. And if you
hypothesize something and you tried to disprove it a
hundred thousand times, your hypothesis gains credibility.
On the other hand, if you have never experimented on it,
you have never tried to disprove it, it lacks credibility.
But the more that you experiment to disprove, even though
you never prove it, the more validity it acquires.

88

Q. Okay. When you -- when a scientist learns new
facts, if those facts contradict the theory that he's been
operating on, doesn't he then have to adjust the theory?

A. He can adjust the theory or it might be so damaging
that you have to throw the theory away. For instance,
they have had to throw theories away in the past,
completely discard major basic theories, basic theories
that were prevalent to all of their explanations, totally.
As example, theory of place, which said that everything
sought it's natural position due to it's natural place
such as air, earth, fire, and water that there was a
natural place. For all earth like objects to be at the
bottom, water to be resting on that, air resting on that,
and fire sought it's place through that. Experimentation
disproved that theory. It had to be discarded totally. An
all the subdivisions of that theory had to be discarded.
The total theory for the explanation of the universe, the
Ptolemetic System, which was carried forth --

MR. WILLIAMS: Spell it for her.

A. P-t-o-l-e-m-y is Ptolemy, oaky. The man Ptolemy who
upon the Ptolemetic Theory was based. And -- and there
are many men named Ptolemy in history. But the original
one was a Greek.

Q. The theory.

A. Okay. So, Ptolemy's theory totally explained

89

within a very narrow percentage of movements of the stars,
astronomical observation. But it had to be totally
discarded because it was wrong even though, and all the
consequences and the rhetrograde motions, and the epicycles,
and the sequence, and all totally had to be discarded.
Not just a little part of it, but all of it had to be
discarded.

On the other hand, sometimes a very
small modification will not cause us to discard a theory,
but will cause us to change a theory. An example, we
originally, within the last hundred years, have modified
the structure of the atom many times. We have not had to
discard the basic theory that all matter is made of
particles. We've only had to modify what the -- how the
particles are made, what our view of these particles is.
We have went from indestructible atoms to atoms that are
subdivided, that have many subdivisions, from electrons
to protons. We've made many suppositions on where the
electrons are going within this particle. And we've found
that we were in error. And because of the error we've
modified the theory, but we haven't thrown or discarded
the theory away. On the other hand, there are theories
which could change even that. Okay.

So, there is still theories, but yet we
believe them very much. In other words, we teach them.
And because of the way they're taught, in many cases, and

90

theory, kids begin to take atomic theory as actual fact.
That there are little atoms with little solar system
electrons roving around the nucleus, and that is a fact when
it is not because we don't pound home the idea that this is
theory and most likely will be changed. Even when we go
into current theories, Shrodenger's wave equation and the
models of the electron clouds that are predicted because of
it and with the use of our computers, we don't really pound
home to our students the fact that these are still theories
and will probably be, as current technology and science
becomes even better, modify even those pictures of the atom.

Q. Okay. Do you believe that there is significant
scientific data in support of the theory that life, first
life occurred through random collision?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Okay.

A. I think it's possible, but I don't think there
is overwhelming evidence that it happened.

Q. Do you believe that there is significant scientific
data in support of the theory of Evolution?

A. I'm sorry, would you repeat that again?

Q. Do you believe that there is significant scientific
data in support of the theory of Evolution?

A. I think there is enough observation to warrant that
it be taught. I think there is not enough observational

91

evidence to prove that it was the way that life evolved.

Q. do you have a personal opinion as to the age of
the earth?

A. I think the earth could be very old. I think the
earth might not be very old. It could be anywhere from
ten thousand years old to five billion, ten billion, or
even longer. It's -- most science today says the earth
is somewhere in the vicinity of five billion years old.

Q. Do you know whether there is scientific data that
contradicts the theory that the earth is ten thousand
years old?

A. Yes. But that is based upon -- if you -- if you look
at radioactive dating, radioactive dating currently says if
you believe -- the vast majority of scientists, that there
are objects on this earth that are many times older than ten
thousand years old even up to hundreds ofthousands, hundreds
of millions of years old. There are those scientists who
say that these dating techniques are in error. And I feel
that their hypothesis should be looked at more fully.

A. I've read through some of the material, which I
cannot recall in detail, but I -- you know, if you wish
for me to go on I'll go on as best I can but
understanding that it's not, you know -- but that their
dating techniques are incorrect. Okay.

Q. Okay. Do you believe -- do you know of scientific

92

data which contradicts the creation explanation for the
origin of first life?

A. No.

Q. So that the scientific data in support of the
possibility that life first occurred through random
collision does not contradict the creation explanation of
the origin of life?

A. Would you restate that again?

Q. Okay. I believe you told me earlier that some
probability, whatever size --

A. However small --

Q. -- some probability exists that life first occurred
through random collision?

A. There is some possibility not probability. There is
some possibility that life could have evolved through
random collision, correct.

Q. And we talked about -- okay. Do you believe
that that probability, whatever size it is, is based on
scientific data?

A. You must remember that as a teacher and not a
researcher that I only know what I read. And sometimes
what I read is contradictory to each other. And that
based upon what I've read, there is evidence that it
would be extremely unlikely that life could have come
through on this earth through random collision, but it

93

does not exclude the possibility.

Q. Okay. We talked about the fact that if a scientist
encounters significant data that contradicts his theory
--

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- he either needs to abandon the theory or see if
he may revise it.

A. That's true.

Q. And do you teach students that that's how
scientific theories are developed?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. How are you going to present to students
data in support of the creation explanation of first life,
and data in support of what we're categorizing as
evolutionary explanation of the origin of life.

A. Okay. In the formation of molecules here on
earth from inanimate material, there is the possibility
that under the right conditions, which do not any longer
exist in earth nor is there anyway to prove that those
conditions did exist, but they could possibly have
existed. But under the proper conditions, inanimate
material could have come together to have formed
molecules. These specific molecules then could have been
formed that would have been amino acids.

94

to authenticate that amino acids can be formed under
certain conditions which cannot be verified, but at least
the possibility has been shown that they could have
formed, which leads -- which gives credence to evolution.

Q. Okay.

A. These -- there is a possibility that these amino acids
could have then come together to form long chain molecules
necessary for life, such as proteins. It is then possible
that many of these molecules could have come together under
a process of randomness and formed a living cell.

Q. Is that what you basically teach now?

A. That's what I basically teach now. Now, statistics
show, which I don't teach now. There are many
scientists who now show that statistically, the
probability for this happening is extremely slim. In
fact, according to a few scientists in the world, the
statistics show that it is so slim as not to be very
creditable.

Q. Why don't you teach that?

A. Because I've just learned it. It wasn't taught
to me.

Q. Okay. Good reason.

A. And for twenty years I didn't know it until I started
reading that literature.

Q. So, it was the literature which you have reviewed

95

in order to teach -- in order to learn about Creation
Science is what has shown you that there is a small
probability that life could have been been formed through
--

A. Through random collision.

Q. Okay. Have you -- okay. You don't remember what
those books were?

A. No.

Q. Did you do any kind of review of the scientific
credentials of the authors of books that you read?

A. I looked at the authors and many of the people who
were the authors of the books were professors at -- in
California at very highly recognized universities. Some
were from Michigan, some were from England, some were from
Michigan. They seemed to be very creditable authors. Of
course, I can't personally validify there is -- nor could I
personally validify anybody in evolution as far as that's
concerned. I just simply look and if they have, you know,
what appear to be -- they appear to be from good
universities, good reputable universities, they have
P.h.D.'s.

Q. They were from universities that you recognized?

A. I recognized as being highly thought of
universities.

Q. Okay. And what you read in those books contradicted
the probabilities that you had had?

96

A. Well, I think it awakened me to the fact which I
hadn't thought of in the past, of how improbably it was
that life did form through random collision.

Q. Okay. Do you have any other tools available
to you that would enable you to interpret -- enable you
to determine how much credence you ought to attach to
that -- this new information you're learning.

A. Well, some of this information -- and I can't tell
you what. But I looked at some of the copyright dates
and some of the copyright dates were early '70's. I
have not -- and I certainly haven't read all major science
major literature, but most certainly I would assume that
anything which would -- which would greatly prove or
disprove very important theories would make banner headlines
sort of like.

Q. So in other words, what you read didn't make
banner headlines?

A. I have never read any literature which tries to show
that the probabilities that these men write about are not
true. I haven't seen anyone or any written literature which
says these people are crazy.

Q. But now, let me see if I understand you. You used
to believe that there was a fairly --

A. Reasonable chance of these -- of these type things
occurring.

97

Q. And now you read something else which says that --

A. Several, several books.

Q. Several books all of which you read when you were
reading Creation Science literature in the last year?

A. Right. And in each of these books it is pointed
out again and again of the improbability of through
random collision that statistically, which all -- almost
all science today is based, by the way, on statistics,
probabilities. Okay. Our atomic theory is based on
probability of orbital structure looking like it is.

Probability is something that science uses
as a tool. And when I -- and when I here that probability
is suddenly not very likely, that makes me perk up. Or if I
heard that probability said something was likely, that
would make me perk up and say, "hey, you know, this is
important."

Q. What I want to understand -- what I think my last
question went to was whether you have, when you read this
new information and you looked at what schools the people
were from and you saw they had P.h.D.'s after their names,
whether there is any other resources available to -- for
you, to aid you to determine whether or not to credit what
you were then reading, and therefore based your teaching on
it?

A. No. Nor is there -- the same question could be

98

applied towards all of my knowledge, any text book
that I read. I must just look at the text book and
assume at the credentials from well known institutions
and P.h.D.'s in those fields, that these people have
creditable ideas and are knowledgeable in the areas
in which they speak.

Q. You went through several years of formal education.

A. That's true.

Q. And you are trained to be a science teacher.

A. That's true.

Q. And in all that training, were you ever taught about
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. Were you ever taught that the probabilities were
small that life occurred through random collision?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Have you discussed the specifics of your
testimony in this case with the Attorney General's office?

A. Nothing of what we've been going over now.

Q. How did you first hear about this lawsuit?

A. I think in the newspaper. I don't remember exactly
how I heard about it.

Q. And who asked you to testify?

A. The Attorney General's office.

Q. And that first time was within the last couple of

99

months?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. Did the Attorney General's office ever
tell you how they happened to call you and ask you to
testify?

A. Did the Attorney General's office -- I think that
they told me that they had heard my name as a teacher who
would teach Creation Science if the law passed.

Q. Had you made that statement to somebody previously?

A. Many people.

Q. Okay. Was that --

A. I've even applied through the superintendant
of the schools. I requested that I be allowed to present
the view of creationists towards the formation of -- of the
statistical probabilities of formation of -- I asked that I
be allowed to point out an alternate view to randomness and
collision theory for the making of long chain molecules,
which was Creation Science.

Q. When did you --

A. And I asked that oh, at the beginning of the
summer.

Q. Beginning of this past summer?

A. Right.

Q. What was that in response to?

A. That was in response to the fact that I had read

100

some material which made me think that maybe what I had been
teaching was possibly not the only way that these things
could have come about. I had been in -- in my own mind,
a true evolutionist, I guess in that sense of the word,
before that time and before my doubt was created. And
to me as a scientist, the statistical evidence was so
overwhelming on the odds that I saw written in books that
I felt like it was my responsibility as a teacher to
relay this information to my students and present the
fact that there was an alternative possibility. And that
the fact that since no other alternative possibilities were
on the horizon, that it should be expressed.

Q. What was the response of the superintendant?

A. Maybe.

Q. Has he ever given any reason for his answer?

A. During these presentations they have asked that we
not teach Creation Science.

Q. Why?

A. Well, their statement was that they would prefer
that we wait until the outcome of the law -- until the
outcome of the court case is known. And that that would
be their hope that we would not go above their wishes.
And of course, I will not.

Q. Was there ever an expression of preference that
prevents you from teaching?

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Jim Townley - Page 3

101

A. Definitely, I will follow their preference.

Q. Okay. What would happen to you if you didn't?

A. Well, under Arkansas Law, I guess if I went against
the wishes of -- of my school district I could be in
trouble.

Q. What do you mean by be in trouble? You have to help
me out, I don't know Arkansas Law that well.

A. I guess on a worse case basis, I guess they could
decide that they didn't want me.

Q. You mean fire you?

A. I guess so.

Q. Even though you're a nonprobationary teacher?

A. I guess they could try to use that as
justification.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't think they would, but....

Q. Why did you think you had to ask a superintendant
for permission to teach Creation?

A. It's controversial.

Q. Would you have considered it controversial if you
didn't know this lawsuit was pending?

A. Yes, I would have.

Q. You mean, if this were three years ago and Act
590 had never been passed --

A. But there had been as much play in the papers as
there is now on creationism and evolution. I would have

102

still thought that it warranted my informing the school
district of my wishes.

Q. Was there that much play in the papers before Act
590 was ever considered?

A. When did Act 590 -- when was it considered?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the record
reflects it was passed in March of this year.

Q. So, say this was 1980?

A. So, I can't answer that question because I didn't
request it, nor even get started until after that time.

Q. Okay. How many contacts have you had with the
Attorney General's office in regard to your testifying in
this case.

A. Several phone calls.

Q. Okay, with who?

A. David. Let me see if I have the name of somebody
else.

Q. Is it Rick Campbell?

A. Tim Humphreys. Those are the only two that I
recall. There may have been another person involved?

Q. Okay. Are you being paid for your testimony?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been arrested -- I mean been
convicted of a crime?

A. No.

103

Q. Have you discussed the specifics of your testimony
with the Attorney General's office?

A. As to what we went over this morning, absolutely
not.

Q. What we went over this morning is my time to
test your information, to learn your knowledge of the
area. Have you ever discussed with the Attorney General's
office what your testimony at trial is going to be?

A. Somewhat, yes. Somewhat.

Q. Have you discussed your testimony with anybody else?

A. My wife.

Q. Anyone else?

A. My -- I've discussed the fact that I will be
testifying with my colleagues, my science colleagues.

Q. Have they expressed any opinions to you about your
testifying?

A. Some were very pleased. None expressed, you know, any
ill feelings. They know, after our discussions, my feelings
and they -- I think they're all -- there would be no
unhappiness about it from them. We're all still friends,
very much so.

Q. What is your testimony going to be?

A. I have no idea what you're going to ask me. I had
no idea what you were going to ask me this morning. But
I assume that I'll be asked would I teach it. And I would

104

say, "yes, I would." And beyond that, I have no real
idea what you're going to ask me. I assume you'll ask me
my name, and you'll ask me if I graduated from certain
colleges, or whatever. And I guess that I will, you know,
give that information.

Q. You're right, there will be background questions.
We all assume that. Are you going to testify that you
do not now teach Creation Science because of the
uncertainty about the current state of the law?

A. I sure will.

Q. Didn't you just tell me that you're not teaching
creation Science now because your school district told
you not to?

A. Yes. But my school district implied that because
of the state of the law that they didn't wish me to.

Q. Are you not teaching it because of the state of the
law or you're not teaching it because you told me that you
could be fired by the school district if you went against
their wishes that you not teach it?

A. Well, I didn't tell you that they would fire me.

Q. They could, they might. They could take some
discipline.

A. They could take some disciplinary action on me for
anything that I did that was, in their view, not correct.

Q. And you said from your expression --

105

A. That they would prefer that we not teach -- and
they have stated in front of many teachers that they
would prefer, because of the uncertainty of the law, for
us not to teach Creation Science until it has been settled
one way or the other.

Q. If this statute is upheld, you would feel free to
teach Creation Science?

A. I would feel free to teach that which is pertinent to
my area, right.

Q. Okay. Very shortly we will discuss what's pertinent
to your area.

A. I'm going to miss the Arkansas football game, that I
can already see.

Q. Let's go off the record.

[Off the record discussion.]

Q. What textbook do you use for teaching in your
chemistry class and your honors chemistry class?

A. I use "Modern Chemistry" by Dull, Metcalf &
Williams, I think it is. We use Modern -- I'm sorry. We
use -- the name of our textbook by Dull, Metcalf &
Williams, I think that's who we use. And we use another
textbook called "Foundations of Chemistry." We use
another textbook called "Chemistry -- I use so many
textbooks I really can't tell -- you know, I get the
authors all mixed up. I use, to teach my class from my

106

lectures, I must use ten or fifteen textbooks.

Q. Is there one textbook that's distributed to the
students?

A. Right. That's "Modern Chemistry."

Q. "Modern Chemistry."

A. And also the other textbook is "Chemistry" that's
distributed.

Q. Both of those are distributed?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And --

A. We distribute a workbook which correlates with the
material.

Q. Is that in your general chemistry class?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you teach an honors chemistry class?

A. That's the one that has "Chemistry" that's
distributed to it. And again, I use -- like right now, for
the first twelve weeks of school, I have not really taught
out of the book at all, but out of many, many books. So,
like even though the book is distributed, it's just -- we
say, "Well, this is what we're covering," but basically
we'll be covering so much more than is in the book that it's
mostly notes from the board.

Q. In both chemistry and honors chemistry?

A. No, no, Just in honors chemistry. Now, in

107

chemistry we have a basic textbook which we follow,
but again I draw problems that I use on the board from
many other textbooks. I don't even know how many
textbooks. I draw them from "Chem Study," which is by
Cotton, which is my favorite textbook that our school
system doesn't use that I would -- in fact, I used --
a lot of the experiments that we do come out of "Chem
Study."

Q. Who supplies the supplemental books that you
use?

A. Myself.

Q. What -- are your chemistry students in the 11th
grade?

A. My chemistry students are 10th, 11th, and 12th.

Q. Have they all taken biology?

A. No. Some have.

Q. Let me see if I understand. Are you teaching two
different courses now, one is a straight chemistry course
and one is honors chemistry?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they given to the same grade level of students?

A. Predominantly, 11th and 12th grade students take
honors chemistry. They are people who have already had
one year.

Q. It is an advanced chemistry course?

108

A. It's an advanced chemistry course. And general
chemistry is open to 10th, 11th, and 13th graders. But
our second year course obviously is not open to 10th
graders because they couldn't have had it --

Q. They have to have taken --

A. They had to have had Chem I. This is my second
year to teach secondary chemistry. They do not teach
two years of chemistry in government schools.

Q. Students aren't required to take biology before
they take chemistry?

A. Not at all.

Q. Are they required to take biology for graduation?

A. No. They're not required to take any science or
any math for graduation.

Q. Do most of the students in your school take biology?

A. I would venture to say the majority certainly take
biology. I'm trying to figure out the exact -- we have
1,500 students, 500 freshmen. And we have, let's see, two
-- we have one teacher that teaches three classes of biology
and another that teaches, I think, four. And another, I
think, teaches three. So, that would be what, a total of
about ten classes of say -- we probably have 300, 400
students that take biology out of the school per year.
Which, if you streched it over a three year period, because
that's how long they're in high school, that you'd have

109

somewhere between 9 and 1,200 of those 1,500 take biology.
Which would mean, I guess that the majority of them take
biology, but not all certainly.

Q. Have you ever read The Balance Treatment for
Creation Science And Evolution Science Act?

A. The what?

Q. Have you ever read the --

A. Yes. I have read it through, but I don't know it.

Q. In preparation for this deposition, did you look at
any documents?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen the complaint that was filed in
this case?

A. To the best of my knowledge, no.

Q. If I wanted to learn about Creation Science, can
you point me to any books I would get?

A. From off the top of my memory I could not, no.

Q. Okay. You don't remember the name of the books that
you read?

A. No.

Q. Have you read "Origin And The Species"?

A. No.

Q. Is -- you mentioned before your favorite chemistry
text.

A. Yes.

110

Q. Is there a particular chemistry book which you
recognize as the best in the field?

A. I can only tell you the ones that I prefer. I
prefer "Chem Study" by Cotton. Cotton is one of the
authors.

Q. Is Evolution a science?

A. Well, science is certainly performed in trying to
prove Evolution.

Q. Okay. What would it take for you to be able to say
that Evolution was a science?

A. For there to be a -- you mean --

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to object to the
question. you say, "is Evolution a science?". I'm not
sure if anything is a science. Science is a --

[Objection noted.]

Q. Is Evolution a scientific theory?

A. I think it's a theory. I think science is working in
it. I'd say yes, it's a scientific theory.

Q. We talked a little bit before about the attributes
of science. I just want to run down and see if you have
an understanding as to them and if -- or just make sure
that they fit with what you've told me before was science
to you.

A. Okay.

Q. Is testability a criteria of science?

111

A. Yes, I'd say so.

Q. And predictability?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. How about observability?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Falsifiability?

A. Yes.

Q. Does Evolution measure up to the attributes of
science -- those four attributes of science?

A. No.

Q. What doesn't it measure up to?

A. It's not observable.

Q. Anything else?

A. If you'll read to me again I'll go through them one
at a time with you.

Q. Is it falsifiable?

A. Well, again if you mean statistically?

Q. However.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm -- we're not
going to deny that he can adequately handle these
questions. I'm going to object because we are not
offering him as an expert on what is science. And I think
that to go into that, unless you're going to try to make
him your own expert, is burdensome and oppressive on him.

MS. FERBER: I will try not to be

112

burdensome and oppressive.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're asking him
questions --

MS. FERBER: He's feeling his questions
well.

MR. WILLIAMS: I agree with you on that.

MS. FERBER: We'll go through them
quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: But until you spend a lot
of time on what is science, unless you're going to
make him your own witness on this point --

MS. FERBER: I want to understand how
he teaches science in his classroom and what he tells
students science is. And I think he's handling the
questions very well.

[Objection noted.]

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Is Evolution testable?

A. The foundations, I think -- I think you can test
Evolution to some degree. You cannot test something on
which -- there are aspects of evolution that you cannot
test. For instance, you cannot test the random collision
of particles in -- under conditions that must have
existed when you don't know if -- whether or not, in fact,
they existed. I mean, if you do not know for certain,

113

and there is no way of telling whether or not those
conditions existed, how are they available except as a
hypothesis?

Q. Okay.

A. It is -- it is pure conjecture as to what the early
atmosphere of our planet was. There is no way to, as
far as I know, to adequately verify for sure, for certain
what our early atmosphere was.

Q. Do you know whether there are any conditions under
which Evolution could be tested which would disprove it?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Does evolution -- is evolution predictable?

A. You mean by predictable that we can predict what
will happen through evolution?

Q. Uh-huh. Can we predict?

A. We can't because according to evolutionists we're
talking about extremely long time spans over which some
organism must evolve. And under -- in our short life spans
it would be impossible to observe these. We can offer
conjecture hypothesis as to the possibilities and
probabilities I keep coming back to of these things might
occurring, you know. But if you want to say can we
therefore predict. Well, since we can't observe we can't
actually predict. We can make a supposition as to what
might happen, but we certainly can't say since we can't
-- and it

114

has never been observed in our entire life times. We
must only look at past records and then we must interpret
from these past records which, from my recent readings at
least, there is a lot of conjecture about.

Q. Don't scientists look at the information we have
about some period very long ago, and then based on
that information make predictions what would have
happened at some later time still in the past? And then
--

A. Wait now.

Q. If we have data as to what happened a million years
ago, some information --

A. All right. Assuming that --

Q. Assuming there is some evidence of what happened.

A. I assume that we agree that there's a million years
ago, but assuming that, okay.

Q. Any period of time ago --

A. Okay.

Q. -- we have some information, don't scientists use
that information to predict what happened some years
later still sometime in the past?

A. Can you give me any specific example of where
you're coming from?

Q. Does the Theory of Evolution posit an explanation
of what set every thing in motion?

115

A. You mean give an explanation of what set everything
--

Q. We spent a lot of time talking about first life. We
didn't talk in a more general sense life, man, the earth,
universe.

A. Right.

Q. Does evolution posit a theory, posit an explanation
of what set life in the --

A. When you say, "posit," would you explain to me what
you mean by posit?

Q. Give a theory, give an explanation of what set life
in motion or the earth in motion?

A. As far as I know, through random collision. It's
just simply the random collision of particulate matter.

Q. Okay. We just went through four attributes of
science, falsifiability, observability, testability,
and predictability. We agreed on it, right?

A. I guess.

Q. Does Creation Science measure up to those four
attributes of science?

A. No.

Q. Is Creation Science a science?

A. In the sense that evolution's science, it is.

Q. It's no less of a science or more of a science?

A. As far as I'm concerned, right.

116

Q. Is evolution a belief system?

A. It's a hypothesis which we're working to -- I think
science is working to validate or to invalidate. And,
you know, most hypotheses that you start off with you
haven't validated them. They are when you start, and it
may take a long time span to validate them, a belief.

Q. Is it a religious belief, a faith?

A. I've heard it called such.

Q. Do you belief that it is a faith system?

A. I haven't really honestly given it that much
thought. As far as I'm personally concerned, I don't
call it a religion. But now --

Q. Is creation a religion?

A. In my own mind, no. I think that many religions can
apply theirself to it. I think many religions feel more
comfortable with it. On the other hand, there are
religions that I've been told that feel more comfortable
with evolution.

Q. What controls what you teach in your individual
classroom?

A. I think when I teach chemistry that I try to
teach the basics of -- of chemistry, of particulate
matter, their interactions, how they react with each
other. Q. What determines that that's what you'll
teach?

A. Because that's what chemistry is. That's the

117

definition of chemistry is particulate matter, models of
particulate matter, the interactions that particulate
matter has with itself.

Q. Does your school board, or your school, your
department, anybody require that you teach specific
things?

A. They do require that we use certain textbooks,
that we issue them to the students. In a sense, to some
degree that dictates what you teach.

Q. So, the textbook significantly influences --

A. Signigicanly influences what you reach.

Q. Is there any curriculum guide or syllabus for
your course?

A. Not as far as I've seen

Q. Does anybody come -- anybody sit in on your classes
and monitor what you teach?

A. Yes they do.

Q. Who does that?

A. My principal.

Q. Unannounced or announced?

A. Unannounced.

Q. How often?

A Twice this year.

Q. And do you have an opinion as to what the principal
is looking for when they sit in on your class?

118

A. He's looking to see if I'm doing my job in the best of
his ability.

Q. Does he have any way of measuring whether what
you're teaching is chemistry, whether you're moving
through the curriculum, whether you are in fact teaching
what's in the textbook?

A. Well, at the end of the school year our children --
my students take a test, a national test in chemistry.

Q. What test is that?

A. I just -- I was sitting here -- I knew you were
going to ask that, and I honestly can't remember the
name of the test. But I will get you the name of the
test. It's the Chem -- last year there were 114 schools
that took this test across the nation. And I can't
recall the exact name of the test, but I will get it
to you.

Q. How come your students were in one of the 114 schools
that took it?

A. There may be more than 114. There were 114
schools, if I remember correctly. You know, again I --
that number may be off five schools or, you know.

Q. I understand.

A. Were used to establish norms. Okay. Other schools
then may utilize the test that was not part of the norm
establishing schools.

119

Q. Was there any information on Creation Science included
on that exam?

A. Not as far as I know.

Q. Was there information in what we have been calling
Evolutionary Theory on that exam?

A. No.

Q. Was it tested with -- whether the origin of life
was through random --

A. No.

Q. So, to make sure I understand, there is no
curriculum that's mandated for you?

A. No.

Q. Is the bible read in your school?

A. I'm sorry.

Q. Is the bible read in your school?

A. No.

Q. I am certainly getting the sense that I didn't know
before that there is a vast amount of information in the
field of chemistry.

A. There is.

Q. And that you have students who are in a class with
you a limited amount of hours a year and you have to make
some judgement as to what you're going to teach in your
classroom.

A. Uh-huh.

120

Q. How do you decide what information to include
and what not to include?

A. Based my past experience as to what will be required
at university level for them to enter, based upon
scores that our children take from tests that are
national tests, various national tests, based upon
the S.A.T. scores that our children take in chemistry.
We have Standardized Achievement Tests which are given
nationally called S.A.T.'s.

Q. In chemistry?

A. In chemistry. That they take based upon the
performance of my children, my students how well they
achieve on these tests, I know whether or not that I am
teaching the material that I should be teaching.

Q. So, initially you make a judgment as to what's
most important?

A. I guess I'm just about the only one that makes a
judgment.

Q. How do you decide that one subject matter needs two
weeks of treatment, another one needs two hours?

A. Whether or not my children can be competent after
I've explained it to them. If they can learn it an hour,
then that's the only time that I spend on it. If it
takes to weeks then it takes two weeks. If it takes a
month then you take a month.

121

Q. You said one of the things that you base your
judgment on is what's required at the university level.
Do many of your students go on to study science in
college?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. About what percent?

A. 80% of the students at the particular school that
I'm at go on to study college, or so. How many of those
enter into a university, in can't give you a specific
percentage -- in chemistry, I can't give you a specific
percentage.

Q. How many hours a year do you have students in the
classroom?

A. I have them 180 times, times 55 minutes.

Q. Do you use just about every minute of that time?

A. Just about every minute.

Q. And you don't teach Creation now, at all?

A. Not at all.

Q. So, if you're going to teach Creation, that time is
going to have to come from somewhere.

A. That's true.

Q. What would you stop teaching?

A. I would not stop teaching anything.

Q. Okay. We've got 180 times 55 minutes and every
minute is utilized.

122

A. No, I didn't say every minute.

Q. Just about every minute.

A. Just about every minute.

Q. How many minutes aren't utilized?

A. You're being nit picky, but I would say that
probably at the end of each day, I give them about ten
minutes to where they can study their material. And
then if they have questions individually over what we
went over in class they can come up and ask me.

Q I'm really not being nit picky. I'm really trying
to understand what happens in the classroom time. So,
are you saying that those ten minutes that you have them
review the materials are times that you could use for
teaching instead?

A. The amount of time that would be necessary to point
out what I would want to point out to my students would
probably take very little time.

Q. What's very little?

A. Twenty minutes.

Q. Twenty minutes to teach -- to fully teach Creation?

A. No. To teach the aspect that I want to teach.

Q. What aspect do you want to teach?

A. I thought I had said that before.

Q. We talked about one aspect before.

A. Right.

123

Q. I didn't know if that was the only aspect that --

A. That's the only -- now if I were teaching, for
instance, if I were teaching some other science then I would
want to teach that which is applicable to that science.

Q. Now, let me make sure I understand. The only part
of your curriculum that you would alter would be when you
teach the origin of first life?

A. That's right. That's the only part that I'm
interested in. And that would not be to all students.
That would not be my Chem I students, but would be to my
Chem II students.

Q. And in Chemistry I there is nothing that you would
change?

A. Nothing that I would change.

Q. So, it's only in your honors chemistry course?

A. That's right.

Q. Do you teach anything about the origin of life, man,
the earth, or the universe in Chemistry I?

A. Nothing.

Q. Okay. And you've read The Balance Treatment For
Creation Science And Evolution Science Act?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And you told me that your understanding is that if
you teach anything having to do with Evolution Science;
theory of the origin of life, man, the earth, and the

124

universe, them you have to fully teach the Creation
Theory.

A. No. Fully the part on which I've -- of either.

Q. Right. That's relevant to your curriculum area.

A. That's relevant to what I'm talking about, right.

Q. The only thing in your curriculum that's relevant
would be about twenty minutes in Chemistryl II.?

A. Well, there is another area that would be relevant.
Of course, that's radioactive dating.

Q. And you teach radioactive dating?

A. In second year.

Q. In Chemistry II?

A. Chemistry II.

Q. How much time do you spend on radioactivity?

A. Probably a week on radioactivity. Maybe -- it
depends on how well the children pick it up and how much
the -- and Chemistry II is a completely different program
than Chemistry I. Our program is dictated by the interest
of our children, how well they -- how much -- where their
interests lie. They've had -- for instance, this years
students have had a tremendous interest in organic
chemistry. So therefore, we spent eleven weeks on
organic chemistry. Last year's students didn't have that
interest, we spent six weeks on it.

So, it's an enlightenment course to

125

further an area of chemistry that -- for students who are
interested in this. And it's -- we've already covered in
first year the basics of chemistry.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. And this is for honor students to take, and the
areas that they wish to cover. If they get into
radioactive material and they decide they want to spend
more than the week that I cover, well we'll do it.

Q. Okay. You say you normally cover a week on
radioactive dating?

A. That's all I have planned right now is a week.
But again, if they really become interested in this
thing, which in the past it varies from class to class as
to how much their interest might be.

Q. In that week as you would -- as you normally teach
it, what information do you teach that would require
you to balance that with a Creation Science alternate model?

A. The possibility that dating is incorrect, that
methods of dating are incorrect. I have never taught
that before. To go into what some scientists have points
of view that our current dating techniques are incorrect.
And there could be fallacies in these dating techniques?

Q. How would you teach that?

A. I would try as best I could to point out both --
the arguments of both people.

126

Q. And what are the arguments that our dating techniques
are incorrect?

A. As I told you when we first started this interview,
that I had brush read this material very quickly through
the summer.

Q. I understand that.

A. And I haven't read it since, but --

Q. To the best of your recollection.

A. To the best of my recollection, there are areas in
radioactive dating which have caused error in our current
dating techniques.

Q. Like what?

A. Assumptions on the original amounts of radioactive
material present. And again, my memory is really vague
on this, but when I read through the material it impressed
me as being very plausible.

Q. This is the -- just to make sure. This is the
material that you borrowed from the community college
when you first became interested in Creation Science?

A. That's correct. Also the fact that our sun has always
been considered to be a constant invariable. Apparently,
some of our scientific satellite research have indicated
that our sun does vary it its output. If there had
been significant variances in our sun, it's my
understanding from this reading that this would affect

127

Carbon 14 dating because it would affect the amount of
Carbon 14 that would be in our air. Carbon 14 is a
radioactive constituent, and the amount of carbon
radioactive available to be ingested and to organisms
would then vary. If it varied, this would invalidate our
Carbon 14 dating techniques because we wouldn't really
know how much Carbon 14 should have been at specific
times in organisms. The only way you can -- the only
way you can use radioactive dating is that you assume
that -- that the -- that it has been consistent
throughout time.

Q. Okay. So in other words, what you read this
summer casts out on what you had been teaching that our
sun was considered constant, and that dating techniques
were correct?

A. It casts out on that, that's correct.

Q. And so what you would teach is that there are some
--

A. That there are some scientists who would point
these things out.

Q. And you would teach -- would you teach the
scientific evidences on which they rely?

A. Uh-huh, as best I knew. I point out what they
stated in their books just like I point out what's stated
in our current textbooks.

128

Q. Okay. Can you think of -- can you think of any
other area in your curriculum that might be impacted?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Do you teach about the half lives of the
elements?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In Chemistry I and Chemistry II?

A. Chemistry II.

Q. And don't some of the elements have half
lives that are greater than ten thousand years old?

A. As far as we know, yes.

Q. Would you --

A. Some have -- as far as we know, if you use the --
the vast majority of scientific research indicates that we
have elements that are billions, have half lives of
billions of years. Anywhere from Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion
years. I think it's 4.37, but I'm not sure.

Q. Do you think that under the Balance Treatment For
Creation Science And Evolution Science Act you would
have to balance that with any other teaching when you --

A. Not as far as I know.

Q. In the definition of Creation Science contained in
Act 590, it indicates that Creation Science includes the
scientific evidence that is related and that it would
indicate a relatively recent inception of the earth and

129

living kinds. Do you have an idea of what relatively
recent means?

A. I assume several thousand years.

Q. Okay. So, when you reach that there are elements
that have half lives of --

A. Four and a half billion years.

Q. Four and a half billion years.

A. That's not in conflict.

Q. Why isn't that in conflict?

A. Why would it be?

Q. I'd like to know.

A. You're asking me why would it be, and I don't know
why it would be. So, you're going to have to tell me why
would it be.

Q. We have elements that we can test. We know -- now
I don't know very much about chemistry, so I may be asking
an assumption.

A. Right, so I'm answering your questions.

Q. If we can measure that half life of an element, it's
gone through. And that element --

A. It doesn't necessarily preclude that it went through
half its life. Because there is an element present
that has a half life of four and a half billion years
does not necessitate that there have been four and a half
billion years.

130

Q. Is there anything else we know about elements and --
I'm probably going to mess up the terminology here, but
elements; basically, isotopes changing into other isotopes
that are -- that suggest that some very long period of time
has to have passed for some chemical reactions to have
occurred?

A. Chemical reactions have nothing to do with the
sequence or isotopes forming from radioactive materials.
Chemical reactions are interplays between electrons. And
what you're referring to as far a nuclear chemistry has
to do with changing of the nuclei of atoms, which has
nothing to do with chemical reactions.

Q. How does coal get formed?

A. How does coal get formed?

Q. Well let me short cut this. It is my understanding
that we have things such as coal and oil through a very long
history of changes in the earth, a history significantly
longer than ten thousand years?

A. It is theorized that's true that that happens,
yes. That is not an absolute fact.

Q. Do you teach anything about petroleum chemistry?

A. When we study organic chemistry, I think in our
book that it states that it takes long time spans for
petroleum to form. And it goes through the processes
that living materials were one time present on the

131

earth. And from these living materials who are pressed
beneath the surface of the earth, that through various
processes that petroleum was formed from them, or that coal
was formed from them.

Q. Is there any evidence that we would have petroleum
today if the earth wasn't millions of years old?

A. It depends on, you know, whether you say it was
there originally or whether it wasn't.

Q. I'm sorry, I don't understand. Originally meaning
when God created --

A. True.

Q. -- the earth? Okay. Can you --

A. You mean, can you --

Q. -- can you.

A. You mean, what you're trying to get around I think,
correct me if I'm wrong. What I think you're trying to get
around to is could petroleum and coal have been formed in
short time spans?

Q. Yep.

A. Right. I can't answer that question. Possibly.

Q. Can you -- do you know any scientific evidence
in support of a theory that they were formed in short
time spans?

A. Man can make diamonds now synthetically in very
short time spans.

132

Q. Aren't they synthetic diamonds?

A. They're synthetic diamonds, that's true.

Q. We're talking about synthetic petroleum.

A. We're not talking about nonreal diamonds. We're
talking about real diamonds, okay. Now, real diamonds
could have been made in short time spans. I assume that
you also know that it's hypothesized that diamonds are
made over very long time spans also. And it's necessary
for them to be created over extremely long time spans.
And yet, we can synthetically make them over very short
time spans now.

Q. Are you suggesting that somebody synthetically
made oil and coal to appear --

A. No, I am not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting
to you that there is a mechanism now that is possible
to create something in short time spans over which
we have indicated that it takes long time spans in nature to
do. Therefore, the inferences that possibly there is a
mechanism by which the others could be done. Many things
that I don't know the answers to could be, and that's all
I'm saying.

Q. Okay. But when you teach petroleum chemistry and
you reach that all theories agree the petroleum represents
the transformation of living material formed in
geological ages, millions of years ago you wouldn't feel
the need to balance that with any alternative theories

133

that suggest --

A. Yes. I would try to do research to find out
if there were an alternative theory to it.

Q. And if there was?

A. Then I would teach that also.

Q. You would teach that in your classroom?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Is there any other areas like that that you might
have to research in to find out whether there is
something you need to balance that with?

A. I'm sure there are.

Q. So, there might be a lot more effect on your
courses then just in the two hours that we identified?

A. There would not be a lot, but there might be
others.

Q. Okay. Let's go off the record.

[Lunch recess.]

Q. Mr. Townley, you told me earlier this morning that
you reviewed some books that you got from a community
college library.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And I wanted to show you some books and just see if
any of these books sound familiar to you.

A. Okay.

Q. "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter"?

134

A. Definitely not.

Q. "The Creation Explanation"?

A. There certainly are topics in this book that look
familiar.

Q. You're referring to the Cophaler & Seagraves
"Creation and Explanation."

A. But -- Now, what we're referring to is there was a
period of about two weeks that I borrowed some books from
another teacher and read them in my spare time as fast as
I could and -- enough for me to --

Q. Now, these are Xeroxes you may need to thumb through
to tell. "Scientific Creationism"?

A. That picture really rings a bell. It's hard on
the way it's colored here, but that picture does ring
a bell. Let me look through the table of contents. It
doesn't have --

Q. Okay. I'll see if I can find an original of the book
for you.

A. I may have read this book.

Q. That's "Scientific Creationism" by -- put out by
the Institute For Creation Research. How about "The
Scientific Case for Creation" by Henry Morris?

A. Cover doesn't ring a bell.

Q. Okay. Or "The Bible has the answer"?

A. No.

135

Q. "Creation Acts, Facts, and Impacts"?

A. You know, with that unusual a title you'd think it
would ring a bell. It doesn't.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, I want
to object. This is so irrelevant. It's hard for me to
conceive what relevancy it can have, it really is. This
would be like me asking evolutionist -- showing him a
book published some years ago which said that based on
Evolutionary Theory the average black individual has
evolved to the stage of an eleven year old. Go by
association.

MS. FERBER: Your objection is noted
for the record.

[Objection noted.]

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. "Evolution The Fossils Say No"? I believe that title
was familiar before.

A. The name sounds familiar. Could be.

Q. Okay. I would request that you attempt to find out
what books you reviewed and furnish the names to Mr.
Williams for him to furnish to us.

MS. FERBER: Is that agreed Mr.
Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: If he wants to do
that and gives it to me I will forward it.

136

Q. I will appreciate it if you will attempt to see what
books you reviewed. I request that you will do that.
When did you first hear of Creation Science?

A. Recently. It's been within the last year or two.

Q. Okay. Do you know if Creation Science is currently
taught in any public schools?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. You never heard any mention of it being taught in
Arkansas schools?

A. It may be. Not as far as I know. There is in
non-public schools, non-grades K through 12, but on a
university level they are taught at West Ark as I stated
before.

Q. Do any textbooks currently in use in Arkansas that
you know of discuss Creation Science?

A. Not as far as I know.

Q. Do you know of any library materials available in
your school or other schools that discuss Creation
Science?

A. Not as far as I know.

Q. Do you know of any case where the legislature ever
mandated or prohibited the teaching of any subject other
than Act 590?

A. You mean Arkansas?

Q. Uh-huh.

137

A. Of course, I'm not familiar with Arkansas Law, so
that's....

Q. Well, you are a teacher.

A. Right.

Q. Do you know of any subjects which were mandated
or prohibited from being taught by the legislature?

A. No. But on the other hand, I -- you know, just
common sense tells me that there is certain things that
you can't teach in Arkansas too.

Q. Like what?

A. Well, like I'm sure that if you started to teach
something that had to do with pornography that you would
be, you know, told with I'm sure very firm strictness that
you couldn't teach it, okay. But I don't know that there is
such a law against it, but I mean -- so, you know, you're
asking me to judge on something that the only thing I can do
is give you a judgment based on personal reason rather than
on the law. So, I can't answer the question.

Q. Do you know whether your school district
ever considered whether Creation Science should be taught
before Act 590 was passed last March?

A. I would not know.

Q. Did you ever consider teaching Creation Science
before Act 590 was passed?

A. It hasn't been passed, but before it was brought

138

up. I have indicated that I've only recently started
reading Creation Science. I would say this, that as soon
as I would have read the materials I would have started
having thaughts that it should be taught; it should at
least be mentioned that it should be brought up as a
possibility.

Q. Had you ever, before you read Creation Science
materials, read any scientific writings that contradicted
any of the information which you were teaching in your
science classes?

A. I'm not saying that Evolution contradicts what I teach
in any science classes.

Q. All right. I didn't say that evolution contradicts
it.

A. Or that Creation Science contradicts it. I'm not
sure that -- the only thing that I'm saying is that there is
a possibility of things not being as they're taught. That
doesn't -- when you say possibility, that doesn't eliminate,
that doesn't contradict.

Q. Are you telling me that what you read --

A. When you say contradict you mean that means
something is in error. And I have never said that
evolution isn't a possibility. In fact --

Q. I understand that.

A. So, in fact, I'm not saying that there is a

139

contradiction. I'm saying that there is an alternative
explanation for it.

Q. Didn't you tell me that you read information
which led you to believe that the scientific data on
which the Evolutionary Theory of the origin of man was
based?

A. Was flimsy, was statistically shallow? Yes, I said
that. That doesn't mean that it contradicts it. It just
means that it says that it's unlikely.

Q. Now, do you believe that information which says
that one model is unlikely supports the alternative model,
Creation Science?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. So, what information are you -- to the extent you
teach Creation Science, what information are you going to
teach to support that scientific theory?

A. I didn't say that it was a scientific theory
anymore than I said evolution was a scientific --
in fact, we went over that before that science cannot
do experimentation on what it cannot see. It can only
extrapolate which it is doing in evolution. And it
can do the same thing in creationism. And until I see
statistical data saying that it could not have been done,
it's just as much of a possibility as evolution.

Q. Didn't you tell me that what you teach in a science

140

class is science?

A. Yes. What I teach in science class we call
science, that's right.

Q. Okay. Now, I would like to know what information that
you would categorize as science you're going to teach
in your science classroom in support of the Creation
Science model?

A. You want me to go back through what we went through
before?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the question has
been asked and answered.

A. I've already answered it, I think, once before. And
If you want me to go back through that whole thing again
on statistics, on the possibility of particulate matter
coming together, which we already went through.

Q. As I understand it, and correct me -- I'm sure you'll
correct me if I'm wrong. The information which you told me
diminished in your mind the probative value of the
statistics in support of what we are calling an evolution
science explanation of origins.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And that's the same information which is the
scientific support for a Creation Science explanation of
origin?

A. Not necessarily in itself. If there were only two

141

-- if there were only two possible solutions and you
excluded one, then certainly the exclusion of one would
support the other.

Q. Did you you tell me that the origin model --

A. That's -- the only two models that I know of are
those two models. That doesn't exclude that there
aren't others, just none that I know of.

Q. So, now we've said that the information which
diminishes in your mind the probative value of support
for Evolution Science has not been fair in information in
support of Creation Science. So, what is the scientific
information that you will teach in support of the Creation
Science model?

A. As I also told you, you know, since we're getting
down to this and because this is taking so long, that if
I teach a subject I would research it thoroughly. And since
I told you I have not researched it for this interview I
don't know why these questions continue on that vein. And
quite frankly, I really don't.

Q. Would you believe that you could teach Creation
Science as science in your science classroom?

A. Yes, I do. I could answer some of the questions
that are answered now by Evolution. They are just as
much scientific, in my own personal opinion, as the
way the questions are answered by Evolution.

142

Q. But you do not currently have the tools necessary --

A. No, I do not.

A. -- to teach Creation Science as science?

A. That's true.

Q. You've told me that your school district is putting
on some workshops and showed you some filmstrips.

A. That's correct.

Q. And thus far, you don't think those filmstrips are
truly scientific?

A. I did not say that. I said --

Q. I do not mean to mischaracterize it. What did you
tell me?

A. I said that they wouldn't be sufficient in
themselves to allow me to teach creationism.

Q. Did you also tell me that they would be
objectionable because they contain biblical references?

A. That's true, some of them do.

Q. Some. Do all of the filmstrips contain some
biblical references --

A. I can't remember if all of them do or not.

Q. -- or otherwise refer to religion?

A. But several of them do refer to -- maybe all the
three that I've seen referred to. But the ones that
do refer to biblical references, I personally would not
use. Now, if that answers your question, fine.

143

Q. So thus far you haven't seen any materials which
you could use in your classroom to teach Creation Science?

A. I did not say that. If there are ones which do not
refer to biblical references, then I will use them or
would feel free to use them.

Q. Thus far, you have not seen any materials which.

MR. WILLIAMS: And he has said that
some of those did not contain biblical references. And he
said he could use those.

Q. Is that what you said?

A. Any of the information that is available to me
without biblical reference I will use. If it has biblical
reference I would not use it.

Q. All I'm asking you is whether you have seen
anything that does not contain biblical references
that you could use?

A. My memory it's not -- I just don't remember.

Q. So, you don't know if you've seen any materials
that would be suitable for use in the public school to
teach Creation Science?

A. Yes, there is material which I would use to teach
Creation Science because I can edit out any religious
content from written materials that I don't have to use --
because the author refers to this maybe as being or
lending itself more to the view of a religion, I don't

144

have to teach that in my classes.

Q. That's in the written material that you reviewed on
your own?

A. In any written material. I don't have to use
religious material in my teaching.

Q. Mr. Townley sir, the only material I'm addressing
myself to right now -- as I understand it you have seen two
kinds of materials?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. That material which you reviewed on your own
initiative.

A. True. And I can use some of that material to teach
with as long as I don't refer to any biblical references
that are in that material. The same thing with these
audio cassettes. There are references to the Bible
in that material, but that doesn't mean that I have to use
it in my teaching. I can use that as resource material
myself to take notes on it and teach it to the children.

Q. But you couldn't show any material, the filmstrips
that you saw or play any types?

A. I would not show any filmstrips or tapes that had
reference to biblical statements.

Q. I understand that you would not. All I'm trying to
understand is do you --

A. And I've answered your question that I don't know,

145

don't recall. I don't know how I can state it any more
clearly than that, then to keep going back over it.

Q. Okay. I just want to understand. And I'm entitled
to that understanding.

A. Right, but not so many times.

Q. Do you know how textbooks are selected for your
school?

A. We have a textbook committee formed by teachers,
parents, administration.

Q. And are teachers required to use the book that they
select?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how those textbooks are selected by
your school district?

A. That's what I just said.

Q. That's district-wide, I'm sorry.

A. Yes.

Q. And are there any criteria that that district-wide
committee applies?

A. I'm sure they must. I have never served on that
committee.

Q. Do they pick one book for chemistry or do they
pick several that you can choose between?

A. They pick two. But there have been many books
in the past that are different from the two that they may

146

be currently using and we use those for resource material.

Q. Okay. What training do high school science
teachers have that would enable them to teach Creation
Science as science?

A. I would doubt very little. I would doubt if
many of the teachers, if not -- instead of using many,
maybe most of the teachers have any formal training. But
on the other hand, teachers as a whole teach from what
they studied by themselves in a non-formal situation.
They do independent study and use that material that
they use in independent study to teach with.

Q. Do you think that some kind of teacher training
programs are necessary to get high school science teachers
to the point where they can teach Creation Science as
science?

A. I would certainly hope that the school system would
initiate some activities to do that.

Q. Do you have any continuing education requirements --

A. In the State of Arkansas?

Q. -- any kinds of inservice training or anything?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. What are those requirements?

A. Requires six hours of college credit I think every
five years. It may be every six years, but it's a certain
number of hours every so often?

147

Q. That's a course that you would take out of college?

A. They're courses that you have out of college or you
can take inservice workshops that they give in our
system, this is not statewide. In our system they have
inservice workshops that you can go to and get points
for. And if you get as many as twelve points this
will satisfy the requirement instead of six hours.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the kind of retraining
that would be necessary for high school science teachers
to teach Creation Science?

A. No. I think that my opinion would be -- because
there are different kinds of science teachers that teach
different subjects in which they would be more involved
in teaching one area than teaching another, it would take
more for one teacher than another to -- in order to
implement it.

Q. What subjects do you think this has the most effect
on?

A. Biology.

Q. Anything else?

A. Geometry, teaching earth science.

Q. Did you ever hear of a seminar given to teacher in
Arkansas on Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. We've been talking about the Balance Treatment for

148

Creation Science And Evolution Science, Act 590. Do
you have an opinion as to what "balance treatment" means?

A. Well, yes I do.

Q. What do you think that means?

A. I think a balanced treatment would mean that you
would teach the viewpoint of both to it's fullest extent
that is necessary to get across to the students the
idea of the theory and what it means in that respect.
For instance, if it took me one minute to fully explain
to the students one theory, one part of one of the
theories and yet it took me fifteen minutes to explain
that same part of another theory, then I would expect
that you spend the amount of time necessary. In other
words, whatever is necessary to explain that concept
would be used.

Q. Okay. Are you aware of the fact that Act 590
requires that balanced treatment be given to these two
models in textbook materials taken as a whole for each
course?

A. Balanced has been explained to me to mean that you
be able to teach the viewpoint completely.

Q. Who explained it to you in that way?

A. The Attorney General's office.

Q. When did they explain it to you?

A. I don't know if it's been in the past week or if --

149

it's been in the past week.

Q. Do you remember whether you had an opinion as to
what balanced treatment meant before it was explained to
you by the Attorney General's office?

A. Balanced treatment before the Attorney General's
office -- it was my opinion that it meant that you would
probably have to spend about the same amount of time.

Q. Now, I had just asked you whether you were aware of
the fact that Act 590 require that balanced treatment be
given to Evolution Science and Creation Science in
textbook material taken as a whole?

A. I never -- I personally never considered that, I
considered only the time element.

Q. Do you know of any textbook materials that would be
available to give balanced treatment to Evolution Science
and Creation Science?

A. I currently do not know of any single textbook
which would give equal treatment to both.

Q. And have you seen any supplemental textbook
materials and any things which you could use -- textbook
materials which could be introduced into the classroom,
into the public school classroom in order to meet the
balanced treatment requirement?

A. Of course, I haven't looked so I don't know.

Q. And Act 509 also requires balanced treatment for

150

those two models in library materials taken as a whole.

Have you --

A. Again, I haven't looked so I can't answer the
question.

Q. Do you have any understanding as to whether there
are any library materials currently in your school on
Creation Science?

A. Going out on the limb, I would say that there is
not any. And that would be a guess, that's just a guess.

Q. In your class now, are there any topics which you
teach where the -- the scientific explanation is in doubt,
where there are two competing theories, what you would
call an unsettled area of science?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think there were
three questions in there.

Q. Do you -- are there any unsettled areas of chemistry
that you currently teach?

A. Any areas in which absolute facts are not known?

Q. You could answer that one, simply.

A. Yes, there are.

Q. Okay. Are there scientific disputes going on in
chemistry where you teach both sides or the various sides
of the dispute?

A. The one that I can currently think of now is on the
basic particulate matter using the Quark Theory, I think

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Jim Townley - Page 4

151

it's Quark, I think. But I am so unfamiliar with the theory
that I couldn't teach it.

Q. So, that's the only scientific dispute?

A. I wouldn't say that's the only.

Q. That you can think of anyway?

A. That I can think of. There are probably others.

Q. What I'm asking you is whether there are any which
you teach in your classroom now?

A. At this time I can't think of any, right now.

Q. Okay. And would you agree that there is a
scientific dispute -- or would you characterize it as a
scientific dispute between Creation Science and Evolution
Science?

A. I would characterize it -- there is a dispute going
on about how life started on this planet between people who
believe in evolution as a mechanism and those who believe in
creation as a mechanism.

Q. So, this would be --

A. I do not currently think that you can prove or
disprove, with my current briefs I might change this
later with further reading and more research. I do
not currently believe, based upon what I know, that either
could be proved or disproved. They maybe able to prove
or disprove them in the future.

Q. So, this would be the first such dispute that you

152

would be teaching in your chemistry class?

A. As far as I know. On the other hand, if I thought
back and had more time to think about it maybe there are
disagreements which we could, if you want to call them
disputes, that we could bring up. But if we're talking
about major disputes on major theory, I can't think of
any at this time. That doesn't mean that there aren't,
but that I can't think of any.

Q. So now, you read some materials in the last year
which you have --

A. That have placed in doubt some of my previous
convictions.

Q. But you are not presently ready to teach Creation
Science. You have to do more research.

A. That's correct.

Q. And yet, you have expressed the opinion that
Creation Science should be taught in the science
classroom?

A. That's true. That's right.

Q. And you believe, based on what you've read even
though you're not prepared to teach it, that it should be
taught to chemistry students?

A. That any part of it that involves chemistry should
be expressed as a possibility.

Q. Why do you think Creation Science isn't in the

153

chemistry textbooks that you currently use?

A. Probably for the same reasons I'm not familiar with
it. We weren't taught, we weren't given the alternative.

Q. Do you have any idea why you weren't taught it?

A. Well, I can go back to why were most people not taught
that the earth went around the sun, because most of the
people those days, those for two thousand years believed the
sun went around the earth. And they firmly believed that.
And they were taught by people who firmly believed one
idea even though it was wrong. So, I assume that my
instructors were no more -- they weren't prepared any better
than I was. And so therefore, they fully believed what they
were teaching. And I do not fault them for it.

Q. Are these Creation Science arguments new?

A. I think many of the statistical discoveries, yes are
new and they haven't been around for very long.

Q. These are the statistical discoveries that have to
do with the probability --

A. You're trying to pin me down on my total knowledge of
Creation Science. And I think that's irresponsible
because I've explained to you that I do not -- that I'm
not fully -- you know --

Q. Mr. Townley, I am entitled to test the extent of
your knowledge.

A. And I'm entitled to give an opinion too. Right?

154

And so you're telling me this and I'm saying that.

Q. Mr. Townley, you're here to answer my questions.

A. True, and I'm answering them.

Q. And I can ask no more of you than to answer to the
fullest extent of your knowledge on this day.

A. That's right. And I've explained to you that my
knowledge is very fragile.

Q. That's right. And I just want to understand the
full extent of your knowledge. And that is all I am
trying to explore. One more time. You just mentioned
new statistical studies.

A. Well, new to me anyway. Okay. As far as I am
concerned they are certainly new to me.

Q. Are these the statistical studies we talked about
throughout this morning and this afternoon?

A. I would hope so.

Q. Okay. Off the record.

[Off the record discussion.]

Q. Have you ever taught any material in your chemistry
class that would -- in which you discussed a creator?

A. No.

Q. Or God?

A. No.

Q. Or a supreme being?

A. No.

155

Q. Has a student ever asked you about the existence of
or the involvement of God, or a supreme being, or a
creator?

A. Not that I can remember.

Q. Do you believe that you can teach Creation Science
without that obvious question of who is the creator?

A. I wouldn't intend not to.

Q. I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer.

A. I would intend to say that there was a creator,
that there was a force external to. That's part of the
explanation. That there is a force beyond the understanding
of man.

Q. What if a student asked you who is the creator?

A. I would simply say I don't know because that's what
beyond the understanding of man means, that I don't know.
If it were not beyond the understanding of man I would know
what it meant, I guess.

Q. Isn't the concept of the creator an inherently
religious concept?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that as
being beyond the scope of this individual's knowledge.

MS. FERBER: I'm asking his personal
opinion as to whether or not creator implies a religious
concept.

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to the

156

questions and I instruct him not to answer them.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Williams, explain
the basis of your objection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're asking him the
question as to whether a creator is inherently a religious
concept.

MS. FERBER: I asked if in his mind
whether --

MR. WILLIAMS: He's not competent to
answer that. That is a question which is so tied up with
theology and even which the theologians I have deposed
in this case I don't think can answer. And to ask him
that question is so far afield from the purpose of his
testimony and the purpose of his deposition that it's
just -- it's really totally objectionable.

MS. FERBER: Are you representing
Mr. Townley in this deposition?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm representing my
client's interest. I'm representing the defendants.

MS. FERBER: But you are not
representing Mr. Townley?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, but I can object.

MS. FERBER: I do not believe you
can instruct him not to answer the question.

[Objection noted.]

157

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Mr. Townley, you can answer my question whether or
not in your opinion, to your personal knowledge, the
concept of creator is inherently a religious concept?

A. May I ask a question?

Q. Go ahead.

A. Not being a legal person.

Q. I'm not asking you for a legal conclusion.

A. I know what your question is, okay. But before I
answer the question, you've told me not to answer it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Uh-huh.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Williams, I would
ask you to withdraw your instructions and not confuse Mr.
Townley as to who -- as to whether or not you are
representing him in this deposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't want to be
obstructionist, I really don't. But I really think the
question is totally beyond the bounds of his knowledge.
Even to ask him if in his mind is so totally beyond the
bounds of his possible testimony in any relevance to this
case --

MS. FERBER: Mr. Williams, I would
rather not clutter the record with our colloquy and our
testimony. The question is your're not -- you're
instructing him apparently not to answer. He is confused

158

at this moment as to whether or not you can instruct him
not to answer. And I would like you to clarify the
record as to that one matter?

MR. WILLIAMS: I will go ahead -- I
will withdraw the instruction on the grounds it's so
irrelevant that it is -- the question is stupid, but
we'll go ahead and let it be asked.

MR. CEARLEUY: That's a basis for
an objection?

MR. WILLIAMS: When it's so totally
irrelevent, I think so.

BY MS. FERBER:

A. I -- can I ask you to go back over that question
again?

Q. Mr. Townly, in your opinion, does -- is the concept of
a creator, a supreme being, God an inherently religious
concept?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that as
being a compound question.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Is the concept of a creator an inherently religious
concept?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to object
for the record again. You can answer the question. Not
only is the beyond the purview of his expertise of which

159

we have offered him as having none, although he would in
the area of science, it is further a legal conclusion
which is going to be decided from this case. And it is
not appropriate for him to make that conclusion.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Townley does have
expertise in the area of science.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you going to
offer him as an expert witness?

[Objection noted.]

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Is the concept of the creator a scientific concept?

A. A scientific concept is one that can be experimented
on to prove or disprove or to lend credence to the
hypothesis. And since we can neither prove nor disprove
the creator, I wouldn't say that the -- that the creator --
to prove or disprove a creator would be a question of
science any more than to prove or disprove something that
didn't exist during our knowledge -- and let me finish,
which is exactly what's being done with evolution. So, based
on my personal belief, there would be no more a religious
teaching in that than the other.

Q. So, you're saying that teaching evolution is
teaching religion?

A. I'm saying that teaching evolution you cannot -- you
cannot do experimentation on the foundation on which it's

160

built. And therefore, that's not science.

Q. Why is evolution taught in virtually every biology
class?

A. You're asking.

MR. WILLIAMS: Calls for speculation, I
object.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Do you have an opinion as to why evolution is
taught if it's not scientific?

A. Would you rephrase that for me?

Q. Mr. Townley, you have just told me because
something --

A. I don't think that there is any more validity to
teaching Evolution than to teaching Creation Science for
the reason that neither can be -- and call it absolute pure
science, because neither is absolutely -- can you do
experimentation on the original concrete basement from which
they both come. But for me to sit here and call, because
you can't do experimentation on the original conditions
under which creation is supposedly to have occurred through
evolution, would not justify me calling it a religion. But
on the other hand, it would justify me saying that you
cannot do experimentation on it. And therefore, it's no
more scientific than creationism.

Q. Is creationism no more religious than evolution is?

161

MR. WILLIAMS: Again, I'll object on
the grounds that he doesn't have the knowledge.

[Objection noted.]

A. I personally do not think that creationism is a
religion.

Q. In your mind, is the concept of a creator an
inherently religious concept?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to object
on the ground the question is ambiguous as well because,
are you talking about the creator in the sense as it is
presented in a religion or are you talking about the
creator which is discussed in the theory of Creation
Science as we have been talking about it?

MS. FERBER: Creation Science as Mr.
Townley has been discussing it.

MR. WILLIAMS: In other words, a force
above and beyond what we know, that's what we're talking
about.

MS. FERBER: I would like Mr. Townley to
answer the question based on his own interpretation. I
would prefer that you did not define the term for him. He
has been using it all morning.

MR. WILLIAMS: But the question is
ambiguous, I'm trying to clarify it.

[Objection noted.]

162

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. What does the term creator mean to you?

A. I think if you go back in the previous pages, must
be volumes by now, that you'll find that I sand an external
force, knowledge beyond the knowledge of man.

Q. Is creator, as in external force beyond the
knowledge of man --

A. Is it necessarily religious?

Q. Is it a religious concept?

A. Is it a religious concept? I don't know if I know
the answer to that question.

Q. Is it the same creator that you talk about in
church?

A. I think the one that I talk about in church could
certainly be applied to it.

Q. And the one that you read about in the Bible?

A. Could certainly be applied to it.

Q. And the one that when you discuss Creation Science
in your Sunday school class, same creator?

A. Could be applied to it.

Q. Okay.

A. Not necessarily one and the same, but it could be
applied to it.

Q. As a teacher, do you have a definition of religion?

A. Of religion?

163

Q. Uh-huh.

A. I don't teach religion.

Q. I understand that. But you do know that you
can't teach religion in the public school, right?

MR. WILLIAMS: That question has been
asked and answered at least twice.

Q, So, you know that -- so, somehow you can recognize the
difference between religion and something else?

A. Well, in the sense that teaching the Christian
religion, or Judiasm, or any of the ones that I'm
familiar with I don't, not as far as I know, any other
teacher use that in science.

Q. Is that the only way that you could teach religion
is to teach Judiasm or Catholicism or....

A. Or any other religion that I'm familiar with, yes. As
to try to draw from that what the definition of religion
would be, I'm afraid I'd have to go -- and since I'm not a
theologian on religion, I'd have to go and research the fact
or what definition you're trying to pull from me.

As far as my own Christian belief,
which if you want to get into my Christian belief you
can, I do not teach that in school.

Q. I assure you I am not trying to pull from you any
definition of religion. But I am trying to understand
whether or not you have a definition of religion or

164

how you will recognize religion when you see it or when
you talk about it?

A. Well, I can give you characteristics of it. But
characteristics of something doesn't necessarily define
it.

Q. I would like to hear your characteristics of
religion.

A. Well, religion is something that's based on faith.

Q. Is it -- in the sense that you are a Christian, is
it part of your faith that there was a creator?

A. It's part of my faith that there was a creator
shaped in the image of man.

Q. How do you distinguish that creator from the
creator that is inherent in teaching Creation Science?

A. Creation Science doesn't give to the creator in that
thought the emotions of love, hate, envy, jealousy, give it
design, give it morals, give it desires as far as I know.

Q. I'm sorry, I'm confused. The creator has to have
those characteristics?

A. My biblical God, my creator has emotions. The
Creator and Creation Science, as far as I know, I've
never read where they have to have these characteristics.

Q. So, that's the distinction you would draw between
the -- between your religious creator, God and between --

A. My religious God has set for me morals under

165

which I live, the facts on relationships that I must have
with my fellow man which Creation Science does not -- not
speak to.

Q. I apologize if this has been asked and answered,
but I don't guess we want to read back the record and
find it. I asked you whether -- how you would respond to a
child who asks you who's the creator.

A. And I would say, for about the third or fourth time,
that it would be somebody who -- some knowledge between
the knowledge of man, some force, some power that we
don't have the ability to recognize.

Q. But you'd stop short of calling this religion
because you don't attribute that creator with the -- with
emotions?

A. With a religion there is more to -- I think in a --
a religion has a god that has various emotions, that has
given you certain morals which you must follow, certain
relationships with mankind and each other that you
follow.

Q. Aren't those things -- what God gave to man rather
than the characteristics of the creator himself?

A. Right. That our God gave us that's part of our
religion, that's right.

Q. Does God have those characteristics to give them
to men?

166

A. If you're saying religion is just the fact that
there is a God, there are religions in this world who --
who do not have a God, it's my understanding.

Q. I'm not trying to understand every religion in the
world.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you do you're in
the wrong deposition, it's going on down the hall.

A. Is there a shortage of science teachers in your
school or in your district?

A. I think there is probably a shortage of science
teachers in the United States.

Q. Do you --

A. Probably, you know, it's a guess. I don't really know
as to whether or not my district has a hard time getting
scientists to teach as science teachers. I couldn't answer,
I don't know. I've read, of course, that there is a
shortage of science teachers, and math teachers, and shop
teachers in the United States. Although there seems to be an
abundance of teachers as a whole.

Q. Do you -- do you know that there are teachers
who would refuse to teach Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. Can Creation Science be taught without discussions
of the creator?

A. Without mention that there was a creator? I

167

doubt it.

Q. Is there any scientific evidence of who the creator
is?

A. Not as far as I know.

Q. Do you believe that under Act 590 you would be
permitted to express an opinion as to the scientific
merit of Evolution?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that under Act 590 you'd be able to
express an opinion as to the scientific merit of Creation
Science?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you discussed that question with the Attorney
General's office?

A. Yes.

Q. Did your opinion change after your discussion with the
Attorney General's office?

A. I didn't have an -- really that much -- I really
didn't have that much of a -- an understanding of what
you're referring to before I talked to the Attorney
General's office.

Q. Did you believe that you could give your technical
balanced treatment equal time whenever you thought of it
before your discussion with the Attorney General's office,
and say, "But I don't really believe in this evidence

168

for Creation Science"?

A. I didn't know if I could one way or the other.

Q. Had you thought about it?

A. No.

Q. And you didn't know whether you were free to
express an opinion or not?

A. No.

Q. So, your current belief, subsequent to your
discussion with the Attorney General's office, is that
you could give balanced treatment to evolution science
and creation science and then say, but I don't really
believe any of the scientific evidence that I just taught
you for creation science?

A. I guess you could.

Q. Would you be able to, under Act 590, say that some
religions believe this about Creation Science?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Absent Act 590, do you believe that teachers
would be free to teach Creation Science?

A. Absent Act --

Q. If Act 590 had never been passed, had never been
considered by the legislature --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- do you believe that teachers would have the
freedom to determine whether or not to teach Creation

169

Science?

A. I think some would under great pressure. I think
there would be great pressure on many teachers if they
did.

Q. You mean that -- what I'm asking you is you believe,
absent Act 590, you would have the right to teach
Creation Science?

A. Of course, I guess any teacher could teach what
they wanted to ,but the results of what they tried to
teach might be disastrous.

Q. Like what?

A. Well, like -- as I expressed while ago, you know, if
you wanted to teach Moll Flanders, for instance, on the a
high school or junior high level. Although it's able to be
taught on a college level, I'm not sure it would be accepted
by the people or the local school district or possibly the
school board. So, you might have to -- just because you
jump in there and teach something doesn't mean that you
wouldn't suffer the consequences.

Q. Do you have reason to believe that your school
district, absent Act 590, wouldn't let somebody teach
Creation Science?

A. Well, let me put it to you this way. If 590
passes, my school district would allow me to teach. Now,
let me finish. We'll go a little logic. If the -- if it

170

doesn't pass, okay. If it doesn't pass, then my school
district would have no reason to say "wait" unless if it
doesn't pass they didn't intend to let me.

Q. I'm sorry, I'm confused. Maybe Mr. Williams
would like to....

A. Why should there be be any reason why -- if there
is no difference, whether it passes or doesn't pass, why
should we then be told to wait?

Q. Okay. There are....

A. We've been asked to wait in my school district.

Q. Have you been asked to wait until Act 590 passes the
legislature or asked to wait until the court rules on what
--

A. Until there is a ruling on Act 590.

Q. A ruling on whether the statute, which has already
been passed by the legislature, is unconstitutional or
not?

A. I can't answer that question. I can only say that
our school district has asked us not to teach Creation
Science until this case which we're going through is over.

Okay. Now, if there were not -- there were not intention
to prevent it being taught, why couldn't it be -- why
would even such a statement be made? It seems to me
illogical that such a statement would be made at all if
there were not something intended -- there wasn't some

171

measure or desire for you not to teach it unless the
act passed. That's again, my own personal opinion. So,
it doesn't really have any merit other than just a
personal opinion.

Q. If Act 590 had not passed the legislature and this
lawsuit didn't exist, would you be able to express an
opinion as to the scientific merit of Evolution?

A. In my classroom?

Q. In your classroom.

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Do you believe that the teaching of Evolution
reenforces any negative values in children?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Do you think it enforces any negative beliefs?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Does it impact on their religious beliefs at all?

A. It could.

Q. In what way?

A. Well, I guess if they believed strictly word for word
as the Bible is written, that it would be difficult for
a Christian to -- who was not very knowledgeable in
science to believe that there could be a world by
evolution. For me, personally as a Christian, I find
nothing that would prevent the mechanism by which God
would want to create this world, nothing in evolution

172

that would prevent that being the mechanism.

Q. Do you know what Christian Political Action is?

A. No. Well, I understand what the words mean, but I
mean as far as the group, I don't know any of the
philosophies of the group or what its intentions are?

Q. Is it a group?

A. I told you I really don't know. You asked me a
question --

Q. I wasn't asking you about a group. I asked what
Christian Political action would mean to you?

A. What Christian Political Action would mean? I guess
it would mean political action taken by Christians.

Q. What kind of political actions would Christians
take?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object. That's so
speculative and has so much conjecture. Really Laurie,
I mean....

MS. FERBER: I'll withdraw the
question.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Did evolution, as taught in Public schools, deny
the existence of God in any way?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Do you believe that religious implications should
be considered along with scientific and academic aspects

173

in determining whether any subject is taught?

A. Do I believe whether or not what now?

Q. Do you believe that religious implications are
relevant in deciding whether a subject should be taught?

A. I'm not sure, I'd have to put in more thought on
that question. I think I would really have to put
in some thought on it. More than I could have to answer
now. There is a difference between teaching religion and
an implication.

Q. Do you use audio-visual aids when you teach?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they furnished by your school?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you free to rent whatever audio-visual aids you
want?

A. I don't know where the money would come from.

Q. Is there any budget for renting films?

A. Not that's open to me.

Q. Do you borrow films from other schools or school
districts?

A. No.

Q. You told me earlier that your interpretation
of Act 590 was that a teacher either had to give balanced
treatment of creation science and evolution or had to
refrain from teaching evolution.

174

A. That's true.

Q. Do you believe that any -- that teachers will stop
teaching evolution because of the balanced treatment
requirement?

A. It's possible.

Q. Have you heard any teachers say that they would
do that?

A. No.

Q. Have you discussed that with any teachers?

MR. WILLIAMS: He's asked and answered
that question.

MS. FERBER: I don't believe he's
discussed that -- told me whether he discussed that
specific question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think he said
that it has been discussed, but I earlier testimony
was that nobody has told him that they will not teach it.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. That accurate?

A. Yes.

MS. FERBER: Thank you Mr. Williams,
appreciate your testimony.

Q. Does Fort Smith Special School District have a
curriculum development committee?

A. I think so.

175

Q. Do you know what the responsibilities of that
committee are?

A. Well, the name implies develop curriculum.

Q. Do they develop curriculum in the science area?

A. And I said, as far as I know, there's not curriculum
in chemistry so....

Q. Are there any guidelines from the State as far as,
you know, that apply to what you teach?

A. None that I've seen.

Q. Is there some process whereby scientific theories
gain acceptance in the scientific community before they're
taught in schools?

A. Well, most theories are not taught unless there's
some belief in the scientific community by a portion of
the scientific community that they're possible.

Q. For the most part are the theories, scientific
theories which you teach, scientific information which you
teach in your classes, reflected in textbooks?

A. Yes.

Q. And is there some process whereby scientific theory
gains acceptance or the scientific community before it's
incorporated into textbooks?

A. Again, I'd have to say that it's believed by the
majority of scientists before --

Q. Do you have an opinion as to why Creation Science

176

doesn't appear in textbooks?

MR. WILLIAMS: That supposes that
it does not.

MS. FERBER: I believe Mr. Townley
testified that he does not know of any textbooks which
include Creation Science.

MR. WILLIAMS: In his district, You're
saying all textbooks.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Do you know of any text books which include
Creation Science?

A. Unless you're talking about those sitting on the table.

Q. Textbooks -- all right. do you know of any
textbooks that you have seen which would be used in the
public schools that include Creation Science?

A. Of course, I also told you that I've only viewed
about three books, you know. So, that --

Q. Have you seen a lot of chemistry textbooks in your
life time?

A. That have Creation Science? No, I haven't.

Q. Have you seen -- and you have reviewed many
chemistry textbooks in your many years of teaching
chemistry?

A. That's true.

Q. And you've never seen one that includes Creation

177

Science?

A. That's true.

Q. Okay. Do you believe that it's professionally
responsible to teach theories or information which have
not gained acceptance in the scientific community?

A. Well, if it wasn't then we would have had -- we
would still be back believing that the sun went around
the earth. We'd still believe that the blood ebdon
[sic.] flowed in the body because the vast majority of
the teachers, during those times, believed that the blood
ebdon flowed in the body.

Q. I didn't ask you whether scientists could study and
teach us new information. Are you suggesting to me
that people were teaching that in the schools at the same
time?

A. No, they weren't. They were not.

Q. That's not my question then Mr. Townley, sorry.
What I asked you was whether it was professionally
responsible to teach theories or scientific information
which have not yet gained acceptance in the scientific
community?

A. I'm not sure I can answer that question.

Q. Do you teach scientific theories which have not
gained acceptance in the scientific community?

A. No.

178

Q. Do you believe that Creation Science has gained
acceptance in the scientific community?

A. By a segment of it.

Q. How big a segment a segment of scientific community
has to accept a theory before you think it ought to be
taught in schools?

A. I really don't know.

Q. So, if you read it in a couple of books, is that
enough to convince you that you ought to teach it?

A. No. But when I see the people that have -- the
number of people that are writing books, the number of
scientists that are doing research on it; such as in
England, such as in Michigan, such as in California and
when I read their credentials, as I've already
reiterated.

Q. If they have P.h.D. after their name and they're
from a school that you recognized?

A. That are highly recognized.

Q. Highly recognized.

A. That's the only judgment or criteria that I have
to go on. Since I'm not an expert in those fields, I
do not do research. I can only make judgment values
based on what I read.

Q. Do you know who published the books that you
reviewed?

179

A. At the time that I read them I looked at the
authors and -- and looked at them, as I have stated.

Q. Did you have any information about those publishers?

A. I don't have any information about the people that
currently or in any other time I've looked at textbooks.
That's a question which I've already answered also.

Q. How would you feel if you knew that the companies
that published the Creation Science books that you
reviewed were connected to church organizations?

A. I don't think that would bother me.

Q. It wouldn't, in any way, influence your opinion as
to the size of the validity?

A. I don't think so. They're just publishing
companies.

Q. Once again, we've talked about the option of
avoiding teaching Evolution Science. Is that an option
that's open to you? Rather than teaching Creation
Science, could you excise from your course that part of
the curriculum which has to do with Evolution Science?

A. I could.

Q. Without doing any damage to the information that you
should be teaching to your students?

A. That's a question which is speculative. I don't if
I -- you know, if you're saying by not telling them or
giving them all the information you have could harm them

180

or not harm them, that's an opinion.

Q. Do you believe that you should have that option to
stop teaching a part of your curriculum?

A. I didn't say I was going to stop teaching that.

Q. I asked if you should have the option of doing
that?

A. I believe in our democracy. And I believe that
there are -- in the process that we have that if -- if
various committees throughout our lands decide that
we shouldn't teach it, that we should (1) either not
teach it or we should get out of the profession.

Q. The Balance Treatment For Creation Science And
Evolution Science Bill gives you two options. Or the
Attorney General's office tells you there are two options.

A. Right. And if I don't wish to teach those -- if I
don't wish to do one or the other -- If I wish to teach
one without the other, then I'm breaking the law. And
then I either must move to a state to where -- that I can
do that or I should have to get out of teaching. We have
to obey the laws of our land.

Q. What I want to know is, whether you believe that
you ought to have that option -- or whether you have a
right to exercise that option to stop teaching a portion
of the curriculum which you've determined ought not to
be taught?

181

A. If the law says that I should, then I should.

Q. According to the information you've given me, in
some areas of your curriculum now you will be teaching
two alternative theories of how something occurred.
Do you believe that students have the academic background to
weigh the relative merit of the two different theories that
you will be presenting?

A. I have presented different theories as to why
things have occurred in other areas in science and
haven't seen that harm them.

Q. What areas have you presented different theories in?

A. Such as in geology where -- in mountain building
you raise several possibilities, several theories of why
mountains are built, raised.

Q. Do you think any of that area in any way requires
students to choose between the different models you
present of reconcile.?

A. No, I don't think it makes them choose between them.
They recognize that they are models, they recognize
that there are different possibilities.

Q. Do you believe that presentation of Evolution
Science and Creation Science might cause students to have
to choose between the two models in order to reconcile?

A. I don't think they have to choose between the two
models. I don't have to choose between the two models.

182

And I'm just as -- I would have to consider myself as the
only place I can make the value judgment.

Q. So, students who are many years younger than
you lack your academic rating?

A. Would not have to make a value judgment, no.

Q. Is it too conceivable to you that because of the
religious training they get at home --

A. They might.

Q. -- they might have to reconcile with inconsistent
information?

MR. WILLIAMS: Calls for speculation
again.

Q. You don't know?

A. I --

Q. You don't know, is that the shrug?

A. Obviously --

Q. The reporter can't report a shrug.

A. Well, the reporter can report that I stated
previously and which I've answered many times. You know,
I seems like many of these questions I'm answering for
the fourth or fifth time.

Q. I think the questions have been slightly different.
And I need the answers. I apologize to for --

A. Would you want to rephrase the question again?
We'll see if it's rephrased in the same way.

183

Q. I will ask the question. Thank you.

A. Okay. Let me hear it again.

Q. Is it conceivable to you that because of religious
training, religious beliefs, students may feel compelled
to reconcile the two models you present or feel confused
by the two models?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's still --

A. You ask me if it's possible, of course, anything is
possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's still speculative
and I object.

[Objection noted.]

Q. Okay. Can chemistry be taught without teaching the
origin of life, man, the earth, and the universe at
all?

A. Yes.

Q. How much of your curriculum would you be excising
to do that?

A. Not much. Again, it's very difficult for me to say
because you -- as before, you brought up an area which I
hadn't thought of, so it's difficult for me to say. It's
difficult for me to say. Not much. There aren't too
many areas that are -- that involve creationism vs
evolution in chemistry. Chemistry is the study of
particles and how they interact

184

with each other. The mechanisms, how they interact with
each other. The products by which are produced by these
mechanisms. When we get into -- only when we get into the
area of the production of extremely long polyatomic
molecules and the probability statistically of informing do
we get in on the -- the basement of both theories. I'm sure
that there are probably other areas to where you could draw
parallels in some way.

Q. So, you do not know exactly what part of your
curriculum you'll have to alter to comply with that?

A. I would have to give it more time than the five
minutes that we're talking about here. I would have to
go home and look through my curriculum, look through the
textbooks, try in the best of my judgment to come up
with all the areas that would have to be involved.

Q. So, when you said Creation Science should be taught
in your chemistry class you didn't know what part of your
curriculum that would affect and how much additional time
it would take?

A. I have not looked because the only areas that I wish
to cover in that area, under my own personal opinion at
this time, was that which was the formation of long
polyatomic molecules.

Q. Is your personal opinion what is going to determine
what you have to do under Act 590?

185

A. Under Act 590?

Q. Uh-huh.

A. I hadn't -- what I requested hadn't been relative to
Act 590. Act 590 hasn't been passed or not passed yet.
When Act 590 comes up then I'll have to look through the
whole text to find out what areas are involved, but at
this time that hasn't.

Q. Are you familiar with the Arkansas Science
Guidelines?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Are you required to file lesson plans?

A. No.

Q. What does the term model mean to you?

A. A model is a -- if you're talking about a scientific
model it's a mechanism by which something can take
place, explain something. It helps to get insight
to -- to how something takes place.

Q. Do you have to file copies of tests that you give?

A. No.

Q. Do you --

A. We do have to file copies of -- we have to submit
semester and year examinations, but those are the only
copies we have to submit.

Q. Have you reviewed the four takes that you brought with
you today?

186

A. No.

Q. Have you listened to any of them?

A. Yes.

Q. What -- which have you listened to?

A. "Dinosaurs And -- whatever the name of it is.
"Dinosaurs And Deluge."

Q. By Henry Morris?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Does it contain any biblical references?

A. It certainly does.

Q. Does this tape discuss any information which you --
which is taught in your chemistry course?

A. None.

Q. Or which would be -- which would require --

A. None that I remember.

Q. Or does it touch on subjects -- would it provide
the balanced treatment for subjects that you teach
now?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever heard of the Arkansas Citizens
For Balance Education And Origin, or Arkansas Citizens
For Fairness In Education?

A. No.

Q. Act 590 prohibits religious instruction. What does
religious instruction mean to you?

187

A. I guess I better find out what religious instruction
means if the bill passes. But to me, of course, I refer
only to my own Christian Religion. And my Christian
religion, it means I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior.
To me it believes that I should act as he acted, that he is
the model by which I should live by.

Q. Is that -- do you mean that only if you instruct
about Jesus Christ the savior that you're giving religious
instruction?

A. No. There are other aspects of the Christian
religion, sure. As I said before, if you want me to go
into what is religion, I guess I better get me out some
books and start finding out what religion that you're
--

Q. Are you currently prohibited from teaching religion
in the public schools?

A. I do not teach religion in the public schools. I
teach chemistry. Chemistry is the interaction of matter
with itself, particulate interactions.

Q. Do you mean to tell me that you have no opinion
as to what religion instruction means?

A. Yes. I just told you I assume religious instruction
would be that they're referring to biblical religious
instruction. I'm sure that there are probably other
religious instructions that they're referring to.

188

Q. Act 590 prohibits reference to religious writing.

A. That's true.

Q. Does this mean merely that the teacher can't refer
to the Bible?

A. I would assume that they can't refer to Buddhism,
Hinduism, any other religions of the world of which I'm not
familiar.

Q. Did that mean just that you can't quote scriptures?

A. I would assume that it means that you can't refer
to the basic beliefs of those religions. And since I'm
not familiar with the basic beliefs of all the religions
of the world it would be very....

Q. Mr. Townley, what I was focusing on was the
prohibitions against reference to religious writings and
asking you whether you thought that religious writing
meant only the Bible or other scripture?

A. I'm sure it means other religious group's writings
also.

Q. What does creation mean?

A. Made from, created. It's been made, put together,
synthesized.

Q. Does the term Creation Science -- does the term
creation, as used in reference to Creation Science, mean
the act of a supernatural creator?

A. Creation means that that a supernatural power

189

above and beyond our intelligence has created life.
That's the way I would read Creation Science.

Q. Okay. Mr. Townley, I'd like to show you the
definition of Creation Science contained in Act 590 which
you've told me you have read before. It's Section 4A,
right here.

A. It means the scientific evidences of creation --
would you like for me to read that to you?

Q. You don't need to read it into the record.

A. Okay. For the record, that after being on this for
over five hours, it seems like, that one does get tired. And
I'll put that in the record.

Q. I appreciate that and I am trying to wind it up.

A. And one who reads the record can obviously see how
many times the questions have been repeated, how tired
one can get.

Q. We'll try not to test your patience much longer.

A. I would hope so.

Q. In the mean time, I'd like to get through the
questions so we can all get out of here.

A. That's very good. As long as we only ask them one
time it seems like we could get through them in less than
five hours.

Q. Mr. Townley, had you read the definition of
Creation Science before I questioned you about it?

190

A. Yes, I have. That does not mean that I remember Act
590 and what they wrote as their definition.

Q. I am asking you just to read it right now.

A. All right. I've read the definition of Creation
Science.

Q. Where would one go to find the scientific evidences
for creation as it's defined in that section of the Act?

A. I imagine one would have to do research through
various materials that have been written.

Q. Do you know where the six elements of that
definition of Creation Science come from?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Are you familiar with the Genesis account of
creation?

A. I am -- unless somebody asks me to quote it word
for word I am fairly reasonable to the Genesis account,
correct.

Q. Are those six elements of the definition of Creation
Science found in Genesis?

A. I don't remember that the Genesis account uses the
terms energy, insufficient mutation, natural selection.

Q. I doubt very much that it does.

A. Separate ancestry, earth's geology catastrophism.

Q. Do you believe that the concepts implicit in those
six definitions are found in Genesis?

191

A. It's quite possible. It's quite possible that
Christian religion would relate more to one theory than
to another. In fact, it would almost have to relate more
to one than another.

Q. Is that listing of the six elements of Creation
Science inclusive as far as you're concerned? Or could
other evidences for creation be taught?

MR. WILLIAMS: Could you -- am I
understanding the question correctly? Do you mean
are those six the only evidences that are being taught?

MS. FERBER: No. I'm asking him
whether he knows of other evidences that could be taught.

A. Well, it's possible that there are other evidences
that could be taught.

Q. What are kinds?

A. I would assume that kinds means similar.

Q. Number 3 in that definition says, "changes only
within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants
and animals."

A. Similar kinds of plants and animals.

Q. What is a kind?

A. Or if it changes only within fixed limits that were
originally created kinds.

Q. Do you recognize --

A. Types.

192

Q. Types. Is that word used any place else to
describe groups of plants and animals or living kinds?

A. I wouldn't know.

Q. Is that word used in the Bible?

A. I wouldn't know. Maybe, quite possible.

Q. Number 4 says, "separate ancestry for man and
apes." Why does creation theory require separate
ancestry for man and apes?

A. It's my understanding that through Creation Science
God created all basic life forms as they are basically in
their form today. That there may have been slight
changes within those life forms today, but basically they
have remained the same. Therefore, since an ape being
different from a man it would require that they have
separate ancestory.

Q. Why can't man and apes be part of the same kind?

A. They're different. They have different
characteristics.

Q. Are you offended by the concept that man and apes
are related?

A. Offended, what do you mean offended? In what way
offended?

Q. Does it bother you to believe that man and apes
are related?

A. If that's the mechanism that God wanted to create man

193

by, no it doesn't offend me.

Q. What does catastrophism mean?

A. A catastrophy would mean a violent or sudden
change.

Q. So, what does it mean to say, "explanation of the
earth's geology by catastrophism"?

A. It means that the forms on the earth, that is --
again, I'm giving you my opinion. I would certainly read
further if I were going to teach the science, Creation
Science. But my understanding of catastrophe would
be that you could explain various geological forms due to
catastrophe rather than to slow processes. And in fact,
that many things that are seen in geology could be
explained better by that than possibly by the other.

Q. Number 5 refers to the occurrence of a worldwide
flood. Is this the same flood referred to in the
bible as involving Noah's ark?

A. I wouldn't know. There is theory which also
states that the world -- and I don't know where I've
heard this theory, so you can't ask me to give it in any
book. There is a theory that says the world was -- above the
atmosphere of the world there was an envelope of water,
which completely surrounded the earth. That some major
event caused the piercing of that envelope of water, such as
a huge meteorite hitting it causing the vortex to pull the

194

water from the envelope towards the earth. Once that vortex
was broken, the envelope of water and the water
cascaded down upon the earth that created a catastrophe,
creating geologic forms because of that catastrophe. That
theory is not a Noah's flood theory as far as I know. And
yet, it is a different view of flood mechanism. I don't
teach it by the way.

Q. Do you --

A. And I don't believe it either, but anyway....

Q. Do you know what -- but you do believe in the
occurrence of a worldwide flood?

A. Yes, I do believe in the occurrence of a worldwide
flood.

Q. What does that have to do with origins, the subject
of Act 590?

A. I'm not sure that it has any -- you asked me if I
believe it. I do believe it because of my obvious
Christian beliefs.

Q. I am referring to the fact that, the definition of
Creation Science as contained in Act 590 includes the
scientific evidence and related inferences that indicate
the occurrence of a worldwide flood.

MR. WILLIAMS: Catastrophism including
the worldwide flood.

MS. FERBER: Catastrophism, that's

195

right.

Q. And I'm asking what that has to do with the subject
of origins?

A. Well, I think it has to do with explaining why that
certain features of the earth are as they are. Or it
has -- I think that Creation Science uses this as a
mechanism by which they explain the finding of certain
fossil evidence such as dinosaur-bones, why that they --
why that certain species of life here on earth have
disappeared rapidly rather than to have a slow
disappearance. Again, that assumption can be wrong,
but that's my own understanding of Creation Science.

Q. Section 4B of Act 590 merely defines Evolution
Science and lists six scientific evidences and related
inferences for Creation Science.

A. I have to --

Q. I'll let you read it first. What I want to know
is whether you think that you have to teach all six
elements before the balanced treatment requirement is
triggered or if you just mention one of them whether you
have to balance it with something about Creation Science?

A. If I only mention one I think I'd only have to
balance with it with one from the other.

Q. Do you believe that presentation of evolution alone
undermines the religious convictions, and morals of

196

philosophical values of students and parents.

A. For the second time at least, the answer is no.

Q. Do you believe the presentation of evolution alone
hinders religious training and moral training by parents?

MR. WILLIAMS: I want to object. I think
it's irrelevant whether he believes it. It's whether the
legislature believes it or not is what's important.

MS. FERBER: I'm entitled to it if it's
relevant.

[Objection noted.]

A. You want to repeat that again. I'm getting rather
tired, but -- I'm having trouble concentrating.

Q. Do you believe that presentation of evolution
alone hinders religious training and moral training by
parents?

A. I think in some cases it might, it's possible.

Q. Do you believe that presentation of evolution
alone produces hostility toward atheistic religions?

MR. WILLIAMS: I just want to enter a
continuing objection to all these questions based upon the
findings of fact.

[Objection noted.]

A. I don't know. I guess it -- you know, anything is
possible. It's possible.

Q. Can you imagine any scientific evidence that would

197

cause you to give up your belief in creation as described
in Genesis?

A. No.

Q. Let's take a brief break.

[Recess.]

Q. Do you discuss fossils and fossil records in your
chemistry class?

A. No.

Q. Do you discuss the geologic column?

A. No.

Q. Do you talk about the speed of light?

A. Occasionally.

Q. Are you aware of any Creation Science theories which
contradict the evidence which you currently teach about
the speed of light?

A. I'm not aware of it. There may be, but I'm not
aware of it.

Q. In a science class, can you attempt to explain
things other than by natural laws?

A. No, I don't try to.

Q. Did you ever contact anyone in regards to Act
590?

A. What do you mean by that?

Q. To support the bill?

A. On my own initiative, no. In fact, and I may get
in

198

hot water here, but I'm going to go ahead and state it.
As part of the A.E.A. I spoke against the Act. Not because I
disbelieved in Creation Science because I did believe in
Creation Science. And I'm on record in front of the entire
elected delegates to the National Education Association in
being in favor of the fact that creation should be taught.
My original understanding of the Act was incorrect. And
after I had discussed with teachers, and people, and so
forth, my understanding and found out that I was incorrect,
I wasn't against the Act.

Q. What was your understanding?

A. As I said, it would probably get in trouble, right.
That every dotted "i" had to be exactly the same. And
that's no longer my understanding, so I'm not against the
act.

Q. Could you explain a little more fully what your
understanding was, other than the dotted "i's"?

A. That every single -- that every single second that
was spent on creation would have to be spent on
evolution.

Q. Okay. And when did you get disabused of this
notion?

A. I knew see that you'd call back something that I
don't really want to remember or have remembered or
whatever. But I no longer have that view of it and I no

199

longer support that it shouldn't be taught. Well, I
didn't ever -- as I said, didn't ever support that it
shouldn't be taught, but I was against the law because
of a misunderstanding. And I further confirmed that
misunderstanding through the Attorney General's office.
And it is -- in fact, I was in error.

Q. Mr. Townley, I've asked you to furnish me with a list
of the Creation Science materials that you've consulted in
the past year.

A. And as best as I can I will furnish it.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Williams, if you plan
to have Mr. Townley refer to the materials he's consulted
anywhere in his testimony, I would request that we be
furnished with that answer within five days.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't plan, nor
have I ever planned to have him refer to that material.

MS. FERBER: So, you will not in anyway
ask him what materials on which he bases his opinion that
he can teach Creation Science?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. If I should change
my mind, I will let you know.

MR. CEARLEY: And furnish the materials
I hope, or names.

BY MS. FERBER:

Q. Do you teach about DNA?

200

A. No.

Q. I understand that you may have answered some version
of a couple of questions early in the record. And if you
want we can take the time to go back and read the entire
transcript and find the answers.

A. I should make you do that, shouldn't I?

Q. If not, we can just very quickly go through them.

A. I should make us sit here and go through them.

Q. If you would like to sit here and go through it
I would be more than glad to. But if not, I would just
like to know when your first contact with the Attorney
General's office was?

A. Time within the past two months.

Q. And how many conversations have you had with the
Attorney General's office?

A. Several. I can't count them. Several.

Q. More than five?

A. Maybe five, maybe six.

Q. Have you ever read Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. And you read it subsequent to your first contact
with the Attorney General's office?

A. I may have because we had it -- it was brought up
at the A.E.A. But I don't remember if I read it fully at
that time, I really don't.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Jim Townley - Page 5

201

Q. I'm sorry, was that after you talked with?

A. No. At A.E.A. we voted to go -- that we spoke
against Act 590. Okay. Arkansas Education Association.
At that time I think I read it, okay? And at that
time I interpreted it differently than what I've come to
interpret it as now, and what the Attorney General has
confirmed.

Q. Have you reread Act 590 since you were contacted by
the Attorney General's office?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Have you discussed the substance of your testimony
with the Attorney General's office?

A. At least some of it. I obviously do not know -- I
did not know what you were going to ask today. Okay.

Q. I'm asking whether you discussed the substance of
your testimony at trial with the Attorney General's
office?

A. I've discussed some things which I've been told
would be brought up.

Q. And when were those discussions?

A. Sometime within the past two months.

Q. And in all of those several discussions?

A. No.

Q. How many times did you discuss the substance of your
testimony?

202

A. I don't know.

Q. And with whom did you discuss it?

A. I don't know that either.

Q. Did you discuss the area of your expertise?

A. I informed them on the phone that I was a chemistry
teacher.

Q. Did you discuss the substance of the opinion which you
would express at trial?

A. I think so.

Q. Did you discuss the basis of the opinion which you
would express at trial?

A. Of whatever we discussed, I guess we did.

Q. Have you ever seen plaintiffs first set of
interrogatories?

A. I do not even know what an interrogatory is.

Q. I assume from that that you've not discussed the
interrogatories with the Attorney General's office?

A. We may have.

Q. Okay. Are you aware that your name was disclosed
to plaintiffs and to the press as a witness in this
case on October 26th?

A. Am I aware of it? Yes, I'm aware of it.

Q. And that was subsequent to your discussions with
the Attorney General's office?

A. I don't know if we discussed it or not.

203

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, we contacted
him before we disclosed his name.

Q. Have you discussed the --

A. Oh, I was contacted before it went out in the
papers I guarantee you that.

Q. Had you discussed the substance of your testimony
and the opinion which you would express at trial prior to
that time?

A. The first time that they contacted me they did not
ask me what would -- how I would be used in the trial.
They only said that they had heard that I would be
willing to teach Creation Science.

Q. Did they tell you how they'd heard that, how they
got your name?

A. I don't remember.

Q. I have no further questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have none.

MS. FERBER: I have no further
questions, and Mr. Williams has indicated that he has no
questions for the witness. The deposition is continued
until such time as counsel has an opportunity to review
the tapes which were furnished today.

MR. WILLIAMS: Defendants did not
agree to continue the deposition. They have voiced their
objection particularly in view of the fact that we began

204

at approximately 9:00 with a short break for lunch and
worked until 4:00. So we have been here approximately
eight hours or seven and a half hours on a witness whose
testimony will probably take fifteen minutes.

MS. FERBER: Counsel's approximations
are just that and I --

MR. CEARLEY: I would like to state for
the record too that we would know the bounds of this
witnesses' testimony had the interrogatories been
responded to and had we been given any -- any notice of
the areas of his testimony and basis for any opinions and
so forth, which was the reason for our interrogatories.

[Thereupon the above styled deposition
was concluded at 4:50 p.m.]

* * * * * * *

205

                         C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF ARKANSAS}
                               }ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI }

RE: MR. JIM TOWNLEY

               I, MICHELL R. NIENSTEDT of LAURA BUSHMAN COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, a Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated
by me in the caption on the forgoing deposition are
true; and that the foregoing deposition of the witness
wastranscribed by me or under my supervision on the
STENO-CAT Computerized Transcription System from my
machine shorthand notes taken at the time and place set
out in the caption hereto, the witness being first duly
cautioned and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth.

               GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this
the 17th of November, 1981.

                              _____________________________________
                              Michelle R. Nienstedt, Notary Public
                              in and for Pulaski County, AR

                              My commission expires 1-13-85

              LAURA BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE
                     1100 N. University, Suite 223
                     Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
                              (501) 664-7357

Deposition of Waine Frair

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

----------------------------------------x

REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al., :

Plaintifffs, :

- v -: INDEX NO.
LR-C-81-322
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al., :

Defendants. :

----------------------------------------x

Deposition of WAYNE FRAIR taken by
the plaintiffs pursuant to stipulation,
and held at the offices of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Esqs., 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, on
November 25, 1981, commencing at 10:00 a.m.,
before Perry Auerbach, a Registered Pro-
fessional Reporter and Notary Public of the
State of New York.

2

A P P E A R A N C E S :

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, ESQS.
Attorneys for plaintiffs
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022

BY: THOMAS M. LAHIFF, JR., ESQ.,
Of Counsel

Attorney General for the State of Arkansas
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

BY: DAVID WILLIAMS, ESQ.,
Deputy Attorney Gener

A L S O P R E S E N T :

ANN BLEEFELD

DR. EUGENE Gaffney,
Museum of Natural History

DR. RICHARD ZWEIFEL,
Museum of Natural History

---

2A

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED,
by and between the attorneys for the respective
parties herein, that the sealing and filing
of the within deposition be waived, and that
such deposition may be signed and sworn to
before any officer authorized to administer
an oath, with the same force and effect as if
signed and sworn to before the officer before
whom said deposition is taken.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
that all objections, except as to form, are
reserved to the time of trial.

---

3

W A Y N E F R A I R , called as a witness,
having been first duly sworn by the Notary
Public, Perry Auerbach, was examined and tes-
tified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY

MR. LAHIFF:

Q Please state your name for the record.

A Wayne Frair.

Q What is your address, please?

A The King's College, Briarcliff, New
York 10510.

Q Doctor, did you bring any documents
with you today?

A I have a few (handing).

Q Are these all the documents?

A That is all I have with me.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to take a few
minutes to take a look at them before we get
started.

(Pause in the proceedings.)

Q Doctor, I noticed from your curriculum
vitae that you have a fair number of publications deal-
ing with the creation model, and I'd like to know if it
would be possible for us to obtain copies of these,

Frair 4

as well, because I notice in the documents you have
provides us today there was only the book, The Case For
Creation, and I'd like to see copies of your other
creation writings, as well.

A That's all right with me. I'll provide
anything you wish, I guess.

Q All right. Thank you.

A I want to cooperate.

Q How did you first hear about this case?

A I think I read it in some magazine that
the bills had been passed, and that the ACLU would be
challenging it.

Q How did it come about that you were
about to testify in the case?

A The Attorney General's office phoned
me.

Q Who at the Attorney General's office?

A A man named Tim Humphreys.

Q Exactly what did he tell you?

A He -- I think he asked if I knew about
the situation in Arkansas and would I be willing to
testify if necessary.

Q And what did you tell him?

A I said that I would consider it.

Frair 5

Q Did you contact Mr. Humphreys again?

A No.

Q Did he contact you?

A Yes.

Q And what did he say to you?

A Well, he told me that they were planning
to have a trial, and that they would like to consider
my testimony.

Q What did you tell him?

A I said I was willing to participate.

Q Did you discuss the specifics of your
testimony?

A No.

Q Did you discuss what your testimony
might be?

A No.

Q Have you discussed with anyone from the
Attorney General's office what your testimony might be?

A I talked with two of the lawyers briefly
last night.

Q And what did you talk about?

A This whole business is rather new for
me, and I'm a little bit bewildered by the whole situa-
tion, and I think that they were trying to clarify for

Frair 6

me what would be going on.

Q Did they ask you what your testimony
might be?

A They asked me a few questions.

Q What did they ask you?

A They told me that I should be honest
with the questioners, and that I should be prepared to
express my feelings.

Q Was there any discussion of the spe-
cifics of what you might testify to, either today or
at the trial?

A Well, I asked them some questions of
what might be expected of me. I think they tried to
help me be prepared.

Q What did they tell you about what might
be expected of you?

A Well, what do you mean?

Q What do you mean by that?

A This is the first time I have been
involved with something like this, and I'm concerned
that we have fairness in education, but I am not anxious
to get into any squabbles about these things. If whatever
I can do to encourage fairness, I am happy to do so.

Q I'd like to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit

Frair 7

No. 1, the defendants' list of witnesses and point out
to you in paragraph 12, there is a reference to you and
to the fact that you will testify that, "Your findings
indicate substantial evidence supporting a limited
change model specifically and creation science generally."

(Above document marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 1 for identification, this date.)

Q Did you discuss anything like this with
the Attorney General or anyone from the Attorney General's
office?

A I don't remember ever saying just that.
That was written by -- who wrote that?

Q I'm not sure who wrote that.

MR. WILLIAMS: It was prepared by our
office.

Q Did you ever say anything like that to
anyone from the Attorney General's office?

A Probably said something that went along
with that. I don't remember saying those exact words.

Q Do you have any understanding of what
that statement means by a limited change model?

A Yes.

Q Could you explain what that means?

A Well, that organisms have changed to a

Frair 8

limited extent, rather than atolphylogeny. That would
include all animals.

Q Do you know what your testimony will
be at the trial?

A No.

Q Do you have any idea what you might
testify about?

A Well, I would try to answer the ques-
tions they ask.

Q Has the Attorney General ever said to
you what kinds of questions he would ask?

A That I have indicated that I would be
questioned about my stand, about my beliefs, perhaps
something about science.

MR. LAHIFF: Mr. Williams, I'd like to
have some kind of an idea what subjects or topics
this witness is going to be testifying about.

It is very unclear from our discussion
what he will be testifying about. It is very
hard to question him.

Do you have any idea at this time what
topics he will be covering during his testimony?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think our statement in
our list of witnesses is that he will discuss

Frair 9

the evidence which supports a limited changed
model specifically and the creation science
generally, and that generally is the subject
matter that he will be going into with this
witness.

He has a background in biochemetic
toxonomy, and he will be asking him questions
based on his work in the area, and the research
that he has done as it will relate to the cre-
ation science or evolution science model.

Q Doctor, could you describe what your
research has shown that would be supportive of the
creation science model?

A There's different ways of looking at
data. I don't think my findings are inconsistent with
a creation model.

Q Are your findings inconsistent with
an evolutionary model?

A I have many good friends who are evo-
lutionists who use my data appropriately, I think.

Q So you are saying then that your find-
ings are consistent with an evolutionary model?

A They can be utilized by people with
that approach.

Frair 10

Q What do you mean by the limits of the
limited change model?

A This is something that hasn't been
defined precisely.

Q Hasn't been defined precisely by whom?

A By many people that I know of.

Q Who are the many people?

A Well, those that are inclining toward
preference for a creation model.

Q How do you define the limits or what
are the limits of a limited change model to you?

A That is a very good question. These
are some of the things that I am thinking about. I
don't think that I can give a definitive answer.

Q What are you thinking about them?

A Well, I am hopeful that my research will
contribute to an understanding of the organisms I am
working on, and I hope it will be of value to all
scientists.

Q Is your research directed towards a
demonstration of the validity of the creation science
model?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you saying is that
the sole purpose of his research?

Frair 11

Q Is that one of the purposes of your
research?

A I want to see the way things are going
to come out. I have certain presuppositions, as any
scientist has, and I want to follow the data the way
it seems to be leading.

Q Is the phrase limited change model
your description?

A Yes.

Q What do you mean by a limited change
model then?

A This is what some scientists would call
micro-evolution.

MR. LAHIFF: Can we take a break for a
few minutes.

(Short recess taken.)

BY MR. LAHIFF:

Q Are you aware of any non-creationists
who would use the term limited change model?

A There are many who would stress this
aspect of it, perhaps with different words.

Q What do you mean by stress this aspect
of it?

A To go easy on the macro-evolution and

Frair 12

to think more in terms of micro-evolution.

Q Perhaps you could help me out by explain-
ing to me exactly what the limited change model is, so
that I have an understanding.

A It is a view of life that recognizes
changes to the extent that they can be demonstrated
convincingly.

Q What do you mean by changes?

A Variation.

Q What kinds of variation?

A For instance, the production of human
races.

Q I'm sorry, could you elaborate a little
bit on your answer?

A Certainly. Certain changes have been
necessary to produce the variety seen among the races
of mankind. That is what I am talking about.

Q How does that relate to the limited
change model or how does the limited change model
explain the variations?

A The limited change model would be hesi-
tant --

MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me. I find
it hard to concentrate when another conversation

Frair 13

is going on. Could we just go off the record
until the conversation is over?

MR. LAHIFF: All right.

A In the limited change model, there is
caution in relating one type of organism to another.

Q What do you mean by caution in relat-
ing one organism to another?

A The person operating with the limited
change model is under no compulsion to bridge gaps
between organisms.

Q Are evolutionary scientists under some
compulsion to bridge gaps?

A This has been my experience.

Q What kind of compulsion are they under?

A In my courses, we were frequently required
to fit the data into an evolutionary scheme.

Q From where does this compulsion arise?

MR. WILLIAMS: If you know. I think
the question may be calling for speculation on
the part of the witness.

MR. LAHIFF: I don't think it calls for
speculation. The witness has testified that
scientists who do not adhere to limited change
model are under some compulsion to bridge gaps,

Frair 14

and I'd like to know the course of this com-
pulsion.

A In most cases, I think it is based on
a prior acceptance of the macro-evolutionary view.

Q Do you use evolutionary ideas in your
scientific research?

A What do you mean by evolutionary ideas?

Q Do you refer to ancestors in your
research?

MR. WILLIAMS: I would object to that,
to the extent that it assumes a fact not in evi-
dence, that an ancestor is necessarily an evo-
lutionary concept.

MR. LAHIFF: Your objection is noted.

Q Could you answer the question?

A Would you repeat it?

MR. LAHIFF: Would you please repeat
the question.

(Question read by the Reporter.)

A I think in terms of ancestors for some
organisms with which I am working.

Q Do you use evolutionary terms in your
scientific research?

MR. WILLIAMS: Object to the question

Frair 15

as being ambiguous. What is an evolutionary
term?

Q What do you understand by an evolution-

ary term?

A I don't know.

Q You have no understanding of the term
evolution?

A I wouldn't say that.

MR. WILLIAMS: The problem is that evo-
lutionary term is so ambiguous as objective
that it is difficult for the witness to give
meaning to it.

If you would like to give a meaning to
it, it might assist him in trying to frame a
response to the question.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to have an under-
standing of the witness' understanding.

MR. WILLIAMS: Evolutionary term can
be referring to a word or can be a term of
years or anything.

Q I will ask the witness what he under-
stands the term evolution to mean.

A The term evolution popularly is used
today to refer to change, descent with modification.

Frair 16

Q Is that the only use of the term evo-
lution?

A Yes; when referring to living organisms.

Q What, to you, are the essentials of
evolution?

A Now, are you talking about what the evo-
lution view is?

Q Yes. What, to you, are the essentials
of the evolutionary model as you understand it?

A Variation, natural selection, survival
of the fittest, genetic continuity of the changes that
were produced in time.

Q What do you mean genetic continuity?

A That an organism passes to its off-
spring its genes.

Q Is relatedness of all organisms an ele-
ment of evolution?

A Now, what type of evolution are you
talking about?

Q How many types of evolution are there?

A Well, we have talked about micro-
evolution, and we have talked about macro-evolution.

Q Are there different mechanics for evo-
lution?

Frair 17

A Most evolutionists would rely on
genetic mechanisms.

Q What do you mean by genetic mechanisms?

A Things that would affect the gene pool.

Q Do you disagree with that?

A No.

Q How can the word ancestor be used in
a creationist's model?

A I think in the same sense that we com-
monly used the word ancestor in ordinary talk.

Q How do you use ancestor in ordinary talk?

A We are talking about our ancestors, our
parents, grandparents. When a lineage is well estab-
lished or appears obvious from the data.

Q Do you believe that all living organisms
are descended from a single source?

A This is the macro-evolution model. That
is not the creation model.

Q Do you accept that model?

A I have some hesitations about this.

Q What are your hesitations?

A I am not sure at this time that the data
is compelling.

Q Can you tell when evolution takes place

Frair 18

and when it doesn't?

A That is a good question. The problem
is to establish genetic continuity.

Q But can you tell when evolution takes
place and when it doesn't?

MR. WILLIAMS: Speaking to him, "you,"
in the sense of Dr. Frair personally as opposed
to anyone else in the community?

Q As opposed to scientists, evolutionists,
in general.

A When we are thinking in terms of cur-
rent extant organisms, there appears to be obvious
genetic continuity among some of these forms.

Q How would you account for this genetic
continuity?

A As part of micro-evolution.

Q Do you accept macro-evolution.

A Yes.

Q What data are you aware of that is
inconsistent with macro-evolution as you understand it?

A There seems to be considerable data
that would support a limited change model.

Q Could you describe that data for me?

A We mentioned human races. That is part

Frair 19

of a limited change model.

Q But could you explain the data? I don't
think simply observing that there are differences between
human races as a data, is inconsistent with macro-
evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that a question or was
that a statement?

MR. LAHIFF: That is a question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could you read what he
said back.

MR. LAHIFF: Why don't I withdraw that
and ask a different question.

Q Could you identify for me, please, the
sources of the data that you believe are inconsistent
with macro-evolution?

A The problem is to establish a genetic
continuity between groups of organisms, diverse groups
of organisms.

Q I'm a non-scientist, so you'll have to
bear with me. Could you please define for me what you
mean by the term evolution?

A In a word, change.

Q Change with respect to what?

A Descent with modification.

Frair 20

Q What is the mechanism of evolution?

A There is a -- appears to be a change
in the genetic term.

Q What kind of a change in the genetic
term?

A Some kind of a modification that would
be passed to the offspring.

Q What do you mean by the term macro-
evolution?

A This is the term that refers to evolu-
tion that would link all living things on one tree.

Q Are all living things related on one
tree?

MR. WILLIAMS: On what? I didn't hear.

MR. LAHIFF: Tree.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

A I have some questions about that.

Q What are your questions?

A I am not sure at this time that the evi-
dence for this is compelling.

Q Is there any evidence to the contrary?

A I think there is.

Q What is the evidence to the contrary?

A The problem is establishing genetic

Frair 21

continuity between the diverse groups of organisms.

Q What is the evidence that shows that
there is no genetic continuity?

Perhaps you could define what you mean
by genetic continuity first.

A That the forms bear a relationship by
descent from one another.

Q And how do you determine the relation-
ship, that the forms are related?

A That is where the problem lies. It is
not easy to do so.

Q Whether or not it is easy or difficult
to do, is there any evidence that shows that there is
no genetic continuity?

A It seems obvious to me that some types
of turtles are related to some other types of turtles.
They are very similar structurally, live in the same
region.

Q How is that inconsistent with an evo-
lutionary model?

A This is consistent with a limited change
model.

Q Is it inconsistent with a macro-evolution-
ary model?

Frair 22

A Many scientists do not think so. I
have some reservations.

Q Which scientists, in addition to your-
self, have reservations?

A Would you like me to name some?

Q Please.

A There have been many over the years.
One who is prominently quoted today is G. I. Kerkut;
his book is Implications of Evolution.

Q Is G. I. Kerkut a creation scientist?

A Not that I know of.

Q Is he an evolutionist?

A He could be, but in his book he has made
a case for a -- well, if I can introduce a new term,
polyphyletic --

MR. WILLIAMS: Use the term that you are
comfortable with.

THE WITNESS: I am not sure if it is the
best term.

A But he is uncomfortable with a macro-
evolutionary model.

Q Does he propose an alternative evolu-
tionary model?

A It is not set forth with any rigor in

Frair 23

the book.

Q But he is not an evolutionist?

A He sees a lot of problems with this
model.

Q Whether he sees problems or not, is he
an evolutionist?

MR. WILLIAMS: If you know.

A I am not positive about that. He pre-
sents many of the problems in that book, and indicates
that -- he uses the term the gene theory of evolution
and the special theory of evolution.

The gene theory of evolution refers to
the macro; the special theory of evolution refers to
micro. But there are other books.

Q Does he accept the validity of the
limited change model?

A That would be the special theory, what
he calls the special theory.

Q But does he accept or adopt that model?

A I can't say that for sure.

Q How does the limited change model differ
from an evolutionary model?

A Well, as Kerkut indicates, the limited
change model or the special theory of evolution is well-

Frair 24

accepted and has considerable data to support it,
whereas the gene theory doesn't, because the gene
theory involves establishing a genetic continuity
between groups, diverse groups.

Q Is your limited change model the same
as Duane Gish's limited change model?

A Could you tell me what his is?

Q Do you have an understanding of what
his limited change model is?

A I am not sure.

Q Do you believe in the idea of originally
created kinds as described in Genesis ?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object. That question
assumes a fact not in evidence, that the --
first of all, Genesis talks about originally
created all kinds.

Q Does Genesis talk about originally or
specially created kinds?

MR. WILLIAMS: I assume here you are
asking him this question in his capacity as a
science professional?

MR. LAHIFF: Yes.

A Repeat the question, please.

MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the question.

Frair 25

(Question read.)

MR. WILLIAMS: If you know.

A Well, we are switching gears a little
bit here. We have been talking about scientific mate-
rial, now you are coming over to what the Bible says.

Q I know I am switching gears. I am per-
mitted to do that. In fact, I can switch back if I
want. That is really the glory of taking a deposition.

A When we are talking about the scientific
picture, I said how I felt about the overall scheme.
If you are talking about my philosophical view of the
Bible, I think the Bible -- the Bible does say "kinds,"
does talk about kinds in the book of Genesis. And it
won't be inconsistent with a limited change model to
think that way about Genesis.

Q Do you believe that the Bible is
literally true?

A What do you mean by literally true?

Q What do you mean by literally true?

A You are the one that asked the question.

Q I would like your understanding. That
is the purpose of a deposition, is to get your under-
standing.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. You are using a term;

Frair 26

do you believe the Bible is literally true,
which may have more than one meaning.

What Dr. Frair is trying to say is
simply that that is an ambiguous term and I
will object on that ground.

MR. LAHIFF: I am perfectly willing to
have Dr. Frair define what he understands liter-
ally true to mean and to answer the question
according to his definition.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you want to ask him
what literally true means, that is fine.

Q All right. What do you understand by
the phrase literally true?

MR. WILLIAMS: If it means anything to
you.

A I do feel that there's -- that it is
worth following the teachings of the Bible, that have
been official influence.

Q My question was your understanding of
the phrase literally true.

A My own view of this would be that one
can accept the teachings of the Bible literally or as
they appear to be.

Q You still haven't defined what you mean

Frair 27

by literally.

A Well, they are correct as they appear
to be, how's that?

Q Do you believe that the Biblical account
of Genesis is an accurate historical picture of crea-
tion?

A I don't look at -- I don't read Genesis
and understand it as though I was reading a scientific
textbook. I think there is a difference there.

Q But does it present an accurate his-
torical portrayal of description of creation?

A I think basically, basically it does.

Q Does Genesis talk about kinds?

A It says they are reproduced after their
kind.

Q Do you believe that turtles are a kind
as described in Genesis?

A That is what I am working on.

Q But do you believe it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking him as a
science professional or as a matter of his per-
sonal religious faith?

MR. LAHIFF: I will ask first as a matter
of personal belief.

Frair 28

MR. WILLIAMS: Personal belief?

MR. LAHIFF: Personal belief.

MR. WILLIAMS: As in personal religious
belief?

MR. LAHIFF: Personal religious belief.

A I can't -- I don't think I can answer
that question.

Q Why can't you answer the question?

A Because I don't have enough information
at this stage. I am still learning.

Q As a scientist, do you believe it?

A Well, now you are saying as a scientist
do I believe that the turtles fit the kinds in Genesis?

Q Yes. That is exactly what I am asking.

A That -- I don't seem to make sense out
of that, because as a scientist, I am trying to under-
stand relations among turtles, and possibly other
organisms.

Q Are turtles related to any other
organisms?

MR. WILLIAMS: What was the question
again?

Q Are turtles related to any other organisms?

A I know who asked that question.

Frair 29

Q I asked the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I mean it is ambig-
uous to me. What do you mean by related?

Q Okay. We will go through this every
time if we have to. What do you understand by the
term related?

MR. WILLIAMS: I mean they are both
animals or what.

A The intent of the question os to find
out if I believe that turtles and other organisms would
participate in descent with modification; is that it?

Q Don't try and figure out the intent of
my question, just answer it.

A That is what you are asking me; is it
or isn't it?

Q Are turtles related to amniotes?

A What are amniotes?

Q You tell me what amniotes are.

A Reptiles, birds and mammals are.

Q Are turtles related to amniotes?

A These are organisms that have embryonic
membranes in the developmental process. They differ
from other organisms.

Q But are they related?

Frair 30

MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object on
the ground related is ambiguous. Related can
mean -- I can give you 2,000 definitions.

MR. LAHIFF: Maybe I do mean that they
are cousins.

Q Are they related as you understand the
term related to be?

A If you are talking about genetic con-
tinuity, we are right back to our question of limited
change and virtually unlimited change or micro-evolu-
tion or macro-evolution, gene theory and special theory,
and I don't feel that my own personal data on the basis
of my experience, I can answer that.

Q What does the word related mean in your
scientific papers?

A I have used the word. It would mean
that there was a genetic continuity among those organisms
involved.

Q Do other scientists believe that there
is a genetic continuity between turtles and other amniotes

A Most of them do.

Q Which scientists do not?

A Creationists would tend to question this.

Q Why would a creationist tend to question

Frair 31

it?

A Because they are not convinced that there
is a genetic continuity here.

Q But is there any data that shows that
there is not a genetic continuity?

A Well, I am still considering this.

Q But do you have any data to support your
considerations or your suppositions?

A Dr. Gaffney has produced a lot of infor-
mation that is very important in my considerations, and
I am looking at my own research, as well. I am still
in the process of evaluating this.

Q Is the data that Dr. Gaffney has pro-
duced inconsistent with evolution?

