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