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.]

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