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.


* 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


REV. BILL McLEAN, et al., )
VS. ) LR-C-81-322





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


BILHEIMER, PA., Tower Building
Suite 955, Little Rock, Arkansas,



& FLOM, 919 Third Avenue, New
York, 10022, by MR. GARY E.



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.



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


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.




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:




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

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


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,

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


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



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

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-

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


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

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


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

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


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


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.


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

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


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?


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

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.


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?


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


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

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


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

Q That is not consistent with your framework?

A No.

Q How is that inconsistent with your framework of Biblical

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


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


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.


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


Let's go off the record.

(Off Record)



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

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.


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.


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

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?


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.


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?


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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.


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

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


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

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.


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?


What part of Act 590?


Act 590 itself.



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

A Would you mind me looking at it.



(Counsel hands document to witness)

A Okay. Now, what about Act 590.


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


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)


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 .)


Q You said that you wrote this out this morning?

A Yes.

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


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

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


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.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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.


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

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


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


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,


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 .)


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


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


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 ).


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.


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?


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


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.


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


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


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


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


an evaluation based on looking at one page.


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.


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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.


He's just saying, answer orally.


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


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.


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.


Let's take a short break here.

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


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


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


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


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

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,


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

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.


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


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.


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


total Act is what we're considering.

Q All right.


Let's take a break just a moment.

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.)


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 .)


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


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

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


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

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.


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


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.)


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


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.)


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


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.)


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".


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


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



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 .)


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.)


Q Are you familiar with a Presbyterian minister by the name


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



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?


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

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,


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

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


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

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


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.


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

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

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


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

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


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


Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species from the

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

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

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,


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?


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.


My question does not go to the nature of a legal


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


scriptures, Psalms, Genesis, other scriptures are

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


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.


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

(Witness Excused) (Signature Waived)



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
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al        *
                       Defendants        *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


                 MR. PHIL KAPLAN, ESQ., Kaplan, Hollingsworth,
                         Brewer & Bilheimer, 950 Tower Building,
                         Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
                 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

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

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.

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

                         1100 N. University, Suite 223
                         Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
                                   (501) 664-7357


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


                          DIRECT EXAMINATION

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


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


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

Beyond that, as a Bishop of the Church, my


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

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?


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


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


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

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?


A. No.

Q. Where did you graduate from high school, Bishop

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.


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.


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,


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,


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


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

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

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,


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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,


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

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

A. Yes.


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


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

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


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

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.


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


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


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

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

[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


-- 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.


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

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?


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.


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


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



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


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

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


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

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


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

Q. How long did your conversation last with Reverend

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


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


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

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

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Bishop Kenneth W. Hicks - Page 2


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.


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


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

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.


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

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

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

MS. VEHIK: Okay.


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

A. I can't think of anything else that I would be
testifying about.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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

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.


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

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


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

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


is used? And here, then, is where I see all of the
religions of the world -- their various views of

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                   WESTERN DIVISION

                        Plaintiffs          )
                    vs                       )      Civil Action No:
                                              )        LR-C-81-322
                        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.



Attorneys at Law, of the law firm of,
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


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

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

MR. SIANO: To the extent that the materials
demonstrate the operation of the lawyers' view of the


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.


MR. CAMPBELL: I understand. I am hoping
that the same leeway would be accorded to the

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


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.


called as a witness by the Defendants, having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as



Q Give me your full name and address, if you

A Francis Bruce Vawter; **** ***** *******,
*******, ********, *****.

Q Are you a member of any organized religious

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


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

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,


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

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


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--


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


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

MR. CAMPBELL: Q What sciences--I think you
mentioned archaeology as one, but what sciences would


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


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

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.


(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.


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

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

A Yes, that was part of the course, I'm sure
of that.

Q Do you recall how it was presented by any

A Well, fairly well, yes. I would think that
I can remember more the person who taught it than I can


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


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

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

Q Outside of your receiving your doctorate,
have you received any additional training or schooling?


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

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.


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

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

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

MR. SIANO: I object to the use of that phrase,


unless you want to define it. Are you using a phrase
that's used in the statute?


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

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?


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

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

There's a journal of Evangelical
Theological Society which is fundamentalist. And
there's a couple from around the world: one in


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

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.