A He is a very respectable scientist and
I have a very --

Q But is it inconsistent with evolution?

A His philosophy is evolution.

Q So you are saying that the data is not
inconsistent with evolution?

A He certainly does not feel that it is.

Q Is his data inconsistent with a relation-
ship between turtles and other amniotes?

MR. WILLIAMS: He is here. Why don't

Frair 32

you ask him.

MR. LAHIFF: Dr. Gaffney is not here
to testify. Dr. Frair is.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you know. You can
answer to the extent of your knowledge. Obviously
Dr. Gaffney is here and if they would like to
ask him personally, he has been consulting with
them, but you can give answers to the extent
that you have knowledge and that you feel con-
fident that you can swear by.

A I have a high personal regard for Dr.
Gaffney.

Q I am not asking you about your high
personal regard for anyone.

A I just want to say that he, at this
stage, is --

Q Dr. Frair --

MR. WILLIAMS: Wait a second. He had
not finished the answer to the question.

A He is endeavoring to relate the turtles
to other amniotes.

Q Is the data that Dr. Gaffney has written
about inconsistent with evolution?

A I said I am not really prepared to

Frair 33

evaluate that in detail at this stage. I think I am
going to have to back off on that.

Q Why can't you give me an answer?

A Because I am not a paleontologist. He
is. He can evaluate his work.

Q Do you have any expertise at all in
paleontology?

A I have had one course in geology, but
I have had not much experience in paleontology.

Q What do you understand by the term crea-
tion model?

A Creation model would stress limited
change, micro-evolution, special theory.

Q Let's look at Act 590, which I would
like to have marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2.

(Above document marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2 for identification, this date.)

Q And I would direct your attention to
section 4, part A, which defines creation science as
the sudden creation of the universe, energy and life
from nothing.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have a copy of
that to look at?

MR. LAHIFF: Sure.

Frair 34

A Do you want me to comment on that state-
ment?

Q Do you personally believe that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Personal belief?

MR. LAHIFF: Personal belief, I am going
to ask him about his belief as a scientist.

MR. WILLIAMS: Wait a second. What now?

You said do you personally believe that as a
scientist.

MR. LAHIFF: I said then I am going to
ask him about his belief as a scientist.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

A Sudden creation of the universe, energy
and life from nothing. Now, I consider this --

Q Perhaps I should ask you, have you ever
seen this act before?

A Yes, I have.

Q Do you realize that this is the act
that you are testifying or that you will testify in
favor of?

A I do.

Q Has that been explained to you?

A Yes.

Q Have you seen this statute before today?

Frair 35

A Yes.

Q When did you first see this statute?

A Oh, several weeks ago.

Q How did you obtain a copy of the
statute?

A Somebody sent me one.

Q Do you know who sent a copy to you?

A I think it was an organization in
Arkansas.

Q Has the Attorney General ever dis-
cussed the statute with you or anyone from the Attorney
General's office?

A Yes.

Q What was the discussion?

A In fact, they gave me a copy of this.
I mean, I had -- they sent me a copy fairly recently.
I haven't spent a lot of time studying it, but -- what
was that? What did you say?

Q Maybe I will change tact again. Could
you read to yourself, please, the definition 4A?

A Read for myself?

Q Read to yourself. I'd like to ask you
a few questions about it.

(Pause.)

Frair 36

Q Is the definition in 4A consistent
with your limited change model?

A I don't think I could personally --
well, let's see -- there are some aspects of this that
I feel that I understand better than others.

Q What aspects of that do you understand
better than others?

A Number 3 deals with the limited change
model. That aspect of it I feel I am more conversant
with than others.

Q Are there any parts of that definition
that you disagree with?

A There are some aspects of it that I
am less certain of than other aspects of it.

Q What aspects of it are you less certain
of?

A Well, I am a biologist, and I don't
feel that I am qualified to speak with any degree of
authority on the matters that deal with the geological
aspects of this.

Q Do you believe that there is any scien-
tific evidence that supports 4A3, "changes only within
fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and
animals"?

Frair 37

A This is the idea of genetic continuity,
and I think there's evidence for genetic continuity
within certain groups of organisms.

Q But is there any evidence of originally
created kinds of plants and animals?

A In my understanding, the kinds would be
separated by lack of genetic continuity.

Q Do you know if that phrase, "changes
only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of
plants and animals," is based on the Bible?

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean where it came
from in the act?

MR. LAHIFF: No. I know where it came
from in the act.

Q Do you believe that it is based on the
Biblical account of creation?

A It is not Biblical wording.

Q It is not Biblical wording, but is it
based on the description in Genesis?

MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to that.
I don't think he is qualified to answer that
question.

Q Do you read the Bible?

A Yes.

Frair 38

Q How often do you read the Bible?

A I usually read it each day.

Q Have you read Genesis?

A Yes.

Q Can you tell me then whether or not the
phrase or the sentence "changes only within fixed limits
of originally created kinds of plants and animals" is
based on Genesis?

MR. WILLIAMS: As it is used in this
act, I don't think he is competent to testify
where it came from in this act. There is no
showing that he drafted it.

MR. LAHIFF: I am not asking him where
it came from in the act. I am asking him if
That is consistent with the description in
Genesis.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is a different ques-
tion. I have no problem with that.

A I think it could be considered consistent
with what Genesis says. Genesis says the organisms repro-
duced after their kinds.

Q Do you know what a kind is?

A That is a good question.

Q That is why I asked it.

Frair 39

A I am not prepared at this time to give
a good definition of a kind.

Q Why not?

A Because I don't think we have enough
evidence to --

Q Is there any evidence?

A Yes.

Q What is that evidence?

A The lack of genetic continuity between
groups.

Q Is the Bible a piece of evidence?

MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific evidence?

Q Piece of scientific evidence?

A No.

Q Was all kinds created during creation
week?

A Are you asking me what the Bible says?

Q I am asking you what the Bible says.

A The Bible has organisms created during
creation week.

Q Have new kinds arisen since creation
week?

MR. WILLIAMS: You are asking him again
as to his personal beliefs as opposed to what

Frair 40

scientific data tells you?

MR. LAHIFF: Yes.

A I don't know. I know we have had
extinction.

Q What evidence would you seek in order
to determine what a kind is?

A One way to do this would be to estab-
lish genetic continuity by breeding experiments.

Q Is there any other method?

A There may be reproductive isolation
among organisms which still belong to the same kind.
And you would determine this by the overall morpho-
logical similarities.

Q Have you ever undertaken any research
to determine what a kind is?

A I think my research could be understood
within the kinds concept, and I have thought about this
and I have some --

Q What is a kind?

A What do you mean what is a kind? In
terms of what? In terms of science?

Q In terms of science, what is a kind?

A In terms of the act, I think the act
is saying that the one kind would not have a genetic

Frair 41

continuity with another kind. That is why I hesitate.
That is the way that I understand it.

Q The act doesn't say that?

A This is the way I understand it.

Q The act talks about originally created
kinds?

A Yes.

Q What is an originally created kind?

A Well, that would be the way the organism
was when it started.

Q Could you identify for me an originally
created kind?

A Very good question. Man.

Q Are there any other originally created
kinds?

A This is something that is being con-
sidered by many at this time.

Q Is there any evidence?

A I think as of -- as tentative operating
model you would think in terms of organisms that were
morphologically and physiologically diverse.

Q What is there about man that leads you
to believe that he is an originally created kind?

A There are many features of man that

Frair 42

set him apart as unique.

Q What features?

A Primarily his ability to symbolize,
speaking, writing.

Q What is an originally created kind?

A It is a group of organisms not genetic-
ally related by genetic continuity to other organisms.

Q How did man come about? Where did man
come from?

A I think I would have some hesitation
about relating him to the living apes.

Q But where did he come from?

A Well, he originated by creation, accord-
ing to the creation model.

Q Do you believe that that is how man
came about?

A That is my working assumption at this
time.

Q Do you have any evidence for the crea-
tion of man?

A I am not an anthropologist.

Q All right. Let's turn to turtles then.
Do you consider yourself to be an expert in the field
of turtles?

Frair 43

A On some aspects of turtles.

Q What aspects of turtles?

A Biochemical types.

Q Have you ever talked in any of your
scientific papers about turtles and ancestry among
different types of turtles?

A Yes.

Q Is a turtle an originally created kind
within the meaning of the act?

A I am not prepared to say that with a
strong degree of authority. I am working on that now,
thinking about it.

Q But do you have any evidence at all
that would lead you to believe that a turtle was an
originally created kind?

A Turtles are diverse from other organisms.
They have features that distinguish them from other
reptiles.

Q But is there any evidence that they are
an originally created kind?

A If there is a lack of genetic continuity
between them and other things, then there would be.

Q What is the definition of a species?

A Are you asking for scientific definition

Frair 44

of species?

Q Yes, a scientific definition of species.

A Species often are defined scientifically
as members of -- similar members of interbreeding popu-
lations.

Q Why can there be no evolution between
kinds?

A Well, this is what the creation model
postulates; that there isn't.

Q But is there any evidence to support
that?

A Well, the problem of establishing a
genetic continuity between diverse groups. That is
the problem we face; so that macro-evolutionists face.

Q Is there evidence that is supportive
of macro-evolution?

A There are a lot of excellent scientists,
including Dr. Zweifel and Dr. Gaffney, who feel there
is, and I respect that.

Q But is there any evidence that shows
that there is no macro-evolution?

A Yes.

Q What is that evidence?

A The problem associated with establishing

Frair 45

genetic continuity between diverse groups.

Q What evidence would you look for to
establish that originally created kinds, in fact,
exist.

A Many who have favored this approach
have felt that the very fact that organisms could be
grouped as separate from others is evidence of distinct-
ness among the various groups.

Q Do you consider the Biblical account of
creation and the evolution model to be in conflict?

A I have some good friends who believe
the Biblical account and also believe the macro-
evolution model, and I can respect that.

Q So you don't believe that there is any
necessary conflict?

A That's right.

Q Is your belief in the Bible one reason
for not accepting the evolution model?

A Indirectly.

Q Could you explain that?

A Because I believe the Bible I have
studied -- I have read some of the literature that is
not of great concern to many other people.

Q I don't understand what you mean by your

Frair 46

answer.

A Let me put it this way, because there
may be -- you are asking for my personal view now?

Q Yes.

A Personal, philosophical view. I am
speaking as an individual here. Because I have the
personal view of the Bible that I do, and because there
historically has been some problems in this region, I
have been compelled to read into the matter in a way
that I otherwise would not have been compelled to read.
And I had to make a decision on the basis of what I
found.

Q Do you know of any intermediate forms,
either fossil or living, between major kinds?

A No.

Q Do you know what an archaeopteryx is?

A Yes.

Q Do you consider that to be a transitional
form?

A It has been put forward as a transitional
form by those particularly who believe --

Q Do you believe that it is a transitional
form?

A I have some hesitation about accepting

Frair 47

it.

Q Why isn't it a transitional form?

A I am not certain at this stage. It
could be a separate kind.

Q If it could be a separate kind, what
characteristics are there of either a fossil or a
living organism that lead you to say, ah, that is a
separately created kind?

A Good question. Archaeopteryx has simi-
larities to dinosaurs and birds. I am aware of this.

Q Doesn't it have teeth and a bony tail
as a reptile does?

A It has teeth.

Q Didn't it have feathers, wings, and a
bill like a bird?

A Yes.

Q Then why isn't it a transitional form?
It seems to have characteristics both of birds and of
reptiles.

A That is true.

Q Don't all organisms retain some primi-
tive features?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that as being
overbroad. I can't understand the question.

Frair 48

Q Do you understand the question?

A I think I understand the context which
Dr. Gaffney is asking it.

Q I am asking the question.

A Same thing as you asking the question.

Q I am asking the questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: We can maintain that
illusion if you'd like.

Q There is absolutely no illusion. I am
asking the questions. Unfortunately Dr. Faair is not
answering them.

A I don't mean to be disrespectful.

MR. WILLIAMS: I really don't understand
the question, and I think that while --

DR. GAFFNEY: Tell you what --

MR. LAHIFF: Let's go off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the rec-
ord. May I have the question again.

(Question read.)

Q Do you understand the question?

A Yes.

Q Can you answer the question?

A Yes.

Frair 49

Q Please answer it.

A They do.

Q Are you familiar with the ichthyostega?

A No.

Q If a student in an Arkansas school were
to ask you what an originally created kind is, how
would you explain that?

A I would say that a kind would consti-
tute a group of organisms showing genetic discontinuity
with other groups or with other kinds.

Q Is that a species, that you have just
described?

A Not necessarily.

Q Do different kinds of animals have simi-
lar features as embryos that are lost in adults?

MR. WILLIAMS: Could you repeat the ques-
tion; I don't think I heard you.

Q Do different kinds of animals have simi-
lar features as embryos that are lost in adults?

A There are cases of this, yes.

Q Is this a breakdown between kinds?

A Not necessarily.

Q Why not necessarily?

A Because it could indicate some organs

Frair 50

which were lost in time.

Q What do you mean by lost in time?

A That they no longer show up in the adult
condition, whereas previously, previous adults had them.

Q What is the source of your belief that
there are originally created kinds?

A Because of the serious problems in
establishing genetic continuity between diverse groups.

Q Is it true that the creationist critique
of the details of evolution is based primarily on facts
and issues raised by evolutionary scientists, them-
selves?

A Repeat this.

MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the ques-
tion.

(Question read.)

A That certainly is an important aspect
of the situation.

Q Are creationists doing any original
research that you are aware of?

A Yes.

Q What research?

A I know creationists in a variety of
fields.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Waine Frair - Page 2

Frair 51

Q Could you identify them for me, please?

A A fellow that comes to mind --

MR. WILLIAMS: You can tell him what you
know.

A A name that comes to mind is E. Forbert
Smith. He's done a lot of work on alligators and a
variety of other organisms, thermo regulations.

Q Is there anything that he's discovered
inconsistent with evolution?

A He has serious problems with evolution.

Q What do you mean by serious problems?

A He feels on the basis of his knowledge,
research, that an evolution model is not the best way,
not the best fit for the data.

Q If characters were lost through
time, how were they obtained in the first place?

MR. WILLIAMS: If characters?

Q Characteristics, I should have probably
said.

A They were there when the organism had
its start.

Q Does that show relatedness, a common
ancestry?

A Within the group.

Frair 52

Q Are there any indications or scientific
evidence of relatedness between different groups? First
let me say what is a group to you?

A Are you thinking in terms of modern
scheme of classification that scientists use?

Q Yes.

A The toxonomic scheme that we utilize is
man-made, and continually is being modified. So, to
describe what creationists are calling "kinds" in terms
of the modern classifications system could be to pin
it down more specifically than would be warranted by
the data at this time.

Q What does a creationist mean by a
"kind"?

A He means a group that is genetically
unrelated by continuity from other groups.

Q Are any of the results of your own
research inconsistent with an evolutionary interpre-
tation?

A Evolutionists have used my information
in their schemes.

Q So the results of your research are
consistent with an evolutionary?

A I said that evolutionists have used my

Frair 53

data.

Q Have you ever used your data in an
article in support of the creation model?

A I have used my data within a mental
framework that was consistent with the creation model.

Q But have you ever taken the data that
you have developed through your research, prepared an
article in support of the creation model, submitted it
to a referee journal for publication?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object. That is a
compound question, at least three or four ques-
tions.

Q I will break it down. Have you ever
taken any of the data from your research and prepared
an article?

A Yes.

Q Has that article been in support of the
creation science model?

A It has encouraged investigation into
the possibilities of the creation model.

Q Have you ever written an article in
support of the creation science model using the research
that you have done?

A Our book has some information on that

Frair 54

line.

Q Have you ever written an article in
support of the creation science model and submitted it
to a referee journal?

A Very cautiously I have handled the mate-
rial in a way that would be consistent with creation
model.

Q Which articles are consistent with the
creation model that you have written?

A I think all of them would be.

Q Don't you talk about ancestors and
relatedness in many of your articles?

A Yes.

Q Isn't that inconsistent with the crea-
tion model?

A No.

Q Are there any statements in any of your
articles that directly draw a link between your research
and the creation science model?

A Say that again, please.

Q Is there anything in the articles that
you have published, any of the articles that you have
published, at which you make specific reference to the
creation science model?

Frair 55

A I don't recall whether I have used those
exact terms when dealing with publication of original
data.

Q Have you ever used the term limited
change model in any of your publications?

A Yes.

Q Have those publications been submitted
to referee journals?

A Say that again, please.

MR. LAHIFF: I'm sorry. Could you repeat
the question.

(Question read.)

A These articles have not been dealing with
original laboratory findings. They have been more of a
philosophical nature.

Q Why haven't you used any of your original
data in support of the creation science model or pre-
pared an article based on your original data supportive
of the creation science model?

A I don't think that my data is inconsistent
with a creation science model. I usually haven't been
dealing with material that would require this or point-
ing to an evolution model, either.

Q Why haven't you ever used your original

Frair 56

data to prepare an article in support of the creation
science model?

A Because I am still working on this.
I don't feel that it is solidified solid enough to be
handled with the degree of certainty that I would like
before I could do this.

Q Is there anything in any of the articles
that you have published in a referee journal that would
hold a scientist to an understanding that you support
the creation science model?

MR. WILLIAMS: You are talking now just
from reading the article itself?

Q Just from reading the article.

A It would depend on the background of the
person reading the article.

Q What background would lead a scientist
to believe that you support the creation science or the
limited change model?

A Because in my publications, I don't say
a lot about evolution the way many people writing about
these topics do. I have been more cautious in the way
I have handled the material. And somebody could get
this by careful reading.

Q I am sorry, why haven't you?

Frair 57

A Because I feel it is better science.

Q What is better science?

A To be very cautious in handling the
data.

Q How would you test the assumptions of
the limited change model?

A What assumptions are you referring to?

Q How would you test the limited change
model?

A By looking for ways to establish a
genetic continuity between diverse groups.

Q Do you have any assumptions about what
you might find?

A If we could do this, it would discredit
the limited change model, and anybody who has a model
who is a scientist must be looking for information that
will falsify his position.

Q Am I correct that you have testified you
believe that the Bible, the Biblical account of crea-
tion is literally true?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that is a mis-
characterization of his testimony.

Q If this is not accurate, please let me
know.

Frair 58

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the Reporter could
read it back. It was about a fairly accurate
historical account. I think that is the words
to the effect, though I may be paraphrasing.

Q Do you believe that the Bible is liter-
ally true?

MR. WILLIAMS: You are asking him as
to his personal belief?

MR. LAHIFF: As a scientist.

MR. WILLIAMS: As a scientist, do you
believe the Bible is literally correct?

A Well, I'm a human being. As far as --
and as a person, I accept the Bible as a guide for my
life, what I endeavor to do.

Q But do you believe that the Bible is
literally true?

MR. WILLIAMS: As a scientist?

Q As a scientist.

A You mean based on my scientific studies?

Q Based on your scientific studies.

A I had a belief in the Bible prior to
science, and science has encouraged this belief, rather
than tended to break it down.

Q How has science encouraged your belief?

Frair 59

A There is beauty in studying science,
and there's something there that can point to something
beyond, beyond science. I have had many scientists
say this to me, also.

Q But is the beauty or the elegance of
nature in any way inconsistent with evolution?

A I guess evolutionists don't think so.

Q Evolution is an elegant theory, isn't
it?

A What do you mean by elegant?

MR. LAHIFF: I will withdraw the ques-
tion.

Please read the previous question.

(Question read.)

Q Do you think so?

A Not necessarily.

Q Not necessarily? Could you elaborate on
that for me, please?

A Darwin, himself, spoke about the grandeur
of the evolution scheme that, in addition, there was some-
thing that God breathed into living things.

I think that he, at that time, had a
feeling for --

Q But he didn't think the grandeur of

Frair 60

nature was inconsistent with nature?

A No, he didn't, that's right. But he
also at that time felt -- pointed to God.

Q Could you describe for me what the
scientific method is?

A According to the classic understanding,
scientific method involves making observations, setting
up working hypotheses, testing these hypotheses, modify-
ing these hypotheses, and predicting what you will get
in the future.

Q That is it?

A That is it.

Q Do you accept that?

A Yes.

Q Is that how you undertake your work?

A Yes.

Q Let's try and explore how we would use
the scientific method as you understand it to try and
determine the existence of originally created kinds.

Is there any way to use the scientific
method to determine whether or not there is originally
created kinds?

A Here we face the question of can you
apply the scientific method in history. This is a serious

Frair 61

problem.

Q Is it your testimony that you can't
use the scientific method to determine the existence
of originally created kinds?

A Certainly not with the same rigor that
you can do so with conditions that can be repeated.

Q But do you consider creation science
to be a science?

A It depends on your definition of science.
How do I define science?

Q Can you apply -- I'll ask you that later
but can you apply the scientific method to creation
science?

A Not the repeatability and the verifying
it like we normally think of in science with control
groups, et cetera.

Q Can you please look again at Act 590,
the definition of creation science, and explain to me
which of the elements of that definition can be tested
by the scientific method, as you defined it to me
(handing)?

A Sudden creation -- I am just reading
them over.

Q Why don't you read them to yourself.

Frair 62

A All right.
And make a comment on it.

(Pause.)

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, let me
interpose an objection. I think that your ques-
tion may mischaracterize the act.

The definition given of creation science
is scientific evidence for creation and infer-
ences therefrom, if I recall correctly.

It then lists some sub-parts, and I
think your question either implies or pre-
supposes that it is an all-inclusive list, and
I am not sure at all that it is.

MR. LAHIFF: I will clear that up. My
question does not imply that that is an all-
inclusive list.

A There are certain aspects of this that
is subject to scientific investigation.

Q Which ones?

A I am looking right now at number 4,
which refers to sufficiency of mutation and natural
selection in bringing about development. We can examine
mutations.

Q Okay. Why don't you just point out those

Frair 63

that you believe the scientific method can be applied to
and then we will explore them in a little detail?

A On the basis of my field and my under-
standing, I would say number 2, in the biological field
we'd have number 2, number 3, and then certain of the
other ones, I think other people would probably feel
could be tested to some degree or another.

I am looking at those particularly in
biology that I would know more about. But I wouldn't
want to exclude -- except in the sense that we are talk-
ing about here.

How are you going to look at the number
1 -- I don't see much hope for that. From the stand-
point of scientific method, all we can do would be just
infer that this --

Q What scientific evidence is there that
supports the creation model that "The insufficiency of
mutation and natural selection in bringing about develop-
ment of all living kings from a single organism."?

A If we think about subject of mutations,
virtually all the mutations that we know about today are
harmful.

Q But there are some beneficial mutations,
are there not?

Frair 64

A The beneficial mutations that we talk
about are valid to certain organisms in certain
environmental conditions.

Q Are you finished with your answer?

A Yes.

Q What observations are there that you
could point to that show the insufficiency of muta-
tion and natural selection in bringing about development?

A Most mutations are harmful. That ties
it up in essence.

Q But just because most mutations are
harmful doesn't necessarily mean that there are bene-
ficial mutations?

A There can be mutations which are accepted
by the environment.

Q Is that evolution?

A Yes. It is micro-evolution. It is a
limited change model.

Q Is it a limited change model or merely
a description of evolution?

A It is a phenomenon that we can observe
that fits very well with the limited change model.

Q But is it inconsistent with evolution,
with macro-evolution? In other words, what I am trying

Frair 65

to say is, you would agree that there is such a thing
as micro-evolution?

A Yes.

Q Does the existence of the process of
micro-evolution disprove the existence of the process
of macro-evolution?

A Not necessarily.

Q What is macro-evolution to you?

A Macro-evolution is large change; change
that occurs that would be conceived as occurring between
major groups.

Q Is there any evidence in support of what
you term macro-evolution?

A There are a lot of very respectable
scientists who are macro-evolutionists, and they are
very intelligent people, and I don't deny can see things
that way.

Q Where does micro-evolution end and crea-
tion science begin?

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't understand the
question, I'm sorry.

A I don't either.

Q What you are calling micro-evolution is,
in fact, evolution, is it not?

Frair 66

A Yes.

Q What are the limits on that kind of
evolution?

A How far we can reasonably expect that
there was a genetic continuity among the organisms.

Q How far back can you take that?

A That is really the essence of what we
are talking about. And I think -- I wish I could give
a definite answer, but we'd have to do this in modern
toxonomic terms.

Q What is your working hypothesis about
the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a
single organism?

MR. WILLIAMS: If you have one.

A Repeat it, please.

Q You have testified that you can apply
the scientific method to 4A2 in Act 590. 4A2 states
the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a
single organism.

Do you have a working hypothesis to
explain that insufficiency?

A Well, this working hypothesis would be

Frair 67

that the kinds are not genetically related.

Q How can we test that hypothesis?

A I am looking for good ways to test it
now.

Q Is that hypothesis predictive?

A To the extent that we would anticipate
finding new organisms and -- no, let me change that. I
don't mean to say that. I'd like to think about that a
little bit more.

Q For how long a period of time has micro-
evolution been proceeding?

A Good question. I don't know. I don't
think I can give a definite answer on that.

Q What do you consider to be the age of
the earth?

A I know the ages that have been proposed
by different scientists.

Q What age do you accept?

A I am not willing to commit myself on
that point.

Q Do you have an understanding, a belief,
an idea, a feeling, anything about the age of the earth?

A I'm not willing to make a definitive
comment about that now.

Frair 68

Q Why aren't you willing? Is it because
you don't know or you just don't want to testify about
that?

A Well, there's a certain amount of uncer-
tainty in my mind.

Q What amount of time would be necessary
to explain the diversity of life as it exists today?

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean with respect to
the creation science model or evolution science
model?

Q From your perspective.

A Well, we'd have to understand mutation
rates in the past, and there's some question about that.

Q Do you have any feeling as a scientist
how long it would take to explain the observed diversity
given the concept of micro-evolution?

A That is a very, very good question. I
think I prefer not to speak definitively to that, because
I have to do some more evaluation of information.

Q Is there an age of the earth that crea-
tion scientists usually ascribe?

A Many of them feel that it was relatively
recent.

Q By relatively recent, what do you mean?

Frair 69

More than 10,000, less than 10,000 years?

A Many of them are saying 10,000 to
15,000 years.

Q What do most scientists currently
believe the age of the earth to be?

A The vicinity of five billion years.

Q As between those two estimations of
the age of the earth, which would you accept?

A I am not willing to be pinned down on
that at this stage.

Q If the earth were only 10,000 years old,
would it be possible in that period of time for the
observed diversity of life today to have come about?

A That is a very difficult question to
answer.

Q Do you have any belief on that or any
understanding?

A If this was a case, we would have to
know what the mutation, what rate of change there was
at that time. I can't point a data in my own field
that would help to answer that question.

Q What would change the rate of mutation?

A Maybe the cosmic rays coming in might
have an influence.

Frair 70

Q Do you believe that the rate of muta-
tion is variable?

A It could be.

Q Do you believe that there has ever been
any suspension of natural laws?

A What do you mean by that?

Q Well, do you have an understanding of
what suspension of natural laws means?

A What are you trying to ask with that
question? What kind of natural law is he thinking about?
Gravity or --

Q Yes; has there ever been a period of time
when the law of gravity was not in existence?

A Not as far as I know.

MR. LAHIFF: All right. I'd like to take
a break. I have to stretch my legs.

(Recess taken.)

MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the record.

BY MR. LAHIFF:

Q Do you recognize any creation science
texts as authoritative?

A There have been some very good pieces
of scientific literature that has been produced.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you mean authoritative

Frair 71

as under Act 590? My point is that we are
dealing with a lawsuit over the creation
science model as it is defined in Act 590.
There may or may not be similarities between
other writings which purport to discuss crea-
tion science and what Act 590 requires.

MR. LAHIFF: I don't understand.

MR. WILLIAMS: I guess my objection is
that your question may be ambiguous if you are
not talking about the creation science model
as described in Act 590.

MR. LAHIFF: No. I will ask that ques-
tion. I am just asking a general one first.

A My bibliography in this book, Case For
Creation, recite a number of works which I think are
very respectable when it comes to this issue.

Q Are you aware of any textbooks that
would be consistent with the creation science model as
described in Act 590?

A Yes.

Q Could you identify those for me, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: I want just to interject
for the record that as long as you are not ask-
ing for a legal judgment, as to what would be.

Frair 72

MR. LAHIFF: No. Not a legal judgment.

MR. WILLIAMS: As to what would be suf-
ficient under Act 590.

A Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris.

Q Any others?

A You what books that are going to agree
point for point with the 590?

Q No. Books that are consistent with
Article 590. I recognize that it would be difficult to
find a book that is completely consistent in all respects
with 590.

MR. WILLIAMS: I take it implicit in
your question would be books which would not
include any religious references or religious
instruction.

A That is the problem.

Q What is the problem? Do all creation
science books have Biblical references in reference to
the Creator?

A I can give you lots of books that are
consistent with a limited change model. Strictly scien-
tific books, we have mentioned Kerkut. I can give you
a whole list of names.
Q That is not my question. My question

Frair 73

is books that are consistent with the creation science
model as described in Article 590, which I will show
you again (handing).

A I think generally the Zimmerman books
would be consistent with this. Paul Zimmerman is
editor, Creation Evolution, but they do include material
on theology in those books, as well.

But the scientific part of it would
certainly be consistent with this.

Q Is your limited change model equivalent
to the creation science model as described in Act 590?

A Say that again.

Q Is your limited change model, of the
limited change model that we have been talking about
today, equivalent to the creation science model described
in Act 590?

A Are you talking about my personal posi-
tion, what we would put forth here, for instance?

Q Yes, your description for me of the
limited change model, is that consistent with Act 590's
description of the creation sciences?

A It won't go into all of the aspects of
it the way this does.

Q There are differences. Is it possible

Frair 74

to discuss the creation science model as described in
Act 590, without references to a Creator?

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it possible what
again?

MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat my ques-
tion.

(Question read.)

A Could I ask what you mean by Creator?

Q What do you mean by a Creator?

A Give it back to me.

Q Yes.

A This is the way lawyers do it. I am
learning a lot about lawyers.

Q I said that is what is fun about it.

A I have a lot of respect for lawyers.

MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

A I forgot the question.

Q What do you mean by a Creator?

A Okay. Something that got the thing
going. How's that? That something could be a small
s or a capital S. I don't want to volunteer too much
information here.

Something that got the thing going,

Frair 75

period.

Q You did say small s or capital S.
What did you mean by small s or capital S?

A I didn't mean to say that. I mean
usually we write God with a capital G.

Q So when you said capital S. small s,
you meant a G?

A I think what I am trying to say is that
creation model certainly implies something there other
than what is resident within matter itself. That is
what I am trying to say.

Q Can you describe for me the fundamental
difference between creation science and evolution
science?

MR. WILLIAMS: Assuming there is one
fundamental difference.

Q Assuming there is.

A Well, the creation science points to a
time of beginning.

Q What does the creation science model
say about the beginning?

A For the time of beginning -- I am try-
ing to give it something that would encompass the whole
business, and I find it very difficult.

Frair 76

I am thinking in terms of living things,
but I realize that this creation model has the whole
universe in it, which I don't object to, including
that in the creation model. but it is not easy for me
right now to make a brief statement about the essence
of the whole thing.

It's taken them six points to get it
across.

Q Is there more than one kind or one type
of turtle?

A What do you mean by type of turtle?

Q What do you understand type of turtle
to mean?

A Here we go again. If you are talking
about species, there are many species of turtles. If
you are talking about genus, there are many of them,
as well.

If you are talking about family, there
are a number of them. If you are talking about super-
family -- I'll let it go at family.

We can get into families and super-
families and that. I don't mean to belabor it.

Q Are the types of turtles that you have
just described consistent with the notion of kind in the

Frair 77

Bible?

A I am thinking about that?

Q What are you thinking about it?

A You mean are you asking if I am putting
my scientific information together with the Bible at
this point?

Q Yes.

A I don't think I can -- it could be
consistent with it, I could say that. I think, at this
stage. I don't see an inconsistency, let me put it that
way.

Q Is it inconsistent with evolution?

A Is?

Q Is it inconsistent with evolution?

A You mean macro-evolution?

Q Yes.

A Many people feel it isn't.

Q Would most scientists consider that
the different families, species and genus of turtles
to be consistent with an evolutionary model?

A Most scientists would.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as Plain-
tiff's Exhibit 3, an article contributed by you
to the Creation Research Quarterly, entitled

Frair 78

The Protostomia-Deuterostomia Theory.

(Above document marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 3 for identification, this date.)

BY MR. LAHIFF:

Q Is that your article, Doctor?

A Yes.

Q Do you draw any conclusions from that
article which support the creation science model?

A The purpose of this article was to point
out a difficulty with the evolution model and to
encourage scholarship involved in re-evaluating the
evolution model.

Q You make a reference in this article to
Soren Lovtrup. He is an evolutionist, is he not?

A Yes.

Q Why did you choose to publish this in
Creation Research Society Quarterly and not in the
referee journal, if the purpose was to encourage
research?

A The purpose is that in the hopes that
some who are operating with the evolution model and
who read this journal would note this material, because
Lovtrup published the original data in a regular scien-
tific journal.

Frair 79

Q And you didn't think that was sufficient
to create any interest?

A No. This is just a news, a comment.
It is just a comment on his paper. It is in the recent
events section of the journal, what is going on in
science today, I think, kind of a thing.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as Plain-
tiff's Exhibit 4, a copy of your curriculum
vitae.

(Copy of Dr. Wayne Frair's curriculum
vitae marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for identi-
fication, this date.)

BY MR. LAHIFF:

Q I'd like to flush out some of the details
if I might. Did you have any sub-specialty within the
field of zoology when you received your AB degree from
Houghton College?

A No.

Q Did you have any sub-specialty when you
received your MA in embryology from the University of
Massachusetts?

A Embryology.

Q No sub-specialty within the field of
embryology?

Frair 80

A Embryology would be a sub-specialty
within the field of zoology. That was a broadly-based
Master's degree, and embryology was the specialty.

Q Could you describe for me what serology
is?

A Studies of the blood serum of any
organism.

Q Is it possible to have a sub-specialty
within the field of serology?

A Serology is a tool for studying various
organisms biochemically, and I am studying primarily
reptiles, using that tool.

Q The only sub-specialty within serology
would be with reference to a particular kind of organism
then?

A That's right. Applying the methodology.

Q Have you received any honors that are
not listed on your curriculum vitae?

A No.

Q Have you had any continuing education
that is not listed on your curriculum vitae?

Frair 81

A This is quite excellent. Anything would
be of minor nature, like evening courses or something
like that.

Q What kind of evening courses have you
taken?

A I took an evening course in nutrition.

Q Anything else?

A Nothing of significance to compare with
these formal -- these are all formalized courses in
these schools, professional courses. There hasn't been --
well, my church, we have Sunday school type courses, that
kind of thing.

Q What kind of courses have you taken for
your church?

THE WITNESS: I don't know; should I?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

A I'm not sure how this ties in, but we
have Bible courses there.

Q Have you ever taken a course at your
church dealing with creation science?

A Yes.

Q And who taught that course?

A Another professor.

Q What is his or her name?

Frair 82

A Dr. Ault.

Q Is that the only course that you have
taken through your church that dealt with creation
science?

A There have been courses that referred
to the subject. Another fellow named Slingo was teach-
ing the course.

Q I'm sorry. Could you spell that?

A Roy Slingo, S-l-i-n-g-o.

Q And what was the title of his course?

A I don't remember. Current science or
creation. Something along that line, because it covered
the subject.

Q Were there any other courses you are
aware of relating to current science or creation science?

A That I have taken, I don't recall any
right now.

Q Could you describe for me the substance
of Professor Ault's course on creation science?

A This was a Bible course. This is a
Sunday school class for adults we have every Sunday
morning; the adults in my church go to classes, and
he was teaching a course dealing with the book of
Genesis, and so it was necessary to discuss this to

Frair 83

some extent when he was covering the early chapters of
Genesis.

Q And what did he say about Genesis?

A Oh, I don't remember the details, but
he considered the various views regarding the origin
of living things.

Q Did he discuss evolution?

A Yes.

Q What did he say about evolution?

A I don't remember the details, but he did
indicate some of the views that are held by people
today.

Q Was it scientifically accurate?

A Oh, yes; yes.

Q What did Professor Slingo -- is he a
professor, Professor Slingo?

A He is a public school teacher. Ault
isn't a profession; he's a doctor.

Q He is a doctor of what?

A Geology.

Q And Mr. Slingo?

A Is a biology teacher in high school.

Q And what did his course cover?

A He talked about some of the issues, and

Frair 84

there was some information pertaining to his situation
in the public school.

Q What do you mean his situation in the
public school?

A He teaches in a public school, and he
presents creation science and evolution science there
in his high school routinely.

Q Have you received any grants?

A Yes.

Q What have these grants been for?

A My research.

Q How many grants have you received?

A Close to ten, I suppose.

Q And from whom have you received these
grants?

A Research Corporation -- well, the col-
lege has received some money that has gone toward my
research from National Science Foundation and buying
equipment, and paying student help.

Sigma Xi, that's a research organiza-
tion. The faculty advancement fund for our college was
given this.

Q Any others?

A That is all I can think of right now.

Frair 85

Q And what topics -- is that a correct
word -- have you been researching?

A Mostly biochemical toxonomy.

Q Have you ever received a grant from a
creations science organization?

A No.

Q Have you ever made an application for
a grant that wasn't funded?

A Yes.

Q And what were the topics of those pro-
posals?

A I had only one grant that was turned
down, when the national science -- you asked for the
topics, not who. It dealt with soft-shell turtles.

Q What about soft-shell turtles?

A Biochemical toxonomy of soft-shell
turtles.

Q Have you ever had a grant from any
foundation or institution supporting research into the
limited change model?

A No.

Q What was your PhD thesis on?

A Reptiles. Mostly turtles.

Q Was that published?

Frair 86

A No.

Q And --

A Not as a whole.

Q Have you done any other research other
than those that you have described so far?

A Everything is on that list.

Q Do you hold any other teaching posi-
tions other than are described in your curriculum vitae?

A No.

Q Are you the member of the adjunct faculty
of any institution?

A No.

Q Do you serve as a consultant to any
institution?

A No.

Q Or any organization, any creation science
organization?

A No.

Q Have you ever taught at any symposia?

A Taught at a symposium? I am trying to
think. I have participated in symposiums.

Q I'm sorry. Taught is a wrong term. Have
you ever participated in a symposium?

A Yes.

Frair 87

Q What have these symposia dealt with?

A Well, I was in one some years ago that
was dealing with the ecological crisis.

Q And who sponsored that symposium?

A This is the American Scientific Affilia-
tion.

Q Have you ever participated in a
symposium sponsored by a creation science organization?

A Another one on sea turtles/

Q Who sponsored that?

A The American Society of Zoologists.

Q Do you consider yourself to have a par-
ticular field of expertise?

A Yes.

Q And what field is that?

A biochemical toxonomy or biochemical
systematics. One or the other. Systematics is a little
broader.

Q Do you concentrate on any particular
organism?

A Turtles.

Q Do you consider yourself to be an expert
on turtles?

A Yes.

Frair 88

Q You are currently employed at the King's
College?

A The King's College, yes.

Q What courses do you teach at King's
College?

A I'm teaching a course in concepts of
biology now. I'm teaching a course in introduction to
research. Science methods, that's what I'm teaching
now.

Q Does the King's College grant graduate
degrees?

A No.

Q Do you supervise any research?

A Yes.

Q What kind of research do you supervise?

A Whatever our students may be interested
in, within the limits of my capabilities. as offering
some helpful guidance.

Q In order to teach at the King's college,
were you required to sign a statement of belief or a
statement of doctrine?

A Yes.

Q What is that statement of belief or
statement of doctrine?

Frair 89

A It includes the fact that I am a
Christian.

Q Does it include any reference to your
acceptance of the literal truth of the Bible?

A There is a statement in there about
believing the Bible, yes.

Q What is the statement in there?

A I would have to get the exact wording;
I don't know it right offhand.

MR. LAHIFF: Excuse me. Mr. Williams,
could we be provided with a copy of that state-
ment?

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. You will
provide a copy of that to me and I will forward
it up to you.

Q Is there any statement in that statement
of doctrine that talks about the inerrancy of the Bible?

A Yes.

Q Do you personally believe in that state-
ment of doctrine?

A Yes.

Q Does that statement of doctrine have
any impact on your scientific research?

A Yes.

Frair 90

Q What kind of an impact does it have?

A I think it makes me a better researcher.

Q How does it make you a better researcher?

A Because I look at nature as part of
God's handiwork.

Q How does that make you a better
researcher, though? Is it necessary to look at or to
understand nature to be God's handiwork to do research?

A No.

Q Did you speak to anyone at the King's
College about your testimony here, and about your testimony
at the deposition today?

A Some people there know I am hers.

Q Did they encourage you to attend today?

A I said that I was going.

Q Well, did they encourage you to attend?

A Well, they really have nothing to say
about it. My secretary knows. She's taking the day
off.

Q Is there anyone at the King's College

who encouraged you to testify in this case?

A I think another member of our department
told me he hoped it went well.

Q Did anyone at the King's College tell

Frair 91

you that they thought it would be advisable for you
to testify?

A Not that I remember, no.

Q Did you discuss what your testimony
might be with anyone at the King's College?

A I didn't know what I was in for.

Q Did you discuss what you might be in
for with anyone at the King's College?

A Well, perhaps I mentioned the fact that
I was down here for a deposition, whatever that was.

Q But that is the extent of it?

A Yes. I'm just finding out now what
depositions are all about.

Q What is the Creation Research Society
of which your curriculum vitae indicates that you were
a board member and a secretary?

A It is a scientific society.

Q And what is its purpose?

A To do scientific research and to pub-
lish this research.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as plain-
tiffs' exhibit, an application for for admission
to the Creation Research Society.

Frair 92

(Application marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 5 for identification, this date.)

(Document handed to witness.)

BY MR. LAHIFF:

Q Do you recall filling out a membership
blank like that?

A Yes.
Q Are you a voting member of the Creation
Research Society?

A Yes.

Q Did you sign the oath or do you sub-
scribe to the statement of belief, I should say?

A Yes.

Q What does statement of belief number
one mean, that the Bible is scientifically true in all
of its original autographs?

A I'm not a theologian, but my understand-
ing is that it was without error in the original draft.

Q Have you read the original autographs?

A I would if they were available in trans-
lation.

Q Then how can you say that the original
autographs are scientifically true, if you have never
read them?

Frair 93

A This is consistent with the inerrancy
statement of conservative Biblical scholars.

Q Do you believe that the account of
origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple
historical truths?

A Yes.

Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence
that is true?

A We are back to the scientific method
again. It is not easy to investigate historic events
by the scientific manner.

Q Is there any evidence, though?

A I see no conflict between what I know
of science and the way I understand Genesis.

Q Do you believe that all basic types of
living things, including man, were made by direct
Creator acts of God during creation week?

A Yes.

Q Do you believe that whatever biological
changes have occurred since creation have accomplished
only changes within the original created kinds?

A Yes.

Q How many original created kinds were
there?

Frair 94

A I don't know.

Q Does anyone know?

A I do not know that.

Q Do you know what an originally created
kind is?

A Yes.

Q What is an originally created kind?

A It constitutes a group of organisms
genetically disconnected by line of descent from other
groups of organisms.

Q Isn't there a body of scientific evi-
dence that demonstrates that all organisms are genetic-
ally connected?

A No. There are some people who believe
this.

Q But isn't there a body of scientific
data that supports that belief?

A There are many scientists who believe
that the data which is available does support that
belief.

Q Do you have any scientific data which
does not support that belief?

A Yes.

Q And what is that data?

Frair 95

A This is information which makes it
very difficult to make a line of genetic continuity
between groups of organisms.

Q How do evolutionary scientists deal
with that data?

A They assume that there's a genetic
continuity.

Q Is that an assumption or a conclusion
drawn from observation?

A An assumption.

Q Is there any scientific evidence for
the great flood described in Genesis?

A There are geologists who feel that there
is.

Q And who are those geologists?

A There's a man named Steve Austin.

Q Is that view generally held within the
scientific community?

A No.

Q What evidence does Mr. Austin put forth
to support his belief in a Genesis flood?

A Noachian deluge is a better way to say
it. I don't think I am in a position to evaluate what
he says about this situation.

Frair 96

Q What is the Missouri Association for
Creation?

A It is a group which believes in a crea-
tion model.

Q Do they have any statement of belief
or statement of purpose?

A I'd have to check this. I get a
publication from them periodically. That is mostly
what I know about the organization.

Q Do they do anything in addition to pub-
lish journals?

A Hold meetings.

Q Have you ever attended any of their
meetings?

A No.

Q What kind of articles appear in their
journals?

A Usually professors there will write
articles dealing with this, the creation model.

Q What is the Victoria Institute?

A It is an organization in England.

Q And what is the purpose of the organi-
zation?

A To understand the relationships between

Frair 97

science and the Bible.

Q Are you an active member of the Vic-
toria Institute?

A Only in that I receive their publica-
tion periodically.

Q Have you ever written anything for
publication in their journal?

A No.

Q What is the creation science movement?

A This is another European -- it is a
Scotch, Scottish based, I think it is Glascow based
organization promoting creations.

Q How did you become to be aware of the
Victoria Institute?

A I have known about it for maybe 20
years.

Q Do you recall how you first came to be
aware of it?

A Not particularly.

Q Do you recall how you first became aware
of the creation science movement?

A I think I saw an advertisement.

Q In what publication?

A I think it was the Bible Science News

Frair 98

Letter, but I am not certain or that.

Q What is the Creation Social Science
and Humanities Society?

A That is an organization run by social
scientists who were concerned about or who believe in
a creation model.

Q What is the Evangelical Theological
Society?

A This is an organization primarily of
theologians who have a -- primarily have conservative
theologians.

Q How did you come to be a member of the
Evangelical Society?

A I wanted to see what they were think-
ing.

Q Did they include non-theologians as
members?

A Usually not.

Q How were you able to become a member,
then?

A I joined many years ago, and I think
at that time they deemed my background and my training
strong enough to permit me to become a member.

Q What is there in your background or

Frair 99

training?

A I have had some undergraduate educa-
tion in Biblical studies.

Q What kind of training?

A Formal courses as part of my degree
work.

Q Does the King's College have any
religious affiliation?

A No.

Q Would the King's College be considered
a Christian school?

A Yes.

Q In what sense is it a Christian school?

A In that the program is Christian.

Q What do you mean by the program is
Christian?

A There is an emphasis in the whole pro-
gram of the college upon Christian living.

Q What is the National Association of
Evangelicals?

A This is an umbrella organization for
many Christian groups.

Q What is its function?

A To provide unity.

Frair 100

Q Does either the Evangelical Theological
Society or the National Association of Evangelicals
take a position on the validity of the creation science
model?

A I don't think so.

Q Apart from your position as board mem-
ber and secretary of the Creation Research Society,
have you ever held an office in any of these creation
or Evangelical organizations?

A Only as is indicated on the sheet you
have there.

Q That only indicates that you were
secretary of the Creation Research Society. Have you
been an officer of any other organization?

A Just what is there. That's all.

Q What is your religion?

A Christian.

Q Do you belong to a particular church?

A I attend a Baptist church.

Q How long have you attended a Baptist
church?

A The particular church that I attend now
I have been attending for about 12 years.

Q Have you ever held any office in the

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Waine Frair - Page 3

Frair 101

church?

A No.

Q Is there a particular point in your
life that you can identify as when you embraced
Christianity?

A Yes.

Q At what point is that?

A When I was in the Navy.

Q And what event or series of events led
you to embrace Christianity?

(Continued on page 102.)

Frair 102

A Other associates were speaking to me
and I realized that this met the needs of my life as
a person.

Q Do you attend church regularly?

A I do.

Q Do you belong to any church groups?

A Like what?

Q Does the church sponsor any organiza-
tion? Does the church sponsor any groups of which you
are a member, apart from attending the church?

A I participate in meetings, different
types of meetings.

That's about it.

Q What types of meetings?

A They will have socials from time to
time, for instance.

Q Do you consider yourself to be a
Fundamentalist?

A What's a Fundamentalist?

Q What do you understand by the term
"fundamentalism"?

A People have different definitions of
that term.

Q What would your definition be?

Frair 103

A Possibly, somebody who holds to the
fundamentals of Christian faith.

Q Given that definition, do you believe
yourself to be a Fundamentlist?

A Well, it would be necessary to talk
about the fundamentals.

Q What are the fundamentals, then?

THE WITNESS: Do we get into this?

MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that
you know, or you have an opinion, you can give
your opinion.

I don't mind that you are asking him
the question. I do not think this individual
has been qualified as a witness on what is a
fundamental or on religious matters.

He can give, perhaps, an impression,
his statement or opinion, but it would not be
in the nature of an expert.

MR. LAHIFF: It may, in fact, be
based on his membership in these organizations.

His membership in these organizations
may have some bearing on whether or not he is
an expert in theology.

Let's go off the record for a second.

Frair 104

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the
record.

BY MR. LAHIFF:

Q Do you have problems with the term
"Fundamentalist"?

You gave me a definition of "Fundamen-
talist". I then asked you, if given that definition,
you considered yourself to be a Fundamentalist, and
you told me it depends on what the fundamentals are.

I then asked you what are the fundamen-
tals, and, at that point, you had a problem.

What are the fundamentals?

A Most conservative Christians would be-
lieve that the Bible is their guide for life; that
man is a sinner, that Christ died for the sins of man-
kind, that Christ is coming again.

We could insert in there that Christ
was resurrected, and that he's coming.

I think those would be the fundamentals
that the National Association of Evangelicals would say
hold Christians together.

Q Given all of that, do you consider
yourself to be Fundamentalist?

Frair 105

A I prescribe to those concepts.

Q Do you have a personal religious
counsellor?

A I don't know what that is.

Q Do you have someone that you turn to
about questions of faith or religion?

A We have a pastor of my group, who is
kind of in charge of our group. I think that he
would be in that role.

Q Did you discuss your testimony with him
at all?

A No.

Q Which version of the Bible do you
read?

A Currently, I'm reading the New Interna-
tional version.

Q Have you read any other versions?

A Yes.

Q Which ones?

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean entirely?

MR. LAHIFF: No.
In part.

A Many other versions.

Q Could you identify them for me?

Frair 106

A King James Version, Revised Standard
Version.

Q Any other versions?

A American Standard.

Q Any others?

A Living Bible.

Q Have you read each of these in full,
or only in part?

A I think I've read them in full.

Q Have you read any other versions?

A Yes.

Q Which versions?

A I've read Goodspeed. I've read the
Williams translation; Philips translation of the
New Testament.

Q I didn't know there were so many.

How often do you read the Bible?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he's answered
earlier that he read it daily, I believe, or
almost daily.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q You do read the Bible daily, or almost
daily?

A Yes.

Frair 107

Q Do you, as a scientist, consult the
Bible?

A No.

Q Do you consider the Bible to be a
source of personal revelation?

A Yes.

Q Is a belief in evolution inconsistent
with a commitment to God?

A No.

Many evolutionists do not feel that it
is.

Q Do you consider it to be inconsistent
with a commitment to God?

A Not necessarily.

Q Would you elaborate on what you mean
by "not necessarily"?

A It could be for some people.

Q Which people?

A People who use evolution as a substitute
for religion.

Q Do you believe that the choice between
either creation-science or evolution to be an act of
faith?

A Basically, yes.

Frair 108

Q Does the Bible predict future events?

A Yes.

Q What events does it predict?

A Christ is coming back.

Q Any other events?

A Yes.

Q What other events?

A It predicted that Israel would return
to their land.

Q Anything else that you are aware of?

Any other predictions?

A There are other predictions mentioned
in the Book of Revelations, for instance.

Q What events does that predict?

A Some things that will be associated
with end times.

Q What kind of events are associated with
end times?

A Judgement.

Q Do you consider the Bible to be a source
of scientific learning?

A No.

Q Has the Bible ever been an inspiration
for your research?

Frair 109

A Indirectly, yes.

Q How, indirectly?

A It has.

Because I believe the Bible, I have
studied into some matters that I probably would not
have studied otherwise.

Q Such as?

A Matters regarding creation and evolution.

Q Specifically, what matters involving
creation and evolution?

A What model should I hold, creation
model or evolution model.

Q Has the Bible ever given you a specific
project to investigate?

A I know that it has for some people,
but I can't say that it has for me.

Q Has it ever suggested methods of inves-
tigation?

A Not directly.

Q Could you elaborate on that?

A I have learned certain scientific
procedures which I don't find in the Bible.

Q Such as?

A My biochemical taxonomy work. The tools

Frair 110

I use have been learned in science classes, university
classes.

Q But, how does that relate to the Bible?

A It doesn't.

You asked me if I had obtained any of
the methodology in my science from the Bible; is that
right?

Q Right.

And, I understood you to say, "indirectly

A Well, indirectly, in that I'm concerned
about what is the best view to hold creation model,
evolution model.

So, this inspires me to follow procedures
that can help me in understanding that.

Q How does the Bible have an impact on
which model you choose?

A Well, if it weren't for the fact that I
believed the Bible, I probably wouldn't concern myself
as much about this issue.

Q Do you believe that the Bible is
scientifically true?

A I don't recognize scientific errors
in the Bible.

Q What description of scientific processes

Frair 111

or events are set forth in the Bible?

A I have to think about that a little bit
more.

Q If in an experiment, you derive some
data which was in conflict with the scientific truths
expressed in the Bible, what would you do?

A I'd continue my studies, looking into
it in more detail.

Q What is your political affiliation?

A I vote for candidates who I think are
best in the office.

Q Are you a member of the Moral Majority?

A I'm a registered Republican.

Q Are you a member of the Moral Majority?

A I get their publications, or I get some-
thing from them.

Q Have you had any contact with any of
the defendants in this case?

A No.

Except as we talked about earlier,
I was called my Mr. Humphries on the phone.

Q Mr. Humphries isn't a defendant.

MR. WILLIAMS: He's talking about
counsel for the defendants.

Frair 112

THE WITNESS: Who are the defendants?

MR. WILLIAMS: He can show you.

Q I'll show you a copy of a motion to
intervene as parties defendant, and ask you if you
had any contact with the defendants or applicants for
intervention.

(Handing to witness)

A Have I had any contact with these
people?

MR. WILLIAMS: Except for the State
of Arkansas.

A (Continuing)

I don't know any of these people.

Q The next page has a reference to
applicants for intervention.

Have you had any contact with any of
those individuals?

A I don't recognize any of these names.

Q Have you ever had any contact with an
individual by the name of Wendell Bird?

A I heard him speak last summer.

Q But, have you had any contact with
him about this case?

A No.

Frair 113

Q Have you had any contact with an indi-
vidual by the name of John Whitehead?

A No.

Q Have you ever testified before in any
court proceedings?

A No.

Q Have you ever testified in any legisla-
tive proceeding?

A No.

Q Have you ever testified in any administra
tive proceeding?

A No.

Q Before any school boards?

A No.

Q Have you ever participated in any
debates dealing with creation-science?

A yes.

Q Where were those debates held, or where
was that debate held?

A I guess you could call it a debate,
but I was in a meeting in Philadelphia about eight years
ago.

Q Who participated?

A There was an evolutionist named

Frair 114

Roellig, R-O-E-L-L-I-G.

He represented evolution. I represented
creation.

Q Who sponsored the debate?

A I think it was -- the Christian Medical
Society was there, and there may have been another
sponsor, as well.

Q What is the Christian Medical Society?

A It's an organization mostly of physicians
who are conservative Christians.

Q Does it take a position on the creation-
science model?

A I don't think so.

Q It has in the past at least sponsored
one debate?

A It has just a regular meeting, and they
were discussing the issue.

Q Are there any transcripts available of
that?

A I don't know.

Q Were you paid for your appearance?

A I forget.

I think they paid my expenses.

Q Are you receiving any remuneration for

Frair 115

your testimony today?

A No.

Q Are your expenses being paid?

A Yes.

Q Are you receiving any remuneration for
your testimony at the trial?

A Not that I know of.

Q Are your expenses being paid?

A I hope so.

Q Have you ever been arrested?

A Not for other than speeding.

Do you call that being arrested?

Q Were you arrested, or did you just re-
ceive a ticket?

A Just a ticket, that's all.

I've never been put in jail, if that's
what you mean.

Q Do you consider yourself to be a crea-
tion scientist?

A Yes.

Q Why do you consider yourself to be a
creation scientist?

A Primarily because I hold to a limited
change model.

Frair 116

Q Any other reasons?

A That's the main reason.

Q Do you believe yourself to be a crea-
tion scientist because of your belief in the inerrancy
of the Bible?

A No.

Q Could you define creation-science as
you practice it?

A Creation-science is the hypothetical
or the theory that basic groups of organisms are not
genetically related.

Q Are there any other elements to the
creation-science model?

MR. WILLIAMS: Your question was as
he practices it?

Q The first question was as he practices.

Now I'm asking: Are there any other
elements to the creation-science model?

A It can include other aspects, yes.

Q Do you know if your testimony will be
limited to a description or a discussion of the limited
change model?

A I don't know.

Depending on what I get asked, I suppose.

Frair 117

Q Do you have any expertise in any of
the other elements of the creation-science model?

A I'm not a geologist. I'm not a cos-
mogonist.

I'm a biologist. That's all. That's
where my expertise lies.

Q Have you always been a creation scien-
tist?

A I would say no.

Q When did you become a creation scientist?

A I believe my thinking on this was solidi-
fied during the 1950's, after reading certain materials.

Q What materials did you read?

A Frank L. Marsh's book, Evolution, Crea-
tion and Science
. John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis and
Evolution
.

Q Did any particular event precipitate
or act as a significant cause for your becoming a
creation scientist?

A Well, I think I had to have some kind
of a position, because I have a position on the Bible.

I had to have a position on the way I
viewed living things.

Q Do you consider your becoming a creation

Frair 118

scientist as involving a religious experience?

A No.

No, I don't.

Q Do you do work in the field of creation-
science?

A I do scientific research, and the results
of my research can be interpreted by those who study it.

Q Do you consider evolution to be a science

A It can be considered a science in the
same sense that creation is.

Q What are the attributes of science?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think we went over
that this morning.

MR. LAHIFF: This morning, we described
what scientific methodology was.

I'd like to know what the attributes
of science are.

A Are you looking for a definition of
science?

Q Do you consider one of the attributes
of science to be falsifiability?

A Yes.

Q Observability?

A Yes.

Frair 119

Q What about testability?

A Yes.

Q What about predictability?

A Yes. Definitely.

Q Are there any other attributes of the
science other than the ones that I've mentioned?

A You said "observability"?

Q I did.

A Observability, testability, falsifiabi-
lity, and predictability.

That covers it quite well.

Q Does evolution measure up to those
attributes which we've just been talking about?

A The problem comes with the testability.

Q What's the problem with testability?

A Because it's a historic event, and we
cannot test an historic event using a scientific method.

Q Does creation-science measure up to the
attributes of the science that we've just discussed?

A In the same sense that "evolution-
science" would.

Q Is there any fact or series of facts
that would lead you to doubt the validity of the crea-
tion-science model?

Frair 120

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
a fact that he presently knows, or any con-
ceivable set of facts?

MR. LAHIFF: Any conceivable set of
facts.

A I mean, as far as I presently know, I
would say -- I'd have to say no. No.

Say the question again, would you please?

MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the ques-
tion?

(Question read by the Court Reporter.)

A Yes, I would say it was.

Q What are those facts?

A These would be facts which could demon-
strate the genetic continuity between groups.

Q Do you believe that creation-science
and evolution-science are equally non-scientific with
respect to the fact they can't be tested?

A Yes.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to take a little
break.

I think that I'll be done in a little
bit.

(Recess taken)

Frair 121

(After recess)

Q What book or books would you consider
representative of the creation-science viewpoint?

MR. WILLIAMS: Creation-science view-
point at large, or as opposed to under Act 590?

A I think that we have referred to some of
them in the bibliography of our book.

Q Could you just give me the names of
them, please?

A Yes.

The Zimmerman series of books. They
are the best.

Q This morning, I asked you about books
that you would consider authoritative, and you identi-
fied Scientific Creations by Henry Morris.

Would that book be considered represen-
tative, as well?

A It represents a more narrower view than
may be given in some other books.

Q But, it is representative of creation-
science?

A It represents a good many creation
scientists, but it is not as general as some of the books
like those of Zimmerman or of Klotz.

Frair 122

Klotz is another good one.

Q Could you give me the title of that,
please?

A Genes, Genesis and Evolution.

Q If I wanted to learn about creation-
science, what books would you recommend to me?

A Are you coming at this from the stand-
point of a scientist?

Q Non-scientist; a layman.

A From the standpoint of Christianity or
just general knowledge?

Q Just general knowledge?

A I think I probably would recommend as
a first book, Parker's book.

I don't remember the title of it.

A new book that deals with the subject.

Q Do you have any idea of what the title
might be?

A I can get it for you.

Q Could you?

Do you know of any creation-science
books that reflect the creation-science model as
described in Act 590?

A Please repeat that question.

Frair 123

(Record read)

A I think Henry Morris' book, Scientific
Creationism
, would be one that would do that.

That's one of them.

Q How would creation-science be taught
in a classroom?

A It would depend somewhat on responsibi-
lity of the teacher to inform himself about the position.

Q Have you ever taught a course in crea-
tion-science?

A Yes.

Q What courses have you taught?

A I teach a course entitled "Creation and
Evolution".

Q Is that the only course that you've
ever taught dealing with creation-science?

A Well, over the years, I've taught dif-
ferent courses, but this is a current course that we
offer at our college.

Q What textbook do you use?

A We utilize some creation literature
and evolution literature.

Q Which creation-science literature do
you utilize?

Frair 124

A In one assignment, they are required to
read the "American Biology Teacher" article by Duane
Gish on creation.

And, they are also required to read an
article by D.B. Zhansky entitled "Nothing Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution".

So, they get both sides of the question.

Q Do they read any other creation-science
material?

A My book is utilized.

Q Do you believe that the Bible is evidence
of creation?

A That the Bible is?

Q Evidence, a piece of evidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific evidence,
you mean?

MR. LAHIFF: Yes.

A No. No.

I said that before.

Q Does the creation-science model require
the suspension of natural laws or processes?

A It certainly suggests something special
happened at the start.

Q What's "the start"?

Frair 125

A When these organisms appeared.

Q Under the creation-science model, how
did they appear?

A They're here, and before that, they
weren't here.

Q Did God create them under the creation-
science model?

A No.

Not necessarily.

Q Do you personally believe that God
created them?

A You're asking me --

Q Your personal belief.

A I think I've stated that in print.

Q As a scientist, are you aware of any
evidence of the suspension of natural laws or processes?

A Scientists -- science or scientists
operate on the basis of faith in these laws, and this
is the whole basis of science.

Q Could you define "religion" for me,
please?

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think this
witness is competent to make a definition or
give a definition of "religion".

Frair 126

He is a scientist.

MR. LAHIFF: Again, based on his member-
ship in some of these evangelical associations,
and his long study of the Bible, I think he's
competent to define "religion".

MR. WILLIAMS: He stated that he was
accepted for membership in those societies or
organizations not on the basis, necessarily, of
his religious beliefs, but some of his training
and some of his other background that he had.

MR. LAHIFF: I think that his training
would qualify him as an expert.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would point out that
his last formal course that he said that he took
was at undergraduate school.

Q Whether you're an expert or not, could
you define "religion" for me?

A The philosophy of life, the main philo-
sophy of life.

The person's -- the guiding philosophy
of his life.

Q The guiding philosophy of life is
religion?

A I'm thinking about that.

Frair 127

Q Are you nodding your head "yes,"
that you do consider that a definition?

A Yes, yes, I do.

Q Is it necessary to have any reference
to a creator in a religion?

A No.

Q Do you consider evolution to be a religion

A It can be.

Q How can it be a religion?

A If a man or if a person uses it as the
guiding philosophy of his life.

Q Who are the authorities who agree with
your understanding of the limited change model?

A Are you talking about secular authorities
or religious authorities?

Q I'd like both, secular and religious.

A Okay.

Q Why don't you give us the secular authori-
ties first?

A Leo F. Berg, B-E-R-G, Nomogenesis or
Evolution Determined by Lay
; Austin H. Clark, Zoogenesis;
another one would be Herbert Nilsson, N-I-L-S-S-O-N,
Synthetische Art Bildung.

Kerkut is another one.

Frair 128

Well, Kerkut.

Q Kerkut is an evolutionist; isn't he?

A Well, I guess he is, but he's not happy
with it.

I've tried to give ones that were, had
more consistence with the limited change, but strictly
on the scientific work, no religion whatsoever involved
in their work, to my way of thinking.

Q Is it limited to the three authors that
you've just mentioned?

A No.

But, they are outstanding.

Q Which religious authors agree with your
description of the limited change model?

A There are many.

Q Could you give a few examples?

A Here's one, Ritland, R-I-T-L-A-N-D,
A Search for Meaning and Nature.

That is the title of his book.

The book by Gary Parker.

Q That was the book that you discussed
earlier, the title of which you could not recall?

A That's right.

I think the Zimmerman series would be

Frair 129

consistent with that approach.

Q Have you ever heard any creation scientist
say the creation-science is a ploy to spread the faith?

A I don't think I directly have heard that.

Q Indirectly, have you heard that?

A There may be some who are using it that
way.

Q Do you use it that way?

A Basically, no.

Q Could you elaborate on that?

What do you mean by "basically, no"?

A I think of this as a model for understand-
ing the past history, and when I deal with this subject,
it's with that approach.

Q With what approach?

A With expressing it in terms of understand-
ing what happened in the past and how organisms are sup-
posed to be thought out today.

But, I'm a scientist, and I think of it
in that light.

Q But, do you think that it is useful in
spreading the faith?

A I know of some evolutionists who use
that doctrine to spread atheistic humanism.

Frair 130

Q I'm not speaking about evolutionists
who attempt to spread atheistic humanism.

Do you believe the creation-science
model is useful in spreading your Christian Faith?

MR. WILLIAMS: In other words, you're
saying one of the purposes?

You're saying is it useful?

Q Is it useful?

MR. WILLIAMS: As opposed to can it be
used for that, without consideration of whether
that is a proper use of it?

MR. LAHIFF: Right.

A I don't make a point of using this.

Q But, have you?

A Have I?

Q Yes.

Have you?

You said that you don't make a point of
it?

A I don't make a practice of it.

I'm trying to think about this a little
bit more. I want to give you a fair answer.

The answer is no to that.

Q The three books that you've described

Frair 131

as agreeing with your position, authored by Berg,
Clark, and Nilsson, are they in general circulation
and usage?

A Clark is an older book.

Yes, Bert, and as far as I know,
Nilsson is.

Q Are they generally accepted?

A They are not well-known by the scientific
community.

Q But, are they generally accepted by the
scientific community?

A As far as I know, when they read them.

These men were all competent scientists.

Q I gather if they're not generally known,
then they can't be generally accepted?

A Yes.

MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 a photocopy of the book
that you brought with you to the deposition
today, The Case for Creation, co-authored by
Wayne Frair and P. William Davis, with Bates
numbers 135031 through 135078.

(Photocopy of book entitled The Case
for Creation
marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for

Frair 132

Identification.)

Q On Page 7, the second paragraph, the
last two lines read:

"The doctrine of evolution in its
present form is the creation of men of genius.
To underestimate it and its impact is danger-
ous."

What do you mean by that?

A You must remember that this book was
written for -- primarily for Christians. It contains
accurate scientific information.

And, we're considering here a philoso-
phy of evolution as extended to the field of religion.

Q Is there some distinction between your
writings for Christians and your writings for scientists?

A Yes.

Q What is the distinction?

A This book was designed for a more
general audience. It's less technical.

Q Is that the only distinction between
when you address a Christian audience and a scientific
audience, the level of the sophistication of the material
presented?

A It depends on what I'm discussing in

Frair 133

front of the scientific audience.

Q What do you mean by "the impact of
evolution is dangerous"?

A If it becomes a religion.

Q Is evolution now a religion?

A For some people.

Q Creation-science is not a religion?

A No.

Q Why is creation-science not a religion
and evolution is?

A I'd have to think about that some more.

Creation-science could be consistent
with many formal religions.

Q Which formal religions could it be con-
sistent with?

A Any formal religion that recognizes some
power beyond nature.

Q Isn't the creation-science model consist-
ent only with religions which believe in the literal
account of creation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Which account?

Q (Continuing)

In Genesis?

A No.

Frair 134

Absolutely not. Not at all.

Q Do you believe that science cannot give
man an understanding of the universe?

A The scientific method is very valuable
for understanding the universe.

It's a valuable tool.

Q But, do you believe that only God or
the Creator can know the universe as it really is?

A Science is an approach. Science deals
with statistical probabilities.

In other words, there's a percentage of
doubt in science.

Q You have written, however, on Page 18
of your book, which you co-authored, The Case for
Creation
, that:

"As Christians, we believe that only
God can know the universe as it really is."

A I believe that.

I am speaking there as a Christian,
however.

Q Does your Christian faith put any
limits on you as a scientist?

A No.

My Christian faith is an encouragement

Frair 135

to understand it.

Q I don't mean to be rude or argue, but
you state that "only God can know the universe as it
really is," and, yet, you also say that your Christian
faith doesn't put any limits on you as a scientist.

How can both of those statements be
reconciled?

A Perhaps, I should back off of that.

My Christian faith would not permit me
to infringe on the rights of other people on the basis
of science.

Q I don't understand what you mean by
that answer.

A There have been people in the past who
have abused other members of mankind in order to obtain
scientific information.

I, as a Christian, would be prohibited
from that type of research.

Q How many views of the origin and develop-
ment of life are there?

MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific or religious?

MR. LAHIFF: Scientific.

A Basically, there would be two.

Q What are those two?

Frair 136

A Creation and evolution.

Q Which of those two views do you accept?

A Creation.

Q What do you understand by "creation"
then?

MR. WILLIAMS: You answered that ques-
tion already.

A Groups or organisms not genetically
connected.

Q That's "creation"?

A That's a limited-kind model.

Q I asked you what creation is, not for
what a limited-kind model, but what is creation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
creation in the sense of creation-science, or
are you talking about creation in the sense of
religion?

Q You testified that there are only two
processes, evolution or creation?

A Yes.

Q What is creation?

A Creation is a model that involves a
starting point for organisms which are not connected,
they didn't come from common ancestors.

Frair 137

Q Who or what created them?

A I think creation implies that there's
something beyond matter.

Q What beyond matter?

A A force, a power, something that was
active there at that time.

Q Was that force or matter a natural
process, something that could be understood by a
scientist?

A I think there's an implication in the
creation that there could be something that would extend
beyond science.

I don't want to rule out the possibility
of understanding more than we do.

Q But, at some point, science can take us
no further, and faith begins?

A In a sense, that's true.

Q In what sense is it true?

A In the sense that science deals with
material that's observable -- that's obtainable through
the senses.

Q On Page 79 of your book, the first
paragraph, the last two sentences of the first paragraph,
you quote such a theory, and in the context of this

Frair 138

paragraph, you state:

"An alternative to evolution to be
adequate, must take full account of all
scientific data, and if it is to be Christian,
it must additionally accept and build upon
biblical revelation as valid information."

A I believe that.

Q Do you believe that the creation-science
model is Christian?

A No. Absolutely not.

Q Do you believe the creation-science
model is an alternative to evolution?

A Of course.

Q I'll be honest with you, I don't under-
stand how you can write that first paragraph and then
not admit that the creation-science model is Christian
and builds upon biblical revelation.

A Such a theory to be adequate, must take
account of all scientific data.

You can have a Christian -- you can have
a creation model built upon the scientific data.

Q That is not Christian?

A That's right.

That's what we have with your 590.

Frair 139

To me, that's very clear.

Q But, it does make reference to creation?

A Yes.

Q And to the sudden creation of the universe,
energy and life from nothing?

A What does that have to do with Christianity

Q I'm asking you.

Does it have anything to do with Chris-
tianity?

A No.

Not necessarily.

It may be consistent with a Christian
position, but there's no compulsion to go from that to
Christianity.

Remember, this book is written for
Christians. You can have the creation position as stated
in that law without Christianity at all.

You can belong to another religion or
no religion.

I mean, you'd have, I think, to recognize
something there at the start.

Q Can you have reference to a Creator and
not have it be religious in content?

A Let us say philosophical rather than

Frair 140

religious.

Religion is a more personal thing, and
I think you can.

Q What is evangelical research?

A Where are you looking?

Q Page 82, second paragraph, first sentence.

A This would be research carried on by
conservative Christians.

Q Have you ever conducted any evangelical
research?

A Yes.

Q What research?

A In the sense I just described it, I can
consider my research that type of research.

Q Yet, you still have no idea what a
"kind" is?

A I didn't say I had no idea what a "kind"
is.

Q Can you point to a "kind"?

A I already mentioned mankind.

Q Isn't there scientific evidence that
shows that mankind is related to other creatures?

A There's a big gap that exists between
man and --

Frair 141

Q But, isn't there evidence that shows
that man is related to other living creatures?

A There's evidence which some people
interpret to indicate that man bears a genetic rela-
tionship to organisms.

Q Is there any evidence to the contrary?

A I think --

Q I'm not talking now about a different
interpretation of the evidence.

But, is there any evidence to the con-
trary?

A To me, the gap between mankind and apes
is very significant.

MR. LAHIFF: I have no further questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: No questions.

(End of proceedings)

.o0o.

__________________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this___day of_____________, 1981.

_________________________________

November 25, 1981 142

I N D E X

WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
Wayne Frair Mr. Williams 3

EXHIBITS

PLAINTIFFS' FOR ID.
1 Defendants; list of witnesses. 7

2 Copy of Act 590. 33

3 Article entitled The Proto-
stomia-Deuterostomia Theory. 78

4 Copy of Dr. Wayne Frair's
curriculum vitae. 79

5 Application for Admission to
the Creation Research Society. 91

6 Copy of Case For Creation 131

143

STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

I,Perry Auerbach, a Notary Public, duly qualifie
to act in and for the City of New York in the County of N
York, State of New York, do hereby certify that the witne
WAYNE FRAIR, was by me first duly sworn
according to law, to testify to the truth, the whole trut
and nothing but the truth, relating to said cause; that
deposition of the said witness was taken down by me
stenographically and reduced to typewriting under my
supervision and control; that there was an appearance on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and appearance on behalf of the
defendants;
That the said deposition was taken at the offices
Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 919 Third Avenue,
New York, New York, on the 25th day of November, 1981,
at 9:45 a.m., and that the foregoing testimony is a
complete, true and correct transcript of the testimony
given by the witness;
That I am not interested in the outcome of this
action or related to any of the parties or counsel.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 26th day of November, 1981.

_______________________________
Perry Auerbach, CSR, RPR

Deposition of Margaret Helder

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

- - -

REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,)
)
Plaintiffs,)
)
vs. ) NO. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants.)
_____________________________)

DEPOSITION OF
DR. MARGARET HELDER
Tuesday, November 17, 1981

Reported by:
CAROLINE ANDERSON, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1903, and
DEAN MC DONALD, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 1869

2

I N D E X

PAGE
DEPOSITION OF DR. MARGARET HELDER
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE 5

- - -

EXHIBITS
Plaintiffs'
1 Copy of curriculum vitae of
Dr. Margaret Helder 5

2 Copy of one-page published letter
to the editors of Discovery
Magazine 59

3A, 3B Two pages of drawings of algae 87

- - -

3

BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of
Taking Deposition, and on Tuesday, November 17, 1981,
commencing at the hour of 9:45 o'clock a.m. thereof, at
the offices of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market
Plaza, San Francisco, California, before us, CAROLINE
ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD, Certified Shorthand
Reporters and Notaries Public in and for the State of
California, personally appeared

DR. MARGARET HELDER,
called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.

- - -

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by STEPHEN
G. WOLFE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.

KAPLAN, HOLLINGSWORTH, BREWER & BILHEIMER, The
Tower Building, Suite 955, Fourth and Center Streets,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, represented by PHILIP E.
KAPLAN, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.

STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS and CALLIS L. CHILDS,
Deputy Attorneys General, appeared as counsel on
behalf of the defendants.

4

SUSAN STURM and BRUCE ENNIS, Attorneys at Law,
American Civil Liberties Union, 132 W. 43rd Street,
Seventh Floor, New York, New York 10036, appeared as
counsel on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also present: Dr. James Hickman and Dr. George
Carroll.

- - -

5

MR. WOLFE: The stipulations which govern the
deposition will be that the witness need not sign her
deposition before the same Notary who took it and that
all objections except those as to form of the question
are reserved to the time of trial.

Plaintiffs have requested that the witness review
and correct and sign the deposition within five days of
receipt of the original, and the position of plaintiffs
is that if that proves to be impossible, plaintiffs
are entitled to use the deposition as though that had
happened after five days.

- - -

DR. MARGARET HELDER,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE:
MR. WOLFE: Q. Please state your name and address
for the record.

A. Margaret Helder; **** **** ******, ********,
*******,******.

MR. WOLFE: I will ask the reporter to mark as
Helder Deposition Exhibit 1 a copy of the curriculum
vitae provided to us by the defendants.

[Copy of curriculum vitae of
Dr. Margaret Helder was marked
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for
identification.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will show you Exhibit 1

6

and ask you if you recognize it.

A. Yes.

MR. CHILDS: Steve, I would like to say one thing
just for the record, and I probably won't say anything
else, and that is that Dr. Helder made available this
morning at approximately 9:00 o'clock or thereabouts all
the documents which she felt were responsive to the
request that had been relayed to her by Tim Humphries
of our office and that you all do have those available
to you during the day for her deposition today.

MR. WOLFE: Yes, that's right. We received them
at approximately 9:00 this morning.

MR. CHILDS: And we requested that they not be
copied during the day so that you all would not be at
a disadvantage, that we want them to be available to you
to question her about them.

MR. WOLFE: Very good.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, did you prepare the
curriculum vitae, Exhibit 1?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, have you studied at any colleges
other than those listed on the vitae?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any educational training since
the granting of your Ph.D.?

A. As stated, I did postdoctoral research two
years. Then I was hired as an assistant professor, so

7

the answer is no.

Q. Doctor, can you tell me what the National
Research Council is?

A. Yes.

The National Research Council is the government
granting agency from the federal government, and most
research in Canada is funded either by the National
Research Council or by the Medical Research Council.

Most medical research would get Medical Council
research grants and just pure research would get National
Council grants.

Q. Doctor, your answer might have been somewhat
ambiguous. The National Research Council is an agency
of the Canadian federal government?

A. That is right.

Q. Are research grants from the National Research
Council competitive grants?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Can you tell me approximately how many
graduate students were at the University of Western
Ontario in the years that you were studying there for
your Ph.D.?

A. Botany graduate students? 60?

I have no idea. It was a lot.

Q. 60 is the best approximation you can make?

8

A. 60 would be conservative.

Q. Are you able to approximate how many of those
60 graduate students would have had research grants from
the National Research Council?

A. Do you mwan scholarships?

Q. Well, let me withdraw that question and ask
another.

Can you distinguish for me, please, a research
grant and a scholarship grant?

A. Research grants go only to faculty. A
scholarship grant goes to support a graduate student.

The research grant to a faculty member goes to
undergraduates, plus a research grant can be used to pay
a graduate student, but the graduate students can only
get scholarships for studentship.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, were any of your
degrees granted with honors?

A. With honors? I don't know what the
classification for my Ph.D. was except that the outside
examining professor said that it was one of the best
theses he had ever read, and the examining professor
from the university said that it was one of the best
defenses they had ever read, so I assume that it would
have been given a very good grade; but we aren't
informed. You get your Ph.D. or you don't. So I don't
know what grade I would have got.

My Bachelor's degree was an honors degree, which

9

means that it's more difficult than a pass degree; but
we don't have cum laude, that sort of stuff that you
hear about in the states.

My outside examining professor was Dr. F. K.
Sparrow from the University of Michigan. He is deceased,
however, so you can't consult him, but that is who it
was.

Q. Doctor, could you describe the responsibilities
of your position as assistant professor in bioscience
at Brock University?

A. That is a typical faculty position.

I would have had all the responsibilities of any
other faculty member.

Associate professor means rank and, of course, you
come in at the rank of assistant professor.

I taught courses; I directed fourth-year research
programs for honors courses; I had a graduate student;
I conducted my own research; I sat on faculty committees.
Whatever any other faculty member did, I did.

Q. Were the courses that you taught graduate
or undergraduate courses?

A. They were undergraduate courses.

We did not teach -- in Canada you do not teach
graduate courses, as such. Graduate students do
research, but they do not take courses that are listed
as graduate courses in most cases.

Q. I believe you said earlier that you
supervised the research of one graduate student.

10

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And were your duties any different while you
served as a part-time lecturer?

A. Oh, yes. A part-time lecturer only lectures
in set courses.

Q. And were you doing research on your own at
the time that you were a part-time lecturer?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, is the University of Western Ontario
accredited by a Canadian accrediting body?

A. The University of Western Ontario is one of
the five top universities in Canada, probably ranks
about three or four.

Q. Doctor, do you know whether it's accredited
by an accrediting body, and if you do, can you tell me
which one?

A. Of course, it's accredited. I don't know
what the proceedings in Canada for accrediting are
except that, as I said, it is one of the top
universities.

A degree from Western Ontario is a really good
degree.

Q. Is Brock University accredited by an
accrediting body?

A. It has the same status as any other university
in Ontario. It's a small university so that it's not
as prestigious, but a degree -- it's a university run
by the Province of Ontario as are all the other

11

universities in Ontario.

Q. I take it then that you do not know the name
of any accrediting body that has accredited Brock
University?

A. I do not know how universities are
accredited in Canada.

Ok, I think they get a charter. It would have
whatever a university is supposed to have, however.

Q. Doctor, while you were assistant professor
at Brock University, did you have a writing or
publishing obligation?

A. It's considered a good thing to publish.
There is nothing that says you must publish within such
and such a time, but most people do try to publish.

Q. Have you ever been tenured in any of your
positions?

A. No.

Tenure would come after four years full-time
appointment at any given institution. I wasn't there
that long.

Q. So that you were never eligible for tenure?

A. I was never eligible.

Q. Doctor, did you ever study at any universities
other than the two listed on your vitae?

A. I took one course in mathematics one summer
at the University of Manitoba.

Q. Did you ever leave any university in the
midst of a course of study?

12

A. No.

Q. Was your Ph.D. thesis published, Dr. Helder?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Dr. Helder, have you ever made any grant
applications which were not funded?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been subject to academic
discipline?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been subject to any professional
action by a professional group?

A. No.

Q. Could you describe for me the membership
criteria and the purposes of the American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography?

A. The American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography is made up of people who study freshwater
biology, which is limnology, and oceanography, which
is biology in the ocean.

Physical processes would be included in limnology,
so physics and biology and chemistry -- so physics,
biology, chemistry, freshwater and biology and
chemistry of the oceans.

Mainly the membership would be American scientists,
but, of course, there are a sprinkling of Canadians,
as well.

You have to have the signatures of two members in
good standing to join.

13

Q. How long have you been a member of the
American Society?

A. I guess since '67, either '66 or '67.

Q. Do you recall who your sponsors for membership
were?

A. Yes.

It was Dr. Hamish Duffy, who is a limnologist on
the faculty of the University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, and a graduate student of his whose name I
wouldn't know.

Q. Is there any classification of membership
within the American Society which is honorary or
elective?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you ever been an officer of the American
Society?

A. No.

Q. Do you know approximately how many members
the American Society has?

A. Hundreds.

I have no idea.

There is a membership list that comes out every
several years, and it's thick like this [indicating] and
might be even thousands, for all I know.

Q. Would you describe for me the membership
criteria and the purposes of the Creation Science
Association of Alberta.

A. The purpose of the Creation Science

14

Association of Alberta is to inform the public of the
merits, scientific merits of the Creationist's position
and to promote the inclusion of the scientific merits
of Creationism in educational institutions; so it's
educational and informative.

Q. How long have you been a member of the
Creation Science Association?

A. Since 1978.

Q. Is membership in the Creation Science
Association sponsored?

A. No.

Q. Do you know how many members there are?

A. I do not know.

Q. Can you approximate the size of the
membership?

A. It would be in the hundreds.

Q. Do you know when the Creation Science
Association was founded?

A. Yes.

It was founded in 1975.

Q. Have you ever held any office within the
Association other than vice president?

A. No.

Q. How long have you been vice president?

A. '79, I think.

Q. Does the Creation Science Association publish
a journal?

A. Yes. We publish Creation Dialogue.

15

Q. How long has that been published?

A. Since 1975.

Q. Does the association have a full-time staff?

A. No. It's all volunteer.

Q. Will you tell me who the editor of Creation
dialogue is.

A. It's a chap called Ronald Bellamy.

Q. Is Creation Dialogue a referreed journal?

A. Of course not.

Q. Doctor, is the Canadian Journal of Botany a
referreed journal?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the Journal of Development in Industrial
Microbiology referreed?

A. Yes, as far as I know.

I know it was read, so I assume it's referreed,
but I don't know for sure.

Q. Doctor, have you any publications that are
not listed in the publications list in your vitae?

A. There is one.

Q. What is that, please.

A. In our church periodical, a very obscure
periodical, and you have it in your file.

Q. Could you tell me the name of the church
periodical.

A. Clarion.

Q. And by what church is that published?

A. The Canadian Reformed.

16

Q. Can you tell me the title of the paper?

A. Well, if you had the paper in front of me,
I could tell you.

Q. I'm sorry that I don't.

MR. CHILDS: It's one of the documents she made
available this morning.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you know the subject matter of
the paper?

A. Environmental issues.

Q. Doctor, have you ever had a paper submitted
for publication which was rejected?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any scientific societies
other than the two listed on your vitae?

A. I have been a member of the Canadian
Botanical Association.

I didn't pay my dues for the last year, so I don't
know whether I qualify as a member or not.

Q. Are there any others?

A. I did belong to the International Association
for Great Lakes Research.

Again, I haven't paid my dues for about two years,
I guess, maybe more, because we moved away from the
Great Lakes.

Q. Is membership in the Canadian Botanical
Association elective?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. Is membership in the Canadian Botanical

17

Association elective?

A. No.

Q. Did it require sponsorship?

A. Normally, it does.

I was at a scientific meeting where they were
signing up graduate students, so I just got signed up.
I didn't have to go and collect signatures.

Q. When did you become a member of the Botanical
Association?

A. Have you got my vitae here?

Okay. That was in June of 1967.

Q. Is it correct that the Canadian Botanical
Association publishes the Canadian Journal of Botany?

A. No.

The National Research Council of Canada publishes
the Canadian Journal of Botany.

Q. Could you tell me the membership criteria
of the International Association for Great Lakes
Research?

A. I don't recall getting signatures.

I think anybody who is interested can sign up.

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of
the International Association?

A. I think this was in 1970.

Q. Have you ever held an office in either the
Canadian Botanical Association or International
Association for Great Lakes Research?

A. No.

18

Q. Does the International Association publish a
journal?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Do you know the name?

A. The Journal of International Association of
Great Lakes Research, a long handle.

Q. Do you know approximately how many members
the Canadian Botanical Association has?

A. That would be in the hundreds.

Canada is a small country.

Q. Do you know if there is an elective or
honorary membership classification in that association?

A. I do not think so.

Q. Doctor, have you ever sought membership in
a professional association which was denied?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had membership in a professional
association which was terminated aside from the two
possible instances that you have mentioned?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any adjunct teaching
positions that are not listed in your vitae?

A. I don't understand what you mean.

Q. Well, I simply wonder whether you have
taught any class or seminars perhaps on a one-time
basis that may not be listed on your vitae.

A. Yes.

I lectured this summer in the Institute for Creation

19

Science at Three Hills, Alberta, and that was sponsored
by our Creation Science Association.

Q. Doctor, could you tell me the subject of
the lecture that you gave this summer.

A. You have the lecture notes that I gave to
the students.

I talked about the origin of cells in nuclei, and
the technical term is eucaryotic.

I talked about the fossil record of plants; I
talked about natural selection, and I talked about
environmental issues.

[Recess taken.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, what are the membership
requirements of the Creation Science Association of
Alberta?

A. The membership requirement is that one sign
a statement of principle and pay $5.

Q. Do the documents that you gave us this
morning include a copy of that statement of principle?

A. No.

It never occurred to me that was relevant.

Q. Are you able to recall the substance of
that statement?

A. Yes.

The statement affirms assent with the six-day
creation week, with a deluge in the time of Hoah and a
belief in Christ as savior.

Q. Okay.

20

Doctor, does the statement of principle take any
position on the literal truth of the Bible?

A. I do not recall.

Q. Does it take any position on the use of the
Bible in scientific inquiry?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, I would request that when you return
to Canada, you would make available to us a copy of
that statement of principle.

MR. CHILDS: You can send that to us to distribute.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, have you heard of the
Creation Research Society?

A. Creation Research Society -- the words
sound familiar. Where are their headquarters?

Q. Well, ma'am, they are an institution with
headquarters in San Diego, I believe.

A. There are a number of organizations that
have similar titles.

Q. Are you a member of the Creation Research
Society?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of the Institute for Creation
Research?

A. Of course.

Q. Are you a member of that institute?

A. Of course.

Q. Are you a member of that institute?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of the Creation Science

21

Research Center?

A. The Creation --

Q. Science Research Center.

A. Again, the words sound familiar. I do not
know if I have heard of it. I don't know where it is.

Q. I take it then that you are not a member of
that Center.

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of the Bible Science
Association?

A. I have heard of it, yes.

Q. Are you a member of the Bible Science
Association?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Fairness
in Educational?

A. The words sound familiar.

I have possibly read of it in the newspaper. I
do not know.

Q. I take it you are not a member of that
group.

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Balanced
Education as to Origin?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Doctor, are you a member of the Moral
Majority?

A. No.

22

Q. Are you a member of any Right of Life
organization?

A. No.

Q. Were you --

A. Oh, yes, I beg your pardon, we are, yes.
Right to Life, yes.

Q. Can you tell me who you meant by "we" in
your previous answer?

A. My husband and I.

Q. Can you tell me the name of the organization?

A. I can.

It's Right to Life.

Q. Do you recall how long you have been a
member?

A. Let me see.

I think that was 1977.

Q. Can you tell me what the criteria for
membership are?

A. Payment of $2.

Q. Doctor, were you listed as one of the persons
who applied to intervene in this lawsuit in July?

A. No.

Q. Were you contacted by anyone about the
possibility of being an intervenor in this action?

A. In the file that you have I received a
letter from Wendell Bird.

I think that was September.

I did not reply to it.

23

Q. Doctor, are you a member of a church?

A. Yes.

Q. What church is that?

A. Canadian Reformed Church.

Q. And when did you become a member?

A. When I got married, 1972.

I guess it was 1973.

We were married in '72 in December, and I joined
that church in '73.

Q. Is your husband a member of that church?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. Had you been a member of a church prior to
your marriage?

A. Yes.

Q. What church was that?

A. Anglican.

Episcopalian, you would call it here.

Q. And how long had you been a member of the
Anglican Church?

A. Well, I was baptized when I was a baby.

Q. Have you been baptized in the Canadian
Reformed Church?

A. They baptize infants. No.

Q. Do you hold any offices in the Canadian
Reformed Church?

A. They don't let women hold office.

Q. Do you attend church services regularly?

A. Yes.

24

Q. Are you able to estimate how often on a
weekly or monthly basis?

A. Every Sunday.

Q. Do you belong to any groups or associations
within the church?

A. Yes.

It's a couples club.

Q. Are there any others?

A. That I belong to?

Q. Yes, ma'am.

A. No.

Q. Doctor, do you consider yourself a religious
fundamentalist?

A. Could you define the term "fundamentalist"?

Q. Well, I'm interested in your definition of
the term and whether you consider yourself to be a
religious fundamentalist by your own definition.

A. Well, as I stated, my background is
Anglican and very Anglican. I have a brother who is
an Anglican minister, and my grandfather was an
Anglican minister.

Anglicans are generally not included in the
designation "fundamentalist." Therefore, I would not
consider myself a fundamentalist.

Q. Would you say that your joining the Canadian
Reformed Church changes your opinion as to whether you
were a fundamentalist?

A. Canadian Reformed people do not like the

25

designation "fundamentalist," and they would not apply
it to themselves.

Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor
or advisor?

A. I don't know what you mean.

Q. Do you have one person to whom you look as
your personal religious advisor?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever done evangelical or conversion
work in the church?

A. Ho.

Q. Have you ever read the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know which versions of the Bible you
have read?

A. Well, at home we have the New English Bible.

We have the American Revised Standard, I think it is.
I can't remember the title exactly.

We have the Revised Standard, and we have the King
James.

Q. Doctor, could you estimate how often you
read the bible?

A. We read the bible once a day.

Q. Do you consult the Bible in your work as a
scientist?

A. No.

Q. Do you regard the Bible as a source of
personal revelation?

26

A. I don't understand what you mean.

Q. Do you regard the Bible as setting out a
code of conduct for an individual life?

A. A code of conduct, yes.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant
or infallible?

A. Could you define that?

Q. Well, the ordinary English meaning, that is,
that the Bible has no mistakes in it and is never
wrong.

A. That is a difficult question because, of
course, there are texts. You know, different texts have
different translations, so sometimes they don't exactly
agree on the translation; but as a general principle,
I would say the Bible does not have errors, though
there might be errors in the translation in different
translations.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible is literally
true?

A. That is the same thing as the previous
question.

Yes, it is.

Q. Could you tell me why you believe that the
bible is inerrant or infallible excepting the
possibility of translation error?

A. Why --

MR. CHILDS: I will object to that as being
ambiguous.

27

I would appreciate it if you would ask her the
source of her belief, and I think without that the
question would be ambiguous.

MR. WOLFE: I accept that modification.

Q. Could you state, please, the source of your
belief that the Bible is inerrant excepting the
possibility of translation error?

A. I would say that it's a priori assumption.

Q. Doctor, I'm not certain if I understand.
Will you explain that last answer.

A. I assume the Bible to be correct. This is
what I was taught.

Q. When you say that is what you were taught,
by whom were you taught?

A. Well, one could refer to the 39 articles of
the Anglican Church.

Q. Doctor, I'm not familiar with the 39
articles of the Anglican faith.

Does one or more of those articles state that the
Bible is inerrant?

A. I haven't read them lately, but basically
that is what the 39 articles set out, is the basic
elements of the Christian faith, and that is one of
them.

Q. I see.

Do you regard belief in the inerrancy of the
Bible as a basic article of the Christian faith?

A. I would say that there are a lot of people

28

who would not think so, so it is not a sine qua non.

Q. Do you regard it as a basic aspect of the
Christian faith?

A. From a personal -- for myself I think it
important.

Q. In an earlier answer I believe you said that,
I think it was, a lot of people would not regard belief
in the inerrancy of the Bible as a basic tenet of the
Christian faith.

Did you mean a lot of Christians when you said a
lot of people?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the Canadian Reformed Church have a
view as to whether the Bible is inerrant?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. It is inerrant in the Canadian Reformed
statement of whatever.

They have three statements of principle which are
common to the Presbyterian Church.

Q. Can you tell me what the substance of each
of those is?

A. No.

Things like -- I can't even think of the names of
them -- creeds.

Q. Do you regard the Bible as a product of
divine revelation?

A. Yes.

29

Q. Do you know if that is the position of the
Canadian Reformed Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that the 39 articles
of the Angelican faith also regard the Bible as a product
of divine revelation?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, would your religious belief permit
you to tell a lie or a half truth in order to spread
the faith?

A. In order to --

Q. To spread the faith?

A. No.

Q. Do you know if that is the position of the
Canadian Reformed Church, as well?

A. They wouldn't be keen on telling lies.

Q. Do you know if the telling of a lie or half
truth is regarded as a different matter if it's in aid
of conversion of someone who does not --

A. It would not be looked upon with favor in
any circumstances.

[Recess taken.]

MR. CHILDS: We are going to object to anybody
being present for the deposition other than the witness
being deposed, counsel for the respective parties and
representatives of the parties.

MR. KAPLAN: The basis of the objection?

MR. CHILDS: That is what my understanding of the

30

law is.

MR. KAPLAN: I don't think there is anything in the
rules that says we cannot have a consultant with us and
our own people with us who have helped us prepare for
the deposition. I don't think there is anything in the
rules or the law that suggests we can't do that.

MR. KLASFELD: In any event, Mr. Childs has his
objection.

MR. CHILDS: Until I hear to the contrary from
David, we are not going to proceed under those
circumstances until we get a ruling from the judge.

What I would suggest is that they be absent until
the judge gives us a ruling on that.

MR. KLASFELD: Let me suggest then that we do that,
and we will just raise it with the judge at 11:30, if
you are not going to let the deposition continue.

MR. CHILDS: I researched that particular subject
five years ago, and the law I found at that time
supports me. I cannot cite it to you now.

MR. KLASFELD: Let's not delay the deposition any
longer.

MR. KAPLAN: It's only 30 minutes.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, does the Bible predict
future events?

A. Could you define what you mean by "future
events."

Q. Does the Bible state that any things are
going to happen in the future that haven't happened yet?

31

A. I think most theologians would say yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion of your own?

A. I would agree that most theologians' opinions
are correct.

Q. Do you agree because of some independent
thought or analysis on your part or merely because
most theologians say so and it must therefore be
correct?

A. I would say I agree because it is the opinion
of most theologians that that is the case.

Q. Can you name any instances that you are
aware of?

A. I would say there is only one that I can
think of, and that is that there will be an end to time.

Q. Are you aware of any instance in which the
Bible has predicted something that had not happened
yet which has happened since up to this time?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. Can you recall any instance in which you
would say that the Bible 2000 years ago predicted
something that happened a thousand years ago or that
has happened up to now that is a prediction that was
made and come true?

A. No.

Q. Do you regard the Bible as a source of
scientific knowledge?

A. No.

Q. Is the Bible an inspiration to you at all

32

in your research?

A. Not in my research.

Q. Do you use it at all in your research in any
fashion?

A. No.

Q. Has the Bible ever suggested a specific
project to you for investigation?

A. No.

Q. Has the Bible ever suggested to you a
possible solution to a problem that was raised by the
research of yourself or another?

A. Not even remotely.

Q. Dr. Helder, when did you first learn about
this legal action?

A. Well, I read the newspapers last March and
they referred to a trial coming up in Arkansas. that is
when I first learned about it. All the Canadian papers
talked about it.

Q. Who first asked you whether you would be
willing to testify in this case?

A. Mr. Campbell.

Q. And when was that?

A. That was Thanksgiving, the day after
Thanksgiving in Canada, and that is around the middle
of October.

I can't recall the exact date.

I could consult a calendar and find out.

Q. Do you know how Mr. Campbell was given your

33

name?

A. Yes.

Q. How was that?

A. In your files you have a letter from Wendell
to me, which I did not reply to, but Wendell Bird gave
Mr. Campbell my name.

Q. When did you first agree to testify in this
action?

A. When Mr. Campbell phoned.

Q. That was the day after Thanksgiving?

A. That is correct.

Q. On how many occasions since then have you
talked or corresponded with someone from the Arkansas
Attorney General's office?

A. Mr. Tim Humphries phoned about my coming
for a deposition. That is the extent of my contact with
Arkansas.

Q. So that is one phone call with Mr. Campbell
and one with Mr. Humphries?

A. No. Mr. Humphries phoned once to say would
I come to San Francisco, and he phoned another time to
tell me where in San Francisco.

Q. Do you recall when those two conversations
with Mr. Humphries were?

A. I talked to Mr. Humphries this past Sunday
afternoon. I do not recall the other one.

Q. Doctor, in your phone call with Mr. Campbell
on the day after Thanksgiving, can you recall for me

34

the substance of your conversation with him, what he
said and what you said?

A. It was a very brief conversation.

He said that act, whatever had been passed, but
that a trial was coming up; would I testify on behalf
of the State; and I said yes.

Q. Did you discuss at all at that time what
your testimony might be?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, I will show you now a copy of
defendants' first list of witnesses, which is dated the
19th of October 1981 and which bears the numbered
paragraph 3, your name and address and a description of
your expected testimony.

A. That is my field.

Q. Did you ever discuss with anyone from the
Arkansas Attorney General's office the description that
would be given for your testimony?

A. I guess I said that was my field.

Q. Do you recall having had that discussion?

A. I do not recall mentioning these exact words
or any words aboutit.

Q. You don't recall such a conversation with
either Mr. Campbell or Mr. Humphries?

A. It must have been when Mr. Campbell phoned.
I must have said something about my field of expertise.

Q. But you don't actually recall that
conversation any longer?

35

A. No.

Q. Doctor, I will show you another document
which is plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, and
I ask you if you have ever seen that before.

A. No, I have not.

Q. Could you read paragraph 1A through 1D and
tell me if you have ever had any discussion with a
representative of the Arkansas Attorney Genera's office
about any of those matters?

A. As far as A is concerned, I sent them a
vitae.

We have already discussed B.

I had no discussion on C prior to last night.

and D, nothing.

Q. Doctor, do you recall when you were asked
for your vitae?

A. That was when Mr. Campbell phoned.

Q. Do you recall when you sent it?

A. I sent it several days later.

Q. Doctor, have you ever seen a list of
documents which were requested by plaintiffs from each
of the experts who were expected to testify?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you ever discussed a request for
certain documents with any representative of the Attorney
General's Office?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

36

A. Sunday afternoon.

Q. And with whom did you have that discussion?

A. Mr. Humphries.

Q. Did Mr. Humphries read to you from any
documents so far as you know?

A. I presume he was reading.

Q. Are the documents that you brought with you
today and that you gave to us a couple of hours ago all
that you know of that were relevant to the subjects that
Mr. Humphries mentioned to you on Sunday?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever had a discussion about a
request for documents prior to this past Sunday?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, are you being paid for testimony
in this action?

A. No.

Q. Are any of your fees or expenses being
reimbursed?

A. My expenses are being paid.

Q. What expenses, Doctor?

A. Air fare and hotel accommodations and taxis.

Q. Do you know by whom they are being repaid
to you?

A. I presume the State of Arkansas.

Q. Has anyone told you who will be paying?

A. The State of Arkansas.

Q. I'm not certain that I understand.

37

Are you saying that the State of Arkansas -- do
you recall what individual spoke to you about the subject
of your being reimbursed?

A. Mr. Campbell.

Q. Do you recall when that was?

A. When he phoned.

Q. That day after Canadian Thanksgiving?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, I will give you a calendar now and
ask if you can recall which day your discussion with
Mr. Campbell may have been.

A. It was either the 6th or the 13th of
October. I do not know which one of those dates.

Q. Doctor, I believe you mentioned earlier a
discussion last evening.

Did you have any discussion last evening with anyone
from the Arkansas Attorney General's office?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me the substance of that
conversation?

A. Well, I have never had any experience with
litigation whatsoever. I had never heard of a
deposition before. So Mr. Campbell and Mr. Childs
outlined what takes place at a deposition.

Q. Did you have any discussion with them about
the substance of what your testimony would be?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the substance of that discussion?

38

A. As I stated to you -- that gentleman over
there -- I stated that I would center my discussion on
discussion of the nucleus of green algae, of systematics
of algae in general and definition of science.

Q. Prior to the discussion last evening, had
you ever discussed the specifics of your testimony
with anyone from the Attorney General's office?

A. No.

Q. Of the three topics that you have mentioned,
did Mr. Campbell or Mr. Childs suggest any of them to
you?

A. Not one of them.

Q. Have you ever discussed the substance of
the testimony that you might give in this action with
anyone else?

A. My husband.

Q. With anyone other than your husband?

A. My brother-in-law lives with us, also.
Probably at suppertime conversation we did discuss it.

Q. Can you approximate on how many occasions
you might have discussed your possible testimony with
your husband or your brother-in-law?

A. I cannot approximate.

Q. Do you recall any of the substance of any
one of those conversations?

A. No.

Q. In those discussions with your husband or
your brother-in-law, did you discuss any topics other

39

than the three that you mentioned to me just a moment
ago?

A. No.

MR. CHILDS: I would like to add for the record
that she had her three subjects broken down represented
by documents in three folders, the three folders that
were given you this morning.

I hope they were all kept together, because they
might create some confusion if they are not in the
right folder.

MR. KAPLAN: We did not alter that.

MR. WOLFE: I expect they will be.

Q. Doctor, was there any subspecialty of botany
that you concentrated on in your Ph.D. studies?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. Aquatic fungi.

Q. And did your studies of aquatic fungi involve
work with algae, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the relationship of aquatic fungi
and algae in the work that you did for your Ph.D.?

A. The aquatic fungi on the algae, either
parasitizing algae or growing on dead, nonliving algal
material, usually dead cells.

Q. Doctor, have you had any contact with any
of the named defendants in this action?

They are essentially the Arkansas State Board of

40

Education, a local school board in Arkansas.

A. None.

Q. Have you discussed this case with any
Creation Science groups or members of any Creation
Science organizations?

A. Yes.

Q. I told the organization of which I am a
member that I would be coming to Arkansas.

Q. Did you have any other discussion about the
case with members of the Creation Science Association of
Alberta?

A. No.

Q. Are there any other Creation Science groups
with whom you have discussed this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any discussion of the
Arkansas statute that is at issue in this action with
any Creation Science organization?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the Arkansas
statute that is in question?

A. Yes. It sits in the file that you got.

Q. How did you obtain that copy?

A. Mr. Campbell sent it to me.

Q. Do you recall approximately when that was?

A. I do not.

His covering letter with the date is in the file.

Q. Have you ever seen a Creation Science bill

41

or model statute from another jurisdiction?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, have you ever had any contact with
Wendell Bird?

A. He wrote me a letter.

I have not had any contact with him.

Q. None at all aside from the letter you
received?

A. None at all aside from the letter that I
received.

Q. Have you ever had any contact with John
Whitehead?

A. No, I never heard of him.

Q. Have you ever given any testimony before a
legislative hearing or administrative hearing of any
kind?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever spoken to a school board in
the past?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever given any lectures or
participated in a debate about Creation Science or
Evolution Science?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever participated in a debate or
given a lecture about the Bible?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, have you ever had a criminal arrest

42

or conviction?

A. I have not.

Q. Doctor, could you tell me your understanding
of the term "Creation Scientist"?

A. Well, first of all, I would like to define
the term "scientist."

A scientist is someone who studies nature, who
follows a set procedure to study nature, specifically
observation, prediction, hypothesis, experimentation and
acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.

Now, when it comes to observing present-day
phenomena, all scientists are the same. When it comes
to topics on origins, these could be defined as
metaphysical.

For example, there was an editorial in Nature this
past summer. it's in your file. I can't remember the
exact date. I think it was March 12, '81.

Now, in that editorial it defines anything that
cannot be repeated at the present time as a metaphysical
topic.

Now, basically, as outlined in that Nature
editorial, there are two groups of scientists. One
group has a prior assumption that there is no
phenomenon that cannot be explained by mechanistic
processes; the other group has a prior assumption that
it is possible that there are some aspects of origins
that cannot be explained by mechanistic processes.

That is the difference.

43

Q. Doctor, would you characterize Creation
Scientists as belonging in one of those groups rather
than the other?

A. Yes, the Creation Scientist would question
whether all aspects of origins can be explained by
mechanistic processes.

Q. Would you say that Evolution Scientists
belong in one of those groups rather than the other?

A. Yes, according to the definition in Nature
of the 12th of March -- I think it's the 12th of March
-- Evolution Scientists would be in the first category,
assuming that there is no phenomenon that cannot be
explained by mechanistic processes.

Q. Doctor, given the definitions that you have
just given, would you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider yourself an Evolution
Scientist?

A. No.

You can't be both.

Q. Have you always, since the time that you
were first a scientist, been a Creation Scientist?

A. Yes.

Q. When would you say that you first considered
yourself to be a Creation Scientist?

A. That is my background from the time I was
a child.

44

Q. Doctor, when you say that your background
since the time you were a child has been what has made
you a Creation Scientist, are you referring to your
religious education?

A. Now, you are saying is that what made me a
Creation Scientist?

Q. I believe my question was unclear.

I think you mentioned before essentially that your
background since the time you were a child had been as
a Creation Scientist.

A. No, not as a Creation Scientist, because a
child isn't a scientist.

Do you want to know when I became a scientist?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, Creationism was taught to me as a
child.

When I approached university, I did not know if I
would find support for my position from science, but I
have never in any science that I have seen, seen
anything to cause me to doubt that my position is a good
one.

Q. Then is it correct that you have been a
Creationist since you were a child and you have been a
Creation Scientist from the time that you were a
scientist?

A. That is correct.

Q. Could you tell me by whom Creationism was
taught to you as a child?

45

A. Creationism was taught to me as a child by
my parents.

Q. Was Creationism taught to you at all in
your church or Sunday school when you were a child?

A. No.

Q. Was Creationism taught to you at all in
school when you were a child?

A. No, definitely the opposite.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, could you give me your
understanding of the definition that you would use of
religion?

A. A series of beliefs.

Q. Are there any particular contents of a series
of beliefs that make it a religion?

A. I would say so.

Q. Given your understanding, would you regard
Creation Science as a religion?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Creation Science has nothing to do with
religion.

Creation Science is just looking at natural
phenomena.

Q. Given your understanding of religion, would
you regard Evolution Science as a religion?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

46

A. Again, it's looking at natural phenomena.

Q. Doctor, would you regard the Creation
Science Association of Alberta as a religious
organization?

A. Emphatically not.

Q. Why not?

A. We deal with science only.

Q. Doctor, I believe you stated earlier that
the Creation Science Association of Alberta requires
those applying for membership to sign a statement of
principle; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you regard the contents of that
statement of principle as a series of beliefs of the
sort that you defined as religion?

A. I defined religion as a series of beliefs.
Are you asking me, are the statement of principles in
the Creation Science statement of principles, are they
a series of beliefs; is that what you are asking me?

Q. Yes.

A. I would say they are a series of prior
assumptions.

Q. Could you distinguish for me your
understanding of a series of prior assumptions and a
series of beliefs?

A. The two can be equated.

Q. Doctor, by your statement, "the two can be
equated," do you mean that a series of prior assumptions

47

as you understood it and used the phrase is the same as
a religion?

A. No.

Q. What equation would you make between a
series of prior assumptions and a series of beliefs, as
you define religion?

A. Well, in that any group of beliefs can be
defined as religion; I just won't concede that religion
is a relevant term.

Q. Doctor, I'm afraid I didn't understand your
answer that you would not concede that religion is a
relevant term.

A. I'm just not going to say any more.

Q. Doctor, does it remain your view that the
Creation Science Association of Alberta is a scientific
group?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Will you read the question back,
please.

[Record read.]

THE WITNESS: I never defined it as scientific.
I said it was educational and informative.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Then is it true that you did not
regard the Creation Science Association of Alberta as
a scientific group?

A. It deals with natural phenomena. In that
it deals with natural phenomena, it is scientific.

MR. CHILDS: I would like the record to reflect

48

that it's approximately 11:45 and two gentlemen have
entered the room pursuant to Judge Overton's order that
the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs be allowed to
attend the deposition of Dr. Helder, and I would like
for the record at this time to reflect exactly who
these gentlemen are, what their role in this case is
and whether or not they will be called as witnesses in
the trial.

MR. WOLFE: These gentlemen have been named, and
the court reporter has their names. They have not
been listed on the plaintiffs' list of witnesses.
There is no present expectation that either of these
gentlemen will be a witness at trial, although that is
not precluded. They are simply here as consultants
to the attorney taking the deposition.

THE WITNESS: Could I hear your names?

MR. CARROLL: My name is George Carroll, C-a-r-r-o-
l-l.

I am Associate Professor of Biology at the
University of Oregon in Eugene.

THE WITNESS: Could I ask what your field is?

MR. CARROLL: I am a mycologist, m-y-c-o-l-o-g-y.

MR. HICKMAN: I am Jim Hickman. and I am an
associate research botanist at the Jepsom Herbarium,
J-e-p-s-o-m, H-e-r-b-a-r-i-u-m, the University of
California at Berkeley.

My area is plant ecology and systematic botany.

MR. WOLFE: Will you please read back the last

49

question and answer.

[Record read.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do you regard the Creation
Science Association of Alberta as a religious group?

A. No.

Q. Do you regard the statement of principles
that members of the association are required to subscribe
to as a religious series of beliefs?

A. As I stated, it is a series of prior
assumptions.

Q. Does that mean that you do not regard it as
a religious series of beliefs?

A. I just won't answer.

Q. Dr. Helder, would you explain to me why you
won't answer?

A. You are dealing with semantics, and I
don't think it relevant.

Q. Well, Doctor, I certainly hope to deal with
something more substantial than merely semantics, and I
have been trying to parse the testimony and the
definitions that you have given me in the last short
while, and I just want to find out whether you regard
the statement of principle that we talked about off and
on as a series of beliefs, that is, a religion, which
I understand to have been the definition that you use
of religion.

Do you regard the statement of principle as a
religious series of beliefs?

50

A. I don't have to answer you.

Q. Well, no, of course, you do not.

Then do you refuse to answer that question?

A. I refuse to be trapped.

Q. Doctor, could you recall for me, please, the
substance of the statement of principle that members of
the Creation Science Association of Alberta subscribe
to?

MR. CHILDS: We have already gone over that. She
brought up three of them, and you asked her about two
others that were not.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, was it your testimony
earlier that among the contents of the statement of
principles is a belief in Jesus Christ as savior?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you regard that as a religious belief?

A. As I just stated, it's a prior assumption.

Q. Would you explain to me your understanding
of the difference between a series of prior assumptions
and a series of beliefs?

A. Well, when people talk about religion they
have a connotation of it which isn't necessarily my
connotation, so I would rather use a term that does
not have connotates associated with it.

Q. Doctor, perhaps I haven't made myself
sufficiently clear in this series of questions that we
have had trouble over, but all I want to find out
about is your own views, and I would be happy to have

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Margaret Helder - Page 2

51

you add to your definition or refine it or include what
connotations you want to assign to the definitions or
in any way accept whatever transcription or review
would be full enough for you to expect to have it
understood and to answer the questions that I have put.

A. I'm not going to equate the two. You can
talk as long as you like.

Q. Well, Doctor, I'm not asking you to equate
the two. I would be happy to have you answer the
question yes or no, but I wonder if you are willing to
answer the question.

Can you distinguish for me your understanding of
the difference between the concept of a series of
prior assumptions and the concept of a series of beliefs
which make up a religion?

A. I'm not going to do it. You can go on to
another topic.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: In view of the witness's refusal to
answer questions, I'm going to move on to another topic.

I want to make it clear that plaintiffs reserve
the right to move to preclude the witness from
testifying at all in view of her refusal to answer
what we certainly regard as proper questions.

I would be happy to hear from the witness or from
counsel a legal ground for the refusal to answer, if
you are aware of one or want to advance one on the
record.

52

MR. CHILDS: We realize that she would not be
waiving any rights by proceeding on to any other
different subject matter, and we merely point out for
the record that whether or not the series of beliefs
and series of assumptions are the same has the same
semantic difficulties inherent in it as would at least
the semantic difficulties in it as determining how
many angels could dance on the head of a pin; and we
suggest that because this witness has to leave at 3:00,
that we move on to substantive aspects of her proposed
testimony at trial.

MR. WOLFE: I certainly would not accept the
contention that this is not a substantive area, that the
questions have no more than semantic content.

The witness has stated that she expected to
testify among other things about the definition of
science.

One of the central issues of the case, arguably
the central issue of the case, will be the distinction
between the definition of science and the definition
of religion.

There is some question as to whether or not the
witness can testify about any of these areas if she
is unwilling to discuss her definitions of science
and religion, and it certainly must be obvious that
she is not entitled to testify at trial about the
definition of science if she is unwilling to distinguish
science from religion, which, after all, will be one of

53

the things on which this case turns.

I certainly do agree with you that we do not waive
any of our rights to object to her being able to
testify in any way or indeed to testify at all by
virtue of moving on to other questions when she refused
to answer questions in this area.

[Luncheon recess.]

- - -

54

AFTERNOON SESSION

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1981 12:35 O'CLOCK P.M.

- - -

[Also present, in addition to those present
during the morning testimony, were:
RICK CAMPBELL, PHILIP KAPLAN and BENU
MAHMOOD]

EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE [RESUMED]:

THE WITNESS: I will volunteer to answer your
question this morning.

To my mind, the two are not the same thing. I
can't explain why, but they aren't.

MR. WOLFE: Q. That is, when you say "the two," you
mean a series of prior assumptions and a series of
beliefs?

A. I thought you were talking about religion.

Q. Well, let me withdraw the last question and
ask you, when you said that, to your mind, the two are
not the same, what do you mean by "the two"?

A. Religion and a series of prior assumptions.

Q. Doctor, I will just try to cover this
quickly.

Then you believe that the Creation Science Associa-
tion of Alberta is not a religious organization?

A. I do believe that, yes.

Q. And the statement of principles of that
organization is a series of prior assumptions?

A. Correct.

55

Q. But that is not the same as a series of beliefs
which are religious?

A. That is correct.

Q. And is it correct that you don't know the
ground for your belief they are not the same, but you
believe they are not the same?

A. That is correct.

Q. Dr. Helder, would you say that a series of
beliefs which are a religion embody faith or spring from
faith?

A. Embody what?

Q. Faith.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that any of the principles from
the statement of principles we've been discussing embody
faith?

A. I would say that they could.

Q. Do you believe that any of them do?

A. It depends on the person.

Q. Does the statement of principle of the
Creation Science Association of Alberta embody your
Christian faith?

A. Personally, no.

Q. Doctor, I am sorry, I think I have asked you
this before, but I have forgotten your answer.

Do you regard Creation Science as a religion?

A. No, it is not. It doesn't deal with religion;
it deals with natural phenomena.

56

Q. Are you familiar with books and periodicals
that are written by or published by Creation Science
groups?

A. I have seen a number, yes.

Q. Have you read such books and articles about
Creation Science?

A. I have read some.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of Dr. Duane Gish?

A. Dr. Duane Gish in --

He has a PhD in biochemistry?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Have you read any of Dr. Gish's published
work?

A. I cannot recall anything specific.

Oh, yes, I can. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you regard Dr. Gish as a Creation
Scientist?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Would you say that he is a leader or an
authority on Creation Science?

A. I would say he is very articulate.

Q. Would you consider him as an authority on
Creation Science?

A. Well, if you can tell me he is an authority
on evolution, I will tell you if he is an authority on
Creation Science.

Q. I am merely trying to find out whether you

57

would regard Dr. Gish's work in Creation Science as
giving him a knowledge or expertise such that he could be
considered an authority in the field.

A. I would say that Dr. Gish is widely published.
Whether I would regard him as an authority on every
aspect of what he writes, I would say probably not,
because scientists -- you can get any two scientists and
they don't agree on everything. It doesn't matter what
two scientists you get together.

So if you are asking do I subscribe to everything
Dr. Duane Gish says, I would say probably not.

Q. Well, Doctor, without regard to whether or
not you might agree with Dr. Gish in any given matter, is
he recognized as an authority in Creation Science?

A. By whom?

Q. By Creation Scientists, generally.

A. I would say he is well-known.

Q. Are you able to give a yes or no answer to
this question:

Is Dr. Gish recognized generally by Creation
Scientists as an authority on Creation Science?

A. I do not know. I haven't discussed it with
anybody.

Q. I see.

Then your answer is, you are not able to give a yes
or no answer?

A. That is correct.

Q. Are you aware of any writing of Dr. Gish in

58

which he has stated that Creation Science is a religion?

A. I'm not aware of any statement like that.

Q. If Dr. Gish had stated that Creation Science,
or if he had written that Creation Science is a religion,
would you agree or disagree with him?

A. I would disagree.

MR. WOLFE: I will ask the reporter to mark, as
deposition Exhibit 2, a letter by Dr. Gish to the editors
of the magazine, "Discovery," published in that magazine
in fall of 1981.

[Copy of one-page published letter
to the editors of Discovery
Magazine, marked for identifica-
tion as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will give you this
exhibit in a moment.

The letter begins,

"In his essay, Evolution as Fact,
Stephen Jay Gould states the
Creationists claim Creation is a
scientific theory. This is a
false accusation. Creationists
have repeatedly stated that neither
Creation nor Evolution is a scienti-
fic theory (and each is equally
religious)."

That is the first few sentences in the letter?

A. Right.

59

Q. Would you agree with the statements that I
have just read into the record?

A. I would like to have you define what Dr. Gish
means by "religious" there.

He is, I presume, talking about metaphysical presup-
positions such as we discussed this morning. He means
that they are prior assumptions. He chose to use the
term, "religious."

I would not use the term, "religious." Therefore,
in that I would not use the term, "religious," I do not
agree with him.

MR. CHILDS: Steve, could I say something on the
record?

MR. WOLFE: Certainly.

