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