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


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?


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


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,


whose commentary is not yet completed. He is still
working on it, but he will be the modern Gunkel, I

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


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

Q What are you talking about when you say
"the common views of most people," what does that

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

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


(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?

question. If you want
of the scholarship of
to me to be perhaps a

back, please?

read b

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


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

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

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


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


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

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--


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.


MR. CAMPBELL: All right.

Q Did you understand what my question was?


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


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

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


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?


A No.

Q Have you ever had your deposition taken

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-

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


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


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

MR. SIANO: I'm going to object. The question
is speculative.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm asking him--


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.


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?


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


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


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

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

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


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?


A I can tell from the letter which was--

MR. SIANO: I think it was September, early

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


I'm not a good chronicler.

Couple hours, probably, would be right,

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?


MR. SIANO: Off the record.

(WHEREUPON, a short discussion
ensued off the record)

MR. CAMPBELL: Back on the record.


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

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

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.


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

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


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

Q Did you send him any other reports or

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


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


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

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?


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?



Q Father Vawter, are you familiar with the
term, "fundamentalism?"

A Yes.

Q Do you have an opinion what it's definition

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

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


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

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


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

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.


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

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


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

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


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.


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,

It is simply part of the primeval

Q Finally, six, "A relatively recent conception
of the earth and living kinds."


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


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


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

MR. SIANO: Then, his personal opinion is

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


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

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

A Theoretically, yes; if they're respectable

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


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

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


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


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



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

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

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


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,


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

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.


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


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.


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

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


into personal matters --

MR. CAMPBELL: Are you instructing the witness
not to answer the question?

MR. SIANO: I suggest that it's an improper

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

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

MR. CAMPBELL: Are you instructing the witness


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

THE WITNESS: A Oh, yes. There are many, but


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

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

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

A Well, yes, but it's important to Genesis
for one reason. It's important to the other cultures
for other reasons.


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


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

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--


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.


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

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. 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

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


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


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,


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

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


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

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


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.


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


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


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

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


mythological perspective.

Q Are there epochs as opposed to myths in

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


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

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


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,


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

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



Q Briefly, I'll take a look at these documents
you brought this morning.

Are these in any particular order,
Mr. Siano?


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

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?


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

Q Would this be some of the material which
you read to determine what a literalist might believe
about origins?


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

THE WITNESS: A Yes, it's a continuation of that,


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

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

(WHEREUPON, said document was marked
Vauter's Exhibit Number 3, for

Have you had an opportunity to read this

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


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

Q What is the gist of the "Threat of

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


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.


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,


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.


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?


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


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.




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.


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,
on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and MR. RICK CAMPBELL,
Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the

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

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


May 22nd, 1984


                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                   WESTERN DIVISION

                        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

DAY OF __________A.D., 1981.

Notary Public

Deposition of George Mish Marsden

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

                         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.



Attorneys at Law, of the law firm of,
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. 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



(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.


called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as


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

Q Where is Oakdale Christian School?

A In Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Q Is that -- what grades are they in?

A Grade 6 and 4.


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

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--


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

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


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

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.


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


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


A It's a government-financed endowment
to support scholarships.

Q Where did you graduate from high school?

A Middletown High School, Middletown,

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.


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.


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

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

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


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

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

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.


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

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.


Q Are you a member of any professional

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

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

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


characterize themselves as Evangelical, primarily.

Q You would characterize yourself as

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

A No.

Q Have you ever held one?

A No.

Q In light of the controversy which surrounds


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

A Yes; to the American Historical Review;




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


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


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


many ways in which Christians accommodated themselves
to Darwinism.

Q Are there particular authorities which
you have read which would discuss non-theistic

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


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


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


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.


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



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


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

MR. SIANO: You mean the substance of his

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

THE WITNESS: A Basically, just to say that
fundamentalism is a movement that has been developing
in America since at least the 19th Century.


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-


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


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

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.


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.


That's been a tendency of fundamentalism
and a growing tendency of fundamentalism to make that

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?


MR. SIANO: You probably should use the word,

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


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


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?


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



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?


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

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,


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?


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. 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


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

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?


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

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


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


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


MR. CAMPBELL: I am asking for his personal

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.