MR. CHILDS: I'm not going to tell you how to run
your lawsuit, and I do want to compliment you and David on
your thoroughness. I think that, in all practicality,
today is going to be the only opportunity that you will
get to depose Dr. Helder, because we are going to strenu-
ously oppose any further deposition; and I am not going
to tell you what your issues are, but if you want to get
to the substance of her scientific testimony at all, I
would strongly urge you to do it soon, because I just
don't believe that Judge Overton is going to make us
make this witness available to you other than today.

MR. WOLFE: Well, all right. I will try not to
waste a great deal of time.

MR. CHILDS: You are not wasting time. I really

60

sincerely believe that today is it, however.

MR. WOLFE: I would have to say, as a practical
matter, I am inclined to agree with you.

The difficulty is that the witness list we were
given states that Dr. Helder will testify as to certain
matters which, by their most expansive interpretation,
could only apply to two out of the three that she has
told us this morning she is going to testify on, and I am
confronted with either confining myself to the two in order
to get through them as fully as I can in the time that
is available before she must leave at 3:00 o'clock, or
trying to delve into the third, which is a complete
surprise.

I agree that delving into the third, which is a
complete surprise to us, as I say, will make it less
likely that I can be thorough as to the other two, but,
on the other hand, I don't like being completely sur-
prised.

I appreciate your contribution in making me aware of
how little time I have left and I will accept full
responsibility for making the choices as to what areas I
inquire into.

I do appreciate your concern.

MR. CHILDS: Okay. I understand.

I am not trying to be critical at all.

MR. WOLFE: I understand that, too.

MR. KAPLAN: Okay. Let's go.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do you know of Dr. Henry

61

Morris?

A. I have heard of him.

Q. Would you regard Dr. Morris as an accepted
authority in Creation Science?

A. My remarks on Dr. Gish would go for Dr.
Morris.

- - -

62

Q. Doctor, could you tell me who you, yourself,
regard as the leading authorities on Creation Science?

A. I do not read the writings of Creation
Scientists and take their remarks for what I believe
about science.

I read scientific articles almost exclusively or
things exclusively by evolutionists and I make my own
conclusions, so that I do not read Dr. Gish's work; I do
not read the other people's work and say, "Oh, they say
such and such. How interesting."

I read original articles.

Q. Doctor, I don't wish to be rude --

A. So I don't have any authorities.

Q. I would appreciate if you would confine your
responses somewhat more closely to my questions.

A. Okay.

Q. If it's true you do not recognize any authori-
ties in Creation Science, it would be enough if you
simply said, "There aren't any," or "I don't recognize
any."

Is that your response, that you do not recognize
any authorities in Creation Science?

A. It is true that, from my understanding of
science, I read science and make my own conclusions.
Whether there are authorities or not, I do not know.

Q. And that is true as to both, let's say,
botany and Creation Science?

A. Yes.

63

Q. Doctor, would you recognize any authorities
on aquatic fungi?

A. Again, I can tell you that there are people
who have published widely. There aren't many. It's a
very narrow field. But there are some who have published
widely, but I would not say there is any one authority.

Q. Well, can you give me the names of some of
those you have referred to who have published widely on
aquatic fungi?

A. There is a big book put out by Dr. F. K.
Sparrow that is widely read by the aquatic fungus
specialists.

There's another gentleman named E. C. Cantino, who
has published widely in the physiology of some aquatic
fungi.

Those are the two --

Oh, there is a lady in England, Dr. Hilda Canter-
Lund, who has published widely in the field.

But I do not think anybody would say any one of
those is the leading authority. They are widely
published. That is all I would say.

Q. Are there any other standard or accepted
texts on aquatic fungi in addition to the one by Dr.
Sparrow that you have mentioned?

A. There is a big book called "Recent Advances
in Aquatic Biology," edited by Gareth Hardin,
H-a-r-d-i-n. Well, I am sorry, it's not Gareth Hardin.

Could I see my vitae? Is this my vitae

64

[indicating]?

MR. CHILDS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: It's Gareth Jones, G-a-r-e-t-h, Jones.

And I wrote a chapter in that book, Chapter 19, to
be specific.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, could you tell me who might
be some of the authorities or some of those who have
published widely on green algae?

A. Green algae? Yes. You have a large number of
those papers in the file that I gave you.

The green algae are such a broad topic that it
depends on -- you could be an expert on green algae and
never have heard of an awful lot of people writing on
green algae. It depends on what field you are in.

But if you are talking the field I am talking about
--

Q. Yes, please.

A. Okay.

Dr. Jeremy Heaps wrote a book on the green algae.
I can't recall any other books that refer only to the
green algae.

Q. Doctor, could you describe for me your
specialization within green algae?

A. My research interest, is that what you are
saying?

Q. Well, yes.

The area in which you have studied and read and
done your work.

65

A. Well, specific research interest is, of
course, narrower than what I have read and taught in the
green algae.

As to my research interest, for example, you have a
paper there that deals with aquatic fungus parasitizing
a green alga oocystys, o-o-c-y-s-t-y-s, various oocystys
species.

Now, that fungus is new to science and I named it,
so I was studying the ecology of the alga and the
fungus.

I studied the ecology of all of the algae that I saw
in the specific bodies of water that I was sampling, so
it wasn't just green algae, it was all of the algae I
saw.

When it comes to lecturing, I lectured in the
ecology of green algae and of all algae. I also lectured
in the taxonomy of green algae and all algae.

Q. Doctor, can you tell me the specifics of the
testimony that you expect to give on the nucleus of green
algae?

A. Yes.

If evolution is a correct model, then there are
certain predictions that have to follow from that model.
Now, one prediction is that the nucleus is going to have
a conservative character.

That is, the nucleus controls genetic characteris-
tics of the cell, the inheritance and also the function-
ing of the cell. Now, that involves a wide array of

66

genes, so that, because it involves a wide array of
genes, any one mutation is going to have a small effect.

Also, because it's so important to the cell, the
chances that any one mutation will have a bad effect is
very great.

Because of these reasons, then, one would make the
prediction that the nucleus would not change greatly
over time, that it would be -- that of all characteris-
tics, I would expect that one to show the least change,
so if you look at the nucleus, you should be able to
trace or get an estimate of what the common ancestors
were.

Now, as one looks at the algae as a whole, within
the past few years it has been discovered that the
nucleus has -- there are amazing differences in the
character of the nucleus in algae as a whole.

Now, of course, you can explain that by saying there
were long periods of descent after they diverged from a
common ancestor; but when you get to the green algae,
which is one specific group, the finding has been that
there is an amazing amount of variation within the green
algae itself.

Now, even more interesting is the fact, the finding,
that the nuclear division process in the green algae is
not that typical of the higher plants. Now, the theory
is that higher plants come from the green algae. There
has been only one alga found that has cell division the
same as the higher plants, and there are some green algae

67

which have been found to have a process that remotely
resembles what is found in the higher plants.

Now, on the basis of this finding, on the assumption
that the nucleus is a conservative characteristic, the
taxonomy of the green algae has been drastically changed
and those two algae with the nuclear process remotely
similar to the higher process have been now said to be
on a different line of descent from the majority of the
green algae.

Now, another prediction of evolutionary theory is
that you can't look for relationships just of one
characteristic, that there should be several characteris-
tics. You should be able to trace ancestry with several.
Descendants of a common ancestor you would expect to be
similar in more than one characteristic, presuming there
are conservative characteristics other than one. And
biochemical products is another characteristic that is
assumed to be conservative.

Well, it was stated that there were other criteria
which did not support this drastic separation of the two
groups of algae, but upon looking at the papers, recent
papers, I have found that not one of those criteria is
found only in the one so-called "line of descent," so
they have separated green algae on the basis of one
characteristic alone, and this is a very small group of
algae, it's drastically, it drastically goes against
patterns that would be assumed to be correct on the
basis of other characteristics.

68

So that the only conclusion one can come to is that
the nucleus is not a conservative characteristic, so the
predictions of the theory of evolution don't hold up.

Q. Doctor, could you please describe for me the
specifics of your expected testimony about the system-
atics of algae?

- - -

69

A. Well, again, experts look at the experts of
a group of organisms like the algae, and they try to
pick out patterns of common, similar characteristics
which could suggest a common ancestor.

Now, when one looks at the algae as a whole and
looks at the characteristics that would be thought to be
conservative or involve a wide array of genes, things
like pigments, storage products, wall materials, this
sort of thing, no pattern can be detected.

There was a paper that came out in 1967, a fat
paper, like this [indicating]. It's in the file. It
was by Klein and Cronquist.

And they tried to look for patterns of relationships,
and they say in that paper that one reviewer of their
paper stated that to look for relationships was a
sterile and futile intellectual process because no
relationships could be found.

Two algae might be similar in one characteristic
and drastically different in other characteristics,
and in these other characteristics they might be similar
to totally different algae.

There is another paper by a chap called Taylor,
and he looked at motile organisms in general, not only
algae but protozoan, and he entitled his paper, "A Study
in Conflicts," because, again, he could not detect any
patterns of relationship.

So my conclusion is that, seeing it is not
possible to detect patterns of relationship, it is a

70

valid conclusion on the basis of present evidence to
say there is no relationship as far as we can see.

Q. Doctor, have you ever written any papers
embodying the material you have just given me about
your likely testimony on either the nucleus of green
algae or the systematics of algae?

A. No, but I taught it.

Q. I see.

Are your views, as you have just stated them, on
the nucleus of green algae or the systematics of algae
accepted by any other workers in your field?

A. What I have stated is what is in the
scientific papers. The authorities on the topic, and
this can't be denied, of course, differ.

Q. Are you aware of any workers in your field
who agree with your conclusions?

A. No. I have not discussed it.

Q. Have you ever seen any publications or heard
seminar or symposia presentations which indicate any
workers in your field who agree with your conclusions?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, do you know of any workers in your
field who disagree with your conclusions?

A. Well, in that the workers that I quote
support the evolution model, of course, they disagree
with me in my conclusions.

Q. Are you aware -- I will withdraw that.

Doctor, I will give you now a copy of Act 590,

71

the Arkansas statute which is at issue in this action.

I will ask you to refer to Section 4 of the act,
which is headed "Definitions."

A. Yes.

Q. It includes in Section 4(a) a general
definition of Creation Science, and it goes on to list
six items which it states are included among Creation
Science.

Could you read those six numbered items and tell
me whether you agree with the accuracy of those
statements.

A. I would agree.

Q. Can you tell me which of the "originally
created kinds of plants and animals" green algae are in?

A. Well, I haven't thought on that topic. I
just haven't speculated on that.

Q. I see.

Do you agree that there has been no change or
evolution or transition between kinds in nature?

A. Are you saying "has been no change"?

Q. No change between kinds; that is, change in
which a plant or animal representative of one originally-
created kind has become a plant or animal or another
kind.

A. I would agree.

Q. Are you able to define "kind" for me?

A. Well, I will say that change within kinds
would deal with change in complexity. There is change

72

in detail, big or little, black or white, variations
in color, but when it comes to change in the degree of
complicatedness of an organism, I would say that has
not occurred.

Q. Is that the only definition you are able to
give of your understanding of "kind"?

A. Yes.

Q. Given that definition, would you say that
green algae belong to one kind only or to more than one?

A. I do not know.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of any transitional
forms between kinds?

A. No.

Q. Would it be your view that there are no
such transitional forms between kinds?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, would you regard procaryotic cells
and eucaryotic cells as being in different kinds?

A. Definitely.

Q. Are you aware of the existence of any
intermediate forms between procaryotic and eucaryotic
cells?

A. No.

Q. Are you able to describe to me what a
transitional form between a procaryotic and a eucaryotic
cell, if one were to exist, might look like?

A. I can't speculate. The sky is the limit.

Q. Well, given your understanding of the

73

essential nature of procaryotic cells and of eucaryotic
cells, are you able to say what the intermediate
characteristics might look like?

I mean, I appreciate your imagination may well be
infinite, but we are, after all, talking about two
kinds as to which there must be some knowledge.

Are you able to describe what an intermediate form
between them, what character such an intermediate form
might have?

A. No.

There are two drastically different theories as to
how there might have been that transition; that is,
among Evolution Scientists.

They wouldn't agree on what transitional forms
would look like.

And I might mention that the difference between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells is said to be the
greatest discontinuity in living organisms.

Q. Are you able to describe for me the
characteristics of an organism which, if it were
discovered, would cause you to believe that procaryotic
and eucaryotic cells are not different kinds?

A. You mean that the one descended from the
other' is that what you are saying?

Q. Well, I would accept that modification,
sure.

A. In that one cannot see one organism changing
into another, it is hard to say, given any scientific

74

organism, whether it descended from another one.

If there were characteristics in common, an
assumption that the one came from the other would be one
possible interpretation.

Q. I am not certain that I altogether understood
your answer.

You are saying that you cannot imagine any newly
discovered evidence which would cause you to believe that
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells were not different
kinds?

A. There is none.

Let's start with that.

What a transitional form is is a matter of
definition.

Are you saying that if I saw a transitional form,
would I change my mind?

Q. I am asking you if there is any transitional
form or any form, any organism which you can imagine,
the discovery of which would be enough to cause you to
change your conclusion?

A. What a transitional form is is a matter of
definition in that we cannot go back and watch it
changing, so if someone said something is transitional,
that is their assumption about it, so it cannot be known
if it is transitional.

Q. Perhaps my questions are poorly constructed
by virtue of having the phrase "transitional form" in
them.

75

Can you imagine any organism or any datum at all,
the discovery of which would cause you to change your
conclusion?

A. I don't think that is a fair question in
that if you said that to an Evolutionist, I am sure they
can't imagine anything that would cause them to change
their mind, so why should you ask me?

Q. Well, Dr. Helder, at the cost of being
wearisome, you are the only witness available for
deposition today, so I cannot ask these questions of an
Evolution Scientists because none are being deposed
today.

A. But do you do it when they are here?

Q. Ma'am, none have been deposed in the case.

I would appreciate it, however, if you would be
willing to answer the question that I put.

A. I do not know of a transitional form that
would cause me to change my mind.

There could be some, but I don't know of any.

Q. That is, you do not know of any presently
known to science?

A. That is correct.

- - -

76

Q. Are you able to describe the characteristics
of an organism that, if it were conclusively shown to
have been discovered tomorrow, would cause you to change
your conclusion?

A. No.

Q. Is there any discovery you can imagine that,
if it were demonstrated to you, would cause you to
change your conclusion?

A. I think there are, but I can't tell you of
any.

Q. Doctor, would you describe for me, please,
what you regard as the essential characteristics of
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells.

A. A procaryotic cell is one that does not have
a defined nucleus. The structures within the cell are
not membrane-bound. There are membranes within the
cell, some cells, but they are not bound within
membranes. The genetic material is in a long strand.
It's defined as a circle or a loop. There are not
discrete chromosomes and there are no histone proteins
on the genetic material.

Now, do you want the definition of a eucaryotic
cell?

Q. Please.

A. A eucaryotic cell has membrane-bound struc-
tures. The genetic material is in discrete chromosomes.
In most cases there are histone proteins on the genetic
material.

77

That is a very sketchy outline of the difference.

Q. Did you omit from the definition of eucaryotic
cells that they have a defined nucleus?

A. Did I omit that?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. It does have a defined nucleus, you
are correct.

MR. CHILDS: Which does?

THE WITNESS: Eucaryotic cells.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, do all procaryotic cells
have the -- I made them out to be four characteristics.

Do all procaryotic cells have the four characteris-
tics that you mentioned, and do all eucaryotic cells
have the corresponding state of the four characteristics
that you mentioned?

A. In the case of the procaryotic, to the best
of my recollection, yes.

As far as the eucaryotic, no. There was one group
or some groups that do not.

Q. Are you able to tell me which groups among
the eucaryotic cells do not have all of the four charac-
teristics that you mentioned?

A. The dinoflagellates, among the algae, do not.
That is d-i-n-o-f-l-a-f-e-l-l-a-t-e-s.

Q. Doctor, which of the four characteristics of
the eucaryotic cells do dinoflagellates not have?

A. The nucleus is very different. They lack
histone proteins. That is one of the major differences.

78

Q. Doctor, in what respect is the nucleus of
dinoflagellates very different from that of eucaryotic
cells?

A. Well, in cell division -- the appearance is
different, for a start, in that the chromosome, the
nuclear material is not granular in appearance when the
cell is in a resting state. The chromosomes are con-
densed. So there is a difference in appearance there.
And the process of cell division is quite different.

Q. Can you tell me in what respect -- I'm
sorry, Doctor.

I didn't hear clearly whether you said that the
process of chromosome division or the process of nuclear
division is quite different.

A. Nuclear division.

Q. Could you tell me in what respect the process
of nuclear division is quite different?

A. The process does not involve a spindle, as
such, a spindle being a structure of little tubes that
sort of looks like a diamond.

Now, in the dinoflagellates, also the nuclear
membrane does not disappear, and -- well, it's quite
complicated, but the chromosomes are thought possibly to
attach to the nuclear membrane and to be pulled apart as
the nuclear membrane grows.

Q. Doctor, is it correct that the description
you just have been giving me of the dinoflagellates and
the respects in which they differ from other eucaryotic

79

cells is accepted by most workers in the field?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it correct that you accept the descrip-
tion that you have been giving me as well?

A. That is correct.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of whether there are
forms presently known to science that other workers in
your field regard as intermediate between procaryotic
and eucaryotic cells?

A. I didn't say these were intermediate.

Q. Yes, Ma'am. I haven't suggested you have.

A. You said, "Are there any other forms that are
intermediate?"

Q. I am sorry. Let me --

My question is: Are you aware of forms presently
known to science that other workers in the field regard
as intermediate between procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?

A. I would say that other workers in the field
do not regard those as intermediate.

Q. I am sorry. Either I am not making my ques-
tions clear or perhaps you are not --

A. You are suggesting these are intermediate.

Q. Doctor, I am not suggesting anything.

A. Okay.

Q. I am asking you, are there forms presently
known to science which other workers than yourself in
your field regard as intermediate between procaryotic
and eucaryotic cells?

80

Let me be explicit. I am not assuming that these
forms are so regarded.

A. Okay.

Q. Are there any forms?

A. Not that I can recall like that. I would be
interested to hear you name some.

Q. Are you aware of whether or not other workers
in the field regard -- I will withdraw that.

Is it your understanding that other workers in the
field do recognize some forms as intermediate between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells, whatever those forms
might be.

A. I can show you quote after quote from estab-
lished authorities in the field that say there is a
tremendous leap between the two. To my knowledge, they
do not have any idea as to what, amongst present-day
organisms could represent an intermediate form.

Q. Then it's your testimony that your understand-
ing is that no workers in the field recognize any
presently known organism as intermediate between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?

A. I would not say that. I would say that I do
not know of any. I would not say that no workers
recognize some. I do not know that because I haven't
read every paper in the scientific literature, but I
can't recall any just like that.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of any dinoflagellates
which do possess nuclei that divide in what might be

81

called the "typical fashion"?

A. Some dinoflagellates have two nuclei. I have
seen only one paper discussing the characteristics of
that second nucleus, but in that paper the one nucleus
that I saw referred to did not divide in a typical way.

So if you showed me a paper that said there was
one, I would go along with it, but I don't know of any.

Q. Would you regard a dinoflagellate that had
two nuclei, one of which divided atypically by the
process you described a few moments ago and one of which
divided in typical fashion, as intermediate between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?

A. No, it can't be. It doesn't fit any of the
criteria.

Q. Any of which criteria?

A. Well, dinoflagellates, the nucleus has been
said by some to be primitive and the term,
"mesocaryotic," has been applied to it,
m-e-s-o-c-a-r-y-o-t-i-c.

Now, the same workers who talk about a mesocaryotic
nucleus in the dinoflagellates also say that, in all
other characteristics, the dinoflagellates are not at all
what they would say is primitive, they are very compli-
cated. The term, "advanced in the other characteris-
tics," could be used, so that the dinoflagellate, as it
stands, cannot be said to be transitional.

The other nucleus does not resemble the typical
eucaryotic nucleus. Therefore, if someone says it's

82

transitional, they are reading that into it and in no
way does it resemble it.

Q. Would you regard it as unreasonable, that is,
scientifically unreasonable, to regard a form which was,
let's say, primitive in certain respects and advanced in
others, as a transitional form or an intermediate form
between primitive and advanced groups?

A. Not only I, but other people in the field,
would also regard it not as a reasonable transitional
form.

Q. Are you aware of any in your field who might,
in fact, regard it as a transitional form based on the
fact that it has both primitive and advanced character-
istics?

A. I'm not aware of any.

MR. WOLFE: Could you read back the next to the
last question and answer?

[Record read]

MR. WOLFE: I am sorry.

Give me the question and answer before that.

[Record further read]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Helder, would it be your view
that someone looking at the dinoflagellates, who says
that they are not intermediate or transitional forms, is
also -- I think your language was, "reading that into
it"?

A. Could you repeat that?

[Question read]

83

THE WITNESS: I'm not certain what you want to
know.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Well, I believe you stated in the
answer that was read back that dinoflagellates cannot be
said to be transitional.

A. That is right.

Q. And I think you went on to say that someone
who was looking at them and says that is simply reading
that into it.

A. Right.

Q. Now --

A. That was with reference to the second nucleus.

Q. I am asking whether you hold the opinion that
someone who looks at the evidence and has the other
view, namely, that they are not transitional, is also
reading that into the evidence.

A. I can tell you that the opinion of some
people in the field is that that second nucleus repre-
sents a golden alga which has invaded a dinoflagellate
more recently. That is the opinion of people in the
field.

For example, Dr. Taylor, in his paper, A Study in
Conflicts
, mentions that. And Dr. Dodge. Both of these
gentlemen study dinoflagellates and Dr. Dodge also
mentions that the second nucleus could be a golden alga
that had invaded it.

Now, the character of the nucleus does not support
their supposition, but I have not seen them suggest that

84

it's transitional between eucaryotic and procaryotic
because golden algae are just ordinary eucaryotic algae.

Q. Doctor, once again, I'm afraid I have asked a
poor question or you haven't responded to the question.

What I wondered is this. I take it that you regard
the view that dinoflagellates are transitional as a con-
clusion or interpretation.

A. The conclusion or interpretation that dino-
flagellates are transitional is not even supported by
the majority of algae experts, so why should I support
it?

Q. Well, my question was only this. I take it
that you regard that view.

A. I do not think them transitional?

Q. No.

Do you regard that view, if held by anyone, as an
interpretation?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you regard your own view as an interpreta-
tion?

A. Yes.

- - -

85

Q. Is it then true that the basis for your
statement earlier that dinoflagellates cannot be said to
be transitional is that your interpretation and
conclusion is they are not?

A. That is my conclusion based on people's
who are working with dinoflagellates.

Q. Doctor, would you regard a cell which had a
defined nucleus --

A. A what?

Q. Would you regard a cell which had a defined
nucleus but which did not contain mitochondria as a
eucaryotic or procaryotic cell?

A. There are such cells, and they are regarded
by the experts as eucaryotic cells which have lost
their mytochondria, so why should I quibble?

Q. So that is your own view, as well?

A. That is my own view, as well.

Q. Do you know whether any workers in the area
regard such forms as perhaps transitional between
procaryotic and eucaryotic cells?

A. I have never read that suggestion.

Q. What would be your view of that view if it
were held by someone?

A. My view would be they would have to look at
more than mitochondria.

MR. KLAPLAN: Could we have a quick five-minute
break?

MR. CHILDS: Sure. We need one about now.

86

[Short recess taken.]

MR. WOLFE: Back on the record.

Q. Doctor, again referring to Act 590, the
statute that is at issue in the case, and looking at
Section 4 once more, is it your view, as stated in
Section 4(a)-6, that the inception of the earth and
living kinds was relatively recent?

A. That is my personal view.

Q. Is that your personal view as a scientist?

A. As a scientist I don't have any evidence
from my own work on that, so that from my scientific
work I cannot make any judgment.

Q. What is the basis then for your belief that
the inception of the earth and living kinds is
relatively recent?

A. That is outside my field of expertise.

There are other people who have looked at the topic
and talk about evidence for a relatively young earth.

From my own work I can't give you any.

Q. Doctor, do you accept that the inception of
the earth and living kinds was relatively recent as a
matter of faith?

A. It is a prior assumption.

The age of the earth, it doesn't really matter.
You could pick any age, and if you had evidence for
defending that age, I would go along with it.

Q. Well, do you have a view or an opinion as
to what in fact the age of the earth is?

87

A. I have an opinion.

Q. What is that opinion.

A. My opinion is that anywhere between 100,000
and 10,000 years would be a reasonable assumption.

Q. And why is it that you would be willing to
accept some other suggested age, as I believe you
stated you would in your last answer?

A. Whether there is a supernatural agent who
has created the universe is one issue. How long ago it
was is another.

My opinion is that long ages are not needed if
creation occurred, so therefore, seeing as they are not
a necessary condition of creation by a supernatural
being, I do not need to believe in long ages; whereas
Evolutionists do.

But I am agnostic. I don't know.

Q. Do you believe that a Creation Scientist
has need to disbelieve the age of the earth?

A. No.

Q. I believe you stated earlier that -- I will
withdraw that.

I will ask the reporter to mark as Helder
deposition Exhibit 3 the pages containing drawings of
certain algae.

[Two pages of drawings of algae
were marked Plaintiffs' Exhibits
3A and 3B for identification.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Doctor, I will ask you to look at

88

The originals here.

A. Okay.

Q. Could you tell me with reference to Exhibits
3A and 3B how many kinds of algae you would regard as
represented here, that is, the kinds which were
especially created by God?

A. I must plead ignorance. I do not recognize
all of these algae.

The top one is a diatom, d-i-a-t-o-m.

Q. Doctor, I don't like to interrupt, but in
referring to the exhibit, each of the examples has a
number and a letter assigned to it. Perhaps you could
refer to them that way so it will be clear on the
record what you are referring to.

A. No. 468 is a diatom.

269, these are green algae from the group
chloroccales, c-h-l-o-r-o-c-c-a-l-e-s.

The next is 330, which is a green algae, a desmid,
probably two desmid species. I am not sure.

326 is also a desmid. That is micrasterias,
m-i-c-r-a-s-t-e-r-i-a-s.

The next one is also a desmid, causmerium. That
is 323.

The next one is a desmid, No. 328.

I don't know if they are all the same genus.
Certainly some of them are staurastrum, s-t-a-u-r-a-s-t-
r-u-m.

Exhibit 270 on page 3B -- or Exhibit 3B -- is also

89

a member of the chloroccales.

No, 329 is another desmid. I'm not sure of the
genus name.

357 is also a member of the chloroccales. I'm not
sure of the genus name.

272 is a member of the chloroccales, and it's
scenedesmus, s-c-e-n-e-d-e-s-m-u-s.

No. 258 is, I suspect, also a member of the
chloraccales. There are two parts to No. 258.

Now, you asked me a question earlier about the
green algae. Most of these are green algae with the
exception of the top one, which is a diatom, which is
not a green algae.

Q. That is No. 468.

A. Yes.

I declined to define kinds with reference to the
green algae previously. I don't see why I should
change now.

Q. I see.

Doctor, is it your opinion that algae were
created?

A. It is my opinion.

- - -

90

Q. And is it your view they were created within
one or more kinds originally and that there has never
been evolution of algae from one or more of the created
kinds into any other since that time?

A. There has never been any change in complexity.

Q. Is it correct, then, that, while you believe
that algae were created within specially-created kinds,
you have no view as to what kinds or how many they were
created in?

A. I do not speculate.

Q. Well, have you made any scientific study
about what kinds of green algae were created or how many?

A. I have not made a scientific study of that
topic.

Q. Do you believe that it's possible to study
scientifically which kinds green algae were created in?

A. I believe it is possible to look for degree
of variation within organisms.

Q. Doctor, do you believe it's possible to study
scientifically what kinds green algae were created in?

A. One must look for patterns of similarity.

Q. Are you able to answer yes or no as to whether
you believe it's possible to study scientifically what
kinds green algae were created within?

A. It's possible to look to see if organisms are
similar or not.

Q. That is, it's possible to look and study
whether or not green algae were created within one or

91

more special kinds?

A. It is possible to make assumptions based on
data that one gets now; but as one was not around, one
cannot make definite conclusions.

One can, on the basis of degrees of similarity,
make hypotheses, but one cannot know for sure whether
they are correct or not.

Q. Then are you saying it's impossible to deter-
mine what kinds green algae were created within?

A. I would say that.

Q. Do you regard it as necessary to accept on
faith that they were created within kinds?

A. That has nothing to do with scientific
evidence.

Q. I see.

That is, you are saying that the question of kinds
and whether or not green algae were created within them
or within one or more is not subject to scientific
study?

A. One cannot establish it scientifically. One
can make hypotheses, but you cannot know whether your
hypotheses are right or not.

Q. Have you made any hypotheses about the kinds
in which green algae were created?

A. No.

Q. Have you made any study at all in your study
of the systematics of algae about the kinds in which
they were created.

92

A. No.

Q. Have you made any study about whether or not
the algae may have evolved from the kinds, one or more,
however many, whichever ones they were assumed to be
created in, into some other kind other than those in
which they were originally created?

A. All I can do is what other people do: Look
at the characteristics of the green algae and I see a
lot of variation.

No.

As we discussed earlier this morning, there are
different theories as to how the green algae could have
descended from common ancestors, but there is no agree-
ment on those patterns of relationship between special-
ists.

So if there isn't agreement by the specialists as
to what the patterns of relationship are, then there
can't be obvious evidence.

Q. I see.

Then is it correct that you regard it as impossible
to determine within what kinds green algae were created?

A. I am not saying that. I am saying that, on
the basis of the evidence we have now, we cannot see
obvious patterns.

Q. What evidence would you seek in order to
determine what kinds green algae were created within?

A. I would say on the basis of the evidence we
have now, the evidence --

93

Q. No.

I asked what evidence you would seek. You have
already said it's impossible to put them within kinds
based on the evidence we have right now.

A. Right.

Q. What evidence would you seek in order to make
that determination?

A. Well, the evidence at present is so contra-
dictory that it would be difficult to imagine what
criterion one could look for that would override the
previous evidence, because you need several characteris-
tics the same in a pattern, you need conservative char-
acteristics.

Now, they have already looked at those.

Q. Are you saying, then, that the present evidence
makes it impossible to determine what kinds were
specially created and that you cannot imagine any
discoverable evidence which would make it possible?

A. I cannot imagine any discoverable evidence
that would show the green algae to be descended from a
common ancestor.

Q. Doctor, that wasn't my question.

My question is: What evidence would you look for in
order to determine scientifically what kinds green algae
were specially created in?

A. Well, the evidence they are looking at now.

Q. But did you not just tell me that it was
impossible to make the determination of kinds from the

94

presently-known evidence?

A. Right.

Q. Are you then saying that it's impossible to
make the determination at all?

A. On the basis of known characteristics of the
green algae, it would appear that way.

Q. Can you imagine any evidence discoverable in
the future by scientific means which would render it
possible scientifically to place green algae in the
kinds within which they were specially created?

A. I can't imagine any. It's possible somebody
could suggest some to me, but I can't imagine it.

Q. But is it your view it's not possible to
determine scientifically what kinds green algae were
created in?

A. I would suspect it.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. I would suspect that to be the case. I would
not state categorically.

Q. Then what is the source of your belief that
green algae were in fact created within kinds if it's
impossible to determine what kinds or in fact if they
were within kinds?

A. Well, I look at the evidence and there is no
evidence they were created within kinds, so therefore
I don't see any need to make a conclusion that they
were descended from a common ancestor. There is no
evidence to suggest that they were.

95

Q. Doctor, I'm afraid I don't altogether under-
stand your last answer.

Would you read back the last answer, please, Mr.
Reporter?

[Question read]

THE WITNESS: I am sorry. That first part was a
slip of the tongue.

There is no evidence they were descended from a
common ancestor.

The first part he read was a slip of the tongue.

MR. WOLFE: Are you aware of other workers in your
field who believe there is some evidence they were
descended from a common ancestor?

A. There are, of course, Pickett, Heaps and
Stewart. These workers I referred to earlier, who indeed
do believe that the green algae are descended from a
common ancestor, so I am aware.

Q. Would it be fair to say that the general
belief of people working in your area is, they were
descended from a common ancestor?

A. There is that general belief.

Q. And I understand you to have said earlier
it's your belief they were not descended from a common
ancestor, but rather were created within special kinds.

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me the basis for your belief?

A. My basis is that they are not following the
conclusions that come from their evidence. They are

96

making conclusions in spite of their evidence.

Q. I also understood you to have said in the
last short while we have been talking that you do not
know of any presently-known evidence which could show
the kinds within which algae were specially created.

A. Right.

Q. Nor could you imagine any future discoverable
evidence.

A. Kinds within which --

Q. Within which algae were created.

A. I thought we were talking about green algae.

Q. You are right.

Nor would you know or imagine any future discover-
able evidence which could show the kinds within which
they had been created.

Therefore, I am asking: On what evidence do you
base your view they were created within special kinds?
Have you any scientific evidence as a basis for that
belief?

A. There is no scientific evidence to the
contrary.

- - -

97

Q. That is your view, but didn't you say just
a moment ago there are other workers in your field who
believe there is scientific evidence to the contrary?

A. I said they have that belief in spite of
the evidence, not derived from it.

Q. Did the persons you mentioned, Pickett,
Heaps and the others, hold that belief, the belief they
hold, despite the scientific evidence?

A. No.

Q. Then it's your view that while they believe
there is scientific evidence for it, you do not believe
it, and you believe they hold their belief in descent
from a common ancestor despite the evidence?

A. That is a perfectly valid position in
science.

Q. Are you able to tell me on what scientific
evidence you base your belief?

A. The lack of evidence for a common ancestor.
They can't defend their belief in a common ancestor.

Q. If you won't mind answering my question, I
understood you to have testified there are scientists
who believe in descent from a common ancestor and they
have a basis satisfactory to themselves in scientific
evidence for that belief; and I also understand you to
have said that you have a belief that algae, green
algae, were created within special kinds but that you
do not know of any scientific evidence which is the
basis for your belief.

98

Is that right?

A. Well, there are within the green algae or
have been up to the last few years an idea on what the
relationships in the green algae have been.

Now, based on studies of the nucleus, some workers
are questioning those relationships which are typically
assumed to be correct.

Now, Picket-Heaps made one suggestion based on
one aspect of nuclear division. Stewart and his
workers made an alternative suggestion based on the
same evidence.

Now, Stewart and his workers have since decided
that Pickett-Heaps' arguments were more valid, but they
have been looking at the same evidence and drew
different conclusions, so there is no evidence.

Q. Doctor, I understand that there is some
evidence more or less for the belief that it descends
from a common ancestor which is accepted more or less
by the persons who have that belief but it's not
accepted as scientific evidence by you; but I am asking
again and again if you could tell me what scientific
evidence there is as a basis for your belief in kinds?

Is there any evidence, aside from the fact that
you don't accept the evidence for the other belief; is
there any evidence which supports the belief that you
do hold?

A. As there is no evidence for the alternative,
as authorities in the green algae differ as to what

99

the pattern of descent is, I can say there is no
evidence for descent from a common ancestor.

Therefore, it is as valid for me to reject the idea
of a common ancestor as it is to accept it.

Q. What is the basis for your belief in
creation in special kinds?

A. Negative evidence.

Q. That is, you are not compelled by the
scientific evidence to believe in descent from a common
ancestor?

A. That is correct.

Q. So you are free to believe in creation
within special kinds for some other reason.

Can you tell me what the other reason is?

A. Well, it's a valid alternative hypothesis.

Q. But we have already agreed there is no
scientific evidence for supporting it. You have told
me that there is no scientific evidence supporting
the evolutionary alternative.

A. Right.

Q. And you have told me there is no scientific
evidence, or you have been unable to point to any that
support the special creation alternative.

A. Right.

Q. What is the source of your belief in the
special creation alternative if it's not from science?

A. I am as free to pick one alternative as
another.

100

Q. Yes. I am simply asking if you can tell
me what the basis for your choice is.

We seem to have established that it doesn't have
to do with scientific evidence, and I wonder then what
it does have to do with.

A. Well, we already defined at the beginning
that topics about origins are metaphysical. That is,
they are not open to test. And there are two possible
presuppositions.

One is that a supernatural agency could have been
involved, and another is that everything has to be
explained on mechanistic grounds.

Now, it is my contention that the characteristics
found in the algae are such that no possible pattern can
be detected. Therefore, there could have been no
common ancestor.

Q. I understand you have told me several
times that you see no convincing scientific evidence
for descent of green algae from a common ancestor, and
I understand that you believe algae were created within
one or more special kinds, although you cannot identify
the kinds.

Is it correct to assume then or -- is it correct
that you believe that green algae were created within
the special kinds on some basis other than naturalistic
phenomena?

A. I just told you that the pattern of
characteristics is such that it is not possible to trace

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Margaret Helder - Page 3

101

a common ancestor because you can't have a similarity
to one algae over here and a similarity to a drastically
different algae over there and trace a nice path of
descent.

Therefore, that negates the idea of a common
ancestor.

Q. I understand that you do not believe the --

A. I am saying the present evidence negates the
idea of a common ancestor.

Q. Is the present evidence for Creation Science
only metaphysical evidence or extranaturalistic evidence?

A. I just told you: It is natural; it is in
the algae themselves.

Q. No. You have told me that the present
evidence, based on naturalistic phenomena, does not
convince you they could have been descended from a common
ancestor; but you told me earlier you did not know of
any naturalistic evidence or scientific evidence that
is not counter to that theory but rather supportive of
your own.

If there is no scientific evidence, is there some
nonscientific evidence or metaphysical evidence that
supports this belief of yours in special kinds?

A. I told you that the patterns of
characteristics within the algae make it impossible to
hypothesize a common ancestor.

Q. Doctor, I understand you do not believe
the doctrine of descent of green algae from a common

102

ancestor. I understand you will not accept that
alternative as being based on scientific evidence. We
are trying to talk about what you do believe.

You have told me you do believe they were created
within special kinds.

A. Right.

Q. But you haven't been able to tell me, no
matter how many times I have asked, what scientific
evidence there is for that.

If there isn't a scientific basis for the belief,
what is the basis?

A. I just told you that within the scientific
evidence, as you look at the algae, the characteristics
are such that is it not possible to hypothesize a
common ancestor from a logical point of view. Therefore,
it is based on science.

Q. Is it true then that you are convinced by
virtue of the fact that you don't see any scientific
evidence for alternative A, descent from a common
ancestor, that you regard yourself as free to choose
any other alternative?

A. Yes.

Q. Why have you chosen to choose alternative B,
if I may, that is, the portion of it that supports
creation within special kinds?

A. Well, there are two logical alternatives.
One is descent from a common ancestor and the other is
separate creation. Those are the two logical

103

alternatives. If you don't accept one, you accept the
other.

Q. I see.

So all of your scientific bases for creation
within special kinds is simply negative inference from
the arguments of Evolution Science?

A. I would say basically.

Q. Doctor, do you believe in the six-day
creation week?

A. Yes.

- - -

104

Q. Do you believe that fungi were created during
that week?

A. On a personal basis, I do.

Q. Do you believe as a scientific matter that
fungi were created during the six-day creation week?

A. I don't have any scientific evidence to the
contrary.

Q. Do you have any scientific evidence that
supports it other than the absence of evidence to the
contrary?

A. I have not studied the systematics of fungi
very closely. I know what the basic outline is, but I
do not have evidence to negate my personal belief.

Q. Doctor, do you believe that the fall of Adam
and Eve from grace or from perfection and their departure
from the Garden of Eden is literal truth?

A. On a personal level.

Q. Do you believe that death or decay existed
prior to the time of the fall?

A. On a personal level, I would suspect not.

Q. Do you know of any scientific evidence on the
question?

A. I do not know of any.

Q. Is it true that fungi require death or decay
of some fashion in order to exist?

A. Fungi grow on organic matter. You can grow
fungi in a Petri dish with glucose and amino acids which
you have synthesized artificially, if you like.

105

Q. Excepting vitro or laboratory conditions, is
it true that fungi require death and decay or the
products thereof for life nature?

A. Fungi grow on living organisms. They do not
require death and decay.

Q. Are there any fungi which live only on prod-
ucts of death or decay?

A. To my knowledge, fungi that grown on dead
organisms can usually, to my knowledge, be grown in
vitro. So to my knowledge, I don't know of any.

Q. My notes say that you testified earlier that
you studied fungi which either parasitized live algae or
lived on dead algal material, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

But you are asking, do they need to grow on dead
algal material?

Q. Yes.

I take it your view is that it's not the case.

A. No, they don't need to grow on dead algal
material.

Q. Would you say that is the generally accepted
view of people working in your field?

A. The generally accepted view of people in the
field is that saprophytes can grow in vitro. Not all of
them are grown in vitro, but technically they should be
able to do it.

Q. Doctor, if you don't mind my interrupting, I
suggested earlier we might except in vitro conditions

106

and try to talk about conditions existing in nature.

Is it your view that saprophytes are able to live
on live hosts in nature?

A. No. Saprophytes don't live on live hosts.
They live on organic material. But whether that material
has to come from a previously living organism or not,
that is your question, and I am saying no.

Q. What do you imagine might have been the
source or organic material on which saprophytes created
during the six-day creation week might have lived if
they did not parasitize live hosts or if there had not
been death or decay prior to the fall?

A. That is a very speculative question. There
is no scientific evidence for that.

If I were speculating, I would say that there were
organic materials present.

Q. What organic materials were there that were
not created?

A. I'm not saying they weren't created. I'm
saying they didn't necessarily have to be the products
of living organisms.

Q. I see.

Are you aware of any organic material created during
the six-day creation week which was not living at the
time and alive until at least the fall?

A. That is all speculation. I mean, you can
speculate anything.

What does it matter if there were sugars around or

107

not?

Q. Well, then is it your view there may very
well have been things created during creation week that
aren't mentioned in the Bible?

A. Obviously.

Q. Then you wouldn't regard such an omission in
the Bible as an error?

A. What Genesis has in it has no relevance to a
discussion of scientific evidence.

Now, on a personal level, from an opinion, of
course, Genesis does not list all of the kinds or organ-
isms or all of the things that were made. It's a very
sketchy list.

Q. Doctor, is it your view that parasites were
specially created during the six-day creation week?

A. I do not know.

Q. Do you have any opinion at all?

A. I do not even have an opinion on that.

Q. How would you account for the presence of
parasites today if they were not created during the six-
day creation week?

A. They are here. They were --

Q. Is it your belief they were evolved from other
forms or that they evolved to parasitic behavior from
some other type of behavior?

A. They were here. Therefore, if they have not
evolved, they must have been created. That is the
extent of my opinion on the matter.

108

Q. Then are you aware of any scientific facts
on which you can base a determination of whether or not
they were evolved or created?

A. As I said, I haven't studied the fungi that
closely so that the fungi aren't my area of expertise
when it comes to systematics.

Q. Doctor, have you an opinion on whether or not
the green algae can live without sunlight?

A. Green algae that are around today, some of
them can live in the dark with organic compounds
present.

Q. Are there any green algae which cannot live
without sunlight?

A. Most green algae cannot live without sunlight,
without light.

Q. Doctor, have you any view on how the green
algae which cannot live without light did in fact live
during the creation week prior to the creation of the
sun?

A. I have no opinion on the matter.

Q. Is it your opinion that they did, in fact,
live prior to the creation of the sun during creation
week, during the time when organisms were created until
the sun was created?

A. It is my personal opinion that they did live.

Q. I see.

Do you have a scientific opinion on that question?

A. No.

109

Q. Do you believe that a scientific opinion on
that question is possible?

A. As we can't go back there, that comes in the
area of metaphysics.

Q. Doctor, if I may return for a moment to some
testimony that you gave earlier about the definition of
science, I believe you spoke of two groups within
science, one group which assumed that there was no
phenomenon explainable by naturalistic processes --

A. Right.

Q. -- and that there was a second group which
assumed there are phenomena which are not explainable
by naturalistic processes, is that correct?

A. I said, "which I assumed that there could be
phenomena which are not explainable by naturalistic
processes."

Q. And it's your view that the second group, the
group recognizing that there may be phenomena not
explainable by naturalistic processes, is nonetheless
science?

A. Well, if you go back and look at somebody
like Newton, he had some theories on evolution of bodies
in astronomy. Now, Newton is highly thought of in
astronomy even today; but Newton was also a believer in
a supernatural creator.

According to today's definition of "scientist,"
such as is in Nature, that editorial I mentioned earlier,
anybody who believes in a supernatural agency in nature

110

would not be a scientist, but Newton is revered as a
scientist.

Q. Let's except historical instances and discuss
current practicing scientists.

Would you regard scientists practicing today who
assume there are possible phenomena which are unexplaina-
ble by naturalistic means as scientists nonetheless?

A. People who believe that supernatural processes
can explain what we see today, would I regard them as
scientists, is that the questions?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Are you able to enumerate any phenomena which
cannot be explained, in your view, by naturalistic
processes?

A. Well, of course, the topics we have been
talking about, in my view, cannot be explained by
naturalistic processes.

Q. Doctor, I don't mean to interrupt, but could
you tell me which processes or what you mean by
"processes," as we have been talking about them.

A. Well, the characteristics of the green algae
as we see them today is one example; the characteristics
of algae as we see them today is another example. Out-
side of my field of expertise, just as a matter of
opinion, I would say that things like where matter came
from can't be explained by naturalistic processes.

MR. WOLFE: All right. I make the time to be 3:00

111

o'clock and I understood we were to cease at 3:00
o'clock.

MR. CHILDS: Yes. We will note your objection to
concluding at this time and all that.

One thing I would like to put on the record,
though, is this: I just want to say that the counsel
for the defendants will cooperate in every way possible
to make sure that the witnesses are promptly given an
opportunity to read their testimony and make any correc-
tions or changes they think are necessary, and that we
will go so far as to provide Air Express service of the
original copies or exchange correction sheets or what-
ever to make sure that is done.

And I want an agreement on the record as to the
mechanics of how this is going to be accomplished,
because I get the impression I'm a lot more concerned
about it than you are, and I don't know if that is
because you all haven't given it any thought or what.

The alternative seems to be that the court reporter
can keep the originals and copies can be sent to the
witnesses and they can send change sheets back and the
originals can be sent to the witnesses, and the change
sheets executed at that point and notarized where they
are.

But we will do whatever you all want to do to
assure that is done.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

112

MR. KAPLAN: On the record.

Pursuant to an off-the-record discussion, the
parties have agreed on the following mechanism for the
exchange rapidly of the depositions:

With regard to the original, the deponent will be
sent the original by the court reporter by Federal
Express or some other convenient air courier. Enclosed
will be a return air courier envelope, and the deponent,
after having made the corrections on the original, and
after having signed it and secured a notarization, will
thereafter mail the original, if it is the Attorney
General's witness, to the Attorney General; the Attorney
General will make whatever corrections are necessary on
their copy and immediately, the same day, will forward
the original to Mr. Cearley, who will make the correc-
tions and the same day will forward those depositions to
the Attorney General's Office in Little Rock.

Is that a fair and correct understanding of the way
we will do it?

MR. CHILDS: That is fair.

I would also like that the witness initial any
changes that are made by line through the deposition.

MR. KAPLAN: That is fine, and each of us will
instruct our own witnesses as to the procedure to follow.

MR. CHILDS: The fact that that is not done would
not be a reason to keep it from being used, but that will
be what we will request our witnesses to do.

MR. KAPLAN: We will do it, also.

113

MR. WOLFE: Thank you.

_________________________________
DR. MARGARET HELDER

114

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named

DR. MARGARET HELDER

was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by

CAROLINE ANDERSON and DEAN MC DONALD,

certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the pertinent provisions of the applicable code or
rules of civil procedure relating to the original
transcript of deposition for reading, correcting and
signing have been complied with.

And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome
of the cause in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ____ day of
November 1981

_________________________________

Deposition of Donald E. Chittick

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,)
)
Plaintiffs,)
)
vs. ) NO. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants.)
_____________________________)

DEPOSITION OF
DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK

Wednesday, November 18, 1981

Reported by: LINDA L. CHAVEZ, CSR
Cert. #2108; and
THOMAS A. LIBATIQUE, CSR
Cert. #1550

2

I N D E X

PAGE
DEPOSITION OF DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK:

Examination by Mr. Lahiff 5; 53

AFTERNOON SESSION 53

- - -

E X H I B I T S

PLAINTIFFS':

No. 1 Copy, two-page document,

Pyrenco, Inc. 20

No. 2 Copy, single-page document,

"Application Form for the

Creation Research Society" 54

No. 3 Copy, twenty-page document,

"Repossess the Lane,"

August 12-15, 1979 70

No. 4 Photocopy of document entitled

"Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert

Gas Content and Uncertainties

in Age Dating" 96

No. 5 Photocopy of document entitled

"Argon-40: Excess in Submarine

Pillow Basalts from Kilauea

Volcano, Hawaii" 107

- - -

3

BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice, and on
Wednesday, the 18th day of November, 1981, commencing at
the hour of 9:00 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the law offices
of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market Plaza, San Fran-
cisco, before me, LINDA L. CHAVEZ, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Cali-
fornia, personally appeared

DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK,

called as a witness by the plaintiffs, who, being by me
first duly sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.

- - -

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third Avenue,
New York, New York 10022, represented by THOMAS M. LAHIFF,
JR., and STEPHEN G. WOLFE, Attorneys at Law, appeared as
counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs.

STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, represented
by CALLIS L. CHILDS, Deputy Attorney General, appeared as
counsel on behalf of the defendants.

- - -

MR. CHILDS: On the record, we agreed last night that
the original deposition will be sent to Dr. Chittick and he
will make any changes he wants to on the face of the
original deposition and forward the original deposition to
our office in Little Rock, Arkansas, and you all are au-
thorized to charge that to our federal expense account and
to send a forwarding label for his use.

4

MR. LAHIFF: I would appreciate that if that could
be signed within five days --

MR. CHILDS: This will be done immediately and when
we get it in Little Rock, we will make note if any
changes have been made and take it over to Bob Cearley's
office.

MR. LAHIFF: Now, as I understand it, we are not
providing copies to you and we have offered in the past
to waive signature and sealing and all objections, except
as to form, are being reserved?

MR. CHILDS: That's true.

I didn't understand what you said about the copies.

MR. LAHIFF: As I understand it, we are not providing
you with copies.

MR. CHILDS: That was the original understanding
that the party that was initiating the deposition would
provide copies, but that apparently has gone by the boards.

MR. LAHIFF: It has.

MR. CHILDS: We are responsible for paying for our
copies and you are responsible for paying for yours.

MR. LAHIFF: That's fine.

- - -

5

DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK,

being duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. LAHIFF:

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Dr. Chittick, have you brought any
documents with you here today?

A. Yes

Q. Could I see them, please?

Could I see the documents?

Are these all the documents that you brought with
you today?

That, and these [indicating].

Q. I would like the record to indicate that Dr.
Chittick has provided us with a spiral-bound notebook --

A. Ringed.

Q. -- ringed notebook containing pages of slides.

Could you describe what these slides are of?

A. I teach a course on creation and find that it
helps to illustrate it visually and these are some of the
slides that I use for that course.

These are the ones I thought you would be interested
in.

Q. Is there any particular theme to the slides or
do they go across a wide spectrum?

A. Wide spectrum.

MR. LAHIFF: I would like to take a short recess.

[Recess taken]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Dr. Chittick, I would like to fill
out your curriculum vitae a little bit.

6

Could you please describe your educational background
starting with high school, please.

A. High school, Salem, Oregon; undergraduate,
Willamette University, Salem, Oregon, B.S. in chemistry;
Ph.D., Oregon State University, physical chemistry.

Q. When did you get your B.S.?

A. 1954.

Q. And when did you get your Ph.D. in physical
chemistry?

A. 1960

Q. Have you had any continuing education since
you received your Ph.D. in physical chemistry?

A. I attended a summer institute at the University
of Southern California on colloid science.

Q. Could you please describe what colloid science
is?

A. It is the science of surfaces, coatings,
paints, lubricants, et cetera.

Q. Have you obtained any other degrees?

A. No other degrees.

Q. What areas did you study when you received
your B.S. in chemistry?

A. Emphasis was in chemistry and that included
the requirements for the B.S. degree in the catalog
at that time and I don't recall all of those.

Q. Was there any particular emphasis on organic
chemistry?

A. No, we took general chemistry, organic

7

chemistry, analytical chemistry and physical chemistry
and special topics.

Q. Could you describe your course of studies to
obtain the Ph.D. in physical chemistry?

A. The course of studies included a major, a minor
and a second minor.

The major was in physical chemistry and a first
minor in physics and a second minor in mathematics.

Q. Could you please describe what physical chemis-
try is?

A. Physical chemistry is sometimes referred to
as theoretical chemistry.

It is the theory behind why the other chemistry
branches work.

Q. What do you mean by the theory behind that
explains how the other branches of chemistry work?

A. In organic chemistry, they will have an organic
physical reaction.

Physical chemistry would be an attempt to under-
stand why the reaction took place, the mechanism of the
reaction, the rate of the reaction, the kinetics, and
steps involved.

That would be it.

Q. In addition to the course in colloids, have
you had any other continuing education?

A. Well, as a teacher of science at the university
level for over twenty years, one tries to stay abreast
of the literature by attending professional meetings

8

and reading the literature and in that sense my educa-
tion has continued.

Q. Have you received any academic honors during
the course of your education?

A. Yes.

Pardon me, the last?

Q. During the course of your education.

A. Yes, in high school I got the Bausch & Lomb
Science Award.

In Oregon State I was elected to Phi Lambda Upsilon
Honorary and associate member of Sigma Xi.

Q. What is Sigma Xi?

A. Sigma Xi is the National Science Research
Honorary Association.

Q. And what has been your employment experience
since you graduated with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry
in 1960?

A. In 1958, before I had my Ph.D., while I was
writing my thesis, I received employment at the University
of Puget Sound in Tacoma in the chemistry department
and remained there until 1968 where I transferred to
George Fox College in Newberg, Oregon and remained there
until my present employment in 1979.

Q. And what is your present employment?

A. It is as a research and development person
with Pyrenco.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Could you please describe for me

9

exactly what Pyrenco is?

A. Pyrenco is the business of converting biomass
waste materials into usable fuel.

Q And what position do you hold with Pyrenco?

A. Research and development.

Q. Who else is associated with Pyrenco?

A. A number of other employees.

Q. Would you be considered the president of Pyren-
co?

A. No.

No, the president of Pyrenco is Fred Beirle.

Q. And who else are officers in Pyrenco?

A. Bob Poole, Al Garwood, Jim Harvey.

There may be one or two others.

I don't remember.

Q. Who else is associated with the firm in a re-
search and development capacity?

A. I am the director of research and development
and have two assistants.

Q. And who are you assistants?

A. Steve Allemann and Jack Smith.

Q. What courses did you teach at George Fox?

A. My primary responsibility was chemistry
courses and also taught a course in creation.

Q. Exactly what chemistry courses did you teach?

A. General chemistry, quantitative analysis,
advanced and literal chemistry --

[Mr. Klasfeld enters the deposition room]

10

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

[Discussion off the record]

[Mr. Klasfeld leaves the deposition room]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. I am sorry, before we were inter-
rupted, you were describing the courses at George Fox.

A. I listed general chemistry, advanced analytical
chemistry in organics and physical chemistry and selected
topics.

Q. What exactly is selected topics?

A. Selected topics is a course that is designed
for one term to meet a special instance need of a particu-
lar group of students going through at the time.

For example, it might be on the environment or on
forensic chemistry.

Q. Could you please describe your course in crea-
tion science?

A. Creation science, as taught at the college,
was a course that was taught on an every-other-year basis,
usually -- well, always in -- well, in the evening for
upper level students who had to have at least one year
in science, one of the natural sciences.

- - -

11

Q. And, what topics did you cover?

A. As listed on the syllabus that I brought for
the document.

Q. I think we will wait until we get those docu-
ments back, then we will go over the syllabus.

Do you have any other activities in addition to your
activities as director of research and development for
Pyrenco; do you act as a consultant for any other organiza-
tion?

A. No.

You mean consultant on a paid basis?

Q. On a paid basis?

A. No.

Q. Do you act as a consultant on an unpaid basis
to any organization?

A. When people telephone me and ask me questions,
I try to answer them.

Q. Do you have any kind of a permanent relation-
ship with any particular organization, whether on a
paid or unpaid basis?

A. Not on an active basis.

Q. What do you mean by not on an active basis,
do you have that relationship on an inactive basis?

A. Some people have listed my name on this
literature without my permission as a consultant.

Q. Which people have listed your name as a con-
sultant?

A. Norman Fox.

12

Q. And, who is Norman Fox?

A. He is a person who is developing a motion
picture on the creation-evolution discussion.

Q. And, what is the name of his organization?

A. I would have to go look.

I'm not sure.

I think Maranatha Productions, but I'm not certain
of that, Eugene, Oregon.

Q. And, he has listed your name without your per-
mission?

A. That's correct.

Q. What other organizations have listed your
name as a consultant?

A. Creation Science Research Center.

Q. Could you please identify that organization?

A. They are in San Diego.

Q. And, was that listing of your name as a con-
sultant without your authorization?

A. I wrote to them and asked to have my name
removed from their literature.

Q. Did you bring a copy of that letter with you?

A. No.

Q. Did you send any letters to Norman Fox asking
that your name be removed from his literature?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any relationship at all with
Creation Science Research Institute or Center, are
you a member?

13

A. No.

Q. Have you ever done any consulting work for them?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Did you engage in any research during your
period of employment at George Fox?

A. Yes, I was working with conversion of biomass
to fuel.

Q. Did you receive any grants for that work?

A. No grants.

Q. And, how was the research funded?

A. It was funded by my own funding.

Q. Was the research associated with the university
in any way?

A. No.

MR. LAHIFF: Excuse me, could I take a brief recess.

[Recess taken]

[Record read]

THE WITNESS: By association I mean they didn't fund
it.

MR. LAHIFF: Q. I am sorry, who didn't fund it?

A. The university.

I did it on their premises.

Q. Have you received any grants to do research?

A. I received a National Science Foundation
summer grant while I was at the University of Puget
Sound to do research with high school students in photo-
chemistry.

Q. Exactly what did that involve?

14

A. It involved teaching them what basic research
is all about, and actually doing a research project in-
volved with photochemistry.

Q. What precisely was the grant for?

A. For exposing high school students to an actual,
real live research situation.

Q. Have you received any other grants?

A. No, not that I recall.

Q. What was your thesis on?

A. Kinetics of bleaching and colored KCL.

Q. What is colored KCL?

A. KCL is a potassium chloride, and we grew single
crystals, and caused a stoichiometric excess of potassium
to be present so the electron would go into the traps
in the crystal, and cause it to be colored, and then I
measured the rate of bleaching from that.

Q. Is there any practical application for that?

A. The practical application was that at that
time, and still today, solid-state electronic theory is
useful, so the normal materials are nontransparent,
whereas potassium chloride is transparent so one can look
inside and see what is going on to serve as a model for
the nontransparents.

Q. Was your thesis ever published?

A. A copy of it is in the library, if that
constitutes publication.

Q. But, it wasn't published in any scientific
journal?

15

A. That's correct.

Q. Have you ever made an application for a grant
that wasn't funded?

A. No.

Q. What do you believe to be your field of ex-
pertise?

A. My training is in physical chemistry.

Q. Have you ever published any articles dealing
with physical chemistry?

A. Yes, in connection with other authors, I
published an article in the Journal of Electrochemistry,
and I don't recall the reference right now, on oscillating
electrodes using titanium and zirconium.

Q. Is that your only publication, or do you have
others; these are publications dealing with your field
of expertise?

A. Other than patents, no.

Q. And, what are your patents?

A. In alternate fuels.

Q. Could you describe?

A. The conversion of biomass to usable fuel by
pyrolysis on which I have a patent with some claims
granted on the first device, and we have a second device
with patenting well along on it.

Q. And, what is pyrolysis?

A. Pyrolysis is a chemical reaction carried out
with the aid of heat.

Q. Could you elaborate on that a little bit for

16

me, please?

A. I am not sure of the semantic background of
the material, but some chemical reaction can be carried
out with electricity, so we call it electrolysis.

Some chemical reactions can be carried out with
the aid of heat, so we call it pyrolysis, because py
comes from heat, it means heat.

Q. Exactly what do you do as director of research
and development for Pyrenco?

A. My primary responsibility is to suggest solu-
tions to engineering problems, and to investigate further
areas of development that the company might wish to work
with related to alternate fuels.

Q. Are these research programs technical applica-
tions?

A. They are, let's see, how would we define those --

Q. Well, what do you understand by research?

A. I understand research has two thrusts:

One is applied to solve practical problems, try to
do something, say corrosion comes in, for example, so how
do you do it so you will get your process to go and avoid
the corrosion problems.

That would be a practical.

The other is fundamental research where you try to
look for new ways of doing something, you want to go from
Point A to Point B, how do you get from Point A to Point
B more efficiently, more economically with a higher yield.

Those are fundamental research, and I am involved

17

in both.

Q. Do you have any other areas of expertise in ad-
dition to physical chemistry, do you claim any expertise
in geology, paleontology, any other discipline?

A. I have studied as a physical chemist, I have
studied areas that physical chemistry relates to.

Q. And what areas does physical chemistry relate
to?

A. Chemicals reactions that would occur in, for
example, formation of fossils.

Q. Do you have any background or training in
geology?

A. I have no formal course work in geology.

Q. Do you have any background or training in
paleontology?

A. I have no formal course work in paleontology.

Q. Have you published any articles dealing with
your work at Pyrenco?

A. I have mentioned articles like the newspaper
article that you have as a document, that that research
was an offshoot of the creation model.

Q. Have you published any articles dealing with
your research at Pyrenco in publications objected to
pure review?

A. Other than patents, no.

Q. Could you explain to me why you left the
University of Puget Sound?

A. The George Fox College was wanting to institute

18

a chemistry major, and invited me down as a visiting
professor to set up a program for their evaluation, and
having done that, and having also been from Oregon, I
decided to stay.

Q. Does George Fox have any religious affiliation?

A. George Fox was Quaker, founded by the Quakers.

Q. Does it continue to have a religious affilia-
tion?

A. Yes.

Q. And does it continue to be affiliated with the
Quakers?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever been denied tenure?

A. No.

Q. What kinds of publications, or have you published
newspaper articles dealing with physical chemistry since
you graduated in 1960?

A. No.

Q. Did the colleges where you taught, the Univer-
sity of Puget Sound, and George Fox grant graduate degrees?

A. The University of Puget Sound granted a Master's
degree.

Q. Master's degree in what?

A. Several area, one of which was chemistry.

Q. And other areas?

A. Yes.

I don't recall what they were right now.

Q. Does George Fox grant graduate degrees?

19

A. No, George Fox is an undergraduate institution.

Q. Did you teach graduate level courses at the
University of Puget Sound?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What grade level courses did you teach?

A. I don't recall all of them.

One of them was solid-state physics.

Q. And, what background or training to you have to
teach solid-state physics?

A. My thesis area.

Q. Do you have any formal training in physics in
addition to -- I think you said a minor when you received
your B.S.?

A. When I received my Ph.D.

Q. Your Ph.D.?

A. No.

Q. Have you published any articles dealing with
physics?

A. No.

Q. While you were employed either by the University
of Puget Sound or George Fox, did you supervise the
research of graduate students?

A. While I was at the University of Puget Sound I
did supervise graduate students.

Q. What kind of research?

A. Photochemistry.

Q. Did you supervise the research of graduate
students -- oh, there were no graduate students at George

20

Fox.

What kind of professional affiliations do you have?

A. I have those listed on my vitae.

MR. LAHIFF: Perhaps we should mark your vitae
as Exhibit 1.

[Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, two-page
document, Pyrenco, Inc., marked
for iden.]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. I would like to ask you if you
recognize Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, and
is that a copy of your vitae?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you belong to any other organizations other
than what are listed on your vitae?

A. Let me see it again.

Your question was, again?

Q. Do you belong to any other professional organiza-
tions other than the ones listed on your vitae?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever held an office in the American
Chemical Society?

A. A minor office.

I was the program chairman for the Northwest regional
meeting division of analytical chemistry some years back
while I was at the University of Puget Sound.

Q. And, during what period of time was this?

A. This was between '68 and -- no, between '58
and '68.

21

Q. What were you responsibilities?

A. My responsibilities were to arrange all the
details of the professional meetings, edit and accept
papers from my colleagues around the Northwest whenever
they came in, and conduct, chair the meetings.

Q. Were you part of a peer review process for
articles that were eventually published in the journal?

A. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Q. Is there a journal associated with the American
Chemical Society?

A. There are numerous journals associated with
the American Chemical Society, each of their branches.

There are many publications in this particular
situation, then I was involved with reviewing the articles
that were associated with that, that meeting.

Q. Were you ever an officer of the American Associ-
ation For The Advancement of Science?

A. No.

Q. Were you ever an officer with the New York
Academy of Sciences?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever hold an office with the Creation
Research Society?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever attended any meetings of the
Creation Research Society?

A. The Creation Research Society?

Let's see.

22

No, I have not.

Q. What do you do as a member of the Creation
Research Society?

A. I receive their publication.

Q. Do you have any activities, do you publish
in the creation --

A. I have not to date.

Q. Do you pay dues to the Creation Research Society?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever performed any tasks for the
Creation Research Society?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever received any academic awards?

A. Those listed.

Q. In addition to those listed on your vitae?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever presented any papers to any
meetings of any of these organizations?

A. Yes, I presented a number of papers.

Q. Of which you are a member?

A. To several professional organization, includ-
ing the American Chemical Society.

Q. Could you please indentify those papers for
me?

A. I don't recall now the dates on these.

One was to the Oregon Academy of Sciences on
oscillating electrodes, and likewise to the American
Chemical Society, and another paper to the American

23

Chemical Society on program instruction.

Q. Does the Creation Research Society have a
publication associated with it?

A. Yes, Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Q. Have you ever published in that?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any adjunct teaching posi-
tions?

A. How would you --

Q. Have you ever been an adjunct member of a
faculty or university or college in addition to the ones
listed on your vitae?

A. Yes, I taught creation at two places.

One was a summer school course which you have the
syllabus for in the deposition at Western Evangelical,
Western Baptist Evangelical Seminary, and I have taught
a number times in the evening school at Multmoma School
of the Bible.

Q. What kinds of courses have you taught?

A. They asked me to teach the Bible and earth
history.

Q. Have you ever taught any seminars?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you please describe them for me?

A. I presented a number of seminars for universi-
ties in various locations on the topic of origins.

Q. In which universities have you presented
seminars?

24

A. I don't recall all the universities that I
have presented seminars.

They include Oregon College of Education, Oregon
State University, Evergreen State College, and there
were six universities in New Zealand, there was one
university in Peru, Lima, Peru, and some others, I don't
recall.

It has been over a period of years.

Q. And you have taught seminars on origins at
all these universities?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of the Creation Research
Society?

A. I am.

Q. Are you a member of the Institute for Creation
Research?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of the Creation Science Re-
search Center?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of the Bible Science Associa-
tion?

A. I am.

Q. Are you a member of Citizens for Fairness in
Education?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of Citizens for Balanced Educa-
tin as to Origin?

25

A. No.

Q. Have you ever held any office in the Bible
Science Association?

A. No.

Q. Turning back to the seminars that you have
taught, which departments sponsored these seminars at
these respective universities?

A. Normally it was the chemistry departments,
but in some cases it was the science department in general
as for example at OCE, Oregon College of Education.

Q. Has the religion or theology department ever
sponsored any of these seminars which you have taught?

A. Last spring the Clackamas Department of Region
and Philosophy invited me to present seminars, and you
have that in the deposition

Q. Any other religion or theology departments?

A. Yes, I think there was another one at a school
in the Midwest, and I don't recall the details now.

Q. What is your religious affiliation?

A. I am a member of the Newberg Friends Church.

Q. And, what religious denomination is that?

A. Quaker.

Q. Do you hold any office in the church?

A. I am presently on the board of elders.

Q. And, do you attend church regularly?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you belong to any church groups?

A. What would be called a church group?

26

Q. Well, do you belong to any groups or organiza-
tions sponsored by the Newberg Friends Church, or any
other church?

A. No.

Q. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

A. What would be a fundamentalist?

Q. Do you consider yourself a biblical literalist?

A. Well, fundamentalist as it is used is a radical,
emotional, more than logical thinking individual.

I would not classify myself that way.

Q. Do you consider yourself a biblical literalist?

A. What would be a biblical literalist?

Q. Do you believe the Bible is a literal account
of the creation of the universe, and that it represents
historical truth rather than religious myth?

A. My personal opinion is that that would be
correct.

Q. What would be correct?

A. That the Genesis account is an accurate histori-
cal record.

Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor or
adviser?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever read the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. How often do you read the Bible?

A. I read portions of it.

I don't know how often I go clear through.

27

I read portions of it daily.

Q. Do you as a physical chemist ever consult the
Bible?

A. For physical chemistry, no.

Q. Do you consider the Bible to be a source of
personal revelation?

A. Let me back up on this.

Do I consult as a physical chemist.

I feel that any source that bears on my discipline
is worth looking at academically.

There may be situations that would bear on my
discipline there, and I wouldn't want to rule them out.

Q. Have you ever consulted the Bible for your
discipline?

A. In the sense that it mentions, for example,
alloys, I have been curious about the early alloys.

- - -

28

Q. What do you mean about the early alloys?

A. For example, the Bronze Age.

Q. What do you mean by "For example, the Bronze
Age"?

A. Bronze is an alloy that is mentioned in Genesis.

Q. How have you used the Bible as a research tool
with respect to bronze alloys?

A. That gives an early date for the alloying of
metals to make bronze, so I was curious about the chemical
and physical qualities of early bronze.

Q. Is there any description of the chemical and
physical properties in the Bible?

A. Not that I am aware.

Q. Does the Bible predict future events?

A. My personal opinion is that it does.

Q. What events has it predicted?

A. What events has it predicted?

Q. Already.

A. Already predicted?

Q. Already predicted.

A. It has already predicted the downfall, I
suppose, of civilizations that have departed from some of
the precepts that are mentioned there.

Q. Could you be a little more specific, which
civilization has it preducted the downfall of?

A. Well, as I am aware, and, again, this is not an
area -- history is not an area of my specialty, but I have
been interested in the writings of those who have written

29

on the subject relating to the four empires mentioned in
Daniel, Book of Daniel, for example.

Q. And what are the four empires?

A. Let's see. Babylonian, the Medeal Persian, the
Grecian and the Roman.

Q. And the Bible specifically refers to the down-
fall of those four empires?

A. As I understand it.

Q. Has the Bible ever been an inspiration for any
research project that you have undertaken?

A. Indirectly, perhaps. The Creation model inter-
ested me and scientists who had written on the Creation
model talked about things that would get me started
thinking about formation of fossil fuels and lead to the
research that I am presently engaged with.

Q. But has the Bible itself ever provided you with
a specific project to investigate, for example?

A. We did some -- one of the students that was at
George Fox College needed a senior thesis and Genesis
mentioned a geological event known as the flood and it
occurred to me that if that water had been receding, then
there ought to be water recessional lines.

There are terraces located very broadly, notably up
in the Northwest. I suggested to the student that he do
a research project asking geologists and investigating
and doing research on those terrace line formations.

Q. Did a paper ever come out of that research?

A. Research paper made and went into the library at

30

George Fox College, is the requirement for that study.

Q. Was it ever published in any journal?

A. Not that I am aware.

Q. Does the Bible suggest methods of investigation?

A. How do you mean that?

Q. Well, what do you think I mean by methods of
investigation? Methods of scientific research.

A. Methods of scientific research come to creative
people, it seems to me, ideas come in and you want to go
from point A to point B and these ideas come and you
begin to think about a problem, and it is very possible
that some of those suggestions came from study of
Genesis.

Q. But has the Bible itself ever suggested a
methodology for your research?

A. Methodology to such and so on in a certain way?

Q. Yes.

A. Not that I am aware.

Q. Have you had any contact with the Attorney
General prior to today about your testimony?

A. The Arkansas office of the Attorney General
telephoned me some time back, a week or so or two weeks,
I am not sure how long ago, and inquired about my willing-
ness to be involved.

Q. Did they discuss any specific topics about what
you would be testifying?

A. I don't recall that they did.

Q. Do you remember the individual at the Attorney

31

General's Office that you had the contact with?

A. You told me his name last night. I should
remember.

MR. CHILDS: Mr. Campbell, I believe.

THE WITNESS: Rick Campbell, thank you. Rick
Campbell.

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Did you have any other discussions
with Mr. Campbell or with anyone else from the Attorney
General's Office regarding your testimony?

A. Prior to today?

Q. Prior to today.

A. Last evening we discussed what a deposition is,
what our time frame was when my plane would leave.

Q. But did you have any discussion of the substance
of your testimony?

A. What I would say?

Q. Those areas that you would testify about.

A. He suggested to me that I testify in my area.

Q. And what is your area?

A. Physical chemistry.

Q. Have you had any discussions with anyone from
the Attorney General's Office about your testimony during
the trial of McLean vs. Arkansas?

A. No, not that I recall.

Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation
Science groups regarding your testimony here today?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation

32

Science groups regarding your testimony during the trial
of McLean vs. Arkansas?

A. No.

Q. Had anyone from any Creation Science group
sought to recruit you to testify?

A. Wendell Bird inquired whether I would be willing
and you have his letter to me.

Q. And when did Mr. Bird write to you?

A. I don't know. The date is on the letter.

Q. Did you respond to Mr. Bird?

A. Yes.

Q. What was you response?

A. Affirmative.

Q. And when was that?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. Did Mr. Bird discuss with you your testimony?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Bird suggest any areas in which you
could testify?

A. No.

Q. Did you suggest any areas to Mr. Bird?

A. I may have. I don't recall. It seems like I
did suggest that I was a physical chemist.

Q. Have you had any contact with an individual by
the name of John Whitehead?

A. I may have seen him somewhere. It may have been
at one of the meetings that I was. I do not recall that.
I do not know the gentleman.

23

Q. Have you ever testified prior to today in any
court proceeding?

A. No.

Q. In any legislative proceeding?

A. Yes, the Washington House of Representatives
invited me to testify last spring.

Q. And what did they invite you to testify about?

A. The Creation model, scientific Creation model.

Q. Do you happen to know if there is a transcript
available of your testimony?

A. I don't, no.

Q. What was the substance of your testimony?

A. The substance of my testimony -- How detailed
do you need?

Q. Well, as detailed as you can give me.

A. I was there -- I was testifying for about 30
minutes, as I recall, and used some of the visual
materials that I have at the present, showing that there
are two models currently being talked about in the
scientific community and gave a little bit of scientific
background, why I had become interested in the topic of
origins, and some of my discussions with my colleagues
relating to that and then some of the evidences that
seemed appropriate.

Q. What was this legislative proceeding being held
in connection with?

A. As I recall, there was a legislator, a woman, I
believe -- I'm not sure -- from the Spokane area district

34

-- who had introduced a bill requiring balanced or asking
for balanced treatment, and I didn't have the bill. So I
am not sure of the content of it.

Q. You didn't have the bill before you testified?

A. That's correct. That morning, when I arrived,
I quickly went over the bill before the testimony, but
just five minutes.

Q. You were testifying in favor of the bill?

A. I was testifying in favor of the Creation model.

Q. Are you familiar with the Arkansas statute
that is the focus of this lawsuit?

A. This morning I was presented with a copy at
breakfast which I quickly went over. So I have glanced
over it. I would not say that I am familiar with it.

Q. Who presented you with a copy?

A. David Campbell, I think.

MR. CHILDS: Williams.

THE WITNESS: David Williams. I am sorry.

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Had you seen a copy of this statute
prior to today?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware of its existence prior to today?

A. Yes, the Arkansas Attorney General's Office,
on the telephone, said there was such a document.

Q. Prior to being informed by the Arkansas
Attorney General, were you aware of the existence of this
statute?

A. No -- yes, I heard a news comment about it. I

35

don't know when.

Q. Have you ever participated in any debates deal-
ing with Creation Science?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me when those debates were?

A. It was not a formal debate. It was more of a
forum. One was this last spring at the Clackamas
Community College and you have a copy of that correspond-
ence.

Q. Any other debates?

A. Again, a forum type with the pro and con sides
represented, the National Science Teachers Association in
Portland, Oregon, and you have that letter and document.

Q. I am sorry, the National Science --

A. Teachers Association.

Q. Any other forum?

A. Yes, I was invited to Holland in '78 -- '77 or
'78 -- late '70s for a debate.

Q. And who sponsored that?

A. Evangelische Omroep.

Q. Were you paid for any of your appearances at
any of these forums?

A. My expenses were covered and it seems like I
may have received a small honorarium in addition.

Q. From which organization?

A. From Clackamas Community College and from the
Holland group.

Q. Do you recall what that honorarium was?

36

A. It is stated in the paper. I don't recall the
figure.

Q. Do you know if there are any transcripts availa-
ble from any of these forms?

A. The proceedings of the Holland debate were
published in booklet form in Dutch.

Q. Do you happen to have a copy of it?

A. At the house.

Q. Do you know if it is available in English
translation?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Who sponsored the forum at Clackamas Community
College?

A. The Philosophy-Religion Department.

Q. And what was the substance of your discussion
or your participation during the forum?

A. The forum lasted for three evenings with a
Creation model proponent and an Evolution model proponent
each evening. The final evening was a panel, sort of an
informal debate interacting between the members of the
panel and/or any question from the audience directed to
any panel member.

Q. Who were the members of the panel?

A. I believe -- I don't recall. That's in the
deposition -- the announcement. Mark Feldman is a man
from Portland State University who is in paleontology, I
believe, and a geologist and I don't recall his name
now. And there was a fellow from -- a geologist, also,

37

from Whitworth College in Spokane. There were four of
us.

Q. On which side did you argue?

A. The creation side. The others were for the
Evolution model.

Q. Who was in support of the creation side?

A. Just me.

Q. What was the structure of the forum at the
National Science Teachers Association?

A. The structure was that each of us, Dr. Stearns
-- and I forget his first name, now -- from Reed College,
whose specialty was evolution -- presented the Evolution
model and then I presented the Creation model and then
we both were present for questions from the audience.

It seems like it was Steven Stearns, but don't quote
me on that.

Q. Did anyone else participate in that forum?

A. As main people other than the audience?

Q. Other than the audience?

A. No.

Q. And what was the structure of the forum in
Holland? I won't attempt to pronounce it.

A. In Holland there were six people involved in
addition to the moderator. There was a pro and con
astronomer, a pro and con paleontologist or fossil record
discussion and a pro and con geology area.

Q. And who were the participants?

A. I do not recall the Dutch participants. The

38

Americans were Dr. Harold Slusher, Dr. Duane Gish and
myself. And they had asked me specifically to speak on
the age of the earth and to write a paper. We each had
to do that, make our presentation and send it to them a
month ahead of time, so that they could be prepared to
rebut or ask questions on it and that was then translated
into Dutch.

Q. Did you bring a copy of your paper with you
here today?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How did you first come to hear about this case?

A. In the news media.

Q. Are you being paid for your testimony?

A. No.

- - -

39

Q. Have you discussed the specifics of your
testimony to be given at the trial with the Attorney
General?

A. No.

Q. Have you discussed the specifics of your testi-
money to be given at trial with anyone?

A. Specifics, other that it is going to be on the
topic "Origins" and -- you mean details?

Q. Details of what you are going to be testifying
to.

A. No.

Q. Has anyone suggested a discipline or an area
as to what you should testify?

A. I suggested when asked what my area was,
physical chemistry.

Q. Do you what your testimony will be?

A. It will be similar to those seminars that I
have given elsewhere.

Q. Well, what will your testimony be?

A. I haven't worked it all out.

Q. Well, have you thought about what your testimony
would be?

A. Oh, ,yes, of course.

Q. What have you thought you might testify about
or what are you considering testifying about?

A. I thought about -- I don't know how much time
we will have, how much is proper.

But suppose I had an idea --

40

MR. CHILDS: You mean at the trial?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. CHILDS: I am sorry.

Go ahead.

I am sorry.

THE WITNESS: If I had an idea of the amount of time
which would be like I present -- obviously it is a very
broad subject.

You could spend a lot of time on it but I suspected
that time is going to be critical and important. It is to
me. I presume to others.

So if I were to condense it down to, say, a forty-
five-minute period or less, a condensed version, I would
like to present a little bit of my own background and
how I got interested in the topic; what I have learned by
talking with my colleagues who are in both camps and some
of the evidence that I looked at that convinced me the
creation model had a lot going for it.

Q. Well, what will you be testifying about with
respect to physical chemistry which is your field of
expertise?

A. Physical chemistry is kind of king of sciences,
in my judgment, my personal opinion.

It relates to the chemistry behind fossil formation,
for example.

Q. In addition to fossil formation, what does it
relate to?

A. Isotope ratios, chemical processes involved with

41

earth history.

Q. Such as?

A. Fossil fuel formation.

Q. Anything else?

A. Not that immediately comes to mind.

Q. Do you consider yourself to be a creation
scientist?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. I haven't always been a creation scientist
and --

Q. At what point did you become a creation sci-
entist?

A. After I finished my Ph.D. training.

Q. What happened at that point to lead you to be-
come a creation scientist?

A. I began to become a ware of the discussion
creation science/evolution science as models for origins
and I found it fascinated me and very fascinating to study
and to discuss and being in the educational field, being
people would ask me questions, I found that they were in-
terested as well.

And as a result of being asked questions, many of
which I found interesting, also, I began to study what
scientific evidence was available, not only in my own
discipline but from writings of others and from that
study became a creation scientist.

Q. Could you define creation science for me as you

42

practice it?

A. Creation science, as I practice it, is looking
at the scientific data from the point of view that
origin was by creation.

Q. Any specific scientific data?

A. I mentioned fossil fuel formation.

Q. Well, is there any specific scientific data
that led you to become a creation scientist?

A. Among the data that I considered were the order-
liness of the universe.

It appeared to be one of law and order.

The geophysical, geochemical processes seemed to go
against the idea that they were requiring or had occurred
over long period of time and just geochemical processes.

Q. Any other scientific data?

A. As I practiced it or that I was reading in con-
nection with other--

Q. That led to your belief or to your acceptance
of creation science.

A. While I am not a paleontologist, the fossil
record did not seem to support slow, gradual change over
vast periods of time by the writings of other people who
were interested in the topic.

Q. Is there any other scientific data that you
could point to?

A. The fossil record, geophysical processes,
geophysical-geochemical processes, orderliness in the
universe and the writings of biochemists who looked at

43

life processes.

Q. Was the Bible a piece of scientific evidence
that led to your adoption or acceptance of creation
science?

A. I don't recall any particular point there that
convinced me.

It was primarily the fields that I have mentioned
for you.

Q. Did you consult the Bible at all during this
process of researching?

A. I would consult it to see if statements people
would make that were contained therein were true.

If it mentioned there was bronze mentioned early, I
would check to see if that was true.

Q. In other words, you used the Bible as a source
of scientific information?

A. Where Genesis talked about those points that
science could investigate, where it talked about places
and times, locations, yes.

Q. Did any particular event precipitate or act
as a significant cause in your becoming a creation sci-
entist?

A. Many discussions.

Q. But was there a particular event?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Did any particular person precipitate or act
as a significant cause in your becoming a creation
scientist?

44

A. A single individual?

Q. A single individual or several individuals.

Are there any individuals to whom you would point as
saying they were a significant cause in my becoming a
creation scientist?

A. Well, there were many people who were patient
with me as I was asking questions.

My colleagues in my departments.

Q. But did any of these people lead to your ques-
tioning?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. Do you consider your becoming a creation sci-
entist a religious experience?

A. No.

Q. Turning back to the data that formed the basis
for your acceptance of creation science, what do you mean
by the orderliness of the universe?

A. Orderliness, particularly from a physical-chemi-
cal chemistry point of view, because physical chemistry
attempts to describe in terms of mathematical equations,
insofar as possible, the events that occur. These are
predictable and do not seem to be random or haphazard.

Q. And how did that lead you to accept creation
science?

A. It led me to ask the question, which origin
model would tend to predict an orderly world study.

Q. And how doesn't the evolution model predict an

45

orderly world?

A. As I heard my colleagues discuss the evolution
model, at no time did they, as I heard them discuss, at
least, and in writings of other literature -- and they
were my friends so we had a lot of discussions -- did they
ever mention intelligence being involved with origins.

They talked about stochastic processes which left
a philosophical hole as far as where the orderliness came
from.

Q. Is there any factual basis for this orderliness,
this intelligence?

A. In the sense that the starting point of a model,
as we call creation model and evolution model begin a
priori, that's your starting point predisposition.

Q. What are your a prioris or assumptions?

A. In the creation model?

Q. In the creation model.

A. In the creation model the a priori is that there
was a creative force involved in origins.

Q. Are there any other assumptions?

A. That would be what we call the capital as-
sumption and there are subassumptions and subassumptions
and subcatagories of assumptions and assumptions and
assumptions, depending how narrow you get off in the
field, ad infinitum.

Q. Could you describe the major assumptions in
the creation model and we will start with those first.

A. The major assumptions, and this may not be

46

an exhaustive list because I am trying to do this by re-
call, would be that there was a creative force involving
origins. That's the top one.

In the creation model is not -- it seemed to me not
trapped into a particular time frame as the evolution
model seemed to require.

Q. What do you mean by trapped in a specific time
frame?

A. As I read the literature, some of which you have
in deposition and as I talked with colleagues, they all
seemed to tell me that they required that the evolution
model required vast amounts of time and that the model
wouldn't be viable if they were not there. That seemed
to put blinders on me as a scientist.

I did not like that restriction.

I like to say if it is there, fine.

If it isn't, that's fine too.

So one of the assumptions in the creation model was,
we were freer to look at the time question.

Q. Doesn't the Bible act as a restriction on your
research or your investigation?

A. Not in my personal opinion.

Q. But you do consult the Bible?

A. For professional -- I consult the Genesis record
-- I consider the Genesis record and any other area that
touches my discipline to be fair game for my investigation.

Q. But you do consider that to be a literal account
of the origin of the universe?

47

A. If by literal we mean that the points that can
be checked in time and place as in, say, bronze chemical
composition of tin and copper, I find that checked for
accuracy and I find it to be accurate.

Q. What other assumptions are there in the creation
model?

A. I think those are the main ones.

Q. Are there any other minor assumptions, then?

A. Well, when a scientist makes a model he, you
know -- you have the other model then you have your little
subareas that you are going to investigate.

For example, my areas of alternate fuels, I assume
a process and then go check the process out.

And that assumption would be consistent with the over-
all creation model.

Q. What process do you assume?

A. In the alternate fuels area, I made the assump-
tion, suppose the conversion of biomass to fossil fuels
were a much more rapid process than the evolution model
had considered. What kind of chemistry -- what assump-
tions would I need to make about the chemistry involved,
mid those assumptions and then began to check it out from
that point of view.

So, what I am saying is the overmodel, then, you
make assumptions for the area that you are going to apply.

Q. Is there any scientific evidence of a creative
force?

A. We have all the data that can be looked at,

48

all the known data can be looked at from a creative --
from the creation model assumptions.

Q. But is there scientific data that demonstrates
the existence of a creative force?

A. In my judgment.

Q. And what is that scientific data?

A. Orderliness.

Q. Is there any experimental basis for your belief
that there is a creative force?

A. The experimental basis would mean that you can
go into the laboratory and repeat. The creation was a
past event. It was history. We cannot put history into
a test tube, at least as far as I know.

Q. What in your understanding are the assumptions
of the evolution model?

A. In my understanding, the assumptions of the
evolution model is that no intelligence was involved, no
creative force, but that the present state of the universe
must be accounted for using only natural processes.

Q. Are there any other assumptions?

A. That's the primary assumption and subassumptions
that apply to each of the areas of investigation.

Q. Do you believe there is any scientific evidence
to support any of these assumptions?

A. The evidence -- the data are what we have.

Then the assumptions are used to interpret the data.

So it would be the same case for the evolution model
that I just stated for the creation model.

49

Q. Could you define science for me, please.

A. Science probably has as many definitions as
there are scientists, but the definition that I prefer is
a search for truth in the realm of nature.

Q. What do you believe to be the attributes of
science?

A. I believe science is -- has involved with it a
philosophical base. That's why they grant Ph.D.'s.

You begin with a set of assumptions, look at the
data and draw corresponding conclusions which we call
making models.

In the microscopic area, we make some assumptions
and look at the data and come up with what we call an
atomic model.

Q. What would distinguish religious faith from
science?

A. Well, it seems to me that religious faith in-
volves theology as a study and some religious exercise.

Q. Well, what would distinguish science from faith?

A. In the sense that religious faith begins with
assumptions also and then looks at religious data, draws
conclusions.

They have a formal analogy.

Q. Well, you have testified that assumptions are
the basis of science as well.

What would distinguish science from religion?

A. Well, religion, of course, would have some --
perhaps some formalized liturgy or worship or sociologic

50

associations with it.

It might and does speculate or discuss or talk about
the nature of the creative force.

Q. Do you believe science to involve falsifia-
bility?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe observability to be an attribute
of science?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe testability to be an attribute
of science?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe predictability to be an attribute
of science?

A. Yes.

Q. How does creation science measure up to the
attributes of falsifiability, for example?

A. Well, it seems to be very attractive at that
point.

For example, mentioning one of the things that con-
vinced me, if there was intelligent design, if we start
with the assumption of intelligent design, then the uni-
verse might well be expected to be consistent and pre-
dictable first off.

So I would not be inconsistent p. chem. equation
to describe some process.

It will predict, if possible, creation as an event
as opposed to a process; that the fossil record ought

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Donald E. Chittick - Page 2

51

to indicate that, et cetera.

Q. Do you believe that it is possible to falsify
or is the existence of a creative force falsifiable?

A. Goedel, in the famous Goedel thorium that
came out in the early '30's -- and I am not sure the
exact date -- went through the proof and I am not smart
enough to know if all that proof is correct.

I tend to personally believe that he is apparently
right, the thrust of which was -- it is not possible to
establish in the absolute sense the truth or falsity
of a model without stepping outside of the system.

Q. What facts or set of facts would lead you to
believe that creation science is inaccurate?

A. Is inaccurate?

Q. Is inaccurate.

A. Is inaccurate.

If the universe were chaotic, that would be pretty
convincing and not repeatable.

That would be pretty convincing evidence to me.

Q. What do you mean by chaotic?

A. If, just to use a mundane down-to-earth example
in physical chemistry, we talk about molecules and
emulsions.

If those -- and the mathematical laws -- if that
was not so, there is no predictability, it went every
which way, one way today and one way tomorrow, that would
be pretty convincing evidence.

MR. CHILDS: A revolution?

52

THE WITNESS: A revolution, yes.

[Luncheon recess was taken at 11:35]

- - -

53

AFTERNOON SESSION

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1981 12:20 O'CLOCK P.M.

- - -

EXAMINATION BY MR. LAHIFF [RESUMED]:

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Have you ever taken any Creation
Science Research Center oath?

A. Creation Science Research Center oath?

Q. Research Center oath?

A. What is that?

Q. I gather by that, then, you have not taken the
oath?

A. Creation Science Research Center oath? I don't
know what that is.

Q. Well, have you taken any oath connected with
any Creation Science organization?

A. The Creation Research Society, I believe, has
a statement in their membership asking if the individual
is in agreement with their purposes, which is modeled
after most other organizations, and I don't recall now
what I wrote on that when I became a member.

Q. Do you have a copy of that with you?

A. No, I certainly don't.

Q. Do you intend to use the slides that you
brought with you today during your testimony at the
trial?

A. We were just talking about that. There are
some there that would save a lot of words if I could use
like, for example --

54

MR. LAHIFF: Let's go off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. CHILDS: We have agreed that any diagrams,
pictures, exhibits contained in the visuals, the slides,
will be made available as soon as we can get them availa-
ble to Bob Cearley's office in Omaha.

MR. LAHIFF: All right, that is acceptable.

I would like to have this marked as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2 for identification. It is an application form
for the Creation Research Society.

[Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2,, single-
page document, "Application Form
for the Creation Research Society,"
marked for identification]

[Discussion off the record]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Do you recognize that?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that organization?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you subscribe to the principles that are
expressed there?

A. As to my personal life, yes, and this is what
we would call Biblical creation as opposed to scientific
creation.

Q. What is the difference between Biblical
creation and scientific creation?

A. Scientific creation makes the assumption that
we talked about earlier. Biblical creation makes the

55

additional assumptions that are stated here, basically,
that Genesis is an accurate, historical account.

Q. And do you believe that Genesis is an accurate,
historical account?

A. That is my personal opinion, yes.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible is historically
and scientifically true in all of its original autographs?

A. That is my personal judgment.

Q. Have you ever read the original autographs?

A. No, that is why I have only an opinion about it.

Q. But you are a member of the Creation Research
Society, but you acquired that, you subscribed to those
principles?

A. That's correct.

Q. You testified that one of the assumptions of
the creation model is -- I'm sorry, a piece of the
scientific data which is proof of the creation model is
the existence of orderliness?

A. Yes.

Q. Does orderliness disprove evolution?

A. It hasn't seemed to disprove it to colleagues
that I have talked with.

Q. But do you believe that orderliness disproves
evolution?

A. Orderliness is an observed data, and is the
assumption that you try to interpret the data from, and
I would think that it is important for the evolution
model to accommodate that observation within its model.

56

Q. It is possible for the evolution model to
accommodate the existence of orderliness?

A. I would assume so.

Q. Well, then, how can orderliness be proof of
both the creation model and the evolution?

A. You asked what convinced me, and this is what
convinced me, that the creation model was, in my judgment
-- it seems they would have trouble with that, but I am
not going to put words in their mouths, that is their cup
of tea.

I don't want to tell them how they have to interpret
the data, just like I don't want them to tell me that.

Q. Could you define evolution for me, please?

A. Evolution is the process of origins, natural
historical origins, of the universe to the present stage
as we see it today.

Q. And what are the processes through which
evolution occurs?

A. the evolution model assumes only natural
processes, chemically and physically, in a nutshell.

Q. Does the Creation Science model assume the
existence of supernatural processes?

A. That's correct.

Q. And what are these supernatural processes?

A. The creative force.

Q. Is that the only supernatural force that
operates in the creation model?

A. For origins.

57

Q. For origins and the development of thinks such
as coal?

A. I will try to answer your question. If it
isn't okay, will you ask another one?

Q. All right.

A. If I heard your question. I'm not sure. I
will tell you what I think I heard, then try to give you
an answer. If it isn't okay, you ask me another
question.

The creation model starts with a creative force that
acted. The creation model doesn't rule out the possibi-
lity that that force could act again.

Q. If that force were to act again, would that
require the suspension of natural laws?

A. Natural processes, if I understand your question
right, is by definition the absence of supernatural, and
in that same sense today, if you look at a piece of rock,
let's say, that might be fish shaped and chipped around
the edges, and you and I were to travel out through the
desert and look at this rock, and I say, "Look at the
chemistry and physics that developed that rock," and you
said, "No, that is an Indian arrowhead," you would look
at that as intelligence being involved with the shape of
that rock; you would not say that it might not be that,
an intelligence could come along later and put a scratch
on that rock and put "Tom" on it, identifying it as yours,
that would not be in violation of anything in chemistry
and physics.

58

Q. Does the creation model require the suspension
of natural processes in the intervention of this creative
force?

A. Does it require that? The answer is no.

Q. Has that in fact happened, according to the
creation model?

A. Since the beginning, since origins.

Q. Since origins, as you understand it?

A. Have supernatural events happened since
origins?

Q. Has the creative force suspended natural laws
or natural processes and intervened?

A. This again is a historical perspective and to
give a complete answer on that, I would have had to have
been at every point in every spot in space and time ever
since the beginning for me to answer that question.

So all I could say is, I don't know.

Q. Well, do you consider --

A. I have no way of answering that.

Q. Do you consider the flood described in Genesis
to be the operation of natural processes, or the inter-
vention of creative forces?

A. As a scientist in a scientific sense, Genesis
mentions the flood, so as a scientist speaking strictly
with the scientific data, I could go along and see if
such an event took place in space and time, and I might
work out models on that, whatever might have happened
with it.

59

Now, my personal opinion would be that the divine
being did something. That is a personal statement.

Q. Do you believe that there is any scientific
evidence for your personal statement?

A. Something that I could put into a textbook?
What do we mean by scientific evidence?

Q. Well, what do you understand the term,
"scientific evidence," to mean?

A. Scientific evidence would be something that I
could put into a test tube, I could go weigh, could go
measure, could look at, could experiment with.

Q. Using that definition, is there anything that
you are aware of that evidences the existence of the
flood described in Genesis?

A. Is there anything that I could go look at,
measure, weigh, that would add evidence to the flood
described in Genesis, yes.

Q. What is that scientific evidence that that
event took place historically?

Well, there is a number of -- I have read quite a
number of readings on that by people who have written on
the topic, some that we have done involve this research
project that I mentioned earlier from the student there
at the college, looking at these terraced lines that we
see in various places as one piece of evidence, ancient
shorelines around the Bonneville Basin, an ancient Lake
LaHonda that occupied much of Nevada and the southern
area here, and the shorelines you see along the coast of

60

California.

Q. What do you understand by the Genesis flood,
could you describe exactly what happened as you under-
stand it?

A. In a nutshell?

Q. In a nutshell.

A. Capsulized version?

Well, the Genesis record mentioned that there was an
event which we call the flood, and by looking at evidence
around like what we talked about here, some of the
geochemical processes that form in the minerals, by look-
ing at fossils, by looking at these terraced lines and
so on, it seems like just from the account that is
written there, and it is not unique, there are other
ancient records, there are ancient anthropological
reports, there are many of them, many, many of them, into
the hundreds of similar accounts, but it seems like the
constant series of events were, and this is in very brief
form, very condensed, I realize, the earth before that
had a warm tropical climate all over and was very rich
with lush vegetation, the biomass was very think, there
wasn't the cold at the North Pole and the South Pole and
for whatever reason, I wondered whether or not the
earth's albedo was such that it began to lose more heat
than it was receiving, so that it began to cool.

Well, the earth has a crust, a rock crust, and as
nearly as we can discern, it has got a liquid interior.
Well, if this had cooled, you know, losing heat, it would

61

coil and shrink, which puts tremendous pressure on rock.

I would picture in my mind like taking an orange
and squeezing it extremely tightly. If you squeeze an
orange extremely tightly, the orange being like the rock
crust, and the liquid in the orange being like the
liquid --

Q. What is the liquid interior of the earth?

A. Rock. It comes out in the form of lava and
so on when pressure is released on it, and so this would
put tremendous pressure on that, and rocks are hard, but
they can only take so much, and when that disequilibrium
became great enough, it exceeded the elastic limit of the
rocks, as Genesis words it so eloquently, and all the
fountains of the deep broke up, like taking an orange
and punching a hole in it, out she comes, so then the
earth following that event had to establish a new
equilibrium, and that kind of evidence is what I looked
for.

Q. Well, is there any scientific evidence for the
fountains of the deep?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the evidence?

A. Worldwide volcanism. You look at a map. If
one looks at a map, geological map of the globe, we have
these dark likes that are drawn in rough outline around
the globe, referred to as the fault zones, of which the
San Andreas Fault happens to be one, off the coast of
California. This is where much of the crustal activity

62

takes place, and has in the past, still does today.

Q. How is that evidence of the fountains of the
deep?

A. Well, the deep, you know, way down in the
earth. If you have a fountain of that material, we would
call it a volcano.

Q. Well, where was the water stored?

A. Where was the water stored?

Q. Where did the water come from?

A. These are speculations, but if we were assuming
that the cooling part, you know -- two conditions are
necessary for precipitation.

One, you have to have supersaturation, but that is
not sufficient. You also have to have nuclei, so as soon
as the nuclei hit, and this is a model now that is con-
sistent with what I read there, I am not saying the
record there says that, then there was precipitation.

Q. Precipitation from where? From within the
earth?

A. No, from the atmosphere.

Q. But I'm talking about the fountains of the
deep.

A. That's right, and that included water fountains,
and so the ocean basins were lifted up and the water
washed over the continents and the plates buckled and so
on, moved, buckled. The earth's surface was trying to be
smaller now that it had cracked and it wrinkled, as it
were, like a giant wrinkle.

63

Q. I understand what you are testifying about
that, but I don't think you have answered my question
about the fountains of the deep.

A. The fountains of the deep included subterranean
waters as well as volcanic such as the situation that was
under Mount Scott which is up in Oregon, Crater Lake.
When the lava hit, there was underground water all over,
even today. When lava hit that, then, of course, it
creates steam, and Crater Lake, and the Sahara today,
has got vast amounts of fresh water, one of the biggest
fresh water supplies is under the Sahara Desert. It's a
resource.

That whole crustal equilibrium was upset at the
time, and exactly all the fine details of it, I don't
have all those worked out, but it's this kind of
evidence for that kind of event, is what I heard you, or
what I thought you asked me about, and in my particular
case, what got me started thinking about it, if we had
that large amount of biomass, what kind of chemistry
would be involved or what was happening to that biomass
in such a geophysical phenomena which let me to research
in fossil fuels.

Q. What observable phenomenon leads you to believe
in the fountains of the deep?

A. Evidence of past geological happenings like
volcanos, and events like Krakatoa and Mount Scott.

Q. Does the evidence allow you to choose between
the alternative models, creation science and evolution?

64

A. I believe that it does.

Evolution, as I have heard, the evolution model
tends, as nearly as I have been able to discern it,
tends to deny that there was such a geophysical phenomena
on a global scale as I have described it.

Q. Is faith an element of the creation science
model, religious faith?

A. No, this is entirely geophysical, simply a
model based on observed data, and trying to account for
the data that we observe.

Q. Why do you believe that the evolution model is
trapped in a specific time frame?

A. In part of the deposition there, I left with
you a paper by George Wald, who happens to be an evolu-
tionist, but I enjoy reading his writings because he is
a very excellent scientist; he is a very good writer, a
very clear writer, although we don't agree on our models,
and in this article that he wrote, he wrote on the origin
of life. It was very well written, I thought.

He explains why, considering the impossibility of
natural processes, development of life by natural
processes. He uses the term, he says, "Time is the
escape hatch," and he uses -- I can't recall his exact
phrase -- "Time itself performs the miracles," and I
have asked my colleagues about that as I have these
debates.

They have been friendly debates, most of them. I
don't enjoy hassles. They all agree that if they didn't

65

have the time, they tell me that if they didn't have the
time, that that's an inherent part of this model. If
they didn't have it, that their model wouldn't be valid.

Q. Isn't it true that their understanding of long
periods of time comes from observations of data rather
than an assumption of the model itself?

A. Not according to Wald.

Q. Is that the only evolutionist that you are
aware of who describes the necessity for vast periods of
time as an assumption of the evolution model?

A. Some don't call it an assumption.

- - -

66

A. Some don't call it an assumption.

Ernst Mayer, for example, in his article which
you have in the deposition, the nature of the Darwin
evolution embraced the ideas that were involved there,
and he lists on the last page of the article, the last
page, I forget, six major ideas that had to be replaced
or brought in for the evolution model to begin, and No. 1
was the age of the earth.

Q. But, didn't that come from an observation of
physical data rather than an assumption?

A. Not as I have been able to discern it.

No one was there to observe those observations.

Q. Why does Wald, as you say, postulate the
necessity for long periods of time?

A. Well, in reading through the article, you can
read it, but basically he says when one considers the
impossibility of chance or natural process of generating
life from a nonliving, to use his phrase, it is impossible
on the basis of human experience, and then I was very
curious when he made that statement, but he said this,
I believe it anyway.

When a man says something is impossible, but he
believes it anyway, he had better dig himself out, so I
was very curious to see how he was going to do that,
and on Page 12 of the article, I think it is, he said
that time is how they got around it, and I have wondered
about that, and I don't want to put words into his mouth,
but it seems to me what they are saying is that it took

67

a lot of changes to go from nonlife to life, and each
change takes a little bit of time, so if you add up all
these changes, you would come up with vast amounts of
time.

That is what it seems like to me.

Q. Isn't that an observation rather than an as-
sumption?

A. They have not observed changes, they have not
been there to record the time, so it is an assumption
of their model.

They were not there to watch the slow, gradual
changes.

Q. Do you have any evidence that physical chemistry
needs an understanding of the age of the earth?

A. Physical chemistry happens to be, as I
mentioned, a rather central science and one of the areas
that it deals with is isotope ratios and geochemical
processes associated with those as we observed them in
the earth, and one of the areas that could convince me
that the vast amounts of time were not there was the
study in this area.

Q. What evidence convinced you?

A. There were many pieces of evidence, some of
which are listed in my paper that you have there in the
deposition, creation model and age of the earth, but in
summary the decay processes have elements heavier than
lead which decay down to give lead, leave decay products,
and by a study of these decay products such as, for

68

example, helium, helium just simply was not present in
the amounts that would support those vast amounts of
time, and in that same connection, the isotope ratios
observed, those you can go measure, displace that data.

The evolution assumption was that isotope ratios
are a time index, a fact.

Isotope ratios conclusion, time index.

That is only an assumption a scientist might make.

Obviously not.

Isotope ratios could be a geophysical process in-
dicator. Fact, isotope ratios. Conclusion, geophysical
process. You tell me the ratio, and I will tell you the
heat and pressure and rate of cooling, and so, yes,
physical chemistry is involved with that.

Q. Isn't the rate of decay from one isotope to
another important?

A. There are two things that are important.

One, the rate of decay must be known, and it must
have been constant forever past as long as we are willing
to use the clock.

Too, that rate must have been constant and known.

No. 2, one needs to know also the initial conditions
and the present conditions so that one can calculate
at that rate, now long it takes to go from the initial
conditions to the present conditions, so there are two
requirements. A good clock, one, is the rate, and the
second is your calibration, or in this case initial con-
ditions.

69

MR. CHILDS: Tom, shall we take a short break?

MR. LAHIFF: Why not.

Perhaps we should take a short break.

[Short recess taken]

[Record read]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Isn't that the process by which
scientists date the age of the earth, the process that
you have just described?

A. Scientists look at the data, and use an assump-
tion to interpret the data.

The evolution model assumes that isotope ratios are
a time index, and looks at the data, and interprets
accordingly.

That is not necessarily the only assumption
scientists could use.

Isotope ratios might also be interpreted as in-
dicators of geophysical processes. Granted, some of
them involves time dependent processes.

Q. Do you believe that scientists refuse to con-
sider geological processes?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Could you explain for me the difference between
organic geochemistry and physical chemistry?

A. Organic geochemistry?

Q. Are you aware of the existence of a discipline
known as organic geochemistry?

A. No, I am not.

MR. LAHIFF: I would like to have this marked.

70

Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

[Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3, copy,
twenty-page document, "Re-
possess the Land," August 12-15,
1979, marked for iden.]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. What I have just had marked as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 is a portion of the fifteenth
anniversary convention, Bible Science Association, "Re-
possess the Land, Essays and Technical Papers," and it
contains an article by Dr. Donald Chittick, Ph.D.,
entitled, "Creation Model on Fuel Resources."

From your personal knowledge, do you know if coal
formation includes organic geochemistry, or the processes
of organic geochemistry, or organic geochemistry as a
term that is used as opposed to a discipline you mentioned
earlier?

A. Organic geochemistry would be geochemistry
involving organic processes such as coal formation and
physical chemistry.

I am interested in those processes.

Q. Do you know any authority in the field of
organic geochemistry?

A. I am not personally acquainted with any.

Q. Could you name them, could you identify
experts in the field of organic geochemistry?

A. Individuals who have done considerable study
in that area would include Melvin Cook.

71

Q. Anyone else?

A. I have read writings of individuals in that area,
but I don't recall their names at the moment.

Q. Have you had any training in organic geo-
chemistry?

A. Physical chemistry prepared me to study reac-
tions of chemistry in any setting.

Q. But, have you had training, specific training
in organic geochemistry?

A. I took no formal course work in that area.

Q. Are you aware of any of the key textbooks or
treatises on organic chemistry?

A. One of the books that interested me was Pre-
History and Earth Model by Melvin Cook.

Q. Could you identify Melvin Cook for me, please?

A. He is the physical chemist whose specialty is
geochemistry, and particularly the application of explo-
sives for mining and so on.

In fact, he has won the Nobel award for that area.

I think he is president of Irco, I-r-c-o Chemicals,
I am not sure of the spelling of that, and he is a pro-
fessor, or was at one of the Utah schools.

Q. I would like to discuss your article, "Crea-
tion Model and Fuel Resources."

Could you describe for me the process by which coal
is formed?

A. In a nutshell, there are several types of coal,
and several types of processes involved.

72

One of the principle ones, it seems to me that the
evolution model formation of fossils fuels did not seem
to agree with the chemistry of that situation as I looked
at it, so this paper was an attempt to investigate, or
give some fresh thought, or fresh look at that process,
coal and oil are fossils from a number of organic sources,
but one of the principal sources was lignocellulose, plant
material.

When plant material, or when green plant material
were to be buried suddenly, then it would heat up, like
green hay does when they put it into a barn, and at a
temperature of around 220, 230 degrees, in that neighbor-
hood, it begins to lose water, dehydrates as we call it,
a dehydration reaction.

That reaction is exothermal. It gives out heat, so
once it has reached this initiation temperature, losing
water, it generates more heat which makes it lose more
water, regenerate more heat, and it becomes a self-ampli-
fying process so that the temperature eventually reaches
in the neighborhood of between 400 and 450 C in that
region, and one of two processes can happen at that point.

- - -

73

If the water dehydration is allowed to escape in
greater or lesser degree, then the carbon is left behind,
and one forms coal of various grades and range.

On the other hand, if the water dehydration is not
allowed to escape because of the imperiousness of the
geological formation, and because of the chemistry of
the environment, alkaline or whatever, then one can form
hydrocarbons for oil.

Q. Are you aware of any scientists who subscribe
to this view as to the formation of coal?

A. I am aware of some scientists who do. I don't
know that I could recall for you their names.

There is a group in Germany who have done work in
that; in fact, they may have printed a paper at that
symposium, I'm not sure.

I have seen the German paper on it. I have read it
with some interest. I don't recall now the reference,
and Melvin Cook in his book, "Prehistory and Earth
Models," discusses the topic, and there may be others.

The Pittsburgh Energy Research Center in the early
'79s did some work on that line, and that work was later
transferred to the Bureau of Mines in Albany, Oregon,
down south of my home there a few miles in the Bureau
of Mines at that time, and later transferred to the
Department of Energy -- no, I can't think of the name
now -- and then it was contracted out to Botel and other
subcontractors, so the process of turning biomass into
fuels has been studied.

74

Q. Well, my question was not about biomass itself,
but could you describe the process of coal formation,
what would happen, what do you start with?

A. You start with plant matter.

Q. What happens to the plant matter?

A. It undergoes a pyrolysis dehydration reaction
with water loss.

Q. Does it require the presence of water?

A. No. Cellulose is a carbohydrate. For example,
starch or cellulose C5H, 1005, taken in time, if one
were to look at that chemically in principle and write a
chemical reaction, to do this would give you five
carbons and five water and this process is very easily
done. When you spill sugar, for example, in a baking pie
onto a hot element into the oven, the water leaves the
carbon behind.

Q. Is there any operation of fungi or bacteria on
the plant matter and coal formation?

A. Most of the fungi and bacteria tend to oxidize
it instead of form it, and to use the energy as in
metabolism by oxidation of coal.

If coal is taken out of the mine and set aside, it
downgrades itself in some cases quite rapidly.

Q. But in the formation of coal itself, it is
your testimony that there is no bacterial of fungi
action?

A. In the bulk of the coal formations, as we
observe them, they appear to be formed by mechanisms such

75

as I have described. I would not say that it is not
possible for bacteria to do that.

Q. In your article you identify a product that you
have developed that looks like coal. This is a quote "looks
like coal, smells like coal, and burns like various
grades of coal obtained in the natural process."

A. That's right.

If one simply heats it in a closed system and allows
pyrolysis to occur, one obtains, and that is a quote
from the Pittsburgh Energy Research Center where they
call it and they put it in quotes, "artifical coal."

Q. Well, the quote that I read is a quote from
your article which is not a quote from something else.

A. That was my comment about the material.

Q. Well, what is the chemical formula of the
product that you have developed in the laboratory?

A. My goal in the laboratory was not to make coal
or crude oil, because they had to subsequently be
processed and I thought wouldn't it be better if we could
improve on that, to go directly where we want to go,
and the original research was converting carbohydrate
material into synthesis gas, which is a 50-50 mixture of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is what comes out of
the stoichiometry of celullose, but in the natural
process, because we want to make synthesis gas within
what to make methanol within, which is a specific liquid
fuel, and therefore economically more attractive, more
useful, but in the process of pyrolysis, both if you do

76

it in the laboratory and if it happened that way in the
ground, you get a whole spectrum of tars, as we say, and
coke as it is referred to left behind afterwards and my
research was directed toward avoiding that step, avoiding
the tar formation, going directly to the synthesis gas,
which could be used as a fuel or could be used to
synthesize methyl or could be used in the Fisch-trops
process to make hydrocarbons.

Q. So you have not produced a product that looks
like coal or smells like coal or burns like coal?

A. As side reactions when I was learning how to do
the tar-free gas, I have made those products.

Q. What is the chemical formula of those side
products?

A. Those side products are oxygenate with a broad
range of molecular weights consisting of pyrol ligneous
acids, creosotes, hydrocarbons and aldehydes and we go on
from there.

Q. What are the ratios of the carbon compounds in
each one of those?

A. What?

Q. By-products.

A. How many of them would be creosotes, how many
of them would be naphthylamines, so on, we found that
that varied with conditions, under certain conditions of
our catalytic study; or when large amounts of iron were
present we could end almost with very large amounts of
naphthylamines.

77

If we use certain other conditions, we would get
phenols, so these we could vary if you just simply
pyrolize.

We didn't analyze the produce because that was not
what we wanted other than to note its physical proper-
ties.

Q. Do you know what the petrographic structure of
any of these products were?

A. We did not analyze them.

Q. What their thermal properties are?

A. Yes. We knew the Btu's per pound. We knew
their chemical content and so on.

Q. What are their Btu's per pound?

A. They were of the order of thirteen to 14,000
Btu's per pound.

Q. Did these by-products resemble coal?

A. Yes.

Q. Which grades of coal did they resemble?

A. Soft coal.

Q. What do you mean by soft coal?

A. Bituminous coal.

Q. Do you know what the chemical formula of
bituminous coal is?

A. There isn't a chemical formula for bituminous
coal. It is a mixture of a number of things with
varying amounts of carbon.

Q. Could you describe the ratio of the carbons?

A. Coal varies all over and no, I couldn't give

78

you a number.

Q. Do you know the petrographic structure of
bituminous coal?

A. As mentioned in my article?

Q. It is mentioned in your article?

A. I mentioned there are different types of coal
that are found, head coal and so forth.

Q. What is the petrographic structure of bituminous
coal?

A. If by structure you mean what are the molecular
sizes and shapes and distributions, I just don't know.

Q. Do you know what the thermal products of
bituminous coal are?

A. I know that they had a heat of combustion, I
know what temperatures you have to heat it to thermally
degrade it, drive off the volatiles and end with coke.

MR. LAHIFF: Could we take a recess for a few
minutes.

MR. CHILDS: Sure.

[Short recess]

- - -

78A

MR. LAHIFF: Q. This is not the first time that
fuel has been synthesized, has it?

A. "This" being?

Q. The product that you have created is not the
first time that fuel has been synthesized?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe that you have synthesized a
fuel identical to fossil fuels?

A. Knowing the wide variety of fossil fuels and
their formulations, they are just -- from the same mine,
two loads may not be the same.

I would just say I don't know.

Q. Can you identify a fossil fuel most like the
product that you have developed?

A. Let me emphasize that our whole research was
avoiding the formation of tar and coal-like substances.

Our research was directed toward avoiding that be-
cause we wanted to end up with a specific product. So
we did not make very much of that stuff, hopefully none,
and it was only when our -- in our initial stages that
we did some of that.

Q. What then is the basis for your conclusions
in this article about the formation of coal?

A. The formation of coal must have been formed
in a short enough time that the heat could not leak away
because if there had been a slow gradual process in never
would have reached the heat necessary to give that de-
hydration reaction.

79

Q. Is that factor from the research that you have
done?

A. That was done from a study of thinking about
the chemistry that must have been involved in the tran-
sition of plants material into fossil fuels and our re-
search, that was an offshoot of our research and think-
ing. And our research came directly out of the thinking
of that process and could we improve it, using, say,
catalysts in our case, to do it.

Q. What is the chemical process that leads to the
formation of fossil fuels?

A. There are two.

One is -- both involve a dehydration action and
pyrolytic reactions.

MR. LAHIFF: I am sorry, could you read his answer.

[Record read]

THE WITNESS: And one, if the water escapes or,
two, if it doesn't.

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Well --

A. Excuse me.

Q. I am sorry, did you want to elaborate on your
answer?

A. I emphasize that that is the model that I
propose.

I was not there when the fossil fuels were formed.

I proposed this model because it is consistent with
what I see from the data.

Q. What observations have you made that led to the

80

formulation of this model?

A. Studies of pyrolysis processes with biomass.

Q. What is the basis for your assertion in the
article that pressure may affect the type of coal formed?

A. Pressure affects the thermodynamic equations
involved, their function of temperature, pressure, volume,
chemical composition standards, p. chem. variables and
pressure being a variable of the function involved affects
the product distribution, the molecular weight, so on.

Q. Are there any scientists who adhere to your
understanding or your belief that pressure may effect
the type of coal formed?

A. Oh, yes, of course.

In fact, the Albany group, under the Bureau of Mines,
uses about three thousand pounds per square inch pressure
mainly to keep water in the liquid state.

Q. What is the product that comes from the process
that the Albany group performs?

A. It is a mixture of organic liquids which then
are subsequently refined to various -- like a traditional
refinery.

Q. But it is not coal?

A. They are designed to make oil, liquid fuel.

That's what their research goal is.

The Pittsburgh energy group is the one that men-
tioned the coal, the Pittsburgh energy research center
which is a U.S. Government document.

The chemistry of coal is very complex.

81

MR. CHILDS: Would you mind telling us what that
book is that you are looking at?

MR. LAHIFF: Not at all.

The book is entitled Organic Geochemistry by G.
Eglinton and M.T.J. Murphy.

Are you aware of the existence of this book entitled
Organic Geochemistry?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever read any scientific treatise on
organic geochemistry?

A. I have not read a book with that title that I
am aware of.

The topic, of course, is one that we have have been
discussing and I have read in that area.

Q. What authors have you read in that area?

A. I don't recall all the authors.

Q. Do you recall some of the authors?

A. Melvin Cook is one.

Q. Do you recall any others?

A. I don't recall any.

I read so many resources in looking at the topic,
trying to go through the literature and I don't recall
all those.

Q. Well, can you identify for me any organic
geochemists whose work you have read?

A. Organic geochemists, no, I cannot.

Q. What was the product that eventually resulted
from the process that the Pittsburgh energy group was

82

involved in?

A. They were studying a number of processes.

They only mentioned that coal was, in passing,
they mentioned that that was one of the things that they
form.

Their goal was the pilot study that led to the Albany
one to make liquid materials.

Q. Do you know if in fact they produced coal?

A. They did not produce a natural product which is
the definition of coal.

Coal is a natural product that occurs in the earth.

They, of course, did not do this in natural conditions
and the material that they had resembled coal.

Q. How did it resemble coal?

A. In its physical properties.

Q. What physical properties were those?

A. The way it burned, the way it looked.

Q. Do you know if the chemicals formula of the
product that they produced is identical to any grade of
coal?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you know the chemical formula of the product
that the Pittsburgh group produced?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Are you aware of the petrographic structure of
the product that the Pittsburgh energy group produced?

A. No.

Q. Could you describe to me the chemical formula

83

of the product that you produced?

A. Our product is a mixture of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen gases intermixed with various forms of hydro-
carbons and hydrogen gas.

Q. Is it a gas or solid?

A. We are making gas intermixed with various por-
tions of hydrocarbons.

Q. Is there any natural product equivalent in
chemical composition to the product which you have
produced?

A. We have aimed at producing synthesis gas which
then can be converted into, and has been converted into
various pure substances such as methane, which is a
natural, which is the principal component of the natural
gas ethane -- methane, ethane, propane and lower molecular
weight hydrocarbons and methanol and lower molecular
weight oxygenates.

Q. Have you synthesized a product that is chemical-
ly equivalent in composition to any fossil fuel?

A. One of the fossil fuels, methane -- natural
gas contains a mixture -- methane has a form of CH4.

The methane that we produce is identical.

It has a formula CH4.

Q. Do you consider methane to be a fossil fuel?

A. Methane is a fossil fuel.

Q. Do you consider methane to be a fossil fuel?

A. It is one of the mixtures of the fossil fuels.

In fossil fuels, you have all the way from almost

84

pure methane all the way up to anthracite coal with
various mixtures of proportions of carbon. Fossil fuel
is not a pure substance.