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,

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

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



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

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


and inspiration, in that sense; would a fundamentalist
say the Bible is inspired, or would he say it's

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



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

A I believe the Bible is inspired by God.

Q What is liberalism?

MR. SIANO: Wait a minute. Is that political,

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


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-

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-


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

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


you would put yourself?

MR. SIANO: It depends on what the categories

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

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


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.


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


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-

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


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;


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

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?


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



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.


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

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


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

Q How would a fundamentalist view sanctifi-

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


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

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


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

Q All fundamentalists?

A Yes, that's part of my definition of

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

A Fundamentalists oppose--fundamentalists
almost always oppose secular humanism; certainly, as
I have just described it, they would oppose it.


May I take a break for a second?

MR. CAMPBELL: Sure, off the record.

(WHEREUPON, a short recess

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.


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


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. 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



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

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.


Q Would a fundamentalist say that God
created man, and then, "umpteen" different kinds of

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


a separation from political involvement or from the

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.


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

Q Can you describe other species of


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


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


Experience," will you describe the topic of that

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

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

Q The second book is, "Fundamentalism in
American Culture Shaping with 20th Century Evangelical-


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,

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?


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

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.


Q The next article is, "Defining Funda-

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

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.


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

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

A That's another article on evolution and
just-war theory.


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

A That's an article about the Christian
Reform Church and evangelicals; there is no discussion


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


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

MR. CAMPBELL: Q Was this the document you
referred to earlier as the one you sent to Plaintiffs'

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.


(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

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)


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

MR. SIANO: Professor Marsden, I have a couple
questions for you.


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


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

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.



Q What would be some of the reasons that
you believe that Section 4 is related to fundamentalists'

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


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


document, sir?

A It's a document from a book by Henry
M. Morris, called, "Studies in the Bible and

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.



                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                             WESTERN DIVISION

                           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

before me this __________
day of _________A.D., 1981.

Notary Public



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.


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,
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


May 22nd, 1984

Deposition of Dorothy Nelkin

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X


Plaintiffs, :

- against - :
No. LR-C81-32

Defendants. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

November 22, 1981
10:30 A. M.

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


A p p e a r a n c e s :

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022

of Counsel

Attorney General for the State
of Arkansas, Defendant
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas

Deputy Attorney General

* * *

by and between the attorneys for the respec-
tive parties hereto that filing and sealing
be and the same are hereby waived.

that all objections, except as to the form
of the question, shall be reserved to the
time of the trial.

that the within examination may be signed and
sworn to before any notary public with the


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:


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

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

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

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

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-

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

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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Who are the leading authorities, in your
mind, on the internal views of the sociology of

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

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

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

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

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.


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

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

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

A I don't know.

Q Have you relied on your husband any in
the gleaning, or in trying to understand the way science

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

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-

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

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

Q Have you had any duties on this advisory

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

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

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

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

A I wouldn't equate --

Q Does it necessarily mean that it is not,

A Yes, a social movement is not a scientific move-

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


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

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-

Nelkin 42

A Yes. The Society for the Social Studies of

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

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-

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,

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

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


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

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

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

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

Q What is your opinion on that?

A They translate valuable issues into scientific
debates, such as in the Delzio case on artificial insem-

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-

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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-

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,

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

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


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-

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-

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


MR. CRAWFORD: Or interpretations of

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

A From the experts that I speak to, yes.

Q Who are the experts upon whom you have re-

A Evolutionists, people working in evolution theory
such as Gould.

Q Anyone else that you have relied upon princi-

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

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

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-

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?


(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,

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

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

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


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


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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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

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

Q On page 13, you state that, "Julian Huxley
described the evolutionary religion as a naturalistic

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;

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

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

Who is Bruner?

A Jerome Bruner is a Harvard University psycholo-
gist who developed this program, as well as the other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I would guess most creationists are opposed to
programs by MOCOS.

There are a lot of people opposed who are not

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

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

Do you know how many states in one form or
another took some position on evolution and Creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Groups committed to particular assumptions
tend to suppress dissonant evidence and criticism only
encourages increasing activity in support of existing

A Yes.

Q That statement is made without qualifica-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-

This project has been nothing but a pain in the

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

A Well, you figure 495 paperbacks, six percent
royalties, seven percent royalties on copies. Not

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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.)

* * *



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

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



Witness: By Mr. Williams Mr. Crawford

Dorothy Nelkin 3 146

* *


Page 8, Line 24

Page 46, Line 21


Deposition of Langdon Gilkey

No. LR-C-81-322

ET AL. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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

Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
** For the Plaintiffs

Attorney-at-Law, Assistant
Attorney General, Attorney
General's Office
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
** For the Defendants

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


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


having been first duly sworn, was examined and deposed
as follows:



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


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?


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


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


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


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,


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,



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

Q What would a protestant -- how would he
react to the primary and secondary causation arguments?

MR. SIANO: I am going to object


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'



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


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


take it personally. It's just part of our


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

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,


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


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

So they tried to think out how to relate
their Christian thought to the new world, really, of


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


quite explicitly with what he would have termed the

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


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 --


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


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

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


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

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

Q All right, sir. Let me see if I've got
this right, and please correct me if I'm wrong.


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


no distinction between, you know, primary and secondary

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


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

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


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


into a total view. But then that's not science; that's



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


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

A I am glad to answer your question, if it
is clear that this is a speculative answer on my

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

A Well, there in the Twentieth Century, there


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


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


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

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.


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

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


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


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

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


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


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.


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


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


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

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


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


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?



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

Q What is the theological meaning of the

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.


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. SIANO: I am going to object
to that as being irrelevant.

Q (By Mr. Campbell) You may go ahead and

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


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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


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.


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?


MR. SIANO: Again I am going to object
to the question. You are asking a different
question, which is intrinsically a legal

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,


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

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


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?


MR. SIANO: Wait a minute. Now, you
are not asking for his professional opinion.
You are asking for his personal view?


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;


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


to me, I would run through everything. I think I have
said enough.



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


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




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


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


MR. SIANO: Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was

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


the subject matter of your testimony will be at

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

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.


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


so-and-so for you -- these are all religious proposi-

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.


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

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


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


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.



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

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.


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,


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

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

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


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 --


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.



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.


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.


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


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

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


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

Now, obviously one is they're showing
one's own petticoat. This is where you


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


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


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

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


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

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

Now, let's say speculative philosophy is
the endeavor to think this out nonreligiously; okay?
Whether the person is religious or not -- Jay Gould


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


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


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.


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


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


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,


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


"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-

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

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


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


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

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.


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


different than religious theories; right? They func-
tion differently; they ask different questions; they
appeal to different experiences, though they may be

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


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-

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


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


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


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


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.



(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


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.


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,


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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.


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.


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


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


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

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.


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


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


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,


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

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


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

Q (By Mr. Campbell) Do you understand the

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

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


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.


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


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


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

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


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.


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


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?



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-

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


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


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.)


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

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.


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


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.


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.


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


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

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

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


newer. The originators of the scientific view are
not in accord with the scientific consensus at that

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


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


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


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

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?


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.

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


got to ask you for it, and Mr. Siano is going to

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


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,

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.


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

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


forward through this deposition; is that
right, Mr. Campbell?

MR. CAMPBELL: That is correct.

(Deposition concluded.)

- - -

Deposition of Michael E. Ruse





REV. BILL McLEAN, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :

-against- :


Defendant. :


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.



Assistant Director for Affiliate Program
American Civil Liberties Union
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036

Attorney General
State of Arkansas
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas


Of Counsel


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:



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

A. No.

Q. Have you testified in court before?

A. No.


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.


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

A. Yes.

Q. That would be?

A. Anglican. I guess you call it

Q. Have they taken any science courses as

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


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


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


doesn't have any nonsecular schools, nonchurch

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


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


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


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

A. No.

Q. At what point did you consider yourself
to have -- to no longer be a member of the Quaker

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


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

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,


probably a God is an unmoved move. At least one
who doesn't interfere in his creation or her

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

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


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

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

Q. Beside your teaching duties, are there
other duties involved in your job?

A. Administrative work.


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.


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

MR. NOVIK: He already testified that
he does not know whether students have had
creation science. I think that is enough of an

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


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

MR. NOVIK: I have to object to the


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

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

Q. How about the Anglican schools there?


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


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
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?