Q. What are the fossil fuels to your understanding?

A. Natural hydrocabons and coal.

Q. What are the natural hydrocarbons?

A. Methane on up the alkane series, alkene, al-
kyne series, hydrocarbons and mixtures thereof.

Methane -- for example, coal is a fossil fuel.

Methane is associated with coal seams.

Q. Can you describe for me the role of the Genesis
flood in the formation of coal.

A. Coal is buried in massive amounts, and I noticed
that some of the coal seams like up at Centralia,
Washington, not too far from where we live, are massive
and if they had been formed slowly, one would expect to
find in those seams alternate layers, like in alternate
wet and dry seasons, alternate layers of clay. I don't
notice that. Some of the seams there are very, very
thick seams which require a burial of a large amount of
biomass.

The geological catastrophy associated with the
Genesis flood and the large amount of biomass that was
present prior seemed like a fruitful avenue for investi-
gation to me as a model to look at.

Q. Is there any organic process in the formation
of coal?

A. Organic process in the formation of coal.

85

It is a chemical process.

Q. Is there any operation of bacteria or fungi
on the plant matter?

A. There may be.

Q. Well, do you know if in fact there is in the
formation of coal?

A. I was not -- no, I did not know.

I was not there when coal was formed.

All I can do at this present day is look at coal,
make a model to make some assumptions by which it may
have been formed.

I was not there.

Q. Are you aware of whether or not coal is present-
ly being formed today?

A. Cook, in his book, mentions a number of
interesting situations at the present time.

Q. And what are those interesting situations?

A. Coalification of lignocellulose material.

Q. In what areas of the world?

A. I think one was in Germany.

I don't recall the others.

Q. Do you know the process by which that material
is becoming coal?

A. It was associated with the chemical processes
such as I have outlined for you.

Q. Do you know if these are peat bogs?

A. They were not peat bogs as I recall.

It has been a while since I studied that.

86

Q. Could you describe for me the link you draw
between the synthesis of methanol and the age of the
earth?

A. The link seemed to me in the rate at which
the process was carried out.

If, in fact, the model is correct that this was
primarily a dehydration reaction with the exothermic
nature of the dehydration reaction that seemed to be a
fruitful model, that meant that if that process took
place, it had to happen before that heat could be frittered
away or it would never reach the spontaneous rise to around
430, 450 degrees C.

Q. What does the short rate of the process that
you have just described have to do with the age of the
earth?

A. Well, the traditional, as I had read the litera-
ture and I don't recall now all the books and I didn't
read that one and so on, but in talking with my colleagues
who were associated -- and with my geological friends
and books that I read about formation of fossil fuels,
it was suggested that that was a slow gradual process
by bacterial action or whatever, peat bogs, going into
coal, maybe. And the chemistry of that, with a slow
gradual process would be all right with the evolutionary
model.

If, however, the creation model scientists that I
talked with were correct in their shorter time scale,
that meant that there had to be a faster chemistry in-

87

volved. And I got to thinking what kind of chemistry
would be involved. And the model that came to mind, then,
would be this, which is in line with the chemistry of
behavior of pyrolysis reaction, would be this process that
we have discussed.

Q. How does a pyrolysis reaction compare to the
natural formation of coal?

A. I am suggesting that that may have been the
mechanism by which coal was formed.

Q. Do you have any scientific evidence to support
that?

A. The scientific evidence is that one can take
cellulose material and study the pyrolysis reaction and
obtain products which are similar in composition and
physical characteristics to the products that we observe
in fossil fuels.

We have studied the avoidance of tar formation,
particularly in our reaction.

Q. What are the products that are formed in these
reactions?

A. In pyrolysis reactions?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't know that they have been totally
analyzed.

Q. Well, could you identify for me a few of them,
at least?

A. Hydrocarbons, aldehydes, higher molecular
weight aldehydes and what is generally classed as char.

88

Q. Any others?

A. No, it is just potpouri.

Q. What fossil fuels are these products like?

A. The gases that come off are -- in certain
pyrolysis reactions, such as some being studied by Mudge
and his colleagues at Battell, are similar to synthetic
natural gas.

Q. What fossil fuels are aldehydes similar to,
equivalent to?

A. Some of our liquid petroleum fossil fuels.

Q. What is the chemical composition of an aldehyde?

A. It is an oxygenate compound, compounded in
oxygen.

Q. And what else?

A. Carbon and hydrogen.

Q. Could you describe for me precisely the chemical
formula of an aldehyde?

A. Well, there is a whole series of those.

They have a carbon and a -- double bonded to an
oxygen and some other material tacked on down the line.

Q. What other materials are tacked on?

A. Hydrocarbon chain.

Q. What is a hydrocarbon chain?

A. It is a compound made of carbon atoms linking
to carbon atoms linking to carbon atoms which we loosely
refer to as a chain with a varying amount of hydrogen
also attached to the carbons.

Q. Could you describe for me the chemical formula

89

for liquid petroleum?

A. Liquid petroleum comes in varying ways all the
way from pure enough to fill your car up to very black
viscose asphalty-type liquid. So it has mixtures of
varying substances in it: sulphur compounds, nitrogen
compounds, heterocyclic compounds, hydrocarbons, oxygenates
and so on.

Q. What fossil fuel is char equivalent to?

A. Char varies all the way from graphitic amor-
phous carbon to real shiny, almost bituminous material
like -- well, like gilsonite almost, the mineral gilsonite.

So the char varies -- the char that we produce varies
in properties almost the complete range from being liquid
to almost being solid.

Some is very dull in appearance.

Some is hard and compact and shiny, brittle.

It varies.

Q. You have described that you have geological
friends who work on the age of the earth.

Could you identify those for me?

A. Friends who work on the age of the earth?

- - -

90

Q. You said you have consulted with friends --

A. Oh, I meant that I had consulted with my
colleagues.

Well, for example, I talked with my friends at
Oregon State when I was there. I talked with University
of Puget Sound scientists, and when we would go to ACS
meetings --

Q. Who are the colleagues at Oregon State?

A. That we had discussions with?

Q. Yes.

A. Oh, let's see, that was during my graduate
school days.

Q. Well, have you had any discussions recently
with any of your colleagues dealing with the age of
earth?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you identify those colleagues for me?

A. Yes.

When we went to Holland we discussed on the way
back some of those points that we covered there. I have
discussed it with my colleagues at George Fox College. I
have been invited to speak on dating the earth.

Q. Well, could you give me some names, please?

A. Dr. Scott Chambers.

Q. With what institution?

A. He is with the George Fox College.

Dr. Hector Munn, also at George Fox College.

Harold Slusher and I rode together on the airplane

91

back from Holland and we talked about it.

Q. What is Dr. Chambers' specialty?

A. Physical chemistry.

Q. What is Dr. Munn's specialty?

A. It is chemistry. I am not sure if it is
biochemistry or organic chemistry.

Q. And what is Dr. Slusher's specialty?

A. I'm really not sure. I think it is physics.
Primarily he teaches physics and astronomy.

Q. Do any of these men have any background in
geology?

A. Dr. Munn has studied geology.

Q. Where has he studied geology?

A. Oregon State.

Q. Do you happen to know who the specialists are
on the age of the earth?

A. Specialists are people who work in the field
regularly. Henry Paul is one of those that I consulted.

Q. And with what institution is he associated?

A. I am not sure. When I started to study the
area, I read his book, "Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars,"
and subsequent papers that he has written.

Q. You don't know what institution he is associ-
ated with?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you know his specialty?

A. Geochronology.

Q. Any others?

92

A. Patrick Hurley.

Q. With what institution is he associated?

A. I'm again not sure.

Q. Any others?

A. Tilton and Steiger.

Q. Those are two individuals?

A. Yes.

Q. And with what institution are they?

A. I don't know.

Q. Has Patrick Hurley ever written any scientific
work on geochronology?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the title of his work?

A. He has a number. One that I read was, "How Old
Is the Earth?"

Q. What about Tilton and Steiger, have they pub-
lished any works?

A. Yes.

Q. What titles?

A. I believe you have some in your deposition.

Q. Could you tell us the names?

A. I don't recall the titles.

MR. CHILDS: You are talking about the documents
that were copied?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Do you know if any of these
gentlemen have published in any scientific journals?

93

A. Yes, they have.

Q. Have you read any of their publications?

A. Yes.

Q. In which scientific journals have they been
published?

A. Many. Science Magazine, Nature, so on.

Q. Do these people that you have described agree
with your beliefs?

A. As far as I can tell. I haven't asked them
personally, but as far as I can tell, they do not.
There is no indication that they do not accept the old
earth model.

MR. LAHIFF: I am sorry, could you read my question
and his answer.

[Record read]

THE WITNESS: I interpreted your question to be about
the age of the earth. They do accept the old earth model.
They do not agree with the model, but I accept.

MR. LAHIFF: Q. If they do not agree with the model
that you have accepted, how do you use their work in
support of your model?

A. The data -- I don't think they are misquoting
the data -- but they make assumptions to interpret that
data.

Q. What assumptions do they make?

A. Their primary assumption is that isotope ratios
are a time index.

Q. Do you recognize the name, Dr. Dalrymple?

94

A. Yes.

Q. Could you identify him for me, please.

A. He is at one of the California schools. He is
a geochronologist, a specialist.

Q. Do you recognize the name, Dr. Curtis?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Garniss Curtis?

A. No, I don't recognize that name.

Q. Why aren't isotope ratios valid?

A. It has been shown in the literature that
physical processes affect the ratios.

Q. Which literature?

A. Scientific literature.

Q. Which scientific literature?

A. I have some in the deposition there [indicat-
ing]. There are a number of examples, both for nonradio-
active systems as well as radioactive systems.

Q. Well, can you identify specifically a couple of
those?

A. Well, two immediately which come to mind are
the oxygen ratios are indicators of paleoclimatology,
because we measure the oxygen isotope ratio 16/18, for
example, which gives us a handle on the paleoclimatology
temperature of ancient water.

Another case that comes to mind is the potassium
argon ratios in the Kilauea lavas in Hawaii.

Q. Could you describe the titles of any of these
works?

95

A. I forget the exact title. I would have to
look them up.

MR. CHILDS: Are they in the documents that have
been copied?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they are in the documents that
have been copied.

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Could you identify any of the
authors?

A. I forget which author is which document at the
moment.

MR. CHILDS: If you want to take the time, he can
go through them. I just wanted the record to reflect
they were there. If you want him to look for them, he
can look for them now.

MR. LAHIFF: Let's take a break for a few minutes.

[Brief recess]

THE WITNESS: What was the question now?

[Record read]

MR. CHILDS: Let's just identify these for the
record.

Why don't you identify these two articles?

Are these the two?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. I would appreciate
that.

MR. LAHIFF: Dr. Chittick has identified two
articles, one entitled "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas
Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating," and it was
written by C. S. Noble and J. J. Haughton and it appeared

96

in Science, the October 11, 1968 issue.

THE WITNESS: I thought there were three authors on
that one.

MR. LAHIFF: No, just two.

[Discussion off the record]

[Photocopy of document entitled
"Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas
Content and Uncertainties in Age
Dating" marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 5 for identification]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. The second article is entitled
"Argon-40: Excess in Submarine Pillow Basalts from
Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii," and that was authored by G.
Brent Dalrymple and James G. Moore and appeared in
Volume 161 of Science Magazine, September 13, 1968.

Q. Have you ever studied fossil fuels in the
laboratory?

A. We have experimented with various grade of
coal, including lignite, in our gassification process.
To that extent I have studied them.

Q. What kind of studies have you performed?

A. We have studied the sulphur content and the
feasibility of gassification to synthesis gas.

Q. Have you ever analyzed petroleum or any fossil
fuels as they appear in nature?

A. I have not.

Q. Have you ever done any petrographic work with
coal or any other fossil fuel?

97

A. I have not.

Q. Have you ever analyzed the fuel that you have
produced to see how well it corresponds to any natural
products?

A. We have only checked the gas composition by
gas chromatograph of the affluent stream from our gas
fires. It does not match any natural products, to my
knowledge.

Q. Is it possible to produce an anthracite coal
through your process?

A. Anthracite coal is a natural mineral.

Q. Is it possible, then, to produce a product
chemically identical to anthracite coal?

A. It is possible to produce a product that has
the same carbon, hydrogen -- roughly the same, now,
depending on how many decimal places we wish to go out --
approximately the same, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
mineral content as an anthracite coal.

Q. Do you know if human beings produce methane
gas as a by-product of living?

A. They claim that the human gut under certain
conditions can synthesize methane gas.

There was one proposal several years to the
NSF by one of the students in the State of Washington, I
believe, to put a canopy over a large area and collect
the burps of cows.

Q. Do I understand your testimony properly, that
it is the speed of the reaction that you have performed

98

in the laboratory that leads you to believe that the
earth is 10,000 years old or less?

A. What I intended to say was, that in thinking
about the age of the earth and in thinking about the
chemistry that would be involved, in my mind what would
be the chemical reactions involved in changing biomass
to materials similar to what we find in fossil fuels,
that thinking let me to try experiments to see if I
could in fact change biomass into a material that was
specific, so that we could use it in synthesis of needed
hydrocarbons or whatever product desired.

Q. Have you ever read "The Origin of Species"?

A. By Charles Darwin?

Q. By Darwin.

A. Excerpts of it, only.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. Is there any discussion in either
of these two exhibits, Plaintiffs' 4 and 5, that support
your position on the age of the earth.

A. The discussion that was carried on in those
articles was that the isotope ratios obtained from these
lavas do not reflect accurately the time scale that these
authors would attach normally to those lavas. The lavas
in question had an age, historical age, of less than, as
I recall, it has been a while since I read them, but less
than of the order of 200 years, historical year, and the
test was to see whether the -- what were the potassium/
Argon-40 ratios in those rocks. And if you would use

99

Those ratios as a date, then one would get varying dates
on the same rock, depending on where the sample was
taken. And the conclusion was that the ratio seems to
reflect a physical process -- chemical process -- the
rate of cooling affects the ratio, the pressure under
which the rock was cooled was the conclusion that was
suggested.

Q. But do individual examples of contamination
necessarily disprove the validity of the process?

A. They seem to cast question on the assumption
that isotope ratios are a time index only. They may well
be in some cases. But if that assumption is correct,
then -- if that assumption is incorrect, then the conclu-
sions that are drawn from the data are not likely to be
correct.

So this suggests to me, what would happen if we --
Suppose we examine the same data from a different set of
assumptions. Suppose we take isotope ratios as being an
indicator of geophysical processes and examine the data.
What kind of conclusions would it lead to? What kind of
problems would it avoid to a time index assessment?
What problems this model might resolve. It resolves
some of the problems; then it seems like it would be a
better model.

Q. Do you believe that in the laboratory you have
copied the natural processes by which fossil fuels have
developed?

A. To what degree does our laboratory work -- I

100

am rephrasing your question -- to what degree does our
laboratory work duplicate what I believe to place
naturally in the formation of fossil fuels?

Q. Yes.

A. The thinking about fossil fuels got me started
in thinking about the laboratory processes and, as I
mentioned, these chars and tars that we formed were not
our -- were not in the main line of our research. I
don't know what degree they would be identical to what
happened in the past.

Q. Why can't you make any statement about that?

- - -

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Donald E. Chittick - Page 3

101

A. Lack of more sufficient exact analytical
data of natural products.

We don't have the exact analysis of natural products
to compare any closer than superficial comparisons that
they are similar with the available data.

It looks like it is a good model.

Q. Do you know what the traditional scientific
explanation for the formation of coal is?

A. There are a number of explanations and I've
forgotten all the ones that have been suggested other
than I got the general consensus that it was a slow
process.

Q. And how did this slow process operate?

A. Biomass was collected perhaps by leaves or limbs
dropping down and piling up and collecting to form
sufficient carbonaceous material which could then later
on be slowly changed into coal or oil.

Q. Do you know whether or not scientists have
identified the activity of fungi or bacteria as important
in the formation of coal?

A. In my reading on the subject some have suggested
that it was very important.

And in my reading letters to the editor, others
would challenge that.

So it is apparently being discussed with varying
viewpoints.

Q. Who are the individuals who are challenging
that viewpoint?

102

A. I do not recall that.

That was not the main thrust of my research.

I simply came across it in passing and wasn't
particularly interested in it.

What I was interested in was a process that we wanted
to work at.

Q. Does a challenge constitute a dismissal?

A. No, certainly not.

Q. Could you describe how wood decomposes?

A. How wood decomposes?

Q. Wood decomposes.

A. Normally wood decomposes by bacteria decay and
eventually returns to mineral matter that was in it and
carbon dioxide and water and reenters the cycle.

Q. And that does not operate during the formation
of coal?

A. That's correct.

Q. When did you last read a published book or
article on the subject of the age of the earth?

A. This fall I read -- it seems to me that I read
two articles:

One was by -- a little book called "Age of the Cosmos"
by Harold Slusher and there were several articles in the
literature relating to that in, I believe it was Science
Digest.

And in relation to Age of the Cosmos and the
Red Shift by Arp, was one of the authors, and there were
several others I don't recall.

103

I believe I have a couple of those in the deposi-
tion.

Q. When did you last read a published article
or book on geology?

A. A published article or book on geology.

I tried to read -- I try to stay abreast of some of
the -- I subscribe to a number of professional magazines
including Science Magazine and The Scientist put out by
the New York Academy of Sciences, Sigma Xi publication.

Q. Have there been any article or books published
recently which agree with your position?

A. On a young earth?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, there was another one I read this fall
sometime.

It seems to me there were two issues or two articles
that appeared, as I recall, in, I think, the Bible Science
Newsletter on isochron dating.

Q. Do you know if the Bible Science Newsletter
is in general circulation and usage?

A. It is.

Q. Do you know if that is subject to peer review?

A. I think it isn't.

Q. Have you read any other articles or treatises
recently on geology?

A. I tried to read the journals and that there
have been articles that have been in there and I come
across them but I just at this point don't recall.

104

Q. Do you believe that faith is a necessary element
in the application of understanding of evolution?

A. Yes, you have to have faith in your primary
assumptions.

Q. Do you believe faith is a necessary element in
the creation model?

A. Yes, you have to have faith in your primary
assumptions.

Q. What is the nature of that faith?

A. It is your a priori, it is where you start to
look at the data to draw conclusions.

Q. Is it a religious faith?

A. It depends on how one might define religious
faith, I suppose.

Q. How do you define religious faith?

A. Generally, I would define religious faith as
the starting point or assumptions for one's theology.

MR. LAHIFF: I am sorry, could you read that answer
for me, please.

[Record read]

MR. LAHIFF: Q. But does your religious faith act
as any assumptions in the field of creation science?

A. Would you say that again, please.

Q. Does your religious faith set forth any of
the assumptions upon which you believe in creation
science.

A. My religious faith is consistent with the
assumptions of creation science.

105

Q. Are you aware of any tests to which the model
of creation science has been subjected?

A. The data are there.

Involved in creation science are one of the things
we talked about this morning, where the terraced lines are
and they are there.

Q. But is it possible to test your theory?

A. Those terraced lines were formed -- you can test
to see how they were formed and the tests that we per-
formed indicate they were formed by waste.

Q. Do you know what sedimentary facies is?

A. I know what sedimentary is.

I am not familiar with the term facies.

Q. Have you ever read any books or treatises on
stratigraphy?

A. Yes.

Q. What books or treatises have you read?

A. One that interests me and several come to mind.

There are several.

But one that interests me because it was not my
field and I wanted to see the data was Geology Illustrated
by Shelton and I don't remember the first name.

Q. Could you describe for me a little bit about
the book, what the book covers.

A. He discovers a number of -- he's an amateur
photographer and he is an airplane pilot and has an
interest in geology. And it covers photographic pictures
of interesting geological areas along with a discussion.

106

And in the book, the one that interested me very,
very much was his discussion of geologic time.

Q. What was his discussion of geologic time?

A. Well, the gist of his discussion on geologic
time was that stratigraphy doesn't tell us absolute
dates.

He says -- paraphrasing -- that it is not possible
to know how long it takes to lay down a layer or if we
knew that, how much time there was between layers.

And he makes a comment, as a number of others did
when I first began to study this area, that radioisotopes
were the only way that geologists had of measuring
dates and years.

Q. How does stratigraphy relate to geologic time?

A. Well, we have layers in the earth and we see
those layers.

Those layers presumably were formed at rates which
involves time and since there were rates time is involved.

The evolutionists use stratigraphy as a time index
or has in the past.

Q. Which scientists are you aware that have
used stratigraphy to indicate geologic time?

A. In the broad sense -- now, we are talking
about stratigraphy in the broad sense, not a study of
that as a field or discipline.

Which scientists use the layers as a time index?

Q. Yes.

A. As a time index?

107

Q. As a time index.

A. Most of the evolutionary writers that I have
consulted.

Q. Could you identify specifically any of them
for me?

A. G. G. Simpson, Ldyard Stebbins.

I don't recall right now some of the others.

MR. CHILDS: It is quarter till.

THE WITNESS: Is your voice as hoarse as mine.

MR. LAHIFF: It is now 2:45 and Dr. Chittick is
leaving to catch his plane.

I think there are a lot of things that we still
could have covered.

Unfortunately he is not available.

As I understand it, you will provide us with copies
of the slides that you intend to use during your testimony?

MR. CHILDS: Just as soon as we can, right.

MR. LAHIFF: And you will provide those to Bob
Cearley.

MR. CHILDS: Yes, no problem.

MR. LAHIFF: Thank you very much.

[Photocopy of document entitled
"Argon-40: Excess in Submarine
Pillow Basalts from Kilauea
Volcano, Hawaii" marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 5 for identification]

_______________________________
DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK

108

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named

DR. DONALD ERNEST CHITTICK

was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said
witness was reported by

LINDA L. CHAVEZ and THOMAS A. LIBATIQUE,

Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the pertinent provisions of the applicable code or
rules of civil procedure relating to the original
transcript of deposition for reading, correcting and
signing have been complied with.

And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome of
the cause in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ____ day of November
1981.

_______________________________

Deposition of Ariel Roth

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

REVEREND BILL MC LEAN, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________)

DEPOSITION OF

DR. ARIEL ROTH

Monday, November 16, 1981

Reported by:
JOHN F. KEATING, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 254, and
CAROLINE ANDERSON, C.S.R.,
Certificate No. 193

2

I N D E X

Page

DEPOSITION OF DR. ARIEL ROTH

EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE 4

- - -

EXHIBITS

Number

1 Vita, Ariel A. Roth 5

2 Excerpt from Origins, Volume 6, No. 2,

1979, pages 57, 58 and 88 through 95 89

- - -

3

BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of Taking
Deposition, and on Monday, November 16, 1981, commencing
at the hour of 9:55 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the offices
of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market Plaza, San
Francisco, before us, JOHN F. KEATING and CAROLINE
ANDERSON, Certified Shorthand Reporters and Notaries
Public in and for the State of California, personally
appeared

DR. ARIEL ROTH,

called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.

- - -

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by STEPHEN
G. WOLFE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.

STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS, Deputy Attorney General,
appeared as counsel on behalf of the defendants.

- - -

4

MR. WOLFE: We'll begin with the stipulation only
that the sealing of the deposition is waived; the
deposition need not be signed by the witness before the
Notary who took the deposition.

Plaintiffs have requested that the signed deposition
be returned within five days of its receipt by the
witness, and our position would be that in view of the
short time remaining before trial, we are entitled to
use the deposition as though it had been signed if it
cannot be returned in that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The defendants will not stipulate
to do it within five days. We will, of course,, offer to
try to have it done as expeditiously as possible and
hope we can do it within that time period.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

- - -

DR. ARIEL ROTH,

being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE:

MR. WOLFE: Please state your name and address.

A. The name is Ariel Roth; the address is ****
****** **** ****, *********, ********** *****.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Wolfe, before we go any further,
I want to state for the record, we are here today
voluntarily appearing, producing Dr. Roth for this
deposition, and we are glad to do it to accommodate
the plaintiffs in this fashion.

5

We were asked to begin at 9:00 o'clock, but due to
the telephone conference call we were unable to, and
Dr. Roth, as well as Dr. Coffin in the other
deposition, have to leave at 4:00 o'clock to catch a
plane.

MR. WOLFE: It is understood that the deposition
must end at 4:00 p.m. today in order to accommodate
Dr. Roth's travel schedule.

We would hope that it will be, of course, concluded
by that time.

If it proves not to be, we expect to continue it to
some later date fairly soon, in the light of the trial
date.

I'll ask the reporter to mark a document headed
"Vita, Ariel A. Roth" as Roth Deposition 1 for
identification.

[Document entitled "Vita, Ariel A.
Roth" was marked Exhibit No. 1
for identification.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, I'm handing you a copy
that was marked as Exhibit No. 1 to your deposition,
and I'll ask you if you recognize it.

A. Yes.

Q. What is it, sir?

A. It is my vita.

Q. Did you provide this document to the Attorney
General of Arkansas?

A. Right.

6

Q. Do you recall when that was?

A. I guess about two or three weeks ago.

Q. Sir, can you tell me when you had your first
contact with the representative of the Attorney General
of Arkansas for this case?

A. Just about that time.

Q. And what contact was that, sir?

A. It was a telephone call.

Q. Was the call to you from someone in the
Attorney General's office?

A. Yes.

It was Tim Humphries who called me.

Q. Do you know just when that was, sir?

A. About the middle of October, the latter part
of October, in there.

I don't have a record of the phone call.

Q. Do you recall the substance of your
conversation with Mr. Humphries on that occasion of the
first contact?

A. He was wondering if I would be willing to
help in connection with this court case.

Q. Did Mr. Humphries tell you how he had
received your name?

A. He mentioned that, I believe, Wendell Bird
had mentioned my name to him.

Q. Did Mr. Humphries say how he happened to
receive your name from Mr. Bird?

A. Yes.

7

Q. Have you heard since that time how Mr. Bird
happened to give your name to the Arkansas Attorney
General?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall approximately how long it was
after your first conversation with Mr. Humphries that
you supplied your curriculum vitae to the Attorney
General?

A. I would say about one day, I think.

There were several phone calls.

I think he asked for it the first day, and I sent
it to him at that time.

Q. Did you agree to appear as a witness in this
action on the occasion of your first phone call with
Mr. Humphries?

A. No.

Q. Sir, when did you agree to appear as a witness?

A. He called me about a week or two later.

Q. How many conversations had you had with
representatives of the Arkansas Attorney General in that
period between your first contact with Mr. Humphries and
your agreement to appear as a witness?

A. It seems to me there were three. I would
guess three.

Q. Were they all with Mr. Humphries?

A. Yes.

Well, that was -- a subsequent one was with the
secretary, but I think they were all with Mr. Humphries.

8

Q. Dr. Roth, I'll hand you now a copy of a
document which is defendants' first and second list of
witnesses in this case, and I'm opening it to a page in
which you are listed as a witness.

I'll ask you to look at the numbered paragraph 13,
which consists of your name and address and a short
description of your expected testimony.

[Short recess.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, have you ever seen the
document that I gave you, the list of witnesses, before?

A. No.

Q. Do you know how the Arkansas Attorney General
came into possession of the information about your
expected testimony that's on that list?

A. Over the telephone.

Q. Do you know when you gave that information to
the Arkansas Attorney General?

A. During one of those first three phone calls
that we referred to.

Q. Sir, I'll point out to you that witness list
was dated October 26th and ask you if that enables you
to be more certain about when you might have given the
information to the Arkansas Attorney General.

A. Before that.

Q. Sir, I'll show you another document, which is
plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories in this action,
and I'll ask you if you have ever seen that before.

MR. WILLIAMS: We will stipulate he hasn't, unless

9

he got it somewhere else other than from us.

THE WITNESS: I have not seen this before.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, if you will read that page,
you will see that it is a request for the defendants in
this action to provide certain information as to expert
witnesses who are expected to testify at trial.

Have you ever had any contact with the Arkansas
Attorney General in which they have asked you to provide
them with the information listed there?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object.

That's ambiguous, because there are several items
of information.

If you could be more specific?

MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you had any contact with the
Arkansas Attorney General subsequent to the phone call
in which you said you gave him the information that
appears on the list of witnesses in which they asked you
for any of the information that's requested in the
interrogatories?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any contact with the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office since the time of
the telephone call in which you provided -- the
telephone call for the list of witnesses in which you
discussed your expected testimony at trial?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Last week, as travel arrangements were coming

10

near, were being arranged.

Q. Do you recall what day that was, sir?

A. Several days ago, I would guess, Monday,
Thursday and Friday, but it could be Wednesday, also.

Q. Sir, has anyone from the Arkansas Attorney
General's office ever asked you to send them copies of
your writings on science or Creation Science?

A. No.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Williams, we would like to register
again our objection to your refusal to answer the
interrogatories and produce the documents requested in
the document request, particularly in light of the fact
that the subject apparently was discussed with Mr. Roth
at least once in preparation of the list of witnesses,
and one or more times last week since then, and we still
have been unable to acquire any sort of information,
being provided any information in response to
interrogatories.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, I will respond to
that.

We have provided his curriculum vitae to the
plaintiffs.

Further, we have provided the general subject matter
of his testimony and the list of witnesses, and he has
brought some documents with him, if you care to look at
them.

That's entirely up to you.

MR. WOLFE: First, do I understand you to be

11

willing to stipulate that his expected testimony will
be no broader than what is -- what was provided to us on
the list of witnesses on October 26th?

A. I would say that he will testify on that
subject.

There are other possible areas of testimony, as well,
and I'll tell you, he will talk, perhaps about
catastrophism. He may also talk about some general
principles of science and how scientific models arise.

We also, in answer to the objection and response to
it -- this is not a typical case, Mr. Wolfe, where you
have a specific set of facts like in a medical malpractice
case.

Until such time as our discovery is complete in
taking the depositions of plaintiffs' witnesses, we did
not know and we cannot know exactly what areas we will
want to cover with our witnesses.

MR. WOLFE: I see. Could you explain to me, sir,
how it is that you have become aware that Dr. Roth might
testify about catastrophism and the way in which certain
scientific principles arise without seeing fit to
provide that information to us in response to the
interrogatories or in any other fashion?

MR. WILLIAMS: Because we discussed it last night.

MR. WOLFE: Certainly, in addition to our objection
about the failure to respond to the discovery requests
in the interrogatories and document request, we would
certainly take the position that no witness is, could

12

properly be offering testimony on the subject as to which
we had no opportunity to make discovery, no notice as
to the possibility of such testimony.

MR. WILLIAMS: You are here to take this discovery
deposition. That's the purpose of the deposition.

MR. WOLFE: Yes, it is.

The second matter is to documents which Dr. Roth
may have brought with him today. I would very much like
to see any such documents, assuming you are willing to
make them available.

THE WITNESS: Listed in my vita are a number of
publications.

I have brought, I believe, an almost or an all
complete set of all my publications.

MR. WOLFE: All right, sir.

Q. Are there any other documents that you brought
with you?

A. The journal which I edit, Origins, has a
number of my publications in it in addition to this.

I have brought some correspondence, as requested,
and other statements. It may at times relate to the
issue. I have brought those along, statements made to
the State of California, to Oregon and so on regarding
this particular issue, which I thought were pertintent
to this deposition.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Back on the record.

13

Q. Dr. Roth, have you brought any other
materials that deal with statements you have made or
contacts you have had with the Arkansas Attorney General
concerning this case or other correspondence or
discussions you may have had concerning the subject of
Scientific Creation?

A. Not dealing with this case.

Now, which way do you want it?

Q. My question has two parts: contacts concerning
this case or any other material that you brought along,
that is, correspondence that you have had on the subject
of Scientific Creation.

A. I have had some correspondence with
evolutionists and creationists, and I brought back, which
I could obtain, with me.

Q. Are you willing to have me make copies of
those materials, as well?

A. Sure.

MR. WOLFE: We'll break for a few moments while I
arrange to have copies made of the documents which
Dr. Roth has provided to me just now.

Sir, I'll return these copies of Origins to you.

[Short recess.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, turning your attention
back to your vita, Exhibit 1 to the deposition, could
you tell me what your major area of study was at Pacific
Union College.

A. Biology.

14

Q. And in your graduate studies at the University
of Michigan?

A. For the Master's degree, it was either biology
or zoology. For the Ph.D. it was zoology.

Q. Sir, have you had any postdoctoral education
other than what is listed on your vita?

A. Not that I can think of.

Q. Would you tell me the subject of your Ph.D.
dissertation.

A. It was gametogenesis, g-a-m-e-t-o-g-e-n-e-s-i-s.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, I apologize for the
interruption. I believe you were giving us the title of
your Ph.D. dissertation.

A. All right.

We got to the word "gametogenesis," g-a-m-e-t-o-g-e-n-
e-s-i-s, in the final generation of Schistosomatium,
capital S-c-h-i-s-t-o-s-o-m-a-t-i-u-m, dotthitti, small
d-o-t-t-h-i-t-t-i.

Q. Sir, had you any subspecialization within
zoology within your Ph.D. training?

A. Parasitology, p-a-r-a-s-i-t-o-l-o-g-y.

Q. Would you describe the training in radiation
biology that is mentioned on your vita?

A. It was a number of courses designed to give
me knowledge of how to use radioactive tracers in
biological research.

Q. How many courses were there, sir?

15

A. It has been a long time.

I think three or four.

Q. Were they ordinary graduate level courses at
the university?

A. Right.

Q. Were those courses undertaken at a regular
session or at summer school?

A. Regular session.

Q. Would you describe the training in geology and
mathematics at Riverside mentioned on your vita?

A. Mathematics, including a year of calculus.
The geology amounted to about three years of geology
courses.

By this I mean a three-year sequence, not three years
of full-time courses.

In other words, we would be talking about 12 to 16
courses.

Q. Were those courses at the graduate level?

A. No. Those were mostly -- well, I think all
were undergraduate or advanced undergraduate or lower
division undergraduate.

Q. Did you take a degree pursuant to either of
these?

A. No.

Q. Are the three degrees listed on your vita the
only academic degrees that you have, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Were any of those degrees granted with honors?

16

A. No, I don't think so, no.

Q. Dr. Roth, does the section of your vita headed
"Employment" describe all of the teaching experience that
you have had?

A. I think so.

Q. Sir, what did you teach as a teaching
assistant at the University of Michigan?

A. I was an assistant in the basic course in
zoology.

Q. And what did you teach at Pacific Union
College during the period you were employed there?

A. Probably, I would guess, 10 to 20 different
courses in biology.

Q. Were they graduate or undergraduate courses?

A. Those were all undergraduate courses.

Q. Does Pacific Union College grant graduate
degrees?

A. They do now.

Q. Did they at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they grant graduate degrees in biology?

A. Yes.

Q. But the courses that you taught were all
undergraduate?

A. To the best of my knowledge.

Q. Sir, what were your responsibilities as a
research assistant at Loma Linda University in 1957 and
1958?

17

A. I was studying the intermediate host of a
parasitic worm.

Q. And what parasitic worm was that, sir?

A. A schistosome, s-c-h-i-s-t-o-s-o-m-e.

Q. Sir, what were your responsibilities as a
professor of biology and chairman of the department at
Andrews University?

A. I taught courses and directed the program of
the department, as well as research in the department.

Q. Where is Andrews University, Dr. Roth?

A. It's in Berrien, B-e-r-r-i-e-n, Springs,
Michigan.

Q. Were the courses that you taught undergraduate
or graduate level courses.

A. At Andrews they were all undergraduate
courses.

Q. Did Andrews grant graduate degrees in biology
at the time you were there?

A. No.

Q. Would you describe your responsibilities as a
professor of biology and chairman of the department at
Loma Linda University from 1963 to 1971?

A. The first part of that period I was chairman
of the graduate program because that was the only program
that Loma Linda had at that time, a graduate program in
biology where I taught graduate courses and directed
research and, of course, directed the program.

Later on Loma Linda University was tied in with an

18

undergraduate program, and I was chairman of both the
graduate and the undergraduate program at the latter part
of that period.

Q. Have your responsibilities at Loma Linda been
different during the time that you are associated with
Geoscience Research Institute?

A. Yes. My work is directed towards the
Geoscience Institute now.

Q. Would you describe that program and your
responsibilities in it?

A. I am the director of that program. The
responsibilities, of course, involve directing the research
and the other duties of that institute which deal with
studying the controversy between evolution and creation,
and presenting the results of our study.

Q. Does the Geoscience Research Institute grant
degrees?

A. No.

Q. Does it engage in any research other than on
the controversy between Creation Science and Evolution
Science that you have just described?

A. I would have to qualify that.

It depends on what you mean on this issue. It's hard
to say. Some questions are related to this but may not
be directly involved in it.

All knowledge is good, and we are looking for truth.

Q. Would you describe the purpose or the aim of
the Geoscience Research Institute.

19

Is it aimed primarily at this body of knowledge of
creation, of evolution?

A. The aim of the institute, and this I will
state as my personal concern, is to find truth from a
broader context than is traditional in academic pursuits.

In other words, it is a multiple-disciplinary
approach.

Q. And is the subject matter of the institute's
research primarily Creation Science?

A. I would say truth.

Q. Are there any substantive areas of
concentration within the overall body of truth that the
Research Institute concentrates in?

A. Oh, I would say definitely the question of
origins.

Q. Could you tell me when the Geoscience Research
Institute was founded.

A. In 1958.

Q. Does it have a statement of purpose or the
like that you are aware of?

A. There is a statement that was voted several
years ago of purpose.

Q. Do you recall the substance of that
statement of purpose?

A. Essentially that the institute has a broad
approach to the issue. It is seeking truth on the basis
of studying a multiplicity of areas.

Q. Have you had any teaching responsibility since

20

the time you have been associated with the Geoscience
Research Institute?

A. I teach a course every other year for Loma
Linda University.

Q. What is that?

A. Paleontological, p-a-l-e-o-n-t-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l,
interpretations.

Q. Would you describe the subject matter, if you
can, briefly of your course.

A. It's an analysis of the fossil record and
various interpretations that are put thereon.

Q. Do you have textbooks for the course?

A. The last time I taught we used Dott and Baten,
D-o-t-t and B-a-t-e-n.

It's a history of the earth or earth history.

I'm sorry, I cannot give you the exact title.

It has the Dott and Baten textbook as a base.

Now I add supplemental materials to this.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you studied at any colleges
other than Pacific Union College, the University of
Michigan and the two University of California campuses
listed on your vita?

A. I audited a typing course once at Columbian
Union college in 1945.

Q. Are there any others?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you write a thesis for your Master's
degree at the University of Michigan?

21

A. No.

Q. Was your Ph.D. thesis published?

A. Only in abstract form.

Q. Sir, does the listing on your vita of grants
represent all of the grant applications that you have
accepted?

A. I think so.

Q. Do you recall of any grant applications you
have made that were not funded?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe them for me, sir.

A. I applied to the National Institute of Health
for a grant to study the metabolism, m-e-t-a-b-o-l-i-s-m,
of schistosomes, s-c-h-i-s-t-o-s-o-m-e-s, and was turned
down.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. In the early '60s, middle '60s, I would say.

Q. Do you have any knowledge why the grant
application was rejected?

A. One of the reviewers stated that he didn't
think the project was feasible.

Q. Do you have any knowledge about why it was
regarded as not feasible by that reviewer?

A. I'm afraid not, because a graduate student of
mine completed the project within two years after that.

Q. Have you had any other grant applications
which were not funded?

A. Not that I can recall right now.

22

Q. Are you a tenured professor at Loma Linda?

A. I don't think I am anymore.

I have been.

Since I am with the Geoscience Research Institute,
I'm not sure. I don't think I am.

Q. Have you been tenured at any institutions other
than Loma Linda?

A. Andrews University.

Q. Have you ever been denied tenure at any
institutions where you taught?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, is Andrews University accredited by
any accrediting body?

A. By the North Central Association.

Q. Was it accredited at the time you taught
there?

A. Yes.

Q. And is Loma Linda accredited?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know by whom?

A. The Western Association of Secondary Schools
and Colleges.

Q. And has it been accredited throughout the
time you have been employed there?

A. Yes.

Q. Does Andrews University have any affiliation
with a religious institution?

A. It is a Seventh Day Adventist institution.

23

Q. Does Loma Linda University have any
affiliation with a religious institution?

A. Likewise, it is a Seventh Day Adventist
Institution.

Q. Does Pacific Union College have any
affiliation with a religious institution?

A. It likewise is a Seventh Day Adventist
institution.

Q. Could you describe the current areas of
research that you are engaged in?

A. The main area of research I am dealing with
now is the area of coral reefs. I deal with both the
metabolism of present coral organisms and I am also
studying the structure of present and past coral reefs.

Q. How long have you been engaged in research in
those two areas?

A. About 11 years.

Q. And what was your research area prior to the
beginning of your research on coral reefs?

A. Schistosome worms.

Q. And had that been your area of research
interest from the time of your Ph.D. study?

A. Right.

Q. Can you tell me what precipitated your taking
up coral reef research and leaving off the research on
schistosomes?

A. Several factors.

I have always been interested in marine biology,

24

and this was definitely a factor that influenced my
decision, because I wanted to get into the ocean and
study marine organisms.

Secondly, I felt that coral reefs had significant
implications in terms of philosophical implications
regarding past life.

Q. Could you explain the philosophical
implications that you just mentioned?

A. Part of the question relates to the authenticity
of ancient reefs and part of it to the rate of reformation.

Q. Will you explain to me what you mean by the
authenticity of ancient reefs.

A. In the fossil record we have structures that
are sometimes referred to as reefs. Are they real reefs
or not?

Q. Were there any reasons independent of your
interest in the coral reef questions about why you left
off your research in schistosomes?

A. Just those I mentioned.

Q. Sir, have you ever had any training or
education in marine biology?

A. I have taken course work in marine biology.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Pacific Union College, I would guess, about
1947.

Q. Was that undergraduate course work, sir?

A. That was undergraduate work.

Q. Have you done any graduate work in marine

25

biology?

A. You mean specific course work in marine
biology?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Not that was related to marine biology, per
se.

I might state, the course work that I took at
Berkeley, for instance, helmed me in doing research in
marine biology.

Q. That was the course work you took in the use
of radioactive tracers in biological research?

A. Right.

I should point out that the training I received at
the University of Michigan was in vertebrate zoology,
which deals more with marine organisms, although my
specialization is in parasitology, but marine parasites
are not uncommon. There is an overlap between the
specialties.

Q. Were any of the parasites that you studied
in your Ph.D. research or subsequently marine parasites?

A. No. That is not those I did intensive research
on.

Q. What are the hosts of the schistosomes, sir?

A. It varies and depends on which schistosome
you are dealing with.

The host of the one I was dealing with most of the
time in my research was man and a snail.

The host of the one I did my doctoral research on

26

was a meadow vole, v-o-l-e, meadow vole.

Q. And the snail that you referred to, was that
a freshwater snail?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, is it correct that the snail is an
intermediate host of schistosomes or the ones that you
studied and that man is the primary host or the one that
you were primarily interested in?

A. That's right.

Q. Is most of your study directed to man or to
the intermediate host?

A. Both, not man, the worm, the intermediate host.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any paid employment
other than what is listed on your vita?

Let me limit that to the time since your Ph.D. was
granted.

A. Only in terms of honoraria of one type or
another for writing an article or giving a talk.

Q. Sir, are you paid as the editor of Origins?

A. This is part of my duties as director of the
Geoscience Research Institute.

Q. Is Origins then a publication of the Geo.
Research Institute?

A. Right.

Q. When was Origins founded?

A. In 1974.

Q. Dr. Roth, did you have a research requirement
or responsibility when you were at Andrews University?

27

That is, were you expected to carry on research
while you were there?

A. No, but I did it.

Q. What were the responsibilities that you were
required to carry out in your paid employment there?

A. Chairing the department and teaching a limited
number of courses.

Q. Did you have any responsibility to publish
while you were at Andrews University?

A. It was encouraged.

Q. Did you have any research responsibility in the
biology department at Loma Linda?

A. There the concern for publication was much
more serious because that was a graduate program I was
dealing with, and you have no business in a graduate
program without doing research.

Q. Was it expected that professors at Loma Linda
in biology, in order to be tenured, would do research and
publish?

A. Very definitely.

Q. And do you have research and writing
responsibilities at the Geoscience Research Institute?

A. Very strongly encouraged.

It is similar to the academic community that
essentially, if you don't publish, you cannot be
considered a researcher.

Q. I see.

Sir, are you required to edit the journal, Origins,

28

as director of the Research Institute?

A. It's not required, but at present I do it.

Q. Who was your predecessor director of the
Research Institute?

A. Robert Brown, B-r-o-w-n.

Q. How long was he the director or the institute?

A. About eight years.

Q. Sir, do you receive any payment as the
editor of Origins separate from your salary as director
of the research institute?

A. No.

Q. Do you receive any payment as chairman of the
Biblical Research Institute of Science Council?

A. No.

Q. Were you paid as a consultant on creation to
the California State Board of Education?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you ever been fired or
dismissed from an academic position?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been subjected to academic
discipline at any institution?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been the subject of any
discipline or sanction by any professional group of which
you are a member?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you ever attended any symposia

29

or seminars in your area of research that are not listed
on your vita?

A. Lots of them.

Q. Are you able to estimate how many on an annual
basis or something of the sort?

A. Well, I make it a point to attend one or two
professional meetings every year.

Q. Could you tell me what journals in marine
biology you subscribe to?

A. Personally?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I do not subscribe to any personally.

Q. Are there any that are received by the
Geoscience Research Institute that you read regularly?

A. By Loma Linda University.

Q. All right, sir.

A. Marine biology is the main one.

Q. Are there others?

A. Not that I read regularly.

Q. Sir, referring to the professional societies
that are listed on your vita, will you describe to me
what the Society of Sigma Chi is?

A. This is an honorary scientific research
society.

Q. Do you know approximately how many members it
has?

A. I'm afraid not.

Certainly in the thousands.

30

Q. What are the requirements for membership?

A. You have to be a competent researcher.

Q. Can anyone join who wishes to and pays the
dues, or is it elective?

A. Elective.

Q. Are you aware of the criteria that are used
for election?

A. Participation in research and promise of future
research.

Q. Can you tell me when you were elected to
membership?

A. In about 1950.

Q. At that time were you doing your graduate work
at the University of Michigan?

A. Right.

Q. Is it customary that one is sponsored for
membership by someone else already a member?

A. Yes, is part of the requirement, and it has
to go through a committee, also.

Q. Do you know by whom you were sponsored for
membership?

A. I believe it was my major professor at the
University of Michigan.

Q. And who was that, sir?

A. Dr. Arthur Woodhead, W-o-o-d-h-e-a-d.

Q. Dr. Roth, could you describe the American
Association for the Advancement of Science for me?

A. It is an association that has several

31

purposes.

One, to bring together the American scientific
community and, secondly, to publish the journal, Science,
which is a journal dealing with a variety of scientific
subjects, mainly the biological and chemical sciences,
not so much the physical sciences.

Q. What are the criteria for membership in the
American association?

A. I believe just application.

Q. Do you know how many members it has,
approximately?

A. I'm afraid not.

Again, in the thousands.

Q. Sir, have you ever held an office in the
American Association?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever received any award from the
American Association?

A. No.

Q. Does the American Association have any
meetings at which papers are presented?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many each year?

A. They have one annual meeting a year, and then
they have subsections that meet between the annual
meetings, geographical subsections.

Q. Have you ever presented a paper at a meeting
of the association or a geographical subsection?

32

A. No.

Q. Are they listed in your list of publications?

A. Yes.

Q. Have any of those papers ever been published;
have any of those papers that you have presented at
meetings been published?

A. When you present a paper at a subsection it
is published in an abstract form.

Q. Returning for a moment to the Sigma Chi
Society, does that society publish a journal?

A. Yes

Q. Can you tell me what it is?

A. The American Scientist.

Q. Have you ever had any papers published in the
American Scientist?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever held an office in the Sigma Chi
Society?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever presented any papers at a
meeting of that society?

A. No.

The society does not have a general open research
paper-type of journal. This is more items of broad
interest, and their meetings, per se, are mostly
executive meetings, not general research.

Even though it is a research society, the meetings
are not concerned with research papers.

33

Q. Sir, as to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, are there membership categories
within the association that are honorary or elective?

A. I cannot answer that question right now.

Q. Do you know where I might find that out?

Is it in their bylaws or the magazine, Science, that
you know of?

A. At least in the magazine, Science, you could
fine the address of the association, and one could write
to them and find out what categories of membership they
sponsor.

Q. Can you tell me about the membership criteria
and purposes of the Geological Society of America?

A. As I recall, you have to be sponsored into
the society by two members of the society. It might be
one, but I think it is two.

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of the
Geological Society?

A. Not exactly. Somewhere in the late '60s or
early '70s.

Q. Do you know by whom you were sponsored for
that society?

A. I do not remember that.

Q. Have you ever been an officer of the Geological
Society?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of whether the
Geological Society has any honorary or elective category

34

of membership?

A. Yes, I think so. I think they call them
fellows, f-e-l-l-o-w-s.

Q. Are you a fellow of the society?

A. No.

Q. Could you tell me when you became a member of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science?

A. I would guess the first time was in the '50s.

Q. Did your membership then lapse for some
period?

A. I wouldn't be surprised.

Q. Can you tell me the membership criteria and the
purpose of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Minerologists?

A. Again, I think the membership is a matter of
sponsorship from another member.

The purpose of the society is to, one, publish
information dealing with paleontology and sedimentology.

Another purpose is to conduct field trips to areas
of geological significance.

Q. Do you know how many members there are in
this society?

A. I'm afraid not.

Again, I would say in the thousands.

Q. Do you know when you became a member?

A. In the '70s.

Q. Do you know whether there is an elective or
honorary category of membership in this society?

35

A. I don't know of such.

Q. Can you describe the purposes and the
membership criteria of the Western Society of
Naturalists?

A. I believe membership is on the basis of
interest.

Its purpose is to bring together for meetings
members in the western part of the United States
interested in biology.

It tends to deal with the biology of the Pacific as
a whole, whether it be marine biology or terrestrial
biology.

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of the
Western Society?

A. In the '70s.

Q. Have you ever been a member of -- I'm sorry,
an officer of the Western Society or the Society of
Economic Paleontologists?

A. No.

Q. Could you describe the membership criteria
of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists?

A. To be a full member you need to be a
practicing petroleum geologist.

For an associate member you just need the
sponsorship of one member -- not necessarily one member
but the sponsorship preferably of a member.

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of the
Association of Petroleum Geologists?

36

A. In the '70s, I guess, early '70s.

Q. Have you ever been an officer of that
association?

A. No.

Q. Sir, have you ever been denied membership in
any professional association in which you sought
membership?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever terminated your membership in
any professional society other than the membership you
said of, perhaps, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science?

A. I used to be a member of the American
Microscopal Society and a member of the American Society
of Parasitologists.

Q. Could you tell me why you are no longer a
member of those two groups?

A. When my research interests shifted to coral
reefs, their membership was no longer as valuable to
me.

Q. Dr. Roth, do you hold any adjunct teaching
positions or do you teach in any seminars other than
those that are reflected on your vita?

A. Not as a permanent -- I give lectures around,
but not adjunct positions, no.

Q. I see.

Sir, are you aware of an institution called the
Creation Research Society?

37

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been a member?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of the Institute for Creation
Research?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that institute?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of the Creation Science Research
Center?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that Research Center?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of the Bible Science
Association?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that association?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been a member of that
association?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of a group called The Citizens

38

for Fairness in Education?

A. I probably have.

It doesn't ring a bell with me right now, but the
name sounds familiar enough that I suspect I have.

Q. I take it that then you are not a member of
the group.

A. I am not a member.

Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Balanced
Education as to Origin?

A. It sounds familiar again, but I am not a
member.

Q. Sir, returning to your vita for a moment, it
states that you are chairman of the Biblical Research
Institute Science Council and have been since 1971.

A. Correct.

Q. Could you describe the Biblical Research
Institute for me, please.

A. The Biblical Research Institute is an
institute sponsored by the Seventh Day Adventist Church
for study in biblical research.

Q. What are the institute's membership criteria?

A. These are selected members, and I am not
aware of what criteria is employed to select the
members.

Q. Are you a member of the institute?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. When did you become a member?

A. Last year.

39

Q. That's 1980?

A. 1980.

Q. Did you make an application or seek membership?

A. No. I was asked.

Q. By whom were you asked?

A. By the secretary of the General Conference of
Seventh Day Adventists.

Q. Could you describe for me what the Science
Council for Biblical Research Institute is?

A. The Science Council is part of the Biblical
Research Institute, and it is that part which deals with
the relationship of science to the Bible.

Q. Are all the members of the Science Council
also members of the Biblical Research Institute?

A. No.

Q. How did you come to be a member of the Science
Council?

A. I was asked.

Q. And that was in 1971?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall by whom you were asked?

A. Again, it would have been the secretary of
the General Conference.

This is the official channel.

Q. Does the Biblical Research Institute or the
Science Council have a statement of purpose or a
membership oath or bylaws that you have seen?

A. Not that I know of.

40

Q. Are you aware of the purpose of the Biblical
Research Institute?

A. To do research in biblical subjects.

Q. Is there any more specific purpose than that
that you know of?

A. Not that I have seen defined.

Q. Sir, referring to last year when I believe
you said that the secretary of the General Conference
of Seventh Day Adventists had asked you to become a
member of the Biblical Research Institute, can you give
me the name of that person?

A. Thompson, Ralph W. Thompson, I think.

Q. Do you recall what he said to you in asking
you to join?

A. It was a form letter, an assignment to a
committee.

Q. Do you know if you still have a copy of that
letter?

A. Probably somewhere in my files.

Q. I would request, if possible, you would look
to see if you have a copy of that and produce it to us
through Mr. Williams, subject to his acknowledgement
that it is relevant and we are entitled to it.

Do you recall the substance of the letter beyond
what you have told me already?

A. No. It's just a form letter. It's a form.
It is not even a letter.

As I recall, it is just a form that "you have been

41

assigned" to such and such a committee, check space so
and so with the chairmanship.

Q. So that you say it is not that you were
invited to membership but that you were assigned to the
committee by this Mr. Thompson?

A. Well, I was invited to be a member.

Q. I wasn't certain that I understood.

A. I'm making a difference between being
assigned and invited. I have the privilege of refusing.

Q. And I believe you said you had joined the
Science Council in 1971 pursuant to -- was that a similar
sort of invitation or assignment?

A. As far as I recall, exactly the same thing.

Q. Have you ever received any others from the
secretary of the General Conference?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you recall how many in the last dozen
years?

A. Oh, maybe two or three others.

Q. Have you ever declined any of these
invitations?

A. Not on a permanent basis, no.

Q. Have you ever declined any on any basis other
than permanent?

A. I have had time conflicts with some of the
assignments.

Q. Dr. Roth, are you a member of any political
party other than the Republican or the Democratic party?

42

A, No.

Q. Are you a member of the Moral Majority?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any Right-to-Live groups?

A. No.

Q. Were you among the list of persons who applied
to intervene in this suit in July?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the record will reflect
that he was not.

MR. WOLFE: Thank you.

Q. Sir, are you a member of a church?

A. Of a church? Yes.

Q. What church is that?

A. The Seventh Day Adventists.

Q. When did you become a member?

A. About 1937, '38.

Q. Sir, have you been baptized in that church?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. At that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just for the record, Mr. Wolfe, I
would like to object to the question going to his
religious background, unless some direct showing can be
made that there has been any compromising of the
science by the religious beliefs.

We are reserving that.

MR. WOLFE: I would say that we agree that the only
relevance that religion might have to the case is any

43

showing that it has detracted in any way from the
scientific objectivity; and the reason for the inquiry
is to determine whether or not that may be the case.

MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, have you ever held any office
in that church?

MR. WILLIAMS: You can go ahead and answer the
question.

We have objected and we have reserved the right to
raise the relevancy question at the time of trial or at
any time that this matter should try to be introduced,
or this testimony.

THE WITNESS: I have been a deacon in the church
and a church elder.

MR. WOLFE: Q. How long have you been a deacon,
sir?

A. I just have to guess.

On and off, maybe 15 years.

Q. And how long have you been an elder?

A. Six years.

Q. Do you attend church services regularly, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you say how often, on an annual basis,
approximately?

A. Every week.

Q. Do you belong to any groups within the church?

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean formal groups by that?

MR. WOLFE: Yes.

44

Q. Bible study groups, fellowship groups.

A. Not that I know of, no.

Q. Sir, do you consider yourself a
fundamentalist in religion?

A. You will have to define the term for me.

Q. Well, sir, I am not concerned with my
definition but rather your opinion of your own views.

Would you consider yourself a fundamentalist,
however you want to define it?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to the question as being
ambiguous.

MR. WOLFE: Very well, the objection is noted.

Q. You may answer.

A. I did not get your last statement.

Q. Mr. Williams' objection is on the record, and
you may answer.

A. I come back to the statement I made earlier,
and that is, I'll have to have the thing defined as to
what you mean; what is a fundamentalist?

Q. Sir, I think perhaps I haven't made myself
clear.

I'm not inquiring about whether you consider
yourself a fundamentalist based on my definition or some
other, but whether you would regard yourself as a
fundamentalist by whatever definition you have.

That is, my inquiry is about your opinion of the
matter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again, just for the record, I want

45

to object.

The problem is, when you use the term
"fundamentalist," particularly in the abstract, he may
have something else in his mind and you may have
something different, so I think in the interest of
clarity, if you can segregate the criteria by which you
are measuring fundamentalism, I think it will facilitate
the deposition.

MR. WOLFE: I certainly am not making myself clear.

Q. Let me try once more.

I do not care about my own criteria, sir; I care
only about yours.

Let me put the first question.

Could you define for me your understanding of a
person who is a fundamentalist as to religion; and the
second question would be, do you consider yourself to be
one, given your definition?

A. I believe, as the term is being used now,
such as the implications of the Moral Majority, this
type of thing, I would not qualify as a fundamentalist.

If you want to say that is what a fundamentalist
is, I am not.

Q. Sir, can you tell me what you understand to
be the meaning of fundamentalism in religion?

A. I think -- no. I have to go look it up in
the dictionary.

I am not a theologian.

Q. So you have no understanding?

46

A. Of the term? I don't have a good definition in
my mind, no.

Q. Do you consider yourself a biblical literalist,
sir?

A. No.

Q. Do you have a personal religious advisor or
counselor?

A. No.

Q. Have you an understanding of the term
"reborn Christian"?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you an understanding of the
term "reborn Christian"?

A. I think I know what that means.

Q. Sir, given the understanding that you have,
would you consider yourself a reborn Christian?

A. I think so, if you use that term loosely.

Q. Well, sir, how would you use the term "reborn"
and "born-again Christian"?

A. Well, I think some individuals feel that a
reborn Christian is a person who has had a certain
dramatic experience.

Others would feel it is a committed Christian.

I qualify more in the second category than on the
first.

Q. Could you explain to me your understanding of
a person as a committed Christian?

A. It is a person who believes that the ideals

47

that Christ set up are a sound guide for life.

Q. Sir, have you ever done evangelical or
conversion work in the church?

A. Define "evangelical."

Q. Essentially, spreading the gospel, converting
those who are not believers in your church to such a
belief.

A. No.

Correction on that. I have talked to people about
my religion. I don't know if you call that
evangelizing. But nothing public, nothing in public.

Q. Sir, have you ever read the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what edition or versions you have
read?

A. Quite a number of different versions.

Q. Can you tell me those that you recall?

A. Oh, King James, Standard Revised Version,
New English Bible, Phillips, Living Bible.

Q. About how often or when have you read the
Bible, these versions?

A. I have not read all of those versions, but I
have read from those versions.

Q. How often do you read the Bible?

A. Oh, several times a week.

Q. Do you as a marine biologist consult the
Bible at all?

A. No.

48

Q. Do you ever employ the Bible in your work?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the
question.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you ever employ the Bible in
your work?

A. As a marine biologist?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I am not aware that the Bible says very much
about marine biology.

Q. I take it that your answer is that you do not
consult the Bible in your work as a marine biologist?

A. I don't think I ever have, no.

Q. Dr. Roth, do you believe that the Bible is
inerrant or infallible?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible is literally
true?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: That question has been asked and
answered.

I object, also.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I think perhaps it hasn't been
exactly, but the record, in any case, will be what it
is.

Q. Sir, does the Bible predict future events?

A. Certainly.

Q. Can you tell me which events?

49

A. In the Old Testament it predicted that Christ
would be crucified.

Q. Are you aware of any biblical predictions as
to the future that have not yet come to pass?

A. It talks about the second coming of Christ.

Q. Are you aware of any others?

A. Events that would precede this.

Q. Would you regard the Bible as a source of a
code of conduct for living?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you refer to the Bible as a source of
scientific learning at all?

A. It gives some scientific data.

Q. Could you explain to me what scientific data
the Bible gives?

A. It refers, for instance, to the structure of
the temple being such and such a size, and this is
measurable data.

Q. Has the Bible ever been an inspiration to
research that you have conducted?

A. I think it has given me some ideas, yes.

Q. Could you give me any instances?

A. The work on coral, for instance.

One gets new ideas about it by looking at, say,
the Bible.

Q. Could you give me an example of such ideas
that you may have derived from looking at the Bible?

A. Just in the general plant, not in the

50

scientific research, per se; just general ideas that
you can --

The Bible gives you a greater breadth of
possibilities.

I can get these ideas from other places. You can't
blame those on the Bible.

Q. I am not sure I understood your last sentence.

A. In cultural anthropology, for instance, you
can get ideas of different past histories for life on
earth. These can suggest different ideas to you as
you approach the analysis of coral reefs.

Q. Are you able to give any specific examples?

A. Well, the Gilgamesh Epic refers to certain
catastrophies in the past, or when I go look at certain
limestone units, I may say, "Well, maybe this epic was
correct, that there were some catastrophies in the past,"
and when I go to the Geological Society of American,
like I did three weeks ago, and hear about certain
catastrophies, I say, "Maybe Gilgamesh was correct."

Q. Has the Bible ever suggested any specific
method of investigation to you?

A. Not specific; science is too specialized.

Q. Any general methods that have been
suggested to you by the Bible?

A. Not on scientific; I would say just
interpretation.

Q. Would you say that the Bible has ever
suggested possible solutions to you for questions that

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Ariel Roth - Page 2

51

you have been researching?

A. You say has the Bible suggested possible
solutions?

Q. Yes.

That is, would you say that your reading of the
Bible has ever suggested to you that the answer to some
problem that you were working on might be X or whatever?

A. I don't think one can divorce what he reads
from explanations he tries to arrive at entirely, but
in science, explanations can be of a variety of sources,
ideas.

What I am trying to do is say the scientific
explanation need not be related to what I get from the
Bible or anthropology but it can influence one's
scientific explanation.

Q. Are you able to explain the way in which the
Bible might influence your scientific explanation in
any particular instance?

A. It could suggest some ideas to be tested.

Q. Do you recall any specific occasion that has
been the case?

A. Well, I'll get back to -- it can suggest a
catastrophism, but other sources can suggest the same
thing.

I will add to that comment that many geologists
are suggesting catastrophism, and they have gotten
their ideas from the data, science or their experiments
or from concepts that they have imagined.

52

In science we are concerned about whether the data
fits the concept, not especially where the concept comes
from.

Archimides got his concept of buoyancy from a
bathtub.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you done any research in
catastrophism?

A. Not directly.

Q. Have you done any indirectly?

A. I've analyzed some structures in terms of
whether or not they might be deposited rapidly or slowly.

Q. Have you had any geology training or any
training related to catastrophism other than what you
mentioned earlier, your geology study at U.C. Riverside?

A. Not formal training.

Of course, most geologists have not had training
in this direction because this is a new trend in
geology.

Q. Have you had any geology training at all
other than what we discussed earlier about your work at
U.C. Riverside?

A. Not formal training.

Q. Have you had any informal training?

A. Well, whenever one goes out in the field and
field conferences, he learns quite a bit. When one
goes to scientific meetings, he learns quite a bit.

Q. Are there any other bases than the geology
training you had at U.C. Riverside and these references

53

that you have made to scientific conferences and field
trips for your knowledge or views in catastrophism?

A. Geological literature.

Q. What geological literature in this area have
you read?

A. Well, I get all these journals of which I am
a member of the society. I don't read every journal.
I wish I had time to. But that's part of it.

And, of course, there are reference books.

Q. Could you tell me the primary reference books
and journals in this area that you read?

A. Geological Society of America bulletin,
The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists
bulletin, The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists bulletin, books of one type and another.

Q. Do you recall any titles?

A. The Nature of the Stratographical Record by
Ager.

Q. Do you recall by whom that is published,
sir?

A. No.

It is in England. It is British.

Q. Any others?

A. Not right offhand.

Q. Sir, would you regard yourself as an expert
in geology or catastrophism?

A. No.

If I can amplify on that, I am an expert in no

54

area. The more you study, the more you realize how
little you know.

Q. Would you say then that you regard your
command of geology and catastrophism as the equivalent
of your command of marine biology?

A. No, not as good.

Q. And is it correct then that you would not
regard yourself as an expert in marine biology, either?

A. Well --

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say for the record,
obviously, who is an expert has a legal connotation.

MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Dr. Roth, despite his own
modesty, we would consider him legally to be an expert.

MR. WOLFE: My inquiry is not based on who may
or may not be legally qualified but, rather, Dr. Roth's
own appraisal of his interest in his work, and that's
what I am making inquiry about.

THE WITNESS: To the extent that you call a person
who has published a number of papers in this area an
expert, I would qualify.

MR. WOLFE: Q. That is, in marine biology?

A. Marine biology.

Q. Would you say that you qualify as an expert
in geology or catastrophism by the same criteria?

A. By the same criteria, I would say no.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can we break now?

[Recess taken.]

55

Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any contact with the
defendants in this action about the case?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: You are talking now about the
defendants, the named defendants?

MR. WOLFE: The named defendants in the action.

THE WITNESS: You mean the persons whose names are
at --

MR. WOLFE: Q. They are approximately the
Arkansas State Board of Education and its members.

A. No.

Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation
Science groups or institutions about this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the statute that
is at issue in this action?

A. This?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. When did you obtain a copy of the statute?

A. Two or three weeks ago.

Q. From whom?

A. The Attorney General's office.

Q. Had you ever seen it prior to that time?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen a model Creation Science
bill drafted by any Creation Science group in the past?

A. I have seen some drafted. As models, no.

56

Q. Have you ever seen bills which were submitted
in other state legislatures than Arkansas?

A. The one that was submitted in Oregon.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Last spring.

Q. What was the occasion for your seeing that
bill?

A. When they asked me to come up there and speak
on behalf of that bill.

Q. Who asked you do that?

A. Congressman Davis.

Q. Was he the Oregon congressman?

A. He was one of the sponsors of the bill.

Q. Sir, do you know a man named -- I will with-
draw that. I take it back. I do not withdraw it. You
mentioned Mr. Bird earlier, but do you know Mr. Wendell
Bird?

A. I have heard of him. I have never met him.

Q. Have you ever had any correspondence or
telephone conversation with Mr. Bird?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had a phone or letter
communication with John Whitehead?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell me when and on what subjects?
Were there copies of correspondence with Mr. Whitehead
among those that you offered to me earlier today?

A. Yes.

57

Q. Do you recall the subject on which you
corresponded with Mr. Whitehead?

A. It was about a debate, a written debate in
Liberty Magazine over the issue of whether or not
creation should be taught in the public schools, and I
was debating Bill Mayer. I wanted some constitutional
advice from a constitutional lawyer.

Q. And Mr. Whitehead offered some advice on that
subject?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever had any contact with Mr.
Whitehead about this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any contact with Mr.
Whitehead about the Arkansas statute?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever communicated with Mr. Whitehead
about the Oregon statute or any model statute?

A. No. You still have my publications. I can't
look it up.

Q. They are still being copied.

Sir. have you ever given testimony in the past in
a court action or before any legislative or administrative
body?

A. Yes.

Q. On what occasions?

A. State Board of California.

Q. And what was the subject?

58

A. Whether or not creation should be included
in the public schools.

Q. Have you ever given testimony to any other
school board or board of education?

A. Oregon.

Q. And when was that, sir?

A. Last spring.

Q. Was that before the Oregon Legislature?

A. That was before the Education Committee of the
Oregon Legislature.

Q. Have you ever given testimony before in any
court action?

A. Not related to this subject?

Q. Would you tell me what subjects?

A. Well, I will have to change. I don't think
in court. I don't think I have given testimony in court
on any subject. I made a deposition before but not
testimony in court.

Q. What was the subject of the action in which
you previously gave a deposition?

A. It was about a road near my house which has
a dangerous curve on it, and I was asked to testify
regarding the accidents that occur there near my house.

Q. Sir, have you ever been paid for any of the
appearances that you have just mentioned before the
California Board of Education, the Education Committee
of the Oregon Legislature?

A. Unfortunately, no.

59

Q. Do you ever recall having given other
prior testimony on any subject before a legislative body
or administrative government body?

A. I can't think of any.

Q. Have you ever made speeches or taken part in
debates about Creation Science or evolution in the past?

A. Yes.

Q. On what occasions, sir?

A. The written debate that you have in Liberty
Magazine was orally presented between Dr. Bill Mayer who
was the proponent for excluding creation from the public
schools and myself suggesting that it ought to be
included.

I have talked at the University of California at
Riverside on the subject of creation to the Geology
Department at a seminar.

Then at the San Diego State University I put on a
series of seminars there once.

I taught a course at DeAnza College on the subject,
West Valley College also. I will correct that last
statement. I have given -- no, that was a course also.
Correction. Back to where we were. DeAnza College and
West Valley College.

Then, of course, on numerous occasions lectures to
classes, Seventh-Day Adventist Church groups.

Q. When you say "lectures to classes" do you
mean college courses or --

A. Yes.

60

Q. Have you ever been paid for any of the
appearances for the written debate that you mentioned
just now?

A. Yes.

Q. For which ones?

A. What is that?

Q. For which ones?

A. The Liberty. They gave me an honorarium for
that for both the oral and the written.

Q. Do you recall how much that was, sir?

A. Roughly it was around a little less than
500 for the written one and somewhere around 200 for the
oral.

Q. Did the documents that you gave me earlier
include the copies of or the transcript of any of these
classes or debates that you have mentioned?

A. Yes, the Liberty debate is among those
documents as one of my publications.

Q. Do you have transcripts of any of these
debates or classes that were not included among those that
you gave to me this morning?

A. Well, let's put it this way: The oral
debate was essentially the written. However, I probably
did not read it per se; I talked. No transcripts.

Q. Sir, have you ever heard the opinion
expresses that Creation Science is really just a ploy or
a device of propagating Christian faith?

A. Yes.

61

Q. On what occasions have you heard that?

A. I cannot tell you exactly. I don't want to
implicate somebody when I'm not sure they said it, but I
think Bill Mayer says it in the debate. I'm not sure.
I would have to read it to tell you.

Q. Do you recall any other instance?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever heard that Creation Scientists
state that position?

A. Creation Scientists what?

Q. Have you ever heard a Creation Scientist
state a position that Creation Science is a device or
ploy for spreading the Christian faith?

A. No.

Q. Sir, have you ever had any criminal arrests or
convictions?

A. Traffic tickets.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

62

Q. Other than that?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, when did you first hear about this
court case brought in federal court in the District of
Arkansas?

A. About the ACLU case?

Q. Yes, sir, this suit.

A. About three or four weeks ago.

Q. And from whom did you hear it?

A. Tim Humphries.

Q. And have you had contact with anyone at the
Arkansas Attorney General's office aside from
Mr. Humphries and Mr. Williams about this suit?

A. Except the secretaries who deal with travel
arrangements, that's all.

Q. Sir, are you being paid for your appearances
in this action?

A. No.

Q. Are you receiving expenses or any fee for
this?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what expenses you receive?

A. Actual cost.

Q. By whom are they being reimbursed to you?

A. By the Attorney General's Office, I guess,
or the State of Arkansas. I don't know which one.

The State.

Q. Have you spoken to anyone other than persons

63

with the Arkansas Attorney General about testifying in
this case?

A. No.

I might correct that.

My wife, secretaries in my office. That's all.

[Luncheon recess.]

- - -

64
AFTERNOON SESSION

1:20 O'CLOCK P.M.

- - -

EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFE [RESUMED]:

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, have you discussed the
testimony that you expect to give at trial with anyone
at the Attorney General's office?

A. I didn't know I was going to give testimony.

Q. Your testimony at trial.

A. Well, I will answer questions.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. That is my understanding, that this is what
it would be.

Q. Have you discussed with the Attorney General
the subject matter of the questions that you will be
asked and the responses that you will give?

A. No.

Q. Have you discussed generally the subject
matter in which the questions might be put to you?

A. Well, certainly it will revolve around this
statement here to the extent he asks me which area I
was a specialist in.

Q. Have you discussed any other subject matters
with the Attorney General?

A. No.

Just for information, Tim Humphries is not the
Attorney General, is he?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, he is not the Attorney General.

65

He is a law clerk within our office.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you discussed the subject
matter about which you might testify with anyone in the
Attorney General's office?

Did you discuss it with Mr. Humphries over the phone?

A. No, not at the office.

Q. Have you discussed with Mr. Williams or
anyone else the deposition that is being taken here
today?

A. We discussed it last night in terms of what
it would be like.

Q. Did you during that time discuss the areas
on which you might give testimony or answer questions at
trial?

A. No.

Q. Have you described to anyone from the
Attorney General's office the areas of which you would be
willing to speak at trial?

[Discussion off the record.]

THE WITNESS: Please word your question again.

MR. WOLFE: Will you read back the question,
please.

[Record read.]

THE WITNESS: I have talked to Mr. Williams here
about the catastrophism.

MR. WOLFE: Q. About any other areas?

A. These right here, just those, my specialty.

Q. About coral reefs?

66

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you discussed with anyone else
outside the Attorney General's office the possible
areas of your testimony at trial?

A. No.

Dr. Coffin. I have discussed with Dr. Coffin the
areas that I might cover.

Q. And when was that, sir?

A. Last week.

Q. What was the occasion of your discussion with
Dr. Coffin?

A. I was in his office and we were discussing
what areas we felt more competent in.

Q. Do you recall the substance of your discussion
with Dr. Coffin about the areas in which you might
testify?

A. It was very brief.

I said, "I will discuss the nature of the
scientific method," and he would work on the fossil
record.

That was as far as it went, a very brief
conversation.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, could you define Creation
Science as you understand it.

A. It's the study of that evidence from science
that suggests maybe some intelligent design in the
nature about us.

67

Q. Do you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist?

A. It depends on how you want to define
"science," as to what is involved here. If you define
"science" as limited to naturalistic explanations, then
you would get a conflict of terminology here, and the
answer to your question rests on your definition of
"science."

Q. Does Creation Science, as you defined it just
a moment ago, confine itself to naturalistic
explanations?

A. It could if you assumed that design occurred
by naturalistic means.

Q. Do you yourself assume in your work that
Creation Science is confined to naturalistic means?

A. In my work -- you mean research?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I don't touch on that subject hardly in my
research.

You question was, do I consider in my work that
Creation Science occurred by naturalistic means.

Q. Do you assume that Creation Science is
limited to naturalistic explanations?

A. I don't have an answer to that because I
don't know how creation could have occurred.

Q. And I take it then that you don't make
assumptions about the matter, either?

A. Whether or not it's naturalistic?

68

Q. Yes.

A. I wonder about it.

Do I make an assumption? I can make assumptions,
but they are revisable.

Q. What assumptions do you make currently about
Creation Science and whether or not it includes only
naturalistic means?

A. Well, if you assume that design was by
naturalistic means, then you could say yes, sure, it's
all naturalistic. If you assume no, that this involved
what we want to call something beyond naturalistic,
then the answer is no.

Q. Do you yourself make any assumptions, either
of those assumptions, about whether or not naturalistic
means are within Creation Science or whether it's
limited to them?

A. I am more comfortable with the possibility I
don't understand what is going on here and that
naturalistic answers may not answer all the reality, but
I cannot say this as a scientist. I cannot say this is
the way it was, because I don't have the evidence for
this.

Q. Is your understanding of Creation Science as
a general discipline that it does or does not confine
itself to naturalistic means?

A. It could go either way.

Q. Do you have any understanding about what is
the current -- let me say it another way.

69

Do you think there is an identifiable assumption
either that naturalistic means are the only ones to be
considered or that extranaturalistic means will be
considered made by most Creation Scientists today?

A. In terms of some of the scientific data, it
is hard for us to fit what we see into our present
understanding of the naturalistic means; but our
knowledge is so limited that I think one needs to be
cautious.

- - -

70

Q. Sir, once again, given what you said about
Creation Science, do you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist?

A. Again, I will come back to your definition
of science. If you say science is purely naturalistic,
then I can't say that, but if you say this science does
allow for other aspects, then I can live with Creation
Science.

Q. Do you consider yourself that science only
allows for naturalistic explanations?

A. Historically it has not. There is a tendency
in modern science to move in that direction, but when the
foundations of our science were laid these were very much
in a non-naturalistic mode.

Q. I take it you have said that science at one
time or its origins did allow for non-natural explanations,
but that the current tendency is not to do so?

A. Right.

Q. Do you subscribe to that current tendency to
embrace only naturalistic explanations?

A. Well, again I have to come back to this
unknown. I don't know if it's naturalistic or not.
You are asking me to commit myself on something that I
don't have detailed knowledge of how it could have
happened. I don't have that. It could have been by
naturalistic means. It could not have been by naturalistic
means, but some of the founders, to bet back to the other
point I mentioned, some of the founders of science were

71

definitely creationists, for example, Newton and Agassiz,
A-g-a-s-s-i-z.

Q. Dr. Roth, do you have a belief about whether
creation proceeded only by or whether the origin of the
earth and life on earth proceeded only by naturalistic
means?

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking the witness his
professional opinion as a scientist?

MR. WOLFE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: On the basis of scientific data that
I have right now, I cannot answer that question.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you have a belief, a personal
belief, about the question apart from science?

A. Well, I certainly have certain personal
beliefs, yes, very definitely.

Q. And what are they?

A. On the basis of what I see about me it seems
to me that design of some kind seems to be implied in the
nature I see about me.

Q. Sir, then if we define Creation Science as a
science of origins and one which allows for origination
of the earth and life on earth by naturalistic or non-
naturalistic means, would you define yourself as a creation-
ist?

A. No, because science has to be open to other
ideas as well. You have to evaluate other ideas. You
are moving into an area of dogma and away from science in
that particular suggestion you make.

72

Q. Sir, have you read various books and
publications about Creation Science or Scientific Creation-
ism?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever attended any lectures or
seminars in the area?

A. Some.

Q. Do you regard Creation Science or Scientific
Creationism based on your experience with it as a science?

A. If you want to define "science" as
testable, predictable, I would say no. This narrows
science down to a very narrow spear of operation. I
would say then you don't have Creation Science, but if
you define it the way it's usually defined as a search
for explanations about nature, then very definitely there
is Creation Science.

MR. WOLFE: Will you read the last answer back,
please?

[Read record]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, would you define marine
biology as a science under one or both of those
definitions?

A. There is no question it fits very conveniently
under the second one and pretty well under the first.

Q. Would you regard Evolution Science as a
science under either of those two definitions?

A. I would say perhaps the same as I did for
creation. If you are going to limit your definition of

73

science to the testable and the predictable, then you
would have to say evolution does not fit into science.

If you are speaking of the common definition, a
search for explanations about nature, then I think
evolution can fit under science.

Q. Sir, would you regard Evolution Science as
a religion?

A. You will have to define religion for me.

Q. Let me begin by asking you to define religion.

MR. WILLIAMS: I will have to object. I don't think
he is qualified nor has he been offered as an expert to
define what religion is. We will have other witnesses
on that point, I think, on both sides.

MR. WOLFE: I expect that is right, but we have
been already discussing several areas in which it's not
clear whether Dr. Roth will ever be qualified as a
witness, so I don't know that we could distinguish whether
or not he is able to answer that question on that ground.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't mind him answering as long as
he is obviously giving a layman's understanding of what he
might consider to be religion.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know that I want to tell
Dr. Roth that he is no more than a layman, but I agree
with you that he has not as yet been qualified as an
expert on religion and may in fact never be. I simply
want to ask him now for the purposes of our discussion
if he could define religion as he understands it.

THE WITNESS: There are different definitions of

74

religion. Under some of them evolution is a religion;
under others it is not.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Could you explain to me the
definitions of religion that you are thinking of?

A. Some consider religion as involving some type
of deity. Others understand that, of course, you would
say evolution probably does not qualify as a religion.

Sometimes religion is defined as a nondeistic
belief. It's a system of belief and does not involve
deism, and I would say evolution qualifies as a religion
under that definition.

Q. Would you say that Creation Science is religion
under either of those two definitions?

A. Yes, you could put it under both of those.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, could you turn your attention
to the Arkansas statute. I believe you have a copy of it
there.

Looking at Section 4 of the Act which is headed
Definitions, could you read the Section A, the definition
of Creation Science and Section B, the definition of
Evolution Science?

A. All right.

Q. Sir, would you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist given the definition of Creation Science in
this Act?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider yourself an Evolution

75

Scientist given the definition of Evolution Science?

A. I am closer to the creation than the
evolution.

Q. Well, are you able to give a yes or no answer
as to whether or not you regard yourself as an Evolution
Scientist?

A. I need to define evolution.

Q. The definition that we are using is the one
in the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that question may assume
a fact not in evidence that the definition of the Act is
an all-inclusive definition.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know whether the definition
purports to be all-inclusive or not, but I'm simply asking
does Dr. Roth consider himself an Evolution Scientist given
this definition in the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I think technically the
definition is the first sentence of Section A and B.
That is the definition.

THE WITNESS: Again, I will state I fit better with
A than with B. I did not write these definitions.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

76

MR. WOLFE: Q. I understand that.

Would you say that it is possible to be both a
Creation Scientist and an Evolution Scientist?

A. It is possible to believe in parts of both of
these, very definitely.

Q. Looking at the definition of Evolution
Science and within that subsection after the listing of
six items that Evolution Science is stated as including,
do you agree with or believe in all or any of those six?

A. Under B?

Q. Yes.

A. The one that I have some -- I am able to
relate to No. 3.

Q. You are saying that you do not agree with item
3 under B?

A. It would depend on how you define some of the
terms there. I can relate to the fact that we do have
variation in nature at present.

Q. Are you able to agree or accept the other
Items 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 and 6?

A. They seem less likely than the counterparts
in Section A above.

Q. As between Item 3 and Section A and Item 3
and Section B which as you suggest I think appear to be
counterparts, do you regard one of them as more likely than
the other?

A. Yes, I would say A is more likely, but the way
3 is worded under B, I'm not satisfied that this is a

77

good counterpart to 3 under A.

Q. Sir, talking about the items under Creation
Science in the Act and taking them in reverse order, No.
6 says that "Creation Science includes scientific evidences
and related inferences that indicate a relatively recent
inception of the earth and living kinds. The Evolution
Science counterpart is listed as the scientific evidences
and related inferences that indicate an inception several
billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

A. Yes.

Q. Do you yourself have a view as to the scientific
evidence as to the age of inception of the earth and
living kinds?

A. You are distinguishing here the difference
between the matter of the earth and the living organisms
on it, is that right?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, sir, it appears to me the Act makes that
decision. In terms of my personal beliefs I guess I would
not fit under either definition there in that my personal
beliefs are that I think maybe the matter of the earth
has been here for a long time but not the living kinds on
it.

Q. Could you restate or are you able to state
what your belief would be about these questions?

A. Well, take No. 6 under B. I would say an
inception of several billion years ago the earth and much
later of life instead of somewhat.

78

Q. Can you be more specific about the time of the
inception of life?

A. I would say maybe only a few thousand years.

Q. Are you able to explain briefly what
scientific evidences you would point to for the inception
of matter of earth several billion years ago?

MR. WILLIAMS: As I understood the question before
you are talking of personal belief which may or may not
be the same as his professional belief based on scientific
data.

THE WITNESS: Which do you want? You asked my
personal belief in the previous question.

MR. WOLFE: Then please let me be clear that I
understood your testimony.

Your testimony was that your personal belief would
be that the inception of matter of the earth might have
been several billion years ago and that the inception of
life would have been much later, perhaps only a few
thousand years ago.

A. Right.

Q. Would your scientific opinion be any different?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Can you tell me on what you would base your
opinion that the inception of the earth or at least the
matter of the earth is likely to have been several billion
years ago?

A. One of the strongest arguments is radiometric
dating, potassium argon dating, uranium dating, robidium

79

strontium dating.

Q. And what evidence causes you to place the
inception of life much later than that?

A. Those layers of earth that have evidences of
past life in them should have disappeared long ago if the
earth is as old as ordinary evolutionary interpretation
suggests.

Q. Sir, I'm not certain that I understood that.

A. In the geologic column we have many layers.
These are being eroded at present and it is on the basis
of the amount of sediment in the rivers. One can
calculate how long it would take to erode these layers of
the geological column.

The figures usually given for eroding our present
continent down to a flat level are about ten to twenty
million years. How come we have this whole geologic
column for 600 million years. I am suggesting a much
shorter time than the age of the matter of earth.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, did I understand then that
you regard radiometric dating as important evidence for
a great age for the earth?

A. It seems to me that it suggests this.

Q. Do you regard efforts to date fossil-bearing
geologic strata with radiometric techniques that indicate
ages of a million years for, say, Hominid, H-o-m-i-n-i-d
fossils in East Africa or mammals in the Cretaceous
in North America as tending to indicate that life was in

80

fact on earth say a million or two million years ago in the
case of East Africa fossils or much longer in the case of
mammals in North America?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he may have understood that
question. I'm not sure I did. I understood the facts you
gave. I'm not sure I know what the question was though.

MR. WOLFE: I understood Dr. Roth to say that he
regarded radiometric dating as some evidence for an old
inception of the matter of the earth itself but that he
regarded the inception of life as likely to have come
much later, and I wondered if that means that you do not
accept efforts to date fossil life forms with radiometric
dating that give dates of more than a few thousand years
ago?

THE WITNESS: One cannot be as sure with the
techniques you are suggesting as with the ones that I
referred to earlier because in the techniques you are
suggesting we are dating not the fossils themselves but
layers in which you find the fossils, and the problem of
inherited age from reworked older material makes that
system less secure than one where you don't have that
problem.

Q. Are you aware of any efforts to date fossil
horizons with radiometric techniques that you regard as
more persuasive or more strongly made than others or do
you regard them as simply inherently unreliable because of
this indirect dating method?

A. I'm not a specialist in this area. I do not

81

have the knowledge to evaluate it that carefully.

Q. But would it be correct to say that if you
were satisfied about the connection between the fossil
occurrence and the radiometric date or the geologic
stratum, then you would be willing to accept the date as
being a date for the fossil?

A. No. We have to base our evidence on a lot of
things. This will not alleviate at all the erosion picture
that I mentioned to you earlier. To build one's view of
truth on one narrow bit of evidence is not sound.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

82

Q. Dr. Roth, the list of witnesses that was
submitted states that you will discuss "findings from
his research on coral reefs past and present which
indicates support for the Creation Science model."

Could you describe the findings from your research
that are referred to in that description?

A. One of the findings of my research is that
ultraviolet lights inhibits coral reef growth near the
surface.

We have analyzed the effect of different wavelengths
of light on coral growth, and we find that ultraviolet
does inhibit while the others tended to enhance it.

Ultraviolet light is absorbed more readily as
light penetrates the ocean than visible light.

This suggests that coral reefs may not grow as
rapidly at the surface where the ultraviolet light is
more abundant than further down on the reef.

This in turn raises questions regarding evaluating
the rate of growth at the surface compared to further
down where there is greater potential, where there is
less ultraviolet light.

A second factor would be temperature, where we have
found that raising the temperature increases the rate
of growth of coral.

Since the paleontological record suggests warmer
temperatures in the past, reefs may have grown faster
in the past. Adding calcium ion in the sea appears to
increase the rate of coral growth.

83

If there was a greater concentration of calcium
ion present, then one might expect faster coral growth.

These factors may explain why one sees -- back up
-- may explain why in the literature fairly rapid
growth has been reported, much faster than is normally
noted at the surface.

Q. Sir, how does the work that you have just
described bear on the question of origins of life and
Creation Science?

A. It suggests that events in the past may have
occurred more rapidly than is generally assumed.

Q. And what is the importance to Creation
Science of evidence which suggests events in the past
could have taken place more rapidly than they are found
to at the present?

A. Well, one of the problems that evolution
faces, if I can answer it from the other side, is that
by all our best estimates there is not enough time for
evolution to have taken place.

When you look at the data that suggests that the
earth may be younger than generally assumed, this
also fits into that picture and hence supports the
idea that purely naturalist explanations may not be as
correct as other models.

Q. Sir, I am not certain that I understood the
last couple of things that you said.

I take it that you would regard your research on
reefs as supporting the Creation Science explanation as

84

opposed to an Evolution Science explanation for the
origin of life; is that right?

A. You have to define "support."

Are we working in a disprove mode here or are we
working in a mode of science where we say, "Well, it
looks like this supports this"?

This is where I think we are having difficulty.

Q. In which mode would you regard as your working
relevant to the question of origins?

A. In the disprove mode, the work that I would
think would eliminate the disprove for the Creation Science
has been able to occur rapidly. It favors more rapid
action, is what it does.

Q. So that I take it that you mean one argument
against Creation Science is that it doesn't generally
allow enough time for certain observed things to have
happened?

A. There is some data in that direction, yes.

Q. And the fact that your work suggests coral
reefs might have grown faster in the past than is
usually reported at present would tend to support the
notion that presently observed --

A. This is not a strong argument against Creation
Science.

Q. Can you summarize for me your understanding
of the argument against Creation Science, that it does
not allow enough time for the presently observed coral
reefs or whatever to have come about.

85

A. The argument is along the line that some of
our coral reefs are fairly large and it would take a long
time for them to grow.

Q. Have you published any material on
specifically this question of whether or not coral reefs
have had enough time to grow as they presently are seen
to under the Creation Science model?

A. Not specifically on that subject.

I touched on it in the manuscript which was
rejected.

Q. And when was that, sir?

A. Last year.

Q. To whom, or to what journal was the manuscript
submitted?

A. I believe it was the Journal of Marine
Science.

Q. Were you given any understanding as to why
it was rejected?

A. In general, it was felt the article was too
long, the manuscript was too long.

Q. Were there any other reasons given?

A. The reason given, another reason that was
given was that they felt the data was -- did not support
the conclusions.

I must clarify this point by stating my comments
about the rates of reef growth were incidental to the
research; they were in the discussion of the paper;
let's put it that way.

86

If you are familiar with scientific papers, they
were not a part of the data.

I can further state, the article has been accepted
for publication, although in much reduced form that
does not include the question of the rate of growth of
coral reefs.

Q. And it was accepted by the Journal of Marine
Science?

A. No. I did not resubmit it.

Q. By what journal?

A. Pacific Science has accepted it.

Q. Pass to the last entry on your publications
list.

A. Yes. It is not published yet, but it is in
press.

Q. Sir, is the Journal of Marine Science what is
known as a referreed process in the journals?

A. Well, it is usually sent to two individuals
who are considered competent in the area, and they
anonymously criticise the manuscript and evaluate it.

Q. And then the manuscript is either accepted
or not for publication based upon these comments?

A. These comments.

Q. Sir, is Pacific Science a referreed journal?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the journal that you edit, Origins, a
referreed journal?

A. Yes.

87

Q. Is Marine Biology a referreed journal?

A. Yes.

Q. And the Journal of Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, as you recognize, I am asking you about
names that I find in your publications list.

Could you tell me about the Journal of the
Association of Adventists Behavioral Scientists; is that
a referreed journal?

A. I do not know.

It is a small publication. The only issue I've seen
is the one in which I happen to have an article that was
reprinted from Origins.

Their policy, their editorial policies I'm not
familiar with.

Q. Sir, could you explain to me what it means that
an article is published as an abstract or in abstract
form?

A. It is only an abstract when it states that.

When you go to a scientific meeting, before your
paper is accepted for presentation, you have to submit
an abstract that is evaluated, and that abstract is
published as part of the proceedings of that meeting.

Q. Are the papers themselves then published, as
a rule?

A. You can publish, and people often do publish
an extensive paper beyond that.

88

Other times, sometimes the abstract is sufficient
to make the point. You don't bother to produce a more
lengthy presentation.

Q. How long are the abstracts of papers,
customarily?

A. 300, 500 words. They are brief.

Q. Sir, have you had any other articles which
you submitted for publication which were rejected?

A. I cannot recall of any others except this
last one that I have had trouble with.

Q. Did you include, among the publications that
you gave me this morning, a copy of this article which
is in the press but not yet printed?

A. No.

Q. Did you include a list of the manuscript which
you submitted to Journal of Marine Science but which was
rejected?

A. No.

Q. I would request, if possible, that you make
available to us copies of each of those, both the
paper in Pacific Science and the earlier manuscript that
you submitted to the Journal of Marine Science.

Sir, were the comments of the reviewers of your
piece submitted to the Journal of Marine Science made
available to you or only described to you?

A. I would have to look back to find out how
they were presented to me.

At times the comments are made, and at other times

89

the editor writes you a letter telling you what the
reviewers state.

I don't know which way it was.

Q. I would also request, if you have the letter
or copies of those comments, that you produce them, as
well.

Can you recall for me in any more detail the comments
you mentioned before about the submission to the Journal
of Marine Science, a comment by reviewer that the data
was felt not to support the conclusion?

A. As I recall, the statement was not supported.

Q. And I take it that you do not know the
identity of the reviewer who made the comment.

A. No.

MR. WOLFE: I'll ask the reporter to mark as
Roth Deposition No. 2 an excerpt from the journal,
Origins, Volume 6, No. 2, 1979, including pages 57, 58
and 88 through 95.

[Excerpt from Origins, Volume 6,
No. 2, 1979, pages 57, 58 and 88
through 95 was marked Exhibit No.
2 for identification.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, before we turn to Exhibit
No. 2, do I understand it to be your opinion that the work
you have done suggests that a relatively short period of
time would have been enough for coral reefs to grow to
the extent that they are known to have reached in the
world today?

89a

A. It favors a shorter time period.

I have not demonstrated that they grew that fast.
I have shown some factors that show that they grow faster
than was thought.

Q. Do you have a view as to the length of time
which is necessary or which is sufficient to account
for the present extent of coral reefs?

A. Well, if you take a figure such as those that
have been obtained by soundings, where I believe we get
40 centimeters per year, it would only take two or
3000 years to grow our deepest reef.

Q. Sir, what are the deepest known reefs?

A. Eniwetok Atoll is the deepest known reef.
It has a depth of 4,610 feet.

Q. And you are not aware of any deeper reefs in
any other areas?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what is regarded as the deepest
known reef in these United States, in Florida or the
Caribbean?

A. I can't give you figures.

They are considered very shallow compared to
Eniwetok.

- - -

90

Q. Do you regard the figure you mentioned just
a moment ago of 40 centimeters per year as growth rate,
which I believe you said was derived from soundings,
as a reliable estimate or approximation of coral reef
growth?

A. There was another estimate that wasn't quite
different from that. Some coral are known to go 26
centimeters, which is not all that far off.

So it is not just a single study that I'm referring
here.

Q. Would the rate of coral reef growth vary from
one geographic location to another?

A. Very definitely.

Q, What factors would cause that variation?

A. Temperature is probably the dominant factor,
and coral reefs grow faster in tropical regions than in
subtropical ones.

Q. Do you know where these soundings were taken
from which the growth rate that you mentioned were
derived?

A. They were in the western Pacific.

Q. Do you know if it is mentioned in your
article in origins, the one that was marked as Exhibit
No. 2?

A. In this issue I believe the references are
there.

Q. Sir, on page 90 in the article there is a
reference to soundings of reefs in the last full paragraph

91

at the bottom of the page.

A. You have two papers there, Sewell and
Verstelle.

Q. Are they the instances that you were thinking
of?

A. Right.

Q. Would you expect that growth rate in the
Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal are comparable to
those that would be found at Eniwetok Atoll?

A. About. They are both close to the equator and
Eniwetok is 11 degrees north of the equator.

Q. Do you know the latitude of the Andaman
Islands offhand?

A. No, I'm sorry.

Q. Do you know the location of the other instance
mentioned there in the Celebes?

A. It is right near there where it's awful hot.

Q. Do you know if that's close or further from
the equator than Eniwetok?

A. Than 11 degrees? I would have to look at an
atlas.

Q. Can you tell me, is there any rule of thumb,
or are you aware of any way of assessing the different
growth rates that would exist from a position on the
equator compared to the one 11 degrees north?

A. Actually the position on the equator is not
a very good index of how rapid a reef grows, nor is it a
good index of temperature of the water, it is your ocean

92

currents that determine this. But it so happens in the
western parts of our oceans, whether it be the Atlantic or
the Pacific, we have our warmest temperatures.

Q. Do you know offhand whether the Celebes and
Eniwetok would be essentially comparable in water
temperature?

A. Eniwetok might be a little bit cooler at
present.

Q. Do you know if that would make any significant
difference in coral growth rates?

A. It probably would affect it.

Q. I guess that would make the growth rate
somewhat slower than Eniwetok?

A. If we assume that our previous statements
are correct.

Q. Sir, have there been other efforts to estimate
coral reef growth rates other than these that are based on
soundings?

A. Quite a number.

Q. What other methods are used?

A. Measurement of reef growth rate at the
surface, measuring the result of the coral organisms
themselves, measuring the rate of absorption calcium
carbonate by the reef, and combinations of other
factors. Putting together all that you can gather --

Q. Do you know if these other methods that you
have just mentioned generally give rates greater or
lesser than this one derived from, or that we have seen

93

derived from soundings?

A. Well, some methods of reef, of actual measure-
ment of coral give what you might call comparable figures,
like the paper by Lewis, I mentioned.

On the other hand, it is generally assumed coral
reef growth is very much slower than in sub-centimeter
to centimeter level per year.

Q. When you say generally assumed, you mean by --

A. Well, on the basis of certain assumptions, on
the basis of the fact that some coral grows slowly and
some grows fast.

The general conclusion is that coral reefs grow
very slowly.

These measurements, however, are at the surface of
the ocean where there is probably some interference from
ultraviolet light.

Q. Are you aware of other people working in your
field who would support your opinion, that is, of these
relatively rapid coral growth rates?

A. Certainly some of them support the idea that
some coral grow very rapidly or they wouldn't have
published the results.

Q. Are you aware of any who support the notion
that corals generally, or that reefs have grown more
rapidly than these slower rates you've mentioned?

A. Just those papers that deal with soundings
and those that deal with the actual growth rates on coral,
not reefs as a whole, no.

94

Q. Sir, do you know what method was used to
derive these growth rates based on soundings?

A. They used soundings.

Q. Probably now I'm about to reveal how little
I know about the area.

Is this a matter of going out and taking a sounding
and coming back three years later and taking another
sounding?

A. Right.

Q. I see. The dates that are mentioned in these
two papers in your article, 1935 and 1932, do you know
when those soundings were taken?

A. I could not give you that offhand.

Q. They were sometime prior to the dates of these
papers?

A. Obviously.

Q. Do you know approximately when?

A. I suspect scores of years between the two
soundings.

Q. Do you know if these soundings were taken by
physical means, actually lowering a wire or rope or
something?

A. Yes.

Q. Could they have been done by sonar at that
time?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you read these papers?

A. I've read those papers but I would not, I

95

don't recall exactly which techniques they used there.

Q. Do you know what effort they make, or what
means they use to make certain that they come back to the
same place to make the sounding the second time?

A. I am not that familiar with the technique.

Q. Are these rates derived from soundings
generally regarded as reliable?

A. Highly reliable. They guide shipping, they
have to be reliable, otherwise you would lose boats.

Q. Are they regarded by marine biologists, or
coral researchers, as a reliable way to estimate growth
rates?

A. They have not addressed themselves to soundings.
The techniques they use and the techniques I use are
different.

Q. I see. I didn't understand in your last
answer, you said the techniques they used and the
techniques I use. Who did you mean by "they"?

A. You were talking about marine biologists?

Q. Yes.

A. The techniques that marine biologists use,
including myself, are different than soundings.

Q. Why is that, sir?

A. Well, I presume that under the pressure of
publication, and so on, to take a sounding at one time
and then go back forty years later to take another
sounding is not very productive of getting papers out
under the pressure of publishing.

96

So, I think more rapid techniques are favored.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

97

Q. Do you know if the authors of the two papers
on soundings that are mentioned here actually performed
both sets of soundings themselves?

A. No.

I would have to go back to the papers and check
those.

Q. Would you regard it as essential to accuracy
in the soundings that they have been taken by the same
investigator on both occasions?

A. I suppose it would help.

I don't think the technique is that vague.

Q. I take it you have never used soundings
yourself.

A. No.

Q. And you are not aware of any papers published
based on soundings since these two that you have cited?

A. The one mentioned in the Introduction there
just suggested by Ladd, that an error was made or that
coral reefs grew very rapidly because of a ship that
got trapped.

That's the only other reference I can refer to here,
Ladd of the U.S.G.S., but he was just suggesting maybe
these things grew faster than is generally assumed,
and that's why this ship foundered.

Q. You say that he made that suggestion.

Did he offer -- had he done any research or any
study that suggested that?

A. Based strictly on the fact that boat was

98

trapped.

Q. Did he suggest any other possible explanation?

A. I don't recall.

He just cautiously suggested maybe these things
grow faster than is generally assumed.

It is just a suggestion on his part.

Q. Sir, who would you regard as the most
knowledgeable researchers in the area of coral reef
growth rates?

A. Keith Chave, Steve Smith. I would not
exclude myself from the group.

Q. Any others?

A. Not that I can think of right now.

Q. Is there any journal that's more important
than others in this area, that is, coral reef growth
rates?

A. I don't think so.

As the literature reveals, it is pretty well spread
out over quite a number of marine biology type of
journals.

Q. Are there any books in the area that you are
aware of that are particularly useful or important?

A. Not especially.

There have been some technique books put out.

One technique book I can think of that has been
put out, but I know of no books that have really
addressed themselves to this particular issue.

Q. Sir, what was the technique book that you

99

refer to?

A. I cannot give you the reference right offhand.

It was edited by Johaness, Johaness and another
editor, Stoddart.

Stoddart may be the senior editor on -- I don't know,
one or the other.

Q. Sir, are you familiar with the International
Coral Reefs Symposia that are held from time to time?

Have you ever attended one of those symposia?

A. No, I have not attended one.

Q. Do you know how many have been held?

A. Not offhand.

I think I have missed several. I suspect it is
around every four years.

Q. Would you regard them as important gatherings
of people in your field?

A. Yes.

Q. Are papers presented at these symposia?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they generally by the important
investigators in the area?

A. Right.

Q. Are proceedings or a journal or a text of the
thing published?

A. Proceedings are published.

Q. Are they published each time one is held?

A. As far as I know.

Q. Have you ever read any of these proceedings

100

volumes?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you have those volumes yourself?

A. Not personally.

Q. Does the Geoscience Research have them in its
library?

A. I cannot answer that. I do not know the list
of all the holdings of the library.

Q. I think you said a moment ago that you had
read some of these proceedings volumes.

Do you recall where you obtained them?

A. Probably University of California Riverside,
if not at Loma Linda University Library or if not,
University of California at Los Angeles.

I go to a number of libraries and I don't remember
which ones I happened to pick up a certain volume.

Q. Sir, are you aware of any papers that have
been presented at any of the symposia that agree with
your views about more rapid rates of growth for coral
than for reefs?

A. No.

I think the last one that was held in Australia,
my name was mentioned several times, and my research
was mentioned several times in connection with the fact
of light, but not in connection with reef growth.

Q. Sir, returning for a moment to the methods of
measuring reef growth, as you mentioned earlier, you
referred to measurement of reef growth at the surface.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Ariel Roth - Page 3

101

Could you explain to me just how such measurements
would be taken?

A. The most simple technique is to mark a piece
of coral and then come back a few months later and see
how much it has grown.

Q. A second method you mentioned was measurement
of the growth of coral organisms themselves.

Can you tell me how that will be carried out?

A. I guess that what I -- the technique that I
just gave you applies to the second method we have
mentioned where you would actually measure the organism
itself, either directly, or you can use indirect methods.

For the reef itself, probably indirect techniques,
such as those used by Steve Smith, may give you quicker
results.

Q. What indirect techniques were those?

A. He measured the rate of calcium absorption
as the water traveled over the reef.

Q. Have you ever used any of these methods that
you have described yourself?

I believe you stated earlier that you had never
done any soundings. Have you used any other methods?

A. No.

Q. Sir, what method do you use when you are
carrying out your work on whether ultraviolet light
inhibits reef growth?

A. I use the rate of uptake of radioactive
calcium.

102

Q. Can you tell me how that method proceeds?

A. Basically, what you do is to put the coral in
a medium that contains some radioactive calcium, mix it
in with the calcium ions of the seawater. The coral
will take up the radioactive and nonradioactive calcium.

Depending on how rapidly they take up this
radioactive or nonradioactive calcium, you can determine
how fast it is growing by converting uptake of the
radioactive calcium into total calcium and then into
calcium carbonate, which is the skeleton of the coral.

Q. Do other researchers use this method of
measuring the rate of uptake of radioactive calcium?

A. It has been used by quite a number of workers.

Q. Sir, if we could turn now to your article in
Origins that we have marked as Exhibit 2, looking at
page 89, I think the second page of the article, there
is a reference in the middle of the paragraph on that
page to the Great Barrier Reef off Australia, and
drilling operations, and I will quote, "Drilling
operations down through this structure have run into
quartz sand (a non-reef type of sediment) at less than
200 meters, indicating that it is a very shallow
structure that does not necessarily require a vast amount
of time for development."

Sir, are you aware of any other drilling that has
ever been done on the Great Barrier Reef that indicated
a greater depth to the structure than 200 meters?

A. No.

103

Q. Do you know what sort of equipment the
investigator, Dr. Stoddart, apparently was using in this
drilling operation that is referred to?

A. Dr. Stoddart did not do that. He was just
reporting another scientific report in his review.

Q. I see.

Do you know the maximum drilling capacity of the
equipment that was used?

A. No.

- - -

104

Q. Have you ever heard of any drilling carried out
on the Great Barrier Reef which ran through reef structure
and then into quartz sand and when carried deeper ran
into new reef structure underneath the quarts sand layer?

A. I do not know of such instance-

Q. Are you aware of any depths derived from
drilling operations in Florida, the Bahamas and depths
and restructures there that have been derived from
drilling?

A. I have.

As I mentioned earlier, in general the Caribbean
reefs are considered to be quite shallow. There is
carbonate material below and I think there is controversy
as to whether or not it is reef material or not.

Q. So that I take it that in Florida then there
is some material that's generally agreed to be reef
material and then additional depths below it as to which
there is not general agreement with whether it is or is
not reef material?

A. I don't know if that is in Florida, but it is
in the Western Atlantic.

Q. Do you, yourself, have a few as to this other
carbonate material below the reef material and whether
it is or is not reef?

A. I have never studied it.

Q. I see.

Do you have any view, either based upon your study,
or based upon reliance upon another authority whom you

105

respect on that question, whether that material is or
is not reef material?

A. It would be reliance on another authority.

Q. Do you have another authority in mind on whom
you rely, or do you have a view on that question?

A. I would have to go back to the scientific
literature to find out who the authority is on that.

I think there are some question about it.

Q. Do you have in mind now the depth of material
that would be reef material in that area if in fact one
accepted that the carbonate material were reef material?

A. It is very great.

Q. Do you know if it is greater than the depth of
the drilling mentioned at Eniwetok in your article?

A. I wouldn't be surprised, I would not be sur-
prised.

Q. If you assumed that the lower carbonate material
that we have been discussing, as to which there is con-
troversy about its nature, were reef material, would that
change your opinion about the likelihood that creation
science offered enough time for that reef material to have
accumulated within the time assumed to have passed since
the origins of life?

A. It would certainly be in the balance against
it.

Q. Sir, turning to page 90 of your article, the
first full paragraph at the top of the page, the sentence
near the, or several sentences in the middle of that

106

paragraph which read, "Light is also important for coral
reef growth. Coral are colonial animals many of which
harbor symbiotic algal plants that require light. One
will not get the luxuriant type of growth necessary for
live reef survival without light."

Sir, I take it that applies to light at wavelengths
other than ultraviolet?

A. Visible light, mainly.

Q. Because I understand you had stated that your
research earlier indicates that ultraviolet light is
actually harmful?

A. Right.

Q. So that I take it, then, that as to visible
light, coral reef growth will be best the closer to the
surface it is, assuming that that means it gets more light
than at depth?

A. We don't have data to make that statement yet.

It would be a reasonable assumption to make.

One would think that would be the case, but there is
a factor known as photo-inhibition where visible light
interferes with photosynthesis, which could interfere
with the function of the algae, or could interfere with
coral reef growth which might not be related to ultra-
violet light.

Q. Sir, returning to your discussion of ultraviolet
light earlier, I believe you stated that ultraviolet
light is absorbed by water and that it is absorbed more
than some of the other wavelengths, the visible white

107

wavelengths?

A. Right.

Q. Do you have any opinion about what depths
probably gives the best growth for coral rates or the
highest rates of growth in coral?

A. No, I don't.

Ultraviolet light is not absorbable as readily by
the sea as the textbooks state.

There is a very common error in textbooks.

I don't know how it got in, but it's been copied and
recopied, in a few centimeters you lose all your ultra-
violet light, and this is not the case, it is much further
down.

And actual measurements which have been done varies
according to the kind of water.

In clear water you have much more transmission of
ultraviolet light than in cloudy water where ultraviolet
light is absorbed preferentially over visible light,
compared to clear waters.

Experimentation needs to be done to determine what
depth it would be best at.

Q. Do you have, base on that work you have done
with ultraviolet light so far, do you have a view as to
at what depth you would get, you would be likely to get
growth rate measurements that were relatively uncontem-
plated by this ultraviolet inhibition?

A. Ultraviolet light does not stop all of a sud-
den at one particular point in the sea, it is an exponen-

108

tial decay, and while you get less and less as you go
down, there is no one point where you can say, "Ultra-
violet light stops here."

Visible light also decreases.

A lot of research needs to be done in this area,
which is very fascinating, and that is to determine
what is the ideal balance here between getting the maxi-
mum visible light and the minimum ultraviolet light.

This research has not been done.

Q. Are you able to make any estimate or approxi-
mation?

Would the range of this balance, maximum visible
light, minimum ultraviolet, be at a depth of centimeters
or a few meters?

A. I would guess a few meters, the range.

Q. So that below that you wouldn't regard ultra-
violet inhibition as an important problem?

A. Right.

Q. Sir, referring again to page 90, and a study
by Chave, Smith and Roy, it says, they suggest, "Net
rates of growth of .8 to 26 millimeters per year."

A. Right.

Q. "The net growth rate of a reef is the combina-
tion of total carbonate production less carbonate losses
by biological, chemical and physical factors."

Sir, do you know at what depth the findings that
were studied by Chave, Smith and Roy were taken?

A. They did not do the actual measurements

109

themselves.

Q. Yes, sir, I understand.

It says that they were analyzing findings of other
investigators.

Do you recall at what level the measurements were
taken by others that they studied were?

A. They used the general literature, it was at
the surface.

Q. I see.

Do you know whether Odom and Odom, who are mentioned
later in that paragraph, suggesting a growth rate of
80 millimeters per year did surface investigation?

A. This was a surface, definitely a surface area
in their study.

- - -

110

Q. The next study you mentioned is Smith and
Kinsey, using an analysis of the carbon dioxide system
in seawater, suggesting a growth rate of two to five
millimeters per year.

A. That was a very surficial study, also.

By "surficial" I mean very near the surface.

Q. Are you aware of any growth rate studies
which have been made on reefs at depths below, say, I
believe you said a few meters below the surface.

A. Just those soundings. Those soundings are at
that depth.

Q. Would it change your opinion of the
reliability ot find out that there had been growth rate
studies done at depths of between five and 20 meters
that gave very low growth rates?

A. It would strain the suggestion, no question.

Q. Sir, I believe you go on then to list three
factors which suggest that reef growth might take place
faster than surficial measurements indicate, and one of
them is that surficial estimates may be inhibited by
ultraviolet light.

The second that you mentioned on page 91 is that
in addition to ultraviolet light, surficial estimates
might be lowered because of inhibition of the coral
organisms when they are exposed to air during very low
tides, for instance.

Would you also regard that factor as minimized or
eliminated if measurements were taken between five and

111

20 meters below the surface?

A. Yes. They could not be exposed. They would
not be killed, actually, as they are sometimes.

Sometimes the coral organisms are killed at low
tide due to too much exposure to air.

Q. Sir, the third factor that you referred to,
toward the bottom of page 91, is that there may be
other sources of carbonate on a reef other than the
growth rate on corals themselves, and you referred to a
study indicating that a reef might act as a filter for
carbonate in seawater, and another referring to the
possibility that sediments on or near the bottom might
contribute to reef growth due to upslope movement?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any studies on reefs that
indicate upslope movement of sediments?

A. Well, this horizon guyot, I suppose you would
call it, it certainly is the base of the reef; at least
it's the same type of structure as a reef, except it
does not reach the surface.

Q. Would that horizon guyot have any actual
living coral reef on it?

A. Not at present.

Q. Do you have any notion of how much below
present sea level the top of horizon guyot might be?

A. It is probably about one to one and a half
kilometers.

Q. If we were referring to a reef which was near

112

the surface, what would you expect to be the source of
sediment which might be trapped on the reef?

A. Upwelling.

Q. And the upwelling would bring that sediment
from where?

A. From further down.

Q. I see.

From how much further down?

A. The floor of the ocean or sediment that's
suspended in the seawater.

Q. Sir, I'm sorry, I can't recall if I asked you
this question or not.

Are you aware of any study that has been done of
the possible upslope movement of sediment at or near the
surface, rather than at a depth of one or one and a half
kilometers?

A. There are rather outstanding examples of very
rapid movement at the surface on the reefs during typhoons
and storms, where blocks 10 to 20 feet in diameter have
been pushed up on top of the reef.

Q. Yes, sir, I believe they are mentioned on
the next page.

Before we turn to that, are you aware of any
studies of simple current-produced upslope movements
taken at or near the surface or on any living reef as
opposed to on a submerged guyot?

A. Upswelling is probably a phenomenon that
occurs probably around all reefs, and if there is any

113

sediment in the seawater, as you expect in most cases,
the reef can act as a trap for that sediment.

Q. Sir, I don't want to be rude and cut you off,
but since you have to leave in a very short time, my
question is not what you might surmise, but are you
aware of any studies of upslope movement of sediment
which have been carried out on reefs or within, let's
say, 50 meters of the surface as opposed to a depth of
greater than one kilometer?

A. I cannot imagine that such studies have not
been done.

Q. All right, sir.

Please, I don't want to be rude, but are you aware
of any?

A. No, if that's what you want.

Q. Yes, sir.

Sir, there is some references then to rapid growth
rates for corals, and you state that "the fastest growth
rate reported for any coral is the stag's horn species
Acropora cervicornis."

Sir, are growth rates for Acropora representative
of all reef corals?

A. No.

I stated so in the article.

Q. I take it that they are significantly more
rapid in their growth rates than other reef corals?

A. Right.

Q. Sir, are you able to tell me what percentage

114

of the corals on a given reef would be Acropora?

A. This would vary very much according to --
sometimes you find complete, almost a complete stand of
Acropora in a wide portion of reef. Other times you
hardly find any.

Q. Is there a generalization that you could
make?

A. Probably not.

Q. I take it then the relationship between
Acropora growth rates and the growth rates of any given
reef would obviously depend upon the percentage of the
reef corals that were made up of Acropora; is that
right?

A. Certainly.

Q. Is Acropora, is it a surface coral or does it
grow at depth?

A. Well, no corals grow significantly at depth.

Maybe I misunderstood your question.

What do you mean by "surface" and "depth"?

Let's put it this way. Acropora grows very well
for several meters down.

Q. And then you say for several meters?

A. Scores of meters, let's put it that way.

Q. You say scores of meters. Do you mean two-
score, threescore?

A. I have seen Acropora down 50, 60 feet.

Q. So that's as much as 20 meters?

A. Right.

115

Q. I take it then -- I'm sorry, I believe I've
asked that already.

Would you regard evidence that Acropora was
primarily -- I'm sorry, I'll restate that.

Would you regard evidence that Acropora is generally
a small percentage of the coral in reefs as diminishing
the importance of fast Acropora growth rates to reef
growth rates?

A. Are you saying, if there is as few number
of Acropora, would this tend to say that reefs don't
grow as fast?

Q. If you were convinced or if evidence suggested
that Acropora was commonly a small constituent among the
corals on reefs, would that diminish its importance as
an indicator that reef growth might be faster than
generally accepted?

A. Obviously.

- - -

116

Q. Sir, still on page 92.

There is a reference there to a study by Shinn in
1976.

Do you know the depth at which --

A. Just a few feet down.

Q. I'm sorry, you have anticipated my question.
Let me make certain that I had it right.

Do you know the depth at which Shinn studied the
growth in that study?

And your answer is a few feet down?

A. Yes.

Q. I believe you mentioned earlier the fact
that typhoons frequently build reefs by bringing up
large blocks and large amounts of debris onto reefs,
and you have referenced a couple of instances of that
on page 92 of your article.

Are you aware of any studies, or are you able to
generalize about the net effect of typhoons?

A. No.

Q. Do typhoons occasionally produce a great deal
of erosion of reefs, as well as depositings?

A. The only cases I know of are where there have
been significant transport onto the reef from below, but
I have not -- I cannot state that I have looked at every
article in this area.

I have not made an exhaustive study of this.

Q. Do you have any knowledge or are you able to
make any estimate of whether typhoons are net depositors

117

or adders to reef growth or net eroders or subtractors
from reef growth?

A. No, I could not answer that question.

Q. Sir, going back to page 92, that study by
Shinn in 1976, you say that "Shinn studied the growth of
this species following destruction in a hurricane near
Florida."

Do you know how much coral destruction was found in
that study?

Was that a significant subtraction from the reef
in that area?

A, He showed pictures of it that show a fair
amount of debris of coral still there.

So I don't think there was all that much extraction
from it.

Q. Sir, looking at now page 93 of your article,
you state in the last full paragraph on that page that
there are three main factors that you have mentioned
that indicate that reef growth may be faster than
surficial measurements would indicate.

And then you state, "Before any final conclusions
can be arrived at, one must also take into consideration
those factors that contribute to the attrition of
reefs."

And the three listed there are destruction by
corallivores-- sir, are you aware of any studies that
seek to estimate the attrition factor by corallivores?

A. I don't know of any such. I doubt that

118

there has been an estimate of how significant it is.

Q. Are you able, from your own knowledge, to make
any estimate about how that --

A. No, and I don't know of anybody else that has
been able to arrive at that.

When these are considered estimates, they are
considered as unknown factors, to the best of my
knowledge.

But these are probably real factors, although the
quantity is unknown.

Q. Are you or has anyone been able to indicate
whether that factor may be greater or less in extent
than any of the three factors contributing to rapid
reef growth, as you mentioned earlier in the article?

A. Well, it certainly can't be faster than the
growth rate; otherwise, you would have no coral there at
all.

And the fact that you have a lot of coral that's in
good shape indicates that this is probably a minor
factor, nevertheless a real one.

Q. Sir, I wanted to ask you about one factor that
I'm not sure is incorporated in your list of three.

Have you ever seen any studies of the possibility
of the depression, local depression of the earth's
crust under growing reef in the rate of reef growth?

A. This, I would probably not expect that to be
that great because the density of the material that you
are pushing down below is much greater than the density

119

of the reef itself.

Q. Would that be the case when you had reef
structure growing on, say, the quartz sand that was
referred to earlier in the Great Barrier Reef?

Would you say you would still not expect to find
depression of the underlying sediment?

A. Quartz sand probably has about the same
density as carbonate sand or reef material, so I don't
think that would make a different factor.

Q. And as to factors 2 and 3 listed there,
possible chemical breakdown and mechanical destruction
by waves and downslope of movement, are you aware of
anyone else or have you been able to make any estimates
as to the magnitude of those factors?

A. No.

There are just suggestions here for people to
think about as they study this problem.

Possibly chemical breakdown could occur locally,
possibly. I don't think it would be significant in that
the seawater surface tends to be supersaturated and
therefore a solution of carbonates is very unlikely.

Q. And I take it you also are not aware of any
study of the magnitude of the mechanical destruction
or downslope movement?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of anyone who has ever been
able to estimate whether the net effect of downslope
movement and upslope movement would be in one direction

120

or the other?

A. These are factors that, as far as I know,
have never been measured.

Q. Then do you have any opinion about whether the
net effect of these two movements, upslope and
downslope, would be in one direction or the other?

A. Well, certainly downslope movement doesn't
go on forever because the reef builds up, so it has to
be net up.

Q. Sir, turning to page 94 in your article,
there is a reference to the experiments that you and
graduate students under you have conducted, indicating
that the rate of coral growth could be nearly
doubled by an increase in seawater temperature of 5
degrees.