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

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking the witness
if he is aware of that fact. Either he is or he

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

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


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

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?


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




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

A. I can't answer that.

Q. So you have no professional opinion on
that matter?


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

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,

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

A. I think I would have to say I do have


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

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

Q. And at McMaster University as a
graduate assistant from '62 to '63?

A. Assisting in introductory classes.


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


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


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

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


on smallpox virus, anyway, because it's very
dangerous. People die as they did in Birmingham,

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

A. Yes.

Q. That research in a given area should be

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


personal conduct?

A. I am not quite sure I understand that

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


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


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

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. NOVIK: We will do that.


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

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,

Q. For example?


A. Certain Hindu forms, animalistic

Q. Would you consider atheism to be a

A. No, not as much.

Q. How do you define religion?

A. As a belief system or as a sociological

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


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

A. A prep school.

Q. Were these schools supported by public

A. The first was.

Q. Both were in England?

A. Yes. The second one was in York,
England. The first one was.


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

Q. Did you study origins during your

A. No.

Q. Did you study evolution?

A. No.

Q. Did you study in school the creation


model for origin?

A. Like I put it, I knew of the Bible.
But I didn't do creation science in science

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

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


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

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.


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

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

Q. You said --

A. I said to the best of my knowledge. I


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?

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

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

Q. Have you discussed the CREATION MODEL



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

A. Yes.

Q. Which of your writings?

A. The primary one is the one in front of

MR. NOVIK: The witness is identifying
the manuscript made available earlier.

Q. Darwinism Defended, A GUIDE TO THE

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


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

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

A. I have a little bit more on laws and
the super natural. A couple of paragraphs.

Q. When were you first contacted about


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

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

Q. Dr. Ruse, the other writings which you
have provided to the plaintiffs, were those in the


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

Q. I would like to see those documents,



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


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

Q. Three ten page typed papers?

A. Approximately.

Q. What you did use as sources for these

A. At this point, primarily my published
or to be published writings.


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

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.

there did you rely upon?

A. All of it.

Q. What was the other book you mentioned?

A. DARWINISM DEFENDED. I also relied on

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.


MR. NOVIK: Do you have a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am leading up to a

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

Q. You mentioned something also about Read
Tooth and Claw?

A. It's the subtitle of my book the

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


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

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to have a
copy made an exhibit? I don't think it's

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


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


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


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

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of any scientific
evidence which would support that portion of the

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

A. What it means?


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

Q. The insufficiency.

A. Yes.

Q. What is the evidence which supports

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.


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

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


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

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.


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

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


creationist's works, again I find it to be
religious and not something subject to scientific

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?


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

Q. You mean as used here?


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

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

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,

Q. 4, is the "emergence of man from a
common ancestor with apes." What does this


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

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?


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


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

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

A. If that is what you mean by
uniformitarianism, it can have that meaning and I


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

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.


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


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

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


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


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

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


children. Then I think I would say that --
academic freedom would not protect the teacher,
allow the teacher to preach this, this sort of

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.


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

Q. Might two people differ on what
teaching would in fact violate the integrity of an

A. They could.

Q. In fact, would people would, more than

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

A. What does academic mean in this context?

Q. Well --

A. Every idea? Every idea that people in


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

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


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

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.


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

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

A. As I say, the evidence, as such, is
irrelevant. I cannot accept creation science as

Q. Why do you say that it is an
impossibility to have scientific evidence for
creation science?

A. Because creation science relies on the

Q. Why do you say creation science relies
on the supernatural?


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.


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,


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.


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

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

Q. I am content at this point to use your
definition for organic evolution.

A. Without regard to some specific


Q. Yes.

A. Is it falsifiable, you asked me?

Q. Yes, that is the question.

A. Yes.

Q. How is the theory of evolution

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


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


this, yes.

Q. Are these philosophers creation

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. 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


the last 20 years?

A. Yes.

MR. NOVIK: By expert, do you mean

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


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


falsifiability of the theory of evolution?

A. I think he thinks that it's falsifiable.

Q. Is criticism of a scientific theory

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


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

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

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.


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

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


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

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


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

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.


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

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 --


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


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

A. I think that people like Darwin and


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

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


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

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?


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

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


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

A. Yes. A book edited by Fried Suppe.
It's a collection with an article by Kuhn. THE


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

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

A. I would prefer to use the word

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?


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

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

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.


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

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

Q. Do you think -- do you think we reached
the maximum potential in understanding the natural

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



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.

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

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


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?


A. As much as it applied then I would

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

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


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?


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

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Michael E. Ruse - Page 3


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

Q. Are you familiar with a book by Kerkut

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


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

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I was trying to
give some background. For purposes of background


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


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

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


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


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.


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

A. I would say that whoever is going to do
it is going to be doing it as a philosopher of

Q. Do you agree with Popper's notion of
what is a scientific theory?

A. I am empathetic to much that Popper

Q. Empathetic?

A. Empathetic. Philosophers really agree

Q. Where would you differ with him?


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



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


theory and the punctuated equilibrium are

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

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


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

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


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


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

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?



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

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


baseball (indicating).

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



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.


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.


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?


Q. Isn't it?

A. Sure. Some scientists, but not all.
If you read on in the book you will see how Lyell


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


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

Q. Do you have any reason to think that


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

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


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


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

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


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,


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.)



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:



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.


Q. Do you think that would be a honest

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

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?


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

Q. Just from your reading of it.

A. Well --

MR. NOVIK: Excuse me. Permissible is


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. 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.

to determine whether that book meets those

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion on that?


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

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?


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

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


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


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

Q. Does the theory of evolution have any
moral implications?

A. I really don't think so.

Q. When you talk about natural selection


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


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

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


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


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

A. No. I think they find a firm basis for


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

A. No.

Q. Do you oppose it in the schools of

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,


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


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
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

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


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

MR. NOVIK: Are you reading from the


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

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.


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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I can use "theory" just
as well. It matters not.

MR. NOVIK: Well, it matters a bit to

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?


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

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,


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


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

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

Q. Have you made any study of the textbook


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


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.


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


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?


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


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,

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

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


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


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

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


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



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


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

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


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

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.


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?


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,


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

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.


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

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

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

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


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

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

Q. How do you deal with ORIGIN OF THE
SPECIES then in this reference to a creator?
Should it not be taught?


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


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


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

A. In public schools, no.

Q. How do you determine when a science
teacher should be prohibited from teaching an idea?


A. When it is religion.

Q. Is what is religion a fixed standard, a

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?


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


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

Q. Are you familiar with any parallels
between physics and some of the Eastern mystic

A. No. That is beyond my field.

Q. Are you familiar with the Taoist

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.)


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

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?


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

A. I think I glanced at it 10, 12 years
ago, but that is my familiarity.

MR. NOVIK: Is that a book?


MR. NOVIK: Who is the author of it?


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

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,

A. I think I have come across -- I was


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

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?


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


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

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

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


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

Q. Are you not a member of the ACLU?


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

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


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.

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

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


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

A. I think not, no.

MR. NOVIK: Have you ever been

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?


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.


Q. In September of this year?

A. Probably earlier. You write something
and then you revise it. For me it is a holistic

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

A. Not really.

Q. You think it all evolved by natural

A. I think inasmuch as one can know at
this level of existence, yes.

Q. What do you discuss in "Cultural

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


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

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

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.


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

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,

Q. What is sociobiology?

A. It is the study of behavior from a
Darwinian perspective, group behavior, social

Q. Do you think that is a valid science?

A. I think it is a valid enterprise. I


don't necessarily think that every hypothesis
which is put forward is fully confirmed yet.

Q. But some of the hypotheses are validly

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

Q. In a biology class, if the students
were told, in addition to being told about
evolutionary theory, that there are individuals


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

A. Being taught or just a mention of the

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

A. I think, again, we go back to viable


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.)


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.




) ss.

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.



Deposition of Senator James L. Holsted





* * * * *




* * * * *



Cearley, Gitchel, Mitchell & Bryant
1014 W. Third
Little Rock, Arkansas.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
919 Third Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10022


Attorney General's office
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas.


300 Spring Building
Little Rock, Arkansas.


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.

* * * * *



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:



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


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

Q Are they in public school in North Little Rock?


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

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-

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.


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

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.


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 i