It says that this was true, at least temporarily.

Could you explain to me why that qualification
about temporary increase is included?

A. Because in the experiments that we conducted,
these were short-term experiments using radioactive
calcium under controlled conditions, and we only ran
the experiments for short periods of time. We felt
that was a more accurate measurement of the potential
because of the difficulty in keeping the coral under
laboratory conditions, under controlled conditions.

These organisms do not do well in the laboratory,
and because of this we try to keep the time at a
minimum so we would have as fresh an organism to test

121

as possible.

Q. Did you find in these studies on raised
temperatures about the coral growth rates go up and then
remain steady at a plateau?

A. Not very much of a plateau.

Q. Did they decrease at all after the initial
increase?

A. It tends to decrease, and you kill them.

They are pretty temperature-sensitive.

You kill them -- 10 degrees more will usually kill
the coral.

Q. But when you simply raised the temperature
5 degrees, did they go from whatever their growth rate
had been and up to nearly double?

A. Gradually.

Q. And then did they maintain that increased
growth rate?

A. Not for -- I mean, it is a curve. It drops
back down afterwards.

Q. Even if the temperature is maintained?

A. No.

If the temperature is maintained, as far as we have
been able to test over a couple hours, the extra growth
rate is maintained.

Maybe I'm missing your question.

Q. Sir, I wondered if you raised the temperature
of the water 5 degrees centigrade, how long does it
take for the growth rate to nearly double?

122

A. As far as we know, it is instantaneous.

- - -

123

Q. If you maintained the temperature for several
hours did the rate continue at that nearly doubled level?

A. A couple of hours we will say, yes; beyond that
we have not tested. That's why the qualification is there.

Q. And you say you haven't tested because
evidently the elevated temperature kills them?

A. No, not in this case.

We can keep them for, I am sure we can keep them for
longer periods than that. It is just a question of the
time it takes for these experiments, because one of the
things you are probably not aware of, we are dealing here
with highly variable organisms and it takes a great deal
of work to determine one point. Some coral tips will
grow as much as 20 to 30 times as fast as another.

So you can imagine what the statistical problems and
the evaluation problems are involved in connection with
that, hence the data comes very slow.

Q. Sir, do you have any views as to what
mechanisms in nature might have been the occasion for
seawater temperatures in creating 5 degrees centigrade?

A. One of the most popular ideas is that possibly
there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse glass in that it
allows the visible light to come through and the infrared
light is trapped. Hence, the greenhouse gets warm.

Carbon dioxide can act in more or less that same
fashion, hence, it is assumed if there was more carbon
dioxide in the air in the past, the temperatures of the

124

world would have been warmer than at present.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence of that having
been the case?

A. Evidence that is used for, one bit of
evidence that is used for it is the fact that plants
tend to do better in an atmosphere that is increased in
carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is occasionally added to greenhouses
to get the plants to grow better, hence, it looks like
maybe the plants were adapted to a different carbon
dioxide level than we have at present.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence that that
mechanism, or any other, may have actually raised the
seawater temperature by five degrees centigrade within
the few thousand year period that's posited by Creation
Science?

A. Certainly the fact that the fossil record
shows tropical organisms way beyond the Arctic Circle suggests
that life has been here under much warmer conditions than
at present.

Q. I see. And you regard that as having taken
place within the past few thousand years?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, the last sentence of your paper is,
"Our present knowledge does not preclude rapid rates of
development; some factors definitely facilitate it."

Would you say that our present knowledge establishes
rapid rates of development?

125

A. No, no.

Q. You would say no more than that it simply does
not preclude their having existed in the past?

A. Right.

Q. And in addition to the factors that
definitely facilitate it, is it true that there are some
factors that definitely inhibit rapid rates of growth?

A. Cooler temperatures, lack of nutrients.

Life is a delicate thing.

Q. Isn't it true that you listed several, three,
in your article, factors that inhibit rapid rates of
growth?

A. Right.

Q. So that you have listed three factors which
would facilitate and there which would inhibit it?

A. Right. I would call that a balanced
presentation.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Williams said when we began today,
he said it was necessary for you to leave about 4:00,
and I observed it's about 4:00 o'clock right now.

I, for sure, do not want to interfere with you making
your plane.

I wonder whether it is possible, before we stop for
today, to agree to a time when we might conclude the
deposition on another occasion?

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have any suggestions?

MR. WOLFE: Well, I think, I can make myself
available pretty much whenever Dr. Roth can be.

126

I think the problem is he must leave and I expect
the problem at another time would be when he would be
available because he is not doing this all the time.

Another problem, even allowing for our respective
positions about whether or not you have made proper
discovery about what areas he might testify in, if I don't
know that he is limited to coral reefs, then I want
to be able to talk about catastrophism and the
possibility that he will address general scientific
principles and the like.

So it is even hard to estimate how long it will
take to finish when we didn't even agree what areas he
is liable to testify on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say that we don't, by talking
about it, even agree to it being resumed.

I don't know how long we have been here, but it's
been approximately since 10:00 o'clock, with several
interruptions, I recognize, but I think it is probably
an adequate amount of time.

However, if you have any proposals I will certainly
be glad to look at this for a continuation and get
together with Dr. Roth.

The very real problem is going to be to find time
when I can be back here in view of the other depositions
to which I'm already committed to and intend to take,
and also the fast approach of the trial date.

MR. WOLFE: The thing that concerns me most is the
fact that I came today expecting that Dr. Roth was going

127

to testify, as the witness list said, about coral reefs,
and that is the deposition that I have prepared to take.
And the time that we have had would be very nearly time
enough, if that were to be it.

But the fact that you are unwilling to stipulate that
his testimony will be confined to that, means that I do
not even known that this has been the half of the
deposition that I would want to take, because you
introduced other areas that are at least as large as this
one.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wouldn't anticipate that they would
be as large, as long as this one.

To the extent that we are going to call upon Dr.
Roth for other areas, that will be dictated by what is
going to be presented by plaintiffs, and I'm not in a
position to have that. At this point I haven't deposed
the plaintiffs' witnesses.

MR. WOLFE: Well, then, in terms of suggestions, I
would undertake to make myself available to continue the
deposition at any time when Dr. Roth is available, and
it is probably easier if it happens during the time when
we are all gathered here on the West Coast. On the other
hand, we all have other things to do while we are here.

If there is any other time between now and the end
of this week, on Saturday, when Dr. Roth is available,
and there is someone available to appear from the
Attorney General's office to attend the deposition, that
is clearly most probable and that's my first suggestion.

128

It would help a great deal in the continuation if
you could either stipulate that the witness list is, in
fact, going to be the last word and that coral reefs will
be the area in which he testifies, or if you want to now
at this moment make an effort to add other areas, that
you at least put a cutoff on the ones that you have added
today as opposed to holding out the possibility when
depositions are taken next week you will want to add
others in ten days.

MR. WILLIAMS: At this time I don't have any present
intention to add significant other areas. However, I'm
not going to preclude myself from adding as the case
develops, and the proof of the plaintiffs develops.
That would hamstring me.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

129

MR. WOLFE: And I expect that I can sympathize with
that to some extent.

On the other hand, you have clearly the obligation,
as you come up with new notions about what any one of
these witnesses are going to testify about, to give us
notice and an opportunity for discovery.

MR. WILLIAMS: I told you the other two areas today
that I would anticipate presently, and if there should
be any other areas that do arise, we will give prominent
attention to that.

MR. WOLFE: I would suggest, if Dr. Roth can be
available, and someone from the Attorney General's Office
can appear with him, we try to find another time before
this time on Saturday in order to conclude.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I can tell you without looking
at my schedule, because it has been somewhat -- I think
long labors have gone into the schedule for this, and I
don't honestly feel there will be much other time this
week, with the fact that other depositions are scheduled
and other work in progress, and I think we'll have to
be leaving this area at various times, and I feel like it
will not be feasible to this week.

MR. WOLFE: Well, then again, I'm trying to
distinguish between preaching and honesty.

I really think it's been impossible to really
substantially conclude the deposition because there is a
great deal that Dr. Roth has done that we haven't been
able to talk about, and this recent appearance of

130

catastrophism and general scientific principles testimony,
I was not prepared to take a deposition in those areas
since today was apparently the first that we knew of
the possibility of there being testimony there.

So if it is not going to be possible this week, I
hope we can work out another time when we will be able
to take additional testimony, and failing that, we will
reserve our fight to make application to preclude
testimony in areas as to which we have had neither
adequate notice or adequate discovery.

Dr. Roth, thank you very much.

[Whereupon, the deposition was adjourned, to be
continued at a time and place to be set by counsel.]

- - -

131

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named

DR. ARIEL ROTH

was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by

JOHN F. KEATING and CAROLINE ANDERSON,

Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the pertinent provisions of the applicable code
or rules of civil procedure relating to the original
transcript of deposition for reading, correcting and
signing have been complied with.

And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome
of the cause in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ________ day of
November 1981.

________________________________

132

I have read the foregoing transcript and desire
to make the following corrections.

Reads Should Read

Page Line Page Line

____________________________
DR. ARIEL ROTH

Deposition of Harold G. Coffin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

- - -

REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al.,)
)
Plaintiffs,)
)
vs. ) NO. LR-C-81-322
)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et )
al., )
)
Defendants.)
_____________________________)

DEPOSITION OF

DR. HAROLD G. COFFIN

Monday, November 16, 1981

Reported by: DEAN McDONALD, CSR
Cert. #1869; and
LINDA L. CHAVEZ, CSR
Cert. #2108

2

I N D E X

DEPOSITION OF DR. HAROLD G. COFFIN: Page

Examination by Mr. Klasfeld 4; 80

AFTERNOON SESSION 80

- - -

E X H I B I T S

PLAINTIFFS':

No. 1 Curriculum Vitae of witness 12

No. 2 Document 60

No. 3 Copy of application form for

Creation Research Society 63

No. 4 Article entitled "The Spiroribis

Problem" 97

No. 5 Document 120

No. 6 Document 143

No. 7 Document 162

No. 8 Document 162

No. 9 Document 162

- - -

3

BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice, and on
Monday, the 16th of November, 1981, commencing at the
hour of 10:00 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the law offices of
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market Plaza, San
Francisco, California, before me, DEAN McDONALD, a Cer-
tified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for
the State of California, personally appeared

DR. HAROLD G. COFFIN,

called as a witness by the plaintiffs, who, being by me
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as herein-
after set forth.

- - -

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by DAVID
KLASFELD, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.

STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, repre-
sented by RICK CAMPELL and CALLIS L. CHILDS, Assistant
Attorneys General, appeared as counsel on behalf of the
defendants.

- - -

4

DR. HAROLD G. COFFIN,

being duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. KLASFELD:

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Dr. Coffin, when was the first
time you heard about this case?

A. I think I may have noticed something in the
news three, four months ago.

I am not sure.

Q. When was the first time that someone from the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office got in touch with you
about the possibility of your testifying in this case?

A. Actually, I heard it indirectly through my
colleague, Ariel Roth, and did not have direct contact
with the Arkansas Attorney General's Office until perhaps
jsut a week ago or maybe a little bit over a week ago.

Q. Who did you speak with?

A. Tim Humphries, H-u-m-p-h-r-i-e-s.

Q. Do you know who Mr. Humphries is?

A. Legal counsel for the Attorney General of
Arkansas.

MR. KLASFELD: Mr. Campbell, is he a member of
your staff?

MR. CAMPBELL: No.

I guess you would call him -- he is an intern in
our office.

MR. KALSFELD: Q. What did Mr. Humphries said to
you?

A. He just asked me if I would be willing to

5

testify.

Q. And this was a week ago, you say?

A. I'm not really sure but it was not over two
weeks ago.

Q. So within a week to two weeks?

A. Let's say within two weeks.

Q. Is that all he said to you?

A. He asked me my educational background and he
asked me what my expertise would be in or is in.

Q. What did you tell him your expertise was in?

A. I told him my expertise was in the area of
paleontology.

Q. You said earlier that your colleague, Dr. Roth,
had mentioned the possibility of your testifying at the
trial to you earlier.

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. I really cannot remember exactly when it was
but say within the last three weeks, perhaps a month.

Q. What did you discuss with Dr. Roth?

A. I don't recall discussing anything except just --

Q. Well, do you recall how he raised the matter,
what he said to you?

A. No, I really don't recall what he said.

Q. As close as you can recall, what was the sub-
stance of your conversation?

A. I think he just merely said it would be a
possibility that we would be witnesses in the Arkansas

6

lawsuit and he wondered if I was interested or agreeable.

Q. What did you tell him?

A. I told him -- he is the director of the insti-
tute, so he sort of had the final say, you might say.

I said, "Well, I am agreeable, if that is what you
want me to do."

Q. What institute is that?

A. The Geoscience Institute.

Q. Is that connected with a school of any kind?

A. It is loosely affiliated with Loma Linda Uni-
versity.

Q. Is that a church-affiliated school?

A. Yes.

It's a Seventh-Day Adventist university.

Q. Now, Dr. Coffin, I have here a document filed
with the court and served on plaintiffs which is called
Defendant's Second List of Witnesses. The attached
certificate of service is signed by David Williams and
it says it was served on us the 10th of October.

MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, I think that is the
26th.

MR. KLASFELD: That may well be.

It looks like the 20th, though.

Q. That document, on its fourth page, lists you
as a witness for the defense in this action.

October 26th would be about three weeks ago.

Is your testimony then that you did not speak with
anyone in the Arkansas Attorney General's Office prior

7

to the filing of this document?

A. No.

Q. That is not your testimony?

A. I am sorry.

Yes, my testimony is I did not speak to anybody prior
to that.

Q. Where the Defendant's Second List of Witnesses
says, "Dr. Coffin will testify that the fossil record supports
the Creation Science model," while that may in fact be
the case, you didn't discuss with anyone from the Arkansas
Attorney General's Office that it was the case?

A. No.

As far as I know, we discussed just what I told you,
my academic background and the area of my expertise.

Q. But prior to October 26th,you hadn't spoke with
anyone about that?

A. No.

Q. Since having spoken with Mr. Humphries between
a week and two weeks ago, what further contact have you had
with the Arkansas Attorney General's Office?

A. Well, the only contact I had is a letter I re-
ceived containing the Act, Act 590.

Q. You received a letter?

A. Yes, plus an accompanying letter from Tim
Humphries, and the contact I have had with these gentlemen
since I have been here [indicating counsel].

Q. Let me understand this:

You received a letter containing the Act from Mr.

8

Humphries?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the next contact you had with someone
from the Arkansas Attorney General's Office?

A. Yesterday.

Q. Yesterday?

A. Yes.

Q. When you spoke with whom?

A. With Mr. Campbell and Mr. Williams.

Q. What time yesterday was that?

A. Let's see.

About somewhere between 4:30 and 5:00 o'clock.

Q. How long was that meeting?

A. Somewhere around an hour, an hour and a half,
in there.

Q. Would you characterize that meeting as a
substantive discussion of your possible testimony at the
trial?

A. What do you mean by "substantive"?

Q. Well, did they discuss the testimony you might
offer about fossils at the trial?

A. They gave me an idea, gave us an idea, what the
deposition would be and more or less what to expect.

Q. When you say "us," did you meet with them with
Dr. Roth?

A. Yes.

Q. So you discussed what the deposition would be
like.

9

Did you discuss the testimony you were likely
to give at the trial?

A. Not really.

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

I have here another document, which is called
Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories.

Let me just show you the document and ask you if at
any time this document has been discussed with you.

A. I have not seen this.

Q. The substance of it was discussed with you to-
day?

A. I would have to look at it again.

I just noticed that it was new to me.

Q. Sure.

A. Well, I would say that, in the course of the
discussion, some of these points were at least touched
on, such as the first one, the qualifications and so on.

Q. But you didn't discuss the substance of the
facts and opinions as to which you were expected to
testify?

A. Not really.

Q. Or your grounds for each opinion?

A. Not in that kind of detail.

MR. KLASFELD: I would like to put my position on
the record about this.

It is, of course, plaintiffs' opinion that we are

10

entitled to a response to Plaintiffs' First Set of In-
terrogatories prior to Dr. Coffin's deposition, and his
testimony makes clear that there has been no attempt of
any kind to respond to the First Set of Interrogatories
in any kind of meaningful way.

He has said that, apparently, the information con-
tained in Defendant's Second List of Witnesses, which
lists him as a witness, that information was supplied to
us without his knowledge or his review of that.

This failure to allow us the discovery we are en-
titled to prior to the deposition leads me to object to
the notion of terminating the deposition today, and pend-
ing, of course, our discussion with the judge tomorrow, I
would expect to continue Dr. Coffin's deposition either
tomorrow or as soon thereafter as is possible after we
get a proper response to the interrogatories.

MR. CAMPBELL: Your objection is noted.

We did timely file an objection to the interroga-
tories, along with a motion for extension of time to com-
plete the interrogatories.

I think that Dr. Coffin has testified here that the
information which you requested has not even at this
time been given to us by Dr. Coffin, and we had made at-
tempts, as is set out in our objection and the motion for
extension of time, to secure that information, and we
believe that, under the Federal Rules, you can utilize
this time today to secure from him his expert testimony
and the bases upon which he will testify at trial.

11

Likewise, when we set up the depositions for Dr.
Coffin and all of the other defendant's witnesses with
local counsel in Little Rock, we emphasized to them that,
in order to be able to take or to participate in thirty-
five depositions between now and trial date, it would be
necessary to limit the depositions to all day, from 9:00
in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon, so we would
have an opportunity to meet with our witnesses for the
first time the night before the depositions.

MR. KLASFELD: Do you have a copy with you of your
response to our set of interrogatories?

MR. CAMPBELL: I don't.

Mr. Williams has that.

MR. KLASFELD: Could we get it up here?

MR. CHILDS: We can do that at our break.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, we can do that at the break.

MR. CHILDS: We will be glad to make it available
to you.

MR. KLASFELD: I understand.

THE WITNESS: Could I make a statement?

MR. KLASFELD: Certainly.

THE WITNESS: I was away from October 29 to November
6.

There may have been some difficulty communicating
with me at that time.

MR. KLASFELD: Just for the record, Mr. Campbell,
was there any attempt by your office during that period
to get in touch with Dr. Coffin?

12

MR. CAMPBELL: I don't know.

Mr. Humphries is the one who contacted the witnesses
for our office.

MR. KLASFELD: Was he instructed, do you know, hav-
ing made the initial contact with Dr. Coffin and the
other witnesses, to get in touch with them again?

MR. CAMPBELL: This is Dr. Coffin's deposition.

I am just not sure at this time.

MR. KLASFELD: We have been supplied, Dr. Coffin,
with a copy of what I believe is your curriculum vitae.

Let me have that marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1
for identification.

[Curriculum Vitae of witness marked
for iden. as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Dr. Coffin, would you please look
at Exhibit 1.

A. Yes.

Q. Is this one-page document your curriculum vitae?

A. Yes.

As far as I can see, it's correct.

Q. I am not asking, Dr. Coffin, whether it's
correct.

I am asking whether or not you have a curriculum
vitae that you would give to someone if they asked you
for it.

I am asking you:

Is this the document?

13

A. Yes.

Q. It is.

Fine.

It seems, at least to my eye, to sort of end abrupt-
ly.

Are there other pages to this?

A. No.

That is it.

Q. Is that a document that you supplied to the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that, please?

A. I really cannot remember.

In fact, I'm a little bit surprised, considering the
paucity of communication with them, that they had it,
and I am not sure whether I sent it or my colleague or
my secretary sent it.

Q. Your vitae says that in 1947 you got a biology
degree from Walla Walla College, Washington; is that
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. What else did you study while you were there?

A. Well, all that would be involved in a Bachelor
of Arts degree in Biology.

Q. And this indicates that in 1952 you got a
Master's degree in biology from the same university;
is that right?

A. That is right.

14

Q. Did you spend all of your time during those
five years obtaining that degree?

A. No.

Mostly during the summers.

Q. What did you do the rest of the time?

A. I was teaching.

Q. At Canadian Union College?

A. That is right.

Q. Where is that?

A. That is about in the center of the Province of
Alberta, Canada.

Q. That is quite a commute.

A. Pardon?

Q. I say, that is quite a commute.

Oh. You did it during the summer.

I see.

A. Yes.

Q. And then in 1955 you got a Ph.D. in zoology
from the University of Southern California?

A. That is right.

Q. Was that a specialty in paleontology?

A. No.

It was a specialty in Invertebrate Zoology.

Q. Could you please define for me the field of
Invertebrate Zoology.

A. Those animals that do not have backbones.

Q. What is it that you --

Strike that.

15

Are these living animals that you studied?

A. Well, Invertebrate Zoology would be all aspects:
anatomy, physiology, behavior, et cetera, for animals
that don't have backbones.

Q. I wanted my question to direct itself to see
whether or not you dealt with extinct, fossilized animals
or recently dead or living animals.

A. It's usually considered to be living animals, but
I did take work with extinct animals.

Q. Did you study paleontology during your doctorate
program?

A. Yes.

Q. How many courses did you take?

A. It has been a little while.

Two, possibly more. I can think of two.

Q. Do you recall who the professors were?

A. Mattux was the first one, M-a-t-t-u-x, I
think, and Easton was the second one, E-a-s-t-o-n.

Q. Did you receive any honors during your Ph.D.
program at the University of Southern California?

A. I was a Research Fellow.

Q. Just what does that mean?

A, It means that I had a scholarship or a fellow-
ship and I assigned with certain research activities of
the institution.

Q. What field were you a Research Fellow in?

A. I was a Research Fellow under Dr. John Garth,
G-a-r-t-h, whose expertise is with carcinology, c-a-r-

16

c-i-n-o-l-o-g-y.

Carcinology is the study of crustacea, like shrimps
and crabs.

Q. The study of crustaceans, was that of crusta-
ceans as they are today?

A. Mostly.

Q. Was any part of your Research Fellow work done
in fossils?

A. Not directly.

Q. From the University of Southern California,
you then became Chairman of the Division of Science at
Canadian Union College?

A. That is right.

Q. Is that a church-affiliated school?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. What church?

A. The Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

Q. Did you teach while you were there as well?

A. Where?

Q. At Canadian Union College.

A. Yes, I taught.

Q. What courses did you teach?

A. I taught general science in the secondary
level and I taught general zoology and botany and genetics
in the college level.

Q. What are you referring to when you say "the
secondary level"?

A. High school level.

17

Q. I see.

Was the high school part of the college?

A. Yes.

It's a small institution and the high school and
the college are together.

Q. I missed a question that occurs to me now.

Is Walla Walla College also a church-affiliated
school?

A. Yes.

Q. What church is that?

A. The same church.

Q. The Seventh-Day Adventist Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you teach Creation Science at Canadian
Union College?

A. I taught a course entitled "Philosophy of
Science," which might be comparable.

Q. But in that course of Philosophy of Science,
you taught the discipline or the study of Creation
Science?

A. Yes.

Q. In your teaching of general science, general
zoology, botany and genetics, did you also teach Crea-
tion Sciences theories as part of those courses?

A. Yes.

And evolution as well.

Q. I see.

You then left Canadian Union College and became an

18

associate professor of biology at Walla Walla College;
is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What courses did you teach at Walla Walla
College?

A. I taught Invertebrae Zoology, I taught genetics
and evolution, I taught part of the time basic general
biology for freshmen.

Q. Again, did you teach Creation Science in these
courses?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you in addition teach a course in the
Philosophy of Science as well there?

A. In comparable material.

I don't think it was named that.

The course name was different.

Q. In 1958, you became a professor and the head
of the Department of Biology at Walla Walla College;
is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you continue teaching during that time?

A. Yes.

I taught less but I continued teaching.

Q. Did you teach any additional courses?

A. Any that I haven't mentioned thus far, you
mean?

Q. Yes.

A. I think I taught a class in microbiology for a

19

short time.

Q. Do you recall what text you used in the
general biology course you taught at Walla Walla College?

A. Oh, Storer, I believe, is the author.

Q. Could you spell that, please?

A. S-t-o-r-e-r.

Q. Is that book still being used today?

A. I have been out of it for a while.

I really can't say.

Q. Did that book have a section on Creation Science
in it?

A. No.

Q. In the Creation Science parts of the course you
taught, what materials did you use?

A. I prepared my own materials.

Q. I see.

Do you still have copies of those materials?

A. Not in that form.

Q. What form do you have them in?

A. My work since then has been totally devoted to
the subject of creation evolution and it has been expanded
much, much more than that.

Q. In 1964, you left Walla Walla College and went
to the Geoscience Research Institute; is that correct?

A. That is right.

Q. Who offered that position?

A. Dr. Richard Ritland offered me that position,
or he is the one that made the contact with me.

20

Q. Do you know how he came to come into contact
with you?

A. We knew each other previously.

Q. What was his position at that time?

A. He was at least --

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me just one moment, please.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

Q. The interruption leads me to ask another ques-
tion which I was going to get to later.

Have you brought any documents with you today?

A. Yes, I have some.

Q. Could I see them, please?

A. Yes.

MR. KLASFELD: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

Let's put on the record that the witness has given
me three textbooks and, what shall we call this, a stack
four inches thick of other documents; is that right,
counsel?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, that is fine.

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Dr. Coffin, how did you come to
bring these documents with you today?

A. We received a list, a sheet with a list of things
we were supposed to bring.

Q. You received that list from whom?

A. Well, I received it from Dr. Roth.

21

Q. Do you know who Dr. Roth received it from?

A. I would have to ask him, but I suppose from
Tim Humphries or somebody from the Arkansas Attorney
General's Office.

MR. KLASFELD: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

If I may, let me make a brief statement for the
record.

I have indicated the amount of documents that Dr.
Coffin has made available to me today, and it's obvious
it would be impossible for me to attempt to digest them
and question Dr. Coffin about them, and their delivery
to me this morning frustrates any type of serious inquiry
I can make into Dr. Coffin's work and thoughts and testi-
mony and it's clear we are going to have to continue Dr.
Coffin's deposition from this afternoon and continue it
to a time reasonable to both sides.

MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, the documents were
produced pursuant to the notice of deposition and a
subpoena duces tecum which requested that Dr. Coffin bring
these documents to his deposition.

We were not requested to present them to you earlier
than this date.

MR. KLASFELD: Let me just take a minute to see what
is here.

Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

22

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

Q. Dr. Coffin, do you have a copy of the letter
requesting that you bring these documents?

A. No, I don't.

Q. What did you understand the substance of that
letter to be that led you to choose these documents?

A. It was extremely broad and it was difficult to
know what to bring.

Q. I see.

But generally, what did you understand the request
to mean?

A. The materials that would be of particular value
in this particular lawsuit and on the topic of evolution
creation.

Q. I see.

I have, Dr. Coffin, read some articles you have
written for the magazine "Origins."

I don't see any of those articles here.

Q. Is there any reason why they are not here?

A. Dr. Roth has the complete set of Origins.

He brought them, so I didn't bring any.

MR. KLASFELD: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

Q. Going through these documents, Dr. Coffin, I
notice that the curriculum vitae that appears among the
documents you have just given me is different to some
degree from the document we have been discussing this

23

morning.

Let me show you a copy of one of these that you gave
me and I will ask you how that difference came about.

A. Do you mean between the two of them?

Q. Yes.

A. We have a new word processor and I just was
practicing on that the other day.

Q. I see.

And the indication "pp" after the books listed at
the bottom indicates how many pages the book contains;
is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. Have you taken any courses in continuing educa-
tion since your graduation from the University of Southern
California?

A. Yes.

Q. Where have you taken those courses?

A. At the University of Alberta in Edmonton,
Canada, and Notre Dame University in Indiana.

Q. And when was that?

A. The first, 1956 and '57; the second, 1965 and
and '66.

Q. Were each of those for a full year?

A. No.

They were in the summer.

Well, no. I beg your pardon.

It was two summers in Alberta and one year in Indi-
ana.

24

Q. I see.

Was that the entire year?

A. It was nearly a full load.

But it was during the school year.

Q. I see.

So that while you were associate professor of
biology at Walla Walla during those summers, you took
courses at the University of Alberta.

And during the time you --

Did you get a leave of absence from --

A. Let me back up, please.

It was when I was Chairman of the Division of Science
of Canadian Union College that I did the work at the
University of Alberta.

Q. I see.

So that would then have been 1955 and '56 rather
than 1956 and '57.

A. What did I tell you?

Q. You said 1956 and '57.

A. Okay.

Let's move it back one year.

Q. And then at Notre Dame, you were there while
you were senior research assistant at the Geoscience Re-
search Institute?

A. Yes.

MR. KLASFELD: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

25

Q. What course did you take at the University of
Alberta?

A. A psychology course and a methods course, I
think in mathematics.

Q. Methods in mathematics?

A. Yes.

Q. What did they teach you about methods in mathe-
matics?

A. Teaching methods in mathematics.

Q. I see.

It was an education course, was it?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you come to take these two courses?

A. Because the Canadian system required those of
us who were not Canadians to meet certain requirements,
despite the fact that we might already have a Ph.D., so I
had to go and take some courses there.

Q. What did you study at Notre Dame?

A. At Notre Dame, I was working in geology and
paleontology.

Q. What courses did you take there?

A. I took mineralogy and sedimentary petrology.

Q. Fine.

Go ahead.

A. And stratigraphy, s-t-r-a-t-i-g-r-a-p-h-y.

I took a paleontology course but I can't remember
what the name of it was.

Q. I see.

26

Were these undergraduate courses that you took?

A. Well, I didn't pay much attention to that be-
cause I already had a degree.

I think they can be applied either way.

Q. Do you recall whether they were part of the under-
graduate curriculum?

A. Some of them would be.

Q. Do you recall which ones?

A. Probably stratigraphy and mineralogy would be
undergraduate.

Q. And the other courses, were they in the gradu-
ate curricula?

A. I would have to check the bulletin again.

I just can't tell you.

Q. Do you recall who the paleontology professor
was?

A. I can't remember his name.

Q. Is there some reason these continuing educa-
tion programs aren't listed on your resume?

A. No.

This is the curriculum vitae I have sent out through
the years. It's not complete. I just haven't felt it
was necessary to put down every item, including publica-
tions.

They are not all there.

Q. Did you get grades in these courses at Notre
Dame?

A. Yes, I did.

27

Q. What were they?

A. I think they were A's.

Q. Have you taken any other continuing education
courses since your work at Notre Dame?

A. I was a member of a National Science Founda-
tion field conference.

I guess that is what it would be called.

It was on the structure and origin of volcanic --
that isn't quite the right name -- on volcanic phenomena,
let's say.

Q. When was that?

A. Well, actually, it was not after this, not after
Notre Dame.

It was before Notre Dame, the summer before.

It was the summer of '64.

Q. What work did you do in connection with this
conference?

A. We spent four weeks, I believe, touring the
greater Yellowstone area.

Q. How were you chosen for this project?

A. I saw it advertised in some science journal and
I submitted my name and was accepted.

Q. Was there a competition of some kind that you
are aware of?

A. Only insofar as the number might be filled up
and I would be too late, like a class.

Q. I see.

The only competition was in the form of a race?

28

A. In the form of getting there before there
wasn't any more room.

Q. Was there any other continuing education ex-
perience?

A. No.

Q. During the time you have been teaching, have
you applied for grants of any kind from the government or
from foundations?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you received any?

A. Yes.

Q. What grants have you received?

A. I received, when I was at Walla Walla College,
two or three grants dealing with research in -- I said
we weren't going to use this word again, in carcinology.

Q. I said we weren't going to use it again.

Who did you receive those grants from?

A. From the National Science Foundation.

Q. And since then have you received any other
grants?

A. Did you say from the government?

Q. From the government or --

A. No.

Q. -- or any other kind of institution.

A. No.

Q. Or any kind of foundation, private foundation?

A. No.

Q. Have you been turned down for any grants from

29

the government or any foundation?

A. I think -- it has been a while.

I think I was at least once.

Q. Do you remember when that was?

A. I can't give you the dates on that.

Q. Was it the National Science Foundation?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that after these grants they awarded you
or was it before?

A. It was during that time.

Q. I see.

And since that time you haven't make application
for any grants?

A. No.

Q. I see.

What was your doctoral thesis in?

A. My doctoral thesis was the -- this is the title:
"The Biology of Paurus Samuellis."

Q. What is pagurus samuellis?

A. Pagurus samuellis is a species of hermit crab
that lives on the California Coast.

Hermit crabs are those crabs that live in empty
seashells.

Q. Have you ever received any academic discipline
at the institutions at which you have been a student or
a teacher?

A. No.

Q. How much are you paid for being a senior re-

30

search assistant the Geoscience Research Institute?

A. You would just about have to ask my wife that
question.

I turn my check over to her.

I am just frankly not able to actually give you an
exact figure.

Q. What is your best guess?

A. It must be -- it's somewhere around twelve to
fifteen hundred dollars a month.

- - -

31

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Your curriculum goes on to say
you a member of the association for the Advancement of
Science.

Could you tell me something about the makeup of
that association?

A. Well, it is a large -- it is the major
science association of North America, involving sciences
all the way from astronomy to botany and so on.

Q. How does one become a member of that associa-
tion?

A. I don't think -- I've sort of forgotten, but I
don't think it's a recommendation requirement in this case.
I think it is merely a paying dues.

Q. Can a nonscientist become a member, if you
know?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Do you receive a journal?

A. Yes, indeed, Science.

Q. Science Magazine.

Have you written any articles for that journal?

A. No.

Q. Have you submitted any?

A. Yes. They were not accepted or, I have once.

Q. You have once submitted?

A. Yes.

Q. You are also a member of the Geological
Society of America?

A. Yes.

32

Q. How does one become a member of that organiza-
tion?

A. One has to be recommended for membership in
that case by a member.

Q. I see.

And who recommended you?

A. Dr. Raymond Gottschalk (phonetic). He is or
was the chairman of the geology department of Notre Dame
University.

Q. Do they have a journal?

A. Yes, two journals.

Q. Do you receive those journals?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever submitted anything for publica-
tion?

A. Yes.

Q. To either of those journals?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they published?

A. Yes.

Q. Were those articles in the package of documents
you gave me this morning?

A. There were two articles in the package of
documents, one from the GSA Bulletin and one from the
Journal of Paleontology, which is not their journal.

Q. Are those articles reviewed prior to their print-
ing and accepted or rejected or do they just publish
whatever is submitted?

33

A. It is a tear review process.

Q. When was those articles written?

A. I think the GSA Bulletin article was in 1971
and the Journal of Paleontology article was 1973, I
believe.

Q. What was the topic of the GSA Bulletin
article?

A. The floatation of equisetum.

Q. What are equisetum?

A. Horsetails, scouring rushes, joint grass.

Q. And what was the article in the Journal of
Paleontology about?

A. I may not have the exact title, but it is
close to the orientation of Yellowstone petrified trees.

Q. What did you mean in the article by orienta-
tion?

A. The way these trees are lined up in the rocks.

Q. Did either of these articles come to any
conclusion about the merits of evolution or Creation
Science?

A. No.

Q. And both of those articles were within the
package that you gave me today?

A. Yes.

Q. Are these the only two articles you have
written for either of those journals?

A. Yes.

Q. The resume says you are also a member of Sigma

34

Xi. What society is that?

A. It is the Honorary Scientific Society.

Q. How does one become a member?

A. By recommendation.

Q. And who recommended you?

A. Dr. -- I can't recall his first name -- Chen,
of the University of Southern California.

Q. Was that during your PhD program there?

A. Right at the conclusion of it.

Q. And do they have a magazine?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you receive that regularly?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever published an article in it?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever submitted an article for publica-
tion?

A. No.

Q. The article which you wrote which was rejected
for Science Magazine, is there a copy of that in the
documents that you gave me this morning?

A. No.

Q. What was the subject of that article?

A. It was the same subject that was published in
the Journal of Paleontology.

Q. Was it the same article?

A. No, there was some modification.

Q. You submitted it to Science Magazine before you

35

submitted it to the Journal of Paleontology?

A. I believe so.

Q. Do you recall sort of the general area of what
the modification was?

A. Each journal has its own format.

Q. And style?

A. Yes.

Q. The changes were stylistic?

A. They were that and there may have been some
textual changes as well.

Q. This was the only article that you ever sub-
mitted to Science Magazine?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are also a member of the Creation
Research Society?

A. I used to be but my membership has lapsed.

Q. When did it lapse?

A. Well, it is hard to say. We get the Journal
at the Institute and it just sort of dawned on me
recently that nobody had asked me for any money for
some time and I am sure my membership has lapsed.

Q. Have you not continued to renew your member-
ship for any particular reason?

A. I am not too -- it is not too important a
journal to me.

Q. What do you mean by it is not too important?

A. I don't agree with some of the research in it
or some of the articles.

36

Q. Do you remember in particular any of the
articles with which you disagree?

A. Oh, there was one article on Mt. Arat.

Q. What did that article say?

A. Oh, it is hard for me to remember the details.

Q. In general?

A. In general it was talking about the geology of
Mt. Ararat and trying to draw some implications which I
didn't really agree with.

Q. What were the implications?

A. Its past geological history.

Q. Are there other articles that you can recall
that were in the magazine that you disagree with?

A. There are some articles -- there have been
some articles on glaciation that I haven't agreed with,
evidences for glaciation.

Q. And you disagreed that those were evidences
for glaciation?

A. They claimed they were not evidences for
glaciation and I disagree with that.

Q. You believe they were?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you paid for doing anything else other
than being senior research scientist at the Geoscience
Institute?

A. No, that's my full-time work.

Q. During the time that you were at the Canadian

37

Union College and Walla Walla College, did you, while
teaching there, conduct any scientific research?

A. Not at Canadian Union College but at Walla
Walla College I did, yes.

Q. What was the nature of the research work that
you did?

A. It was on some of the life cycles of crabs in
the Puget Sound.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Now, since you have become
senior scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute,
what kind of research have you conducted?

A. My research has been mainly with paleontology.

Q. From 1964 until the present?

A. Yes.

Q. Why the switch from crabs?

A. Well, invertebrate paleontology is really a
very good way to enter the area -- I mean, invertebrate
zoology is a good way to enter paleontology, because 95
percent of your fossils are invertebrate.

Q. Aside from the one course that you took at
Notre Dame in paleontology, have you taken any other
courses in paleontology?

A. I really need my transcript to refer back to.

Q. But, in any event, it was during that one year
at Notre Dame?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Could you describe the nature of your research

38

on the crabs, exactly what it was that you did?

A. Okay.

My doctoral dissertation, the title of which I men-
tioned already, had to do with working out certain phases
of the life cycle which were unknown. Hermit crabs had
never been successfully reared in the laboratory up to
that time and there was a step in the transfer of the eggs
to the posterior portion of the abdomen where they are
carried for a period of time that was perplexing and
unknown, which I was able to work out.

Q. How were you able to do that?

A. The animal lives in a seashell and it extrudes
its eggs and the eggs get to the back of the abdomen and
are glued to the appendages on the back of the abdomen
inside the shell, so it never could be seen.

So I had the glassblower in the chemistry department
blow me some glass seashells and they were willing to use
those for their homes, providing there weren't any
natural seashells, and thus I was able to see the actual
ovulation process and see how it happened.

Q. So the nature of your research on crabs was
to observe what was going on underneath the shells?

A. Inside.

Q. I don't mean to denigrate it, I just mean to
describe it.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. When you went to work at the
Geoscience Research Institute, was the understanding that

39

you would go to work in paleontology?

A. Yes.

Q. I guess I don't understand why the switch.

A. It is not, as I say, it is really not that
great a shift from invertebrate zoology and paleontology
and my paleontology has been in the area of invertebrate
paleontology. So vertebrate paleontology is not my
specialty.

Q. I see.

But the study of paleontology and the study of
fossils is really entirely different than the studies of
crabs in a --

Q. As far as that specific research is concerned,
yes. My work in the Geoscience Research Institute includes
paleontology, but it is not limited to that. It is
science in religion, you might say.

Q. What else, other than paleontology, do you do?

A. Speciation.

And, as I say, science and religion, relating of
science and religion.

Q. What do you mean by speciation?

A. Change within organisms.

Q. What kind of research are you doing on that,
if any?

A. I'm really not doing any research on that
right now.

Q. What research have you done?

A. Well, work with the crabs would be in the area

40

of speciation. At least it would be involved in it.

Q. Did you continue some of that crab research
when you went to the Geoscience Research Institute?

A. No, not the actual laboratory.

Q. What is the nature of your work in science and
religion?

A. This, of course, is an institution that's
funded by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

Q. The institute is funded by the Seventh Day
Adventist Church?

A. Yes, my work is to, in part, to show the
relationship between science and religion.

Q. Do you conduct any experiments to do that?

A. Sure, that's where our research comes in.

Q. What kind of research are you doing?

A. I have been working in the Yellowstone region.
For instance, the paper on the Yellowstone petrified
forest and paper on flotation, these are aspects of
research dealing with that.

Q. I thought I understood you to say that those
articles made no reference to creation, science or
evolution?

A. They didn't, but they --

Q. Why do you then make reference to them in this
discussion if you work in the areas of science and
religion?

A. Because they -- they have implications for
creation.

41

Q. What is the nature of your research in
paleontology?

A. The petrified forest of Yellowstone.

Q. In other than going there and looking at the
petrified forest, what else do you do?

A. We measure the tree rings; we extract the
fossil pollen out of the sediments; we determine the kind
of wood involved and orientation of the trees, et cetera.

Q. When you say "we," who is doing this work with
you?

A. I have often had graduate students with me.

Q. I see.

How much of your time do you spend at Yellowstone
during the year?

A. That's limited by the weather.

Q. I see.

But how much?

A. Oh, one or two months a year.

Q. And what do you do the other 10 months?

A. Some of the materials that I brought, writing,
research, that is, literature research.

Q. I guess I am trying to understand what the
research that you do is and I understand that you go to
Yellowstone and gather data.

When you get back to the Institute, what is it that
you do there?

A. Well, we analyze it. We try to determine
what the information is telling us.

42

Q. How do you do that?

A. Well, the article on orientation of the trees
would give an idea of how we go about that.

Q. Inasmuch as I don't have the article in front
of me, could you describe that?

A. This article shows the relationship of the
trees to each other and comparison is made with living
forests.

Q. What are the relationships to the trees to
each other in Yellowstone?

A. There is a parallel orientation for many of the
levels --

Q. What do you mean?

A. -- which we don't usually fine in a living
forest.

Q. There is a parallel what?

A. Parallel orientation.

Q. I guess I missed the word.

You mean that's how the petrified trees are lying,
parallel to one another?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. You say that's different than the way trees
are found in the living forest?

A. Yes.

Q. In the living forest, then, they are not
parallel?

A. Not unless there are some extenuating circum-
stances, such as being along the open edge of the forest

43

where the wind can reach it.

Q. What is your explanation for the parallel
orientation of petrified trees?

A. It looks like some different forces have been
in operation than are in operation today.

Q. I see. That have made them lie parallel to
one another?

A. Yes.

Q. What are those forces?

A. Movement of volcanic muds and breccias.

Q. And those volcanic muds and breccias move the
-- were the trees petrified when they moved them?

A. No.

Q. But these volcanic muds and breccias moved
the trees to where they are now and are the cause for
them being parallel?

A. Yes, it appears that way.

Q. When did that take place?

A. The usual geological reckoning for that
activity is in the Eocene.

Q. And now long ago was that?

A. Let's see. That is considered to be -- I would
have to check for sure, but somewhere in the realm of
40, 50 million years.

- - -

44

Q. Is that how long ago you believe it took
place?

A. No, I have no different views on it.

Q. What are you views?

A. I think it is much more recent.

Q. How recent?

A. I think it is a phenomena of catastrophism
which is only a few thousand years ago.

Q. But you do believe that it was caused by
volcanic muds and breccias?

A. Yes.

Q. And what caused the volcanic muds and breccias?

A. Eruptions from some volcanic center.

Q. Do you know where that was?

A. Mount Washburn is considered to be one of the
centers.

Q. Excuse me for a moment, you seem to be dif-
ferentiating.

You used the words "considered" before in terms of
describing the Eocene period. You said something like,
"It is considered to be X million years ago but that
wasn't your opinion."

In talking about Mount Washburn, are you speaking
of your opinion or what somebody else considers to be
true?

A. I am using literature that has been published
on this and it is not too clear-cut.

It is hard to find the source areas.

45

Q. Why couldn't this have happened forty or
fifty million years ago?

A. It could have, but my own personal opinion
is that it didn't.

Q. Because why?

A. Because my view of earth's history is not that,
that life on earth has been that long or that old.

Q. Is there any data that you developed in your
work in Yellowstone that would preclude the earth being
that old?

A. No.

Q. It is that you don't believe the earth is
that old so it had to have happened more recently?

A. My belief, in regard to the age of the earth,
is based on other evidences, not Yellowstone.

Q. I see.

Fine.

[Recess taken]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Your resume also mentions that
you have papers in various church and religious journals.

A. Yes.

Q. What journals are those?

A. The church paper is the Advent Review.

That is the official church paper.

I also have articles in Science of the Times.

Q. Science of the Times?

A. Yes.

Liberty, Ministry, These Times.

46

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Mr. Campbell and I had a discussion
off the record in which Mr. Campbell has stipulated that
Dr. Coffin's testimony at the trial will be limited only
to his work in the area of fossils and that on that
basis, I'll limit my questioning of Dr. Coffin's recent
work to the area of fossils.

MR. CAMPBELL: If I may add?

MR. KLASFELD: Sure.

MR. CAMPBELL: His testimony will center arount
the fossil record.

I don't know the distinction, if there is one, be-
tween fossils and fossil record, but at least be that
broad.

MR. KLASFELD: That's fine.

I just want to preclude him testifying about --

MR. CAMPBELL: Astronomy.

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

MR. CHILDS: Dr. Coffin, do you feel comfortable
about that?

Do you feel there is any area of expertise that
you would be qualified to testify about at the trial
other than the fossil record?

TNE WITNESS: No, I feel comfortable with that.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. The articles that you have
written for these religious and church journals, have
they been science articles or religious articles?

47

A. They are both.

Q. You said that your work was in the area of
science and religion.

Have you written exclusively religious articles?

A. Without any reference to science?

Q. Well, we will start with that question, yes,
without any reference to science.

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have the articles in these journals been dif-
ferent in substance than the articles in Origins Magazine,
for instance?

A. Well, Origins is a scientific journal.

Q. Yes, I understand.

I am saying these church and religious articles
that you have written, have they been different in sub-
stance than the articles that you have written for
Origins?

A. Not really in substance but in level.

Q. When you say "level," you say the science is
simpler?

A. Reader level.

Q. I see.

If I could just ask you a few questions about the
crabs, and that will be the end of it.

Do you have a copy of the --

A. Dissertation?

Q. Yes, the dissertation.

A. Not with me.

48

Q. Is it possible for us to get a copy of it?

A. Yes.

MR. CHILDS: We will make that available.

THE WITNESS: It is not here.

MR. CHILDS: You will send it to our office in Little
Rock and we will make it available because we are sort of
in a turmoil this week.

MR. KLASFELD: Okay.

MR. CAMPBELL: For the record, may I send it to Mr.
Kieley or send it to you in New York?

MR. KLASFELD: I think to me in New York.

Q. Could you briefly describe the nature of your
research with crabs?

A. I told you about part of it with --

Q. I understand you observed what was going on
under the shells.

What else did you do?

A. Because it had never been possible to grow them
in the laboratory, I worked on that aspect of it and was
able to bring the crabs all the way from eggs through
larval states to adults in the laboratory.

Q. Did you experiment with conditions that were
conducive to breeding?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you alter the conditions?

A. The main problem was food for the larvae. I
was able to find the right kind of food.

Q. How did you do that?

49

Did you lose a lot of crabs?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you finally come to finding out the
right way to feed the crabs?

A. Mostly just trial and error and somebody referred
to me or mentioned to me the use of brine shrimp such as
are used to feed tropical fish and they turned out to be
very satisfactory.

Q. Were those the natural source of food for the
crabs?

A. Yes and no.

The natural food is plankton which is floating micro-
scopic organisms.

These brine shrimp are not normally -- don't make up
a very large fraction of the ocean plankton, but they are
floating microorganisms.

Q. Did you use the normal food, the plankton?

A. We tried that.

Q. That didn't work?

A. No.

Q. Do you know why?

A. Plankton is extreme sensitive to changes in
the normal environment.

They do not survive in the laboratory.

Q. So, having won this battle of trial and error
on how to keep the larvae alive, then what did you do?

A. I wrote the dissertation and submitted it.

Q. The research that you did after the completion

50

of your dissertation, what did that consist of?

A. That was applying this technique to other species
of crustaceans that did not have their life cycles undis-
turbed.

Those papers are in the material.

Q. I see.

Did you design experiments for your work with the
crabs?

A. Yes.

The glass shells would certainly be an experimental
design.

Q. And the different feeding techniques?

A. And the different feeding techniques.

Q. Had other people done work in this area and
unable to find the answer or were you just doing work in
an area where people had never done work before?

A. The question concerning the ovulation of the
hermit crabs had been discussed back and forth for ninety
years and not knowing what the answer was.

Q. How would you compare the nature of the research
that you did with the hermit crabs with the research that
you do with the petrified rock?

A. Well, it is really very different except that
research techniques, literature research, applies pretty
broadly in all scientific research.

A doctorate in education is not helpful insomuch as
in the specific area of your dissertation as the methods

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Harold G. Coffin - Page 2

51

of scientific research that you developed and learned.

Q. How would you describe the methods of your
petrified wood research?

A. I am just not too sure.

Repeat that again.

What are you asking?

Q. How would you describe the methods of your
research with the petrified wood?

A. Okay.

That's basically the method of science which is
observation and experimentation.

Q. What kind of experiments did you do?

A. The flotation experiment was related to the
petrified wood.

Q. How did the flotation experiment work?

A. How did it work?

Q. What was the methodology for the experiment?

A. It was obtaining horsetails, putting them into
different controlled situations and observing their flo-
tation in water.

Q. And the horsetails were substituting for the --

A. The horsetails were chosen because they are
modern forms of fossil representatives in the same group.

Q. What kind of fossils did you discover in Yellow-
stone, then, that the horsetail represented for you in
the experiment?

A. Horsetails.

Q. So it was these horsetail fossils that were

52

aligned in a parallel manner that you were trying to ex-
plain?

A. No, the paper on the orientation concerned the
trees.

Q. As a result of your experimental on the flota-
tion of horsetails, did you derive any conclusions in
the area of evolution versus Creation Science?

A. Relative to -- on the basis of that experiment,
yes.

Q. What were those?

A. That not all vertical fossil horsetails are
necessarily in position of growth.

MR. KLASFELD: I am sorry, could you read that, please.

[Record read]

MR. KLASFIELD: Q. And what relevance does that have
to the Creation Science versus evolution controversy?

A. It has to do with the aspect of catastrophy in
time.

Q. How?

A. Flotation would be a phenomenon of catastrophy
or could be a phenomenon of catastrophy.

Q. Could you describe for me how the experiments
worked?

A. I can, but let me also say that the article
describing the flotation is in the material with illustra-
tions.

Modern living horsetails were placed into tanks of
salt or ocean and freshwater and observed over a period of

53

days as to their sinking characteristics and their floating
characteristics.

Q. What did you discover?

A. I discovered that a fair proportion of them will
float vertically and sink vertically.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. I am sorry, did you say they all
floated vertically or some did?

A. No, about two-thirds.

Q. Were you able to determine why some did and some
didn't?

A. No.

Q. Did you attempt to?

A. Yes.

- - -

54

A, Yes.

Q. What experiments did you do to find that out?

A. The horsetails are hollow and so some of the
experiments, the partitions between the joints, were
removed in order for the air to pass out more easily to
determine whether that might be a factor in their
floating characteristics.

Q. But the result of that experiment was --

A. Inconclusive.

Q. -- inconclusive.

Did you conduct any other experiments?

A. I tried agitation of the water as a factor for
increasing the rate of absorption of water by these
plants. Again, more or less inconclusive.

Q. And what was the importance of this flotation
experiment in terms of creation science and evolution?

A. Well, as I mentioned, it is related to
catastrophism in that a view of catastrophism would
postulate flotation phenomena of this type.

Q. And, therefore?

A. It would be a factor in support of catastro-
phism.

Q. Did you gather any evidence about how long
ago this flotation might have taken place?

A. I was not dealing with that at all.

Q. I see.

Let me just make sure in my own limited way I
understand what you are saying.

55

You did some experiments on horsetails but found
that they floated and that, because they floated verti-
cally, they might have been fossilized vertically, which
supports the case for catastrophism, but that you did not
do any experiments to determine when that might have taken
place?

A. That's right.

Q. Is there some reason you didn't conduct those
experiments?

A. I don't know what experiments one would do.

Q. How large were the tanks in which you floated
the horsetails?

A. One was about 4-by-8.

Q. You are speaking feet?

A. Yes, by 3 in depth. The other was 4-by-4-by-
2-1/2.

Q. How large is a horsetail?

A. Full grown, full size [indicating].

Q. The witness held his hand about three feet off
the floor.

A. Yes, that's about right.

Q. How many horsetails did you have in a tank at
any one time?

A. 120.

Q. Each experiment?

A. Salt and fresh.

Q. So there were 120 in one tank and 120 in the
other?

56

A. No.

Q. Sorry.

A. I have to look in my paper, but I believe it is
120 together for both.

Q. What experiments did you do to satisfy yourself
that the conditions in the tank would be similar to the
conditions that existed at the time the catastrophy took
place?

A. Agitation would be one feature. It is a possi-
bility, that's why I did it in both salt and fresh water,
because we are not sure. That's about it.

Q. What about the fact that the real life occur-
rence took place in much larger areas than the tanks?

A. I don't think that would be a factor involved.

Q. Same things in the tanks as in a lake or a
river?

A. Pretty close.

Q. How did you agitate the water?

A. It was open to the elements. So a certain
amount of the time it was just wind blowing agitating the
surface and occasionally it would be stirred by hand.

Q. The tanks were outdoors?

A. Yes.

Q. How occasionally were they stirred by hand?

A. Two or three times a day.

Q. For how long?

A. Until the water was circulating well.

Q. How long would that take?

57

A. Three to five minutes.

Q. Was this back and forth on one side or round
and around the tank?

A. It was -- the tanks are too large to go all the
way around. Well, one could, but mostly on one side,
causing the circulation of the water.

Q. How did the agitation affect the horsetails?

A. It did not make any substantial difference to
them.

Q. Was the density of the horsetails in the tank
about the same as you would imagine the density was in the
real life occurrence?

A. The horsetails, the fossil horsetails, are
most like the horsetails -- the modern horsetails are in
the fall, when they start to dry up, and so it was that
condition that I used.

MR. KLASFELD: Could you read back my question,
please.

[Record read]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. What I mean, the number of horse-
tails in the limited area of the tanks, was that the
density with which they occurred in relationship to one
another in real life?

A. Yes, very similar.

Q. Had you done some studies of that in order to
choose 60 for each tank?

A. The larger the number, the better as far as
scientific experimentation is concerned.

58

Q. Not if they all filled up the tank?

A. That would be true. There would be some
limitation of space, but there wasn't any problem in this
case.

Q. What I am trying to get at, was the limitation
of space in the tank different than the horsetails occur
in the natural environment?

A. No, because you find them in the same density
in the way you mean it, in the fossil record.

Q. You mentioned before something about pollen.
What was that in reference to?

A. About what?

Q. Pollen.

A. Pollen in the sediments in the Yellowstone
petrified forest.

Q. In the organizations of which you are a member,
have you ever held any office?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you ever had any special duties in connec-
tion with those organizations?

A. I've given lectures in relationship to --

Q. Which organization?

A. Sigma Xi.

Q. When was the lecture?

A. When I was at Walla Walla College in about 19 --
I would say somewhere between 1960 and '64.

Q. Where was that lecture given?

A. In Walla Walla.

59

Q. That's not where Sigma Xi has its offices?

A. Sigma Xi has chapters in educational facilities
all over the country.

Q. So you addressed the Sigma Xi chapter in Walla
Walla?

A. That's right.

Q. Your lecture was presumably on crabs?

A. No, it was on periodicity in invertebrate
animals.

Q. What is periodicity?

A. Cycles of activity.

Q. Are you a member of any society that is not
listed on your curriculum vita?

A. No. National Geographic Society.

Q. Have you ever made application to a society and
been denied?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever sought a license which you weren't
given in the area of science?

A. No.

Q. Do you do any teaching now?

A. Guest lecturing.

Q. Where have you guest lectured?

A. In various classes at Loma Linda University.

Q. Which classes?

A. General geology, historical geology, graduate
biology seminars, I guess it would be called. That's all
that comes to mind at the moment.

60

Q. And that's been true since 1964, has it?

A. Not at Loma Linda University.

Q. Have you been guest lecturing elsewhere?

A. Yes, at Andrews University where I lived for
most of that time from '64 until now.

Q. Is Andrews University a church affiliated --

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Seventh-Day Adventist Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you the member of any other creation
science organizations?

A. No.

Q. The Institute for Creation Research?

A. That's not a membership organization.

Q. The Bible Science Association?

A. No.

Q. Citizens for Fairness in Education?

A. No.

Q. Citizens for Balanced Education As to Origin?

A. No.

Q. Let me mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2, a
letter from the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund, and
some attached articles to that letter.

[Document more particularly identi-
fied in the index marked for
identification Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2]

MR. KLASFELD: Let me, Dr. Coffin, show you a copy

61

of this letter and ask you if you have seen it before.

A. I can't remember exactly, but this is a form
letter and I wouldn't be a bit surprised it was sent to
me.

Q. Your name appears on the left-hand side.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how it came to be there?

A. Yes, they asked me if I would be a witness for
the trial that was -- where was it? --here in San
Francisco, wasn't it? Or no, Sacramento.

Q. This letter, though, doesn't make any reference
to the case in San Francisco. It refers to this action
in which we are involved here today, is that correct?

A. I didn't read it all.

You did.

Let me look at it for a moment.

Q. I think if you look at it, you will find that
that's correct.

A. Well, if this paper is referring only to this
situation involving Arkansas, then I can truthfully say,
if it was sent to me, I did not read it. I am not aware
of it.

Q. Your name appears in the left-hand column.
Did anybody discuss it with you before it was sent?

A. I suspect that that is a holdover from my
willingness to be a witness for them in the Sacramento
trial.

Q. Who is the "them" that you are referring to?

62

A. CSRC.

Q. By which you mean?

A. Creation Science Research Center, San Diego.

Q. But you weren't part of this fund-raising
attempt?

A. No, I never submitted any money to them.

Q. Are you a member of any other kind of organiza-
tion that's not listed on the --

I presume you are a member of the Seventh-Day
Adventist Church?

A. Yes.

- - -

63

Q. Any other organizations, political organizations?

A. I am wracking my brain trying to think of organi-
zations that I belong to, but I can't think of any others.

Q. Were you approached to be an intervenor in this
action by any group?

A. Please explain what you mean by an intervenor.

Q. There was a motion made to intervene in this
case by a group -- and Mr. Campbell will correct me if I
am wrong on the law -- who felt that their interests were
not being adequately represented at the trial by either of
the parties and they sought to intervene in the trial so
that their position could be adequately represented.

A. I did receive some communication, and I'm not
certain whether it was in connection with Arkansas, whether
or not they could use my name, sort of like on the side of
the list there [indicating] as an expert in the area of
creationism and I agreed to it.

Q. But you never discussed the possibility of your
becoming a party?

A. No, I am not a party to it.

I know nothing about the organization.

Q. You, at one time, were a member of the Creation
Research Society, is that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. KLASFELD: I would like to have marked as Plain-
tiffs' 3 for iden. an application form for the Creation
Research Society.

[Copy of application form for

64

Creation Research Society marked
for iden. as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 3]

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Coffin, the
application form describes four types of membership.

Would you tell me what kind of membership you were?

A. I would be a voting member.

Q. You were a voting member.

The membership forms requires on it that if you were
a voting member, you must have subscribed to the four
principles of the Creation Research Society.

Do you subscribe to those principles?

A. I subscribe to -- the first one, I do not accept
fully.

Q. Let me read into the record the first one, which
reads:

"The Bible is the written Word
of God, and because we believe it
to be inspired thruout, all of
its assertions are historically
and scientifically true in all
of the original autographs. To
the student of nature, this
means that the account of origins
in Genesis is a factual presenta-
tion of simple historical truths."

If you could state for the record, Dr. Coffin, in

65

what respect you disagree with that statement?

A. This is a statement out of a belief of the
inerrancy of Scripture, which I do not subscribe to.

Q. Do you believe the Bible makes mistakes?

A. Yes, occasionally, small mistakes.

Q. Which ones?

A. The number of demoniacs.

Q. What is a demoniac?

A. Demoniac was the crazy men that Jesus met on
the opposite side of the Sea of Galilee.

One person says, two, another persons says one.

Q. What do you think?

A. I don't know.

Q. What other mistakes are in the Bible?

That's not so much a mistake as a contradiction
within the Bible?

A. Within the testimony of those authors, biblical
authors.

Well, for instance, there are two main sources from
which Scripture comes, the Massoretic and the Septuigent.

In one, numerical figures are different than the
other and they are both the Bible.

Q. Which numerical figure?

A. Oh, many of them.

Q. What is the source of the Massoretic?

A. It is a Hebrew source.

Q. And the Septuigent?

A. A Greek source.

66

Q. Do you have any view about which is correct?

A. I am not a theologian.

The usual view is that the Massoretic is more correct.

MR. CAMPBELL: Just for the record, here, David,
since we did limit his expertise to the fossil record, I
home you will not consider him an authority in religion?

MR. CHILDS: He is speaking personally.

MR. KLASFELD: I understand that.

I am simply trying to explore his disagreement to the
extent there is any with the four --

MR. CAMPBELL: Tenets of membership to the Creation
Research Society.

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

Thank you.

Q. Do you have an opinion about how those mistakes
occur in, otherwise, an inerrant book.

A. Yes, I do, but I don't think it is of value be-
cause I am really not a theologian.

Q. How do you think those mistakes came to be?

A. To answer that, I have to go more deeply into
the philosophy of inspiration of the Bible authors.

My view is that the inspiration that God provided
the Bible authors is message inspiration, not verbal in-
spiration. They used their own style.

Q. They, the authors?

A. The authors used their own style.

They were influenced by the society of which they
were a part. They were not machines through which God dictated.

67

Q. The nature of the errors in the Bible which
you believe exist strike me as being minor.

Would you characterize them as minor?

A. Very much so.

Q. So that with the exception of some minor
discrepancies, are you in agreement with Tenet No. 1?

A. All its assertions are historically and sci-
entifically true with the exception of minor problems.

Q. No. 1, are you in agreement with No. 2?

Let me just read it for the record.

"All basic types of living things,
including man, were made by direct
creative acts of God during Crea-
tion Week as described in Genesis.
Whatever biological changes have
occurred since Creation have ac-
complished only changes within the
original created kinds."

A. I subscribe to that.

Q. How do you define "kinds"?

A. Kind is a broad term.

It would be defined differently with different taxo-
nomic groups of animals.

Q. You mean there is a different definition for
each different group of animals?

A. Because it is a broad term and has no specific
meaning to a taxonomist, one who classifies living things,
it cannot be pinpointed to a definite meaning.

68

Q. Well, how would I know if a change took place
that wasn't within the original created kinds?

A. Well, that's what evolutionists have been look-
ing for for a hundred twenty years.

Q. But what I mean to ask is, how do I know where
the barriers are?

I mean, how do you define kinds such that if an
evolutionist was trying to find that information, he
would know or she would know when it crossed that barrier?

A. If we look at the fossil record and compare it
with living organisms and we see the same basic categories
of plants and animals from the past to the present, we
could get some feel as to what those basic created kinds
were.

Q. How many kinds are there?

A. I haven't counted them.

Q. About how many?

A. I don't know.

Q. Ten thousand?

A. More than that.

Q. More than ten thousand?

A. Yes.

Well, I don't know.

I really have to say I don't know.

Q. A hundred?

A. Certainly more than that.

Q. Can you give me the ends of the spectrum?

MR. CAMPBELL: He answered the question.

69

He really doesn't know.

MR. KLASFELD: I understand he doesn't know.

Q. But it is more than a hundred and less than,
how many?

A. Let's say less than ten thousand.

Q. Are dogs and cats in the same kind?

A. No.

Q. Are lions and tigers in the same kind?

A. Yes.

Q. If you were to take as a project, the creation
of such a list, how would you go about it?

MR. CHILDS: Why don't we say "preparation" instead
of "creation"?

MR. KLASFELD: Q. If you were going to prepare such
a list, how would you go about it?

A. You would go about it actually more or less
the same way that a classifier of organisms today tries
to determine species.

Q. Is a kind the same as a species?

A. Not identical.

Q. How is it different?

A. In most cases it is a broader category.

Q. What are the criteria for a kind that make it
broader than a species?

A. Most likely the ability to cross is --

Q. The ability to crossbreed?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean "most likely"?

70

A. That is the most usable, most concrete method
of trying to determine.

Q. Well, let me ask you this:

If I was going to do research with some animals that
crossbred and I could alter one so that it couldn't cross-
breed, would I have created a new kind?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because its ability to cross was evident to be-
gin with.

Q. But I have taken an animal that originally could
crossbreed and I have now made a new animal, some genera-
tions later, that can't crossbreed.

Is that a new kind?

A. Not a new kind, but a new species, perhaps, or
a new variation.

Q. I thought that you said that the inability to
crossbreed was the distinction between kinds?

A. That inability may be psychological, it may be
geographical, and it may be behavioral, but if you brought
the sperm and the ovum into the laboratory, they probably
would cross as they did originally.

Q. What if I brought the sperm and the ovum
into the laboratory and they didn't?

A. What if they did?

Q. My question is, what if they didn't?

A. That remains to be seen.

Q. Let me ask you this:

71

What information could you conceive of that would
lead you to believe that the tenet of No. 2 wasn't true?

A. It would be the evidences that evolutions have
been looking for for connections between major kinds,
missing links.

Q. Now, you are talking about major kinds, isn't
that distinguished from kinds?

A. Major kinds or basic kinds, I am using that
synonymously.

Q. Let me go back to the sperm and the ovum.

If I was to conduct an experiment that would satis-
fy you that the sperm and the ovum wouldn't create an
offspring, would that satisfy you that those were two
different kinds that created the sperm and ovum?

A. I am willing to go wherever the truth leads.

However, on the basis of all the rest of organisms
in the plant and animal world, I would be inclined to
think there were factors there that I was unaware of,
factors preventing the cross.

Q. I understand you wouldn't like the information,
but let's say that I could satisfy you that I conducted
the experiment in a way whose methodology was unassailable.

Would you then say that I created a new kind?

A. You have set up a hypothetical situation and it
is very difficult to answer because I would need to
really look at that carefully.

It does not agree with my concept of what can happen.

Q. Yes, but, as you said, you will follow the

72

truth wherever it leads.

A. Yes.

- - -

73

Q. I am not saying that it is going to happen or
did happen; I am saying if you were provided with this
information, would you then think that a new kind had been
created?

A. I would have to take another look at the
classification of these particular organisms and evaluate
the situation.

Q. It strikes me that you are posing for the
evolutionist an impossible test.

You won't say what kinds are, but you want them to
find separate ones that might interbreed or the creation
from one kind of something that won't interbreed.

I want you to propose the test that would satisfy

--

A. The Bible is written for the common man. The
kind is not meant to be scientific.

We are doing violence to Scripture by trying to
give a scientific meaning to the word, "kind."

74

Q. But creation scientists use the word, "kind,"
don't they?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they using it in a scientific sense or
biblical sense?

A. They are using it in a general sense.

Q. A nonscientific sense?

A. Well, it can be used in science as long as it
is understood to be a general term.

Q. What would your scientific definition of "kind"
be?

A. It could be all the way from a species to an
order.

Q. But that's pretty far all the way?

A. Man is an example of species kind. Perhaps
there are examples among the insects --

Q. Is there another animal which is part of the
same kind as man?

A. No.

Q. Is there any other kind of which there is only
one example?

A. I suspect there are, but I can't tell you what
they are.

Q. How do you go about determining that the lion
and the tiger are of the same kind but the lion and the
dog are not of the same kind?

A. The breeding test is not the only basis, but it
is one of the main bases.

75

Q. What are the other bases?

A. Anatomy, physiology, overall experience,
seriology.

Q. What about the seriology?

A. The types of tissues and blood and so on.
Membrionology.

Q. Could two people disagree on whether or not
two animals were of the same kind or not?

A. Surely.

Q. To that extent it is arbitrary?

A. That's why it is a general term.

Q. Let me look at tenet number three, which reads:

"The great Flood described in Genesis,
commonly referred to as the Noachian
Deluge, was an historical event,
worldwide in its extent and effect."

Do you agree with that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. When did that flood take place?

A. My personal belief is that it took place just a
few thousand years ago.

Q. How many?

A. Shall we say from five to seven thousand years
ago?

Q. Could it have been 10,000 years ago?

A. Perhaps.

Q. Could it have been 15,000 years ago?

A. Not in my thinking.

76

Q. What makes you think it was five to 7,000 years
ago rather than 10,000 years ago?

A. My belief as far as the time of the flood is
concerned is based largely on Scripture.

Q. What scientific evidence do you have for the
time of the flood?

A. Not much.

Q. "Not much" suggests there is some. What is
there?

A. Oh, rates of erosion, rates of sedimentation.

Q. And that suggests to you that it is five to
7,000 years rather than 10,000 years ago?

A. Yes.

Q. What is there about the rate of erosion that
suggests that to you?

A. If they proceeded at the rate they are going
today, we wouldn't have any land above sea level in a few
million years.

Q. And the rate of sedimentation?

A. If they proceeded at the rate they are now, we
wouldn't have a Gulf of Mexico in 10 million years.

Q. Do you believe the rates of erosion and sedi-
mentation have always been constant?

A. No.

Q. How have they changed?

A. By catastrophism.

Q. Since the catastrophy they have been constant?

A. No.

77

Q. How have they changed?

A. By climatic fluctuations, by vegetation changes,
by -- even by man, man's influence.

Q. Why, then, do you think if they have been
changing over a substantial period of time, that the rate
of erosion and sedimentation could help you tell how long
ago something happened?

A. It doesn't really tell me that it happened five
to 7,000 years ago, but it does tell me that it doesn't
appear to have happened hundreds of hundreds of thousands
of millions of years ago.

Q. Why do you believe five to 7,000 rather than
10,000?

A. Because I have confidence in the information
given in the Scripture.

Q. Let me read number 4, tenet number 4, into
the record.

"Finally, we are an organization of
Christian men of science, who
accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and
Savior. The account of the special
creation of Adam and Eve as one man
as one woman, and the subsequent
Fall into sin, is the basis for our
belief in the necessity of a savior
for all mankind. Therefore, salva-
tion can come only through accepting
Jesus Christ as our Savior."

78

Do you believe tenet number 4?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So, with the exception that you mentioned in
number 1 of some minor discrepancies between accounts in
the Bible, you agree with tenets 1 through 4?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you embrace the Seventh-Day Adventist
faith?

A. I was born a member of the Seventh-Day
Adventist Church.

Q. Do you hold any office in the church?

A. Not at the present time.

Q. Have you been?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What office did you hold?

A. An office that's referred to as an Elder in the
church.

Q. Do you attend church regularly?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How frequently?

A. Every week.

Q. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist
Christian?

A. I suppose, despite the rather negative connota-
tions of that, I think it would fall in that category.

Q. How would you define that?

A. One who accepts the tenets that you just read.

Q. Do you have a personal religious counselor or

79

adviser?

A. No.

Q. Do you engage in activities to spread the faith?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an evangelical mission as part of
your membership of the church?

A. Can you explain a little more what you mean?

Q. Well, what do you do to spread the faith?

A. I speak to people when I have the opportunity,
I write for church papers which are used for evangelistic
purposes; I speak in churches; I speak in evangelistic
services, so forth.

Q. Have you been baptized?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times?

A. Once.

Q. Is that when you were a child?

A. Yes.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Do you believe that it is okay
to exaggerate in order to spread the faith?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. And you wouldn't distort anything to spread the
faith?

A. Not knowingly.

MR. KLASFELD: Why don't we take a break and pick up
here.

[Luncheon recess]

80

AFTERNOON SESSION

1:15 O'CLOCK P.M.

- - -

EXAMINATION BY MR. KLASFELD [RESUMED]:

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Dr. Coffin, when you read the
Bible, is there any particular version that you read?

A. No.

Q. How often do you read the Bible?

A. I read it almost every morning.

Q. Do you set aside some time for that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How long?

A. My aim, and I usually reach it, is a half-hour
in the morning.

MR. CAMPBELL: Just for the record, I will object
to these questions as being irrelevant to the particular
issues in this lawsuit.

MR. KLASFELD: My understanding is that the judge
has been heard on that. I don't want to characterize
what he said because I wasn't there, but I am told that
that discussion was had with the judge and the judge
authorized us to ask these questions.

MR. CAMPBELL: You can talk about his religious
views, is my understanding of what the judge said, but
he diver did take up Bible reading and things like that.

That is all I am saying, that this may be
irrelevant, but he can answer the question.

MR. KLASFELD: How do you decide which section you

81

are going to read each morning?

A. Oh, I simply choose some part of the Bible
which, for various reasons, might be of interest to me
at the time.

Q. As a paleontologist, do you consult the Bible
for the purposes of your scientific inquiry?

A. Not directly.

Q. Indirectly?

A. Well, my research on flotation, for instance,
probably would never have arisen if I didn't have
confidence in the flood story in Genesis.

Q. So in conducting that research, did you
consult the flood story in the Bible?

A. No.

Q. For what purpose in relation to your
scientific work do you consult the Bible?

A. To one who has confidence in its authenticity,
he would consult it for the same reason he would consult
any other authority which he feels to be reliable.

Q. Is the Bible a source of personal revelation
to you?

A. Personal revelation, can you explain that?

Q. Well, I am not sure that I can.

Does it provide for you a personal code of
conduct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that code of conduct?

A. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all

82

thy heart, and thy fellow likewise," paraphrasing.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible is, except for
minor, minor discrepancies, literally true?

A. Yes, except where it is obviously symbolic.

Q. In what respects is it obviously symbolic?

A. Well, where there are words or messages that
are clearly symbolic.

Q. Which ones are they?

A. Well, the beasts in Revelation, the parables
of Jesus and so forth.

Q. What about the Genesis part of the Bible?

A. I accept Genesis as being accurate history.

Q. And literally true?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the Bible predict future events?

A. I believe it does.

Q. What future events does it predict?

A. The end of earth history, the second coming
of Christ.

Q. The rapture?

A. To some people.

Q. Not to you?

A. No.

Q. Does the Bible predict for you when the end
of earth history is going to take place?

A. No.

Q. Or when the second coming of Christ is going
to be?

83

A. No.

Q. Is the Bible an inspiration for your research
in any way?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Is it, in its literal truth, a source of
scientific learning for you?

A. No.

Q. Is it a source of scientific truth which sets
forth parameters for your research, your work?

A. To some extent, yes.

Q. To what extent would that be?

A. It provides basic concepts and basic
understandings that will influence a person's research.

Q. What basic concepts and understandings would
those be?

A. Of course, we are talking about creation and
catastrophe.

Q. By which you mean the creation of the world
and the universe in six days and the Noachian flood?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the Bible suggest methods of scientific
investigation to you?

A. No.

Q. What information would you think of that
would lead you to conclude as a scientific matter that
the earth was millions of years old?

A. What information can I think of that would
lead me to think that the earth was millions of years

84

old?

Q. Yes.

A. Radioactive dating.

Q. I'm sorry.

That would lead you to believe that the earth was
millions of years old?

A. That could lead me to believe that.

Q. Well, you believe -- I will start at the
beginning.

I understand you to believe that -- I will start
from scratch.

When do you believe the events of Genesis, as
described in the Bible, took place, how long ago?

A. A few thousand years ago.

Q. That would be, presumably, before the flood?

A. Yes.

Q. How long before the flood?

- - -

85

A. Let's say up to ten thousand years before, before
present.

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

Q. In connection with this case, Dr. Coffin,
have you had any contacts with people other than the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office and Dr. Roth?

A. It was discussed in the Geoscience staff
meeting.

Q. Who was there at that time?

A. The individuals were two secretaries and two
other members of the Geoscience staff.

Q. What was discussed?

A. Just simply should we or shouldn't we.

Q. And you reached the decision that you should?

A. We decided we would go ahead with it.

Q. What were the considerations against doing it?

A. Whether we could be useful or whether we wanted
to be identified with some others that might be involved
in it.

Q. Who were those others?

A. I'm thinking particularly of ICR.

Q. The Institute for Creation Research?

A. Yes.

Q. Who were the major members of that group?

A. No individuals were referred to specifically.

Q. But who are they?

86

A. I don't know all of their membership.

Some of them, of course, are Duane Gish, Henry
Morris, Gary Parker and -- what is his first name? -- well,
Bliss; and there are some others.

I don't really remember who all is there now.

Q. And you discussed the negative effect of your
becoming associated with them?

A. Well, as I indicated, there are certain aspects
of creationism which we don't quite agree with them on,
so we weren't sure we wanted to be lumped in with that
group.

Q. You ultimately decided you would?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any discussions with the people
at ICR about your testimony?

A. No.

Q. Did they attempt to get into contact with you?

A. No.

Q. Have you had any contact, first of all, ever,
with Wendell Bird or John Whitehead?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever testified in any kind of court
proceeding before?

A. I'm not sure of your legal terminology.

I was involved personally in a lawsuit involving
an accident in which my wife's back was broken, an
automobile accident.

Q. I see.

87

But not regarding your scientific expertise?

A. No.

Q. Have you engaged in any debates on creation
science versus evolution?

A. No.

Q. No public debates?

A. No.

Q. What about any debates involving evolution in
any way?

A. Define what you mean by "debate."

Q. I guess I would mean a public kind of debate,
where you are speaking for one side and somebody else
is speaking for another side.

A. I have been involved in public discussions on
creation evolution but not what you would call a debate.

Q. Where did those discussions take place?

A. One of them occurred in San Francisco.

Q. Who set up the discussion?

A. It was -- I don't remember the call numbers
but --

MR. KLASFELD: Excuse me.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

I am sorry.

I apologize for the interruption.

THE WITNESS: It was a local educational TV station,
and they had a discussion on -- it was when the teaching
of creation in public schools in California was strongly

88

being considered.

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Who else participated in those
discussions?

A. I don't remember the names but one was an
official in the high school system of San Francisco and
another was a science teacher from the University of
California.

Q. Do you know if there are any transcripts of
that television program?

A. A videotape was made of it.

Whether that is still available, I don't know.

Q. Do you have a copy of it?

A. I don't have a copy.

Q. About when did this take place, do you know
the dates?

A. Well, I would say 1965 or '66, somewhere in
there.

Q. What station was that on?

A. I don't remember the call letters.

It's a local educational TV station.

Q. Thank you.

Since then, have you engaged in any other public
debate or discussion about the issue?

A. No.

MR. CHILDS: Excuse me, David.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

THE REPORTER: The best known local public tele-

89

vision station in this area is KQED.

THE WITNESS: I think that was the one.

MR. KLASFELD: Q. All right.

Were you paid for your appearance on KQED?

A. No.

Q. Are you being paid for your testimony at this
trial?

A. No.

Well, just for expenses.

Q. Have you ever been arrested for any criminal
offense?

A. No.

That doesn't include minor automobile accidents,
I presume.

Arrested, no.

I just received a citation.

Q. For speeding?

A. No.

For failing to yield the right of way.

Q. Did you do it?

A. Well, I hit the side of the car so I didn't
really have much of an excuse.

Q. But other than that, no arrests or convictions?

A. No.

Q. Have you discussed with anyone the specifics
of what you expect to testify to at trial?

A. With Dr. Olson, I have talked about it with
him.

90

Q. How many times have you talked about it?

A. Almost none before we came up here, but we
are, of course, just a couple rooms apart, and at break-
fast time or other meal times we have talked about it.

Q. How many other members are there at the Geo-
science Research Institute?

A. There are four, plus two secretaries.

Q. Who are the other two scientists?

A. The other two, their names are Richard Tkachuck,
T-k-a-c-h-u-c-k, and Robert Brown.

Q. What is Dr. Tkachuck's area of expertise?

A. His area is in speciation and variation,
evolution, if you please.

Q. And Brown?

A. He is a nuclear physicist.

Q. Is there any particular reason why they are not
testifying at the trial, that you know of?

A. That is something I have no information on.

Q. What have you discussed with Dr. Roth about
your testimony at trial?

A. Almost nothing about the testimony.

Q. What did you talk about?

A. About what to expect; in other words, what it
is going to be like.

Q. Just to be a witness?

A. Yes.

Q. While we are on this subject, what would you
describe as Dr. Roth's area of expertise?

91

A. His area of expertise would be catastrophism
and philosophy of science.

Q. Does he have any other areas of expertise?

A. I think that I had better not say, really,
any more.

Q. Is he an expert on coral reefs?

- - -

92

A. Yes.

Q. Is your testimony going to be based on any of
the documents you have brought this morning?

A. Yes.

Q. Which of those?

A. I can't answer that. I haven't prepared it
yet.

MR. KLASFELD: Mr. Campbell, I guess that answer is
indicative of the problem we are faced with in terms of
our efforts to seek discovery about Dr. Coffin and his
testimony. It's difficult to explore his areas of
testimony if he hasn't thought about it himself, and in
the area of fossils and paleontology is a very broad area.

MR. CAMPBELL: I think what it reflects is that he
has told you that his testimony will come from the
documents which he has provided you, and certainly, you
could ask him about those documents.

I think, too, and more basically, that what it
reflects is that we have simply not had the time to prepare
our witnesses as we would like to have prepared them for
trial; we might not find that same problem with your
witnesses, but this is actually a reflection of the number
of attorneys that you have available to prepare your
witnesses, while on our side, there has been only the two
of us, or three of us now, working on the case.

MR. KLASFELD: But that really doesn't go to the
merits of what it is we are entitled to be able to do
in a discovery deposition.

93

We are supposed to be given the opportunity to
examine and to discuss with a potential witness what his
testimony is going to be, what he expects to rely on in
that regard, in an effort to probe that testimony.

And it's clear to me it's not that Dr. Coffin is
unwilling to discuss anything, and I certainly don't want
to suggest that, but simply the fact that, you know, the
interrogatories weren't answered and I gather from
discussions with our people that you feel that the
information that was given to us in the witness list and
the --

MR. CAMPBELL: And the information which the witnesses
can provide you at these depositions.

MR. KLASFELD: -- and the information which the
witnesses can provide us at these depositions, should be
enough.

My objection is that the area of paleontology and
fossils is a very wide area.

For instance, I read an article by Dr. Coffin on
spirorbis, and I am prepared to discuss the article on
spirorbis with him, but I think I am entitled to know
whether he expects to testify as to spirorbis at the time
of trial.

MR. CAMPBELL: You didn't ask that.

I think in a discovery deposition you should ask him
about all of these areas you know of or about. I think
you mentioned this morning you have already read some of
his articles in Origins Magazine.

94

MR. KLASFELD: That's right.

MR. CAMPBELL: So you might ask him whether or not
he would rely upon those.

MR. KLASFELD: I want to and I will.

Part of what we are entitled to do, in my mind, at
these discovery depositions, is to limit the area about
which the witness is going to testify; and while I have
read three or four or more of Dr. Coffin's articles, and
if I had all of this information, I would have read the
others as well, it seems to me that it's going to be
impossible to serve the other legitimate purpose of a
deposition, which is to limit what it is that somebody is
going to say and rely upon.

MR. CAMPBELL; I understand what you are saying.
I guess my only response would be that the witness should
not be penalized because of his lawyers, in this instance
the Arkansas Attorney General's office, for being unable
to adequately prepare his testimony in advance of this
trial.

We have undoubtedly an expedited trial date in this
case, and as Dr. Coffin has testified, we just recently got
in contact with him. I think we have done remarkably well
in getting all of these depositions lined up and getting
them all done before the trial date.

MR. KLASFELD: I think it's true that the witness
shouldn't be penalized, but neither should the other side.

MR. CAMPBELL: But you have him here today. That
is the thing.

95

MR. KLASFELD: That is true. But what I am able to
accomplish at this deposition is greatly limited from what
it would be in the ordinary case.

MR. CAMPBELL: I guess I just don't understand the
purpose of a discovery deposition the way you are viewing
it, because as I would interpret it, as I view a
discovery deposition, it's a time where you sit around and
you start with a very broad area and continually try to
break it down, you continually try to narrow it down.

Obviously, Dr. Coffin can only testify at trial about
what he knows about, whatever that is, so it seems to me
that the purpose of the discovery deposition would be for
you to determine what it is he knows, because he is not
going to testify to anything else but that.

MR. KLASFELD: I understand that.

Q. Do you anticipate testifying about spirorbis
at the trial?

A. Well, once again, that is a difficult question
because I just really haven't put together this information
and I am not sure that I would have put it together even if
I had known three months ago.

Q. Would you anticipate testifying about the
Burgess shale formation?

A. That is a possibility.

Q. Or the ginkgo petrified forest?

A. I doubt it. I don't know.

Q. But what about the work you have done in the
Yellowstone area?

96

A. Perhaps.

Q. And the work on the horsetails?

A. Possibly.

MR. KLASFELD: Mr. Campbell, I think I'm entitled
to more than that or better than that or something different
than that.

MR. CAMPBELL: I guess the only thing I'm saying is
that, where he has given you indication he may be
testifying about that, you should inquire into what it is
about that that leads him to have these opinions which he
may have on this.

MR. KLASFELD: I will do that. But I want to
continue to state that, in my own view, that is not
satisfactory.

MR CHILDS: I think the problem is that the
procedure in Rule 26 on experts has not been followed,
which says that first the written statements would be
filed with the court and then, after a motion to the court
and for good cause shown, the court would then order the
deposition to be taken. And the situation you are in is a
result of not following the right procedure. You got the
procedure screwed up.

I think counsel for both sides contributed to that.
We are going to be at the same disadvantage with your
witnesses that you are with ours.

MR. KLASFELD: Let me mark for the record, as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4, an article from Volume II of
the magazine "Origins," entitled, "The Spirorbis Problem,"

97

written by Dr. Coffin.

[Article entitled "The Spiroribis
Problem" marked for identification
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4.]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4,
Dr. Coffin, and tell me if that is an article that you
wrote for Origins Magazine.

A. Yes, it is.

Q. This article makes reference to some work you
did in coal areas of Nova Scotia; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Where in Nova Scotia were these coal mines?

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

98

A. Joggins, Nova Scotia, J-o-g-g-i-n-s, and North
Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Q. How did you happen to go there?

A. Because that is known in the geological litera-
ture as an interesting area for coal exposures.

Q. Had you been working on spirorbis prior to
that?

A. Not in the field.

Q. In the lab?

A. In literature research.

Q. Why did you focus on spirorbis?

A. Because it is a significant fossil element of
coal.

Q. Of coal?

A. Yes.

Q. Directing your attention to the third paragraph,
the second sentence says,

"In the coal measures of Nova Scotia,
I have observed spirorbis fastened
to the outside edges of mussels."

A. I don't follow where you are reading.

Q. Paragraph 3.

A. 3?

Q. The second sentence.

A. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Q. Could you define for me coal measures?

A. That is a term that means the sediments in
which coal seams are located, including the coal seams,

99

the whole system.

Q. But it's not limited to just the coal?

A. Not limited to the coal, that is right.

Q. Do you know the genus of the mussel that you
described here?

A. Modialus, is it? It's probably in here. I
believe it's modialus.

Q. Could it have been mytilus?

A. Well, that is the modern genus.

Q. Could it have been promytilus?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Do you think it's modialus?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you spell that, please?

A. M-o-d-i-a-l-u-s.

Q. Is modialus extinct?

A. Probably.

Q. Could you tell me the difference between
modialus and promytilus?

A. The reason I hesitate on the extinction question
is that there isn't a great deal of difference and it's
sometimes hard to say whether it is or isn't.

Q. How would you distinguish modialus from
promytilus?

A. Well, I'm not familiar with the genus pro-
mytilus, but I am familiar with the genus mytilus.

Q. But you are certain the mussel to which the
spirorbis was attached was modialus and not mytilus?

100

A. I am going by the indications in the previous
genealogical literature.

Q. There is genealogical literatures which identi-
fies the mussel?

A. Oh, a great deal.

Q. What is the source of that literature, and I'm
speaking of literature that identifies particularly the
mussel?

A. Dawson.

Q. D-a-w-s-o-n?

A. Yes. I think it's -- I'm trying to think of the
initials or the first name.

But he was a very well-known Canadian geologist. I
think his first name was William.

Q. But you yourself couldn't distinguish a pro-
mytilus from a modialus?

A. I could if I studied the characteristics ahead
of time. I couldn't right now.

Q. They are both invertebrate fossils, though.

A. Yes.

Q. Your third paragraph goes on to say, and I will
skip slightly:

"The worm is distributed throughout
the geological record, and on the
basis of the standard geological
time scale, spirorbis had been in
existence for nearly 500 million
years."

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Harold G. Coffin - Page 3

101

Does the article say that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe it has been in existence for
less than 500 million years?

A. My personal belief is that. As far as scienti-
fic evidence is concerned, there wouldn't be any direct
evidence on it.

Q. And there is no direct evidence that it's less
than 500 million years?

A. That is right.

Q. Now, if I can, I'm going to try to characterize
what I understand to be the point of your article, and
please correct me if I am wrong.

The point of the article is that spirorbis was a
salt water animal; that coal was believed to be formed in
a fresh water situation; and the fact that the spirorbis
is found mixed in among the coal creates the enigma of
how, if the coal was formed in fresh water, a sea water
animal could be among the coal.

Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. How do you understand coal to be formed?

A. Coal is the accumulation of vegetable matter
and its burial.

Q. How long does that take?

A. It depends upon conditions.

Q. What conditions?

A. The depth of burial, the temperatures involved,

102

bacterial decay.

Q. What is the standard notion among experts on
the formation of coal about how long that takes place, how
long it takes for that to take place?

A. In the geological literature there is very
little information on actually how long the coalification
or petrification process takes.

Q. There is disagreement, I understand that, but
is there sort of a low range as to how little time that
might be?

A. Really, in my reading, I have very seldom run
across any information along this line.

Q. Does anybody feel it could take place in 5,000
years?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. Some museum curators.

Q. Who is that?

A. In the coal museum in Bochum, Germany, they
have a post taken out of an old coal mine that is coali-
fied.

Q. Where is that?

A. In Bochum, Germany.

Q. B-o-k-u-m?

A. B-o-c-h-u-m.

Q. And you say they have a post that had been in
a coal mine?

A. Yes.

103

Q. And that had turned into coal?

A. Yes.

Q. And the curator of that museum is who?

A. I don't know who he is.

Q. But he is the person who thinks it could take
less than 5,000 years?

A. I'm just assuming that, since they have got it
on display in the museum.

Q. I see.

But you have never spoken to him about it?

A. No.

Q. Have you been to the museum?

A. Yes.

- - -

104

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain how the standard people who
study in this area, and I'm using the term, "standard,"
the way I think you are trying to use it in your article,
tell me what you understand the explanation to be for how
the spirorbis appears in the coal?

A. Their explanation is that, during the carboni-
ferous period, the spirorbis was a fresh water animal.

Q. Have you ever heard the argument that changes
in the sea water or changes in the sea level in low-lying
areas allowed sea water to wash over what had previously
been fresh water areas and thereby bring in the spirorbis?

A. Yes, I have heard that.

Q. Do you know of any scientific evidence to lead
you to believe that is not true?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. A marsh is a very specific environment, and to
have peat bogs, which is more specific yet, developing
one above another repeatedly, is extremely unlikely.

Q. Why is it unlikely?

A. Because the conditions for the development of a
peat bog are so rigid.

Q. Have you done any experiments which lead you
to conclude that it's unlikely?

A. I have done a lot of reading on the subject.

Q. Could you state for me the authorities that
agree with you that it's unlikely?

105

A. Those who work with limnology, which is the
study of fresh water.

Q. Specifically whom?

A. This is getting a little bit out of my area of
expertise. I'm not a limnologist, I can't really tell you
offhand who the experts are in the field.

In the study on the Nova Scotia materials, this, of
course, was handled by Dawson, whom I already mentioned.

Q. Does Dawson say in his work that it's impossible
to have stratified peat bogs turning into coal?

A. No, he doesn't say that.

Q. Well, that is what we are talking about now.

Who are the authorities that lead you to your con-
clusion in a field outside of your area of expertise, that
this couldn't happen?

A. Well, in research one often has to call upon
other areas of expertise, so it's difficult for me to
remember names of experts in the area of limnology, which
is not paleontology.

Q. But it is true that there are experts in those
areas?

A. Yes.

Q. Experts who agree with you that it's impossible.

A. No. Just a minute now.

Experts who agree that the requirements for the
production of a peat bog are very rigid.

106

Q. Okay.

But it's another step to go from there, isn't it,
to say that it's virtually impossible that a fresh water
peat bog could exist and salt water could, due to a change
in sea level, come into that area, and that the sea level
could recede so that it could become a fresh water bog
again?

A. That is a possibility, but I don't think that
is what happened in this case.

Q. Why?

A. For the reason that I have just stated, the
unlikelihood of the same environments developing repeatedly
one above the other in the same place.

Q. To say that something is unlikely strikes me as
sort of an unscientific basis for believe it to be so or
hot so.

I mean, is there any other support that you have for
your notion that it's unlikely?

A. That is merely a common expression for
"probability."

Q. On what do you base the probability?

A. That is difficult to answer briefly, because
there is so much involved.

I have never seen a situation where an advancing sea
leaves intact the environment over which it is advancing.

Q. Let me ask you this. Is the Illinois Basin,
is there a series of 40 to 50 coal seams, one on top of
the other?

107

A. Yes, there are.

Q. How did that happen?

A. I think the most reasonable explanation is a
drift model.

Q. What is a drift model?

A. It's that these plants have been transported
into the position where they now lie.

Q. By what?

A. By water.

Q. How do you get this layering of 40 to 50 layers
of coal, how did that happen?

A. By a change in currents that would bring in a
deposit of drifting plant material and then sediments
coming in over them from another direction by tidal
action.

Q. Did this happen during the flood?

A. I would consider it to be a product of the
catastrophy that occurred during the flood.

Q. How does it happen then, in areas in Indiana
and adjacent areas in Illinois, there are some areas of
40 levels of coal and other areas where there are 30
levels of coal, and in other areas 10, and in others two?

A. Just like there are different heights of tides,
even different cycles of tides in different areas today.

Q. Perhaps you can explain for me specifically
how you believe these 40 to 50 layers were formed.

Did the coal come from the peat bogs?

A. Some did.

108

Q. But not all?

A. No.

Q. Where did the others come from?

A. Vegetation of various sorts.

Q. So somehow the vegetation was swept in, covered
with something else, and some more vegetation was swept in
and covered with something else, and more vegetation was
swept in and then it was covered with something else.

How long did that take place? How long did it take
for that to happen?

A. I don't know.

Q. Well, was it 3,000 years or was it two weeks?

A. I really don't know, but it would be closer to
the two weeks than the 3,000 years.

Q. And did the coal form in the two weeks?

A. No.

Q. The coal was formed since then?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the Everglades as a model
of coal formation?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Through what information are you aware of it?

A. Well, I have been there and, obviously, any-
body who has studied the coal literature would be aware of
that.

Q. Is there fresh water floating on top of the
salt water in the Everglades?

A. Yes. Well, on top of the salt water?

109

Q. Yes.

A. Well, sometimes.

Q. It forms a lens on the top, is that what it's
called?

A. Yes.

Q. And if the fresh water rivers that flow into
the Everglades would shut off for some reason, would for
some reason become blocked or would dry up, would that
turn into a marine environment?

A. No, it would turn it into a fresh water environ-
ment.

Q. Do the rivers coming in bring in salt water?

A. Rivers don't bring salt water.

Q. Well, then that is what I said.

If the rivers were for some reason shut off from
coming into this marsh area, would that then turn into a
completely salt water environment?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because the rivers are bringing in fresh water.

Q. Well, I said if, for some reason, the rivers
were diverted or dried up or were shut off, would that
then create a salt water environment?

A. You mean, if they are shut off from reaching
that area?

Q. Yes.

A. Possibly, yes. It depends on the elevation of
the land.

110

Q. Well, the Everglades are approximately sea
level, all of them are, and a very minor fluctuation in
the sea level would cover certain areas with sea water
that previously had been fresh water, and vice versa as
well.

A. Yes.

Q. Why could that not be an explanation for the
appearance of spirorbis in the coal of Nova Scotia?

A. It could. It's another model.

Q. I see.

What is the scientific support for your model?

A. I have mentioned the repeated nature of the
coal seams as speaking against their being this growth;
the presence of marine organisms; the absence of erosion,
and the -- well, this would be similar, the extensive
flat-line nature of the coal beds.

Q. In your use of the term, "coal measure," which
you said was a thickness, including the coal seam and
areas above and below, were the spirorbis in the measure
or were they mixed in among the coal?

A. Both.

Q. Is there any explanation for it getting into
the coal -- strike that.

Is there any literature which describes its appear-
ance in the coal as opposed to in the coal measure?

A. Yes.

Q. Where is that?

A. I can get the reference for you, but I am not

111

sure I can give it to you off of the top of my head.

MR. KLASFELD: Will you do that?

MR. CAMPBELL: Fine.

Could we go off the record for a moment?

MR. KLASFELD: Sure.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

Q. Do the standard scientists -- excuse me.

Do you object to me using that term?

A. No.

Q. I use it because I seem to have picked it up
from your use of it in your article.

Do the standard scientists have an explanation for
how the spirorbis comes to occur directly in the coal
seam, other than the washing in and out of sea water and
the possible change from being a fresh water animal?

A. Well, that is the main -- most of the literature
would suggest it was a change from a marine animal to a
fresh water animal.

Q. Which literature would that be?

A. The literature on spirorbis and on the appear-
ance of spirorbis in the coal measures.

Q. By whom?

- - -

112

A. Oh, by Francis, by Stewart, by Arnold, by
Dawson.

Q. And they all posit a change from freshwater
to saltwater for the fish or the spirorbis?

A. Some of them do, I am sure.

Q. Are there any authorities who support your
position for the appearance of these spirorbis in the
coal seem?

A. Yes.

Q. Whom?

A. Fayol, F-a-y-o-l, and Francis, Austin.

Q. A-u-s-t-i-n?

A. A-u-s-t-i-n, yes.

Q. All right.

In what sense were they in agreement with you?

A. That coal is allochthonous, drifted.

Q. Are they in agreement with you that the ap-
pearance of the spirorbis in the coal seam is support
for the flood theory.

A. Catastrophy?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. Well, do you believe that it was one large,
worldwide catastrophy that had occurred within the last
ten thousand years?

A. I can't really answer that because they didn't
go into a discussion on that point.

Q. Well, what did they mean when they said

113

"catastrophy"?

A. That this is in a catastrophic origin for
coal.

Q. What did they mean when they said
"catastrophic"?

A. Just that: Brought in by the storm or by
transportation rather than growth in position.

Q. But that could have been --

I mean, would they agree or disagree that it could
have been something that happened hundreds of thousands
of millions of years ago?

A. I think most of them would feel that it prob-
ably happened millions of years ago.

Q. Is there anyone who agrees with you that it
happened five to seven thousand years ago, anyone who
studied this problem?

A. Yes.

Q. Whom?

A. Austin, and perhaps Francis.

Q. Where is Mr. Austin.

A. He is on the staff at ICR.

Q. And Mr. Francis?

A. He is a British paleontologist or coal geologist.

Q. Where is he?

A. I don't know his location.

Q. Is he affiliated with a Creation Science
organization?

A. No.

114

Q. What is the scientific evidence for the fact
that this happened five to seven thousand years ago?

A. Well, we come back to what I mentioned earlier,
and that is rates of erosion and deposition and so forth.

Q. Rates of erosion in the area around Nova Scotia?

A. No.

In general, on the earth in general.

Q. Did you study the area in Nova Scotia at all?

A. Certainly.

Q. How did the rates of erosion in Nova Scotia
affect your thinking?

A. It's very rapid there.

Q. And it's your belief that rapid rate has been
uniform over a time?

A. No.

Q. Why do you then conclude that, because it's
rapid now, something had to take place five to seven
thousand years ago?

A. I have to distinguish between the fact that,
although I feel or I believe that this happened a relative-
ly short time ago, there are many scientific evidences
of a longer period of time; but there are also strong
evidences that it is not hundreds of thousands or millions
of years.

Q. What are those evidences?

A. I already mentioned that, if we take the
average rates of erosion, which you can select out of the,
quote, standard, end quote, literature," there wouldn't

115

be any continents present at the present time if those
rates of erosion had continued over hundreds of thousands
or millions of years.

Q. But there are two parts to that:

One part is that you have to assume that they have
continued at that same rate for all of that period of
time; is that right?

A. If you assume that --

Q. Well, that is what you do in order to conclude it
has to be less than seven thousand years?

A. Yes.

You assume that, in a few million years, the rate of
erosion would have worn it down to sea level.

Q. What is the basis for that?

A. The average erosion given in the literature.

Q. Over the last how many years?

A. Over the last twenty years.

Q. So what you have done is taken the last twenty
years and extrapolated that over millions of years and
come to the conclusion that, if it had gone on at that
rate, the continent would have been worn away?

A. No.

You are misunderstanding me now.

Q. Okay.

A. I thought you meant what geological literature
over what period of time I obtained this information from.

It would be recent.

Q. Literature?

116

A. In other words, recent literature.

In other words, their extrapolations are variable,
depending on what areas they are looking at and over how
long a period of time they worked it out.

Q. I understand what you are saying.

Or I understand what I understand.

I understand you have taken the information as to
the rates of erosion for the last twenty years and you
have said, if that average rate --

You are shaking your head, "No."

What have you done with it?

A. Forget the twenty years.

Q. Okay.

A. If you take the average rates of erosion that
one finds listed in the geological literature, a figure
which is considered to have been consistent throughout
geologic time, it would have brought about the erosion of
continents to sea level by now if the earth were millions
of years old.

Q. How did the standard scientists deal with that
information; I mean, are they stupid?

A. That is a good question.

They don't handle it.

Q. You mean they just ignore it?

A. You very seldom see any discussion of it.

I don't think they are aware of it.

Q. Is that possible?

A. They may feel there has been subsequent uplift.

117

Q. Do you believe that the earth was made, with
all of the mountains that are now in place, in place
from the beginning?

A. No.

Q. When did the other mountains come into being?

A. During the Genesis flood.

Q. And since then there has been no change?

A. No.

Or, yes, there has been change.

Q. That change has only been erosion, though?

A. No.

Q. I am sorry.

Has there been subsequent uplift after the Genesis
flood?

A. To some extent.

Q. Where?

A. The Himalayan mountains are rising several feet
every year, I guess, still.

Q. What causes that?

A. And then there are volcanic eruptions that
cause --

Q. What causes the Himalayan uplift?

A. The current beliefs are the colliding of con-
tinents, like India, for instance, against Asia.

Q. Is that a standard belief as distinguished
from your own belief?

A. Well, I would go along, at least with qualifi-
cation, with the idea of continental drift.

118

Q. So even in your own belief about this, that
erosion isn't the only effect; I mean, there is also
uplift as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Does your calculation about the evening out of
all of the continents take into account the uplifts
that have taken place as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you still come out with less than five
thousand years?

A. No.

Just a minute.

Q. I'm sorry.

A. I come out with the fact that the earth would
be --

MR. CHILDS: That it would be under water.

THE WITNESS: -- that the earth would be down to
sea level in a few millions of years.

MR. KLASFELD: Q. In a few millions of years?

A. Yes.

Q. How about a hundred thousand years?

A. No, not that quick.

- - -

119

Q. So it could be 100,000 years old?

A. Yes, on the basis of that information.

Q. I see. What is the information that leads you
to believe that it's five to 7,000 years old?

A. The sedimentation we see in some areas.

Q. What sedimentation, what areas?

A. Like river deltas.

Q. Like the Mississippi Delta?

A. Yes.

Q. What is there about the Mississippi Delta?

A. At the present rate of deposition, it's only
four to 6,000 years old.

Q. Why do you believe that the Mississippi Delta
started forming the day the earth was formed?

A. I don't. I have extrapolated backwards. I
haven't gone from that forwards.

Q. Well, what you have said is that the
Mississippi Delta has been forming for four to 6,000
years; is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. Why does that provide us with any information?

For instance, I have only been going for thirty-five
years. Why does that provide us with any information about
the age of the earth?

A. Well, the word "earth" is pretty broad. We
are talking about the surface of the earth here.

Q. Why does that provide us with any information
about the surface of the earth?

120

A. Where was the Mississippi River during all of
the rest of geologic time?

Q. Well, one of the things about these depositions
is the lawyer asks the questions and the witness gives
the answers.

A. Well, that is what I am thinking, you are.

Q. But there are examples on the earth's surface,
are there not, now, of rivers forming, rivers drying up,
are there not?

A. Yes.

Q. So that rivers that presently exist were not
always in place the way they are now; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Why couldn't the Mississippi simply have come
into being 4,000 years ago?

A. As long as there was a continent here, there
has to be drain-off of water.

Q. But why did it have to take place where the
Mississippi is?

A. Well, if it's some other river, then there
should be evidences of those deposits.

MR. KLASFELD: Let me mark, as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
5 for identification, an article from Volume I of
Origins Magazine called "Famous Fossils From a Mountain-
top," also written by Dr. Coffin, which is, I think, a
transcript of a talk that Dr. Coffin gave.

[Document more particularly
described in index marked for

121

identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 5.]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Did you write this article, Dr.
Coffin?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. If I can summarize the point that I understand
you to be making in this article, it's that this
Burgess shale formation contains certain extremely well-
preserved fossils that are just as intricate as the worms
and crabs that are existing today; is that the point of
the article?

A. Yes.

Q. And the argument that you are making is that
evolution has to be wrong if those fossils are supposed
to be so terribly old, yet there are organisms on earth
which are exactly the same as those fossils now?

A. Not quite.

Q. Where did I slip up?

A. Or similar.

Q. Similar. I see.

A. Yes.

Q. Well, your article says --

Let's see the point where I have made my error and
perhaps you can explain it.

On page 47, paragraph 3, the third sentence, you
say: "In fact they are just as intricate as the worms,
crabs, et cetera, in the ocean today."

A. That is correct.

122

Q. So they are not just similar?

A. But they are not identical.

Q. They are not identical?

A. No.

Q. But they are just as intricate?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you compare the different kinds of limbs
in the fossils with the similar animals that are alive
today?

A. Limbs?

Q. Yes.

A. The ambulatory limbs?

Q. The limbs for food manipulation and motion.

A. Yes.

Q. How would you compare the fossils with the
animals which are alive today?

A. They are extremely complex and they are
typically crustaceans.

Q. Are the animals that are alive today, do they
have different kinds of limbs with more differentiated
uses?

A. Then those in the fossil record?

Q. Yes.

A. I would say no.

Q. You would say that, for all purposes, they are
the same?

A. Yes, in the same basic categories. They are
not the same species.

123

Q. I am sorry. I missed the point about their
not being the same species.

A. We cannot identify them as being the same
species living today, but they are crustaceans. In other
words, they can be categorized in a larger taxonomic
category.

Q. So they are sufficiently different that they
are not in the same species?

A. That is right.

Q. But at the same time, they are sufficiently
similar to lead you to believe that a substantial problem
has been created for the evolutionists by their
appearance?

A. Yes.

Q. Why is that a problem if they are not even
in the same species?

A. Because we are not dealing with speciation,
we are dealing with macroevolution. The problem is
macroevolution or major change.

Q. Why is that a problem for evolutionists?

A. Because they can't find the ancestor leading
up to these complex animals.

Q. Are there pre-Cambrian fossils?

A. Some.

Q. What are they?

A. It depends on what authority you read.

Q. The authorities that you rely on.

A. Pardon me?

124

Q. The authorities that you rely on.

A. As to micro-organisms like fungi and algae and
protozoa, there have been frequent reports in the
literature of brachiopods and --

Q. Do you believe this literature?

A. I have not gone into the sites to check it out
but I have no particular reason to doubt it.

Q. There had been, correct me if I am wrong,
until recently, a significant Creation Science argument
that there was a lack of fossils in the pre-Cambrian
rock and that that was a significant problem for
evolutionists; is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. But recently, through newly devised techniques,
these pre-Cambrian fossils have been discovered?

A. A few.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

125

Q. So that earlier creation science argument is
no longer valid as a scientifically factual matter?

A. No.

Q. Well, the argument was, wasn't it, that there
are in fact none in the pre-Cambrian run; is that right?

A. There may have been some who said none.

Q. But you aren't one of them?

A. No.

Q. Who were they?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Have you always believed Creation Science
as a theory?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you about the worms and the fossils:

Has the variety of worms now living increased from
the number of varieties that are found in the fossils?

A. Yes.

That has to be qualified.

Q. Okay.

A. Worms do no fossilize well.

Therefore, their preservation in the record is less
likely.

Q. But in any event, there is a much greater
variety among living worms than among fossilized worms?

A. It would appear that way.

Q. How do you explain that, other than the failure
of the fossil record to preserve that.

A. I would explain it on the basis of speciation

126

or minor change.

Q. What about the brachiopods in the Burgess
shale, are they as diverse as the brachiopods living to-
day?

A. The way you worded that is difficult.

There aren't very many modern brachiopods.

Neither were there very many in the Burgess shale.

Q. Are there mollusks in the Burgess shale?

A. Yes.

Q. There are?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind?

A. Gastropods.

Q. Which one specifically?

A. I have not identified it to the genus, but
it is a snail, a marine snail.

MR. CHILDS: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Back on the record.

But you don't know which gastropods?

A. No.

Q. How old do the standard scientists think the
Burgess shale formation is?

A. It's what they call the middle Cambrian,
which I would say is somewhere around five hundred
million.

Q. What is the scientific evidence for your
belief that it's five thousand years old?

127

A. My belief in the usefulness of the earth is
not so much based on scientific evidence as on Scriptural-
historical information.

From the scientific standpoint, there really isn't
strong evidence, I would say, in regard to the age, either
young or old.

Q. What is the Scriptural evidence for the young
earth?

A. Well, I accept to a general -- well, let me
reword that.

The genealogical records and Scripture indicate to
me at least a general indication of time.

Q. What do you mean by "the genealogical record"?

A. The various individuals listed in the years
for their lives and so on.

Q. Let me ask you this, sort of dispensing
faith for a moment.

If you didn't have the Bible to rely on, what would
the scientific evidence lead you to believe about the
age of the earth?

A. The scientific evidence would lead me to think
that the earth was somewhere between, shall we say --
the figure I gave you, for instance, for the -- well,
no. That wouldn't work either.

I was going to mention the Mississippi Delta, but
that would be a flood phenomenon, which would be after
creation.

However, we are dealing with the structure in the

128

surface of the earth, which is a phenomenon, in my think-
ing, of catastrophism, so the evidences for catastrophy
would be involved and it would range somewhere, I would
say, between a few thousand years and a few hundreds of
thousands of years.

Q. It could be hundreds of thousands of years?

A. Yes, if you are taking the scientific evidence
alone.

Q. How do you factor in the Scriptural evidence?

A. Because I have confidence in the Scriptures.

Q. What is the scientific basis for that confi-
dence?

A. The same as the scientific basis for confidence
in any research that anybody else has done, and that is
we have to check it out and determine for ourselves that
it is reliable.

Q. Are you at least generally familiar with radio-
metric dating?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you at least generally familiar with radio-
metric data?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the standard belief among experts in
radiometric data as to the age of the earth?

A. It has been increasing.

What was the last figure?

Q. Could we agree at four and a half billion years?

A. Four and half million --

129

Q. Billion.

A. Four and a half billion, yes.

Q. How do you explain that?

A. I would say that they have come to those
figures honestly, and that is the way they view it.

Q. The people who have come to those figures,
are they necessarily evolutionists; I mean, do they
care what the rocks show?

A. Some of them aren't.

Q. Some of them are not?

A. That is right.

Q. How do you, as someone who believes that the
earth is ten thousand years old, deal with the informa-
tion from radiometric data?

A. You are really getting out of my area of
expertise.

Q. I understand that, but I am saying this:

As a scientist, you are aware that there is an area
of scientific study that has generated the information
that the earth is four and a half billion years old,
give or take a few hundred million years.

How do you, as a scientist, evaluate that informa-
tion and consider it in terms of your own beliefs?

A. There needs to be a distinction between the
substance of the earth and the living things on it.

Q. I see.

What is that distinction.

A. I have no objection to radiometrically dating

130

ages as far as the inorganic matter is concerned.

Q. I see.

The earth may have been here for billions of years?

A. Yes.

Q. But the living forms on the earth came into
being only ten thousand years ago?

A. That is right.

Q. Where does it say in the Bible that the earth
could be billions of years old?

A. It doesn't.

Q. Then how could that be; in your belief, how
could that be true?

A. Because if you examine the Scriptural account
of creation carefully, you will find it is really just
talking about the surface of the earth.

Q. I see.

Can you quote the section you are referring to?

A. "And the earth was without form and void and
darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Q. Is this a belief and an understanding you have
come to recently or is it one you have always had?

A. It's one that I have had for quite a number
of years.

Q. Forty, ten?

A. Oh, for twenty years.

Q. What about the stars and the sun?

A. I don't think those were involved in creation
week.

131

Q. They were there?

A. Yes.

This is my personal opinion.

Q. I see.

A. I'm speaking for myself.

Q. That is your interpretation from your reading
the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. Did God put them there?

A. God created them, put them there.

Q. Why did He wait so long to put life on earth?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you have any theory?

A. Of why God waited so long?

Q. Yes.

A. What is time to God?

Q. Who do you respect as leaders in the field of
Creation Science research other than the people at the
Geoscience Research Institute?

A. I respect Gish and Morris and John Moore
and others.

I may not agree with them totally, but that is
nothing unusual among scientists.

Q. No, it's not.

Are there standard scientists whose work you
respect?

A. Yes.

Q. Whom?

132
A. Oh, a large number.

It would be impossible to begin to recite them.

I respect the work of some of the individuals that
are going to be witnesses for you.

Q. Professor Gould, for instance?

A. Gould, Ayala and Simpson and some of the
geologists.

Q. They come to enormously different conclusions
than you do, though?

A. Sure.

Q. Professor Gould recently won an award for
being a genius; are you familiar with that, the Mac-
Arthur Fellowship?

A. I heard about it recently.

Q. Have you corresponded with him at all about
your research?

A. No.

Q. What about with Professor Simpson?

A. No.

I haven't corresponded with any of them.

Q. You haven't wanted to share your work with
them at all as people in your field that you respect?

A. Well, our research has not really been in
the same areas and there is no occasion for me to be
writing to them.

Q. Professor Gould is an invertebrate paleon-
toligist, isn't he?

A. I'm not aware that he is.

133

Q. What do you understand he is?

A. I understand him to be an expert in the
history of science.

Q. Have you read any of this works?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What have you read?

A. I have read some of the work he has authored
on his theory on punctuated equilibria and I have read
at least portions of his book --

Q. The panda's thumb?

A. No.

I have read at least one dealing with neotony and
and recapitulation.

Q. And you don't know that he is an invertebrate
paleontologist?

A. I never thought of him that way.

Q. Do you know the book "Evolution, Fossils
Say No"?

A. Yes.

Q. That is by Dr. Gish.

Do you agree with that book?

MR. CAMPBELL: I would object.

That one is somewhat ambiguous.

I mean, do you mean particular parts of the book?

MR. KLASFELD: Well, do you generally agree with
the book?

A. Yes, generally.

Q. Are there areas with which you disagree?

134

A. It depends on the edition.

Some editions have information that I am not so
sure about and others do not have.

Q. Are you distinguishing between the public
school edition and the non-public school edition?

A. No.

Just different printings, different editions.

Q. What is it that is in one of the editions
that is not in the other and that you disagree with?

A. I think the main thing is the use of the
so-called human footprints in the Biloxi River in
Texas.

Q. You disagree with that?

A. I don't think it's sufficiently strong
evidence to use.

Q. Do you use Dr. Gish's book as a research tool,
as a teaching tool?

A. I have used it as a teaching tool.

Q. Is it a book that is generally accepted by
Creation Scientists?

A. I really can't say.

I am not that well versed with what other creation
groups are doing.

Q. Why is it that you think you are not going
to testify about your work in the ginkgo petrified
forest?

A. Well, that is a point of interest but I
haven't thought of it as being a particularly important

135

aspect of what I have written on or what I have studied
in.

Q. Did you discuss your work in the ginkgo petri-
fied forest at all with Professor Daniel Alexander?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. What other areas do you anticipate testifying
about, to the extent you have given it some thought?

A. A sudden appearance of complex organisms in
the Cambrian, which we have already covered; the absence
of good connecting links between major groups.

Those would be the important points.

Q. What else?

A. Well, I think that is the essence of peleon-
tological testimony.

Q. What is the archeoptrix?

A. It is a bird that is considered to be a con-
necting link between reptiles and birds.

Q. I gather you don't consider it to be a con-
necting link?

A. No.

It's a bird.

Q. Why?

A. Because it has feathers exactly like a modern
bird and it could fly.

Q. What about its sternum bone, is its sternum
bone like a lot of birds?

A. It lacks the typical bird's sternum but that
does not preclude its ability to fly, as has been pointed

136

out in the scientific literature.

Most birds don't have their -- many birds don't
have their flight muscles attached to the sternum.

Q. What would you want to see in a link between
birds and reptiles that doesn't appear in archeoptrix?

A. Some intermediate form of feather, for in-
stance.

Q. Well, there are no feathers preserved in
fossil record, are there?

A. Yes, there are.

- - -

137

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Is evolution a science, Dr.
Coffin?

A. Usually so considered.

Q. Do you so consider it?

A. Yes.

Q. What are the attributes of a science?

A. The scientific method of science is the body
of knowledge arising from the use of scientific methods
which is experimentation and observation.

Q. And does evolution, people who study evolution,
do they do that?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of Creation Science's
criticism that evolution isn't a science because you
can't observe what was supposed to have happened millions
of years ago?

A. Yes, I am aware of that criticism.

Q. Do you disagree with that criticism?

A. I would say that's a qualification that has
to be made in regard to Evolution Science.

Q. So it is not a particular good science?

A. It is science, but it does have to operate in
some ways that are not truly scientific.

Q. Is Creation Science a better science than
Evolution?

A. It is in the same category.

Q. And what would that category be?

A. If evolution is science, creation is science

138

and if evolution isn't science, creation isn't science.

Q. But in your mind, is evolution science?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the term falsifibility
in terms of science?

A. Yes.

Q. Is evolution falsifiable?

A. Basically, essentially, no.

Q. Is Creation Science falsifiable?

A. No.

Q. Does science, in your mind, have to do with
the examination of the natural world?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the events that take place during creation
week, were they part of the forces that are at play in the
natural world?

A. To some extent.

Q. To what extent are they not?

A. As far as we know, there are no activities
going on in the world today that would be similar to those
involved in the actual creation process.

Q. So the study of Creation Science in that sense
is not a study of the natural forces in play in the world
now?

A. Creation is not something that we can observe
today, not the kind of creation that went on then.

Q. But not only is it not something that we can't
observe today, but they are not the natural forces that

139

are in effect today, either, is that correct?

A. I think I can answer yes on that, but the laws
of nature in operation in the world today were established
at creation.

Q. But did not take place during creation, there
were other laws in effect then?

A. They were in operation then, too, but there
were other laws beyond them that are not in operation now.

Q. What laws were those?

A. If we knew, we would be winning the Nobel Prize.

Q. Does Creation Science make any sense without
the Bible as sort of a belief form?

A. I have felt that it does, that a person who
knew nothing about evolution or creation, if he took the
fossil record at face value, he would come up to the
opinion that there was a sudden creative act.

Q. Based on the sudden appearance of complex
organisms in the Cambrian, and the absence of good
connecting links between major groups?

A. That's right.

Q. Those two?

A. That's right. Now, I might add, in the study
of paleontology and these two points, it may well be
that we would spill over into speciation to some extent,
also.

Q. Is there any aspect of speciation that makes
you believe that it has to stop at a certain point?

A. Yes.

140

Q. What mechanism is that?

A. Genetic mechanism.

Q. Which one?

A. The inability of the chromosomes to synapse,
match up.

Q. Synapse doesn't mean match up, does it?

A. That's the way it is used in genetics.

Q. I thought a synapse meant the gap?

A. No.

Q. Is that wrong?

A. Not in genetics.

Q. And this inability of chromosomes to synapse
creates the parameters within which --

A. The limits.

Q. -- the limits for which DNA can change?

A. Between which crossing between diverse types
can occur.

Q. Could you tell me what it is that you anticipate
testifying about the sudden appearance of complex
organisms in the Cambrian as support for your belief in
Creation Science?

A. Well, if the theory of evolution is correct,
there should be a series of steps leading up to these
complex organisms and since those are not found, the
evidence supports sudden creation.

Q. What about these organisms that we discussed
before that are in the pre-Cambrian?

A. It may have enlarged to the picture some of

141

what is in the pre-Cambrian, but, to my knowledge, none
of them classify as ancestors to the Cambrians.

Q. And what would you anticipate saying about the
absence of good connecting links between the major groups?

A. That even in punctuated equilibria, which is
Gould's and Eldrige's ideas, you would still have series
of connecting links between one basic category and
another.

Q. And that those links are missing?

A. Yes.

Q. What about intermediate structural forms, do
you view those as, one, existing; and, two, if they are
existing, are they evidence for evolution?

A. Are you thinking of like vestigia organs?

Q. Like that.

A. Well, that argument is almost never used any-
more in evolution. Vestigia organs have pretty well turned
out to be useful.

Q. How is the appendix useful to me?

A. Well, I am not a physician, but I think you can
find that quite a number of them would suggest that
it does have a function.

Q. Are you familiar with Professor Gould's work
on the Panda's thumb?

A. I have not read it, but I have heard mention of
it.

--

--

142

Q. You understand what the panda's thumb is and
what it does?

A. No, you would have to explain it.

Q. Are we, as organisms, as efficient as we might
be?

A. No.

Q. Why did God make us inefficient?

A. He didn't. There has been change, degenerate
evolution, if you please, since creation.

Q. I am a less inefficient form than the form
that existed four or 5,000 years ago?

A. What was the first word you said?

Q. I.

A. I, not this "eye"?

Q. That's right.

A. Yes.

Q. How come people today can run faster than
they could a hundred years ago?

A. Because of various factors. They have learned
how to train for those particular muscles and nutrition is
better. We know more about nutrition.

Q. Aren't they more efficient?

A. To some extent.

Q. How do you explain that in terms of your
notion of degenerative evolution?

A. That example would have to be balanced by the
increased number of individuals in insane asylums and
people who are mentally retarded.

143

Q. Do you believe in the existence of unidentified
flying objects?

MR. CAMPBELL: Object to that for relevance purposes,
but you may answer it.

THE WITNESS: Not very -- not very well. Not very
solidly.

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Do you believe that testability
is a hallmark of science?

A. Yes, it should be.

Q. In what sense is creation science testable?
Is creation week testable?

MR. CHILDS: Scientifically?

MR. KLASFELD: Q. As a science.

A. It is not testable scientifically.

Let me qualify that slightly. There is no good
explanation for the week, outside of creation. But to my
knowledge, that's the only, shall we say, scientific
evidence in support of creation week.

Q. What is the only scientific evidence?

A. The present worldwide, still today, of a seven-
day week cycle.

Q. Oh, I see, the fact that --

A. There is no astronomical explanation.

Q. Monday through Sunday?

A. Yes.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Let me mark this as the next exhibit.

[Document, more particularly

144

described in index marked
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 for identi-
fication]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. Section 4(a) of the Act defines
creation science. It says,

"Creation science includes scienti-
fic evidences and related infer-
ences that indicate: one,
sudden creation of the Universe,
energy and life from nothing."

What is the scientific evidence for that?

A. I think we just discussed the fossil evi-
dence.

Q. This is the sudden creation of the Universe,
energy and life from nothing.

Oh, you are saying the fossil evidence is the evi-
dence from sudden creation of life?

A. Right.

Q. What about sudden creation of the Universe?

A. I really can't go into that, because I am just
not at all versed in astronomy.

Q. And energy?

A. Even less, really.

Q. And number 6,
"A relatively recent inception of
the Earth and living kinds."

What is the scientific evidence for that?

A. The evidence is on the surface of the Earth,

145

that its present configuration has not been around that
long.

Q. What are those specifically, those evidences?

A. That if it had been around a long time, there
would have been erosion down to sea level and filling in
of the Gulf of Mexico and that type of thing.

Q. But you said that could have been as much as
several hundreds of thousands of years, is that correct?

A. Yes, I said that. Several thousand to --

What did I say?

Q. I thought you said several hundred thousand.

A. Several thousand to several hundred thousand, I
said, on the basis of scientific evidence.

Q. Yes.

What is the basis for your belief that it was
certainly less than 10,000?

A. Well, of course, that statement there says
relatively young. It doesn't identify it.

Q. That's right.

A. So I am not sure what they are thinking of.

Q. But you do in fact believe that it is 10,000
years or less?

A. My opinion, not so much based on science as
based on my confidence in Scripture, is that it is just a
few thousand years old, life upon this Earth.

Q. What is the scientific evidence for separate
ancestry for man and apes?

A. The absence of a good series of connecting

146

links between man and ape.

Q. Are you going to testify at all about any other
aspects of the geological column, the formation of the
geological column during the flood period?

A. Well, of course, we have already mentioned that
I haven't prepared the testimony yet. But I could discuss
how the geologic column could be explained on the basis of
an ecological sequence rather than an evolutionary
sequence.

Q. Why are there no complex forms in the Cambrian?

A. What you are trying to say, why are there no
vertebrates in the Cambrian?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, fish have been reported in the Cambrian,
but on the basis of our concept of ecology, we wouldn't
expect to find at least land vertebrates, because these
are largely sea bottom creatures that are found in the
Cambrian.

Q. Why are they there?

A. Because they would be the first ones buried in
a universal catastrophe.

Q. It wasn't just a flood, though, right?

A. I am thinking.

Q. The fish wouldn't drown, is my point.

A. Oh, yes, they would. You stir up the water
and get it muddy and the fish would not survive. But that
would happen later. I mean there would be a little
passage of time before the fish would start to drop out.

147

Q. How about the trilobites?

A. They are benthonic animals, benthonic animals.
They live on the bottom.

Q. Weren't there any dead fish lying on the
bottom?

A. Apparently there are, if the reports of fish
are true, although very few have been found in the
Cambrian.

Q. Aren't there always a lot of dead fish on the
bottom?

A. No, that's an amazing thing. Vertebrate
remains do not accumulate down in present ocean bottoms.
It is so rare to find even the scales of fish on the
bottom of muds, of lakes or rivers that it even gets
reported in the scientific literature.

Q. Is the geologic column, is it consistent
around the world?

A. Pretty nearly so. Australia, South America,
are a little odd.

Q. But in general, it is an amazing consistency?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you account for no sort of mixing?

A. There is mixing, but not through the whole
column.

Q. Not one trilobite got missed?

A. You mean surviving today?

Q. Well, even getting up above the Cambrian level.

Q. There are trilobites all the way up to the

148

mississippian.

Q. Oh, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Where is that found?

A. Where is it found?

Q. Yes.

A. You mean the mississippian?

Q. Where are the trilobites found in the
mississippian level?

A. This is nothing rare. This is the usual
stratigraphic range.

Q. How did they get up there?

- - -

149

A. Some were swimmers and some were bottom-crawlers
and some were mud-burrowers, and as far as ecologic idea
is concerned, they would be buried in that sequence.

Q. So that the ones that were mud-crawlers were
on the bottom and the ones that were swimmers were found
further up?

A. Farther up, yes.

Q. Why did the swimmers get drowned?

A. For the same reason that any fish, which have
gills, would be unable to extract oxygen from turbid
water.

Q. Why aren't there trout with the swimming
trilobites?

A. Why aren't there what?

Q. Dolphins with the swimming trilobites?

A. Of course, when you get up farther, farther
up the geologic column, you do get into vertebrates.
There are vertebrates.

Q. Are there vertebrates where the trilobites are?

A. In the same formations in the same geologic
period.

Q. Are there any cows where trilobites are?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because cows don't walk around on the bottom
of the sea.

Q. But you said some of the trilobites swim.

A. Well, the cows don't swim, either.

150

Q. So that the first division is things that are
in the water, right?

A. The lower Paleozoic is sea bottom and sea-
swimming animals.

Q. Why aren't there any cows with the dinosaurs?

A. I would take that to be evidence that they
occupied a different kind of environment than with such
animals as the ungulates would occupy.

Q. The dinosaurs did?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there dinosaur fossils where we have cows,
now?

A. In the fossil record?

Q. No, no. Are there dinosaurs in the fossil
record where there are cows living today?

A. Oh, sure. You mean, in other words, cows are
grazing in Colorado where there are dinosaur fossils
found?

Q. Yes.

A. Sure.

Q. So why aren't there remains there today,
fossil remains?

A. Well, I am sure you wouldn't want to say the
environment in Colorado now is the same as when the
dinosaurs were buried.

Q. No, I wouldn't.

A. I wouldn't, either.

Q. But at the same time you are willing to talk

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Harold G. Coffin - Page 4

151

about the Mississippi always happened to have been there?

A. No, not necessarily, but that runoff from the
watershed that the Mississippi now has would have had to
have gone at least into the Gulf of Mexico.

Q. Where did the water come from, from the flood?

A. I think we still have it all. Two-thirds or
more of the earth is water.

Q. Well, didn't the flood cover everything but
Mount Ararat?

A. It covered it, too.

Q. What happened to all of that water that
doesn't cover the one-third of the earth?

A. There was uplift of the continents and
depression of the ocean basins. Waters run off to the
oceans and continents have been exposed.

Q. Do you believe that there was a water vapor
canopy that covered the earth?

A. It depends on what kind of canopy one is
talking about.

Q. What kind of canopy would you be talking about?

A. I could envision, possibly, a vapor canopy,
but not a solid water canopy.

Q. Why was there a flood?

A. The only answer to that is a biblical answer,
and that is because of man's wickedness.

Q. And God created the flood because of it?

A. That's what Scripture says.

Q. When did that take place?

152

A. When did it take place?

Q. Yes.

A. Once again, I refer back to evidence such as
the building of the Delta, the Mississippi River, which
would seem to indicate that it has been operating ever
since -- for about four or five thousand years and if it
established itself soon after the floor, that gives us
some idea when the flood occurred.

Q. What would lead you to believe that it began
soon after the flood?

A. I don't think there have been major changes
in the earth's topography since then.

Q. What is the scientific evidence for that?

A. Of course, on the basis of that amount of time,
the scientific evidence would support it.

Q. I am sorry. I don't understand.

A. In other words, if you are figuring a few
thousand years, scientific evidence would support that
there hasn't been that much change.

Q. I suspect that would be the first thing we
have agreed on.

Are you aware of what research had been done to
determine whether or not creation week took place five,
ten or fifteen thousand years ago?

A. I naturally have tried to keep up on such
material.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. What kind of research have you

153

done to determine whether it is five, ten or fifteen
thousand units?

A. I have done some calculations on rates of
erosion which we have already discussed. And, of course,
I have mentioned looking into biblical geneologies as a
means of trying to determine how much time is involved.

Q. As a scientist, you are doing work in
paleontology. You are aware of work in other fields, not
to say you are an expert on this, but you are aware that
they are going on. Are you aware of information which
conflicts with your belief that the surface of the earth
and life on it is more than five to ten thousand years
old?

A. Certainly.

Q. What are some examples of that information?

A. Carbon fourteen dating. Now, I mentioned
carbon fourteen dating because you said the surface of
the earth.

Q. Well, you don't disagree that the earth itself
may be billions of years old?

A. That's an impossibility.

Q. You have no opinion on that?

A. Yes.

Q. So that's why I mentioned the surface.

A. And that's why I went to carbon fourteen.
But if you are thinking of the --

Q. I want to talk about only what we disagree
about.

154

about.

A. -- of the fossils below the surface of the
earth, then, of course, potassium, argon, fission,
uranium, lead, so on are used, also.

Q. And those are arguments for the fact that
there was life on the earth billions of years ago, is
that true?

A. Billions of years ago, yes. Just a minute.
No, let's back up.

Q. Millions?

A. Millions of years ago.

Q. Our differences are so great, why quibble if
it is millions or billions.

A. Well, we want to be accurate on this record.

Q. You are right. I am sorry, It is late.

How do you factor that in, into your thinking that
there is a related branch of science whose evidence leads
the scientists specializing in that field to believe that
life was begun on earth millions of years ago?

A. There are problems with the radioactive dating
methods. They are not sure-fire.

Q. What are the problems?

A. If catastrophism is a reality, and many
geologists are coming to a limited form of catastrophism,
that would definitely have an effect of these radio-
active dating methods.

Q. Are there any tests that have been conducted
that have brought the radioactive dating methods into

155

doubt?

A. Yes.

Q. What are they?

A. One of your witnesses has done so, Dalrimple.

Q. What percentage difference does he find?

A. Well, he has found that the deeper in water
an eruption occurs, the more argon is retained within the
sample and the older the age appears for the same
eruption.

Q. What about non-eruption evidences?

A. Well, most of your radioactive dating methods
are used in plutonic or volcanic materials.

Q. Are you referring to one particular area that
he has talked about?

A. Well, that previous reference to change in
age on depth was researched in Hawaii.

Q. And was the conclusion he reached in that
research that they were getting a large number of
aberrant data?

A. No. Well, depends on what you mean by the
word "aberrant." His conclusion was that rapid cooling
and pressure of the water trapped in argon so that there
was a direct proportion of depth to age.

Q. You don't mean to suggest, do you, that Mr.
Dalrimple has any doubt about the efficacy of radiometric
dating as an effective dating tool, do you?

A. No, I am not suggesting that he feels it is
unreliable.

156

Q. Do you respect him as a scientist?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Understanding that there is someone you respect
as a scientist who believes life on earth came in to being
hundreds of millions of years ago, how do you factor that
in with your own belief about the fossil record?

A. Much of the information, such as he has
presented and many, many others have presented, the
facts, that is, the basic raw material is used by both
evolutionists and creationists, but the interpretation
is different.

Q. Well, what's your interpretation of the facts
that Mr. Dalrimple has produced?

A. My interpretation is that this indicates that
we should be extremely careful about -- let's be
specific, here -- potassium, argon dating because if a
world-wide catastrophy did occur, then it may be that a
great deal of the volcanic material on which potassium-
argon dating is implied, has been affected by this
matter on water and water pressure and rapid cooling.

Q. But Mr. Dalrimple isn't concerned about this,
is he?

A. I have had correspondence with him some time
back but I haven't discussed that aspect of it. By the
way, you asked me awhile ago if I had correspondence with
any of these people and I said no. I will have to take
that back. I did have a letter or two from him. That
was a number of years ago.

157

Q. Right. But there is no doubt in your mind
that he believes that animal --

A. No, I have no intention and I hope I haven't
given that impression or suggested that he has doubts.
I just want to indicate that with someone with a different
paradigm, a different world view of the information can
lead in another direction.

Q. Does Mr. Dalrimple have a paradigm?

A. Certainly.

Q. Is he an evolutionist?

A. No one can go into research without some
paradigm.

Q. But he is just studying the age. Would he
have cared if he found out if the age was five million
years or forty million years?

When he started to study radiometric dating, did he
have an interest in how it came out?

A. Yes.

Q. What was his interest?

A. His interest was to fit in with the paradigm
in which he is in favor.

Q. Which paradigm is that?

A. An evolutionary paradigm.

Q. Have you discussed with Mr. Dalrimple his
interest in evolution?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. How do you know he has one?

A. It is impossible for a person not to have his

158

bias. This applies to both creationists and evolutionists.
It influences what he is doing.

Q. Couldn't he say I am just a guy who is studying
radiometric dating. I don't care whether or not it gave
anybody the opportunity to evolve into man. I am just
looking at the rocks.

A. That was the idea of Roger Bacon when the
scientific revolution actually began, but actually it
doesn't work that way. That would be what you would call
trial and error method; just a complete random type of
science. Although it can be done, it is an extremely slow
laborious process.

Q. How did Mr. Dalrimple's bias come into play in
his work?

A. If I had done the research and were writing it
up, I suppose I would have emphasized even more than he did
the fact that it can be interpreted in another way.

Q. What is your own bias?

A. My own bias is that, well, to save time, those
steps in the creation statement.

Q. You are referring to 590?

A. Yes.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: Q. The six criteria in Act 590 that
you have described as your bias, does your bias stem from
your reading of the Scripture?

A. That's involved, yes.

Q. To what extent is it involved?

159

A. I believe that God, that a creator, is
responsible for both nature and Scripture, and that truth
can be arrived at by a study of both.

Q. Just very briefly, would you expect that your
testimony about the fossil record would contain generally
the same arguments that Gish makes in his book?

A. Basically, yes.

MR. KLASFELD: I will start my speech for the record,
now, and allow Dr. Coffin to leave.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. KLASFELD: As agreed, it being 4:00 o'clock,
Dr. Coffin has left. In addition to not sufficiently being
able to inquire as to Dr. Coffin's testimony because that
testimony has not been prepared yet, the fact that the
deposition was forced to end at 4:00 o'clock, despite the
fact that I was prepared to continue, has not allowed me
to complete my deposition of Dr. Coffin even as to matters
that we were in a position to discuss today.

I would request now that the other witnesses that
are made available to us this week, that we be allowed to
conduct our depositions until after 4:00 or until such
time as they are completed rather than be arbitrarily
limited to a 4:00 o'clock time. I think that's what we
are entitled to under the Federal Rules.

MR. CHILDS: The only think I would say is that I
wish we kept the materials here when Dr. Coffin produced
them and then worry about making the copies tonight.
I think that was a mistake.

160

MR. KLASFELD: I have, Mr. Childs, made two
different objections to the conduct of the deposition today.
One of them was to the fact that the material wasn't made
available to us earlier; that Dr. Coffin had made no
effort to prepare his testimony earlier. In addition,
my second problem was that the deposition was limited to
4:00 o'clock when I was prepared to continue until I was
finished with my inquiry and I suppose that that's a
matter that, unless you are willing to agree that the
future depositions will continue until the people taking
the deposition are finished, which I would hope you would
agree to, would be another matter that we would discuss
with the judge tomorrow.

MR. CAMPBELL: Is that your statement?

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

MR. CAMPBELL: In response to that just for the record,
too, David, when we opened the deposition this morning,
we informed you that Dr. Coffin would be leaving at 4:00
p.m. this afternoon. I think local counsel for the
plaintiffs in this lawsuit was aware, at least sometime
last week, that in order to take approximately thirty
depositions in the next eleven days, there would have to
be some time constraint on both sides to take depositions.

As a matter of fact, defendants have agreed to limit
their depositions of plaintiffs' experts to four hours or
less and take two consecutive depositions.

Dr. Coffin was available, I would say, approximately
five and a half hours to six hours today. The motion or

161

notice for deposition, which the plaintiffs' counsel filed
in this case, asked Dr. Coffin to bring these materials
to the deposition. In other words, there was no request
that the documents be provided to you any earlier than
at the deposition today. So your objection with regard
to seeing the documents before this time I think is
unwarranted in light of your own request to bring the
documents to the deposition.

The judge has indicated on the October 1st pretrial
conference date with regard to the deposition of Mr.
Paul Elwynger in South Carolina that he was not impressed
or inclined to read a nine-hour deposition of any witness.
We believe, just for purposes of the record, too, a
deposition lasting longer than six hours is burdensome
and is oppressive, particularly in light of the expedited
trial schedule and in light of the fact that the number
of witnesses which must be deposed by both parties prior
to the trial date.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. CHILDS: I would like to say one thing on the
record. I am sure when Judge Overton reads the deposition,
he is going to realize that counsel for plaintiff did a
tremendous job and discovered everything that you could
possibly want to know from Dr. Coffin.

[Discussion off the record]

[Recess]

MR. CHILDS: Plaintiffs' collective Exhibit 7 is a
group of documents approximately four and a half inches

162

thick which will be attached and filed with the original
deposition.

[Document more particularly
described in index was marked
for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 7.]

MR. CHILDS: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8 is a number of
pages from a book beginning page 369 through the last
page number shown which is page 449 appearing in Science
and Health; Department of Education; General Conference
of Seventh-Day Adventists; Health-Science Series; Pacific
Press Publishing Association; Mountain View, California;
Omaha, Nebraska; Calgary, Alberta; copyright 1974 by the
Department of Education, General Conference of Seventh-Day
Adventists, Washington, D.C.; all rights reserved.

[Aforementioned document marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 8.]

MR. CHILDS: Plaintiffs' 9 is Science and Health
Series; Review and Herald Publishing Assocation, 6856
Eastern Aveue, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20012; copyright
1974 by the Department of Education, General Conference
of Seventh-Day Adventists, Washington, D.C. 20012; all
rights reserved and showing the first page number as
331 and the last page shown is 495.

[Aforementioned document marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 9.]

MR. CHILDS: A book that has not been made an exhibit

163

but which was provided during the deposition by Dr.
Coffin is Creation-Accident or Design? showing Harold G.
Coffin, Ph.D., Research Professor, Geoscience Research
Institute, Professor of Paleontology, Andrews University,
showing Review and Herald Publishing Association,
Washington, D.C., copyright 1969 by the Review and Herald
Publishing Association, Library of Congress Catalog Card
No. 68-18744, containing 512 pages which you will send
this to Little Rock to us?

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

__________________________________
DR. HAROLD G. COFFIN

164

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named

DR. HAROLD G. COFFIN

was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by

DEAN MC DONALD and LINDA L. CHAVEZ,

Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and that
the pertinent provisions of the applicable code or rules
of civil procedure relating to the original transcript
of deposition for reading, correcting and signing have
been complied with.

And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome of
the cause in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ___ day of November
1981.

_________________________________

Deposition of Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe

NO. LR-C-81-322

REVEREND WILLIAM McLEAN, *
et al. *
*
Plaintiffs * UNITED STATES DISTRICT
*
VS. * COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT
*
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE * OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al. *
Defendants * DIVISION
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. WICKRAMASINGHE

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES:

MR. DAVID KLASFELD, Esq., Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
919 Third Avenue, New York,
New York 10022
For the Plaintiffs

MR. STEVE CLARK, Attorney General,
MR. RICK CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney
General,
MR. DAVID WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney
General, State of Arkansas, Justice
Building, Little Rock, Arkansas
72202
For the Defendants

ALSO APPEARING:

DR. PHILLIS GARNET, U of A, LR
Dr. Lawrence Coleman U.A.L.R.
Dr. Eric Holtzman, Columbia University
DR. JOEL CRACRAFT, U of Illinois
MR. ALAN ROSS, SASMF
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF DR. WICKRAMSAINGHE, a
witness produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs, taken in
the above styled and numbered cause on the 15th of December,
1981 before Laura D. Bushman, Notary Public in and for
Pulaski County, Arkansas at the office of Mr. Cearly,
1014 West Third, Little Rock, Arkansas at 7:40 p.m.

2

DR. NANIN CHANDRA WICKRAMASINGHE

the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned
and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINIATION

BY MR. KLASFELD:

Q. Dr. Wickramasinghe, is that the correct pronunciation?

A. Uh, Wickramasinghe, right. Hard G. It just has
a certain phonetic --

Q. Hard G. Okay. Could you tell me as best you can,
what the testimony that you expect to give tomorrow will
be?

A. I think I would like to lead the Court through a
series of arguments, beginning with the evidence that I
had to be fairly decisive that there is organic matter in
the dust clouds of space; then to proceed to argue about
the composition of the organic material. I am referring
now to the organic material in the gas place; then to show
that the most sensible, and the most -- in my opinion the
inevitable explanation for the dust -- for the data that
one gets related to dust. The organic material have to be
of a -- in a particular form of particular sizes, pretty
uniform throughout the galaxy and also pretty uniform
throughout the other galaxies outside of our own galaxy
wherever it's been possible to measure the effects of the

3

dust. And I would like to discuss certain observations
of infrared sources of radiation in our galaxy, which
show certain pattern of absorption. And it's been
something like two or three years -- more than that --
four years now that we've been trying to separate -- her
and I have been trying to examine the behavior of the
spectra to try to understand them in terms of particular --
certain moderates of the dust. And I would argue that the
microbial model -- microorganism model of the dust is not
only consistent with the data, it seems to be quite
reasonably definite identification for the dust in space.

I've brought a couple of slides
that I have or displays to point to correspondence between
a microbial microorganism model of the dust and a set of
astronomic observations relating to the dimming of
starlight, and also to the infrared -- the infrared
properties of one source at the center of our galaxies,
which shows an extremely close correspondence with the
behavior of desiccated bacteria that has been studied in
the lab, under conditions that we think are similar to
what would operate in the interstellar medium.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. So these are two -- the observation and data that I
want to confine my attention to mainly, and the astronomic
observations; and then to discuss various areas in which

4

such microorganisms could be propagated to enhance numbers
in interstellar material in the galaxy.

And I suppose the next think
I would like to say is that if one looks at the conventional
wisdom of the origin of life on the earth -- I'm not referring
to the creation theory. The conventional beliefs that
scientists have heard about -- that there are major
difficulties in understanding how simpliest elementary
life forms could get together from conditions that might
have been relevant to the idea. And I also wanted -- I
think among other things I want to point out that the
polymerization of amino acids in the oceans is --

Q. P-o-l-y-m-e-r-i-z-a-t-i-o-n.

A. The stringing together of amino acids, which has
almost been taken for granted in the arguments for
chemical evolution. This process presents very serious
problems for -- to understand how it could happen on the
earth.

Q. Let me just interrupt you for a second. When the
court reporter doesn't understand a word, she doesn't
want you to explain it. She just wants to get the word
down accurately.

A. Okay, fine. Then I guess I suppose -- I -- I --
I probably should bring something else with me in there
because I think I've got a series of logical arguments

5

that I want to follow through. And I guess at some stage
I would like to bring up the business of spontaneous
generation of life and the -- the old concept of spontaneous
generation. This -- if -- if I'm to demolish by Pasteur --
by the experiments of Pasteur was -- this -- this doctrine
or theory recovered despite Pasteur's declaration that
it received a mortal (sic.) blow in his famous address
to the French Academy -- in some form it's recovered and
dominated science from oparin --

REPORTER: From what?

Q. O-p-a-r-i-n.

A. Then I think I would like to go through the geologic
record and point out that the Pasteur doctrine of life,
being generated from life appears to be maintained right
through the fossil record. We don't really know how the
different connections have come into being. But there is
a logical hierarchic logical connection between person's
life (sic.) and fossils on the earth. And you can take
it all the way back to a certain point in the earth's
history. This point that we can take it back up to life
generated -- life to life. This, in my opinion, stops
at about 3.83 billion years before the present time.

This was the time when the
earth's -- in my view and the view of Sir Fred Hoyle when
the earth's oceans were laid --

6

Q. Excuse me. In the view of you and who, Sir Fred
Hoyle?

A. Yes.

Q. I just wanted to be sure the name was understood.

A. I mentioned it but it is not consensus view. The
earth's oceans and atmosphere seems to be laid at about
that time. The earliest sedimentary processes started
also at 3.83 billion years. And I think at that precise
time there's also evidence for microbic fossils on the
earth. The oldest fossils came to be. There's been
some argument about the identity of these fossils, but
3.83 is a reasonable time to -- to -- for dating the
earliest appearance of life as one can see in the rocks.

And I think the next point I
want to make is the -- if you take the resection (sic.)
of spontaneous generation to its logical conclusion, then
the time before 3.83 on the earth has to be linked to a
source of information about life. One could either say
that life appeared in a random shuffling operation and
appeared in the primordial mix. Or if it didn't happen
that way, when it had to be injected from outside.

And I think I would briefly
discuss my views and views that I share with Sir Fred
Hoyle about how the injection of biologic material might
have taken place at 3.83 billion years before the present

7

time. And also show how this process might still continue
to the present day.

Then I suppose at that point I
also want to bring up an issue that isn't too well known
to science at the moment. However, there is a colleague
who came to Cardiff quite a few weeks ago --

Q. Cardiff, C-a-r-d-i-f-f.

A. -- and spoke about some of his recent work on the
Merchison meteorite. The evidence that he showed me and
an audience who came and heard it was that there appears
to be a very very strong case for microbic fossils in the
Merchison meteorite. Both chemical evidence and morphological
evidence and I want to discuss that very briefly.

So if it is the case that one
has life on the earth and one has life on -- appears on
a meteorite, then the question of independent origins is
to be asked. Is it likely that there were two origins,
one on the earth and one on the meteorites. And if there
are such two origins, could they have converged to
produce the same type of structures?

So I suppose I think I would
like to take off from that to argue that -- are the
matters of the probabilities of the appearance of first
life in the universe. And go on from there to say that
where ever it happened that there seems to be -- first of

8

all, there seems to be a difficulty in understanding the
acquisition of information that is relevant to life.
There's an information content in life that is very specific
relating to enzymes and so on. And could this -- one
could pose the question could this information have been
derived in a chemical evolutionary sense or has it got
any deeper significance? The massive quantity of
information.

I think that sort of summarizes
what I would like to....

Q. It was an awesome job. Okay. Why don't we start
with the astronomical observation. What is it you would
expect to say about the organic matter found in dust
clouds?

A. That it has to be of a rather complicated polymery
character. That the --

Q. Complicated?

A. Polymer character. Simple organic vertical molecules
and so on, that these together would not account for the
data.

Q. What is the data that it wouldn't account for?

A. Absorption properties of infrared wave lengths.

Q. Why wouldn't it account for that?

A. Because it doesn't. We've attempted to compare --

Q. What is there about the absorption qualities?

9

A. Un, it's a -- this is just one example of it. There's
a -- it's a very detailed profile of transmittance and
plus the wave lengths are very involved --

Q. Well, perhaps if you could explain what the dots
represent.

A. Dots represent the astronomical data for the flux,
radiation comes from a source that is called JCR located
at the center of our galaxy. And the reason for choosing
this amongst several of our other sources is that this
particular source is a sort ten kiloparsecs away. And
it samples a long parcel length of interstellar material.
He is very flat -- I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't really
go into technical issues but you can see it has a flat
background here.

Q. I simply want to understand what you're going to
testify about tomorrow. If you're going to testify in
this kind of detail, I'd like to know about that tonight.
If you're not going to --

A. No, I think not. I think I'll make a general
statement in that it is my belief from long experience
in trying to fit these curves in astronomical context that
it is very difficult to get an agreement between the date
and a model unless one postulates something very complex
and very specific in a very specific manner.

Q. Have you examined this matter with other wave lengths

10

other than infrared? Have you examined it with ultraviolet?

A. Yeah, yeah.

Q. What is the result with ultraviolet?

A. The results -- the overall ultraviolet behavior of
the dots is represented by the dots here.

Q. I guess if you could explain what the longitude and
latitude measure.

A. On the X axes is the inverse of the wave length and
on the Y axes is sort of the dimming of starlight. I don't
know -- I think this is pointless to bring very technical
arguments into a courtroom.. But it's my opinion, having
attempted to match this data, this models for nearly
two decades or so, this is -- the (inaudible. Sounds like
"masterphone") gets really almost with the first shot
of trying to match the microbial model -- microorganism
model has to mean something. In my view it means --

Q. I guess I just don't begin to understand what it is
you're observing. What the dots measure.

A. The dots measure the --

Q. Let me start over this way. What kind of machinery
are you using?

A. The machinery involved in making the observation?

Q. Yeah.

A. Okay. Telescopes. Telescopes mounted on satellites
and on the surface of the earth

11

Q. And you're looking at one star or a lot of stars?

A. This is, in fact, the average for lots of stars, yeah.
For maybe five hundred or thousands of stars.

Q. And what does each dot represent?

A. Each dot represents a particular wavelength point
and averaged over the last number of stars. But in fact,
as it turns out, if I were to clock the variation from
one star to another, the variation is not particularly
great except maybe in the ultraviolet wavelengths. in
this particular wavelength, for instance, see the points
sort of hug that curve rather closely where ever you look
at it in the galaxy.

Q. And each of those dots represents a sighting of
different groups of stars or the same group of stars?

A. Each dot is the -- represents the -- on some kind of
anomalized -- some kind of scale here the fogging of or
dimming of starlight a logarithmic scale.

Q. And is that the same thing in the infrared --

A. Infrared represents the -- it represents absorption
below. It's not the same thing. It's the same philosophy.
There's an absorption here. This in fact is not absorption.
But most of this is scattering, it is electromagnetism by
small particles.

Q. Suffice it to say that these two short charts show,
to your satisfaction, that there is some kind of living

12

matter out there.

A. Matter that started of living in the first place.
I think the exercise here is to take -- is to take an
ensemble of bacteria that you can get in the lab and the
sizes are measured, the optica (sic.) properties are
measured and so on. And in a hypothetical experiment you
fling them into space and ask the question, "What is the
obscuration that it would produce and what is the
absorption it would produce?" And they match the
astronomical data.

Q. Is the -- are the ultraviolet -- is the ultraviolet
chart characteristic of nucleic acids?

A. No, it's not that -- there are very minor effects
here and here on -- this hump here is the strongest effect,
absorption effect in the ultraviolet and it is attributed
in this model to be graded -- it's graphite -- soot like
material releases this absorption here.

The unfortunate situation is the
nucleic acids would have absorption at about 2,600 angstrom
so it is a very small effect here. And at the present
time it's hard to pick it out in relation to the --
to the general background of absorption. It is due to
the carbonized, the graphitized biology on this model.

Q. Have you reached any conclusions about the properties
of the organic material?

13

A. Yeah. It's just what I told you. I think the
properties are consistent in my mind. Though I'll not speak
of material that started off as biology in the first place.

Q. Is there any evidence for nucleic acids in these
two charts?

A. The evidence for nucleic acids -- the evidence in
this -- the type of evidence that's shown in this figure
here is an absorption profile. It's due to all of the --
all of the organics that are involved in biology.

Q. I see a lot of dots on a white thing and I just don't
understand what it is they represent.

A. Well the dots -- the dots, as I told you, represent
the flux, the wavelengths dependents of a certain
absorption of the stars in the galaxy. And the attempt
is made to compare the detailed profile of this absorption
with a laboratory system. The laboratory system that I've
chosen for this comparison is desicated bacteria that's
kept in the laboratory and under conditions it's tried
out. And the agreement without any further assumptions
comes out to be exactly right.

Q. Exactly right with what?

A. Pardon me? The comparison. It's obvious to anyone
that the curve runs through the data points and that's the
only point I'm making. The curve is a theory --

Q. Did you put the curve on the graph before you put

14

the data points there?

A. No. There are two different effects. The points
are the astronomical data. That's one -- on one -- one
one element of astronomical data, the points. The curve
is the predicted behavior of graph -- of desicated bacteria.
And the overlay is the correspondents to which I attribute
some significance.

Q. So basically you think there's some organic matter
out in space. That's the conclusion -- I don't want to
denigrate what the ultimate conclusion is, but that's what
the conclusion is.

A. That's the first order of conclusion, yes. That
there is organic material simply because -- I mean --
well, first of all zero (inaudible) on the spectrum is a
CH stretching which any organic chemist would recognize
as being tied with sea organic matter. But a further
conclusion which is more contentious and which people are
very resistant to accept it as a detail profile which
involves a certain amount of modeling, and a type of
modeling which is not -- is somewhat atypical of the
modeling you do in the laboratory when you want to
recognize laboratory spectrum and say what material there
is in that -- that gives rise to that spectrum. You use
certain criteria.

In astronomy one -- when it's

15

almost every fragment of information that is possible.
And I think that the kind of exercise that we've been
involved in this business, we use not only the wavelengths
of the absorptions, which are sort of separated points in
there, the dips and variations defined by the structures
of that curve. Not the set of those wavelengths only,
but the relative magnitudes of the absorption from point to
point.

It is essentially that the detailed
distribution of oscillators that are involved there. And
I think it's something that is very -- I -- I -- I've
managed to convince lots of chemists on this, but it
takes a good half hour to tell -- to -- to point that
there is a different -- there's a different exercise
involved when one is trying to match a spectrum which
has this kind of structure and so on. And attempting to
use all the information which is available relative
strengths of it from point to point on that curve.

Q. And it's your understanding that there's evidence
of properties with nucleic acid --

A. It's a whole slew of stuff. You take the bacteria
from the lab, it is not nucleic acids, all the polypeptides
(sic.), everything that goes in (inaudible) shows up in
absorption. So it is hard to separate the nucleic acids
from anything else by this kind of criterian and one has

16

to look for other things. And one of the things that we
have been attempting to look for, sicknesses (sic.) in
nucleic acid, what you told me and what you asked me a
little while ago. The absorption in the ultraviolet --
but unfortunately turns out that those are ultraviolet
absorptions are weak. The nucleic acids -- they have low
values of what chemists call a massive absorption coefficient
and it is hard to pick it out from the background absorption
of the other stuff that is in the dust.

Q. You said something about the explanation for dust
and particulate form in particulate sizes. Did I write that
down right?

A. Right. This curve is the calculation -- behavior of
a certain ensemble of particles with certain defined
properties that defined properties that refer to refractive
index. And the refractive index here is choosen to be
appropriate to dried out bacterian that I hypothetically
fling out and I sort of -- in a conjecture experiment fling
out in space and ask how much evacuation that occures.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Creation of a vacuum. Just as it mean. And then
they are off to calculating the electromagnetic absorption
and scattering properties of that system. The curve is
the calculation. And the -- without any further assumptions --
I mean let's take the lab spectrum, the flinging into space.

17

I find that I get an agreement that these are rather close
and that's the -- that leads -- these are the two pairs that
I just want to refer to rather briefly and express my
opinion, which isn't necessarily the opinion of every other
astronomer alive.

Q. Is it the opinion of any other astronomers aside from
you and Sir Fred Hoyle?

A. I haven't done a consensus.

Q. I'm not asking for a consensus. Is there anybody
who agrees with you and Hoyle about this?

A. Well, I think very few people have addressed their
minds to it and to the detail operation that are involved
in comparison. But I think the answer is yes, I can
think of a few that appear to be partially convinced.
But there are lots of barriers to complete and --

Q. Are you aware of anybody who buys the whole theory
aside from you and Hoyle?

A. Buys the whole theory? Do you want me to name a
person?

Q. I'm asking you first if you are aware of anyone. If
you tell me you are, then I would ask you who it is.

MR. WILLIAMS: If you know.

A. Not to my knowledge. I have not attempted to have
extensive dialogues on this matter at this time. I knew
that it is something that requires a lot of conviction in

18

the sense that it takes a lot to convince someone on the
basis of this kind of data. But I think it needs a
background of understanding of what the data means. A
background of information of understanding what the
calculations mean. As it turns out, without any false
modesty, I think I can make a claim that this kind of
operation of comparing this type of calculation with
data is something that I've been involved in and I think
very few astronomers around the world have the -- the
length of experience that I've had and attempted to compare
various models of the dust rains with the relevant astronomical
observation. I have worked on my own and other people
intermittently. And it is -- it hasn't been -- I think
the situation is that it has not been examined critically
by any astronomer that I know of.

Q. Does your testimony that no astronomer agrees with
you totally about this theory --

A. No, I did not say that. I said I have not conducted
a census.

Q. That you are not aware of any astronomer --

A. I'm not aware of -- these have been published and
I am not aware of any astronomer who has published a retort
that could demolish the comparison.

Q. I'm asking you a different question. I'm asking you
has anybody told you, any astronomer told you that they agree

19

with you or the totality of your theory?

A. I haven't asked that question of any astronomer.

Q. Have you discussed it with any astronomer?

A. Yes, I have. In fact, in the United States they are the
people who have been working rather closely on the interstellar
medium from other directions. Not on the grains, not on
the dust, several of them tell me that they are now willing
to buy this aspect of the story. But there are other
aspects that require further --

Q. Have you discussed it with any biologist?

A. Have I discussed it with any biologists? The
astronomical implications or the comparison --

Q. The data?

A. The data is -- no, not the precise comparisons that
were involved here because the comparisons are not -- do not
relate to any particular expertise of biologist. These
spectra obtained just from the laboratory experiment the
astronomical data obtained from using telescopes and so
on. And comparison is -- did not demand expertise in biology.

Q. Have you discussed with anybody except astronomers?

A. Yes, lots of people.

Ql What other disciplines I mean have you sought out the
advice of people in other disciplines?

A. I haven't sought out the advice --

Q. I've given seminars, I've given lectures to

20

departments of microbiology up and down Britain. To that
extent, I have disseminated some of these ideas in public
and amongst biological colleagues.

Q. Have you gotten feedback from them about your result?

A. Yes, I've got some feedback in the sense that they
say the comparisons are quite interesting and impressive
and so on. But they would like to think that there are
simpler explanations for the correspondences, but until I
find somebody who produces correspondence such as of a
comparable kind, I'm not willing to regard the possibility
that there may be a simpler alternative because I myself
have looked at simpler alternatives. I looked for instances
in this particular case -- I've looked for comparison with
the prebiology models of Sagan, and so on, and his colleagues.
A lot of experiments done on the behavior of absorption
properties of prebiologic particles, and I've looked at
dozens of these, and it just failed completely to explain
the fact in the infrared.

Q. I just noticed on this chart that you are making
reference to dry E. Coli. Is it that property particularly
that you guess that it is?

A. No. The reason I think that it is a fairly long
story that -- what really happened in this case was that
we were looking -- by we I mean myself and Sir Fred Hoyle,
two colleagues. We were looking at the behavior of

21

microorganisms sealed in -- not the biological behavior,
but the absorption properties sealed in KBr disks --

Q. What kind of disks?

A. Potassium bromide disks. -- and heated to various
temperatures in an inherit atmosphere to decide how high
a temperature these things could stand before the chemical
signatures essentially got molified over this wavelength.
And we found that -- the reason for doing this experiment
was that there were various claims about the fossils,
microfossils in sediments and the Isua sediments was the
oldest sediments on the earth.

Q. What kind of sediments?

A. Sedimentary rocks.

Q. I would like for you to repeat the word so that the
court reporter gets it.

A. Isua, I-s-u-a. that means -- there has been a
controversy --

DR. HOLTZMAN: Capitol "I"?

A. Yeah. It refers to a certain geological formation.
And there have been various arguments about the biogenesity
(sic.) or otherwise of certain fossils or certain structures
that were discovered in these rocks. One of the arguments
against biogenesity was the high metamorphic compress (sic.).
These rocks have been turned through fairly high temperatures
after the initial sedimentation. The question was raised,
could the -- if (Testimony continued on next page.)

22

they were organic sediments, if they were biological sediments
trapped in these rocks, could they have survived and preserved
their chemical integrity through the heating processes.
And we know that the rocks went through about 400 degrees of
centigrade or near enough. So we tried to mimic that
condition by -- obviously you cannot recreate the geological
experiments. So we thought it would be interesting to
see how microorganisms sealed in a KBr disk, not just one
but a whole bunch --

Q. Oh, I see. You're saying capitol K, capitol B,
little r.

A. This disk was -- and I am not going to go into
details about it.

Q. No. What I'm asking is this line somehow representative
of E. Coli in particular?

A. No, there were several other organisms that were
also -- it is not diagnostic of the particular bacteria
over that wavelength. I know that infrared spectrous could
be used to -- to -- to dec -- to decide between different
types of bacteria. But either fortunately -- or I think
that is sort of a thumbprint reason for biology in general.
It seems that we looked at the yeast cell and it had
pretty much the same spectrum.

Q. Yeast cell?

A. Yeah. I think this is the reason that it was -- the

23

most invariance from the different system and overall the
E. Coli at room temperature, E. Coli at 350 degrees saved
in a caviar (sic.) disk and in that atmosphere and yeast
at 20 degrees centigrade. And the overlay there was --

Q. What's the temperature of the grains of dust?

A. The temperature of the grains of dust in space
averages about 10 degrees above absolute zero. But it is
more than likely that in -- that the dust goes through
high temperatures from time to time. They get some dust
clouds involved in the formation of near stars and part
of the gas and dust that does not really go into the stars
become exposed to transiental high temperatures.

Q. But you are taking something that is normally at
10 degrees Kelvin and comparing it with the curve of
something that is either 20 degrees centigrade, and if I'm
not wrong, is 270 degrees Kelvin and something at 600
degrees Kelvin?

A. That's right. In this experiment. But there are
sound technical reasons for doing that and I think there
are also reasons for expecting that the low temperatures
of behavior of the absorption over that wavelength was
likely to be not different.

Q. I don't understand why you think you can measure
something at 10 degrees Kelvin and it be --

A. It wasn't --

24

Q. What would it look like at 10 degrees Kelvin?
Can you draw that on here?

A. Yeah. Exactly the same.

Q. Where, right in the same spot?

A. Right in the same spot. I think there is no
difference.

Q. Why if there is a difference between 20 --

A. Because at 350 chemical bonds are broken. The trace
quantities of water are thrown out and so on. But go
below room temperature in general, there is a sharpening
of absorption as a general rule. But the situation here
is that these absorption structures are not single
transitions, but a whole bunch of them. So the thermal
affects as you cool them, cool the dust or the bacteria
below 20 degrees is not, for this particular comparison,
relevant.

Q. Okay. Is the size or the shape of the dust particles
in any way relevant?

A. Not for this comparison.

Q. I wrote it down hurridly. I thought you said
something about the explanation for the dust particulate
form and particulate size?

A. Particulate form is in the form of small particles
and the particular size I referred not to the -- the
infrared behavior at wavelengths that are -- how technical

25

do you want me to get? You are not trapping me in any way
because it is in my --

Q. No. Believe me, no one knows better than me that I
am not trapping you.

A. At wavelengths long compared to the size of the
particles. If you take small particles, look at a
wavelength that is large compared to the size of the
particle, then the size does not enter explicitly into
the absorption. It is what's known as Rayleigh absorption.
So in the long waves, size does not enter. And in the short
waves the size does enter.

(Testimony continued on next page.)

26

MR. WILLIAMS: Before we begin back,
I wanted to put on the record in this deposition, for the
record in this case, that Mr. Henry Voss will be available
for deposition at 6:30 tomorrow morning at the Attorney
General's office. And we've had some -- I had some
earlier discussions with Mr. Novik and I'm communicating
that to the Plaintiffs now, on the record.

MR. KLASFELD: I'm not sure exactly
what Mr. Novik's reply was, but 6:30 in the morning
strikes me as a little bit unreasonable.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's 12:30
London time, you know.

MR. KLASFELD: Mr. Voss isn't
coming from London. Dr. Voss? Dr. Voss.

MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.

(Off the record discussion.)

BY MR. KLASFELD:

Q. You said something about the infrared sources of
radiation in our galaxy showing certain patterns of
absorption. What is it that you would expect to testify
about that?

A. That the presence of absorption detected in the
galaxy, not simply consistent with biology, which it is
in fact, without a shadow of a doubt that it is consistent
with biology. But in my opinion it's also -- there is a

27

reasonable chance that it is a diagnostic of biology.

Q. And the microbial model is due to this pattern that
you find that you can only satisfactory explain by what
you call a microbial model. And by microbial model you
mean that it's dried out bacteria?

A. Yeah, terrestrious (sic.) type bacteria is just
shoved into space and experiments done on that.

Q. You've done that?

A. I've done them, not myself, but along with a student
and a professional of biochemistry.

Q. How did you get it out there?

A. I didn't get it out there. No, no. This is in a
lab.

Q. Oh, I see.

A. They're attempting to mimic conditions that would
obtain when I shove it out there.

Q. Do you have what you consider to be unequivocal
evidence for nucleic acids in space?

A. In a spectra line it is something like that.

Q. In any form that satisfies you that it's unequivocal
evidence?

A. No, I said it's not. It's masked in the general --

Q. Excuse me, masked?

A. Masked in the general absorption behavior of the
dusts. So, I think it's hard to be sure until one gets

28

a much higher definition of the data. It's not -- it's
impossible to detect it. And it was detected unequivocally
in the present.

Q. Okay. Do you have a theory about how those microbial
organisms got there?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is that theory?

A. It's a theory that's discussed in a couple of the
books that I've written over the past couple -- year or
two, or so. I think I'll draw your attention to page --
besides in the galaxy the bacteria are most likely to
replicate and to be amplified in numbers is in the
environments of planets and surfaces of planets, and in
interiors of comets their liquid water could be present
for -- over lengths of long periods of time. And we know
that as a consequence of star formation there is --
planets, comets form along with the stars. So, there is
a sort of feedback loop that develops.

Suppose one starts with a very small
component of biological material in the galaxy -- call it
biotic material. It's incorporated --

Q. Biotic -- I call it biotic material. It's incorporated --

A. Uh-huh. -- into the intercellular material, into
the gas and dust in space. And these gas and dust is going
to form new stars, planets, and comets. And the tiniest

29

amout of material that you start with in this loop is
amplified when it goes into a comet or into surface of
the watery planet. And the circumstance that the
particles are of the sizes that they are, the bacteria to
speak of is a third of a micro in radius, permits them
to be exposed by force of radiation from stars, radiation
as a factor -- starlight as a factor of pushing these --
rocketing these particles out from the parent stars
where they are -- around which they are amplified. And
it goes back into the intercellular medium -- into the
gas. And this incidentally is just a orilnebular --

Q. O-r-i-l-n --

A. Orinebular. And that's the reason of very accurate
star information. So, particles are amplified as -- as --

Q. By what process are they amplified?

A. By -- simply by logical replication and --

Q. They grow?

A. Hum?

Q. They're alive?

A. Yeah, a small fraction. There could be a massive
massacre due to radiation conditions in space, and so on.
And I don't want to go into detail or anything although
it is very authoritive that there is -- there are various
mechanisms that would permit survival of biology to
significant extents. But it doesn't require even survival

30

of one part in a million to make this loop go and to
amplify the numbers of biological particles.

Q. But they're alive and they replicate and grow?

A. Some fraction, some fraction is in a viable condition
to get to the next site of amplification to convert the
ambiant matter -- inorganic matter into more biology and
the -- the feedback builds up to account essentially
for all of the -- or a large fraction of the dust in
space.

Q. Where does the biotic material come from in the
first place?

A. From the -- you mean the very first -- very first
cell? Is that the question?

Q. Well, you're assuming the presence of some biotic
material that then gets into some kind of circle. I'm
asking where the biotic material comes from in the first
place.

A. Yeah, that's -- that's -- I think there is several
possibilities. One is that it -- it gets in -- gets
together in random shuffling of the cosmic -- on the
cosmic scale, right. The advantage one has from going
out from a little pool on the earth to -- to the whole --
to our universe is that we've got many more sites for
the shuffling -- you could use one -- a couple of pools
on the surface that are invariably sheltered -- the

31

conditions are the least favorable for any polymerizations
to occur.

Q. The least favorable where?

A. On the surface of the earth, and the earth's oceans.

Q. I see.

A. So, if one takes account of all the possible occasions
in the galaxy and the universe where they could -- water
could -- present, you could improve their chances of
starting life somewhere. But once it is started, then
it gets into this -- it gets ineligibly trapped into a
feedback loop-back simply because the particles of biology --
the microorganisms and particles of biology have the
right sizes to -- to get expelled from nearby stars, from
parent stars. They have the right sizes to get pushed
away from the parent stars.

Q. Why did you say that the earth's surface was the
least favorable?

A. It's -- there are several reasons. Do you want me
to enumerate them or what?

Q. Yes.

A. It's -- It's in the earth's oceans that something
might have happened, right. The aqueous conditions that
may -- are required to be the -- would have to obtain the
assertions. So, the -- and the oceans -- I think the --
the difficulties of getting molecules together, amino

32

acids together, polymerizing in a watery matrix -- in a
watery medium with very little ultraviolet light
penetrating an atmosphere, it presents problems I think.
Perhaps I should tell you this. I think that when the --
when the earth's oceans were made, then inevitably that --
an atmosphere develops. It's my -- in my opinion an
atmosphere develops. And that makes -- an atmosphere
shields the ultraviolets from the sun and there's hardly
any ultraviolet phortons (sic.) that would be raining --
falling on the surface of the ocean. It's minute fraction
of ultraviolet flux that gets onto the surface of the
oceans.

And it's only ultraviolet light that can
polymerize the -- produce energy -- provide energy for
linking amino acids and polymydes (sic.). For example,
if you don't have -- if you don't -- if you start with
no life on the earth, to get from no life to life requires
stringing together of these -- of amino acids. And I
would argue that that doesn't happen in a radiation
protected environment.

Q. You said that random shuffling on a cosmic scale was
one of the possibilities. What are some of the other
possibilities?

A. The -- I think the information content applies. It's
so, incredibly, vast that one has to entertain the

33

possibility of a creation, but a creation not in the
sense that we've been hearing from the trial. But a
creation within the -- the framework of the universe, within
the laws of physics and chemistry of the universe.

Q. What do you --

A. A Creator that somehow develops them in the context
of the universe -- within the -- within the universe
consistent with the laws of physics just as -- just as --
I think that is a logical place for a Creator, within
the planet of the earth.

Q. Are you saying Creator --

A. Creator of the first life

Q. Yes, he's saying Creator. But consistent -- acting
consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry?

A. I believe it could be done. I believe there is
such a possibility, not that I understand it -- the details
of such a mechanism. But there is no apriori reason for
rejecting that as a possibility.

Q. Is there any positive scientific evidence for such
a possibility?

A. In a negative --

Q. No. I asked if there was any positive evidence.

A. No. That's -- I don't see how one could get a
positive -- positive evidence. I think it is by eliminating
the other possibilities as one argues that there is still

34

a logical place left for -- for this option.

Q. How many other possibilities would you say there
are?

A. For this sort of life?

Q. Yes.

A. For the origin of life. I think there are certain
possibilities that -- I would like in my own -- what I
would like to think possible is a mechanistic approach
to the origins of life. But the information content of
life is so incredibly vast that I think one is an open
time scale for the universe.

I'm prepared to believe that present
cosmilogical ideas on the time scale of the universe may
be in error, in which case a mechanistic origin might
develop once and then -- that's one possibility.

Q. You've mentioned two possibilities.

A. Yes.

Q. One, the random shuffling through perhaps some
extended time scale.

A. Yes.

Q. Two, a Creator.

A. Yes.

Q. Is there a third possibility?

A. Not as I can say for the moment, no.

Q. You said that the earth was 3.83 -- you say the life

35

on the earth was 3.83 billion years old.

A. Yeah, the present evidence seems to me to suggest
that it's -- it's -- I mean you could subtract .4 billion,
I think. It's somewhat of a contentious matter, the --
the fact that 3.83. But at 3.5 there's a concensus view
that there is life at 3.5. At 3.3, if you go nearing the
present day, the agreement -- the sort or examiner belief
is that the evidence is even stronger. But in -- the
way I look at it, I think there's no reason for doubting
that there was life at 3.83.

Q. And how old is the earth itself?

A. About 4.55 billion years.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence that the earth
might be significantly younger than that?

A. No.

Q. What would you think of a -- someone who called
themself a scientist who felt that the earth was 10
thousand years old?

A. I think that he is misled and is not looking at the
facts in a systematic, reasonable way.

Q. Could any rational scientist think that the earth
was even a million years old?

A. No.

Q. You said that the conventional wisdom of the origin
of life, that there are major difficulties in forming

36

simple life forms. What are those major difficulties?

A. Major difficulties. You mean conceptually or --

Q. In whatever sense that you mean it.

A. The difficulties are really vast and inmeasurably
because it hasn't happened in the lab, for one thing. And
major difficulties I think are in getting together the
information that is required for life. And I'm not
referring to any sort of -- any arbitrary set of information
or instructions for life, but a specific as we recognize
as life. That has to arise from a situation that it's
initially random and the rate of acquisition of units of
information that leads to the particular system that we
recognize as life poses a serious problem, I think. If
one is dealing with limited time scales on the -- on the --

Q. And you're referring to several billion years as
a limited time scale?

A. Cosmilogical time scale.

Q. You do a calculation in the book Evolution From Space --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- in which you come up with the number 10 to the
40 thousandth. That's sort of a conservative estimate --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- of the possibility of arriving at life randomly
on the earth.

A. Yes, I think I would stand by that characterization.

37

Q. Could you go through the -- could you go through
the calculations for me?

A. Yes, I suppose I could. Right now, or --

Q. Yes, please.

A. Okay. I would say that a necessary condition for
reaching the living system from a non-living system is to
get the very specific information in arrangement as one
finds in the enzymes, right. The -- and one knows how
many sites are crucial in an enzyme for -- for particular
biochemical -- for particular straight -- for particular
biological function of the enzyme, themselves, to do
something. And you know how many -- you know how many sites
typically are required to be filled by particular amino
acids. And the conservative estimate I would say is one
of our fifteen sites -- fifteen or twenty sites. You
pull it down maybe, I don't think it helps very much.

So, it's really a calculation, a very
straight forward combintarior (sic.) calculation of
finding out how many possibilities there are of reaching
the crucial enzyming system that goes across the whole of
life. And it's just -- we're talking up numbers. I think
it comes up to 10 to the 40 thousandth.

Q. Well, you take 10 to the 20th, right? That's what
you're just talking about, the points, right? 10 to the
20th? How do you get from there to 10 to the 40 thousandth?

38

A. No, if that's --

Q. Twenty --

A. You mean twenty sites.

Q. Yes.

A. So, that's 15 sites, let's say for argument sake.
Fifteen sites for enzymes, a critical -- required to be
filled by particular amino acids. Then the chance of the
number of shufflings that they need to get one amino acid,
right -- one enzyme, right, is 20 raised to the power
assuming there are twenty relevant amino acids for enzymes,
is 20 raised to the power of 15. That's raised to the
power of 2000 if there are 2000 enzymes. And you do a
bit of combintariorizing (sic.) and divided by facterials
(sic.) and so on. And obviously aren't going into that
deep, there's a book here. But if you do a bit of
elementary divisions of the 15 sites -- need not be 15
specifically, you can slide them up and down and you can
also mix up the enzymes. It doesn't matter whether you
find one enzyme first or the other one, or that enzyme
last in your shuffling. So, there are various divisions
that has to be done. And many times it's about maybe
10 to the 40 thousandth --

Q. Is that a big number?

A. You can say that again.

MR. CLARK: It's more than Mr. Williams,

39

Mr. Campbell, and I can add together

Q. What exactly is the information you're talking
about when you use the word information?

A. The arrangement of the sites, the filling of the
sites. Information needed to fill those sites with one
of twenty amino acids.

Q. Is the -- is the information a natural substance
or is it some kind of concept that we impose on what we
find there?

A. It's a concept that arises from the arrangement.

Q. Are there reasonable relationships between these
enzymes to the extent that you are aware of?

A. Not -- not -- it's not sufficient to -- to pull that
number down to -- I mean you could tell me -- someone
might tell me -- maybe someone could tell me that all
enzymes are living independent on a smaller set or something
like that. But unless a small set is reduced to ten --
I think the 10 to the 40 thousandth is such a vast number
that they could really -- I could have thought to --

Q. You can give me 10 thousand?

A. I could give you -- yes.

Q. The -- and I suppose it's this number that you're --
that you're using when you say that the chances of it
happening are so small it's not to even consider?

A. Yes. I would say yes. Uh-huh.

40

Q. And you made reference to the difficulties in the
polymerization of amino acids, is that the same thing
that we're talking about?

A. No, it's a different definition.

Q. That's something more?

A. That's -- that's -- I would have thought it was a
higher order difficulty in a sense, higher order relating
to location on our planet because the situation there
is that even the shuffling which one assumes -- I'm not --
in that operation of -- in the calculation there are no --
there are no kinetics involved. It's just the simple
statistic elementary probablistic calculation. I'm not --
I'm not dealing with any kinetic processes. So, the
kinetics -- if one considers kinetics of association then
there are process -- I mean, facts that could be regarded
as helping out of the dilemma. But there are also effects
that are devastating against the association of amino
acids and similar monimals (sic.) of life.

Q. What would that raise it to -- what level of
difficulty would that raise it to?

A. Beg your pardon.

Q. Would that make it 10 to the 50 thousandth, 10 to
the 100 thousandth?

A. I haven't set numbers on it yet I think the processes
don't to with some of the processes that I invoke.

Q. Why don't we take a break?

(Recess.)

41

Q. Would you tell me what graduate degrees you have
in biology?

A. In biology?

Q. In biology.

A. No, I have taken no degrees in biology.

Q. In geology?

A. No, none.

Q. In paleontology?

A. No.

Q. Are there any sources that you've used in your --
in your work that you recognize as authoritative sources
on biology or genetics?

A. Yeah. I have used several texts.

Q. Which texts would those be?

A. Lehninger's Biochemistry.

Q. Who else?

A. Uh, in what, biology, biochemistry or what?

Q. Yeah. Any of those texts.

A. I don't carry a list in my head unfortunately, of
those texts. Quite a few of them I've used.

Q. Watson Molecular Biology of the Gene?

A. Watson -- yes, I've read his, yeah.

Q. Do you recognize that as an authority -- an
authoritative text?

A. Yes, I do. And I think the others are a miscellaneous

42

collection of texts.

Q. All right. What about the Benjamin Lewin Gene
Expression?

A. Yeah. I've seen that. Yeah. Some of it.

Q. Do you recognize it as an authoritative book on
gene expression?

A. Not all of it. I've noticed -- I've looked at it,
yeah.

Q. I'm not asking you if you know the whole book --

A. No. I would recognize him as an authority, yes.

Q. -- have you read the book -- and -- uh --

A. Not that -- I wouldn't say that I agree with
everything that's written there, but I would like to --

Q. -- and there are a witness offered in this trial,
Dean Kenyn. Are you familiar with his book, Biochemical
Predestinations?

A. No, I haven't read it. No. No.

Q. Is it possible that life always existed, that
there was no beginning and no end?

A. Uh, it is possible logically. I think there is
no reason to doubt it -- for dissipating a logical
possibility, but the present data one has about the
universe seems to suggest that over time scales of twelve --
ten billion years, material gets turned around and heated
to temperatures that would eventually destroy the chemical

43

[PAGE MISSING]
44

selection together with mutations, gene doubling, and so
on, provides a woefully adequate explanation for the
generation of verities, and that there is a need for a
continuing addition of information.

Q. But you are disputing only the mechanism and not the
fact of evolution.

A. The mechanism, yes, most certainly.

Q. Do you think that evolution is a fact?

A. Evolution as depicted in the fossil record and in
the general disposition of biochemistry of cross life, yes,
certainly, yes.

Q. Do you have a copy of your book, or did David
take it back?

A. I've got a copy, yes.

Q. Would you take out the copy of Evolution from Space?
Would you look at the bottom of page 64?

A. Yep.

Q. And the paragraph that begins at the bottom of that
page, which says, "Is it the same story within the bodies
of animals. We always talk as if we ourselves digested
our food. This is loose talk, for it is bacteria that
breaks --" or "it is bacteria that break the food down
for us into more elementary substances which our bodies are
able to use. Bacteria do much of the digesting. We only
create the conditions that make it convenient for them to

45

live inside us." What is the basis for your view that
bacteria do much of the digesting?

A. From what I've read in various places, it seems
to me that the -- the enzymes that are required for unzipping
a lot of the -- the -- uh -- let me just recall what was
the basis of that. It's a bacterial enzyme that are --

Q. Bacteria enzymes?

A. Enzymes in bacteria that seem to be required for
doing certain things. It's a --

Q. What is -- what is the source? Is it in one of
these texts?

A. No. I cannot -- I really cannot recall the origin
of that paragraph. This book has been put together by
two people, and I've looked over it -- I've looked over
the synthesis the scientists put together, and some of
it comes to me --

Q. Did Hoyle put together this chapter?

A. That particular paragraph, yes. Certainly I don't --
I don't really have the chapter and verse to -- to substantiate
that.

Q. Does Hoyle have any expertise in biology?

A. Uh, in a self-taught way, yes, I think so. I think
there's no -- to my mind there's no good argument for
requiring expertise in the sense that you've been discussing,
like degrees in universities and so on.

46

Q. But he has no degree in biology; is that right?

A. No. He has no degree in biology.

Q. Do you believe that to be true?

A. That bacteria do much of the digesting?

Q. Yes. And much here, in the context here, seems to
me to be most.

A. Uh, I'm not really -- I don't think I have got
enough information at the moment to make that -- to
accept that categorically. It's my opinion -- it's my
impression by what I remember reading is that this bacteria
will play some role in digestion, but -- let me -- if that's
it, maybe I should do this -- this refers to humans --
this refers -- perhaps because we is used in that context,
it has to refer to humans, but bacteria in the guts of
sheep, for instance, involved in the breakdown of cellulose,
maybe that's the sort of thing that --

Q. Well, isn't it always cellulose that bacteria is
important in digesting?

A. It's a -- that's a particular -- right. Okay.
Yeah.

Q. But this doesn't make reference to cellulose, does
it?

A. It doesn't make an explicit --

Q. Well, it says we always talk as if we ourselves
digested our food.

47

A. Yeah. It probably is an extrapolation from the
sheep -- faults (sic.) in the sheep story, but I don't
know what the -- the precise --

Q. Would you look at page 72, please?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Would you look at the -- the top paragraph, not the
full paragraph, but the top paragraph.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Where you say, "There is evidently a major chasm
between the modes of gene expression in the two kinds of
cell. A similar conclusion might have been reached
long ago from the fact that photosynthesis and prokaryotes,
that's P-R-O-K-A-R-Y-O-T-E-S, does not use water as in
eukaryotes, E-U-K-A-R-Y-O-T-E-S, a remarkable difference
mentioned already in chapter four." Did you write this
section?

A. Let me recall the context of that. The first couple
of sentences I -- I recall --

Q. Was that before what I read?

A. What's that?

Q. I'm sorry.

A. The first couple of sentences of the paragraph,
"Genes of the..." (inaudible, witness reading.)

COURT REPORTER: Could you please
slow down. I can't understand what you're saying.

48

A. On the broken segments of the DNA, I think there
is enough evidence that this is true?

Q. What about the section that I read?

A. That the difference is in the way that the DNA
sequences are comprised -- uh -- would represent to my
mind the major chasm between the modes of gene expression,
between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. I would -- I would
go along with that.

Q. What is blue-green algae? Is it a prokaryote or
eukaryote?

A. Blue-green algae -- uh -- are prokaryotes.

Q. Does it use water in a vial of oxygen?

A. Uh, no. I guess not.

Q. Are you saying it does not?

A. Does it use water? No, I think that it does not.

Q. You think that it does not?

A. I think that there's probably evidence -- I don't
know. I haven't got the facts in my head at the moment.

Q. Did you ever?

A. What's that?

Q. Did you ever have the facts in your head about this
subject?

A. About what subject?

Q. Whether or not blue-green algae is a prokaryote, and
whether or not blue-green algae uses water in a vial that

49

evolves oxygen.

A. Uh, uses water and evolves and --

Q. Well, what you're saying here is that, prokaryotes
do not use water --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- a remarkable difference. And you said that
blue-green algae is a prokaryote.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And I'm asking you if it uses water.

A. Yes, I think it does. Yeah. I'm sure it does.

Q. You're sure that it does?

A. Yes.

Q. So you're saying that a remarkable difference
between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that prokaryotes
don't use water?

A. I better look at the reference in chapter four.

MR. CAMPBELL: David, just for the
record, if Dr. Wickramasinghe's answers don't seem as clear,
it is almost 4:00 in the morning London time, and that --

MR. KLASFELD: I would have taken
it any time today.

MR. CAMPBELL: Our position is that --

MR. KLASFELD: This deposition is
at your convenience at the time that you set.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm just explaining

50

the reason why it is that way.

MR. KLASFELD: Well, I understand
that, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say --

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm not trying to
have it either way. I was making a comment on the record.

MR. KLASFELD: Okay.

BY MR. KLASFELD:

Q. Could you turn to page 105, Dr. Wickramasinghe?

A. Yep.

Q. Would you look at the first full paragraph. It says,
"In the similar way, there must be a program that directs
the activity of a living cell. The question is, what
decides this program, and where inside the cell are the
instructions for it located. To take the easier second
part of the question first, while biologists are generally
agreed that such instructions must exist, the situation
concerning their location is indefinite. The usual
disposition is to suppose that the location is on the
chromosomes." Now, these next two parts is what I want
to focus on.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. "If so, a possible location would be in the so
called nucleolus, N-U-C-L-E-O-L-U-S, a chromosomal region
that appears decisively during the process of cell division,
and which would seem to preserve its identity in that

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe - Page 2

51

process. Cell division is a violent, electro-mechanical
affair, and the location of the cell program must be such
as to preserve its integrity through..." mitotis?

DR. HOLTZMAN: Mitosis. It's a
misspelling. It's nothing.

MR. KLASFELD: What is the right
word?

DR. HOLTZMAN: Mitosis.

MR. KLASFELD: M-I-T-O-S-I-S.
"(normal cell division) and meiosis (a more complex double
division leading to the production of sex cells.)" Did
you write this section, or did Hoyle write this section?

A. Uh, this particular section, I think -- I'm pretty
sure it's not -- doesn't link -- doesn't click in my head
as being something that came from my pen. It probably --
I could defend any of those reasons, I suppose.

Q. Okay. Could you tell me what a nucleolus is?

A. It is a tiny -- a small -- uh -- a separate mini-
chromosome that's -- that's within the cell, the inner
nucleus of the cell.

Q. And what does it do?

A. It is -- what does it do? Do in the instant -- I
don't know.

Q. What is it's function?

A. Its function is -- uh -- it could be to contain the

52

program that directs the activity of a living cell. I --
I don't have any opinions about it apart from the
speculation that it could contain the main program of
the cell that controls its activities.

Q. And you say here, it appears decisively during
the process of cell division?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. What do you mean by decisively?

A. Shows up in the electro-micrographs and so on. It's --

Q. And you're saying that it appears during the
process of cell division?

A. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Q. Next you say, "Cell division is a violent electro-
mechanical affair." What does that mean, violent electro-
mechanical affair?

A. Uh, it's a -- I think it's an opinion on how cell
division -- on the mechanism of cell division, that it is
-- uh -- the separation of charges that dates to --

Q. Separation of --

A. Charges, on the nucle -- on the cell that leads
to -- uh -- leads to a breakup of the cell due to -- due
to forces -- due to electromagnetic forces that operates
on a charge separation.

Q. By cell division, you mean that the cells are
actually dividing in two?

53

A. Yeah.

Q. What is the source of this electro-mechanical force?

A. The sources are -- just the separation of the
charges.

Q. What's the source of the theory?

A. Oh, source of the theory. A conjecture, I guess,
and looking at the various writings and everything.

Q. What writings?

A. Pardon?

Q. What writings?

A. On the -- on the subject of cell division.

Q. Anyone in particular?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

[Testimony continued on next page.]

54

Q. I gather from reading your book that what you believe
is the earth passed through or nearby some kind of cometary
source of life forms that rain down on the earth and seeded
the earth with life; is that right?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Were these seedings, was it material composed of
DNA or was DNA a part of the materials that seeded the
earth?

A. Yeah. The idea is that it's living cells; that all
the -- the full complement of biochemical in the living
cells that seeded the earth, not just one time in the past,
but it continues to do so right through to the present
day.

Q. Do the -- these life forms that come down, do they
incorporate themselves with presently existing life forms?

A. Uh-huh. Wherever they could do it, it does that.
If it does not it just perishes.

Q. Through what kind of mechanism does it incorporate
itself with living life forms?

A. Through the incorporation in the cellular DNA while
the processes of one recognizes as being infective; that
the process that is recognizable as viral diseases and so
on. This is one way in which the incoming viruses could
be -- incoming DNA could be incorporated into the cells.

Q. Do you think that the -- I don't know if you were

55

present in the courtroom today when there was a discussion
of the possibility of an explanation for the earth's
geology by the force of one major catastrophe.

A. I wasn't there then. Was it in the afternoon or --

Q. I don't remember at what point it might have arisen.

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific evidence for the
fact that the earth's geology could be explained by one
single catastrophic event?

A. No.

Q. Would you think any rational scientist could think
that was true?

A. Not on the evidence that I've been able to look at,
no.

Q. Do you think that humans and apes have a common
ancestor?

A. Yes, I do, with the reservation that I don't believe
that monkeys -- apes could lead to humans without some
additional information that is specific to the design of
humans.

Q. I'm not asking if apes led to humans. I'm asking
if at some point in the past they had a common ancestor?

A. Yeah, I believe so.

Q. You believe that's true?

A. Uh-huh.

56

Q. Do you think it is possible that insects have greater
intelligence than people?

A. No, not on -- it depends on how one defines intelligence.
But if one measures the intelligence of -- operation of
capabilities of (Inaudible) assesses human or monkey
intelligence, I would say no.

Q. Do you think it is possible that a large society of
insects could have more intelligence as a group than humans?

A. You mean a social unit of insects or something?

Q. Yes.

A. Not in a way that one would recognize as intelligence
in the usual -- in the usual definition of intelligence.
But it could be that in a conflict or confrontation that
might develop, the course of evolution between insects and
higher evolved forms of life, that the collective behavior
of insects and the genomes of insects have a better chance
of beating a higher intelligence, I think, even though the
-- even though the human intelligence is by usual standards
higher than the insect intelligence. I think it is -- I
believe it is highly significant that humans have succeeded
in demolishing even one insect species through chemical
(Inaudible) warfare. All the methods of -- all the surfaces
that have been used by human scientists have failed to do
very much.

Q. Is it possible to falsify the basic theory that you

57

testified to about tonight and will testify about tomorrow?

A. Yes. I think there is an experiment that would be
done to detect life outside. If it turns out to be negative
consistently, then I think the theory is falsifiable (sic.).

Q. What kind of experiment would you suggest?

A. I would say looking directly for life on the surface
of -- in the interiors of comets and cometary particles,
scooping up the material that the earth is picking up, the
cellulite (sic.), and looking for active biology, and the
experiment could be done. There is no reason why it is
not a doable experiment. So that the experiment is
conducted with a negative result, then it would be a direct
falsification. That's the idea.

Q. Do you think that there are any ethical implications
of evolution?

A. Not in a very -- not in -- in a particular type --
particular model of evolution or in evolution in general,
or what? I don't --

Q. Either.

A. I think there are -- there are ethical issues to do
with particular models of evolution.

Q. Which ones?

A. Well, I suppose -- let me just stick to the Darwinian
model. I think there are probably ethical issues that have
been discussed by sociologists and so on, from several

58

places at several times.

Q. Which ones for instance? Not which sociologists,
but which implications?

A. Which implications. I think that the -- the
Darwinian -- the Darwinian evolution theories imply that --
that the stronger social groups necessarily overrun and
dominate the weaker social groups. And wherever this has
happened in the world, like the -- and there is sort of
a moral justification in that simplicity. In sociological
situations there is an overt attempt to dominate the weaker
groups by the larger groups. The implication being -- the
justification being that it happens in biology, and therefore,
it is a reasonable thing to happen in society.

Q. Do you think that the rise of Nazism was in any
way related to evolution?

A. Yes, I do. I think there is -- not to -- it is --
that is my belief. I don't have any substantial proof
of it, but I think that it is more than likely to be
connected to it.

Q. The rise of Nazism is more than likely to be connected
to evolution?

A. With Darwinian evolution.

Q. You make reference in Evolutions In Space to a
possible predecessor of life on this earth, being silicone
chips somewhere else in space.

59

A. I don't think -- I would like to withdraw that.
Again, that is my colleague, and I think it's conjecturable.
It is the analogy that he makes -- that one could make
with the computer. I don't know how far one could take
with the analogy, but .... The semiconducting properties
of siliceous material is such that it could contain
information and could --

Q. This last chapter, "Convergence to God," Hoyle wrote
this?

A. That's -- entirely, yes. In fact, I don't even --
it is one of the issues that we have had a lot of discussion
and debate about, and I don't necessarily subscribe to
everything that is written there in that chapter.

Q. There is no disclaimer though?

A. There is no disclaimer, no. I don't have any strong
brief for it either. But I think -- I think from the
general claim, the general statements there that are involved
in that chapter, I tend to agree with.

Q. Do you agree that there might be any number of steps
between God and life on this earth?

A. Logically, yes. I think it is possible to envision
a hierarchical structure of intelligence that's above us.
It seems to me to be the study of arrogance, beyond words,
to say that we are the highest level of organizational
intelligence that's possible in the form of a living system.

60

And I believe that there could be a multitude of steps --
many steps above the human intelligence leading ascentotically
(sic.) to one of those equations and symbolic statements
that have been made.

Q. I wasn't going to call it an equation, but is that
what you would call it, this business with an arrow and then
five question marks, and an arrow and four question marks,
and an arrow and three question marks, and an arrow and
two question marks? The way I sort of understood this was
God --

A. There are big unknowns and we were just putting
together the possible logical connections that might exist
between the sequences of unknown intelligences.

Q. If I gave you a factorial could you reasonably,
quickly compute a power of ten for me?

A. With a calculator I could, yes.

Q. Do you have a calculator?

A. I didn't bring one with me, no.

Q. Are you familiar with Sterling's formula?

A. Yes.

Q. Without a calculator could you do a reasonable
approximation?

A. To a factorial -- to a large number.

Q. If I gave you a factorial could you give me a
reasonable approximation to the power of ten?

61

A. Yes, a reasonable approximation I could.

Q. What -- how would you imagine this creator working
somehow subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, and
why put that limitation on the creator?

A. Why should it --

Q. Actually, I'm asking two question, which I'm not
allowed to do. One of them is --

MR. CLARK: I was just fixing to
ask you to ask them one at a time.

Q. My first question is why put that limit on a creator?

A. On the -- you mean the limits of staying within the
universe?

Q. Being within the laws of chemistry and physics.

A. Well, if it is possible to be outside, then I think
it is not part of the inquiry that scientists are supposed
to be engaged in, and it becomes metaphysical.

Q. Excuse me. But then why posit the need for a creator
if you are going to have him working by the laws of chemistry
and physics?

A. I don't posit the need for a creator. I think --
I think one could logically -- maybe there are circumstances
in which one could logically infer that a certain arrangement
of molecules in the universe as being put together more
probably by deliberate action than by random shuffling.
And so to say that there was a creator that could have put

62

it together -- I could give you an example -- I mean, if you
are a spaceman who came -- descended into this room, looked
at the faces around this table, talking a strange language,
he might have looked at some of this equipment here and
someone asked the question, "Are these -- are all of these
bits and pieces a natural result of random shuffling or
was it put together by a creator?" And to surmise that
this tape recorder had a human creator is not in any way
outrageous. I can't see any reason why it should be
considered to be improper to make the conclusions if one
looks into the problem and assesses the odds of that tape
recorder being put together, plus all the problems of the
-- all the various (Inaudible -- sounds like consitron)
atoms coming that way be a certain number.

Q. Are you aware of any limits between -- of genetic
change such that there is only change within limited kinds?

A. An empirical law or an empirical --

Q. Any kinds of genetic limitation that would limit
through the course of time a change from bacteria to man.
Are you aware of any scientific genetic law that would limit
that change?

A. I don't know what you mean by scientific.

Q. The statute, which is the subject of this lawsuit,
posits something called creation-science, one of the tenets
of which is changes, that plants or animals could only change

63

within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants
and animals. Are you aware --

A. Of the -- of a nature law that limits it?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't know whether there is an empirical -- I
think I -- I think that there are limitations to the
extent to which a bacterium could change. Do you want me to
give you my personal opinion?

Q. Well, let me ask you a different question. Your
theory does not suggest that -- have you read any creation-
science literature at all?

A. I don't know what --

Q. Are you familiar with the expression creation-science?

A. Not in the general accepted -- not in what I think
seems to be the conventionally generally accepted view of
that.

Q. What is your understanding of this lawsuit?

A. What is my understanding of the lawsuit? Do you want
me to tell you what I make of it?

Q. What do you understand is the issue? Why are you
here? Why am I here? Not in the grand sense, but in the
small sense.

A. The issue seems to be that the State of Arkansas
has passed this act within its Legislature to give an equal

64

coverage of creation. I know it is creation-science, but
I would like to extract it and put it in a wider -- slightly
wider context. All right? But I would interpret -- I
don't -- I am not concerned about the details, letter of
the law there, but I think the --

Q. Unfortunately, that's where we are at this period
of time.

A. -- the spirit of the -- I think I would like to
stick to the spirit of the law that I feel in some ways
sympathetic towards. The attitudes to creation have been
sort of almost a blanket -- almost a complete condemnation
of it by scientists, any creation. And I think it is
perhaps not a reasonable thing to condemn it without having
a proper inquiry as to whether it could be accommodated
within the empirical frame of the science. And some
creation -- some concepts of creation may be well within
the purview of empirical science. And so if one is dealing
with sort of the origins of life or some -- an issue like
that, it is my belief that the -- that there is no evidence
at all for chemical evolution. I think there are great
claims that chemical evolution could do something, but I
could give you a dozen reasons why I think that chemical
evolution wouldn't lead to anything. So in the absence of
such -- in the absence of any nonmechanism for life emerging
from random shuffling through chemical evolution, I think

65

it is reasonable to explore an alternative possible.

Q. Are you using this as a form for your theory?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. How did you come to testify?

A. Because Mr. Clark invited me to do so, and to ask if
I could point out the aspects of my joint work with Fred
that might in some way relate to the need for creation,
even in a limited sense, and the inadequacies of Darwinian
evolution.

Q. Was Mr. Clark the first person that you heard from
in this lawsuit?

A. The first person that approached me about coming
here was -- it wasn't you. It was one of your colleagues.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Williams probably.

WITNESS: Mr. Williams or Mr. Tim --

MR. CLARK: Tim Humphries. Tim
Humphries probably.

Q. But he was the first -- you didn't hear about it
from anybody in the creation-science movement?

A. No.

Q. What -- where did you get your notion of -- sort of
the classic -- what the classic model is for chemical
evolution and what specifically do you disagree with?

A. Well, I think the sources are numerous. I don't
know whether I could recall them in detail. I am sure

66

most of the symposiums, you know, on cosmochemistry by
some people. I could not (Inaudible - Witness mumbling)

COURT REPORTER: Please don't
mumble.

WITNESS: I think it is getting
rather late and I think maybe we should reconvene if there
is a need to have another.

MR. CLARK: Do you have many more
questions, David?

MR. KLASFELD: Not too many more,
I don't think.

MR. CLARK: Ten or fifteen minutes,
you think?

MR. KLASFELD: What time is it now?

MR. CLARK: A quarter 'til 10:00.

WITNESS: The mumbling referred
to a name. You asked me resources and I thought of one
person that I read about, was Noda, N-O-D-A, was one
author that put together -- he wasn't an author, but he is
an editor of a symposium.

BY MR. KLASFELD:

Q. Are you familiar with the experiments of Stanley
Miller?

A. Oh, yes, I am very familiar with him.

Q. What is, in your mind, the failure of those experiments?

67

A. Those experiments don't tell you anything except
that an inorganic -- a mixture of inorganic acids could be
put together using -- injecting nonthermodynamic sources of
energy, ultraviolet light and sparks of electric discharge.
If you put these through a mixture of inorganic acids,
suitably a chosen mixture, then you could get substances
that are similar to the biochemical monomers, sugars, and
amino acids, and nucleotides and so on. That's the extent
to which those experiments go.

Q. What do you mean when you say similar to -- you said
that it was similar to these various chemicals. Why similar?

A. Because you get some amino acids that are nonbiological
and you get amino acids that are biological. You get sugars
that are biological and that are nonbiological. So it
includes the set. What you get in trace quantities includes
the set that -- includes the set of molecules that are
considered to be the bows (sic.) for the monomers.

Q. Isn't this straying pretty far from your area of
expertise?

A. What is?

Q. Your judgements about the biochemistry.

A. I don't really understand that question.

Q. Well, you are an astronomer and a mathematician.

A. Yes. Does that clear --

MR. CLARK: You asked him and he responded
to your question.

68

Q. Do you believe that insects moved through the
universe on comets and meteorites or other bodies?

A. It's a possibility that we could discuss, but I
don't think that one could make a decisive statement on
that one way or another.

Q. But you thought it was a sufficiently worthwhile
possibility --

A. To discuss.

Q. -- that you put it in the book?

A. Yeah. Uh-huh.

Q. Would you look at section 4a here, where it says,
Definitions in Creation-science, do you see that? See
that, 4a, 1 through 6. Would you read that for me and
tell me if you agree with any of those points?

A. There's one I think I don't -- sudden creation of
the universe and its life from nothing. The life I would
cross out for the time being, but I suppose sudden creation
of the universe, energy, is the standard Big Bang cosmology.
I can't complain about that. I don't agree with it either
as a theory. I wouldn't buy one particularly. I think --
I think it's a big -- I was just being facetious. It
could include aspects of Big Bang cosmology.

Q. Well I prefer for you not to be facetious. Do you
agree with 4a, 1?

A. As a -- as a possible -- no, I don't agree with

69

4a, 1, no.

Q. What about 4a, 2?

A. Yes. I do agree with that. I think it's my
believe that is true.

Q. Which is 4a, 2.

A. Sudden creation -- no it's not. It's insufficiency
of the --

Q. Okay. What about 3?

A. Not only -- now I think that -- no. Not in the
way it's stated there.

Q. Okay. What about 4?

A. No.

Q. What about 5?

A. No.

Q. What about 6?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Does the creator you make reference to have
any form?

A. I can't draw anything on the board, no. I can't
depict it in the way that -- I don't know. It's a concept
that may have validity, logical place in the logical
argument, but I don't -- uh -- until one -- in the present
state of our knowledge I think the answer is no.

Q. In the book Diseases From Space, you make reference
to the human nose; do you recall that?

70

A. Yes. Yeah.

Q. What is the significance for you of the shape of
the human nose?

A. To me personally?

Q. Well, in terms of the book. You say the evaluation
of the human nose, on page 99, would also permit one to
conclude that transmission from individual to individual
has never been a dominant factor in the spread of disease,
for transition would have happened in the forest just as
much as on open ground. What is there about the nose --

A. (inaudible, witness mumbling) The shape of the
nose was first brought into that argument because we felt
that a direct inhalation of material that is in the form
of an aerosol dripping on the -- descending onto the
surface of the planet would be taken up more effectively
more readily by a nose without a protective -- without an
apparent canopy, like -- sort of like a human nose. And
the need for -- for -- for the canopy like structure, might
have been an evolutionary property that permitted the
primitive man or the primitive ape to get out of the
relatively secluded, protective environment of the rain
forest, a lot of leaves and foliage that would have been
an asset in the sense of not getting -- not taking --
inhaling too much of the -- the aerosol, in the sense that --

Q. You mean we're better off with our nostrils facing

71

down than facing up?

A. I would -- I would say so, yes.

Q. Do you believe that the transmission from
individual to individual is not the dominant factor in
the spread of disease?

A. Uh, it depends on which disease that one is talking
about. I think in the case of influenza -- is what I've
looked at in great detail -- I think the -- that the
statistics point decisively to a negative answer, yes. I
believe that it is not the dominant factor for --

Q. What is the dominant factor?

A. The dominant factor is -- is an aerosol or some
material that is turned around in the rain and the weather.

Q. Have you ever recorded the arrival of any of these
seedings on the earth?

A. I don't understand the question. Ever recorded it
what -- in what way?

Q. Any kind of -- do you have any scientific evidence
that the -- these seedings have ever taken place?

A. The nature of evidence that was discussed in
Diseases From Space is --

Q. No. I'm talking about evolution from space, sir.
Do you have any evidence that these seedings have in fact
taken place?

A. Seedings of diseases or bugs or life or --

72

Q. The seedings of any kind of form -- life forms
that would have given rise to life on the planet?

A. I haven't -- I haven't discovered evidence for
myself, but I think there is evidence in the fossil record
that the origins of life, the very abrupt beginnings of
life, the first cretaceous explosion of living -- the
several explosions of -- the so called -- I forgot what
they call it these days. The punctuated equilibrium
that describes, not a mechanism in my mind, but to my
way of thinking. But it's just the phenomenon. It's the
phenomenon that's describing these words, punctuated
equilibrium. There are -- there are several discreet --

Q. Do I understand your theory of sort of the regular
seedings to be things that gave a boost to evolution to
speed it up at certain points?

A. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. And in what manner did the life form that seeded
the planet interact with the life forms that were here
already?

A. Well, the fragments of DNA which carried the
information from new species came in the form of viruses
That were taken up by the set of living creatures and living
organisms that were on the earth, evolved at any given
time. And whenever the particular virus carrying the
information was incorporated in the genome, then it was

73

let to the possibility of leading to -- of progressing
forward and producing them.

Q. I promise this will be the last question. Are you
aware of the enzymes amylasetrypsin and chymotrypsin?
Are you aware of their functions?

A. No, not of the --

Q. Not?

A. Not the functions of the individual enzymes, no.
But these are details. I don't -- I don't know. Is there
any --

Q. But do they function in the digestive system, as
far as you are aware of?

A. No. I don't have the facts in my head. I've been
very concerned --

Q. Fair enough.

A. -- with the systematics of the operation, not the
details.

Q. Thank you.

(Thereupon the above styled
deposition was concluded at 10:10 p.m.)

74

WITNESS' SIGNATURE

I, __________________________, the witness, hereby
certify that I have thoroughly read the transcript of my
deposition taken on ______ day of ______________, 1981, and
have made any necessary changes or corrections to make the
transcript a true and accurate accounting of my testimony given
on that day.

______________________________
(Signature)

______________________________
(Date signed)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
)ss.
COUNTY OF ____________)

I, __________________________, a Notary Public in and
for __________________ County, Arkansas do hereby certify that
the above deposition was read, corrected and signed in my
presence.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the
________ day of ___________________, 1981.

My commission expires ___________________________________
on __________________ Notary Public

(seal)

76

C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF ARKANSAS)
)ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI)

RE: PROFESSOR NANIN CHANDRA WICKRAMASINGHE

I, LAURA D. BUSHMAN of LAURA BUSHMAN COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, a Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated
by me in the caption on the foregoing deposition are true;
and that the foregoing deposition was transcribed by
me or under my supervision from my machine shorthand
notes taken at the time and place set out hereto, the
witness being first duly cautioned and sworn to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the
16th day of December, 1981.

_______________________________
Laura D. Bushman, Notary Public
in and for Pulaski County, AR

My commission expires 1-10-84

Deposition of Robert V. Gentry

Deposition of Robert V. Gentry - transcript paragraph formatted version. (Defendants Witness)

2

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF ROBERT V. GENTRY, a witness produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 24th day of November, 1981, before Certified Court Reporters and Notaries Public, in and for Fulton County, Georgia, at American Civil Liberties Union, 52 Fairlie Street, Suite 355, Atlanta, Georgia, at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to the agreement thereinafter set forth.

MR. STEPHEN G. WOLFE: What are operating now by way of stipulations?

MR. RICK CAMPBELL: Essentially that this is a discovery deposition; that Dr. Gentry will sign the deposition and return it to us and we will give it to you-all. All objections are waived except as to form of the question.

MR. WOLFE: All right.

ROBERT V. GENTRY,

being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. WOLFE:

Q. Would you please state your name and address for the record?

A. Robert Vance Gentry, ***** ** **** *****.

3

Powell, Tennessee 37849.

MR. WOLFE: I'll ask the reporter to mark as Gentry Deposition Exhibit 1 two pages from "Who's Who in America," the Forty-First Edition.

(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification by the court reporter.)

Q. (Continuing) Sir, I'll ask you to look at what's been marked as Exhibit 1 and tell me if you recognize it.

A. Yes.

Q. What is it, sir?

A. Well, it's part of the "Who's Who in America," which has my curriculum vitae on it. As I indicated to you earlier, I was also a member of the American Scientific affiliation in the past and am presently a member of the Creation Research Society.

Q. Doctor, aside from the points that you've just made, is the information in this exhibit accurate

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, in addition to your B.S. and M.S. studies at the University of Florida, have you had Physics Education at any other institution?

A. Yes. I took some courses at Georgia Tech; I've had Mathematics graduate courses at the University

4

of Florida; and if I remember correctly, one Physics course as well past the M.S.; and if I remember correctly, also a course at Southern Methodist University Extension School which was, I think, in Nuclear Engineering; and I think I had Mathematics graduate courses — no. I was going to say I taught at Texas Christian University, but I may not have had any graduate courses there.

Q. Doctor, do you have any graduate degree beyond the M.S. aside from this honorary degree that's indicated?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Was any of the post-M.S. work that you've just described undertaken in pursuit of a Ph.D. Degree?

A. The work at Georgia Tech was.

Q. When was that sir?

A. That was the academic school year 1962-'63 and the beginning of 1963-'64. I do not think I took courses in each one of those semesters, but it was during that period of time that I was at Georgia Tech. as an instructor and had begun working towards a Ph.D.

Q. Sir, how did it happen that you did not finish your degree work at Georgia Tech?

A. I had begun to work on a Ph.D. with the

5

understanding that I would choose a thesis topic that was mutually agreeable. I had become interested in the subject of radioactive halos and had discussed my desire to do research in this area with the Chairman of the Physics Department.

The Chairman of the Physics Department did not feel at that time that my efforts in the field of radioactive halos would result in beneficial data and conclusions consistent with what he understood to be the conventional history of the earth. We discussed the possibilities that I might find something that was in variance with the conventional view. At that time, to my knowledge, I had not seen a radioactive halo under the microscope; so it was a preliminary discussion based on simply what might develop. In any event, I felt the area of radioactive halos, as a field of research was one that I very much desired to look into. He did not feel as if this would be fruitful. This difference of opinion resulted in my leaving Georgia Tech.

Q. Sir, is it correct, then, that you are still a member of the faculty at Columbia Union College?

A. Yes. I still am a member of the faculty.

Q. Do you teach at the college at all?

6

A. No, I don't.

Q. Have you taught at Columbia Union in the past?

A. I taught at Columbia Union College from 1966 through mid-'69, at which time I received an invitation to be a guest or visiting scientist at the Oak Ridge National, Laboratory for one year. That one year has been extended to the present time as a guest.

Q. Sir, then, is it the case that, I gather, since 1969, while you've been nominally still on the faculty at Columbia Union, that you've worked at the Oak Ridge Laboratory all that time?

A. That is correct.

Page 7 is missing.

8

by the Archeological Rese [Text covered by note]

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Do you know the [Text covered by note] ling for the Foundation?

A. At that particular time, there were individuals in Columbus, Georgia by the names of Thrash, Calvin and Agatha Thrash, who donated money for my support. And there was another individual whose name comes to mind now that I think about it. There was an individual by the name of Sam Marx.

Q. Sir, I'm not, certain that. I understood. whether the three people that you've mentioned, Calvin and Agatha Thrash and Sam Marx — did they provide all of the funding for the Foundation or only to support your work there?

A. No. There were other funds which were used for other purposes, but these individuals provided funds for my part of the work.

I cannot rule out the possibility that some other individuals may also have contributed, but these were the main ones as far as I remember. And I should add if my memory serves me correctly, that I believe the Thrashes and Sam Marx were members at least at one time.

Q. Doctor, did the research work supported by

9

the Foundation have any particular area of concentration, any subject matter area?

A. Would you repeat the question?

Mr. WOLFE: Would you read back the question, please?

(Thereupon, the previous question was read back by the court reporter.)

A. (Continuing) There were interests in archeology in the Middle East; but in my estimation, most of the individuals involved were interested in searching for an artifact or what they considered. to be the remains of an artifact on Mount Ararat.

Q. Sir, the artifact that you've just mentioned, would that have been some artifact of the Ark contributed to Noah in the Bible?

A. In the eyes of the individuals who were searching for it, I am relatively sure they made that association.

Q. Can you tell me which of the persons whose names you gave me earlier were those persons searching for an artifact on Mount Ararat?

A. In the context of the question, "searching for," do you mean individuals, who actually went over and looked for the artifact, or do you mean individuals who were actually interested in the possible find of

10

the artifact?

Q. My question was broader; that is, the persons who were associated with this interesting finding and find- of an artifact on Mount Ararat.

A. In my estimation, all the individuals that I named were interested in the search; yes.

Q. Doctor, was the work that you did at the Foundation part of your ongoing work on radio halos?

A. My work connected with the Foundation concerned primarily my work on radio halos.

Q. Did you do any other work while you were at the foundation other than the radio halo work?

A. At times, I was questioned with respect to my opinion as to what might take place in the Middle East as the other members of the Foundation searched for the artifact. At one time, they attempted to get me involved in a trip, to the Middle East, which did not materialize.

Q. Doctor, I believe you stated earlier that you were uncertain whether the Foundation is still in existence; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Will you tell me what you know about its subsequent history? When did it become —

A. I can only in part, due to the information

11

that I have knowledge of. After I left the Foundation, I knew that other people continued the activities, but I did not attempt to keep up with the existence of the Foundation. So I simply do not know when or if it ceased to exist.

Q. Doctor, have you received any salary from Columbia Union College during the years that you were not teaching there, but a guest scientist at the National Laboratory?

A. I have received salary every year. This is my main source of support.

Q. I see. Do you receive any salary from the Federal Government or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory?

A. I am presently a guest scientist or consultant at the rate of one dollar per year at the present time.

Q. I see. Does the National Laboratory provide you with any office or work space or laboratory facilities?

A. They provide, me with office space and laboratory space.

Q. Are you required to reimburse them in any way for that office or laboratory space?

A. No.

Q. Does the National Laboratory provide you with

12

laboratory equipment or chemical agents for use in your work?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you required to reimburse them for any part of that cost?

A. No.

13

Q. Doctor, on your vitae, there are references to several grants that you've held from various institutions. Can you tell me if you've ever made a grant application which was not funded?

A. I have made grant applications which were not funded, and the letters for rejection of those grants have been given to you today.

Q. Can you list the instances in which you've made application's which were not funded and tell me what institutions the applications were made to?

A. I will refer to the material which I have given to you.

Q. Please do.

A. In the material entitled the "National Science Foundation," you see a May 24, 1971 letter from the National Science Foundation to me addressed, Department of Physics, Columbia Union College, in which I received a grant from NSF. March 29, 1973, I received another grant from NSF; November 25, 1974, another grant from NSF. The page after that is the summary of the completed project for the period '74 through '77.

After that time, you see a letter, June 21

1977, in which I was informed of a rejection of my

14

proposal. The next one, you can see that I am asking the National Science Foundation to provide me with information concerning why my proposal was declined. The next page, another request to the National Science Foundation for information that would enable me to appeal the decision more intelligently. The next page, a letter from the National Science Foundation from Dr. Rower giving me some of the details as to why my proposal was declined.

And the next letter is to Dr. Todd asking for a review process in which I point out in this letter that there were some things that, in my opinion, were not sufficiently reviewed in the original proposal, and I would refer in particular to the second paragraph of this particular letter: "Referring specifically to the Program Director's letter to me dated July 11, 1977, the first part constitutes quite a negative appraisal of the article on superheavy elements which I co-authored in July 1976. I find very interesting that in this time flight evaluation, neither the Program Director nor the review panel make any mention of the fact that at the time of publication of this article last summer, both higher and lower officials of NSF were vying with ERDA as to which agency was going to get the lion's share of credit for this publication.

15

And for the record, it should be noted that even now, the opinion of the panel and the Program Director is certainly not universally held by the scientific community. I refer first to the comments of Dr. D. Allan Bromley of Yale University as they appeared in print in the February 4, 1977 issue of Science (see underlined section on the enclosed write-up on superheavy elements). And I refer secondly to the fact that giant halos have become a subject of scientific inquiry apart from their connection with superheavy elements. In support of this statement, I enclose copies of recent articles on giant halos by Holbrow in "Nature" and by Von Wimmersperg and Sellschop in "Physical Review Letters." Further, two other scientists in England are now preparing to publish still another theory regarding the origin of giant halos.

"With this background on this article, I find it quite interesting that the most negative reviewer's comments about my proposal was devoted almost entirely to what amounted to an emotional outburst against my search for superheavy elements and, in particular, the publications of said report. In this respect, I now raise the question: Why did the Program Director choose this referee when his

16

remarks give strong evidence that he was possibly very prejudiced about my work before he even saw the proposal? That is, according to the information given by Symington on p. 271 of the May-June issue of the `American Scientist,' it is the responsibility of the Program Director to see that the reviewers of NSF proposals are not biased. The question which needs a vary specific answer is whether the Program Director checked into the possible bias of this reviewer before sending the proposal out to him, and if he did check, what were the results. I might add —

Q. Doctor, pardon me. I don't like to interrupt. I'm concerned, because we've only got about four hours more to the deposition. How much do you want to put in the record, and may I propose that we mark this packet as an exhibit and refer to it by paragraph other than have you occupy a certain amount of time by reading the material into the record?

A. I do not agree. You asked me a question. I'm reading this material for a very specific purpose.

Q. Well, sir, I asked you, I think, to tell me what instances you had applications rejected and by what organizations. Now, I'm afraid that not all this material is directly responsive to the question,

17

and you have limited the time that's available to me to examine you, and I must object to having a large part of it taken up with your simply reading material which can be simply designated into the record, when it could be designated and save a great deal of time that I do not really have to spend.

A. I will leave this up to Mr. Campbell.

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, Dr. Gentry, how much more did you want to —

THE WITNESS: The next paragraph, in particularly, the two sentences there at the very bottom of the page is the information I want to read in.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I would prefer to have the material read into the record, because it's handier than adding an exhibit and having to refer to the exhibit; but I'm concerned with the fact that we have a very limited amount of time. Would you mind being more selective, perhaps?

A. (Continuing) All right. Skip down to the next paragraph. "Now with respect to the second criticism of the proposal, the Program Director's letter states that, in essence, the panel was not able to find that I had any hypothesis to test with

18

respect to the other phases of my research on halos, or that there was any prospect of my finding a hypothesis in the future. I can understand such statements could be made by persons unacquainted with geochemical terminology who might read my published reports. It is, however, very difficult for me to understand how a panel of geochemists could make such statements, especially in view of the fact that I had previously discussed with the Program Director the hypothesis and implications of my research on Po halos as they have been published in the open scientific literature and referred to in both the previous and the present NSF proposals." For the reasons that you have asked, I will stop at this time and request that the last paragraph — the last two paragraphs be cited, then, in the record.

MR. WOLFE: All right. Then, I'll ask the reporter to mark as Gentry Deposition Exhibit 2 the package of material, the first page of which is a letter to Dr. Gentry dated May 24th, 1971 from the National Science Foundation; and the record, I think, will be clear from the references Dr. Gentry made as he paged through them,

19

which pages he was referring to, specifically a letter from him to Dr. Edward T. Todd near the back of the package.

(Thereupon, the document was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 for identification by the court reporter)

MR. CAMPBELL: The Todd letter, for purposes of the record, was dated August 26, 1977.

Off the record a minute.

(An off-the-record discussion ensued.)

20

Q. Sir, is it a correct summary of your testimony, then, that the only institution which has rejected a grant application of yours is the National Science Foundation?

A. I may have had — I have had grants from Nassau. I do not have before me my complete record for my Nassau transactions; so I would have to check my records to see whether Nassau had rejected one of my proposals. That is a possibility I would have to check on.

Q. Is it true that the only one that you are able to recall now is this rejection by the National Science Foundation?

A. There has been more than one rejection by the National Science Foundation.

Q. And you have, included letters on each of them in this packet that we've marked as Deposition Exhibit 2.

A. I think — I think there is even one which somehow got left out of this packet which was another rejection.

Q. Did each of these rejections apply to the same proposal or application?

A. No. These were different proposals.

Q. And there have been how many proposals in

21

total to NSF? Sir, I'm sorry. I think my question is unclear. That is, how many separate applications which they rejected have you made?

A. The two that you have record of here, and I believe that there is one more, the letter I meant to include, but apparently don't have it here from the National Science Foundation.

Q. Doctor, turning your attention back to Exhibit 1, at the bottom of your entry, there is an italicized sentence. Can you tell me what that is, sir?

A. That is a statement which "Who's Who in America" invites its listees to present to them for possible inclusion in "Who's Who in America." It is a statement of opinion, of the person who is going to be listed.

Q. So that sentence is language that you wrote and sent to "Who's Who" for inclusion?

A. That is correct.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

(An off-the-record discussion ensued.)

MR. WOLFE: I have given to Mr. Campbell a copy of all the material from Dr. Gentry's documents that we copied, but I understand

22

now, from Dr. Gentry, that he intended to actually give the entire file to me for retention. So that I will make a complete copy of the contents of the file, and later on, when I have done so, send a copy to Mr. Campbell of the entire contents of the file.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe) (Continuing) Doctor, are you a tenured professor at Columbia Union College?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Have you ever been eligible for tenure?

A. Truthfully, I do not know.

Q. Does Columbia Union College have any religious affiliation?

A. It's affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Q. Doctor, can you tell me how long you've been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?

A. I would have to check my records on that. Certainly more than six years, but I would have to check my records.

Q. All right, sir. So that it's been at least since 1975, and perhaps longer.

A. Yes.

23

Q. Do you recall how long you've been a member of the American Physical Society?

A. No. Again, I don't know. There, I would be a little bit more conservative and say, at least for the last three years; but that, I think, would be a conservative estimate.

Q. Doctor, do you recall how long you've been a member of the American Geophysical Union?

A. I would say, for the AGU, again, I would have to check my records; but probably since 1970, and perhaps longer.

Q. Sir, are you a fellow of the American Geophysical Union?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Doctor, have you ever been a peer reviewer for any scientific journal?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Which one, sir?

A. Science, I'm almost positive — almost — I will say probably for physical review letters.

Q. Sir, when were you a peer reviewer for Science?

A. I would have to check my records. It has been within the past — in my recollection, which I

24

will — subject to my checking on, I believe it was within the past six years as a reviewer for Science.

Q. Sir, are you still a reviewer for Science?

A. In my understanding, one only knows he is a reviewer when you receive a manuscript for potential review.

Q. I see. How many manuscripts have you reviewed for Science in the time that you have been a reviewer for that publication?

A. Again, I would have to check my records, but I believe I can remember two. There maybe more, but I am uncertain without checking my records.

Q. Doctor, I believe you had stated earlier that you're a member of the Creation Research Society; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, how long have you been a member of the Society?

A. Again, I would have to check my records; but my recollection is that it probably stretches back to the formative days of the organization — and we would have to check to find out when that was. But if I remember correctly, it I think I became a member either during the formative period or relatively soon thereafter.

25

Q. Can you tell me approximately when that was?

A. This, in my recollection, I think is around 1965-66. I could be off a year or two.

MR. WOLFE: I'll ask the reporter to mark as Gentry Deposition Exhibit 3 an application form for the Creation Research Society.

(Thereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification by the court reporter.)

Q. (Continuing) Doctor, do you recall ever having seen the application form which has been marked as Exhibit 3?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether you filled out such a form when you became a member of the Creation Research Society?

A. I do not remember the event of filling the form out; but I'm relatively certain that if this is a membership application blank, and I believe that it is, I'm relatively certain that I must have filled out an application blank similar to this.

Q. Sir, I'll direct your attention to near the center of the page, and there are numbered paragraphs, one, two, three, and four well, let me ask you

26

another question, first. Sir, at the top, there are four types of members or persons described. Can you tell me what kind of member of the CRS you are?

A. To my understanding, I am a voting member.

Q. Sir, then looking down at the middle of the page, there are four numbered paragraphs and the statement above them, quote, "In addition, all members (categories 1, 2, and 3 above) must subscribe to the following," closed quote.

Now, I take it, then, that as a voting member, at least presently, if you were to apply for membership, you would have to, quote, subscribe to the following," closed quote, these four numbered paragraphs.

Can you tell me whether you do, in fact, subscribe to the contents of those paragraphs?

A. Let me read them very carefully.

(Brief pause)

A. (Continuing) Yes. I would today sign a statement, I believe, to that effect.

Q. Doctor, are you a member of the Institute for Creation Research?

A. To my knowledge, I am not.

Q. Are you a member of the Creation Science

27

Research Center?

A. To my knowledge, I am not.

Q. Are you a member of the Bible Science Association?

A. I subscribe to the Bible Science Association newsletter. In their view, this may qualify me as a member of their organization. To my knowledge, I have never signed a statement of belief or a statement similar to the one which the Creation Research Society has before me here — you have before me here. But they may consider me a member of the Bible Science Association because I do subscribe to the newsletter.

Q. Sir, do you regard yourself as a member of the Bible Science Association?

A. I would have to — I would have to look at — and I do not have before me, nor do I have access to, I don't think, a statement of requirements or conditions or belief of the Bible Science Association and what it would require to be what, in my estimation, would be the equivalent of a member as I am of the Creation Research Society itself.

In other words, as I have earlier indicated. to you, I subscribe to the Bible Science newsletter. In their records, in the records of the Bible Science Association, this may qualify me, in itself, as being

28

a member of that organization. If it does, I have not protested that point of view.

Q. Is it fair to say, then, that you cannot know whether you regard yourself as a member until you've seen their statement of belief, if they have one, and which is required of members?

A. Well, what I always try to avoid is getting associated with an organization by inference, meaning that there are things which are, for example, published in the Bible Science newsletter which I personally do not subscribe to. From that standpoint, I would want to have the beliefs of the Bible Science Association more clearly enunciated before I would say or I would qualify myself to be, quote, a member of that organization in the same sense that I am, quote, a member of the Creation Research Society.

For instance, we have a formal statement of beliefs which I have, I'm certain, signed sometime in the past and would be willing to sign again today. On the other hand, to my knowledge, I do not have a statement of beliefs requirements for members of the Bible Science Association; so I do not — I have not signed a document stating that I am, quote, a member of the Bible Science Association.

As I said, if they, in their terminology,

29

consider my subscription to be a membership, this is a matter of their record keeping and not mine.

Q. Sir, in your last answer, you said, on the one hand, we have a form that I probably subscribed to in the past and would subscribe to now. I take it, by that, you mean the Creation Research Society form.

A. Correct. Uh-huh.

Q. Sir, can you recall now any of the instances of what you've just mentioned of things in the Bible Science newsletter which you would not subscribe to?

A. Many of the topics which are dealt with in the Bible Science newsletter are topics that do not bear specifically on my field of expertise. I have no real evidence one way or the other whether the articles are factual or not; so I'm in no position to pass judgment on them. I do not look at the Bible Science newsletter for a source of scientific information as far as my own research is concerned and do not keep records of articles which I consider are improperly documented as far as science is concerned.

Q. Okay. Doctor, can you tell me when you were a member of the American Scientific Affiliation?

A. Again, I would have to check my records'; but from what I can estimate this morning, I would say it was in the mid — early to mid Seventies. It could

30

have been a little bit earlier than that, and my membership could have stretched past 1975; but again, I would have to check my records. In fact, I don't even know that I have records that would allow me to state specifically when I joined the organization. When I join an organization like that was not a matter of something that I necessarily was going to keep close track of.

Q. Doctor, can you tell me how you came to no longer be a member of the American Scientific Affiliation?

A. Primarily economic. The dues of the Affiliation were increasing; the scientific information I was receiving from the journal, in my estimation, was minimal; so I discontinued my subscription and my membership.

Q. Doctor, are you a member of any church?

A. Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Seventh Day Adventist?

A. Since 1959.

Q. Were you a member of any other church prior to that time?

A. I believe that the membership which I had in the Christian Church — the First Christian Church

31

in Jacksonville, Florida was from probably my early teen years and perhaps earlier than that. I'm not sure that that membership was ever discontinued. Even though I had left Jacksonville, Florida, which is where the church is located. I had left that area basically in 1951 to attend the University of Florida, and attended that church very little after that particular time. Whether the First Christian Church retained me on its rolls would have to be checked with the church itself.

Q. Doctor, have you ever held any offices in the Seventh Day Adventist church?

A. I would, ask for a clarification from the standpoint of whether one is talking about an office in a local church or in an administrative office pertaining to the church itself.

Q. Well, Sir, I'd be interested in either instance, if you had been an officer within a local congregation or of some administrative body of the national church, if there is such a thing.

A. Yes. I have, to my recollection, served as a deacon in a local church; to my recollection, I have served as an elder and, to my recollection, I probably — I think. I yes, served as what is called a lay activities director. I have served as what is

32

probably called a communications — communications secretary, if you please. I have served in the capacity of a Sunday School teacher. These are the offices that come to mind at this time, I have held no administrative offices within the church as a whole.

Q. Are you able to recall approximately when you held the offices that you've mentioned?

A. It seems that in 1959, I may have been involved with some newspaper, getting news stories into the local newspaper, when I was a member of a church in Gainesville, Florida. I don't remember. It's possible that I became a deacon at that time. This would have, been a few months or thereabouts after I became a member of the Adventist Church. The position of elder, probably in the time frame from '63 to 1964 in Atlanta, is when I believe I first held that office. I have held the office since that time, in the Church of Knoxville, Tennessee in, again, the early to mid-1970's; and during that time, early to mid-1970's, and perhaps after '75 a year or so, probably was also involved in the activities of the what is called the lay activities endeavors of the church, called perhaps, or termed the lay activities director.

Q. Sir, can you tell me what your duty or

33

responsibilities were as lay activities director?

A. From time to time, there are radio programs which are programmed in another area of the country, recorded in another area of the country. These radio programs and television programs are available for distribution to local outlets. At one time, I checked into the possibility of getting a television program on a local station in Knoxville.

At other times, there are days in which church members participate in distributing literature which concerns, the Seventh Day Adventist to friends and neighbors within the community. I was involved in helping to plan that sort of literature distribution. Generally speaking — I do not remember all that we tried to accomplish, but the lay activities department of a local church is involved in activities. which would attempt to distribute information about the belief of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the printed page, or radio or television.

Q. Doctor, have you ever done any work for the church that involved evangelism or seeking converts to the church, in addition to what you've just described as your work as lay activities director?

A. Yes. In my opinion, I would answer yes to that question from the standpoint, number one, the

34

information which I had published in the open scientific literature is the kind of information which in my opinion, raises the questions — raises questions with respect to the conventional evolutionary framework of the development of the earth. This information, being open to the public, including church officials, has, from time to time, come to the attention of ministers within the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and in particular and on occasion, these ministers have asked me to present the information to their audiences which I have published in the open literature and the implications of which I have published in the open literature. So in this context, I think I would have to say that I was cooperating with the ministry.

Q. Sir, would the Seventh Day Adventist faith permit the use of an exaggeration or a half-truth in evangelism if it were thought necessary to bring a nonbeliever to that faith?

A. I am happy that you asked that question. I would like to refer to one of my quotes in a publication. As background material, several years ago, 1976, I was involved in the publication of evidence for superheavy elements. This publication received wide notice. There were several scientists involved

35

in the original report. To my knowledge, I was the only scientist who participated in experiments that revealed that the original evidence was not due to superheavy elements, but was due to a more conventional phenomenon.

On page 238 of the information which I have given you "Science News," this is a write-up of a symposium on superheavy elements that was held in Lubbock, Texas in 1978. I refer specifically to the information on the left-hand column of that page. In the middle of the page, we quote the following: "Gentry emphasizes that in making that statement, he speaks only for himself." Quoting me, "I don't speak for anyone else, and they don't speak for me." Now, the original — the people who were with me in the original report did not agree with my about-face. I freely admitted that I was wrong. At the same time, I could not let them speak for me, and this is why I said, I don't speak for anyone else, and they don't speak for me.

What the Seventh Day Adventist Church would do is something that would be decided by the officers of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I could give an opinion and only an opinion about what individuals would do.

36

Q. What is your opinion, sir?

A. If you would have the question repeated, I will give an opinion.

(Thereupon, the previous question was read back by the court reporter.)

A. (Continuing) If indeed a recognized body of church officers were asked that question, in my opinion, they would say no. Now, whether such things have ever been done is a matter of the individuals involved. I have only knowledge of what I consider to be the essence of my beliefs, and these I have communicated to you.

Q. Do you ever read the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. Which versions or translations have you read?

A. The King James version, the Revised Standard version. I believe there is a New English Bible. The New International version, I believe, is one recently out. I have scanned some of those. Primarily, I read out of the King James version and the Revised Standard version.

Q. Are you able to estimate approximately how often, on an annual basis or weekly basis or some other basis, you read the Bible?

37

A. Several times a week.

Q. Do you ever consult the Bible in your capacity as a physicist or nuclear physicist?

A. I will refer to information which I have published in the open literature which I have given copies to you today. Specifically, I refer to a publication in the transactions of the American Geophysical Union, "EOS," dated May 29, 1979, the paragraph beginning with the word, "and," the third one down. It says, "And as far as a new comprehensive theory is concerned, I would replace the one singularity of the Big Bang with two major cosmos-related singularities, (in which I exclude any implications about extraterrestrial life-related phenomena) derived from the historic Judeo-Christian ethic, namely, the events associated with, (1) the galaxies (including the Milky Way) being created ex nihilo by Fiat nearly 6 millennia ago and (2) a later catastrophe which resulted in a solar system-wide disturbance that was manifested on earth primarily as a worldwide flood, with subsequent crustal adjustments. I later say, "I propose that this new framework has a scientific basis because there are certain predictions which, in principle, can be confirmed and others which can be falsified by suitable

38

counter examples."

MR. WOLFE: I'll ask the reporter to mark a copy of the letter which you've just read as Deposition Exhibit 4.

(Thereupon, the document was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 for identification by the court reporter.)

Q. (Continuing) Doctor, are there any other instances in which you've consulted the Bible in your scientific work?

A. There are other instances in this particular document which you are already having cited in which I referred to evidences for creation. Continuing on at the bottom of page 474, "For example, Primordial Po Halos imply that Precambrian granites, pegmatitic micas, and other rocks which host such halos must be primordial rocks (and hence should constitute ideal rad waste containment sites). Therefore, I regard the failure to resolve the long-standing controversy, in geology which concerns the origin of the Precambrian granites to be because such rocks are primordial and hence not necessarily explainable on the basis of conventional principles. Even though I think they further qualify for that role in their association as basement rocks of the continents, nevertheless,

39

I would consider my thesis essentially falsified if and when geologists synthesize a hand-size specimen of a typical biotite-bearing granite and/or a similar size crystal of biotite.

The next paragraph concerns the evidence from the primordial halos in coalified wood which, in my estimation, relate to the events concerning the second singularity, which, in other terms, would be the flood. This is covered in the second paragraph. "A further consequence of this model is that evidence of U-series disequilibria and abnormally high Uranium 238/Lead 206 ratios should still persist in those sedimentary formations in which uranium was partially separated from its daughters during the second singularity about 4 millennia ago. Studies of radio halos in coalified wood from geological formations, presumably two to eight-years old suggests that such evidence does exist and that it admits the possibility that the formations are only several thousand years old."

I would like to add one further sentence. The last sentence in this document says, "I submit this letter to the members of the scientific community, not as an antagonist purporting to have the final word in a dispute, but as a colleague, who, in the spirit of

40

free scientific inquiry, genuinely seeks a vigorous critical response to the evidence discussed herein.

Q. Doctor, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible?

A. My view is that the Bible forms a consistent whole. There are some areas of the Bible which I am still studying to have a better understanding of.

Q. So, I'm not certain that I understood if answered my question. That is, is it your belief the Bible is infallible?

A. In my estimation, the statements in the original language in the Bible — the original statements are correct.

Q. Doctor, when you speak of the original statements or the original language in your answer, what version or translation of the Bible do you have in mind?

A. Well, of course, you're talking about any translation if you're talking about —

Q. I see. So your last statement referred to statements in what language, in Hebrew or in Greek?

A. My understanding is that most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that most of the Hebrew Testament was written in Greek. I am conversant with neither of those languages; so at

41

the present time, I'm evaluating the evidence on the basis of individuals who have done their best in translating the original documents.

I realize there are differences in the way that various translators translate certain passages. I do not interpret this — these differences as an error in the original autographs or a means of arriving at inconsistencies in the original autographs.

Q. So is it correct then, that you believe the Bible is infallible, but you accept, from that translation, error and don't regard those as bearing on the fallibility or not of the original versions?

A. Would you repeat that question?

(Thereupon, the previous question was read back by the court reporter.)

A. (Continuing) I don't think I stated that I viewed the differences in translations as errors per se. What I said, I think, or wanted to communicate was that the differences which exist may exist because of insufficient information on the basis of the translators' themselves, and that these differences in translations do not reflect the reliability or the correctness of the original documents themselves.

Q. Sir, turning for a moment to the application form for the Creation Research Society, which was

42

Exhibit 3 to your deposition, in the numbered paragraph 1, it makes a reference to the quote, original autographs, closed quote. Is that what you're also referring to when you speak of the original version of the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, what's your belief as to how the Bible came to be inerrant or infallible?

A. What I have stated to you is that, in my opinion, the original autographs are correct. So the question that you have asked me just now goes beyond the statements which I have made. You have used words which are beyond the words which I have spoken to you.

Q. All right. Well, sir, perhaps we should clear that up. Could you explain to me the distinction you're making, if you're making one, between correctness and inerrancy or infallibility?

A. "Infallibility" is a term which I use sparingly, because I have seen the term misused, in my estimation, many times. Example: There is within, in my estimation, the body of Christianity individuals who apparently claim — this is getting off into a philosophy area. I will go back to the — simply the point that the word "correct" without error

43

is my judgment of the original autographs, "correct," meaning, my definition, without error. Now, if you wish to state more specifically what it is that you feel the word "infallible" implies in addition to being without error, perhaps I could respond to that.

Q. Well, there's no necessity for you to count your testimony in any specific language, and so I'm happy to have your testimony that your belief is as you've described it. And I guess, parenthetically, I don't know what else it is to be infallible except that you don't make errors; so perhaps there's no difference at all.

But I'm not — you know, I wanted to know if you thought there was a distinction, and I'm perfectly happy to have your testimony in your own words; namely, that you believe the original autographs to be correct, and you understand that to mean they would not have error.

A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.)

Q. My question is, what's your belief of how the original autographs came to be without error?

A. I can give you my understanding of the Biblical record, which may differ from other individuals. My understanding of the Biblical record

44

is that certain individuals, in times passed, received communications from the Deity — in my estimation, God — and these communications were subsequently recorded.

Q. Then, is it because the Bible essentially came from God that it's able to be without error?

A. In my estimation, it is because the scriptures have their ultimate source in the Deity or God, that they are — in my estimation, the original autographs are without error; yes.

Q. Doctor, do you believe that the Bible in the original autographs is literally true?

A. I'll go back to the statement that I believe that the Bible, as a whole, forms a consistent — is a — itself, a consistent whole, meaning that there are some sections of the Bible that provide definitions for the interpretation of other sections of the Bible. These definitions, in my estimation, are useful, they're helpful, and they are, in themselves, necessary to the understanding of the Bible as a whole.

MR. WOLFE: Will you read the last answer, please?

(Thereupon, the previous answer was read back by the court reporter.)

Q. (Continuing) Doctor, do you mean, by the

45

reference in your last answer to necessary, helpful definitions in sections, that the Bible is not literally true, or that it is literally true as a whole or, do you mean something altogether that I didn't understand?

A. My comment was made because in my understanding, there are sections in the Bible which are primarily symbolic. In some cases, the word "waters is used, in my estimation, not to mean literal H2O, but to stand for something else. So while I say yes, that there are factual portions of the Bible which are literally, true, there are also factual portions of the Bible which are symbolic, and one needs the entire — with the entire whole one needs the literal, so to speak, factual portions in order to interpret the symbolic portions.

Q. Doctor, would you say that the description of Creation in Genesis is one of the portions of the Bible which is literally true, rather than symbolic?

A. In my judgment, I would answer yes to that. And I have, of course, gone on record, as we have already spoken today in the pages of "EOS," picturing my understanding of the historic Judeo-Christian ethic, which I also have proposed and asked for evidence which would falsify the scientific understanding I have of

46

that historic Judeo-Christian ethic.

Q. Is it your opinion that the Bible makes any predictions about future events that will, take place which, have not as yet?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. Can you give me any instances?

A. The outstanding instance that I think of is related, of course, to my association with the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and that is the prediction of the second return of Christ.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible exhibits any predictions that were made at the time the original autographs were written which have since proven true; that is, predictions about things that were future as to the time of the original autographs that has now come to pass?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. What instances are there?

A. That is a broad question which perhaps we could relate very specifically to. If one were to look very specifically at the prophecies in the Book of Daniel, specifically referring to the dream which Nebuchadnezzar had, and the subsequent interpretation of that dream by the individual spoken of in the Bible as the Prophet Daniel, my understanding is that the

47

Bible, the Book of Daniel, relates the history of several nations from the time of Nebuchadnezzar down to the time of Rome, and then to the division of the European nations.

Specifically, Daniel saw, if I remember, a statue with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of iron and moray clay. My recollection of the vision and the vision and the interpretation was, that the Kingdom of Babylon was associated with the head of gold; the breast and arms of silver were associated with the Medea-Persian Empire; the bronze, with Greece; the legs of Rome, and the feet and toes — feet and toes of iron mixed with moray clay, the toes being the ten divisions of the Roman Empire into the European nations of today. And the prediction was made, as iron and clay would not mix together, the statement, I believe, is made, neither shall they seed, their seeds shall intermarry, or words to the effect that there will be intermarriage, but that the nations themselves, the European nations and divisions of the Roman Empire, would not cleave together in a united whole.

This, in my estimation, is one of the outstanding prophecies relating to the history on

48

nations reported prior to the time, as far as I can tell, that the events themselves actually transpired.

Q. Do you recall any other instances?

A. I recall — I hesitate to enumerate in detail without references in front of me. There were references, as far as can tell, to the events, for example, that took place concerning the actual life of the Messiah, the way in which he would be born, the town in which he would be born, the way in which he would pass from this world. These are some of the outstanding, as far as I can tell, prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New. These are not all, but these are a sampling of what you're asking for, in my estimation.

Q. Doctor, has the Bible ever suggested to you a specific research project?

A. My interest in beginning this research resulted from my inquiries and my becoming a Seventh Day Adventist. For a number of years prior to becoming a Seventh Day Adventist, I basically had accepted the conventional, cosmological view of the development of the universe. As I began to study the kinds of prophecies that I have just referred to — mainly, the prophecies in the Book of Daniel, those relating to the life of the Messiah, and a few others —

49

it occurred to me that the scriptures had a great deal more credibility than I had granted them in the years from, for example, we'll say 1945, or my earliest years, to 1959.

I had gone to church in the First Christian Church in Florida and other places, but had no real strong convictions about the reliability or the correctness of the scriptures. When I saw — in my estimation, as I examined information, relating to the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and the Messiah, other events concerning historical happenings, it occurred to me that the scriptures were of far more credibility than I had previously supposed. So even though I decided to become a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, I had questions regarding the origins, questions — questions concerning the age of the earth. So over the next few years, as I was a Seventh Day Adventist, I was unable to find any material that would satisfactorily answer my questions with regard to scientific evidence that would support, in my viewpoint, the information contained in the Book of Genesis. Having come to that position, I decided that the only way which I could rationally live with myself

50

would be to undertake a research project and attempt to determine, if possible, whether what I had tentatively — or had accepted was indeed based on reality or evidence or, indeed, whether it was fiction. So in a roundabout way, my answer to your question is that my inquiries into the Biblical record, first of all, from the standpoint of prophecies being fulfilled, led me to believe that the scriptures were of sufficient credibility to investigate more further to see if the record of Creation also did not have evidence which would support it, of which I was at that time and had been completely unaware.

Q. Doctor, just to clear something up, near the beginning of your last answer, you said, my note says, this research. Did you mean, by that, your research on radio halos?

A. I began looking into the subject of radio halos approximately 19 years ago. Before that time, I was reading books, but had nothing definite in mind as to how to pursue the questions that would relate to the very fundamental issues at stake, and that is, as far as I can tell, the conventional viewpoint which I had learned, accepted, been educated in in college was one concerning basically one singularity followed by a long period of uniformitarian development.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Robert V. Gentry - Page 2

51

Contrasted with that, my understanding was a Judeo- Christian ethic, which involved two singularities, but far more recent. So the question at hand, as far as I can tell, primarily, was one of whether the premises of uniformitarianism geology — radioactively speaking, whether these premises were substantiated or whether, indeed I could find evidence that would support or confirm those premises.

52

Q. Dr. Gentry, do you have an understanding of the phrase Creation Scientists?

A. This Act that the Arkansas legislature has passed — let's see, is there a copy of it here to look, at — in Section 4-A, it defines Creation Science, and from my standpoint, I think this would be an agreeable definition of Creation Science in that Section 4 here.

Q. What do you understand to be the meaning of Creation Scientists?

A. I think this is a question which each individual who believes in creation has to decide for himself, on the basis of his understanding of the creation epic.

My understanding of Creation Science, is generally in accord with Section 4, the Arkansas legislative Act 590. Therefore, in that context, I could be considered a Creation Scientist, in some sense of the word. There are other individuals in my estimation, who also consider themselves as believers in creation, that would not necessarily subscribe to the Section "A" there, but yet, they; would still say that they were Creation Scientists.

So I don't think I have a broad general definition of anyone who is a Creation Scientist. Its

53

something that I can understand myself on the basis of what is defined here as Creation Science. I understand what is being stated to the limit of my ability. Right now, I would agree: with those statements, general terms, until such time comes as we have falsification of those general statements or general principles or what I have actually asked for in my letters and my articles, until, such time as a falsification evidence comes in, then I will remain a Creation Scientist, in the sense, I would, Section A. — Section 4, Part A. as being a part of Creation Science. But I wouldn't want to put myself on record as trying to define any Creation Scientists for all individuals in the world. That is something that is beyond, in my estimation, the limits of my knowledge and my understanding, what these other colleagues understand and mean.

In other words, again I refer back to the statement. I made earlier, I really am speaking for myself, and I prefer to let other people speak for themselves in the context of their understanding of Creation Science.

Q. Doctor, then is it fair to summarize part of what you just said, that you consider yourself to be a Creation Scientist in the sense that you believe in this definition of Creation Science given in Section 4A

54

of the Act 590?

A. At the present time, I consider that the statements made in Section 4, Part A, are defensible aspects of Creation Science. I'm still in a search for truth in my laboratory work, and indeed, if there were ever a cause of evidence, demonstrable evidence, falsifiable evidence, that would falsify any of these positions, then I'm interested in finding that.

So it's an ongoing situation, as far as my being a Creation Scientist is concerned, and remaining a part of the general overview of Creation Science here given in Section 4. This is why I have openly asked the scientific community to try to help me out. Indeed as unusual as it seems, in some respects, I refer to my comment, I submitted this letter to the members of the scientific community, not as an antagonist reporting to have the final word in a dispute, but as a colleague who generally seeks a vigorous critical response to the evidence discussed herein. I'm trying to put it out into the widest possible evidence so that if I'm wrong and a lot of people, of course, think I'm wrong, then everyone, including myself, would have the opportunity, I want to make an about face if I'm wrong. So this is why I'm asking — so I'm a Creation Scientist today, I would generally agree with

55

the definition in Section 4 here until such evidence comes along that would indicate otherwise, falsifiable evidence, demonstrable evidence.

Q. Doctor, would you say that you have always been a Creation Scientist in the sense that you accept the definition given here.

A. Okay. Now, your statement that I have always been a Creation Scientist in the sense, remember and I think your question implies that you remember, that there was a time certainly when I was an evolutionist which I indicated to your earlier, but I understand from your question that you are referring to that period of time after I began looking into the evidences for creation and accepted the general overview of the Genesis profile of the Earth's history, which is what you are referring to.

In other words, there was a time in my life which I wasn't a Creationist at all, didn't do anything in regard to Creation Science at all.

Q. To be clear, if we look at it chronologically would you say that you would have been an evolutionist rather than a creationist?

A. Well, probably thinking back on it, near the end of the time I was getting my B.S., or perhaps a little bit earlier, about 1955, maybe 1954, too, you

56

know, until the time that I became a Seventh Day Adventist, mid 1979, certainly during that time I was — I can remember discussing evolution on the positive side with other individuals. So let's say in general terms, 1954, '55, through mid 1959, being an evolutionist.

Q. Doctor, what was the occasion for your ceasing to hold the belief in evolution?

A. The occasion relates to the information which I have given earlier, the study of the prophecies, some of which I have referred to in the book of Daniel. and the others relating to the life of the Messiah, the events of the Messiah, led me to believe, that the entire Bible, not just parts of it, might have far more credibility than I had at that time afforded it. And so following that line of reasoning, I began again. to restudy the earlier portions of the Bible and asking myself how well I really knew the evidence that contradicted, for example, the Genesis account. That's one of the questions I began to ask myself at that time. There was no one day, one way — the next day believing in all of Section 4. What has happened is, there has been a gradual shift, so to speak, in my thinking over the period of time relating primarily to the way in which I have reexamined the scriptures on

57

one hand and reexamined the scientific evidence on the other hand.

Q. Doctor, what began or occasioned your first doubts about evolution?

A. The occasion primarily relating to my contact with Seventh Day Adventist, in that I had my mind refocused on the Ten Commandments, and it was this refocusing on the Ten Commandments that led me to see this Fourth Commandment which I had not seen, which I'm sure was there and I'm sure I had read in my many years of going to church, but the statement to the effect, "For in six days the Lord made heaven. and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested on the seventh."

When I realized that was in the context of what I considered to be a moral issue, was the point at which I sort of began to seriously think that I needed to reconsider the entire issue of Genesis itself and entire reliability connected with Genesis because I had the general view at that time that the earlier books of the Bible were maybe symbolic, maybe poetical. I wasn't really sure how factual that they were. And so I never, for a number of years, had taken the Genesis account very seriously. But it was the emphasis on the Fourth Commandment, the moral issue, that caused me

58

primarily to go back and again to reexamine the evidence.

Q. Doctor, could you remind me which commandment is the Fourth?

A. Which one?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. It is the one relating to the Sabbath, remember the Sabbath to keep it holy for heaven, and earth, the seventh day in the Fourth Commandment being referenced to as a memorial of the initial six days of creation. That's where the reference occurs. Maybe I can help you — let me ask you if you are trying to get around to asking me or thinking about asking me or wanting to ask was there a period of time in which I was what normally — what some people would normally call a Creationist, or words to that effect, but did not agree to all the items here in Section 4, Part A; is this something that you are interested in knowing?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. All right. And the answer to that question for many years, after I became a Seventh Day Adventist, and in theory, at least, accepting Genesis, I was of the opinion that the earth itself was still perhaps quite old and that perhaps life had simply been created on Earth relatively recently, but that the

59

Earth itself may have been very, very old and that, I think, for awhile I accepted the general view that indeed the overall inorganic development of granted either may very well have happened according to the normal — let's put it this way. My views would have in part paralleled very closely the cosmological views that were associated with parts of the Big Bang and the subsequent development of the Earth to the present time. It was not until later after I began this research that the idea of the granites, the Precambrian granites of this world, not being rocks, that's solely (that slowly?) cooled down, but rocks that were created came to my thinking so clearly, a difference occurred, a large difference occurred during the progress of my research, and a direct result of my research that considerably changed my thinking with respect to the time of origin and the actual mode of origin, of what I would call the basement rocks, the Precambrian granites. Whereas previously I considered from an early Creationist viewpoint, so to speak, that the Precambrian granites were possibly the result of — I don't remember all my thoughts — but quite possibly the result of the slow cooling, as people normally viewed them. Later on my view has been with the evidence in hand, these rocks, as far as I can tell,

60

I have hypothesized to be the result of Creation, and I have suggested that the following method can be used to help us to separate which of the views is really correct.

The normal uniformitarian viewpoint is that the Precambrian granites have through uniformitarian principles, as we know, we have crystals that can be synthesized in the laboratory, so if, indeed, the Precambrian granites are rocks that were formed through conventional physical laws, then I have suggested that one way that the present scenario, the evolutionary scenario could be validated, confirmed, is for a hen-size specimen of a piece of granite to be actually synthesized in the laboratory.

And I have further stated, again, in the articles that I have published here in EOS, that the polonium halos in these granites constitute evidence of primordial radioactivity and are, therefore, suggestive of a very, very rapid crystallization of these granites. so from that standpoint, my two theories or hypotheses are open to falsification in the laboratory; Number one, the synthesis of a piece of granite would falsify a view that the granites are primordial rocks, created rocks, I will accept that as

61

a falsification in my thesis; and, number two, the production of a single polonium halo, in a synthesized piece of granite, I will accept as evidence as falsification for my hypothesis that the polonium halos in the Precambrian granites constitute Precambrian written activity.

So on those two issues, I have tried to present to this scientific community and an opportunity for scientists who are interested in these questions of origins, to present the evidence so that if I'm wrong, then everyone can know, including myself.

Q. Doctor, then is it correct that your doubts about evolution and a gradual change in your thinking to acceptance of a Creationist view and the refinement of that — of the details, of that opinion come after your acquaintance with the Seventh Day Adventist's belief?

A. That is correct.

Q. Dr. Gentry, how did you come to first hear about the lawsuit that we're involved in here?

A. The lawsuit — I called the ACLU Office in Little Rock and asked whether or not the ACLU was going to intervene, and told me you were. I had some information, I'm sure, from some other source, but my first firm information was from the ACLU in Little Rock

62

Q. Do you recall, approximately when that was?

A. No, I don't. But it was apparently only a few days before the ACLU brought the lawsuit. I don't remember. I'll have to check my records. I may or may not have it in my records.

Q. Sir, who first asked you to testify in this action?

A. David Williams.

Q. Do you recall when that was?

A. I'll see if I have a record of that.

(Pause.)

As close as I can tell, from my records, it was October 27th.

Q. Was the contact that you had at that time with Mr. Williams the first contact that you had had with any representative of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office?

A. Yes; to my knowledge, yes.

Q. Was that a letter or a telephone call?

A. It was a telephone call.

Q. Did Mr. Williams telephone you?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Do you know how Mr. Williams happened to have your name?

63

A. That morning, a David McQueen, who is here today called me relative to participating in a symposium next June in Baltimore. I told him at that time that I was unsure of my schedule and was watching the events in Little Rock, whereupon he told me that he had been invited to be a witness at the trial, and implied in his statements to me, or he inferred, he had inferred or had thought that I was going to be a witness in the case. And I assured him that at that time I had not been contacted.

And so he said he was going to call David Williams that day about same matter relating to the trial, and he was going to mention my name to David Williams. And he did, apparently, because David Williams called me that very same day, and indicated that David McQueen had given him my name.

Q. Had you ever discussed the possibility of your testifying in this action with anyone else, not from the Attorney General's Office, prior to the contact that you had with Mr. Williams?

A. Yes, I had.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Somewhere around mid-August, I believe. There may have been an earlier time, but to my recollection, it was mid-August before I spoke with — I, would

64

I have to check my records. It could have been as early — as early August. I'm not sure. But I know by mid- August, I was definitely in contact with someone about the trial. It could have bean earlier, but I'm sure it was at least by mid-August.

Q. And with whom were you in contact?

A. I met Wendell Bird at a convention, at which I spoke here in Atlanta in mid-August.

Q. And I take it then that you would discuss the possibility of your testifying with Mr. Bird?

A. I discussed with him the possibility of testifying in this forthcoming case, yes.

Q. Do you recall the substance of your discussion?

A. The substance of the discussion was primarily that of my research. As I indicated, I had given a talk at this particular convention, and he was interested in discussing with me further the issues that I had spoken about, definitely information concerning the research that we are talking about here today.

Q. Doctor, when did you first see a copy of Act 590, the Statute that is at issue?

A. I will have to say simply I do not know. It was sometime this summer, but that is not the kind

65

of information that I sit down and write down in my notebook.

Q. Do you recall how you came to have a copy of the Act?

A. To be truthful with you, I don't. I may have gotten it from Wendell Bird, but I do not know. I really don't know.

Q. Have you ever had any discussion with Mr. John Whitehead about this case or the Statute?

A. I have had communication with John Whitehead — yes. It was, I think, John Whitehead who indicated to me earlier in the year that he thought if something developed in Arkansas, he would be interested in talking with me. But this was a situation where if something developed and, if something, else might happen, this is before there was any decisive or any act on the part of the ACLU to go into and challenge the case.

Q. Do you recall if this contact with Mr. Whitehead was before the Arkansas Statute was passed?

A. Now, that I don't know.

Q. Had you ever had any communication with Mr. Bird or Mr. Whitehead prior to the first instances that you just mentioned?

A. Yes. John Whitehead contacted me several years ago, I don't remember exactly how many, relative

66

to the case in California that was litigated this last March, and as I said his contact with me was what, two or three years ago. I don't know. I'd have to look in my records to find out.

He contacted me at that time about the possibility of testifying if he were involved in the case. I sent him reprints, and then the contact was generally broken off for a long period of time. I've had no — I never got involved in the situation in California.

Q. Have you ever had a criminal arrest or conviction?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Have you aver discussed with a representative of the Attorney General's Office the specific subjects about which you are expected to testify at trial?

A. I have discussed with David Williams and Rick Campbell last night the essence of my research, as we are discussing this afternoon, and the implications which I have published openly, and have told them what I can say to them and whether this information would be useful or valuable, from their standpoint. It was, of course, their judgment to decide whether it would be useful or not.

Q. Have you discussed the possibility of

67

testifying as to any subject areas, other than your radio halo subject?

A. No. I definitely do not attempt to go outside the area in which I've actually done research and published. I have a very strong feeling that if we are going to search for a truth, we need to do it in a way so that intelligent and honest people have an opportunity to evaluate the evidence on a rational basis. So that my view is that people need to be very, very careful in the area of Creation Science when they make statements. Sometimes in my estimation their statements cannot be substantiated, cannot be backed up in the way that I attempt to do my work. But, of course, they are free, of course, to follow their own inclinations as they see fit. This is a free country.

Q. Doctor, looking at the Act 590, particularly Section 4, the definitions, I believe you had stated earlier that you would presently agree with the six instances of evidence for Creation Science that are listed in Subsection A?

A. Yes, I agree with them, remembering that my area of expertise does not extend to everything listed here, from a scientific standpoint. My area of

68

expertise is not involved with genetics or biology, so I would not want you to construe my agreement with the statements to be from the standpoint of having scientific expertise in those areas.

Q. Doctor, would, you tell me what you regard as the scientific evidences for point number six, that is, quote, a relatively recent inception of the Earth and living kinds, close quote?

A. The strongest evidence that I have for, for example, a recent inception of the Earth, I refer to this article in EOS, which I have read before, the one labeled in EOS, Volume 60, May 29, 1979, in which I have at that point indicated that the development of these uranium halos in coalified wood, as far as I could tell, comply a minimal stage of development. If the uniformitarian viewpoints that the formations which contain the halos in coalified wood is correct, then I would expect to see, as far as I could tell, the fully developed, uranium halos in coalified wood. And if the uniformitarian viewpoint of a constant biotite were correct, I would expect to see the uranium 238 to lead 206 ratios to be much less than those which we find in the material itself.

I wish to state, though, that the models that we are talking about here, the basic models we are

69

talking about, on the one hand involves for the evolutionary viewpoint, one singularity, followed by uniformity to the present time, that one singularity being the Big Bang, followed by uniformed action through the laws to the present.

The model which I propose again which I have indicated, here in this issue of EOS is a two singularity model, and I have tried to in this paper, and other places, distinguish the following: That whenever one has or hypothesizes a singularity, it is at this time in my estimation that the conventional laws which you observed from day-to-day, do not necessarily or cannot necessarily account for the phenomena at that juncture. So when we are talking about age, we can't have it both ways, so to speak. In every instance, when We talk about age, we must have to be reliable, a rate mechanism which somehow or another is assumed to run at a constant rate. In order to have complete assurance of any ages derived from any rate mechanism, one must have proof, so to speak, that the constant rate mechanism has been constant over the time period involved.

Now, I do not consider that I have proof of a constant decay rate from now back to the last singularity and the model which I hypothesize anymore

70

than I consider there is proof of a constant decay rate back to the inception of the first singularity in the other model. What I'm saying is that if one accepts without proof the viewpoint, that things have been going on relatively speaking at this rate since the last singularity, then you arrive at thus and so for the age of these chromations there in the Colorado plateau.

But we want to, at least in my mind, I want to be careful to distinguish between fact and assumption in this particular case. What I'm saying is that we are testing or attempting to test two scientific hypotheses, one being the one similarity from the initial point of the Big Bang to the present; the other, the dual singularity approach. What I have attempted to do in my scientific endeavors is to find out whether there is evidence of this second singularity. And I think, indeed, the halo in the coalified rate, the 206 ratios, or that sort of evidence.

In other words, we are looking at a crossover point between the two hypotheses. We look at the two models, and we ask, what does this model predict, and what does the other model predict, if one accepts the basic assumptions involved, not that we have proof of necessarily the assumptions on either side

71

And the halos in the coalified wood, as far as I can tell, are evidence of the existence of the second singularity, in the sense that if one were to take the halos that are there, the polonium halos in one hand, and the uranium halos in the other hand, this is the kind of scientific data that in my estimation one should be able to, so to speak, expect to find on the basis of the flood model and illustrate. My understanding of what we have seen in the Colorado Plateau, as far as the coalified wood is concerned, is that we have uranium solutions which have impregnated the wood while it was still in a somewhat gell-like condition. Uranium, and his daughters are permeating the coalified wood. Uranium is being separated in part from its daughters. Uranium, the rarest collecting in some cites, the polonium collecting with lead in other science.

Now, according to the usual conventional approach, we have, I believe, the Jurassic formations both of which have the deformed elliptical polonium to ten halos in the coalified wood. I suggest this is evidence that the uranium solutions invaded wood which was in the same state of condition in both formations at relatively the same time.

The tectonic event which then compressed

72

the wood and then compressed the halos, again, is something someone would expect to occur on the basis of infiltration of uranium bearing solutions at a specific time.

So I'm saying this information is the kind of information that fits into the dual singularity approach. If I attempt to place this information into the single singularity approach, I have not been able to do it. I have requested openly members of the scientific community to come forward with ways in which this can be done, and I am still looking for that kind of information.

Q. Doctor, is there any other scientific work which you would point to as evidencing a recent inception?

A. There is some work I am presently involved in that I am not at liberty to disclose at this appropriate time because it is in the review process, and I cannot divulge that information at this time because of that.

I will say, considering the topic of age, that the general view, again, going back to the polonium halos in the granites, now, the general view is that those granites, Precambrian granites formed slowly over long-periods of time. Indeed, as I had suggested, those halos are primordial, are suggestive of the

73

granites being primordial, then to me, this suggests that the granites, irrespective of the isotope ratios which exist between uranium 238 and lead 206, and Thorium 231 and lead 208, irrespective of the individual ratios which exist there, that the ratios themselves between the various parent and daughter isotope relations do not reflect a lapsed time. They in my opinion, do reflect the fact that the atoms have decayed from uranium and Thorium to lead, but I find in my estimation no evidence for the constancy of the decay rate.

As far as the initial episode, in which those halos I find no evidence of the decay rate at the time that the halos themselves, were in the process of formulation.

Q. Doctor, recalling your attention to Act 590, in Section B, Subsection B of Section 4, there are several points which the Act includes, as within a definition of evolution science or the evidences for evolution science. And number six in that subsection is, quote, an inception several billion years ago of the Earth and somewhat later of life, close quote. Are you aware of any scientific evidence which supports that view?

A. If one accepts the hypothesis or the premise

74

that the radioactivity decay rate has been uniformed, then one can interpret the isotope ratios of uranium 238 to lead 206 and thorium 232 to lead 208 as implying a several billion year age of the Earth, if that premise is accepted.

I find in my own thinking a question arising as to how one would validate a basic premise. And my position is that one cannot accept the interpretation of isotope ratios over that period of time as indicating a several billion year age of the Earth until the basic premise itself has been validated.

Q. Sir, in that answer, when you say the basic premise itself, do you mean —

A. The constancy of the decay rate.

Q. Okay.

A. You see, what I'm saying is, indeed, if there is a creation event, single singularity, we have events going on during that period of time, specifically creation week, in which my understanding of Creation implies bringing into existence material which previously had no existence, rocks which had prior — no prior existence, radioactivity which had no prior existence, and I'm in many respects ignorant of how the creator ordained the rock systems.

In my own mind, for example, I think of the

75

existence of the uranium halos and the thorium halos which many people interpret as evidences of very great periods, of the Earth's history. I simply try to point out that radioactivity is primarily a statistical process, and that whereas today in the Earth, there is a great amount of radioactivity on the surface and within, the crust of the Earth, generally speaking, we all live on the assumption that it will continue to decay relatively the same way it is decaying right now.

In my estimation, there is no physical law that would prohibit a significant fraction of the uranium atoms or thorium, atoms from decaying within this next week or two. We would say it is a statistically extremely improbable event that might happen. But as far as I can tell, it would violate no physical law. Likewise, then the events that occurred during Creation Week being under, in my estimation, the supervision of the creator himself, may have been such that the development of the uranium halos and the thorium halos may have taken place in a matter quite different than we would expect today from the standpoint of uniform radioactive decay, but that this would have not contradicted any of the physical laws, as far as I can tell, that we know of.

76

Likewise, during what I consider to be the second singularity, in my estimation, again, there is a possibility that the radioactive decay rate may not have been uniformed, according to our present understanding, during that very unusual period. In my estimation, it is only after these singularities are completed that one can, with some degree of hesitancy, begin to accept the conventional view that the radioactive decay rates and other physical processes phenomena have continued in the manner we observe them at the present time.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of any efforts which have been made by scientists to determine whether or not the radioactive decay rates are constant?

A. I work with radioactivity in the laboratory It's part of my research to work with radioactivity on a day-by-day basis.

In my experiments at the present time, I have confidence in the way in which the radioactive decay is envisioned and interpreted at the present time. The question is whether that extrapolation can be extended to the indefinite past and the conclusions drawn from that extrapolation be considered as factual information when, indeed, the very basic premise that we are using as a time mechanism is under question from

77

the standpoint of the polonium halos that I found in the granites themselves.

For example, in the paper which I have left a copy with you here, an individual who is clearly not a Creationist, the world renown nuclear physicist, Professor Norman Feather, University of Edinburgh, evaluated the polonium halos in granites after he read some of my papers, read the paper of Henderson: Ever since the discovery of polonium halos in old mica, Henderson and Sparks, 1939, the problem of their origin, has remained essentially unsolved. Two suggestions have been made, Henderson 1939; Gentry, 1973, but neither carries immediate conviction. These suggestions are examined critically and in detail and the difficulties of attaching to the acceptance of either are identified. Because these two suggestions — and I'll stop there for a moment.

The original suggestion of Henderson was that polonium halos derived from polonium atoms derived from uranium solutions. My suggestion later on in '73 was making every attempt to try to explain these polonium granites on a basis of a conventional viewpoint. I suggested they were large polonium or bismuth or lead that maybe had been incorporated into the granites on the conventional time frames, conventional

78

viewpoint, and those could have formed the polonium halos.

We did microexperiments, and we did, Professor Feather investigated the phenomena, and I will continue to read now, "Because these two suggestions appear to exhaust the logical possibilities of explanation, it is tempting to admit that one of them must be basically correct, but whoever would make this admission must be fortified by credulity of a high order."

In other words, indeed if there is evidence here of a radioactive phenomena, a very short half life that does not have any parent, then this, I say, calls into question the very basic premises of uniformity. And once they then begin to look at this phenomena, this is what I'm trying to get the scientific community to do as a friend, a colleague. Indeed, if there is something here, we need not to hide it, if there's proof for all of us to learn. If I'm wrong, I would like to know. If there is not evidence for Creation, then I don't want to propagate it at the Arkansas trial before my colleagues here today, or in the scientific community.

Another reference, this article, Mystery of the Radio Halos, my work hasn't been done in the

79

— people who are eminent in the field of science. have looked carefully at what I have done. I refer to a scientist that both of my colleagues know here today, Professor Edward Anders: "His conclusions are startling and shake the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry, yet he has been so meticulous in his experimental work and so restrained in his interpretations, that most people take his work seriously. I think most people believe, as I do, that some unspectacular explanation will eventually be found for the anomalous halos, and that orthodoxy will turn out to be right after all. Meanwhile, Gentry should be encouraged to keep rattling this skeleton in our closet for all it is worth."

You can read what Professor Damon said:

"Supposing that the results of Gentry are confirmed, what will it mean for theory? I do not think it will mean any radical changes in geology or cosmology. It is much more likely that the explanation will be some tricky point in nuclear physics or nuclear chemistry that the experts have overlooked. That is, of course, only my personal opinion, and I am accustomed to be proved wrong by events. — I just lost a ten dollar bet that Nixon would be in office till the end of 1974, I will be glad to lose this one too.

80

Then you can read the letter from Professor John Wheeler on the outstanding events in the world. I spent a whole evening with John Wheeler going over the evidence that I'm presenting to you this afternoon as evidence for a rapid synthesis or crystallization of the basic rocks.

Wheeler's letter is here in its entirety: "You ask for my opinion of Dr. Robert Gentry's work on pleochroic polonium halos. I spent a number of hours reviewing this fascinating work with him some weeks ago. I was impressed with the clarity of the evidence for anomalous halos, that is, cases where there are rings indicating the presence of some members of the normal radioactive decay chain, without the other members of the family tree, that normally are present, that normally do show up in rings of their own, and have to be there on present views of the radioactive decay chains involved. If the evidence is impressive, the explanation for it is far from clear. I would look in normal geologic process of transfer of materials by heating and cooling; in isomeric nuclear transitions; and in every other standard physical phenomenon before I would even venture, to consider cosmological explanations. Let alone radical cosmological explanations. To explore all the avenues that

81

need exploring would take months, not the few hours I was privileged to spend in Dr. Gentry's company. A few days ago, I reviewed his work all too briefly with Dr. G. Wasserburg of Cal Tech, who is an expert in the radioactive dating of rocks, whose opinion would be much more to the point than mine, especially if be will give it to you in writing."

Well, clearly Wheeler didn't have time that evening to spend months with me. So I have attempted to put it out to the entire scientific community as these eminent scientists have suggested, so that if we indeed, do not have sufficient evidence for a singularity, I want to know about it.

I didn't want to go to the trial to present something for Creation that really is not a valid scientific phenomenon that is unexplained, and in my estimation, at least, the scientific community has a real good shot. You see, I'm not bringing out something that is in the back page of some religious journal. I have honestly approached the scientific community with every known scientific format that I can in meetings, in publications because my whole view is, if there is truth in the creator, and he has left truths in the rocks, then we all need to know. If he hasn't, then I want to know, and I want my friends to know, as

82

well.

Q. Doctor, to return, to my question, which I'll restate the question, I guess, instead of reading it back through the record, are you aware, of any record which scientists have made to support the assumption that decay rates currently observed have been constant overtime?

A. I'm aware of experiments which I do and other people do on a daily basis, which today shows that by and large, within the limits of experimental uncertainty that the transformation rates of the various radioactive atoms are proceeding, at which we call a constant rate. Now, I'm not aware of any direct experimental evidence that would allow us to say that those transformation rates are capable of being extrapolated. indefinitely.

Q. Are you aware of any work which has been done by way of subjecting the decay rates as observed to extraordinary conditions as say, I don't know, temperature or pressure or the like in an effort to see whether such extraordinary environment alters the decay rates?

A. Yes, I'm aware of experiments like this that have been done.

Q. Can you tell me whether they reveal there

83

were any alterations or not?

A. Not as a result, to my knowledge, any significant change. There were small changes, but not very significant changes with respect to pressure, but none that I know of with respect to temperature.

Q. Did the insignificant changes that you've mentioned with respect to pressure have to do with all of the decay measurements or only one or more?

A. Only one, as far as I understand.

Q. Which one was that?

A. It's probably involving electromagnets, if I remember correctly.

Q. Are you aware of any increase in the rate of alpha decay or beta decay that have been identified. experimentally?

A. Not to my knowledge, experimentally.

Q. Doctor, recognizing the necessary difficulties in trying to identify things that happened before any observer was present, are you aware of any experiments which might be performed reflecting on the constancy of radioactive decay rates which have not been performed?

A. Well, that raises a basic question as to whether one can perform experiments that would validate the constancy of any rate mechanism when there was no

84

observer.

Q. Yes, sir. If I may repeat my question. I said, we must, of course, recognize the difficulties inherent in the fact that things which occurred or may have occurred prior to the presence of an observer cannot be or has been observed, recognizing that difficulty, are you aware of any experiment which can be performed which might bear on the question which have not been performed?

A. I do not agree that there are experiments that can be performed that would bear on the question and would validate the premises.

Q. Is it your view then that experiments trying to determine whether decay rates are altered by temperature or pressure, for instance, don't bear on the question of constancy?

A. They do not bear — in my estimation, they do not bear on the question of whether, indeed, the decay rates have always been constant because the assumption involved with the single model approach is that of uniformitarianism. One is basically taking that as an assumption without proof. And may I suggest that as I have stated two people who argue on the basis of uniformitarianism, I find very, very interesting, because as I pointed out — let me find my paper here — I find

85

it very interesting that the decay rate argued for a constant lambda is pursued to the length that it is when indeed there comes a point in time when my good colleagues, and I do not wish to in any way put them down with what I'm going to say, there comes a time when uniformity, as far as I can tell, is not the rule of the day.

And I refer to EOS, the publication I have here, in which Paul Damon is promoting conventional viewpoints, and I will read as follows: I agree with Damon that if Polonium halos in granites originated with primordial polonium, this would essentially cast in doubt the science of modern geochronology." Paul Damon, I think, has indicated that, and I agree with him. So if we have primordial halos, this cast in doubt the idea.

I would also agree that, "Polonium halos imply either that the earth is now solely lead 206, which is demonstrably wrong, or that the pristine earth was synthesized within several hours at most. Understandably, Damon considers both alternatives equally absurd and concludes that any new theory which accounts for primordial polonium halos must also reexplain virtually all the internally consistent data upon which modern physics, geology, and cosmology are

86

based. But with all due respect to Damon, he was not here when the earth was formed, thus his belief that rapid synthesis of the earth is incredible is not based on the kind of direct experimental evidence like that which shows that the earth is not just lead 206. Moreover, I must take strong exception to his unqualified inclusion of the laws of physics in the same category as geology and cosmology. This association gives the impression that any evidence which would apparently falsify cosmological and geological framework can immediately be recognized as an absurdity because it would also invalidate contemporary laws of physics. But this is not necessarily true because even though cosmology and geology both rely on data from contemporary physics, the ultimate reliability on these theories is hinged separately on the crucial unproven assumption that physical processes have remained unchanged with time.

In fact, when Damon argues that the concept of primordial polonium halos is incredible because it contradicts the uniform action of physical loss, it seems he is arguing against a concept, nonuniformity which is inherent in the very cosmology he defends. That is, does not the present cosmology assume that physical laws have operated uniformly only since the

87

Big Bang, whereas the Big Bang itself, if it occurred, is an example of a singularity that defies explanation on the basis of known physical laws? Let us then examine the other aide of the coin. If the word incredible is to be used to, describe the possibility that primordial polonium halos exist and that they are evidence of a rapid synthesis of the earth, ought we not be fair enough to weigh that incredibility with the one which at one time necessitated all the matter of the universe to be compacted within an ultrasmall volume in space?

The Big Bang goes back to a nonuniformity in decay rate. Both hypotheses go back to a nonuniformity, as far as the original inception of the models themselves are concerned.

Paul Damon has indicated, and I agree with him, that if 218 polonium halos and granite originate with this, would they essentially cast this date? I have asked the scientific community to falsify my position that polonium 218 halos are primordial. I have offered them an opportunity to do so on two bases. Damon agrees that if granites are primordial, this casts any doubt in science of modern geology. It seems like that people who are interested in validating the conventional viewpoint, they would take

88

advantage of the opportunity they have of falsifying my position, falsifying the evidence.

Q. Doctor, I must ask you, in view of the short time that we have remaining, to try to confine your responses somewhat more closely to my question, The question, I've asked is, whether or not you regard experiments which seek to identify physical forces might or might not alter decay rates, as relevant to this question of constancy or not?

A. I was of the impression that during my discussions just then, and I may not have made it clear I was of the impression that I was trying to make it clear that when we go back to the time in which you are talking about, a singularity, I do not regard appropriate experiments, involving possible ways of decay rate changes as indicators of how or when or if decay rates may have changed in the times passed. This I regard in the province of the model in which the one who is devising a model has promoted or fabricated the original assumptions.

Q. Do you regard these experiments as bearing on the question of whether there is any physical process short of singularity which could alter those decay rates?

A. In my estimation, they could bear on that

89

question.

Q. Do you — is it your opinion that there is any physical process short of a singularity which could alter uranium and thorium, other radioactive decay rates?

A. I have an open mind, but at the present time, I do not — I do not feel that

THE WITNESS: Would you state the question again?

(Whereupon, the court reporter read the record as requested.)

THE WITNESS: In my opinion, I have an open mind, but at the present time, no.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe); Sir, what is your opinion as to the probable cause of the second singularity in the model that you proposed?

A. The second singularity in the model that I've proposed is that, I have indicated here, the letter to EOS, is my understanding of the, "a later catastrophe which resulted in a solar system-wide disturbance that was manifested on earth primarily as a world wide flood with subsequent crustal adjustments. So a world wide flood is my understanding in part of the second singularity.

Q. Sir, what is your view as to what caused the

90

world wide flood?

A. In my estimation, and in my opinion, it is the direct intervention of the Creator.

Q. Dr. Gentry, do the co-authors of your paper on your work in coalified wood subscribe to your model of two singularities that you have —

A. Generally, no. There is one that does, generally, no.

Q. Doctor, are there other workers in your area, that is, your area that is broadly described, not just radio halos, who do regard the evidence of radiometric dating techniques as proof for a great age of the earth?

A. I want to make sure I understand the question.

THE WITNESS: Would you please read that back?

(Whereupon, the court reporter read the record as requested.)

MR. WOLFE: Let me restate the question.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe) Are there other scientists studying the age of the earth who do regard evidence of radiometric dating techniques as proof for evidence for a great age of the earth?

A. I have heard a number of papers and read a

91

number of papers where certainly the evidence, it is considered evidence for a great age. I would be hesitant to say that I know for sure that they have stated it as proof for a great age, but they may very well do that.

Q. I take it, it's fair to say that you do not regard that evidence as sufficient to counter the evidence that you have in your radiohalo work for a recent age?

A. Let me refer to you — that's true. Let me refer to this letter from, and unsolicited letter from a gentleman that I have never met, known, spoken to, a Ph.D. and apparently in some field, perhaps science, written to me the 20th of October, 1981: "Dear Professor Gentry: A few years ago I became interested in the current methods of dating the formation of the earth, and during my investigations I was most interested to read some of your excellent papers on pleochroic halos. The evidence indicating an almost instantaneous crystallization of the earth's surface rock was compelling in its rigor and integrity. I was similarly impressed by your findings which suggest the relatively recent formation of coal. My interest in the topic continues, and I have had the opportunity of discussing your findings

92

with others who are similarly interested in the general question of origins. Unfortunately, however, I no longer have available the reference facilities of a university library, and have not been able to keep abreast of publications over the past few years. I am therefore writing with two requests, and I should be most grateful if you could find the time to answer. One, have you become aware of any reasons to reconsider your conclusions in the papers I have alluded to? Could you further comment on the acceptance which your results now command, amongst those who might find your conclusions contrary to their working models of the formation of the earth?

Two, could you please send me any papers on this topic, or related thereto, that you have published since the report on radiohaloes on coalified wood, since 1976?

I recognize that these requests will make substantial demand on your time and I would apologize for this. However, your cooperation would be enormously valued, if you should be able to do so. I thank you in anticipation, Dr. F. G. Donaldson, Ph.D." Now, this is the gentleman who has done no more than read the papers that I put out in the open

93

literature. I have no idea whether the man is a Creationist or not. Be says he finds evidence of an almost instantaneous crystallization of the earth's surface rock and similar evidence with respect to recent formation of coal.

I do not wish to imply to you, nor do I wish, or will apply at the time, that I have an army of followers. There are perhaps a few people who have examined my work, as has Dr. Donaldson who perhaps felt the same way that he does, but I do not intend to go to the trial, if I am privileged to go there, implying the agreement of the scientific community. I am at variance with the individuals, my colleagues, who interpret the works, the ratios as indicators of great time. Clearly at variance, and this is why I'm asking for rebuttals from them so that I won't remain in the dark.

Q. Sir, then, is it fair to say that looking at radiometric dating techniques and results, and at your work in radio halos, that you regard the most persuasive interpretation as that the earth was — had a relatively recent inception, and that rocks, basement rocks, were probably instantly crystallized after creation or shortly thereafter; is that a fair description?

94

A. Yes; with the proviso that, again, I have asked the scientific community if at all possible to falsify —

Q. Yes, sir. I understand that. I'd like to deal now with just an interpretation of the present

A. Yes.

Q. — evidence. Then as to persons who still credit the notion of an inception of the earth several billion years ago, I take it they are looking at the same evidence, but drawing a different interpretation of both the radiometric work and your own —

A. I think I want to read again, Professor Anders letter. It says —

Q. Sir, I would be happy for you to read the letter, but do you regard what I just said as a fair description, of the conclusions of others, namely, they have looked at the radiometric dating work and your own work and their interpretation is that the radiometric dating work is more likely to be accurate, so they continue to accept that, the more likely explanation is an inception for the earth several billion years ago, does that seem like a fair description?

A. Yes. This is what Anders was stating, that

95

he was leaning towards that direction.

Q. Are you aware of any — oh, I'll confess I'm not certain what they call this — any principle or practice or theory in scientific inquiry that performs in weighing those two interpretations or aids in choosing between them?

A. Yes. This is what I've tried to describe in my reports on the halos and coalified wood. I tried to find an area where the normal evolutionary cosmological model will predict one thing, and where the dual singularity model will predict something else. And I try to look at that cross-over point and say, what does the data at this particular point tell me. This is information which I've already spoken of this afternoon. The halos and the coalified wood, as far as I can tell, fit the dual singularity model. Now, there may be people who can easily put it into the single singularity model. I don't see it in print yet. That doesn't mean it won't be there. But I'm trying to find those critical points where we have — there are not many points where we have the cross-over that can predict something we can go back and do today, and this is what I'm trying to do in my published work.

Q. Are there other experiments which indicate

96

great age or the geochronologic strategy and the Colorado plateau that you were looking at in your coalified wood studies?

THE WITNESS: Would you read that back?

(Whereupon, the court reporter read the record as requested.)

THE WITNESS: I won't pretend to be an expert on the Colorado plateau. Those samples were collected by, by and large, Dr. Irvin Brayger of the U.S. Geologic Survey. I'm not aware of any evidence in Brayger's published reports that would, to me, imply the necessity of the great age for the Colorado plateau. I would mention something else, except I don't have Brayger's report in front of me, which would be very apropos, being in danger of quoting it out of context, so I won't do it until I get it in front of me. There is something in one of his reports that suggests something to the opposite. But I don't have the report in front of me, so I won't quote it.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe) Doctor, I understood you to have said that your measurements of uranium 238 and

97

lead 206 ratios indicated to you a recent age for those geologic events; is that correct?

A. I think at the time that I said that, I made it very, very clear that that quote, recent age, was based on the unproved premise, and is in the same category as trying to extract age from any other model, that it is based on an unproven premises, which people need to understand is in itself the age cannot be taken any more factually, so to speak, that you can extrapolate the premise itself.

Q. I see. Are there other measurements of uranium-lead ratios or other radioactive techniques which contradict, let's say, the uranium-lead ratio's that you have taken?

A. Are you referring to the coalified wood?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I'm sure that in the literature there, there are many analyses, many reports, at which I'm unaware. There's also another aspect to the coalified wood situation in the plateau, Colorado plateau, and other places, and that is, as I have pointed out, one prediction of the dual singularity model is that there was separation of uranium from its daughters. And so as we look at material which is secondary sedimentary material, one would expect to find in places where you

98

had conditions, as far as separation, uranium daughters find evidence of uranium that's equal to equilibrium. On these coalified wood, we did find disequilibrium. This is in the context now of the framework, the frame work being that you have a singularity, and the singularity has disassociated the uranium from its daughters and so, therefore, if indeed the conventional ideal concerning decay rates processes on the earth are valid, since the singularity, and I say if they are valid since the singularity, then one would expect to find evidence of this equilibrium in these. Now, indeed, we found evidence of disequilibrium in the coalified wood.

Now, the other model would attribute that this equilibrium to chemical changes within the formation since the uranium itself has been incorporated into the rock.

Q. Doctor, can you explain to me your basis of, or the basis for, your view of the first singularity, the creation, which applies sort of normal time, that is, the six-day Creation week, to a singularity, which I would take by definition not to be a normal time phenomenon?

A. I think — I'm glad you asked the question. I think it's important to distinguish between the events

99

transpiring during the period of time and the mode which those events — the reason, the ultimate cause of the events, themselves.

As I have indicated to you earlier, one of the primary reasons why I began to rethink the entire issue of evolution versus Creation is because of the moral perspective of the Fourth Commandment. Now, in my estimation, in the Fourth Commandment, which it says, in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth and rested the seventh day, I find in that one sentence, the word they used in a consistent manner, as far as I can tell, so that I cannot separate the word "day" seventh day from the day and the six days of Creation. As far as I'm concerned, it is a consistent whole.

Then we simply proceed to, as far as I can tell, a record of what the Creator himself is telling us he did. He could have chosen, I suppose, any length of time that he wishes, but as far as I can tell, he has left a record that he did it in the time that he specified.

Q. Doctor, you read into the record a short while ago several letters discussing your work. I think the ones that I have reference to are those by 25

100

Professor Anders, Professor Dyson, and Professor Wheeler?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, and I think that each of them states that your work, that radio halos might require extraordinary changes in the way that the earth's history is viewed. And I think, that each goes on to say either that they personally believe that the explanation is proven to be some much more simply anomalous result, or at least, they would look first in all less radical explanations.

Does that seem a reasonable scientific view to you?

A. I would hope that they and others would continue all possible efforts to find a conventional view of the phenomenon that I have found. This is what I am hoping, that if at all possible can be done.

Q. I take it then that you do not agree with — do not disagree with looking there first?

A. From the papers that I have shown to you from Professor Feather and from the letters of Paul Damon himself and from Gary York's response, I think we have evidence that people have been looking and from Professor Feather's response, "because these two suggestions appear to exhaust the logical possibilities

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Robert V. Gentry - Page 3

101

of explanation, it is tempting to admit that one of them must be basically correct, but whoever would make this admission must be fortified by credulity of a high order.

Here is one that has made a detailed study which is what Anders and Dyson and Wheeler were suggesting needed to be done That was written before Feather's evaluation. And Feather comes out and says, whoever would make this admission must be fortified by credulity of a high order. That doesn't say it can be done, and I'm still looking for ways that it can be done. But I'm simply saying that people have done what Wheeler and Dyson and Anders have suggested. And thus far, at least, with the open literature that we have in the world, and as much as I'm asking for it I'm still waiting for that kind of response that would indicate that we really can't have a conventional explanation.

Q. Do you then regard your two singularity model as established, and do you regard yourself as having proved it by your work?

A. I don't use the word `proof,' I hope in my work.

Q. Well, let me — the question has two parts Do you regard your view as established by your work,

102

and do you regard it as proven by your work?

A. I regard the evidence which I have found as suggesting and supporting a two-model approach, with a proviso that scientists continue to look very, very carefully, critically at my work, to see if there's any possibility that it can be explained on a conventional basis.

Q. Do you regard it as unreasonable to look at, Let's say, all the work that's been done on geochronological, your own radiometric techniques, and non-radiometric techniques as well, and still adhere to the one singularity model?

THE WITNESS: Would you please read that back.

(Whereupon, the court reporter read the record as requested.)

THE WITNESS: As far as people adhering to the one singularity model, this is something that fortunately we, here in America, have the freedom to do or not to do.

My view simply is, as a scientist, I have been presenting the information, to the scientific community long enough so that as this trial approaches, and I have been approached to testify as to what I have found, I think I'm

103

in a position to at least be able to present the other side of the story, as it is right now only one side, as far as I can tell, is generally permitted or generally viewed or printed in the textbooks, so to speak.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe), Sir, I'm not certain that I understand your answer, that is, do you regard it as unreasonable for another scientist to view all the evidence, to continue to accept the one singularity model, rather than your two singularity model?

A. Well, unreasonable involves a judgment with respect to an individual, and I never try to judge an individual. I say simply that having been given the opportunity to present the information, openly, as we have information here from this gentleman, Damon, after reading the data which I have published, he seems to think its reasonable for these implications to be drawn. Other people have read my material, as we see here with Wheeler and Dyson and Anders and others. They think yet will be found a conventional explanation I don't call these people unreasonable because they have these reservations.

We have two sets of data. I do not intend to judge other individuals as to whether they are reasonable or unreasonable on the basis of whether they

104

accept what I'm doing. I'm simply putting the information out and letting people evaluate the data for themselves.

Q. Yes, sir. I take it — I guess, what I'm asking about is whether your judgment, your professional scientific evidence is the evidence — is such the evidence on geochronology is now acceptance of the two singularity models, is a reasonable interpretation, but acceptance of the one singularity model is not?

A. I am of the opinion that both views need to be evaluated. I don't think that we need to close the door, shut down individuals from investigation and pursuing the possibility of the single singularity model, cutting off the phenomenon of what I said. I'll say, I'm advising scientists everywhere to find an explanation, and so I could hardly agree that it would be wise to close them down. I'm simply saying that both viewpoints, in my estimation, need to be evaluated and understood, and people could draw their own conclusions.

Q. Yes, sir. I'm sure that there's no expectation that inquiry in this area is going to be shut down, nor do I mean to imply that by a question. But what I'm trying to ask about is, recognizing, of course, that inquiry is going on, to go on

105

as goes on elsewhere, as we are sitting here in this room, looking at the present evidence, do you regard a scientist who looks at the geochronological evidence all of it, and believes that the single singularity model is more likely than your own two singularity model is making an unreasonable scientific judgment?

A. Again, I'm not going to be put in the position of calling a colleague unreasonable from a professional or scientific viewpoint. He has the right to look at the evidence, and make his own judgment, so I am not going to engage in this kind of name calling or labeling. I'm trying to reach with my colleagues information. They are colleagues. I don't consider people that I differ with as unreasonable.

Q. Well, sir, I don't want to incur anything that you regard as name calling or unprofessional behavior. On the other hand, I understand you to be offering testimony as an expert in the area, and I don't think that I've asked an improper question. There must be scientific views which you would say could not reasonably be held based on all the evidence for instance someone who says I've looked at the evidence and I believe the earth is flat; do you regard that as a reasonable scientific view, given all the evidence?

A. I would not agree with the conclusions

106

based on the evidence now at hand.

Q. Will you regard someone who did agree or someone who did believe that given the present evidence the earth was flat, to have a reasonable scientific view or an unreasonable scientific view?

A. I would certainly say, in my opinion, his view is not consistent with my understanding of the evidence, clearly not consistent with my understanding of the evidence.

Q. Do I take it that you refuse to characterize that view as either reasonable or unreasonable from a scientific point of view?

A. I am hesitant to do so because by agreeing to something of that nature, one could easily could carry it one step further and imply possibly that I would characterize colleagues who differ with me on the interpretation of the evidence which I had found as being unreasonable, and this is what I do not want to do.

Q. Sir, my understanding of the position of an expert, scientific witness here, is that as to certain. things in the discipline, there may well be — a scientist might well, without insult to colleagues or other investigators, regard some views as unreasonable, given the scientific evidence. He might also regard certain

107

views are at variance with his own as none the less reasonable given all the evidence.

I'm trying to find out whether you are able to characterize someone who has looked at the geochronological evidence and accepts the one singularity model than two singularity model as having a reasonable view of the evidence or an unreasonable view of the evidence, or do you have no opinion at all about some one who holds a view, given all the evidence?

A. Well, I think we need to go back and have, and I need to make a statement to the effect that what you understand, and I want to say it kindly, what an expert witness is going to do is different than my understanding. I do not intend to characterize, as I said, my colleagues who differ with me on the interpretation of evidence as being unreasonable. Now, this may not be in agreement with your understanding of what my view is going to be as an expert witness, but this is still my view as an expert witness.

Q. All right, sir. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Is it true then that you regard the chronological evidence as so unsettled that someone who does not see it the way you do has much right to his interpretation of the evidence as you have to yours?

108

A. He has a right to his interpretation of the evidence, as I hope I have a right to publish this interpretation of the evidence, yes. Fortunately, we live in a free country.

Q. Okay. Do you also regard someone who looks at the geochronological evidence and draws the conclusion that the one singularity model is supported as having as valid a scientific base for his view as you have for yours?

(Pause.)

A. No. In my opinion, I have found evidence which falsifies the conventional viewpoint, until my evidence is shown to be demonstrably incorrect.

Q. Then you would say that someone who had looked at all the evidence, including yours, and reference the conclusion that the one singularity model is correct, while he has a right to the opinion, doesn't have as sound a base for it as your opinion; is that correct?

A. I think we have to be very careful. I have a basis for my views, based on 19 years of research. I have attempted to communicate to the scientific community some of that information. There's no way that I can humanly speak, expect other scientists, to have the comprehension or the in depth knowledge of the subject that I do, unless they have at least,

109

experience in several years of research. So I want to be hesitant about giving individuals the opportunity to draw conclusions different than mine on the basis of the fact that they simply on one hand perhaps are not as nearly acquainted with it as I am, so again, I refuse to go into this area of trying to picture my colleagues who differ with me and who will accept a single model approach or a single singularity approach. I want to stay away from branding or characterizing them in any way that would be detrimental to their professional standing.

I do not agree with the single model singularity approach. I think there is evidence which falsifies it. I have published openly the evidence and asked people to falsify my evidence, if possible. But again, I reiterate, I am openly calling my friends colleagues. I am not trying to approach the scientific community or anyone as an adversary or an antagonist.

Q. Well, sir, I'm not trying to urge you to do so. Let me try once more. I understood you to have said earlier that you did not hold the view that you had an army of followers.

A. That's correct.

Q. I take it that your testimony is that most

110

people in the area hold to the other view, the single singularity view?

A. This is my understanding.

Q. I'm trying to get a notion then of exactly how would you describe the relative matters of the two models, if you were not to do it based on the number of adherents. Do you think the quality of the evidence is such that while there are not so very many people that would adhere to you, have you, in addition to yourself, believe the quality of the evidence requires that choice?

A. Yes; in my opinion, yes.

Q. Do you have any view as to why most people have not drawn the conclusion that you have given your view of equality of the evidence?

THE WITNESS: Would you read that back?

(Whereupon, the court reporter read the record as requested.)

THE WITNESS: This is in essence a judgement question which I'm being asked to evaluate thought processes not accessible to me.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe) Yes, sir. I'll accept that definition.

Do you consider that possible?

A. I refuse to attempt to evaluate thought

111

processes that are inaccessible to me.

Q. And is your testimony that you have no evidence or no knowledge, as to why most investigators in the area adhere to the evolution science one singularity model in the face of evidence, that you yourself regard as superior from the two singularity Creation Science models?

A. I would simply say that, as we have discussed, a large number of scientists accept there is evidence, which they consider to be valid evidence for the single singularity model. It is their privilege to do so. I have published evidence for a dual singularity model. I have published evidence, which in my opinion, falsifies the single singularity model. I have asked for the scientific community if at all possible to falsify my evidence, and I can, I think, on the basis of the letters that we see here before us, and having read this afternoon, can believe that many scientists yet believe that eventually continued research will eventually solve the problems, so to speak, that I have found.

And so, it could very well be, as we have here, letters by Anders, Dyson, and Wheeler. They feel continued work is eventually going to solve the problem. My view is that the evidence is to the point where I do

112

not consider that continued research has a very good chance of solving the problem. So this is why I'm propagating the single — dual singularity approach, but at the same time, asking for people to keep on looking for evidence that would be contradicted. It's a matter of, in my estimation, many scientists, as Anders has said, you know, "I think most people believe as I do, that some unspectacular explanation will, eventually be found for the anomalous halos and that orthodoxy will turn out to right after all." I consider, yes, as Anders said, many people believe that. They consider somewhere along the line someone is going to come up with a different explanation.

Q. Sir, looking at that quote again, I think the actual quote is, I think most people believe —

A. What did I say?

Q. I thought you said that many —

A. I'm sorry.

Q. Is it your view that most people adhere to the view that Anders articulates there?

A. Most scientists that I have had acquaintance with, I think, would fall into the category that Anders has pictured. Now, whether this is true of the

113

general population would be another matter. You would have to take a statistical study. But I would agree in the context of the scientists that I have contacted, most would fall into that category.

(Pause.)

THE WITNESS: At this juncture, let me say, this afternoon, I have read several letters, some very rapidly because of the passage of time, and it is possible that I did have a word out of order or substituted words in the letters themselves, in which case, one needs to examine the original letters very, very carefully, in case I misread one of the letters or one of the words.

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe) Sir, do you think that and I confess now that I'm not certain exactly what to call the notion I have in mind, but I'll try to describe it — do you think that the law of parsimony or the idea of that as between two competing explanations, the simpler is to be preferred, all other things being equal, has any relevance to this choice between the one singularity and two singularity models?

A. I would have to give that more consideration before I would answer the question. I would have to

114

give it a lot of thought.

Q. Sir, do you mean by that, that you do not think it will be possible to answer on the record before we've had to adjourn to accommodate your travel plans?

A. You have to remember, you have put me under oath, and there are somethings that I want to consider before I answer, and that will just be one of them, yes.

Q. Sir, would you be willing to treat my last question, the one that you said you wouldn't have enough time to answer, as a written interrogatory, which you would be willing to answer, also, under oath, at sometime after you've received the transcript of your deposition, the answer to be submitted and made an exhibit and part of the record to the deposition?

A. Why don't you explain a little bit more — you indicated that you were not sure perhaps even on the phraseology or the terminology of what you were trying to get across. Why don't you try to help me understand a little bit about what you are trying to get across?

Q. All right, sir. I would be happy to. I'm a scientific layman, but I have a memory of undergraduate work in which it was suggested

115

to me that there's a law, I'm not sure if this is right or not, Occam's Razor, I'm thinking of, but the name sticks in my mind, but the idea is, all things being equal, the two or three, whatever is to be preferred, because it requires less disruption of other results, and the fact that it's the simpler of the two explanations, means it's less likely to have problems or defects in it exposed later, simply as a matter of logic, the simpler explanation, all other things being equal, is preferable, and I wondered whether you think that notion as I've articulated it, bears on the choice between the one and two singularity models that we have been talking about?

A. To give a full answer, I would probably have to think about it more, but I would say it probably has some bearing on it. I would think it has some bearing on it. I would have to give it some thought.

Q. Could you explain to me more fully what you think, what bearing it has on the choice?

A. Well, yes. The thing that immediately occurs to me is this letter from the individual in Ireland who writes to me and tells of the instantaneous crystallization of the earth's surface work was compelling in its vigor and integrity, that's what occurs. to me with respect to your comment about Occam's Razor,

116

that it is referred to, that there is evidence which comes to me unsolicited with the work that I'm doing and people are drawing these conclusions on the basis, not of my writings and religious journals, per se, but in the open scientific literature which has been read, but people who are antagonistic in my position, and they are coming just like this isolated, I'm sure, no general surgeon, no great army following. But there are individuals who see once the evidence is presented, things, like it says, the evidence indicating almost instantaneous crystallization of the earth's surface work was compelling in its vigor and integrity. Now, that's what occurs to me, so this is why I say it has a bearing.

Q. Are you aware of any scientist in the field who have suggested that the consistency of other geochronological evidences, the number of metric decay systems, and other observations made in related sciences is an argument against acceptance of your interpretation of the radio halos because your interpretation, the two singularity model, would have to explain so many inconsistent views, that it is preferable to choose the one singularity model, which is consistent across great areas of scientific knowledge, and has this anomalous result that you've identified?

117

A. Well, I don't agree with every word that you have spoken in the context of your statement, but I think I understand the implications. And I read now, York has said, Derek York has said and brought up the very point you are raising here: That there is — he feels an internal consistency in all the radioactive dating methods, and he feels this is very strong evidence for the validity of the current approach. I respond: "York seems to regard even the existence of polonium halos as only tentative. But notwithstanding the uncertainties, his article leans heavily toward the proposition that polonium halos do exist, at least in micas. York's thesis is that polonium halos are most probably, explainable within the accepted frame work because the interlocking nature of various radiometric dating techniques provide powerful evidence that conventional geochronology is correct. York faults me for ignoring this internal consistency. Contrary to his understanding, I do not ignore these data. But neither do I accept the idea that the presumed agreement between techniques is really coercive evidence, for the correctness of the uniformitarian assumption which undergirds the present model. There was no discussion of the uranium 238

and lead 206 ratios, Gentry, 1976, which raise significant

118

questions about the accepted geochronological scheme. While I can appreciate York's desire to emphasize internal consistency, it should be evident that irrespective of how much data has been or yet. can be fitted into the present model, the question of its ultimate reliability hinges on whether there exists any observations which falsify the theory. One can confirm or have observations in accord with a theory that does not believe the theory. The thing that you want to know or try to find is whether there are any observations which contradict the theory. And my position is simply that there is information, there is data, there is a phenomena which contradicts the general accepted uniformitarian approach with respect to the Precambrian granites. And, indeed, if that is true, and I published that to that effect, and it asked for contradictions, if that's true, then irrespective of how much data has been internally fitted together with various types of radioactive dating techniques, there is evidence which falsifies the entire framework. This is my viewpoint, and this is what I published.

Q. Sir, I take it in your last answer, you assume then that the polonium halos represent radioactivity, rather than, say, concentration of polonium from

119

hydrothermal solutions, as Henderson proposed, when he looked at them many years ago?

A. Your statement, I will answer your question but I will make a statement which is a little different than the question you have asked. I have to be very careful.

It's the polonium halos in the Precambrian granites that I consider to be evidence of extinct natural activity, and, therefore, primordial. I have found polonium halos in coalified wood, which I personally discovered and personally identified and suggested there was strong coercive evidence that the polonium 210 halo in coalified wood did result from the uranium daughter-activity, as Henderson has suggested. I could have let the subject rest. I could have said to the world, so to speak, I've got polonium activity, and never brought in coalified wood. I'm the only person in the world, the first person to know that there were polonium halos in coalified wood. If I wanted to announce to the scientific community and people who are in religious backgrounds, I could have dropped the whole subject there. I felt it was important to bring out the truth of what I found in coalified wood, and did everything I possibly could to verify they were polonium 210 halos, and show, indeed, it fitted exactly

120

with Henderson's model and accumulation of lead 210. And in Derek York's comment about geochronology, Derek York, as I pointed out in my letters, which you have, completely missed the point, or at least, did not bring out the point that there is a difference between the polonium halos in granites and coalified wood. He simply lumped them all together. And in my response here, I had to bring out there is a difference. There are three types of polonium halos in the granites, the 218 halos, the 214 halos, and the 210 halos.

MR. WOLFE: Let's take a short break.

(Whereupon, a short recess was held.)

121

Q. Excepting your correction to my statement, is it true that you were assuming that polonium halos and Precambrian granites derived from the model you proposed rather than the notion that Henderson propounded when he looked at them when you say that it is evidence for the two singularity models rather than the creation — rather than the evolution model?

A. The documents which I have given to you, I have proposed that the polonium 218 halos and — that was stated 218 halos, that is another rock which shows such halos which must be cromkal (sic) rocks and constitute ideal — it is my hypothetical which I have stated and Precambrian granites formed from polonium halos, therefore, the rocks which contain them are polonial (sic) rocks and that view can be falsified in my estimation, it a Precambrian granite, a piece of Precambrian granite, could be synthesized in the laboratory. That's one falsification. You would falsify my view of a memorial nature of my halos by also synthesizing a polonial (sic) halo inside the granite itself.

Q. Is it true that if one believed the discussion that Henderson had made about the possible origin of the polonium halos and Precambrian that there would be no necessity for falsification, of your two singularity models because his explanation is consistent with the one singularity model?

122

A. If you accept Henderson as viewpoint that they came from a source of uranium, they would not be polonial (sic).

Q. Is it fair to say that one could accept Henderson's view and one singularity model and, therefore, not find the polonial halo and. Precambrian as inconsistent with the evolutionary model?

A. Well, whether someone can do it and it's fair to do is, of course, a decision that they themselves have to make. All that I am pointing out here today is that these possibilities have been examined by individuals.

An individual who is not a Creationist — he has attempted to account for theoretical grounds the existence of a polonial (sic) halo and Precambrian granites according to Henderson's model. And he wasn't the first one to do that and has not been able to do it. I presumably have also in the material which you have before you published a paper in Science in 1968 in which I attempted to verify Henderson's hypothetical by the following technique: if indeed uranium is going through the mica, then all the daughter products of uranium generally have got to be there unless there's been disequilibrium. But, in particular, to form a polonium halo, one has got to have alpha radioactive because the precursor of polonium is

123

indeed Radon 222 which is an alpha emitter. So if you consider polonium halos and a given analogy as an army barracks in the midst of a giant desert covered with sand during the winter and a wheat field covered with snow, and you have an army of soldiers marching towards the barracks, the density of the footprints coming closer, and closer. I have examined pieces of mica attempting to find evidence of radioactivity in the vicinity of polonial halos. This is my first attempt. This was published in 1968. I was unable to find evidence of the increased amount of alpha radioactivity in the vicinity of the polonium radial centers there in pieces of mica contained in Precambrian granites.

MR. WOLFE: When do you have to leave?

THE WITNESS: I have plans for my daughter to go in a few minutes.

MR. WOLFE: Can you tell me exactly when we will stop so that I know whether I can ask one more question or two or none?

THE WITNESS: One more.

124

Q. (By Mr. Wolfe) Sir, the experimental evidence, would you regard as sufficient to cause you to indicate literal and scientific truths of the Genesis Account of Creation?

A. I suggested that my scientific findings relative to Genesis are based on my scientific work. I am pursuing a search for truth scientifically, expertly.

So, therefore, I am openly asking for evidence that would contribute what I consider to be evidence for the Fiat Creation, meaning very specifically, as I said several times this afternoon, if, indeed, the Precambrian granites are rocks that cool slowly under conventional laws, conventional framework, then you can negate, falsify hypothetical a granite Precambrian, being more synthesized specimen in the laboratory.

There are thousands of square miles of granite on the surface of the earth. No telling how many you could pick. All this supposedly happened over geological time slowly. This presumably would have taken a long time for all of it to cool and slowly form.

I am simply asking for one hand-sized specimen. And again the hypothetical is that the polonium halos formed through Henderson's hypothetical, that is a conventional viewpoint. People

125

have access to Radon. They have access to Radium 226 and Radon 222 in the laboratory. So it the halos in the granites did form via Henderson's hypothetical, then you should be able to reproduce them in the laboratory.

And so I am simply asking — I have species of mica which have thousands of polonial halos per cubic centimeter and pieces of mica Precambric (sic) granite.

I am taking an approach that if you can reproduce one of those in a piece of granite, that you can synthesize in a laboratory, I will accept that as a falsification of my viewpoint.

Q. Are you aware of anyone that has ever sought to synthesize either the granite or a halo?

A. Granite or a halo?

Q. Yes, to produce either the hand-sized piece of granite that you mention, or polonial.

A. I have acquired petrologists who are doing work with granitic magmas that are presumably granitic in nature. And I have talked with them as to whether indeed they have done it or know of anybody who have done it. And thus far, I haven't been able to find anyone.

Q. Are you aware of anyone who has tried?

A. Well, I did not ask them whether they tried to synthesize a hand-sized piece of granite.

126

I am asking them whether they were successful in synthesizing something that was a Precambric (sic) type of granite and their experiments that were of a microscopic size.

Again, whether they have or have not thus far doesn't nullify the possibility that I am still inviting them to do that. A door hasn't been closed. I am still inviting them to come forward with the evidence.

Q. Yes, sir; I understand that. But I have understood you to have said that you were not aware of anyone who has done so. But I don't understand whether you know of anyone who is making the effort. Is anyone attempting to experiment that you suggested or not, or do you know?

A. I don't know what people are doing all over the world. I don't know. There are many scientists and I hope they are. But they don't write and tell me, of course, what they are doing.

Q. But then you are not aware of any who are attempting?

A. Not to my personal knowledge. They are not writing me at the present time.

Q. All right, sir.

MR. WOLFE: I am very sorry that we have to stop because this has been

127

very interesting. And I thank you.

THE WITNESS: Well, it has been very informative and we are still looking for truth.

(Deposition concluded)

Deposition of Garth Russell Akridge

                                 No. LR-C-81-322

REV. BILL McLEAN, ET AL        #
                   Plaintiff,              #      IN THE UNITED STATES
                                            #
    VS.                                   #      DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
                                            #
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS,     #      DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
ET AL.                                   #
                    Defendants        #      WESTERN DIVISON
                                            #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

       ORAL DEPOSITION OF GARTH RUSSELL AKRIDGE, Ph.D.

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

APPEARANCES:

                                     MR. DAVID KLASFELD,
                                            Attorney-at-Law
                                            Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher,
                                            & Flom, New York 10022
                                            ## For the Plaintiffs.

                                     MR. CALLIS CHILDS,
                                            Attorney-at-Law
                                            Attorney General's Office,
                                            Justice Building, Little Rock,
                                            Arkansas 72201
                                            ## For the Defendants

2

ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF GARTH RUSSELL
AKRIDGE, Ph.D., a witness produced on behalf of the
Plaintiffs, taken in the above-styled case and
numbered case on the 25th day of November, 1981,
before Certified Court Reporters and Notaries Public,
in and for Fulton County, Georgia, at American Civil
Liberties Union, 52 Fairlie Street, Suite 355,
Atlanta, Georgia, at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to the
agreement thereinafter set forth.

GARTH RUSSELL AKRIDGE, Ph.D.
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. KLASFELD:

Q Doctor Akridge, how old is the earth?

A People have different dates according
to whose estimate.

Q How old do you think the earth to be?

A I believe the earth to be around -- just
to use a round figure -- 10,000 years old.

Q What about not to use a round figure?

A Well, that's about the closest I can
come. I think it's just -- I would like to stick
with that.

Q Ten thousand years old?

A Yes.

3

Q What is the basis for your belief the
earth is 10,000 years old?

A Well, different astronomical measure-
ments, mainly the thing called the blackbody back-
ground radioation.

Q Mainly, blackbody background --

A Blackbody -- one word -- radiation.

Q What else?

A The possibility that the sun is not --
could not be much older than that.

Q The sun cannot be more than 10,000
years old?

A That's right.

Q What else?

A The decreasing magnetic field of the
earth.

Q What other reason?

A Well, those are all I'd like to talk
about here, I think.

Q How old does the Bible say the earth is?

A To tell the truth, I've never figured
it up, connected dates together. I just don't know.

Q Have you ever had any discussions with
anybody about how old the bible says the earth is?

A Not that I remember, no. I haven't had
that discussion, no.

Q Have you ever heard of Bishop Usher?

4

A Oh, yes.

Q Have you ever heard of an opinion about
how old he thinks the earth is?

A I believe I did. I believe he's got a
date of Creation -- I think it's 4,004 B.C., isn't
that about right?

Q Yes.
Is he wrong?

A You'd have to ask him, I've never added
those up.

Q Added what up?

A The dates the Bible -- tried to arrive
at a Biblical date.

Q You've never had a discussion with
anyone about what the Bible suggests about how old
the earth is?

A Well, tell me what you mean by discussion
about how old the Bible says the earth is? An exact
date or what?

Q Have you ever talked to anybody about
how old they think the Bible says the earth is?

MR.CHILDS: I'm going to object.
This witness in not competent as he
himself has indicated to testify as to
how old other people say the Bible says
the earth is.

5

MR. KLASFELD: I've only asked
him if he's ever talked to anybody.
That's not an objection.

A (The Witness) I have discussed, generally
the Bible with people, but nothing specific.

Q What is it about blackbody ground radia-
tion that leads you to believe that the earth cannon
be more than 10,000 years old?

A Well, the galaxy's self-absorption would
heat up to about three degrees Kelvin in a matter of
a few thousand years, say, under a round number
there, 10,000 years.

Q Can you explain what that means and
what the implications of it are? It has no meaning
to me in terms of a proof why the earth is only
10,000 years old.

A Okay, space has what's called a radiation
temperature of about three degrees above absolute
zero and that means that it's glowing all around,
a very faint glow of about three degrees above
absolute zero. It's not a difficult calculation to
determine that this is about the amount of time that
it would take the galaxy's own self-absorption to
heat itself up from absolute zero to about three
degrees Kelvin. And that general range of age is
10,000 years.

6

Q What do you mean by self-absorption?

A Like you explain a flashlight through
a dusty room. That would eventually heat up the room
just because the dust particles would absorb the
light and radiate or collide with one another and heat
the room up.

Q Is the three-degree Kelvin temperature
rising?

A Nobody knows.

Q Well, if it's not changing, why does
that lead you to some conclusion that it had to take
10,000 years to get where it is?

A Well, you see, for instance, if it did
start out at zero and built up to three degrees in
10,000 years, then, the -- the first measurements
on this would have been in about 1965 and that's
fifteen years ago, approximately, and in that short
time you couldn't detect whether it was rising, going
to remain steady, or decreasing. The time that we
have measured this is too short to tell.

Q I don't know why you are drawing con-
clusions, any conclusion about the fact that it's
now three degrees Kelvin. I don't understand why
you draw any conclusion about 10,000 years old from
that.

A You mean you don't understand the cal-
culation process at all or -- it's rather intricate.

7

Q I guess I don't understand the fact
that three degrees Kelvin has anything to do with
the fact that the earth may not have been here
10,000 years ago.

A The earth may not have been here 10,000
years ago --

Q Why you're saying the reason why you
think the earth is 10,000 years old is because of
the fact that there's this three-degree Kelvin
space radiation temperature. And I don't understand
what one has to do with the other.

A Well, the galaxy emits a fairly well-known
amount of light and it's -- you can also arrive at
a general estimate of the fraction of the galaxy's
own light it absorbs before it gets out of the dust
of the galaxy and that way you can determine the rate
at which the galaxy's dust absorbs its own light
energy and determine the rate at which it's heating
up and how long it would take to heat three degrees;
a general figure, 10,000 years.

8

Q Could it be 20,000 years?

A Probably could. There's no way to
determine exactly. But you could come within general
figures. Like, for example, I've read at different
places in our region of the galaxy, will absorb 20%,
some say 30%, of our own light before it eventually
gets out of the galaxy. So different authors disa-
gree on absolute amounts.

Q Is there anybody who agrees with you
about that?

A Well, I've co-authored a paper with
two other physicists, and we discussed it and had
an agreement, at least us three.

Q Who are they?

A Dr. Slusher and Dr. Barnes at the
University of Texas.

Q What is Dr. Slusher's degree or his
doctorate?

A I think he has just an Awarded Doctorate.
I believe he has a Ph.D. or Doctor's degree.

Q What is his Master's in? Do you know?

A Well, his Master's was in Astronomy. And
I believe he told me that he did his work under
Harlow Shapley.

Q And Doctor Barnes?

A You know, I don't know about what Dr.
Barne's Ph.D. is in.

9

Q Does anyone else agree with you about
this?

A Well, I guess I'll find out soon. It's
to be published, but I haven't published it yet.

Q Were is it going to be published?

A In The Creation of Research Society Quarterly.

Q Is there any reason you chose that
publication to publish your article?

A Well, they have been receptive of other
articles I've written. It's a good trend to keep up,
I think.

Q What about Science Magazine, Nature
Magazine?

A Well, I didn't submit it to them, because
they commonly publish articles only dealing with long-
time spans for the age of the Universe and I just
didn't bother submitting it to them.

Q Have you ever submitted an article?
To Science Magazine?

A Not to Science, no.

Q What magazines have you submitted
articles to?

A Are we just talking about the articles
that deal with the Creation and Evolution?

Q Yes.

A Well, you have my publication list there.

10

This is just for submission s that are not on the
list. I've submitted to the Physical Review and to
the American Journal of Physics.

Q Of which articles are these?

A The article to the Physical Review was
an article which I attempted to relate general
relativity to Fermium Quantum Mechanics, and they
rejected it. Of course, that didn't have anything
to do with Creation.

Well, the other one was the article I
submitted to the American Journal of Physics, more
or less the same article that's there, the Faraday-
Disk Dynamo and Geomagnetism, and they rejected it
also.

Q Do you think they have a bias against
articles that suggest that the earth and the universe
are 10,000 years old?

A Well, you have to ask the editors. But
I know that John Riggen, who is the editor of Journal
of Physics, about three months ago wrote an editorial
in there in which he favored Evolution over Creation.
You will just have to ask them.

Q And in doing the calculation on the
background radiation, why do you start out and take
the belief that it started out at absolute zero and
has been increasing since then?

A Well, that's just the way to get the

11

longest possible age. If it started out higher than
zero and just rose from one to three, you would get
an even shorter age. That gives us the maximum age
you could have.

Q Why do you believe the sun can't be more
than 10,000 years old?

A Well, I can't recall saying it can't
be. I believe I said that it's a possibility that
it's not. The age of the sun depends upon what the
sun draws its energy from. If there is no fusion
occurring in the interior of the sun, then the sun
would not last too long on the time scale that we
are talking about. And would go out in, say, tens
of thousands to maybe a million years.

Q What evidence do you have that there's
no fusion going on inside?

A Well, I have not discovered any evi-
dence. but there is debatable evidence for the lack
solar neutrinos from the sun. Some recent measurements
have indicated that the sun is decreasing in size
and has been doing that for a hundred years. Those
are the two.

Q What scientific evidence do you have that
there's no fusion going on in the sun?

A Well, you see, if there was fusion at
the least temperature, which is believe by many, then
you would see those small elementary particles called

12

neutrinos coming out in abundance, that you can
barely measure. Measurements have yielded much less
than the amount of neutrinos you would expect. And
probably just background neutrinos, it's an indica-
tion that there's no fusion inside the sun.

Q How can you believe the sun does generate
the energy it creates?

A Well, you know, I don't know. I can
think of several possibilities. But as far as I
believe how it generates its energy, I don't know.
You would actually have to go into the interior of
the sun and find out.

Q That's the only way you could find out
how the sun generated?

A As far as I know.

Q Do yo have any theory of your own?

A Well, I can think of several possibili-
ties. That's something that excites me to think of,
these possibilities.

One theory that did not originate with
me is that the sun derives its energy from gravita-
tional contraction, and it contracts, it heats up,
shines, loses energy, it leaks a little bit, contracts,
heats up. So it's in the process of contracting and
radiating.

Q How fast does the sun contract?

A Well, the measurements of Edya Bernasium

13

indicate about a 10% per century. Measurement of
Erwin Sherpiro and others indicates it contracts
probably none at atall within a statistical era. So
it's really an unsettled question.

Q The article that you had rejected, do
you have the rejection letter?

A No, I don't. I wish I had saved it. I
looked for it and couldn't find it.

Q Do you remember the content of that
letter?

A Well, somewhat. It was the Faraday-Disc
Dynamo article to the American Journal of Physics and
was rejected for several reasons.

One was, like I said, a could of disk
dynamos could oscilate. Another reason that it was
rejected was that the magnetised rock in the earth's
crust indicated that the magnetic field did oscilate.
Another reason was that, in any event, the earth is
known to be much older than the age that I was sup-
porting. And those are the general reasons that it
was rejected.

Q How do you choose the term, 10,000 years,
from your radius of the sun?

A I don't, I don't.

Q Why did you list that formula when I
asked you for the evidence of the earth's being
10,000 years old?

14

A The 10,000 years would come from black -
body radiation. The sun, if it liberates energy by
gravitational contraction, alone could last much
longer than that. It could last several million
years.

Q Who in your field agrees with you that
the sun radiates energy by gravitational contraction
alone?

A Well, there's Dr. Ted Rybka, Slusher,
and Barnes.

Q Could you tell me how mcuh the sun would
have to constrict in order to produce the energy that
it's currently putting out?

A Well, it wouldn't constrict nearly that
much. It would only constrict a few feet, say in
the neighborhood of 70 to 80 feet per year if in
constricting in uniform.

Q Have we been absorbing this 70 or 80
feet contraction per year?

A That's too small to observe the size of
the sun. The size if irregularity is from the sun's
surface much greater than that anyway.

Q Are there other examples of stars that
give off heat by contraction?

A Well, we've not observed, as I recall,
any starts in the process of contracting. By that,
actually seeing them set up and give off heat, not

15

to my knowledge, no.

Q Have any other stars been observed giving
off energy by nuclear reaction?

A I don't know how you tell. We observed
them giving off energy, and that's about all I could
say.

Q What is there about the decreasing
magnetic field of the earth?

A All right. The earth's magnetic field
has been measured for, oh about a little over a hun-
dred years, seems it's about 150, about that time
span. And it's been found to decrease by a few per
cent in that time. So if this process is uniform,
that's an "if", if that process is anything like
uniform, then the magnetic field must have been much
stronger.

If you go back very far, in other words,
say 50,000 years to 100,000, a million years, then
that magnetic field becomes unthinkably large. In
other words, the earth would tear itself apart. It
would have a magnetic field greater than anything we
have ever measured anywhere.

Q In 10,000 years?

A No. It takes more than 10,000 years,
say 50,000, a 100,000.

Q What makes you believe that the process
is uniform?

16

A Well, just that -- let me back up. I don't
know that it is uniform.

Q Well, you are assuming the process is
uniform in order to come to this conclusion?

A Well, you see, you have to assume some-
thing or you can't get any results out atall for
this reason. Nobody's been to the center of the
earth. There could be a little guy down there with
a magnet waving it around for all we know. We don't
think there is.

You have to assume why the earth has a
magnetic field in the first place in order to make
anything useful out of the decrease. Most people
think it's molten metal circulated in the interior
of the core and generating a magnetic field. And
if that's the case, friction alone is going to slowly
use current down, and the magnetic field would de-
crease, that's true. If that's true, then in past
times, the current would have been greater in order
to slow the principal volume down, and the field
would have been stronger. But, you know, nobody's
been to the center of the earth.

Q Until somebody goes to the center of the
earth, we'll never know?

A Never know for sure.

/ / /

17

Q Is that a reasonable assumption of the
processes have been numerous? I think there is evi-
dence that the magnetic field has been reversed over
time.

A Yes, much evidence.

Q What is that evidence?

A The magnetic-reversed rocks.

Q What other evidence?

A Well, we observed other objects doing
this, for example, the sun, reversing its polarity,
although it is a gaseous body, not solid.

Q Any other evidence?

A I can't think of any.

Q How do you explain a magnetically-
reversed rock?

A Let me take a pill and let me think on
that. Why don't you get on to your next question.
I can give you the answer to that which is, I don't
know.

MR. CHILDS: Excuse me, please.
Does the record reflect where these
gentlemen are from?

MR. KLASFELD: Yes.

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) How do you explain the
fact that the sun reverses its polarity?

18

A Well, the polarity of the sun is believed
to be reversed because the circulating currents in
the sun are reversed. But it is another one of those
things that is a theory - nobody has ever there to
see.

Q What evidence is there that the magnetic
field didn't reverse?

A The decrease in the magnetic field
strength that has been occurring, if it continues in
either direction, it is very difficult.

If it continues in forward direction,
in around a thousand years or so you are going to
reach a condition where the earth has zero magnetic
field on the way to reversing its poles. That's bad
because once a magnet stops, it's center is gone. It
won't automatically re-energize itself. In the past,
it's been difficult to see how the magnetic could have
the earth circulating, the magnetic core, if that's
what, indeed, causes this effect. It is difficult to
see how it could have stopped in the past and begin
circulating in the opposite direction, so as to re-
verse the poles.

Once it stops, it stops unless an exter-
nal source of energy is applied.

Q Is there any scientific evidence that
the magnetic field didn't reverse?

A Not that I know of.

19

Q But even that would have taken fifty
to one hundred thousand years?

A Even what?

Q The evidence about the magnetic fields
of the earth, if they didn't reverse, would only lead
you to conclude that it couldn't have existed more
than fifty to one hundred thousand years?

A That's true.

Q So it's really only the blackbody back-
ground radiation that leads you to believe that it
is not more than 10,000 years old?

A For that figure, that's right.

Q Now, you have written an article,
"The Mature Creation: More Than A Possibility." In it,
you argue that it is entirely likely that light was
created from -- en route from all of the stars to the
earth; is that correct?

A I'm not sure if I would use likely or
not, but it is possible.

Q The article is called, "More Than A
Possibility" --

A Yes.

Q -- which is why I used the word "likely"
and not "possibly."

A Well, let's go ahead and use "likely" and
we will see how it turns out.

Q Does that mean thatthe heat was also

20

created at that time?

A Does the article talk about heat?

Q No.

A I don't recall it?

Q No, it didn't. But I am asking you in
light of your theory about blackbody radiation and
the heat.

A I see. No, I believe no.

Q The heat wasn't created?

A No, I believe not.

Q Why not?

A I don't know.

Q How could the light have been created
without the heat?

A The light -- we seem to get two things
mixed up. The light that is connected with three-
degree radiation could. We are talking about possi-
bilities. It could have been or it could not have
been. If it was created, then it would have heated
up now to a temperature greater than six degrees which
is not observed. So since the background temperature
is now around three degrees, you can't say what it
was in times past for sure.

If it was any greater than zero degrees
when it started, it would have heated up much past
three degrees by now.

Q I have a very limited knowledge of this

21

science, but my sort of understanding is that heat
is approximately equal to infrared light.

A That's about right.

Q Then how could your argument about the
mature creation not effect what you just said about
blackbody radiation?

A Well, the blackbody radiation is not
infrared. It is quite a different wave length called
micro wave length.

Q But all of these stars and all of this
light was created at once but that had no effect on
the amount of heat in the galaxy?

A Try to rephrase that one. I don't quite
understand.

Q Well, in your article on "Mature Creation"
you said that all of the stars were created with --
let me back up. In an effort, as I understand it,
to try and explain what you view as a paradox that
there are stars that seem to be billions of light-
years away, yet we are receiving the light of the
earth, but the earth is only 10,000 years old, that
can't be possible because the stars are billions of
light-years away. You argue that it is more than a
possibility, to use your language, that the light
was created at the same time, that the stars were
en route to the earth.

And I am asking if, in addition, you gave

22

me an example of the fact that if you shined a light
into a room, that it will eventually heat up the room
to some degree.

My question is: Doesn't the instant
creation of all of this light in the galaxy effect your
calculation about the blackbody radiation?

A No, the blackbody radiation would not have
been there but would have started when the light was
created, being absorbed by the depths.

(Thereupon, a short break was had.)
/ / /

23

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Dr. Akridge?

A Yes, sir.

Q Why do you exclude the background radiation
from being created originally when the light was
created?

A Well, if the background radiation was
created at that time, then, heat, I think -- however
many thousands of years it's heated. According to the
data I gave you, it wouldn't be double the temperature,
but hotter than it's observed to be.

Q I thought you testified it was changing
so slowly that we can't observe it.

A It is, but we haven't lived six to ten
thousand years. If we could live another ten thousand
years, we might observer another -- some change in it,
but over a hundred years it's almost impossible to
observe a change of a tenth of a degree or a hundredth
of a degree in that radiation.

Q Back to my point.

If you don't know the rate of change in a
temperature why do you draw any conclusion about the
fact that the temperature is three degrees?

A Well, let's not draw a conclusion then. It
could be one of two ways: The Big Bang Theory has it
here one way and the Heating Theory has it another way.

24

But, then, you know, let's take another for instance:
If the universe in the galaxy had been heating itself
for, say, five billion years, that gas included would
be might hot by now and we certainly do observe that,
but, you're right, if we could find it decreasing or
increasing that would probably settle it.

Q Where is it that this radiation comes
from? It comes from the galaxy?

A I think it comes from our own galaxy, yes.

Q Why is it, then, that the background
radiation is uniform and not isotropic?

A Well, it's all equilibrium. It's like
the interior of an oven. If your oven's on 400 degrees
the coils in the wall keep it about that temperature
and it will be the same temperature near the coil as
it is in the middle of the oven; almost equilibrium.

Q Almost at equilibrium?

A Well, to the extent it heats up three
degrees in 10,000 years.

Q Is the dust and gas in our galaxy distri-
buted uniformly?

A Well, no, it's not.

Q Wouldn't that affect the heating caused
by background radiation?

A It would affect the amount of heating that

25

particular -- we likened it to an oven -- that parti-
cular amount of heat that coil produces, but the
radiation, again like the oven is more or less the
same throughout the interior even thought more heat
comes from the coil and not from the center of the
oven.

Q Do all of --

A The temperature is the same.

Q Do all of the stars create energy the
way the sun does?

A I don't know.

Q Either -- do you have any evidence for
any of the stars creating energy in a different way
that the sun creates energy?

A Well, I'd have to say, no, and add to that
that we're really not sure how the sun creates it
energy.

Q Is there any scientific evidence that the
different stars are made up of different elements?

A Yes, there is.

Q Do you believe that some stars are older
than other stars?

A Very honestly, I don't know.

Q How do you explaint the fact that the
different stars are made up of different elements?

26

A I just don't know. I wasn't there when
they were formed. I don't know.

Q Is your belief as a scientist that if you
are not there when it happens or you couldn't go to
the center of it that you cannot have any understanding
about how it happens?

A No, that's not my belief of -- if you
include those words, any understanding, that's true.

Q But you would have a very limited under-
standing?

A I guess I could go along with that.

Q And everybody's guess would be equally
as good?

A My feeling on that is everybody's guessed
that fits the observed data ought to be equally as
good unless you have some that fit better than others
and some contradict more than others.

Q How does your theory of a decreasing mag-
netic field fit observed data of magnetically reversed
rocks?

(Telephone interruption.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Could you define for
me, Dr. Akridge, how a scientific method?

A Well, it's a process -- you observe a
phenomena and then you construct a guess as to what's

27

happened. The guess is called a hypothesis. And you
use your guess to test other phenomena as long as
they're accessible.

If your guess works, then, it builds your
confidence in the guess and if it doesn't work, then,
you either junk it or modify it and then go through
the cycle again.

And, eventually, if you have some under-
standing of it and your guess works often, then, you
use another name for it and call it a theory.

And, then, a theory that's worked for
a long time -- it depends kind of on the culture as
to what a long time is -- it is promoted to the place
where it's called a law.

Q When something becomes a law, is it, then,
true?

A No, its just -- my feeling is thatit must
be close to the truth, because it's worked so well for
so long, but I don't say any law could be the true law.
I don't think you have that.

Q What acts does your theory about electro-
magnetic -- the decreasing electromagnetic field --
what facts does it explain?

A It would explain the decrease in the
electromagnetic field. It's also in very good agreement

28

with the laws of electrodynamics; and those two.

Q But it doesn't explain magnetically
reversed rocks?

A You know, I kind of object to the words,
magnetically reversed. It implies that it is magnetized
by reversal or something and I don't believe that
happened. It doesn't explain why some are magnetized
toward the present north and some toward the south.

Q Does the record of rocks reflect only
the one change or does it reflect many changes?

A Very many.

Q This theory doesn't explain any of them?

A No, it shouldn't have changed at all
according to this theory, that is correct.

Q So you have these facts which you've
tested, your hypothesis, and you've found your hypo-
thesis was wanting in that it doesn't explain this
observable data. How does that affect your hypothesis?

A Well, you say, is there any other reason --
see, if you have something that does fit somethings,
but doesn't fit others, that's the time for research.

You say, well, let's dig into this and
find out what's going on -- is the theory wrong? What's
wrong with it? So there are many possibilities and
as far as I know, not too many of them have been looked

29

into.

For example, except for a recent dive off
Mexico the prominent magnetic rocks are not measured
directly, but just by a time-averaged magnetometer
dragged above them on a boat.

The dive in Mexico indicates that is a
rather accurate procedure. It's still one of those
things that up for grams.

A time-averaged magnetometer model drag
doesn't indicate what the individual rocks are doing.

Secondly, the rock magnetized, at least,
on sealevel it's true, or magnetized on stripes on
the surface and people thought they were below the
surface. But there's not the same uniform stripes
beneath the surface so it's one of those paradoxes.

There is another possibility that these
rocks could have been reversed -- magnetized by another
process. It's possible for rocks to be magnetized
reverse or even transversed to -- under different
conditons of stress and pressure so there are a lot
of possibilitys and its a great topic for research,
as far as I know.

Q Do you have any scientific evidence for
any of those other rocks?

A Well, now, the scientific evidence would be

30

the reversed magnetized rocks and I have never -- I
don't have any experience with anybody trying to reverse
magnetize rock under any conditions, really. I don't
know of any such experiment.

Q Are you aware, Dr. Akridge, of any research
that's going on to examine the forms and solidification
of rock on the ocean floor now?

A Well, there's the Submarine Alvin that
tires to examine the so-called chimneys on the bottom
of the floor and pick up rocks samples and actually
lift them off the bottom so we can see what their
condition is and bring them up and analyze them. I'm
aware of that.

And the rest of it, no, I guess there
should be some research going on, but I don't know
of any.

Q Are you aware of any evidence, any scienti-
fic evidence, that these newly formed rocks -- when
I say, newly formed, I mean within our life time --
are magnetized in any special way?

A I'm not aware of it. I just don't know.

Q You're not aware of any evidence that
newly formed rocks are being magnetized both in field
stregth and direction with the present measurement of
the earth's magnetic field.

31

A No, I'm not.

MR. KLASFELD: I'd like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 Dr. Akridge's resume.

(Thereupon, the court reporter
marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1
for identification.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Before I leave the
topic, Dr. Akridge, if there was such evidence as I
described, what effect would that have on your theory?

A Well, would you describe the evidence,
again, so I can understand?

Q If there was evidence that there was
recently formed rock on the ocean floor, the kind
of striping that we've talked about, and the rock
was examined and was found to be -- that the magnetism
in the rock was found to be the same in field strength
and direction as the earth's magnetic field, would
that have any affect on your theory?

A Well, I don't think a single find would.

Many finds like that made under a wide
variety of temperatures and pressures and chemical
environments -- not to support the idea that it's
always that way -- then, that would have a definite
effect on the theory.

Q How many such findings would you require?

A Gee, I don't know. How many different

32

conditions are there?

Q I don't know, I'm asking you. I'm asking
you what, as a scientist, would convince you?

A The different conditions of all the possi-
bilities you could imagine. Oh, we used to, in my
research -- my thesis research, anyway, used to get
about 30 to 60 data to see a general trend of one
set of conditions; about that many finds for the
different possibilities.

Q Before you'd be willing todraw any con-
clusion?

A Well, I think you'd have to have a fair
number. Each individual would have his own separate
amount, but somewhere around that certainly sounds
fine by me.

Q Is this your resume, Doctor, Plaintiff's
Exhibit 1?

A That's my resume, yes, sir.

///

33

Q What was the subject of your masters thesis
in Theologoly?

A The Masters of Theology at the New Orleans
Baptist Theological Seminary did not have a thesis.
You took the prescribed courses of study, a certain
numbers of hours, and that was the degree.

Q Was there any particular area you majored?

A At the time I enjoyed studying languages,
the Greek and the Hebrew.

Q You had an unusual resume. It's a little
hard to follow the chronology.

After getting your masters from New
Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, you enrolled
in graduate school at Georgia Tech in physics?

A Back at Georgia Tech, right.

W Was it your intention when you went to
the Theological Seminary to do work for the church?

A No, sir. It was not my intention. I'd
been interested in origin of the world for quite
awhile. I went to the seminary with the intention of
developing some tools to probe the languages and
attemped to see if there was any real information
there. So that's why I enrolled in seminary.

Q Why did your interests in the origin
of the world lead you to seminary?

34

A Well, you know, these ministers talk about
the origin of the world. And just to be quite honest
with you, I didn't know if they knew what they were
talking about or not. I wanted to dig around with
myself to see if they had anything worth while to
stay.

Q What did you learn about the origin of
the world from the New Orleans Baptist Theological
Seminary?

A Well, I learned a little bit about the
Hebrew, that they didn't have any construction
really, could have cared less about the origin.

Q So was your experience there unsatisfactory
in terms of your original reason for going?

A Nothing is a total loss, but that was
somewhat unsatisfactory, yes, sir.

Q Then you changed to physics?

A Yes.

Q Where did you graduate from college?

A Well, I graduated from college at Georgia
Tech here, Bachelors in '62, Masters in '63.

Q And now you have a Ph.D. which you got
in 1975?

A That's correct.

Q What did you do in 1975 when you got your

35

degree?

A At the time I was teaching high school
here at Westminister High School in Atlanta and con-
tinued there for the continuation of the year. And
so for the next four or five months I was teaching
at Westminister.

Q And after that?

A I went to Oral Roberts University.

Q What did you teach there?

A I taught most of the general physics,
general variety physics courses. They have a relative
number of them. I think I taught them all at one
time or another.

Q How large is the Department of Physics
at Oral Roberts?

A I guess zero.

Q They don't have a physics department. They
have a Department of Natural Science which includes
chemistry, physics, and mainly biology.

Q How many peope are that department?

A In the whole department there would be
about -- it can vary. There was usually between, say,
15 and 20 faculty members.

Q Teaching all of the natural sciences?

A All of the undergraduate natural sciences.

36

Q Why did you choose Oral Roberts to teach?

A Well, when I got my Doctor's Degree, I
sent off, as I remember, about a hundred applications,
heard from about ten, and got an interest expressed
from a few. And Oral Roberts was one of those, went
out there and rather liked their faculty, liked their
department head, and decided to move out there and
teach with them.

Q Does Oral Roberts have any kind of religious
requirement for teachers?

A He kind of changes those from time to
time, I think. I'm not sure what he has now or really
what he had back then. If you would like to ask me
a specific question if we had to do or not to do --

Q Well, I guess I meant did you have to
be a Christian in order to teach there.

A I don't know. I suppose you did.

Q But in any event it wasn't a problem for
you?

A No, it wasn't a problem for me.

Q But you weren't asked to sign an oath
or anything like that?

A No, I wasn't, not while I was there.

Q But why did you leave Oral Roberts?

A Let me back up. I do remember that, too.

37

We had to sign an oath in chapel, some kind. I forget
what he said now, some kind of moral behavior, you
won't do different things like -- I've really forgotten.
It was some kind or moral behavior oath at chapel to
be signed.

Q Was evolution taught in the Bible courses
at Oral Roberts?

A Yes.

Q Was Creation Science taught?

A Not that I recall. I don't think it was.

Q Why did you leave Oral Roberts?

A Well, I was trying to get them to teach
Creation in their courses and was told that I was
too Baptist, couldn't do that, and then also the main
reason was that it was just a too religious confine-
ment. There towards the end, you would be kind of
an Oral Roberts University mold or nothing. And I
just can't stand to be confined like that. So, I hung
it up and left.

Q Did you understand what they meant when
they said it was too Baptist?

A Well, I know what I thought it meant.
What I thought it meant was that they are a rather
Pentecostal University. In other words, they deal
in just kind of a different denomination of religion

38

than Baptist. I thought they meant it was not their
denomination.

Q How did their Pentecostal denomination
differ in that regard from your denomination?

A I never did know.

Q You never discussed that with them?

A I never knew. I discussed it with them,
but I never found out.

Q What did they say and what did you say
in those discussions?

A Well, my plea was for openness, let's talk
about the issues and possibilities here. And their
plea was, you didn't need to do that, just the spirit
was more important that the material. And that's how
it got started.

Q Excuse me --

A The spiritual aspect of Creation was more
important than the material aspect. It didn't matter
how it got started, so just don't worry about it.

Q Where did you go when you left Oral Roberts?

A I came back to Atlanta here and taught
physics at Westminister High School again.

Q I don't mean to mislead you. Your resume
says that in the summer you taught at Heritage College.

A Oh, that's right. In the summer there, I

39

taught a three-week course in astronomy at Heritage
College in San Diego.

Q Am I correct, the name of the college,
the complete name is Christian Heritage College?

A I guess that's correct. I've always
called it Heritage, but maybe it is Christian Heritage
College.

Q What course did you teach?

A I taught a course on astronomy there for
them.

Q Was the Bible a required text for that
course?

A No. I don't remember if we even talked
about the Bible in the course.

Q What did you teach?

A Well, if it was a beginning astronomy
course, and we talked about the fact that there are
such things as other stars like our own sun, galaxies
and universal galaxies out there and that how you
can identify the temperature and the type of stars.
And then we went out and looked at the stars. A
couple of times we went to the Mount Palomar Explora-
tory. And that about does it for one of their begin-
ning astronomy courses.

Q Did you teach about how the stars were

40

formed?

A We had a book that did teach the evolutionary
the general evolutionary astronomy model and did also
suggest that we think about it on our own. So,
actually, I guess I taught the evolution model and
asked they think about it on their own. And I don't
know, it's just up to them what they thought about.

Q Did you contrast the evolutionary model
with another model?

A I probably did. I know if I were doing
it today, that's what I would like to do. It stimulates
thinking.

Q What model would you contrast it with?

A I would contrast it, contrast the
recent creation model and the standard evolutionary
model as a formulation of most stars and galaxies.

Q In the standard Creation model, how are
the stars created?

A They were created more or less like
they are today, at the instant of their creation.

Q What brought about their creation?

A Who knows. Who knows either case.

Q Why did you resign from the Westminister
School?

A Well, the faculty was too fussy. They

41

constanty fussed at one another, which is the thing
that brought me over there in the first place. They
seemed to get along very well and had a good feel of
harmony and worked together when I was there before.
When I came back, they just fussed at one another
all the time. I didn't feel I needed to put up with
that, so I resigned.

Q Fussed in what sense?

A They were always trying to get -- like
some of them wanted science money for their depart-
ment or the courses they wanted taught, the options
they wanted taught and ours. And, of course, we're
all going to have that, but it was just a totally
different feeling that I felt. So it was just a
rather bad feeling I felt from the faculty out there.

Q Did you express an interest in teaching
Creation Science at Westminister School?

A Oh, Yes, I did.

Q Did you teach Creation Science there?

A Well, I taught it as part of my course.
We taught the physics course. And as part of it, one
fifth of it is astronomy, historical astronomy. And
when we came to that, we discussed several different
models, heliocentric and creation model. All the differ-
ent models we could think of.

42

Q Did your teaching of Creation Science at
the school have any reason, play any role in your
leaving?

A Well, I wanted them to include more Creation
other than that. That ordinarily they allowed me to
include however much I wanted of it in my own course,
so it played a little part, I guess.

///

43

Q Your resume says that in 1981 you began
teaching at Northside Christian Academy a new private
ACE school. What is ACE.

A Those are the abbreviations for Accelerated
Christian Education.

Q What is Accelerated Christian Education?

A It is sort of a group of self-paced
teaching, a plan for the students to be given indi-
vidual desks to sit at. And they have what they call
paces. They are actually little booklets that are
40 or 50 pages in length. And the student will go
through and read the material in there along with
other assigned supplementary reading or activities.

And to answer the question, when he
finishes with the booklet, then they take the test.
If he passes the test on that subject, then he goes
on to the next one. If he doesn't, he does remedial
work and takes the test until he can. So it is a
self-paced type of instruction.

Q How old are the children?

A Well, they are the school-age children
from grades 1 through 12.

Q Is the Northside Christian Academy
affiliated with any particular church?

A I don't believe it is.

Q Why did you stop doing research on the
mobility and diffusion of various ions?

44

A That's what I did at Georgia Tech. And
when I moved to Oral Roberts University, there was
no equipment for that. That required a rather large
amount of experimental equipment, and they weren't
ready to lay out any funds, nor any physics type
of equipment really in the whole time that I was
there.

And so if there was no equipment, you
cannot do the research. So that's why it was a
problem for me to do it.

Q Did you discuss that with them before
you went to OR?

A No, I didn't. I was just looking back
on it. I think I must have assumed that a fellow
that had been doing research in one area, that a
college would provide for him. But that was a little
naive, I think. But you live and learn these things.

Q What do you anticipate that you would
testify about a trial?

A The subject that we have been talking
about, the radiation, just cosmology in general,
the magnetic field's strength decrease.

Q What else?

A Well, I guess those are the -- cosmology
in general covers a wife variety of stuff. But I
haven't done that much recently in all of it. But
the research that I have done, I feel, at least,

45

prepared to testify about it.

MR. KLASFELD: Mr. Childs, have
you discussed with Dr. Akridge the
limitation of his testimony at the
trial?

MR. CHILDS: Can we agree that
it will be limited to these various
theories which we have discussed
this morning, which indicate that the
earth and the universe was a relatively
recent formation.

(Thereupon, an off-the-record
discussion was had.)

MR. CHILDS: I'll read this:
I, DR. AKRIDGE, would like to present
testimony in the area of cosmology
relating specifically to the Big Bang
Expanding Universe Theory versus A
Recent Creation In The Age of The Sun.

Any Addition to that, I would
feel comfortable with saying that any-
thing within the scope of the articles
that he has given you, I think that he
could testify if we need him. Okay.

At the trial at this time, cosmo-
logy, the Big Bang Expanding Universe

46

MISSING PAGE 46

47

Q Dr. Akridge, could you be more specific
about the source of the background radiation?

A Okay, how about an analogy, is that all
right?

Q I will tell you at the end of the analogy.

A Your oven at home, if you turn it on,
the heating coil begins to heat on the inside. Two
things heat up: the gas in the oven as the air in
the oven begins to move more rapidly the molecules
and that is what we sense as heat; and another thing
that happens that you probably -- another thing
happens, there's an infrared wave length of light
that gets trapped in the oven -- walls of the oven,
mostly what you sense unless you put your hands near
the elements and the heat from the air feels hot,
but regardless of whether there's any air or not.
There's no light whether or not it's visible to the
eye -- infrared light.

If you were to seal up the oven and pump
the air out and turn on the heating coils, the walls
would come to some temperature and there would be
no air in there at all. But the infrared wave length
would still be trapped in the oven so it's the --
so there is just light energy contained in the oven.

And we say -- well, in that case, for
an oven, it would be a temperature of about 400 de-
grees above absolute zero, which would mean that

48

it's -- the light energy in there is in thermal
equilibrium, not heating and not cooling the walls
of the oven; the walls would be at that temperature.

Well, that's the radiation that I'm
explaining to you in the galaxy; that the inner region
between stars our galaxy contains a little dust, but
practically not at all. Really, if it contained only
a paper thickness of dust between us and the nearest
star, we couldn't even see the nearest star through
it for it's very diffuse gas.

In other words, compared to your oven,
all the air would be pumped out, essentially, so
that the energy that's there is totally -- almost
totally the electromagnetic energy, lowgrade light
energy.

In this case, its longer wavelengths
than infrared, which could be called microwaves.

Q What is the wavelength of the radiation
you're talking about?

A Let's see, it's about 1/10 of a centimeter,
I think; maybe it's a 1/100th of a centimeter. I
don't know exactly, but on that order of wavelength
the microwaves generally extend toward that order
of magnitude in this general length.

Infrared is about a hundred times shorter
-- a hundred or a thousand times shorter still.

Q What is the specific source of this

49

wavelength?

A The radiation?

Q Yes, what is the source that generates
this wave of 1/100th of a centimeter or 1/10th of a
centimeter?

A In space, you mean the three-degree
radiation we're talking about?

Q Yes.

A The source would be starlight that used
to be visible or infrared light or ultaviolet star-
light that had been absorbed by the dust of the
galaxy and re-radiated and possibly re-absorbed until
it's in equilibrium with the light, lowgrade light,
that's already there.

If there's none, then that's the first,
but after it goes into equilibrium and just adds to
it.

Q I'm sorry, I didn't understand. It has
to be in equilibrium with what?

A Well, the light would be degraded in
energy until it's got the same average energy of
the lowgrade light that's already there.

Q Which light was already there?

A Well, the three-degree radiation light
that's there now.

New light re-absorbs by dust and re-
radiated would add to the three-degree light that's

50

already there and increase it a little bit.

Q What wavelength would this light start
out at?

A Visible light would be about, oh, say,
about a decimal point and, say, six zeroes and some
number; about ten to the minus seven meters.

Q It's getting bigger?

A Much longer wavelength.

Q Does this happen only within the galaxy?

A Are you talking about other galaxies in
our galaxy?

Q Yes.

A Gee, I don't know. If they have dust
and they appear to, then you'd have a similar process.

Q Why isn't light from sources other than
our galaxy included in your calculation?

A They -- for one thing, they wouldn't
have had time to get here in ten years. Another
thing, the light that -- the three-degree light would
come from another galaxy and if it could get here,
would be rather spread out, more like a light in the
corner. By the time it gets to you it doesn't feel
as hot in intensity as it is when it gets closer.

Most of the galaxies are so distant it
wouldn't have much effect.

Q What do you mean, the light isn't here
yet?

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Garth Russell Akridge - Page 2

51

A Yes.

Q I see stars with the naked eye from the
other galaxies, to I not?

A That's right.

Q What do you mean, the light isn't here
yet?

A My view is that if our galaxy were
created without any radiation background, zero radia-
tion there and it's heated up in the last few thousand
years, then it seems reasonable -- although I guess
not necessarily -- that's what happened to other
galaxies. But, really, who knows about the other
galaxies?

Q I guess my question is, what does it
mean? I see this star. Doesn't it mean that the
light from the star is here for me to see?

A It means you see the -- it means you
see at least light you think came from that star,
that's right.

Q How do you explain it?

A Explain what?

Q The fact that I see light from a star
that's beyond this galaxy.

A Well, in that case, the light just had
to be -- had to have been created en route around
the star at the same time the star was created.

Q My question is then, how many other

52

other galaxies are there?

A Well, who knows? Billions may be
measured -- I mean photographed -- but who knows
about how many are out there?

Q But at least billions?

A I think an estimate is from two to three
billion, something like that.

Q And the total of the light from these
billions of galaxies would have no heating effect
on our own?

A That's right. The visible light -- all
we're aware of because they're totally so far away.
It's the invisible light. We look at the sky and
we don't see any of them.

Q Is it your understanding that the source
of this background radiation is that each one of these
stars in the galaxy is a separate source of background
radiation?

A That would be the original source for
it, yes.

Q Shouldn't that make for little hot spots
all over the galaxy in terms of background radiation?

A It would make for local hot spots, but
you think the stars themselves would be local hot
spots, and no matter how you interpret where they
came from, there are these stars; there are local
hot spots and gases in the galaxy. The dense clumps

53

are local hot spots, but they're still three-degree
radiation regardless of where you say it comes
from, so that's got to be.

Q Is another hypothesis that the galaxy
was hot but it's cooling down to reach the level of
three degrees?

A Well, you can make that hypothesis, you
know. That's just a guess and if you said that,
then you'd have to discuss that, well, it must be
losing energy faster than it's absorbing its own
energy. And I think that there's kind of a dust
cloud there.

Radiation, loses as I remember, 25% of
its energy. As I remember, the rate of energy loss
is about 25% of the rate of the total energy within
it, at least in the unit's volume, so it would just
be a mass of numbers. It would have to be eventually
heat up to some temperature to at least be in equi-
librium absorbing the energy from the other galaxies
as it radiates.

If it started out hotter than that, it
would cool down. The question is what would be
an equilibrium temperature? I don't know.

Q If the universe was expanding, would it
be cooling?

A It might and it might not.

Q Might not? Why wouldn't it?

54

A Well, it would depend what is on at the
boundary of the universe.

For example, if you can, imagine a uni-
verse contained within a metallic boundary so nothing
could get out.

/ / /

55

Q I've always wondered what's beyond the
other side of the metallic boundary.

Q If you get there, let me know. Let's
just take a for instance, because this would cool the
universe. If the universe is contained in a kind of
metallic balloon, you know, and everything is con-
tained in there, the matter can't get through the
walls. The light reflects off the walls, then,
sure enough, as it expands, it's got to cool because
the same total of energy is spread over the greater
volume, and the temperature goes down. And in addi-
tion, it doesn't work against the walls for
expansion.

Of course, nobody that I know of thinks
there's such a coating on the outside of the universe.
If it were, it would cool.

Q And if it weren't to cool?

A Well, there would be no such coating
in the room here. If you shine a flashlight, the
light would stay here in degrading wavelengths from
red to infrared to microwave. It would go out the
door. And, supposedly, if you could have somebody
stationed, ahead of them, as it passed them it would
be the same color. It might be spread out, but it
wouldn't cool the color.

So, I don't think so.

Q Do we receive radio waves from other

56

galaxies?

A Oh, yes.

Q Do these radio waves receive reflex or
calculations without background?

A I haven't included them. I don't think
they would be anywhere near the source of energy
that the -- say, I think I used 20% of our own
galaxy's energy, would effect it. If it would,
then that would make it heat faster and would effect
the calculations. I just don't think it would make
any difference.

Q Is background radiation a radio wave?

A Well, it's a microwave which means that
it's a longer wave length. Electromagnetic wave is
what it's usually called, a radio wave, but the same
thing is vibrating the electromagnetic field.

Q Let me understand this. The background
radiation is picked up by various dust particles,
absorbed by various dust particles, and then re-
radiated and absorbed and re-radiated and absorbed;
is that right?

A Uh-huh.

(Positive response)

Q How wide is the band of the background
radiation?

A You mean in distance or wave length?

Q Wave length.

57

A Well, it's a statistical kind of a
distribution, and so the wave length span, wide
length of wave length, it would be the dominant
wave length that would be that microfrequency.
Theoretically, all wave lengths are wide to some
extent.

Q Is the universe expanding in your
opinion?

A No.

Q Is it highly possible? Could I have
misunderstood your article on the expansion of the
universe?

A Well, I don't know. What did you
understand about it?

Q I understood it to say that the universe
was expanding but that the Hubble constant calculation
that was done to say how long it had been expanding
for was inappropriate for that purpose, but that the
universe itself was expanding?

A Close. Here's what I attempted to convey
in the article, that if the universe is presently
expanding, that it could have been created that way.
It didn't have to have started out as a nugget and
expanded where it is now. I don't recall saying it
is expanding or that I tried to prove that it was.
That if it is, it didn't have to have started at a
central point.

58

Q But you don't believe that the universe
is expanding?

A Well, no I don't.

Q The article makes reference to the
Hubble constant?

A Yes.

Q And it says that certain limitations are
on the Hubble constant. To what distance is the
Hubble constant compared from?

A How do you -- could you verify the
Hubble constant for large distances? Usually that's
what is used to measure large distances, so how could
you verify?

Q What I'm asking is what distance has
Hubble's law been verified?

A Well, the law has been verified by
different methods. Some are more reliable than
others. It's not the fault of anybody. It's just
the business you can do. Probably the best method
is to use what's called cepheid variables, and they're
just pulsating stars, very light pulsating stars,
and you can use them to at least infer the distance
to a galaxy that contains them, since you know
something about how bright they really are. The
trouble is, you can't seem them individually except
just the closest of the galaxies, because once you
get a galaxy so far away, you can no longer resolve

59

those stars. So that's about the best direct test
of Hubble's law, and that would take you out to, gee,
I'm not sure of the lineup. Let me just make a wild
guess. It would be about 10,000,000 light years.

The closest galaxy would be something
on the order of -- well, the magellanic clouds, I
guess, would be a galaxy, but about 10,000,000 light
years.

Q Your article on the expansion of the
universe said, page 176, "The Hubble equation only
can be checked out to a distance of one or two
billion light years." Is that wrong?

A Checked?

Q I'm quoting your article, "The Hubble
equation can only be checked out to a distance of
one or two billion light years."

A Well, that was a while back. I have in
my mind a much less accurate check than I explained
to you, a much less accurate check would say if you
see a galaxy which you could make out in light years
away with enough equipment that you, at least in
some approximation, determine how far away it was,
if it was very dim. If all galaxies are more or less
the same, or if you have some way in telling if they
are different in just looking at them like spiral
or color or something, then if you look at a galaxy --
and you know, if you got right up on it, it would be

60

very bright. But if you looked at it and it's
very dim, you say, that must be a very long way away.
You're assuming it's dim because it's small, and that
is a much less accurate test.

I'm not really sure what I had in mind
there, but that wouldn't be nearly as accurate as
a cepheid variable.

Q Are you familiar with B. L. Lacertan?

A No, I'm not.

Q You're not familiar with the fact if a
galaxy moved to measure distance?

A No.

(Thereupon, a short recess was had.)

/ / /

61

Q What experimental evidence do you have
that supports your Theory of Background Radiation?

A Well, it is there and the dust is there.
And the dust absorbs the light and the energy has
got to go somewhere. So that's the evidence that
I presented.

Q I understand that you observed that there
is background radiation?

A Right.

Q You have observed that there is dust?

A Yes.

Q Other than making those two observations
and drawing the conclusion, what other kinds of evi-
dence do you have?

A That's it.

Q Dr. Akridge, are you a member of the
Creation Research Society?

A Yes, I am.

Q What kind of a member are you; a voting
member or a sustaining member?

A Voting member.

Q As a voting member, did you have to sub-
scribe to certain beliefs?

A I think to vote, you have to sign a state-
ment that you believe in a young earth. And I am not

62

sure that's on it. There are some statements that you
do have to sign to vote.

MR. KLASFELD: Let's take a break for
a minute.

(Thereupon, a short break was held.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Dr. Akridge, does the
Creation Research Society require that you believe
that the Bible is literally true?

A I don't remember.

Q Do you believe that the Bible is literally
true?

A Depends on what you mean by literal. Try
and give me a real precise term when you say literal.

Q Do you believe what the Bible says is
historically true?

A Are you talking about just historical
parts now? There is poetry and everything else in
the scriptures. I am wondering if you are talking about
just the historical things.

Q Was there an Adam and Eve?

A Yes, I think there was.

Q Were they the first two humans?

A Yes.

Q Was there an Ark?

A I think there was.

63

Q Was there a world wide flood?

A I think there was.

Q Which parts of the Bible are you referring
to as poetry?

A Well, some parts are poetry, I would say.
Job is written as poetry, many of the books around
Solomon and Job, all throughout the Bible.

Q Is there any scientific evidence that
would lead you to believe that Adam and Eve were not
the first man and woman?

A Do you say were not?

Q Yes.

A I guess not, no.

Q Is there any scientific evidence that
would lead you to believe that there wasn't a world
wide flood?

A That there was not?

Q Uh-huh.

A You are actually asking me a question out
in the field, but I will give you the answer just as
a person. I know there are things that I find diffi-
cult explaining, large salt beds that appear to be
the result of a long-time evaporation are hard for me
to understand on a short-time scale.

Large limestone beds which appear to be

64

the result of marine fossils, living and dying and
accumulating are hard for me to understand and similar
things like that. Maybe there is an explanation;
I hope there is. But it kind of baffled me.

Q What did you mean by short-time scale?

A Well, we talked about the time 10,000
years. To pin it down, let's say 10,000 years.

Q Why 10,000 years?

A That's the general figures that I would
come up for the age of the galaxy based upon three
degree radiation.

Q What does that have to do with the scienti-
fic evidence for the world wide flood?

A I thought you were asking for scientific
evidence that would deny world wide flood --

Q Yes.

A Well, if these things were laid down by
the world wide flood and any time during the last
10,000 years, they wouldn't have had time to evaporate
to the depths. The marine, coral, or shellfish of any
kind wouldn't have time to live and die and accumulate
to form massive amounts of limestone that are known
as far as I could figure in that time period. If that
occurred, it was within the 10,000 years.

Q Why do you think that the flood occurred

65

within 10,000 years?

A Well, the age of the galaxy. The whole
galaxy is less than 10,000 years old. You couldn't
have had a flood before the galaxy is created.

Q What is the time scale of these factors
that had to do with the world wide flood?

A Maybe you need to rephrase the question
then maybe; I am misunderstanding it. Please rephrase
it or repeat it.

Q I think that I asked you what scientific
evidence would you accept that there was no world
wide flood? And your response was that the soft depo-
sits that appeared to have been left by the evaporation
of water and the formation of the dying specie creatures
did not seem to fit into this short-time scale.

And I asked you what the time scale of
those factors had to do with the world wide flood?

A Well, you see, to take a hypothetical case,
if the world were a million years old and you had a
world wide flood, a million years ago, there would be
time for whatever salt accumulated in such a flood.
There would be time for it to dry out, and there might
have been time for that many fossils -- I mean marine
plant and animals to live, die, and accumulate.

So it is coupled with the time, too. Really,

66

I thought you were asking me what evidence would deny
a flood recently.

Q I didn't say anything about recently.

A That's the way that I was answering the
question. As far as just a world wide flood at any
time, I really don't know. I have never thought about
it. It would take a little more time to think about
it than I want to give right now.

Q Does the Bible say anything about when
the flood was?

A As I recall, it does in terms of age. But
we have to read it and see. I wouldn't want to try
and quote part of the Bible from memory unless I have
one.

Q Would the Bible suggest to you that it was
less than three million years ago?

A The flood?

Q Yes.

A Well, it would seem to me that that would
make it less than three million years ago, although
there again the interpretations of the Bible is differ-
ent.

Q Would it be less than 50,000 years ago?

A To me?

Q Yes.

67

A To me, it would.

Q At what age would it make it?

A I would say somewhere -- sometime less
than 10,000 years old, I would say.

///

68

Q The Bible says that?

A No, I said that. Don't blame that one
on the Bible, that's mine.

Q Does the Bible say anything about how
long ago the Flood was? You said that it did.

A In terms of Noah's live, but the rest
of it we have to go through the Bible and look
through it. I don't want to quote that from memory.

I can't remember the details. I just don't know.

Q What scientific evidence is there that
the Flood took place less than 10,000 years ago?

A Well, much of the sedimentary layers
that appear can be interpreted in terms of a flood
as well as in terms as anything else. The fossils
have sediments.

Q How do you interpret the sedimentary
layers to lead you to believe that they are 10,000
years old or less?

A How do I interpret --

Q How did that lead you to the conclusion
that they were laid down more recently than 10,000
years?

A Well, if I would just look at them, I
really wouldn't know when they were laid down. It
beats me. I'm not a geologist. I just don't know.

The only thing that would have been from
the time scale -- I don't know, but they could have

69

been as the result of a large single event as well
as many long-term but very slow events.

Q Are you familiar with the Varves?

A No.

Q Are you familiar with any of the work
that's been done to date the ice in Greenland and
other places?

A Over there in the place that begins with
an "I" Aigu or something like that?

Q Maybe.

A I read the two articles in Scientific
American that have come out about it. That's the
extent of what I know.

Q How far did those articles say that
the ice went back?

A That's supposed to be the oldest rock
on the planet or thereabouts. Just from memory,
I recall them saying around three and a half billion
years; certainly in the billions of years.

Q Are you familiar with the technique of
radiometric dating?

A I have never done it myself, no.

Q And people who do radiometric dating,
how old do they think the earth is?

A Well, I don't think I'm going to answer.
You're just have to ask them. I don't want to tell

70

someone's opinion.

Q What's the range?

A Surely it would depend on what you're
dating. I just don't know. I don't think I'm
qualified to answer that one. You'll have to ask
a person what he thinks about it.

Q How do they figure up that ice in
Greenland was three and a half billion years old?

A In the article, as I recall, they did
a --

MR. CHILDS: I'm going to object
to this. The witness has indicated
that he did not have the expertise
on radiometric dating. I'm not going
to instruct him not to answer, but
I will interpose an objection.

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) You can answer.

A Are you still asking the question?

Q Yes.

A I recall it's a method called isocrons
radiometric.

Q How does this information from the
rock in Greenland, the salt beds, the buildup of
marine layers -- how does that fit in with your

71

theory about the background radiation?

A Well, those particular ones conflict
very strongly on the times, you see. Ten thousand
years conflict terribly with three and a half
billion years, so those two won't fit in at all.

Q Using your definition of scientific
method, how, with your theory, do you deal with this
contradictory information?

A Well, like I said, whenever you get
contradictory information, that's a chance for
research right there. And I think I would rethink
the three-degree radiation.

See, if there was some other interpre-
tation of it, that's -- that fits that particular
set of data better and if I were one of those radio-
metric data fellows, I would rethink my methods and
see if the radioactive samples that I'm measuring
could be interpreted in any other way, other than
long age, and try to rethink it all.

It's a good chance to have a good research
project going.

Q Have you rethought your research about
background radiation?

A I rethought it many times, you know.
My procedure is to write it down -- I have several
of my articles that haven't been submitted yet --

72

and find things that are wacko, about them, and let
it mature for a while in my mind and, then, I
rewrite them and eventually submit them. But they
change quite a bit and sometimes I throw them away
altogether.

And, after I submit them, there are
some things I wish I could change. So, yes, we
thought it through several times and I'm still
more satisfied with my interpretation that any
other that I can think of.

Q As a scientist, you're more satisfied
with that one piece of data that you have in the
face of this other contradictory data from a
host of different disciplines?

A Well, are we talking about data or
interpretation?

See, if a fellow says something is
three and a half billion years old, that's an
interpretation of data. The amount of radioactivity
in the sample, that's the data. Ant the data for
three-degree radiation is the intensity and wave-
length of radiation.

So when the test's through, we're
talking about interpretation of data.

Q All these experts in all these fields
interpret this data. You apparently interpret the
salt deposit data in a certain way that troubles you.

73

Do you, as a scientist, feel any need
to reflect on other experts' interpretations of
the data in their fields in terms of development
of your own theory?

A Well, I see a need to get together
on it. People should feel free to share ideas
on different theories about what the interpretation
of the various data is.

My experience is that any time you have
people and they think about interpretation of what
they've got in their hands and what they measured.
they'll come up with different interpretations.
And you learn and you compare those things and you
feel share to free them.

Q You said you feel share to free them?

A I did do that, didn't I?

You need to be able to freely share
those pieces of information and your thoughts on
them. And, so I see that as a great need here.

Q Let me show you this application for
the Creation Research Society and ask you if you
filled out one similar to it when you became a
member?

A Is this like the first sheet of the
Creation Research Society Quarterly?

Q Yes, I think so.

A That's the tear-off. That's the one

74

MISSING PAGE 74

75

Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its
extend and effect."

Do you believe that?

A I do.

Q Four, "Finally, we are an organization
of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ
as Lord and Savior. The account of the special
creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman,
and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis
for belief in the necessity of a Savior for all
mankind. Therefore, that can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."

Do you believe that?

A Well, I believe -- except the first
sentence, I suppose it's correct. I don't know
if all the members are Christians or not.

Q Fair enough.

A But other than that.

Q I'm supposed to be a lawyer, so I read
every word of these carefully.

What is the scientific evidence for the
statement that, "All basic types of living things,
including Man, were made by direct creative acts of
God during Creation Week?"

A Gee, I don't know. That's kind of
biology. I don't know.

76

Q Are you aware of any scientific evi-
dence?

A Well, I don't think -- I don't even
think I'm competent to offer any kind of testimony
on that. That's totally unrelated to anything I
have any familiarity with.

Q Are you aware of any scientific evi-
dence in support of that?

A In support of what?

Q The statement that "All basic types
of living things, including Man, were made by direct
creative acts of God during Creation Week?"

A I've heard it talked about pro and
con, but I don't remember how the argument went
or what they were. I don't know.

Q Would you accept any scientific evi-
dence that could prove that all basic types of
lving things, including Man, were not made by
direct creative acts of God?

A That is a hypothetical thing. If such
evidence appeared, then would I accept it?

Q Yes.

A Certainly, I would. You cannot deny
the facts, but you can deny interpretations of them.
I don't think of it happening, but if it did, then
that's the breaks.

Q What evidence would you accept?

77

Q What evidence would you accept?

A Of what?

Q As a denial of that statement.

A Well, I just told you I can't imagine
any evidence conclusively disproving it, si I
don't know.

Q Can't imagine any evidence that you'd
believe -- that would lead you to believe that that
statement was scientifically true?

A No, I really can't.

Q What scientific evidence would you
accept that would lead to believe that the Great
Flood described in Genesis was not a historical
event?

A Let's see -- no, I can't -- I can't
dream them up. Maybe you could supply me with a
simple hypothesis and see what I feel like. I can't
think of something -- like if you found and didn't
find that it would -- I don't know.

/ / /

78

Q What evidence would you accept, what
scientific evidence would you accept, that would prove
to you that the account of special creation of Adam
and Eve was not true?

A Well, I will accept any evidence of any
kind regardless. But I can't imagine what evidence
could conclusively prove it.

(A short recess.)

MR. KLASFELD: I'd like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 a xerox of a document
that Dr. Akridge supplied to us this morning.
It's a two-page document, the first page of
which is the copy of a file folder, and it
says "Doug", I believe it's, "Parsons" on
it. And the second is a letter from Mr.
Parsons to Dr. Akridge.

(Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit
No. 2 was marked for identifi-
cation by the court reporter.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Would you look at this
letter, Dr. Akridge, and tell me if it's a letter that
you, in fact, received from Mr. Parsons?

A Looks like it. Looks like it. That's
his letter to me.

Q Right. This indicates that you replied
to him?

79

A Wrote him something. I don't have a copy
of my letter to him.

Q Do you recall what it is that you said
in the letter?

A I just don't have -- I didn't keep my
letters at the time. I just wrote that so I would
know I have answered the fellow is all.

Q The first sentence of Mr. Parsms' -- is
it Parsms?

A I think it's Parsms.

Q P-a-r-s-m-s?

A Yes.

Q It says, "I have an interesting conversa-
tion concerning evolution versus creation. I am
essentially interested in the earth being 10,000 years
old or less. If you have copies of articles you have
written, I would appreciate it.

Do you know why he was interested in
arguments that the earth was 10,000 years old or less?

A I don't know why. And I never met him,
never received another correspondence from him. I
have no idea.

Q Do you have any reason to believe that the
standard radiometric data procedures are in error?

A You know, there are a lot of procedures

80

like which one are you talking about?

Q Is it potassium-argon?

A Well, potassium-argon is the -- let me
answer it this way. I have no reason to doubt that
the facts that they come up with are at all in error.
But the facts aren't to date with the amount of radio
activity of a certain species. And so I don't doubt
the radio, you know, the measurements that are made,
but I feel free to question the interpretation of the
age that they draw from it.

Q What is the interpretation that they make
that you disagree with?

A Well, I don't think that they are as old
as they say, but that's just my feeling. And I'm not
an expert in radiometric dating and don't claim to
be. So I think I will just let someone else argue
that one for awhile.

Q Are there some assumptions they make that
you don't go along with?

A Well, you know, I feel certain that the
different methods make different assumptions. And if
you would just tell me one of the assumptions, I might
be able to tell you what I thought about it. But still
I'm not an expert.

Q Well, the assumption as I understand is

81

that the rate of decay was relatively constant over
time. Is that an assumption you disagree with?

A No, I don't disagree with that assumption.

Q If the rate of decay was relatively con-
stant over time, what is it that you disagree with
about the result?

A For potassium-argon?

Q Yeah.

A Well, there must be something else involved
in that calculation. What else is it that's involved
in it?

Q Well, I understand there's a difference
of the two elements.

A Uh-huh. (Positive response.)

Q And the decay of one element into the
other element and that you can measure the rate at
which it's taking place and knowing how much of what's
called the daughter element which is the new element
that's created, if there -- did you make a judgment
on how long that took?

A To come from where?

Q How long it took to create the daughter
element from the other element.

A From no daughter at all to the present?

Q Yeah.

82

A Well, you could certainly answer that
question. And, you know, I feel with great recision
how long it would take for all the daughter to accumu-
late from initially pure parent given the species as
to game. I feel you could answer that question with
relative accuracy.

Q You believe that's an incorrect assumption?

A I don't believe in -- I said I don't
believe they do that in radiometric dating method.

Q What do they do that's different?

A Well, I don't want to be obstinate, but
I don't want to assume I know a lot about it. I think
I would rather let you or your associates answer
that. You asked me some precise questions and I could
just tell you really just a totally nonexpert answer.
Just as a feeling, I would tell you what I did feel.

Q I guess what my question basically is over
the long haul is there all these different unrelated
ways that come up with substantially greater ages for
the universe and the earth that you believe to be
correct?

A I understand that.

Q You're not expert in these areas, but
you reject -- you reject it as satisfactory evidence,
and I'm wondering why.

83

A Because other people that have done work
on that show for different reasons that the radiometric
dating processes, the interpretation of the ages that
they get from them, are in error.

Q Who?

A Well, there's a fellow by the name of
-- let's see, friend from St. Cloud University, St.
Cloud, Minnesota, as Russell Arndts, A-r-n-d-t-s,
has done some work on it, and has concluded that they
are a result of mixing, not of radiometric decay.

Q And how did you become aware of -- is it
Dr. Arndts?

A Uh-huh. (Positive response.)

Q How did you become aware of Dr. Arndt's
work?

A Heard him give a seminar in Atlanta here
about six months ago.

Q Was this a seminar of the Bible Science
Association?

A Yes, it was.

Q Was it a seminar which you were also a
lecturer on astronomy?

A That's right.

Q Does anybody agree with Dr. Arndts?

A Gee, I don't know. He didn't give any boos

84

from the crowd that night.

Q I am sure he didn't.

A So I don't know. I wouldn't know. I've
never heard of a poll taken on his work.

Q Are you aware of any criticism of Dr.
Arndts' work?

A Let me see. No, I'm not.

(Short Pause.)

Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Based on this speech
by Dr. Arndts at this Bible Science Association, you're
prepared to reject all of the evidence from radio-
metric dating?

A Well, I'm prepared to rethink it. But
you can't rethink it all just on the spur of the moment.
It takes a lots of time, and really I don't know if
I will ever get around to doing that. It's a totally
different field. It does bear rethinking.

Q Are you aware of the efforts that people
who do radiometric dating make not to mix the -- to
be sure that there was no mixing of the mother element
and the daughter element?

A You mean while they are doing their dating
process?

Q Yes.

A Before they arrive on the scene?

85

Q I don't guess I'm too aware of that. I
explained to you, I'm not an expert on that.

What did they do?

Q My understanding is they do very highly
sophisticated tests to insure that it didn't happen,
because it's an obvious concern. I guess my point
is, you would have to think these people were utterly
stupid to think that they don't take any consideration
with the problems that Dr. Arndts has raised.

A Well, you just have to ask them about that.
I don't know.

Q Is his complaint a very sophisticated one?

A Not too sophisticated. As I remember it
does have a little math associated with it, nothing
much more than averaging, adding fractions, though.

Q But people that are at least competent, if
not clever scientists, I mean, don't you think they
took into consideration what it was that Dr. Arndts
said?

A Well, looks like they should have, but I
don't see any account of it.

Q Where have you looked for such an account?

A Well, the only two articles that I told
you that I read about it were in Scientific American
where they presented the isocrons, and I didn't notice

86

anyway that they said that they could be sure that
mixing the argons -- in fact, come to think about it,
I don't know how you could be sure mixing didn't occur
when you weren't there to observe that id didn't.

Q You're not an expert in the field?

A No.

Q Are you familiar with carbon-14 dating at
all?

A I just heard about it, but I'm certainly
not qualified to testify about it.

Q And this sort of notion of Dr. Arndts'
is sufficient for you to, as a scientist, to completely
disbelieve all of the work, all of the people who are
doing radiometric dating?

A Well, you see, to me it's not a matter of
the odd. Truth is never a matter of the odd. You can
have the odds on your side or against it. I would
like to rethink these things. And equally good inter-
preation comes up even though the odds are astronomical.

In this case, my ownself, I say I'm ready
to rethink that, so the odds don't matter to me.

Q I'm not talking about the odds. When
Einstein critized Newton and his theories, his criticism
was a very sophisticated one based on new reasoning and
new thinking and Einstein's own approach to it.

87

Dr. Arndts' criticism, as I understand it,
is not at all sophisticated, not at all new and is
something that it strikes me that these scientists
working in the field must have given some thought to.

A I guess you ought to ask him about that.

Q My point is, I'm asking you as a scientist,
how you evalute this information of Dr. Arndts.

A Well, like I explained, that's worth re-
thinking the whole thing to see how each side arrives
at its conclusion. And if there's really a way, you
can tell the difference.

Q Let me just understand. You, as a scien-
tist, if there's a whole realm of scientists or
authorized other scientists working in a certain area
and some other scientists makes sort of an unsophis-
ticated criticism of what it is that they are doing,
that one scientist criticism would lead you to rethink
the whole of science that they are looking at.

A If I were interested in it, yes, it would.

Q You make reference to cratering in one
of the articles in Creation Research. Are you aware
of cratering as a technique for dating objects in the
galaxy?

A Just generally, but I did write that article
on it. That's true.

88

Q It's sort of standard astronomers use
cratering as a technique for dating. What time
periods did they come up with and age?

A Well, I think it would be somewhere in
the neighborhood of four billion years.

Q Does it concern you that that's
approximately equivalent to the age that we get
for the rocks by radiometric dating?

A Well, you mean that the two are agreed?

Q That the two are agreed and completely
dissimilar from your own theory?

A Not much. In fact, I would rather
expect that they would be compatible with one
another based on just a general evolutionary model
of the development of the universe through the last
five billion years.

Q Do the decay rates of isotopes have
anything to do with the cratering of bodies in the
galaxies?

A In terms of causing them or internal
heating or what?

Q Does the analysis of the decay rates
of isotopes bear any similarity to the analysis of
the cratering rate of the bodies in the galaxies?
Did those analyses -- are they in any way dependent
on one another?

89

A Oh, no, not as far as I know, not for
the analyses I know. As far as I know, they seem
independent, you're right.

Q Now, do all astronomers believe in
evolution?

A Gee, I don't know.

Q You mean some astronomer who is going
out there and he's counting craters and he's counting
rocks in the galaxies, does he care what the answer
is?

A You've got me. I don't know. I guess
you would have to ask somebody. You're asking me
to guess. Human nature, I can't do that.

Q You said the fact that both of these
methods stem from the evolutionary model didn't
give you any concern that they agreed with one
another. I mean, what bias does some counter have?
All he's doing is counting. He's counting rocks,
he's counting craters. What bias does he have to
come up with the number that the same -- that you
get from the isotopes breakdown?

A Well, if all he's doing is counting
craters and saying so many craters per square mile
or whatever, that's fine. Nobody has any argument
with that.

The same with the radiometric data. If

90

somebody says a certain dumber of curries of
radioactivity, no problem with that. It's the
interpretation you're drawing from them.

You see, the less cratering, they say,
that means the surface must have been formed fairly
recently, because cratering occurred four billion
years ago in the solar system. That's a whole
different ball game. That's an interpretation.

So cratering us in dating is not
strictly a matter of counting. It's a matter
of counting and then inferring an age based on
what the belief is, of the solar system. It is
like a long time ago.

Q And you believe age is based on an
evolutionary bias?

A Well, I do. If you had no way to
tell when surface solified, then it wouldn't
matter how many craters you counted or didn't
count. You couldn't tell how old the surface was.

Q But only somebody who believes in
evolution could come up with the number four billion;
is that what you're saying?

A Gee, there's all types of people in
the world. It's a different question, that a person
who believed that the world was only 10,000 years
old sure wouldn't come up with a date like that.

91
Just as evolutionists being able to do it,
I don't know. You would probably argue about
what evolutionary is.

Q I was trying to pick up what you said,
the coincidence of the radiometric dates of the
cratering dates didn't concern you, because they
were both based on the evolutionary model?

A Do you want me to explain that?

Q Yes.

A Okay. The model goes like this. About
four a half billion years ago, most of the planets
and moons in the solar system were somewhat fluid,
and the earth, too. And therefore, about that time
they all began to solidify , at least the surface
did.

And the impact craters that began to
impact, formed craters that were made, and then all
the debris was gone. It impacted with something that
left the solar system.

And also about that time, these deposits
of minerals solidified on the earth, and so you have
both these events occurring at the same time.

And if you have an object with prac-
tically no craters on it, then you say to yourself,
it must have been formed after the surface had
solidified, so after four billion years ago. On

92

the other hand, if you have something that you get
a radiometric dating from, you date from whatever
that original process was, the way you assume it
condensed, all about the same time.

So no wonder you get the same dates.
If there's not anything wrong with the theory. In
fact, internal consistency is rather nice. You ought
to have that in any scheme, that anybody dreams up.
But you do have to check against it, that you don't
think it proves anything. It's necessary, but it
hardly proves anything.

Q How is Dr. Arndts' criticism about the
possible mixing of the daughter and the parent
explain the fact that with different test samples
we get approximately the same date?

A I think that I started trying to give
an explanation, I'll probably mess it up somewhere,
and I don't think I want to do that. I would much
prefer you contact him.

Q Well, I'm asking you as a scientist
who said that he's heard one person who no one else
in the field agrees with offer an criticism of the
entire field. And on the basis of that criticism,
you as a scientist rejected all of the conclusions
coming out of that field. And I'm trying to explore
with you what analysis you went through as a
scientist in order to reject all of this information.

93

A Well, what I went through was all of
what I could go through, just the mathmatical
details of both approaches, the evolutionary ap-
proach and what would be the results.

Q Why do you call it the evolutionary
approach?

A Well, what would you like to call it,
the long-term approach?

Q Yeah.

A So let's call it the long-term approach.
What should we call the Creation approach?

MR. CHILDS: Short.

A (Continuing) Let's use long-term and
short-term. With the long-term approach, if you
got through the equation of what you should have
now after a long-term decay, you'd just get
standard certain equations which usually plot out
straight lines with a slope womewhere. And if you
assume that the species mixed up at some time, you'd
get a straight line with a slope somewhere. And a
person who gets a straight line with a slope some-
where, if he says, well, that was due to long-term
methods, the slope means the age and the Y inter-
cept means the original concentration.

94

For a person who assumes the short-term
-- I've forgotten what the short-term is.

The short-term, the Y intercept, it is
the concentration in one of the species that mixed.
And I really forgot what the slope is. But you get
the same general equation in either case.

Q Did Dr. Arndts explain to your satis-
faction why we get youger ages from rocks that we
believe to be younger for other reasons than radio-
metric dating from older rocks?

A No. And as a matter of fact, if it will
make you feel any better, I wondered that myself.
There does seem to be some consistency there. So I
can't -- I just don't know that. It seems to be
that you've got consistency.

Q Well, how do you as a scientist feel
with that?

A Well, try to rethink it all. But, you've
got everything in the world to rethink at once and
it's kind of hard. If you overlook a small detail,
that might be the one thing that's necessary in all
this. You have to use super human capability.
You've got to.

Q Are you aware of any other dating
techniques that give several billion years' life
to the universe or the earth?

95

A Well, you've got the magnetic dating
of the ocean floor, you've got -- the fossils are
supposed to give these long dates, especially the
microfossils, and we've talked about the radiometric
dating, we've talked about cratering. We should
have talked about the age of the sun and stars,
assuming they get their energy from fusion.

And there's all kinds of different
dates and ways to get it at a date.

Q Are there other ways?

A There's all kinds. You've got the
brightness and temperature of the stars that's used
to arrive at a date for the star, the amount of
non-hydrogen and nonheating material in the stars
that's supposed to indicate when that star was
formed.

There are all kinds of ways to arrive
at a date with more or less precision.

Q Are there any other ways?

A I guess there are. There are probably
thousands of ways.

Q And you reject the evidence of every
one of them?

A No, not reject the evidence of any of
them. What I reject is the fact that -- I'm going
to strike the word "fact". What I would like to
reject is that a person shouldn't be forced to buy

96

somebody's interpretation of those data.

Q If the manner in which the magnetic
dating of the ocean floor that comes up with an
old age, is that related in any way to the micro-
fossils that come up with an old age?

A You know, I really don't know. I'm
not sure how they age microfossils. I would just
have to say I don't know.

Q Is it related in any way in how experts
in that field date the age of stars by fusion?

A Is what related to it?

Q How do you get the date a very long
period from magnetic dating of the ocean floor to
microfossils, is the analysis in any way the same
for getting for getting a long age by analyzing
the fusion reaction in the stars?

A In only a very general way, in that
they are usually assumed to start out in some pure
state which then changes or evolves as time goes by.
And it dates back to a more or less pure state for
the ocean floor. It was a time that hadn't spread
apart. And for the star, it was a time in which it
was collapsing and had not heated up enough to
cause fusion. So you have that kind of mental thing
in common.

Other than that, I don't believe so.
But I'm not an expert on this ocean floor dating,

97

don't claim to be atall.

Q It's not relating to sort of analyzing
relative amounts of helium and hydrogen in the
stars?

A Don't think so. But I have no idea
how they date that ocean floor spreading or any
microfossils.

Q Do five or six different dating tech-
niques come up with approximately the same age?

A Well, no. They date different objects.

Q Well, do they come up with approximately
the same age, say, in terms of billions of years
instead of tens of thousands of years?

A Yes, they do.

Q And, if I understand that, you reject
the interpretation of each and every one of them?

A I must say this: I would prefer to
just rethink them and see how they come up. In
other words, see if that's a requirement if they
have to have that, as the only interpretation if
there are alternatives. That's a rather exciting
thing in education for me, what alternatives do
you have?

Q Is everybody's interpretation of the
same information equally valid?

A I don't know.

Q Well, isn't science in some way a

98

discipline or expertise?

A Well, I think science is an application
rather than a scientific method.

Q But presumably, I mean, do you believe
that your opeinion about the flow of the potassium
argons is superior to my opinion about it?

A Gee, I don't know how I could judge if
the opinion is superior. We each have a right to
our own opinion.

Q I understand. You have a Doctorate
in Physics and have written many papers on discussion
of the flow potassium and other ions.

The last physics course I took was in
high school, where we in terms of an application
of the scientific method, if we were to both try
and convince Mr. Childs of the strength of our
opinion, do you think that your interpretation
will be entitled to more weight than mine?

A Not on the basis of reputation or cre-
dentials alone. I think each person deserves to
be heard and then decide, based on what you've
heard, what you think about it.

Q What about if it was you and a hundred
other people who studied potassium ions?

A Well, the human thing would take over,
and I think just personally that I would tend to try
to snub the other guys, just say, look, you're out-

99

voted, sorry, fellows. But it would upset me. But
you've still got to think about alternatives. And
if somebody comes up with an alternative, we've got
to think it through. If you're interested, think
it through.

(Whereupon a lunch break was held.)

/ / /

Deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter

Deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter - transcript paragraph formatted version. (Plaintiffs Witness)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

——————————————————x

REV. BILL McLEAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al.,

Defendants.

——————————————————x

Deposition of DR. HILTON FAY HINDERLITER, taken by Plaintiffs pursuant to Stipulation, at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Esqs., 919 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, on the 25th day of November, 1981, commencing at 10:10 A.M., before Paul Goldwert, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New York.

2

APPEARANCES:

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER, & FLOM, Esqs.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

919 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

BY: STEPHEN G. WOLFE, Esq.,

Of Counsel

STEVE CLARK, Esq.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Attorney General

Justice Building

Little Rock, Arkansas

ALSO PRESENT:

DAVID HELFAND

3

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the respective parties herein that the sealing, filing and certification of the within deposition be waived; that such deposition may be signed and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer an oath, with the same force and effect as if signed and sworn to before the officer before whom said deposition was taken.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that all objections, except as to form, are reserved to the time of trial.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that counsel for the witnesses appearing herein shall be furnished with a copy of the within deposition without cost.

.o0o.

4

HILTON FAY HINDERLITER, Doctor, having first affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY

MR. WOLFE:

Q: Doctor, could you give me your name and address for the record?

A: Hilton Fay Hinderliter.

My address is ******* ***** **, Box ***, ******, Pennsylvania, *****.

MR. WOLFE: I will ask the Reporter to mark as Hinderliter Deposition Exhibit 1 a copy of Dr. Hinderliter's vita.

(Vita was marked Hinderliter's Exhibit Number 1 for Identification.)

Q: Doctor, I will show you now a copy of Exhibit 1 to a deposition, and ask you if you recognize it?

A: Yes, I recognize it.

Q: Doctor, did you provide the information on that vita?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it accurate, so far as you know?

5

A: Yes.

I compiled that in rather a hurry. I I haven't sought employment for a good many years, so I have not gone over that as a strict vita. But, as far as I know, all the information in there is accurate.

Q: Have you had any post-doctoral education or training since the time of your grant of the Ph.D.?

A: No formal training, as such.

Q: Could you tell me what the honorary physics and mathematics societies referred to are?

A: The honorary physics society is Sigma Pi Sigma.

And, the mathematics is Mu Epsilon.

And, I think, those are true. They are the standard undergraduate honor societies for math and physics.

Q: Doctor, have you had any teaching experience, other than that indicated by your position at the New Kensington campus of Penn State?

A: As a graduate student, I taught one term as a graduate assistant. I wasn't a teaching assistant for most of my graduate work. I had a NASA traineeship. Most of the

6

students there were on assistantships, but I just taught for my own experience in teaching, not because I was doing that to earn my way through school.

Q: Doctor, did you have any sub-specialty within nuclear physics in your Ph.D. study?

A: My thesis was low-energy nuclear structure. It was using a 6M.e.V. Vandergraff accelerator. I did neutron time of flight spectroscopy, I guess you call it. It was experimental, not theoretical.

Q: Doctor, did you have graduate or undergraduate work at any institution other than Penn State?

A: No.

Q: Was your thesis published, sir?

A: My entire thesis was not, but the essentials of the thesis were published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Q: Can you give me a citation to that publication?

A: I don't have it with me. It could be found in the Nuclear Science Abstracts.

Q: That was published as an article or as an abstract?

7

A: An article.

Q: Who were the authors of the article?

A: Myself and William A. Lochsted. He was my thesis advisor.

There is something else. I had publication as an abstract in the bulletin of the American Physical Society when they have their annual meetings. I presented a paper which was on my thesis work.

Q: Doctor, have you ever held, since your Ph.D., any research grants from any institution?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever applied for research grants since your Ph.D.?

A: No. Not to my knowledge — not to my recollection, I should say.

Q: Have you ever been subject to academic discipline at any institution?

A: No.

Q: Doctor, have you had any other publication since the time of your Ph.D., other than the two you have mentioned in Nuclear Physics and the Abstract of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society?

A: I had articles published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, the things that were included

8

in my documents that I submitted here today.

Q: Are there any other publications that you have made in addition to those that you provided in the documents production?

A: Not in any sense in which you define a publication.

I have written letters, but I don't think you mean that by a "publication".

Q: I am thinking of a paper or abstract, or the like, published in a periodical.

A: Not that I can think of.

Q: So, there have been none, other than those which you have produced to us today?

A: To the best I can remember, that is the truth — I am sorry.

In a science teaching journal, I did something. It was in connection with the Chautauqua short course I attended. They were sponsored by the American Science Foundation. Part of that project was doing — there were two meetings in the course. There was one meeting and you did an interim project, and there was a second meeting. I had the results of my project published — I can't remember the name of the journal. I have a copy

9

of it. It was in around 1974. It dealt with an approach to teaching science to non-science majors. It was my own kind of innovative course.

Q: Do you know if the journal you referred to was a refereed journal?

A: I don't know. You mean, somebody obviously read the paper.

To my knowledge, it was not sent to some person who criticized it and sent it back to me. It was not a creation-oriented publication at all.

Q: Sir, for how long have you been an assistant professor at Penn State?

A: This is my thirteenth year. Technically, I was an instructor for my first year there, and the second year, I was promoted to Assistant Professor. So, that would make it twelve years as Assistant Professor.

Q: When did you receive tenure there?

A: I started teaching there in 1969, in the

10

fall, and tenure is technically granted after the end of the seventh year. They have to give you a year's notice. So, they have to tell you at the end of the sixth year when you are accepted for tenure.

In 1975, I was notified that I received tenure.

Q: Sir, could you describe the responsibilities of your position as Assistant Professor at Penn State?

A: My primary job is teaching undergraduate physics, both calculus and non-calculus; sophomore physics is usually the way you would designate it. As a part of the role of a faculty member, there is some evaluation based on publishing, scholarship, community service. These are things involved to certain degrees with the job. The primary responsibility is teaching.

Q: Sir, do you teach any graduate courses?

A: No.

Q: Does the New Kensington campus grant graduate degrees in physics?

A: The campus does not. It is part of the university system, which does, of course.

Q: Are there graduate physics students at

11

the New Kensington campus?

A: None, to my knowledge.

It's not the standard. Conceivably, somebody, as a graduate student, could take a course in something, but I don't know of any being there.

Q: Have you supervised the research of graduate students while you were at Penn State?

A: No.

Q: Doctor, have you ever been considered for promotion to full professor at Penn State?

A: The next level up is Associate Professor. I was considered for promotion. There was a dossier sent in. I don't know how many years ago. That was denied.

I was told it was denied primarily because I had not published in accepted scientific periodicals.

Q: Sir, you said this was four or five years ago?

A: I think so.

Q: Was the explanation that you just mentioned of why promotion was denied for failure to publish in accepted periodicals, did that come to you in a letter?

A: No. There was, at that time, no official

12

statement as to why the promotion decision was denied.

Q: Could you tell me by whom you were given that explanation?

A: Yes. That was communicated to me by the departmental liaison person between the main campus and our campus.

I think it was also explained to me by the local administration; that is, our director, or associate director.

Q: Sir, have you ever been considered for promotion since that first occasion?

A: No. I was pretty much told that, if I didn't have such publications, as I explained a minute ago, that there was no use in applying for promotion.

Q: Sir, at the time of this promotion consideration, what publications had you made?

A: My thesis results were published in that article I mentioned about the science teaching journal. I don't think any of the publications that I gave, you in that extra folder had been made by that time.

Q: So, this was either in 1976 or 1977, is

13

that correct, so far as you recall?

A: Yes.

Q: At that time, your publications had been your thesis results in Nuclear Physics and an abstract also on your thesis work in the Bulletin of the American Physical Society and an article in the journal whose name we don't know, about the results of this NSH short course?

A: Yes.

Q: Were there, in addition to those three?

A: No other publications that I recall.

Q: Doctor, have you engaged in any research since the completion of your Ph.D. research?

A: It depends what you mean by "research".

Q: Sir, as you define "research," have you been engaged in any, and could you describe it for me?

A: Yes. One has to do with solar contraction. That was addressed in some of the articles I gave you. Another I have done, I guess you call it personal research. It was not financed by anyone, but I had theorized on the gravitational force and trying to come up with a model for what the gravitation could be, explained by or due to; make those two major areas

14

as research. In addition, anything I have written about creation, evolution.

Q: Sir, could you describe the research process that you are using in your work on solar contraction?

A: I have done a good bit of library research, looking up articles.

I had written to other scientists in other areas asking for information, or having them critique the things I have written.

I had worked my gravity model to the point of making predictions that could refine or refute my theory.

Solar contraction, of course, I had — after I had studied the subject and went back over the things I had been taught as concerns the sun's supposed mechanism for generating energy, I suggested to at least one other person that it would be positive to check in and see if there might be any evidence for solar contraction.

At the time, I knew of no such evidence. Within the following year, there was material published in the officially recognized scientific

15

literature that supposedly supported such contraction.

Q: Could you explain what you meant in your last answer by "supposedly supported such contraction"?

A: John Eddy published data that claimed to show that the sun was contracting. Other people have published other data that supposedly — that they said denied that the sun was contracting.

He was saying supposedly was contracting as Eddy's conclusion drawn from his own data. In other words, I am not claiming it is a known fact that the sun is contracting.

Q: Is the research process that you have engaged in — I think you mentioned library research, letters and communication with other scientists, and you mentioned this prediction of the possibility of solar contraction, is that process any different in your work in modeling the gravitational force?

A: In there, I have made some predictions, but there has not been any data verifying or not verifying the predictions.

Otherwise, I think they are pretty much the same.

16

Q: Sir, have you performed any experiments or made any experimental observations in your work in either solar contraction or gravitational force?

A: I have done no direct experimental work. I have no means to do that, either finances or equipment.

For example, I don't have an observatory. I don't have access to telescopes where I could get data from the size of the sun, for example.

Q: Sir, have you ever made a grant application for funding or equipment for observations or experiments in either of these areas?

A: Not that I can remember.

Q: Have you ever investigated the possibility of being a guest scientist or visiting professor at a facility where you would have access to an observatory or other facilities for such research?

A: No. I never thought of that.

Q: Doctor, are you aware of any observatories or facilities owned by the Federal Government which are available to scientists, without charge?

A: No. I have never thought about that. Personally, I would say there are people who are more qualified to do astronomical observations

17

than I am qualified to operate telescopes or whatever.

Q: Doctor, could you tell me the undergraduate and graduate course work you have done that you regard as relevant to your work in solar contraction?

A: I had basic physics courses, quite a few math courses. I took a 400-level course in solar physics, which, as I look back upon it, it motivated me to study the subject of solar contraction.

Q: Sir, when you say "400-level," that indicates a graduate-level course?

A: 400-level is upper-class, not necessarily graduate. I think it's junior and senior.

Q: Did you have any other course work in solar physics or astrophysics or related areas?

A: None that I can remember.

Q: Doctor, have you ever had any articles submitted for publication which were rejected?

A: None that I can remember, no.

Q: Sir, are you a member of any professional associations?

A: I am a member of the Creation Research Society. That's the only one.

Q: When did you become a member of the

18

Creation Research Society?

A: I don't really know. It has not been within the last two years.

Q: So, you are saying at least two years? And, you are not sure how much longer?

A: At least five years.

Q: Are you a member of the Creation Science Research Center?

A: No.

Q: Are you a member of the Bible Science Association?

A: I receive their newsletter, but I don't know that they have any membership.

Q: Are you a member of Citizens for Fairness in Education?

A: No.

Q: Are you a member of the American Scientific Affiliation?

A: No.

Q: Are you a member of the Moral Majority?

A: No.

Q: Are you a member of any Right To Life organizations?

19

A: No.

Q: Are you a church member, Doctor?

A: Not in the sense of being on any membership roll.

Q: Do you attend church, sir?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you say what church you attend?

A: It's Pine Run Evangelical and Reformed Church. It's a RD rural route from Apollo, Pennsylvania.

Q: Sir, is the Pine Run Church affiliated with any larger organization, or council of churches?

A: No, it is not.

Q: Are you able to describe the denomination of the Pine Run Church?

A: It is not part of a denomination. It is an independent church.

Q: Sir, have you any understanding of the term "fundamentalist" with respect to religion?

A: I have heard the term, but — do I have any understanding?

I maybe understand some ways in which some people use it.

Q: Do you have a definition, yourself, that you use for the term?

20

A: No.

Q: Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist as to religion?

A: You would have to define what that term is, before I could answer.

Q: Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

A: If I had no definition of what a fundamentalist is, there is no way I could tell you if I consider myself to be one.

Q: Do you attend the Pine Run Church regularly?

A: You would have to say what is meant by regularly?

Q: Are you able to estimate how often, on a monthly or annual basis, you attend the Church?

A: Recently, I would say, about once every two weeks.

Q: Are you an officer in the Church?

A: No.

Q: Do you belong to any groups, Bible classes, or study classes in the Church?

A: No.

Q: How long have you been a member of the Pine Run Church?

21

A: I said I am not a member of any church.

Q: How long have you attended the Pine Run Church?

A: Since about last Easter.

Q: Did you attend another church prior to attending the Pine Run Church?

A: Yes.

Q: What church was that?

A: Church of God, Franklin Avenue, Vandergrift, Pennsylvania.

Q: Have you ever been a church member of any other church?

A: Not since I was in high school, I think.

Q: What church was that that you were a member of

A: It was the Evangelical United Brethren Church in Hawthorn, Pennsylvania.

Q: Sir, what was the occasion for your ceasing attendance at the Church of God, and beginning to attend the Pine Run Church?

A: The Church of God was part of a national movement which originated approximately one-hundred years ago, and it was based on certain beliefs. I mean, this movement started a hundred

22

years ago.

I came to the conclusion that the present constituency of the movement was not consistent with the principles for which it was started. So, I could not, in good conscience, identify with the movement.

Q: Are you able to describe the aspects of the movement that you could not identify with or subscribe to?

A: Yes. Basically, the pioneers of this movement, and they referred to themselves as "pioneers," propagated the idea that denominationism was not their position. They felt it was not wise or whatever to have the Church organized as a hierarchy, but the movement, in the course of one-hundred years, developed its own hierarchy.

So that was my main objection.

Q: Were there other objections, in addition?

A: I had personal qualms about some of the activities of the pastor of that particular church. I assume this is to be not — I do not want to make public an attack on that pastor.

23

I mean, whatever information I give, is not to be made public, I assume.

Q: I do not know if the text of the deposition may be publicly available.

I am not urging you to put on record anything about your personal disagreement with the pastor of the church.

Are there any other matters that had to do with the change in church attendance that do not touch upon that, that you would like to add to the record?

A: No.

Q: Doctor, have you ever read the Bible?

A: You mean read the entire Bible?

Q: Do you ever read any portion of the Bible?

A: Yes.

Q: What versions have you read, or trans lation?

A: I have read the King James Version. I have read the New English Bible, Amplified Bible, New American Standard Version. I have read from The Living Bible and Good News For Modern Man.

24

Did I mention the Phillip's translation? Those are the ones I can remember.

Q: Are you able to say about how often you read the Bible?

A: No, because I am not — I follow no consistent schedule in reading the Bible. I read it to what extent and as often as I feel motivated to read it.

Q: As a physicist, do you ever consult the Bible?

MR. CLARK: Are you asking if he consults the Bible for purposes of science?

Q: Did you ever consult the Bible in your either study or research as a physicist?

A: Not generally.

I think there was a statement made in one of those articles about the sun and the sun's nature.

I think I referred to biblical statements as to what the sun might or might not do in the future.

I did not present that as any scientific evidence. It was just as a point of interest. I have never presented any scientific

25

argument based on the Bible says this; therefore, it must be true.

Q: Doctor, do you recall any other instance when you have used the Bible in any way in your work as a scientist?

A: Put in those terms, no, not to my recollection.

Q: Doctor, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?

A: Could you explain what you mean by "inerrant"?

That it is correct and contains no errors. I would say that I have no knowledge of containing errors.

I do not necessarily advance any such inerrancy as a religious faith.

Q: Do you believe that the Bible is literally true?

A: Again, it depends on what you mean by that.

There are statements in the Bible that, by their own context, are shown to be not to be literal statements or to be taken literally. And, in that sense, I would answer the

26

question no.

Q: Could you describe an instance of what you just mentioned; that is, portions of the Bible which are not intended to be taken literally?

A: Some visions in the Book of Revelation. I think within themselves, they are not referring to literal events, but their purpose is to be symbolic.

Q: Do you believe that the account of creation in Genesis is literally true?

A: I find no reason to deny its credibility but I do not — again, that's not tenets of my religious faith that everything said in Genesis is literally true. I may feel it's true, but I do not consider that as an essential of Christian belief.

(Continued on the next page.)

27

Q: Is it your opinion that the Genesis account of creation is literally true?

A: That is my opinion in the sense that I have no factual knowledge showing that would not be true.

In one of the publications I had there, I made an analogy with conservation of momentum, and I believed conservation of linear momentum to be true in the sense that I know of no scientific data that would disprove it.

So, I believe in conservation momentum and analogously I believe in the Genesis account of creation.

Q: Doctor, did you subscribe to a statement of principle or statement of belief when you joined the Creation Research Society?

A: I believe I did, yes.

Q: Doctor, do you recall if one of the portions of that statement of belief is a statement as to belief in the scientific accuracy and literal truth of the Genesis account?

A: I don't remember exactly how it was worded.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

28

(Discussion off the record)

Q: Doctor, I will read to you numbered Paragraph 1 from the application form for the Creation Research Society.

The application states that all members must subscribe to the following, numbered Paragraph 1: "The Bible is written of God's action and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. First, Doctor, do you recall having subscribed to the statement of belief that contained essentially that language?

A: Could you let me see the copy you have there?

Q: Sure.

(Submitting)

A: I don't remember exactly what the thing said, but that does look familiar.

Q: Looking at that numbered Paragraph 1 on the copy I have given you, would you be willing to

29

subscribe to that statement now?

A: Yes.

Q: Sir, could you tell me your understanding of the phrase "original autographs" as used in that statement?

A: My understanding of it, I believe it to whatever manuscripts now exist. They are not the original manuscripts. The originals do not exist, to my knowledge, but copies of those have been studied and through the process of time, I think they have gotten more and more information bearing on the original manuscripts.

Q: Could you tell me what you understand by the statement that "The Bible is inspired throughout"?

A: I would say it would mean that certain statements made in the Bible were the result of revelation.

Q: Could you tell me what you mean by "revelation"?

A: Communication through the writer by God.

Q: Doctor, do you regard the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge?

A: It depends on your definition of the word "scientific".

30

There are things in the Bible that would fit in various categories of scientific knowledge, such as measurements, statements of things, the way things normally happen.

Q: Would you regard the biblical account of the creation as scientific evidence?

A: I think that would depend on your definition of "scientific evidence".

Q: Could you tell me what understanding you have of the phrase "scientific evidence" and using that understanding of your definition, tell me your view as to whether the biblical creation account consists of scientific evidence.

A: I don't think there is any generally agreed upon definition of what scientific evidence is, and I do not think there is any agreed definition of what science is.

By generally accepted standards, I would state that the Genesis account would not be considered scientific evidence.

Q: Why is that, sir?

A: I don't know if I can say why. I would just make that statement based on various things I have read, people who were speaking

31

as scientists saying that the Genesis account was not scientific evidence.

Q: Is it your view that the Genesis account is scientific evidence?

A: I don't think I can answer that because it would depend on what the definition of "scientific evidence" is, and I don't necessarily have a settled opinion on what scientific evidence is, myself.

Q: Do you have a current opinion or view as to what scientific evidence is, that you are able to describe for us?

A: Not really, because, in the definition of "science," for example, if you look in a dictionary, there are several definitions, and they are different. One is just the search for knowledge. Certainly, in the sense of anything that would aid the search for knowledge, then the Bible would be scientific knowledge.

In another sense, science is defined as that knowledge gained by repeatable observations. Genesis would not be scientific because the things that are recorded in Genesis do not purport to be repeatable.

I think one definition of science is as

32

good as another. It's a matter of what the person — in what context that term "science" is discussed.

Q: Doctor, has the Bible ever suggested a specific project or research interest to you?

A: Yes, it has.

Q: Could you describe that instance, sir?

A: One thing it suggested as a research project would be to use a metal detector to find evidence of Pharaoh's army drowned in the Red Sea.

Q: Are you aware of any work that has been done in that area?

A: No. I am not even aware of what Pharaoh's chariots might have been made of.

Q: Do you recall any other instances?

A: Off the top of my head, no, I don't.

Q: Do you recall any instance when the Bible, or reading the Bible suggested a specific method of investigation to you?

A: No, I don't recall any.

Q: Do you recall any instance when your reading the Bible suggested the solution or a possible solution to a particular research question or problem?

33

A: No, I don't.

Q: Doctor, how did you first hear about this legal action challenging the Arkansas statute?

A: I think the first I heard of it was a phone call I received from Tim Humphreys from the Attorney General's Office.

Q: Do you recall when that was, sir?

A: It was about the end of last month. I think the phone call would have been made around the 25th. I am not sure. He verified the phone call with a letter and I think the letter was dated October 27th.

Q: Had you heard about the Arkansas statute that is at issue here prior, to that time?

A: I may have just read about it in passing. I never paid any particular attention to it.

Q: When did you first see a copy of the Arkansas statute that is in question here?

A: When Tim Humphreys sent me the letter verifying his phone call.

Q: Had you ever seen a text of the model statute providing for the teaching of creationism in public schools?

34

A: Not that I remember.

Q: Had you ever discussed this case or the Arkansas statute with anyone prior to the phone call from Mr. Humphreys?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever had any contact concerning this case or the Arkansas statute with Wendell Byrd or John Whitehead?

A: Not prior to my being contacted by the Attorney General's Office.

Q: Have you had any contact with either of those gentlemen since?

A: I never heard of Mr. Whitehead before. I had sent a letter to Wendell Byrd after I heard about this. I think I just asked what he knew what was going on because I didn't know.

Q: Did you receive any reply from Mr. Byrd?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: Doctor, have you ever given testimony before this occasion in a previous court action or deposition?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever given testimony before a

35

legislative or administrative body?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever testified or made a statement to a school board on any subject?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever participated in debates or made any speeches or public appearances on the subject of creation or evolution?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you tell me in what occasions?

A: I never held any debates. I am pretty sure that is true in any context. I have spoken to some high school classes. Some of the documents I gave you refer to that.

One was a letter from a high school teacher. It was his evaluation of what I had presented. I don't remember if I remember everything in the question.

Q: Do you recall any other occasions, other than these talks to high school classes, when you discussed creation-science or evolution-science with public

36

groups?

A: I have spoken to some church groups and I conducted a course at a Christian liberal arts college in Dayton, Pennsylvania.

Q: What was the name of that college in Dayton?

A: Cornerstone.

Q: Do you recall when that was?

A: I am not sure. It would have been, maybe, four years ago.

Q: Was that a course within the curriculum or a seminar?

A: That college is just starting up, and they have no — at that time, at least, they had no fixed curriculum.

It was a course about philosophy — something to do with Christianity and science.

Q: Do you recall any other public presentations you have given about creation-science or evolution-science?

A: I spoke to the Westmoreland County Intermediate Unit at their invitation.

Q: Could you tell me what the Westmoreland

37

County Intermediate Unit is?

A: I am not sure exactly what it is, but, to my knowledge, it is a county branch of the State Department of Education, dealing with high schools and school districts.

They had teachers from each of the school districts invited once a month, and they have speakers come in and give presentations.

Q: Sir, I think you have said the Intermediate Unit had invited you to speak?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall when that was?

A: It was either this past spring or the year before. I am very absentminded about things. I think it was this past spring.

Q: Do you know if there is a transcript extant of the presentation that you made to the Intermediate Unit?

A: Not to my knowledge.

Q: Did you make any notes or write down the text of your presentation?

A: I didn't write out the text. I had some scribbled notes to remind myself of certain topics.

Q: Do you know if you still have those notes?

38

A: I am not sure.

Q: Doctor, have you ever had any criminal arrests or convictions?

A: No.

Q: Do you recall the substance of the phone call that you had from Mr. Humphreys approximately on the 25th of October?

A: I can remember some things, but I am not sure I can remember everything in detail.

Q: Can you tell me what you recall about that conversation?

MR. CLARK: I want to object just for the purpose of trying to get a clarification as to what you are seeking.

If you are seeking information exchanged between an attorney and his client, you are not entitled to that.

MR. WOLFE: Is it your position that the Arkansas Attorney General is representing Dr. Hinderliter in his individual capacity?

MR. CLARK: We are not representing him in his individual capacity, but he is a witness for us in this potential lawsuit, and communications that were had between Dr. Hinderliter and

39

members of the Attorney General's staff as to strategy for the case, or as to specific conversations as to directions he may have received from the Attorney General's staff, I think, are privileged.

MR. WOLFE: You are asserting that they are covered by the attorney/client privilege, or work product privilege?

MR. CLARK: Work product, actually. If I had an idea of what information you were seeking, maybe I would not assert that privilege.

But, it is part and parcel of our work product at this time.

MR. WOLFE: I guess, essentially, what I want to know is the substance of Dr. Hinderliter's expected testimony.

MR. CLARK: That we have given you to the extent that we have indicated he is a physicist and he would offer evidence showing the scientific proofs supporting creation-science. If you want to ask him as to a conversation between Mr. Humphreys of my staff and

40

himself, I am not sure you do have the right to inquire, at least under the work product privilege. If you want to ask him about his research or opinion, feel free.

MR. WOLFE: I certainly do want to do that. Given that Dr. Hinderliter is an expert witness, and given that the work product doctrine is not absolute, and I think there are probably things that might be covered by the work product doctrine that we are entitled to inquire into as to expert witnesses, I think probably it sounds as though, to me, that we have essentially the same view as to what I am entitled to ask. So, my proposal would be that I proceed and, on instances when you think I have asked an improper question, perhaps, Doctor, do not respond instantly but give a moment or two for

MR. Clark to state when he believes I have asked an improper question covered by the work product privilege.

MR. CLARK: That is fair.

Q: Doctor, have you ever discussed with a

41

representative of the Arkansas Attorney General the expected substance of the testimony that you will give in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you tell me when that was?

A: Yesterday.

(Continued on the next page.)

42

Q: Had you discussed the subject of your expected testimony on any prior occasion?

A: No.

Q: Sir, are you being paid to give testimony in this action?

A: No.

Q: Are you being reimbursed for your expenses in giving testimony?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know by whom your expenses are being reimbursed?

A: By the Attorney General's Office, I believe.

Q: Have you discussed the subject matter of your expected testimony with anyone other than representatives of the Attorney General's Office?

A: No.

Q: Sir, could you tell me what areas you expect to give testimony in at trial?

A: To as much as I can recall, the information I was given yesterday.

Q: Would you describe that, sir?

A: I believe you made a statement that pretty well covered that.

Let him read that statement again.

43

That's the substance of it.

MR. CLARK: Scientific proofs supporting creation-science.

Q: Are there any specific scientific proofs about which you expect to personally testify?

A: I can't say as yet that I know of any particular ones. You want me to conjecture things that I might testify on?

Q: Let me put the question in another way. What specific scientific proofs supporting creation-science do you consider yourself qualified to give testimony on?

A: Actually, my personal opinion is that there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Does that contradict something? Science cannot technically prove anything, as per scientific writers,

Q: Would you feel comfortable in terms of the scientific evidence for the proof of the account of Genesis creation in which you consider, yourself qualified?

A: Yes, I would be.

Q: Could you tell me as to what scientific evidence for the accuracy of the Genesis account of

44

creation you consider yourself qualified to testify about?

A: I don't know that Genesis — it's not only a matter of scientific evidence bearing on the Genesis account. It's a matter of scientific evidence bearing on evolutionary accounts. In my opinion, evidence that contradicts evolution is evidence for creation.

Q: Could we try taking them one at a time? I guess, first, are you able to distinguish in your mind between scientific evidence which is support for creation-science and the scientific evidence which calls into question the accuracy of evolution-science?

A: Am I able to distinguish between those two?

Q: Yes.

A: I never really thought much about that. I can't think of any distinction.

Q: Given as to either scientific evidence which supports creation-science, and by "creation- science" now, I mean something more general than the Genesis account.

45

Let's say creation-science as described in the Arkansas statute, or as to scientific evidence which calls into question the evolution-science model, what areas do you regard yourself qualified to give testimony in?

A: I think it would be the philosophy of science area, which would be my best area.

Q: Are there any other areas in which you regard yourself as qualified to give testimony?

A: I could be qualified from the standpoint of nuclear physics to make some statements about radioactive decay processes and radioactivity.

Q: Are there any others?

A: I can't think of anything.

Q: How would you regard your publications in the Creation Research Society Quarterly — under which of these two areas would you regard your articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly as being encompassed?

A: The philosophy of science area.

Q: Doctor, have you an understanding or a definition that you use for the phrase "creation- science"?

A: Personally, I don't.

46

I could refer to an Impact article or a series of Impact articles from the Institute of Creation Research.

I think they were Impacts 95 and 96. I think creation-science is defined therein. As best I can recollect, I have no objection to that definition.

Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the definition of "creation-science" which is given in Act 590?

A: I have read Act 590.

Q: Do you recall whether you would agree or disagree with any portions of that definition?

A: I can make a comment, at least one comment on that. That is, under this Act 590, Section 4, "Definitions," Items 5 and 6, I do not consider to be a necessary aspect of creation-science; that is, the idea of a world-wide flood and a relatively recent inception of the earth. I do not consider that essential to a creation model. I think they are justified. If that's the definition to be used in this Act, I find no objec-

47

tion to that. But, I, personally, do not think a creation model need incorporate any statement about a world-wide flood or the recent age of the earth and living kinds.

Q: Doctor, is it your own belief that the present evidence supports those two items?

A: On Item 5, I would, from what I do know, and I do not claim to be an expert on geology, but I am of the personal opinion that there is evidence of a world-wide flood. On the age of the earth, I think the evidence is no more indicative of an age in the billions of years that it is for an age in the tens of thousands of years.

It just depends on what assumptions you make when you are trying to calculate the age of the earth In other words, I think, on Item 6, about the age of the earth, I don't think you can prove the earth is old or you can prove the earth is young. So, as far as I am concerned, I would say that is a toss-up.

Maybe, I lean toward the young ages for

48

my own personal conclusions.

Q: Doctor, referring to Subsection A of Section F, it has six numbered items which gives as inclusions or instances of creation-science, and in Subsection B, there are six numbered items, apparently inclusions or instances of evolution-science which appear to be counterparts of one another.

As to the two pairs, Numbers 5 and 6, do you regard one member or one of those two pairs as better supported by the current scientific evidence than the other?

MR. CLARK: I am not sure I understand the question.

Are you asking if 5 and 6, under the definition of creation-science, and 5 and 6, under the definition of evolution-science, among those pairs, does scientific evidence support one or the other?

MR. WOLFE: Yes. Does he regard one or the other of each pair better supported by the scientific evidence.

A: Yes. I would have to say especially in Number 5, I do.

49

I could quote from that — I don't have the reference, but I believe it was Steven J. Gould who had an article on catastrophes and stated that the earth's geology cannot be explained by uniformitarianism but might require catastrophism. So, I might say Item 5, the creation view, is more supported by the evidence.

Q: As to the pair numbered 6?

A: I wouldn't say I would necessarily judge one more supported than the other.

Q: Doctor, would you say your opinion of which of the two items numbered 6 is better supported by the scientific evidence has changed any in the past five years?

A: Yes.

Q: In what way?

A: You said the last five years?

Q: Yes.

A: I don't know about the last five years. In the last fifteen years, it has.

Q: Let's take the last fifteen. Can you describe what changes, in your view on that question, have taken place in the last fifteen years?

50

A: In my education, whatever courses I had dealing with the age of the earth and the age of the universe, it was generally stated that the universe was billions of years old, and I accepted that. But, upon further study, I don't see any particular reason to accept that as known.

Q: Fifteen years ago, you would have said. that the scientific evidence better supported the age of billions of years. And, now, you say the evidence is neither more supportive of one notion than the other?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you describe what has caused the change in your view over the past fifteen years?

A: I guess I have looked at the supposed proofs of the age of the universe and found that there are many ways of calculating the age of the universe. Of those ways, only a few, or, at least only some gave ages in the billions of years. There are other dating methods that give ages that are much more shorter. I was only informed of the ones that give billions of years ages in my early education, so that is why I accepted the statement that it was known

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter - Page 2

51

that the universe was billions of years old. Now that I know there are kinds that give different ages, I see no reason to believe that the earth is necessarily billions of years old.

Q: Can you tell me what methods you are thinking of that gives ages in the billions of years?

A: Radiometric dating, radioactive dating.

Q: Are there any others?

A: I know of some that have been argued as grounds for billions of years ages, such as supposed distances to the stars being billions of light years, but I do not consider those to be — maybe I should say those arguments and dating methods are based on a number of other assumptions which are not testable, not provable.

Q: When you say those dating methods, do you mean the radiometric methods and the notion, of the distance to the stars, or both of them?

A: Both of them.

They both involve unprovable assumptions.

Q: Do you have any other way of calculating the age of the universe that results in billions of

52

years, in addition to the ones you have referred to?

A: Offhand, I don't know of any. There may be other methods that people have advanced, but I would not consider them convincing proof.

Q: Could you tell me now of any other methods that you are aware of as you sit here today?

A: I have heard of methods involving the rate of flow of different chemicals into the oceans. Some give ages in the millions of years and some give ages in the thousands of years. So, there are some of each. (Continued on the next page.)

53

Q: Sir, can you tell me about the ways of calculating age that do not give ages in the billions of years that you are aware of?

A: You want me to describe some?

Q: Please.

A: One would be the scientific evidence bearing on the short period comets, the lifetime of the short period comets; namely, the short period comets revolve in their orbits around the sun and they decrease in luminosity. If one were to extrapolate backwards in time, the rate at which they decrease in luminosity, then any age of the solar system in excess of an age in the order of tens of thousands of years would presuppose that those comets were, at that time, at their earlier times, not — that it is inconceivable that those comets would have had such a nature at such an earlier time.

In other words, they might have been as bright as the sun, for example.

Q: Are there any other methods?

A: I feel there are.

I don't know, that I can quote specific ones. I didn't bring long-hand notes of lists of

54

dating methods, or anything.

Q: Sir, do you consider yourself qualified to give testimony at trial as to any methods for calculating the age of the earth or the age of the universe?

A: Yes.

Q: Which methods, sir?

A: I could speak to the radioactive dating methods, pointing out the assumptions put into them. Perhaps, any other ones that deal with knowledge of physics.

Q: Can you recall what any others which deal with the knowledge of physics might be?

A: One would be the decay of comets.

Q: Are there any others?

A: I can't think of any other particular ones right now.

Q: Doctor, given your awareness of the various evidence and the methods for calculating an age for the earth, do you have a view as to what the age of the earth is, based on all of the presently available evidence?

A: From a scientific standpoint, I have no reason to believe the earth is — I have no more reason to believe that the earth is on the order of thousands

55

of years than I have to believe it is on the order of millions of years.

Q: Does that mean that you do not have an opinion one way or the other? I am not certain I understand you.

A: Yes, right.

I do not feel there is convincing scientific evidence to judge in favor of one or the other.

Q: Is there any range for the age of the earth which you feel that scientific evidence is able to eliminate as a possibility?

A: I don't know if you want to get into philosophy of second-agoers.

From a philosophical standpoint, you cannot prove that the earth was not created five seconds ago, and we have our memory.

That's from a philosophical standpoint. I don't particularly go with that and believe we were created five seconds ago, or anything. I would say, as far as science and history is concerned, I think there is evidence, whether it is scientific evidence or not, that the earth is at least six-thousand years old.

Q: My inquiry was simply whether you

56

believe the evidence supports any limits, and I would be happy to hear that.

A: I believe the earth is at least six- thousand years old, but not based particularly on scientific evidence.

It is based more on historical evidence. I don't think the subject of science can speak to what happened in the past. There is no way to know.

There is no observers before whom history was written, and I question a lot of the assumptions that are made in calculating ages.

Q: Do you believe that scientific evidence sets any upper limit for the age of the earth?

A: No.

Q: Do you know that there is any other evidence relevant to the question of upper or lower limits for the earth's age?

A: I believe there is historical evidence that the earth is at least a certain number of years. It is whatever thousands of years are recorded in history. I do not necessarily accept all the chronologies that are calculated for — like some

57

civilizations, if it was stated that that civilization existed 10,000 B.C., I might question the dating methods as to how that date was ascertained.

Q: Doctor, do you have in mind any particular historical evidence which you do regard as valid or worthy of belief?

A: On the age question?

Q: Yes sir.

A: In the sense of being authoritative, no.

There is historical evidence of many kinds, and I do not have reason to single any one.

Q: Are there any other kinds of evidence, other than scientific or historical, that you think are relevant to the question of the earth's age?

A: I guess none that I would single out.

MR. CLARK: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) (Short recess taken.)

Q: Doctor, what do you expect to testify about in the area of philosophy of science?

A: I think one area would he as to whether it is scientific to consider the possibility of supernatural events.

58

Q: Is there any other area?

A: I would say general logic or illogic employed in textbook expositions on evolution.

Q: Any others?

A: Those are the only ones I can think of now.

Q: What would you expect to testify about concerning whether or not it is scientific to consider the plausibility of supernatural events?

A: I think I would show, for one thing, it is not a necessary requirement of science in the context of science being taught in public schools and supported by Government agencies, it's not a necessary assumption of science that the possibility of supernatural events be excluded.

Q: Am I correct that you believe that it is scientific to consider the plausibility of supernatural events?

A: Certainly, within the definition of science as implicit in the Act 590.

Q: Sir, would you say that it is a generally accepted definition of science that supernatural events are included?

A: I cannot say that it is generally

59

accepted, no.

Q: Then, would you say that the generally accepted definition of science excludes the possibility of supernatural events?

A: I couldn't really say, but I don't know what the generally accepted view of science is. I have never seen it stated as such.

Q: Do you have any awareness or knowledge about what a generally accepted definition of science is?

A: No, I don't know of any generally accepted definition of science. I have even heard it said that science is what scientists do, considering that the question is what is science. There are people in the profession, not creationists who acknowledge that there is no generally accepted — well, there are people who admit that there is a problem with the definition of science and that's not exactly what I said before, but I think that's the idea.

Q: Doctor, have you had any course work in the philosophy of science?

A: None that I can remember.

60

Q: Have you done any reading in the philosophy of science?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you tell me some of the things that you have read?

A: I have had some exposure to a book by Thomas Kuhn, and I believe the title was The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.

Q: Do you recall any others?

A: None that I could cite by reference. I have read a number of things over the years.

There was one NSFS Chautauqua-type short course, where I read about the philosophy of science. I wrote to the director of that course and asked for materials.

I don't remember specifically what they were. That was one thing where I can remember I sought some materials on the philosophy of science.

Q: Do you recall any other authors whose work you have read about the philosophy of science?

A: I can't recall any now.

Q: Would you recognize any authorities

61

or important workers on the philosophy of science? And, if so, who would they be?

A: I don't know that I would be knowledgeable on who I would consider to be an authority.

I could quote on the former question. I have thought of another philosopher. Carl Popper. And, I have read some of his statements that he made on some discussion relative to those statements.

Q: Were the things of Popper's you have read in things or articles by him or other materials that refer to his work?

A: Other materials that referred to his work. I never read any of his manuscripts.

Relative to a previous question, all the basic physics books have an introductory section on science which contains material on the philosophy of science.

Q: Sir, returning to a question I asked a moment ago, are there any workers or thinkers in the philosophy of science who you would recognize as having made important contributions, or being authorities?

62

A: From what I read, it would seem that Kuhn and Popper were recognized authorities, although I have no personal reason to accept them as authorities or not.

Q: Is there anyone who you would personally recognize as an authority?

A: On the philosophy of science?

Q: Yes.

A: Not necessarily on the philosophy of science.

But, on the subject of philosophy, in general, I know of a philosopher whose opinion I would consider quite authoritative. He might not be recognized by any accepted community but for my personal knowledge of him.

Q: Who is that?

A: Dr. Arthur Kannwesher. He is now retired.

He was formerly a professor of philosophy in the University of Pittsburgh.

Q: Are you aware of any work that Dr. Kannwesher has done in the philosophy of science?

A: No, I am not.

Q: Doctor, have you a definition of

63

science that you personally use?

A: I think I said before that science can be defined different ways for different contexts. So, I don't have any choice. It is valid to say science is knowledge that we gain. In the context of this law, I think science is defined — it's not explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit in the definition in Act 590, Section 4.

You get the idea that science would be knowledge gained by observations made with physical senses. I find that a perfectly valid or acceptable definition of science. (Continued on the next page.)

64

Q: Sir, given that definition, would you say that evolution is a science?

A: Yes.

Q: So, would you say that, by that same definition, creation-science is a science?

A: Yes.

Q: Doctor, I thought that I understood you to say a short while ago that among the things you might expect to say in your testimony about the philosophy of science was that it is scientific to consider the possibility of supernatural events. Is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Sir, could you tell me whether you are aware of any knowledge gained by observations made with the physical senses that bears on the existence of supernatural events?

A: Yes.

Q: What is that, sir.

A: I think in some of the publications I gave you, if one takes the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which are derived from observations made with the physical senses, one, if one tries to extrapolate the application of those laws backwards in

65

time indefinitely, one arrives at a contradiction. To me, that is, in fact, an argument derived from that definition of science that is an argument that supernatural events have occurred.

Q: What is the contradiction that you arrive at if you extrapolate those two laws backwards in time?

A: The second law of thermodynamics, on which I don't claim to be an authority, but it is generally expressed in textbooks and in courses that I have had and in things I have read by authoritative sources, that given sufficient time, the universe as it behaves now, if it had sufficient time, it would progress to a state known as a "heat death," where energy would exist, matter would exist, but no thermodynamic process would occur.

That is, things at higher temperatures would cool down to intermediate temperatures and things at lower temperatures would warm up to intermediate temperatures and energy would exist, but it would be impossible to construct an engine that could run on energy, because everything would be at a thermal equilibrium. From various writers in astronomy, it

66

is stated, if the universe never breaks this pattern of "running down," eventually, all stars would burn out and there would be no life.

I believe it is a statement that they made, the people I referred to, that life could not exist and everything would be at uniform temperature. In the second law of thermodynamics, if the universe behaved itself in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, with no violation of that law, from the fact that we see the universe is not in a heat death, it must have been brought into being at a prior time, or wound up, that is, ordered. In the opposite sense of the second law of thermodynamics, saying that the orderliness of the universe is always decreasing as a whole. So, if the universe — another way of saying it is that the universe has not always been here for every function as it now functions. If the universe has not always been here for forever, then it must have come here into being or ordered.

That would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which expresses conservation of matter.

67

Either the universe has come into being, which violates the first law, or it must have been ordered sometime in the past. Some event must have happened not now in the scheme of the way things happen. Either way you look at it, something must have violated the first or second laws of thermodynamics.

This is not a deduction based on lack of information. It is a deduction based on knowledge of the ways things are observed to have happened now.

Q: Is the view that you have just expressed. Doctor, consistent with the definition of evolutionscience used in Act 590?

A: Could you rephrase it? Is what I have just said consistent with the definition of evolution-science?

Q: As used in Act 590.

A: What I said about the contradiction about the first and second laws of thermodynamics, I don't understand that and what was about the evolution-science.

Q: Sir, do you regard the contradiction between what you had described as related to the

68

definition of evolution-science?

A: You would not regard it as related to the definition of it.

Q: Do you regard it as relevant to determining the scientific basis or lack of basis for evolution-science?

A: Let me say this. Maybe, this will answer your question in a round-about way. I think the idea that science excludes the supernatural is one of the major means of textbooks used in the public schools — it's one of their major means of portraying evolution as more scientific than creation. Since I found within this exclusion of supernatural events a self-contradiction, I view that as insufficient grounds for portraying evolution-science as superior to creation-science.

Q: Doctor, is it your view that creation- science resorts to supernatural explanations?

A: Within a definition of creation-science in the Act, I think that is apparent. Section 4, Item A-1: "Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing."

69

I would have to consider that as a supernatural event.

Q: Is it your view, that evolution-science resorts to supernatural explanations?

A: Yes.

In my view, any evolutionary scenario that I have ever heard must, in some way, base its argument or include in its argument some occurrence which I would consider to be a supernatural event. It would not be consistent with the way things happen now.

Q: Are you able to describe an instance of that?

A: Yes.

I think the Big Bang Theory that I have described and descriptions of the presumed Big Bang includes events which are things that are not now able to be studied by scientific processes.

Q: Are you aware of any other instances in which evolution-science resorts to supernatural explanation, aside from the Big Bang?

A: Perhaps, in the question of the origin of life. I have read, and I do not consider

70

myself an authority, but I have read a statistical computation on the probability of life evolving from non-living matter, and given the magnitude of the chance of life evolving by natural process, I would say that, if it did evolve by that means, to go a degree, is belief in supernatural. In other words, if there was essentially no chance of evolving and somebody states it evolved, anyhow, I would consider that, really, reverting to a sort of supernatural-type definition or supernatural-type argument.

Q: Have you ever read work by scientists asserting that it is possible to account for the evolution of life from non-living matter exclusively by resort to natural processes?

A: Isn't that included in the definition of evolution-science?

Or, are you now asking me that question? You are asking if I have ever read anybody that stated that?

Q: Are you aware of work that has been done in which scientists have asserted that life could emerge by non-life, by naturalistic processes?

71

A: I think I have read quite a few of those.

I don't know if I can cite any particular reference at the moment.

Q: Looking at the definition of evolution- science in the Act, as you suggested, is there anything in that Section 4-B that you would regard as resorting to non-naturalistic or supernatural processes?

A: No.

I would say that definition excludes under evolution-science — by that definition, evolution-science would exclude the possibility of supernatural events.

That is what is meant by the term "naturalistic" in Item B-1.

Q: Doctor, can you recall any other instance which you would say that knowledge gained by observations made with the physical senses bears on the possibility of supernatural events in earth history?

A: This would not be an example of some thing where I think observations necessarily prove the supernatural event occurred. But, I can tell you where studies are

72

being done, that could possibly lead to some proof of this supernatural event.

It has to do with what is considered the Shroud of Turin, where scientists studied the Shroud and some of the researchers concluded there are things there beyond explanation and, therefore, they believe it demonstrates that supernatural events have occurred.

But, I do not take any position on that subject, whether I believe it is authentic or whether this proves supernatural events, but one could point to that as a possible subject for study.

There is another example of scientific evidence that is evidence gained by the observations as I included in — not my definition of science, but the definition that I find implicit in this Act to which I consider a valid definition. That is the question of radio-halos as studied by Robert Gentry.

I don't claim to be an authority on that, and he would be more qualified to explain that than myself.

Q: Are there any other instances, sir?

A: I can't think of any others right now.

73

Q: Doctor, do you have any understanding or definition that you would use that distinguishes science from religion?

A: I had said that I do not personally prefer one definition of science over another. It depends on the context of the subject under discussion, in the sense that science could be considered a search for knowledge. And, I think, there is not necessarily any distinction between science as a religion. In other definitions of science, I think there would be distinctions. (Continued on the next page.)

74

Q: Can you give me an instance in which under an accepted definition of science, it would be distinguished from religion?

A: Under one type of definition of science includes the requirement that any scientific theory be falsifiable, and I do not view religious ideas as being falsifiable.

Q: Dr., using the definition that you have just alluded to, that is, science may be defined as a theory that can be falsified, would you say that evolution-science is a science under that definition?

A: I would say that proponents of evolution, of evolutionary theories, do not advance falsifiability criteria; that is, they do not offer any tests whereby they would allow evolution to be falsifiable; however, that does not mean that I do not consider evolution to be falsifiable.

Q: Do you consider evolution to be falsifiable?

A: Personally, yes.

Q: Would you consider creation-science to be falsifiable?

A: Again, as myself being I suppose you would say a proponent of creation, I cannot conceive really. of — I cannot think of anything I can give as a

75

falsifiable test for creationism as such but evolutionists consider creation to be falsifiable. Maybe I should clear up that statement.

Q: I would like to make sure that the record has a clear distinction between your own views and views you attribute to others.

Could you, perhaps, just say clearly whether you regard evolution-science as falsifiable and whether you regard creation-science as falsifiable and then if you have your other things concerning others, you can add to that.

A: Concerning evolution-science, I believe that there is evidence which falsifies evolution. Concerning creation-science, I do not think there is any evidence which falsifies creation. Does that answer your question?

Q: Not entirely. If I understood you, you have said that you believe there is evidence which falsifies evolution-science and you believe there is no evidence which falsifies creation-science?

A: Correct.

Q: I conclude also that you believe that evolution-science is falsifiable, there being evidence that you regard as falsifying-it?

76

A: Yes, but I don't state that evolutionist present their theory as a falsifiable theory. In other words, the things I would say were falsifications of evolution, an evolutionist would explain around it and give some other explanation for that. He would not consider that evidence of falsification of evolution; and I have written to some evolutionists, in particular, Stephen F. Gould, who claims evolution was falsifiable and he could give falsifiable criteria. I wrote to him twice and asked what he was referring to and he has never answered me.

Q: I am still concerned that the record will prove to be not clear.

A: You still have to figure out whether I consider creation falsifiable.

Q: I understood that you said you believe there is evidence which falsifies evolution-science?

A: Correct.

Q: You believe evolution-science is falsifiable, that is, you personally?

A: Right.

Q: And you have said you believe there is no evidence which falsifies creation-science?

77

A: Correct.

Q: That leaves the question: Do you believe creation-science is falsifiable?

A: Not in principle, no.

Q: Why is that, sir?

A: Because I cannot conceive of any kind of experiment whose results could necessarily infer that creation has not occurred.

Q: Dr., do you regard or would you regard evolution-science as a religion?

A: I really am not competent to define what a religion is. Do you want to define "religion" and I can answer it?

Q: I would be interested in the definition of religion that you use, if you, in fact, have one.

A: I would not state that evolution as such is a religion, but I would state that evolution is a necessary basis for certain religions.

Q: Which ones are those?

A: Secular Humanism in particular; Atheism, if you consider that to be a religion.

Q: Are there any others?

A: I think there are others. I think some of the Eastern religions include a basic idea of

78

evolution as necessary for their explanations as to how the world came to be.

Q: Would you regard creation-science as a religion under the same criteria that you used in your response?

A: I said I did not consider evolution as such to be a religion, and parallel to that, I do not consider creation-science itself to be a religion but I recognize that it is similarly a basic tenant of certain religions or required of certain religions.

Q: Dr., I believe you stated earlier that you expected to give testimony within the area of philosophy of science, about logic or illogic as it appears in textbooks on evolution science. Could you describe your expected testimony in that area?

A: I don't necessarily recall everything that would be involved. One aspect would be analyzing a typical textbook, science textbook in the public schools and seeing whether the argument presented is logical or not.

Q: Can you point to any instances in which you think that works on evolution-science or scientific papers on evolution-science are illogical?

79

A: Yes. I believe one of the items I gave you, an article entitled, "Does It Belong Here," it quoted from a scientific textbook, and showed for one thing, in making a case for evolution, there was never any logical demonstration that evolution had occurred. There was merely an assumption that it occurred.

Another thing included was a mention of scientific experiments related to spontaneous generation of life. In particular, it pointed out that Pasteur, by scientific experiments, showed life does not arise spontaneously but it went on then by assumption to state that life had arisen spontaneously.

Q: Could you describe for me how the articles that you have published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly bear on your expected testimony as to the philosophy of science?

A: In one particular detail, I could give a possible example. On the subject of logic, the article about the solar contraction points out the type of logic used in concluding that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fission. My article points out that this deduction that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fission

80

based on or includes as a necessary fact the sun being billions of years old, when, in fact, as I mentioned before, I don't feel there is conclusive evidence that the sun is billions of years old.

Therefore, the argument that the sun must derive its energy from nuclear fission is not necessarily a logical argument because it fails to provide any conclusive evidence that the sun is billions of years old.

Q: Dr., what is your view as to the present state of the scientific evidence on the age of the sun? How old is the sun, given the current state of the evidence?

A: I only know of two ways in the scientific literature concerning the age of the sun, its determination. One would have to do with radioactive dating where other materials in the solar system are dated, which was addressed in previous questions. Another argument from which the age of the sun is deduced is the presumed sequence whereby stars are said to evolve from one state to another. Since that is said to require, for any change in that sequence to occur, vast periods of time is required, many orders of magnitude, longer than a

81

human lifetime or longer than the time science as a human pursuit has existed, since those stages of the evolution of stars are not verifiable by someone observing the passage of a star through any such sequence of events, then I don't consider that dating method for the age of stars to be necessarily valid. That was my second point of what I mentioned as the second means by which the age of the sun is computed.

One other method that is given for dating the sun's age would have to do with theories of formation of the solar system, the entire solar system, not just the sun. I couldn't quote any references but from what I studied, I am not convinced that any of those theories of formation of the solar system can be shown to be proven, demonstrated to be consistent with all known scientific laws. That's the end of my answer.

Q: Dr., is it a fair summary of the testimony you have just given that your work on solar contraction, the article, points up illogical reasoning in evolution scientists because the argument for the method by which the sun's energy is derived depends upon a great age for the sun, and since there is not

82

adequate evidence for that great age, the argument becomes illogical?

A: Correct.

Q: Would you say then that the arguments were illogical if there were, in fact, sound evidences for the great age of the sun?

A: It would depend on your definition of the words "sound evidence." If observations could show by some falsifiable method that the sun was, in fact, billions of years old, then I would consider the aspect of evolution-science dealing with the age of the sun and the mechanism whereby the sun derives its energy, I would consider that as a logical possibility.

Q: Dr., do you regard the method of determining an age for the sun that you referred to earlier as the method of dating other matter in the solar system by radiometric methods, as falsifiable evidence?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Why is that, sir?

A: Because, for one thing, there is no way of determining what, say, the initial isotopic abundance is for a given parent nuclide were, and on falsifiability I cannot remember any radiometric dating theorist making a statement that if such evidence is found,

83

we will discount radiometric dating as scientific or as accurate, would be the better word.

Q: Dr., what is your view as to the mechanism from which the sun's energy is derived?

A: I don't particularly favor one mechanism over another. I might point out, in the abstract to my article entitled something about the shrinking sun, the abstract states or maybe the abstract to the second article entitled, "The Inconsistent Sun," states, I believe, the gravitational collapse is the mechanism whereby the sun derives its energy.

I did not write that abstract. The editor wrote that and I did not necessarily consider gravitational collapse as the correct mechanism. I think it is a possible mechanism. It has not been discounted for any good scientific reason.

Q: Would you say there are any other mechanisms which have also not been discounted for any valid scientific reasons?

A: There are some other ones mentioned in that article. There are some mechanisms mentioned in that article, ones that have historically been considered such as gravitational absorption or meteorites or cometary material from the sun.

84

Offhand, I couldn't say whether I would judge those to be ruled out by scientific evidence or not. There are other theories and I personally, without studying back into it now, I could not state whether other of those theories could be valid possibilities or not.

Q: Dr., would you state that the theory that the sun derives its energy from nuclear fission is a valid scientific theory?

A: I would consider it a valid possibility. Whether its formulation by, say, people that propose such theory, whether its formulation is given in a falsifiable manner, I do not know.

For example, the Neutrino Paradox. The Neutrino Paradox posed a problem for the nuclear fission model of the sun's derivation and I don't — I am not convinced that the nuclear fission theorists approach that Neutrino Paradox as being possibly a falsification of their own theory.

Q: Do you regard the Neutrino Paradox as a falsification of the nuclear fission theory?

A: There would have to be more elaboration on the nuclear fission theory. There is a view, for example, that nuclear fission occurs only at certain

85

times in the sun's life and if such were true, then there could be a paucity of neutrinos.

There could be a paucity of neutrinos flux as compared to the expectations derived from the previous formulation of the nuclear fusion model. So it would be possible to put together a nuclear fusion model that occurs in spurts so that the Neutrino Paradox would not necessarily falsify the nuclear fusion model.

Q: Would you regard the Neutrino Paradox as a falsification of a model of nuclear fusion for the sun, which expected that the nuclear fusion goes on constantly?

A: Not necessarily. As people have done, it is a possibility that some of the assumptions in the "Neutrino Paradox" may themselves not be demonstrable — that is, certain assumed steps in the nuclear fusion cycle may not be what they were theorized as being, and there might possibly be some other decay that could bleed off some isotope or, in fact, recently there have been theories that neutrinos are not stable and if that happened, verifiable by scientific experiment, then the Neutrino Paradox I would not consider to be a falsification of the constant nuclear fusion theory.

86

AFTERNOON SESSION

(Time Noted: 2:20 PM.)

HILTON FAY HINDERLITER,

having been previously duly sworn, was examined, and testified further as follows:

BY MR. WOLFE:

Q: Doctor, would you tell me what you regard as the basis for your qualifications to testify on the philosophy of science?

A: I would say that that has occupied the principal part of my research and the things that I have studied about creation/evolution for a period of perhaps five years, have mainly dealt with the logic of the arguments involved.

I have had courses in philosophy and logic, even though no specific course in the philosophy of science, and a major aspect of what I teach involves logic, logic dealing with science.

Q: Doctor, what would you say is the basis of your qualifications in nuclear physics?

A: There, I have had formal graduate work on that subject and my degree was granted in that area.

Q: Is any of the work that you have done,

87

the research that you have done since your Ph.D. research, been applicable to nuclear physics, rather than the philosophy of science?

A: What I have done since the granting of my Ph.D. has been the type of experimental research that I did in graduate school.

To the extent that I have studied into, you might say, the arguments involved in the presentation of radiometric dates, I think you could say I have pursued the subject of radioactivity or nuclear physics in that sense further than where I left off with my Ph.D. thesis.

Q: Doctor, do you subscribe to any journals in physics?

A: No.

Q: Do you subscribe to any professional journals at all?

A: Just the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Q: Sir, what testimony do you expect to give about radioactive decay processes and radiometric dating?

A: Basically, I presume I could say that I have no qualms about the theory of radioactivity,

88

half-lifes and such, but the dating methods involve certain assumptions which are not falsifiable or subject to proof or even verification. So, it would be those assumptions that I would question.

Q: What are those assumptions, sir?

A: I believe there are three principal assumptions. One is, in order to calculate an age from mathematic dating, one must know the initial isotopic abundance of the parent nuclides. Another one is the radioactive decay rates have remained constant throughout time, and the third assumption is that no transport phenomena have moved nuclides into the system or out of the system during the time that the radioactive disintegration is to have taken place.

Q: Do you regard all three of the assumptions you have just listed as non-falsifiable?

A: I do not regard them all as non-falsifiable, but I do regard them in their present state of presentation as not being demonstrated to have been necessarily true.

Q: Doctor, would you say that the three

89

assumptions you have listed apply to all the radiometric dating methods with which you are familiar?

A: Yes.

Q: Which methods have you worked with, sir, or made inquiry into?

A: Three methods:

Uranium to lead; potassium to argon; and one that is not referred to as much is rubidium to strontium.

Q: Do you regard those three methods or either of them as capable of giving an accurate estimate of the age of the earth?

A: No.

Q: Why is that, sir?

A: Because any calculation based on them is no more conclusive than the assumptions put into them.

Therefore, when you say "accurate," I assume you mean this is known this is what the age of the earth is.

Q: Doctor, are any of the three assumptions that you listed falsifiable?

A: In principle, I think they could be considered falsifiable.

90

Q: So that is your view as to all three?

A: I am not sure I could say that — guessing of initial isotopic abundances could be worked into some falsifiable statement.

Q: Then, is it correct that it would be your view that the other two assumptions, namely, that radioactive decay rates have been constant through time and what we might call the assumption of the absence of transport phenomena, are both falsifiable?

A: Right. I don't mean that they have been falsified. I mean they are, in principle, falsifiable.

Q: Are you aware of any evidence which you regard as having falsified either of those assumptions?

A: I have read material, that is, literature speaking of transport phenomena, like evidence of transport phenomena having occurred. So, I would say that, in principle, could falsify the general assumption that no transport phenomena have occurred. But, I do not feel that — the things I have read would necessarily falsify the particular

91

calculations based on particular isotopes in certain decay schemes.

Q: Sir, could you describe for me what you mean by the assumption about the initial isotopic abundances of parent nuclides?

A: Yes.

In radioactive disintegration, a parent nuclide disintegrates or, you might say, in a population of parent nuclides, the individual ones disintegrate through time.

And, in order to take a sample at a given time and calculate back to how long or how old that material is, it is necessary to know how much of each isotope there was in the sample to start with.

Q: Could you describe what initial assumption as to beginning isotopic abundances is made for the potassium/argon method?

A: Offhand, I could not quote any numbers or any blanket statements about what the assumptions are.

Q: Do you know what the assumption in that area is for the uranium/lead method?

A: Not the particular details of it, no.

Q: Do you know what the assumption in that

92

area is for rubidium/strontium?

A: No.

Q: Doctor, have you ever worked in a laboratory which could make uranium/lead or potassium— argon or rubidium/strontium age determinations?

A: No.

Q: Is it your view that geochronologists work out accurate methods for these three techniques, if you will allow the three assumptions that you have described?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it your view that geochronologists working either of these three methods are always incapable of demonstrating the absence of transport phenomena as to a particular sample that is being dated?

A: Do I believe they are always incapable of demonstrating the absence of transport phenomena?

Yes.

I think, in principle — personally, I question whether, in principle, one could demonstrate the absence of transport phenomena. I know of no experiment that would prove in a given sample, say, that transport phenomena had not occurred.

93

Maybe those types of things exist, but, at the moment, I cannot think of any.

Q: Would you say that another way of restating this third assumption, that is, the assumption of the absence transport phenomena, — is to say that you must assume that the sample to be dated has remained a closed system as to the parent and daughter nuclides?

A: Either that it has remained a closed system or else you would have to be able to explain to what degree and of what nature transport phenomena have affected that sample.

Q: Are you aware of any techniques used in any one of these three methods which purport to be able to demonstrate as to particular samples that they have, in fact, been closed samples as to the parent and daughter nuclides?

A: I think I have heard of such an analyses.

Q: Do you have any view as to whether these purported analyses of which you have heard are, in fact, capable of doing what they purport to do?

A: Again, I would just personally question in principle whether they could do what they purport to do.

Whether they are self-consistent or not,

94

I am not really competent to judge.

Q: Do you know whether geochronologists who work with any one of these methods are generally of the opinion that there are means of establishing the absence of the transport phenomena as to particular samples to be dated?

A: I couldn't really say if I know what the general view is because I have not been exposed to any publication that makes a statement in that terms, as presenting the general view.

Q: Have you ever discussed radioactive decay processes or the radiometric dating methods, the three you mentioned, with, any scientists who have performed age determinations with any one of these methods?

A: Yes, by correspondence, not orally.

Q: Could you tell me as to which methods and what scientists that is true of?

A: The scientists, in particular, the one I remember is — some of the letters I enclosed were with regard to that.

I had written to Gerald Wasserburg, his laboratory, and I don't remember the address, but it is said to be one of the foremost for the billions

95

of years dating. There are other radioactive dating methods like carbon, which applies to a shorter period of time, but I had written to Wasserburg. There was another part to the question, which I have forgotten.

Q: As to which method did you correspond with Dr. Wasserburg?

A: I think it was on the initial abundance thing.

Q: Do you know whether your letter to Dr. Wasserburg was included in the document production that you gave me earlier today?

A: I don't remember.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

Q: Doctor, I have the letter from you to Dr. Wasserburg, dated February 12, 1980, which you included in the document production this morning. Do you recall whether you had written on any other occasion to Dr. Wasserburg about radiometric dating techniques?

A: I recall at least one other time that I wrote to him.

96

Q: Do you know whether you still have a copy of that other letter that you remember?

A: I'm not sure. I might.

Q: I would request that when you return home, that you would check to see whether you do have a copy of that letter. And, if you do, whether you would be willing to make it available to us through the Attorney General's Office prior to trial.

Q: Doctor, did you ever receive a reply from Dr. Wasserburg to either of your letters?

A: Yes.

(Continued on the next page.)

97

Q: Do you recall the substance of the reply that you received?

A: Generally, he sent me reprints of publications that he had made. I think in the other letter I wrote to him, I sent him copies of some other articles, questioning the isotopic abundance that are used in some of the calculations, and I asked him what do you think of these arguments.

They were not my arguments. They were something I had read elsewhere that questioned the isotopic abundances in uranium/lead. He replied, I think to that, by saying, "What arguments?"

I think that was his reply.

He did not respond to the arguments. He just implied that the arguments were not even worthy of consideration.

Q: Can you recall more clearly what material you had sent to him or the source of the calculations that you sent to him at that time?

A: Yes. I think I still have a copy of those articles.

98

Q: I will make an additional request that if you can locate them when you return home, that you make them available to us before trial, through the Attorney General. Doctor, are you aware of any experiments which have been conducted which sought to determine whether or not radioactive decay rates could be altered by physical conditions?

A: Yes, I am aware of some.

Q: Are you aware of any experiments which indicated that such alteration was possible?

A: I believe, yes. I couldn't quote the reference right now.

Q: Do you recall the substance of that experiment; that is, what condition it was which was capable of altering the constancy of the decay rate?

A: I think it had to do with the electric field in which the decaying nucleus was situated. That is the best I remember.

Q: Do you recall whether that experiment applied to all of the decaying mechanisms or only to one?

A: Do you mean like one particular decay?

99

Q: Yes, sir, as to alpha decay or beta decay.

A: I am not sure. I would assume that it applied only to — as far as the radioactive dating methods go, alpha decay would be the only one that is of interest because it's the long half-life decay.

Q: Sir, is it your understanding that the three methods that we have talked about all proceed by alpha decay?

A: The radioactive decay schemes mentioned include alpha decay.

In any mechanism scheme, there is maybe an alpha decay followed by a beta and/or a gamma and another alpha decay. They all include alphas. That's the long half-life; not carbon dating.

Q: Do you know whether any of the three methods that you have mentioned actually have an electron captured decay scheme?

A: I think some of the uranium-to-lead at least include in the decay scheme an electron capture. I am not sure whether that is crucial

100

in determining the age by that method.

Q: Sir, do you know, if electron captured decay is part of the decay scheme for rubidium-strontium or potassium/argon techniques?

A: Without looking into the case schemes, I couldn't say one way or the other. I seem to remember, though, in potassium/ argon, there is a critical branching ratio, and I think that would involve some type of beta. But, again, I am not sure without looking it up.

Q: I am not certain whether I asked you this a moment ago or not, but, in addition to the one instance that you recalled, are you aware of any other experiment in which change in physical conditions, temperature or pressure or chemical combination or any other, has been able to alter the constancy of radioactive decay rates?

A: No. Without looking it up, I couldn't say.

Q: Doctor, if we were to assume that no experiment had ever been able to alter the rate of alpha decay by changing temperature or pressure or state of chemical combination, would you regard that as

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Hilton Fay Hinderliter - Page 3

101

suggestive or persuasive evidence that alpha decay rates had been constant through time?

A: Not necessarily.

Q: Why not, sir?

A: Because I think it would be philosophically conceivable that we do not know everything, every characteristic of radioactive decay theory or possible characteristics of the environment that might influence radioactive decay rates.

Q: Doctor, recognizing that there is always the possibility of some factor that one has been able to think of, do you regard it as suggestive evidence for constancy if you have performed experiments as to every factor that you can think of and have found that none of them altered the decay rates?

A: Would you repeat the beginning of the question?

(Question read by Reporter.)

A: I would say that such an argument would have bearing on what happens in experiments now, but it would not necessarily imply what happened in the past.

Q: Why is that, sir?

A: Because, conceivably, the universe might have operated under some different mode of behavior in the

102

past.

I am not saying there is evidence it did, but, from a philosophical point of view, we have no way of knowing whether it did or not.

Q: Would you say then that evidence in decay rates are constant under current physical conditions, no matter how those conditions are altered experimentally, at least suggests that any alteration in the decay rates in the past must have been as a result of some condition other than those which have been tested experimentally?

A: I think it is impossible to answer that question because I think the beginning of it assumed that decay rates are constant and you asked questions about evidence showing that they are not constant.

Q: Doctor, is it your view that radioactive decay rates today, and over the last twenty-five years, or more, have been constant?

A: I am not of any strong conviction that they have or have not.

I think it is conceivable that they might not have been, but I do not argue that they have not been.

I do not take a position wherein I claim

103

that they have not been constant.

Q: Were you aware of any experiments which have been conducted, the results of which purport to demonstrate that decay rates have been constant over the experimental period?

A: I think the general — the fact that decay rates have been measured implies that they are not to some degree constant; otherwise, it would be impossible to measure a half-life. I think you are referring to experiments that have shown that they have varied somewhat.

Q: Perhaps, the misunderstanding here is because my question was unclear. If we assume that experiments have been conducted as to the alpha decay process, and they have indicated that alpha decay is constant today when it has been sought to be measured and the experiments have further been conducted that sought to vary that decay rate by applying extremes of temperature or extremes of pressure or combining the parent radioactive nuclide with different combinations of chemical elements, and none of those experiments seeking to alter the decay rate had done so, no matter what conditions were applied, given those assumptions, would you regard that as

104

suggestive evidence that at least any alteration in decay rates in the past must have taken place by some conditions or circumstances other than those which had been tested experimentally?

A: To the extent that I can remember all of that, yes.

Q: Are you satisfied that you do remember, or would you like to have the question read back?

A: You can read the question one more time.

(Question read by Reporter.)

I would consider that a reasonable conclusion., yes.

Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the concordia/discordia technique in uranium/lead age determination?

A: I have heard of it. I have not studied it enough to be able to criticize it without further study.

I think there are people more qualified to address that than myself. In other words, I do not think I have time between now and the trial to become an expert on that.

Q: Have you heard that there are

105

geochronologists who regard that method as capable of demonstrating whether or not a particular sample has been a closed chemical system?

A: I believe I am aware of such arguments being made.

Q: Do you have any views as to the soundness of that contention?

A: Without further study on it, I don't think I could take a position on that one way or the other.

Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the isochron technique for use with rubidium/strontium and potassium/argon dating techniques?

A: I am familiar with the term "isochrons". I have read materials about such isochron methods. Offhand, I don't remember which decays they refer to.

Q: Are you aware of any geochronologists who contend that use of the isochron technique in potassium/argon or rubidium/strontium methods permit the determination of whether or not the sample dated has been a closed chemical system?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: Sir, do you have any view on the soundness

106

of that contention?

A: No. I wouldn't take a position on that. I can say, personally, I am skeptical of the idea that the isochron argument could determine whether there has been any transport in or out of the sample.

Q: Could you explain the basis for your skepticism?

A: I guess just common principle, if one were — it's just in principle to me, I cannot see how — maybe, I should say, when I read the things I read about isochrons, I was not convinced that the isochron method was convincing evidence that transport had not occurred.

At the present time, I cannot remember any reason why I felt that way when I read the articles, unless I go back and read them again or maybe be exposed to the argument given by people more qualified to challenge the isochron argument.

Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the argon-40/argon-39 method of reaching age determinations?

A: I believe I heard of it.

Q: Have you ever heard the contention that

107

use of the age spectrum technique with argon-40/ argon-39 method is capable of identifying whether or not a particular sample has been a closed chemical system?

A: I don't remember that phrase, "age spectrum".

I may have read it, but I don't remember whether I have.

Q: Doctor, have you had any course work in isotopic chemistry?

A: No.

Q: Sir, are you aware of the contention that there are certain chemical isotopes which occur in nature only as the product of radioactive decay series?

A: I am aware of a contention that certain ones existing in certain samples could only have occurred as a result of decay.

Q: Do you have a view on the soundness of that contention?

A: I think this gets into Robert Gentry's work with certain polonium isotopes, and I believe that the argument there is that all of certain short half- life polonium isotopes must have been the product of a

107a

radioactive decay from a parent, but that assumption is called into question by the data that Gentry has. From there on, he is better to answer that question than I am. (Continued on the next page.)

108

Q: Are you aware of any other instances in which the contention that certain isotopes occur in nature only as the product of radioactive decay?

A: Possibly as with regard to certain argon isotopes.

Q: Do you recall which ones?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Are you aware of any radiometric dating technique which seeks to avoid the necessity for an assumption as to the initial isotopic abundance of the parent radio-nuclide by measuring only a radiogenic daughter and taking no measurement of a parent nuclide at all?

A: I would imagine that such a scheme — I may have heard of such a scheme being proposed but I would question it in principle because it would be no more conclusive than the assumption that such a radio-nuclide did not exist in the initial sample.

Q: Dr., if we could return for a few minutes to your testimony about short period comets. Sir, I believe you stated earlier that short period comets are observed to decrease in luminosity.

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know why that takes place?

109

A: I believe it is caused by the blowing- away of cometary material by the sun as the comet passes into the vicinity of the sun.

Q: I am afraid my notes are not perfectly clear on this. Was it correct that you stated earlier that the lifetime of short period comets may be used to derive an age for the universe or for the solar system?

A: Yes.

Q: Because if the decrease in luminosity observed in short period comets is extrapolated backwards in time, more than a few — I am afraid that I did not write down what you said.

A: More than a few tens of thousands of years.

Q: If it is extrapolated further back than that, it requires the assumption that the initial state of the comets must have been unreasonable, by virtue of their being extraordinarily bright; is that a fair statement?

A: Extraordinarily bright or extraordinarily large or massive, one or the other or both.

Q: Sir, is it your view that this evidence about short period comets bears on the scientific

110

soundness of either creation-Science or evolution- science as a theory?

A: I believe when that subject was raised, we were discussing the dating methods, and I said that the short period comet argument can be used to develop a dating method that would give a young age for the universe. To the extent that the young age would contradict the evolution-science model, it would have bearing on that then.

Q: Do you have a view about the accuracy of this short period comet method for calculating the age for the universe?

A: Accuracy in terms of saying the age of the universe is a certain value?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: I think it is mostly in order of magnitude thing. It would be difficult to draw a line and say this size or brightness of a comet would be reasonable and anything beyond that would be unreasonable.

Q: Are there any assumptions that are implicit in this method for estimating age by the evidence from short period comets?

A: Yes.

111

Q: What are they?

A: I believe they would be the same kind of assumptions or, let's say, some assumptions parallel to those involved in radioactive dating. For example, the rate of disintegration of comets has been constant in the past and that nothing came into the system which would be analogous to the transport phenomena.

Q: Are you aware of any other explanation for the observed evidence on short period comets and their decrease in luminosity other than a short age for the universe?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell me what that is?

A: I believe there is an explanation that there is beyond the orbit of Pluto, which is the outermost planet, there is some material available which can be brought into a cometary orbit by perhaps the passing of a star through the vicinity, and that causes new material to be added or it causes such material to become a comet.

Q: That is, to become a short period comet?

A: I believe so. Short period comets generally have some connection with Jupiter. I might

112

have to qualify the previous statement, without checking into whether the short period comets — I believe the short period comets are the ones that are explained, whose origin is explained as this material beyond the solar system.

Q: Dr., have you a view as to which of the two explanations, that is, the one that you have just described about material beyond the orbit of Pluto, and the explanation of a short age for the universe, better fits the current state of the scientific evidence?

A: I think they would be equally — they could be judged as equally valid possibilities.

Q: Are you aware of any observations which tend to support either explanation?

A: The phraseology of that question causes me to wonder because observations that the short period comets do decrease in brightness would be part of the argument for the solar system being young. So that would be supported by observations. On the other hand, I know of no observations being made of any material in this supposed cloud of protocometary matter existing out beyond the orbit of Pluto.

113

Q: Are you aware of any observations which imply the existence of the protocometary material we have been discussing?

A: I can't remember of any such awareness.

Q: Are you aware of any instances in which a previously unknown short period comet has been observed to appear and then reappear in a short period comet orbit?

A: I can't think of any instances of that.

Q: Would you regard such an observation, that is, of previously unknown short period comets which is observed approaching the inner solar system and then observed to round the sun, depart from the solar system and return several times on a short period comet orbit as implying support for the existence of the protocometary material beyond the orbit of Pluto?

A: That would seem reasonable on the surface. However, in an analogy with radiometric dating where one would assume that finding material that shows evidence of transport phenomena having occurred or comparing the age, calculated age for a known sample with an age determined by other methods and finding a contradiction, those things, I believe, have

114

happened but if they can be explained away by the radiometric people, I think if somebody analyzed the short period comet argument, he could come up with a comparable ad hoc hypothesis.

Q: Dr., are you aware of any reason for not accepting the reasonableness of the line of argument that I described in my last question, except for the analogy that you described as to radiometric dating in your last answer?

A: I can't think of any other, no.

Q: Dr., I would like to turn our attention to one of your articles from the Creation Research Society Quarterly, the one of the shrinking sun, if we may.

Dr., in that article, on the first page near the bottom of the first column, there is a reference to the Fireplace Model. Could you explain to me exactly what you meant by that?

A: That generally refers to the idea of the sun deriving its energy by some sort of burning as wood or coal would burn in a fireplace.

Q: Is that just ordinary chemical combustion?

A: Yes.

115

Q: Is the statement within the article your own view; namely, the Fireplace Model cannot be an explanation for the sun's energy mechanism because recorded history is of greater duration than would be the duration of the sun under that model?

A: I have never done any actual calculations on my own on that. In reading other analyses, I remember that the numbers were quoted as something within the span of recorded history. Therefore, I accepted the idea that it is not — that the Fireplace Model does not remain as a major contender, say, for a model for the sun's energy generation.

Q: Is it true that your rejection of that model was based on not calculations that you have done, but your memory of other calculations that indicated —

A: Yes.

Q: Dr., is it correct that you have no view of your own on this matter, but it is a matter of assessing the accuracy of calculations by others?

A: At the present time, I would say I have not recalculated the calculations of people who had already done extensive theory work on models

116

of the sun's energy generation. If I had any reason to suspect that those were in error, I would consider the recalculation would be in order.

Q: Sir, do you have any view as to what the interior temperature of the sun is?

A: Do you mean do I have a view as to what it is or do I have a view concerning claims as to what it is?

Q: Both. Take them one at a time. Do you have a view, yourself, as to what the interior temperature of the sun is?

A: Not with any degree of certainty, no. would say within limits. In other words, it would probably be at least as warm as the surface of the sun but no greater temperature than that expected by the nuclear fusion model.

I assume it would be in that range but that is a wide range. So I have no reason to opt for one of those over another.

Q: Do you have any awareness of whether there is a generally accepted view as to the interior temperature of the sun?

A: I think among people who adhere to the nuclear fusion scheme, there would be a generally

117

accepted view.

Q: Do you know what that is, sir?

A: I just have to take a wild guess without looking it up. I think it was 40-million degrees Kelvin.

Are you aware of any of the arguments for why the temperature of the center of the sun must be, let's say — assuming that it is 40-million degrees Kelvin, the figure you used, are you aware of any of the arguments for why that must be the temperature of the center of the sun?

A: I think within the nuclear fusion model, such a temperature would be necessary in order for the proposed fusion reactions to proceed at the required rates.

Q: Are you aware of any contention that the interior temperature of the sun must be that high in order to prevent gravitational collapse of the sun?

A: I think I may have heard of that argument but that argument would assume that the sun is in equilibrium with respect to gravitational collapse and not now collapsing.

Q: Do you have a view as to whether or not

118

that assumption is sound?

A: I would have no personal preference as to whether that view is sound or unsound.

Q: Do you think the present state of the scientific evidence suggests that that view is sound or unsound?

A: No.

Q: Sir, is your answer because you are not aware of the state of the present scientific evidence or that it equally supports that contention and its opposite?

A: I think that any argument against the reasonableness of an explanation that the sun is not now in equilibrium, gravitational equilibrium, any argument against that as a possibility would incorporate some of the problems that I mentioned before with models for the formation of the solar system.

Q: Dr., would you say that your article that we have been talking about here takes a view as to whether or not the sun is in gravitational equilibrium?

A: The abstract of one of those articles made a statement the conveyed the idea that I was. I don't believe the text of the article takes a

119

position that gravitational collapse is more believable than the nuclear fusion model; possibly that it is more believable than the constant rate nuclear fusion model but I don't think I implied by this that the gravitational collapse would be superior to some on/off fusion model. At the present time, I would say those are both possibilities.

Q: Sir, if we could look just at your article from the June 1980 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, would you say that you took a position in that paper as to whether or not the sun is undergoing gravitational contraction?

A: I would have to read the article first. I think. I haven't read it lately.

Q: I take it you are saying you do not recall whether or not you took a position in that article on whether or not the sun was undergoing gravitational contraction?

A: Correct.

Q: Sir, do you recall whether you wrote the title that is given for your article here on the June 1980 issue, that is, "The Shrinking Sun: A Creation as to Prediction, Its Verification and the

120

Resulting Implications for Theories of Origins"?

A: Yes. I wrote that title.

Q: What prediction did you have reference to in the title?

A: The prediction that it might be possible that data, scientific data, would show or would argue for gravitational collapse — not necessarily gravitational collapse. It would be data that would imply a collapse and that would be the shrinking part.

Q: Can you say what the verification is, which you have reference to in the title?

A: The verification referred to John Eddy's data claiming to show that the sun had decreased in size.

Q: I will also draw your attention to page 58 in the article, the second column, the first full paragraph under the subheading "Call In The Shrink." The second sentence reads, "To be blunt, solar contraction is the refreshing breeze that simply blows away the foggy dilemma." From that we have just looked at, do you recall whether or not your article took a position on whether or not the sun was involved in gravitational contraction?

121

A: I would say given my position now and even my position when I wrote the article, that statement might have been better worded. Solar contraction could be a refreshing breeze that simply blows away the foggy dilemma.

Q: Then do I take it correctly that you are saying your current view is that the Sun could be undergoing gravitational contraction and that you would not say that the present evidence suggests that the sun is undergoing gravitational contraction?

A: Correct.

Q: Is it fair to say that to the extent your article from the June 1980 Creation Research Society Quarterly seems to state more that the sun's undergoing gravitational contraction, that you now have a different view?

A: I would say now I do not have a different view than I had when I wrote the article. Perhaps I should have rephrased that sentence to correctly express my views at that time. I would have looked at the context of the whole thing and see if I could make it clear in other statements that I then considered gravitational

122

contraction as a possible explanation on, not necessarily the correct explanation. Maybe I should qualify this by saying that at the time I wrote this article, I leaned heavily on John Eddy's expertise or competence. And I notice under the last paragraph in the article on page 59, "As it turns out, the contraction has actually been observed," et cetera. Maybe it would be more accurate to state that my views now are not the same as that statement. In looking back, I felt at the time I was really not arguing that contraction was the necessary mechanism, but that recollection may refer to a time after I had read other criticisms of Eddy's data. So it might be more accurate to say that I have somewhat changed my position since the time I wrote this article, at least in the frame of mind I was in when I wrote those words.

Q: Do I take it then, sir, that your view of the reliability of Dr. Eddy's observations is different now from what it was when you wrote this article; is that right?

A: I have come across no reason to question Dr. Eddy's observations but I have heard counter

123

arguments claiming there is no evidence for the shrinkage of the sun. So I guess I would be less emphatic now in stating that the evidence purporting to show the contraction of the sun is conclusive.

Q: Dr., can you describe for me what the counter-evidence that you are aware of, which perhaps calls Dr. Eddy's observations into question?

A: I can vaguely remember it but I can't pin it down I have it in my file at home. I have articles referring to it. I might point out, too, there is additional evidence or I have heard or read reports of additional evidence besides that published by Dr. Eddy that would also argue for the shrinkage of the sun. That had to do with, I believe, recent observations of solar eclipses but I can't remember the specifics.

Q: Dr., are you able to summarize for me your discussion of solar neutrinos, perhaps the Neutrino Paradox as it bears on the question of whether the sun is undergoing gravitational collapse?

A: You mean the things in addition to what is in the article? I think it is pretty much explained in the article.

124

Q: I am asking if you consider it possible the summarize the article's exposition briefly?

A: According to the accepted theory of radioactivity and the stipulations incorporated into the nuclear fusion model for the sun's energy generation, a certain amount of neutrino flux was expected; that would be neutrinos observable at the position of the Earth.

At the time that the Fusion Model was designed or worked out, there was no experimental way to count neutrinos or detect neutrinos. But, then, later experimental methods were devised for the detection of neutrinos, and when measurements were made of the neutrino flux at the Earth, the observed numbers were much smaller than expected on the basis of solar theory which itself is based on the nuclear fusion model. Does that answer your question?

Q: I think so.

Dr., calling your attention to page 58 in the article, the part under the subheading, "The Experimental Results" in the second column, there is a statement there that the number of neutrinos observed falls far short of the expected number that

125

no more than one/tenth of the expected number are observed.

Do you know if the experimenter who was seeking to detect neutrinos has continued that experimental technique since the time of the result that you referred to?

A: I believe he has continued it to some degree. I am not sure how long.

Q: Do you know if there had been subsequent observations of more than the number?

A: You mean significantly more than?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: I don't know of any such.

Q: Have you heard that Mr. Davis is presently recording observations about three times as great as those that you have referred to here?

A: No, I have not heard that. I have not checked into the data lately.

Q: Turning to page 59 of the article, in the summary paragraph, there is a statement, part of which is italicized:

"It is clear we have witnessed a major scientific defeat for evolutionism." Could you tell me what you meant by

126

"major scientific defeat for evolutionism"?

A: I think it explains it further. It says as we have seen its vital organ, and then it refers to the billion year minute, persuading astrophysicists to reject the possibility of solar contraction.

Q: I am still not certain I understand exactly what you regarded as "a major scientific defeat for evolutionism."

Was it in the neutrino count observations which showed only a tenth as much as expected or Dr. Eddy's results indicating gravitational contraction of the sun?

A: I would say that both of those accumulations of data directed people's attention to the fact that evolution had conveyed the idea that gravitational collapse was not a viable theory for the sun's energy generation, and the defeat was that now these data have directed people's attention to where they would consider gravitation contraction as a possibility, which removes the exclusive position that nuclear fusion had, as an explanation for the sun's energy source, which, of course, ties to the billions of years age of the sun.

Q: Do you know that there was a conference

127

on the sun held at Goddard Space Flight Center in 1980?

A: I can't remember that.

Q: Were you aware that three separate investigating groups, I think one from England, one from MIT, and one from the Goddard Center, have published results calling into question Dr. Eddy's observations?

A: I may have been familiar with it but I don't remember it by name.

Q: If we assumed that three groups since Dr. Eddy's publications have suggested that his observations are not, in fact, accurate and Dr. Davis is presently recording three times as many neutrino counts as you had understood at the time of your article, would you still regard the subject matter, the article here, as a major scientific defeat for evolutionism?

A: I think I would, yes.

Q: Why is that, sir?

A: The answer to that question would get into the nature of a scientific community.

Q: Could you explain to me what it is about the nature of the scientific community that

128

causes you to regard the subject matter, despite the changes that we have alluded to, as still constituting a major scientific defeat for evolutionism?

A: Yes. I would say it would not surprise me if pressure was exerted on such person as Dr. Eddy or Dr. Davis to re-present, reformulate or give less emphasis or present as less convincing the data they had formerly presented.

Q: Sir, are you suggesting that the intellectual honesty of evolution scientists is not necessarily reliable?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Would you similarly attribute the three research groups that I referred to earlier who had made observations contradicting Dr. Eddy's as also the result of, essentially, intellectual dishonesty?

A: I would not assume that was necessarily true of them. I would consider it as a possibility.

Q: Could you tell me what it is that causes you to call into question the intellectual honesty of evolution scientists?

A: Yes. Some of the other documents I gave to you included letters I had written to the journals Science and Science 1981, both of which

129

recently printed articles that contain statements that were not true when addressing issues related to the creation/evolution controversy.

Q: What statements were they?

A: One article in the Journal of Science began with the statement that the law recently passed in Arkansas — I think I can remember what it said — that that law would essentially mandate the teaching of the biblical account of creation. I know that is not what the law said. I wrote to the editor of Science, asking that that be corrected.

Q: You are saying you do not regard it as fair to say that that is essentially what the Arkansas statute requires?

A: The Arkansas statute specifically forbids the teaching of religious writings, and the biblical account of the creation is a religious writing.

Q: I think I understood your paraphrase of the statement in Science to be that the Arkansas statute essentially required the statement of the biblical account of creation, and I take it you regard it untrue as to interpreting the Arkansas

130

statute as essentially requiring that?

MR. CLARK: He said what he thinks the Arkansas statute says.

Q: I understood you just said now what you thought the Arkansas statute says. Is it true you also would regard anyone who thought that the Arkansas statute required whatever your paraphrase was, essentially the teaching of the biblical account — that you believed that understanding of the Arkansas statute cannot be held honestly?

A: I would say anybody writing an article, which as a major aspect of the article addresses the law of Arkansas, under the assumption that such a person would have studied the law to know what it says, I would say yes, such a person could not honestly conclude that the law in Arkansas effectively mandates the teaching of the biblical account of creation.

Q: I would like to turn just for a moment to your second article, the one in the December, 1980 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and, particularly, looking at page 145, the last page of that article. In the first full paragraph on the first

131

page, the first sentence reads: "So with the realization that vast age stellar evolution retains no substance worthy of further refutation" — and I will omit a parenthetical—"let's consider what the really reliable source — the Bible — has to say." Could you tell me what you meant by referring to the Bible as the really reliable source in that context?

A: Yes. In the things that I have studied about the Bible, that I find no inconsistency or no reason as not necessarily as a scientific view, but from logic and just general source of knowledge, I find no reason to question the Bible as a reliable source of — I should have said dependable statements.

Q: Sir, in what documents would be the source for the concept of vast age stellar evolution?

A: I think, generally, writings of astrophysicists mapping out a scenario how stars evolved from one stage to another over vast periods of time.

Q: Then is it fair to characterize this statement as saying that you regard the Bible as a more reliable source than the publications of astrophysicists about this notion of stellar evolution?

132

A: Yes.

Q: Sir, I would like to look at a letter that you gave us in the document production this morning, which I think was to Harold Armstrong. I do not know if Mr. Armstrong has a PhD and whether I should call him a Dr. or not.

Is he the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly?

A: Yes.

Q: The letter I have reference to is from you to Harold Armstrong, dated September 20, 1979. On the last page near the bottom, I will read a couple of sentences:

"Also, I wrote to Hansen about geocentricity. His reply along with your remarks on the subject have `expanded my mind' from the constraints put upon it by my previous schooling. There are some interesting things to think about in that category." Could you tell me who the Mr. Hansen referred to was?

A: I could find out who he is. Offhand, I don't remember his first name but I know enough about him that I could provide his name.

Q: Is he an author or can you tell me

133

how it is that you know him?

A: He is, I believe, a professor of computer science in Ohio.

Q: Can you tell me how you happened to write to Mr. Hansen about geocentricity?

A: Yes. I had read somewhere that he was a spokesman for a group advocating geocentricity.

Q: Could you tell me what you understand by the term "geocentricity"?

A: Geocentricity would mean that the Earth would be at the center of the solar system.

Q: Do you recall what the reply that you received from Mr. Hansen about geocentricity was?

A: Yes. He answered some questions that I asked him about possible arguments that I thought would refute geocentricity.

Q: Were you satisfied by the refutations that he offered?

A: Not satisfied that geocentricity was in any sense the way it is, but satisfied that arguments, apparently conceivable arguments, could be given in favor of geocentricity.

Q: Do you recall what any of those arguments in favor of geocentricity are?

134

A: Offhand, no.

Q: Could you tell me what you meant by the phrase "the constraints put upon it by my previous schooling"?

A: Yes. It had been stated, I think, and is generally stated in scientific discussions or discussions of the history of science, that scientific data disproved the possibility of geocentricity.

Q: Is it your present view that scientific data does not disprove the possibility of geocentricity?

A: Correct.

Q: Sir, are you aware of what some of the scientific evidence which purports to disprove geocentricity is?

A: I believe so.

Q: Could you describe it?

A: One in which I wrote to Hansen about was Foucault Pendulum. Another one I believe is the subject referred to as Coriolis Force.

Q: Dr., are you aware of the notion of stellar parallax as an argument against geocentricity?

A: I believe I have heard that, yes.

Q: Can you tell me what you do not regard any of the scientific evidence as currently disproving

135

the possibility of geocentricity?

A: Yes. One reason would be that I have a physics text written by people who I have no reason to consider quacks, which states that geocentricity cannot be demonstrated to be superior to the Copernican view.

They are just different ways of interpreting the observations.

Q: Sir, I wonder if you are saying that the physics text that you have in mind states that geocentricity cannot be demonstrated to be superior to the Copernican view?

A: Is that what you meant to say?

Q: Did you mean to say that the text said that the Copernican view cannot be demonstrated to be superior to the geocentricity view?

A: No. The text stated that the geocentric view cannot be demonstrated to be inferior, not superior.

Q: Do you recall the name of the text or any of the authors?

A: I believe the author's name was Brancazio.

Q: Do you recall the title?

A: No, but I could produce the title, I

136

believe.

Q: Do you recall the publisher or when it was published?

A: No. It was relatively recent; within the last eight years; not before the Copernican Revolution.

Q: Do you recall the substance of the basis for the statement that geocentricity cannot be shown to be inferior to the Copernican view?

A: No, I don't really recall the reasoning for it.

MR. WOLFE Off the record (Discussion held off the record.)

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the deposition was adjourned.)

_______________________________ Hilton Fay Hinderliter

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this______day of__________________1981.

__________________________________

Notary Public

November 25, 1981 137

I N D E X

WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE

HILTON HINDERLITER MR. WOLFE 4

E X H I B I T S

PLAINTIFF'S FOR ID.

] Vita 4