UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
----------------------------------------x
REVEREND BILL McLEAN, et al., :
Plaintifffs, :
- v -: INDEX NO.
LR-C-81-322
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al., :
Defendants. :
----------------------------------------x
Deposition of WAYNE FRAIR taken by
the plaintiffs pursuant to stipulation,
and held at the offices of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Esqs., 919 Third
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, on
November 25, 1981, commencing at 10:00 a.m.,
before Perry Auerbach, a Registered Pro-
fessional Reporter and Notary Public of the
State of New York.
2
A P P E A R A N C E S :
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, ESQS.
Attorneys for plaintiffs
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
BY: THOMAS M. LAHIFF, JR., ESQ.,
Of Counsel
Attorney General for the State of Arkansas
Justice Building
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
BY: DAVID WILLIAMS, ESQ.,
Deputy Attorney Gener
A L S O P R E S E N T :
ANN BLEEFELD
DR. EUGENE Gaffney,
Museum of Natural History
DR. RICHARD ZWEIFEL,
Museum of Natural History
---
2A
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED,
by and between the attorneys for the respective
parties herein, that the sealing and filing
of the within deposition be waived, and that
such deposition may be signed and sworn to
before any officer authorized to administer
an oath, with the same force and effect as if
signed and sworn to before the officer before
whom said deposition is taken.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
that all objections, except as to form, are
reserved to the time of trial.
---
3
W A Y N E F R A I R , called as a witness,
having been first duly sworn by the Notary
Public, Perry Auerbach, was examined and tes-
tified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY
MR. LAHIFF:
Q Please state your name for the record.
A Wayne Frair.
Q What is your address, please?
A The King's College, Briarcliff, New
York 10510.
Q Doctor, did you bring any documents
with you today?
A I have a few (handing).
Q Are these all the documents?
A That is all I have with me.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to take a few
minutes to take a look at them before we get
started.
(Pause in the proceedings.)
Q Doctor, I noticed from your curriculum
vitae that you have a fair number of publications deal-
ing with the creation model, and I'd like to know if it
would be possible for us to obtain copies of these,
Frair 4
as well, because I notice in the documents you have
provides us today there was only the book, The Case For
Creation, and I'd like to see copies of your other
creation writings, as well.
A That's all right with me. I'll provide
anything you wish, I guess.
Q All right. Thank you.
A I want to cooperate.
Q How did you first hear about this case?
A I think I read it in some magazine that
the bills had been passed, and that the ACLU would be
challenging it.
Q How did it come about that you were
about to testify in the case?
A The Attorney General's office phoned
me.
Q Who at the Attorney General's office?
A A man named Tim Humphreys.
Q Exactly what did he tell you?
A He -- I think he asked if I knew about
the situation in Arkansas and would I be willing to
testify if necessary.
Q And what did you tell him?
A I said that I would consider it.
Frair 5
Q Did you contact Mr. Humphreys again?
A No.
Q Did he contact you?
A Yes.
Q And what did he say to you?
A Well, he told me that they were planning
to have a trial, and that they would like to consider
my testimony.
Q What did you tell him?
A I said I was willing to participate.
Q Did you discuss the specifics of your
testimony?
A No.
Q Did you discuss what your testimony
might be?
A No.
Q Have you discussed with anyone from the
Attorney General's office what your testimony might be?
A I talked with two of the lawyers briefly
last night.
Q And what did you talk about?
A This whole business is rather new for
me, and I'm a little bit bewildered by the whole situa-
tion, and I think that they were trying to clarify for
Frair 6
me what would be going on.
Q Did they ask you what your testimony
might be?
A They asked me a few questions.
Q What did they ask you?
A They told me that I should be honest
with the questioners, and that I should be prepared to
express my feelings.
Q Was there any discussion of the spe-
cifics of what you might testify to, either today or
at the trial?
A Well, I asked them some questions of
what might be expected of me. I think they tried to
help me be prepared.
Q What did they tell you about what might
be expected of you?
A Well, what do you mean?
Q What do you mean by that?
A This is the first time I have been
involved with something like this, and I'm concerned
that we have fairness in education, but I am not anxious
to get into any squabbles about these things. If whatever
I can do to encourage fairness, I am happy to do so.
Q I'd like to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit
Frair 7
No. 1, the defendants' list of witnesses and point out
to you in paragraph 12, there is a reference to you and
to the fact that you will testify that, "Your findings
indicate substantial evidence supporting a limited
change model specifically and creation science generally."
(Above document marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 1 for identification, this date.)
Q Did you discuss anything like this with
the Attorney General or anyone from the Attorney General's
office?
A I don't remember ever saying just that.
That was written by -- who wrote that?
Q I'm not sure who wrote that.
MR. WILLIAMS: It was prepared by our
office.
Q Did you ever say anything like that to
anyone from the Attorney General's office?
A Probably said something that went along
with that. I don't remember saying those exact words.
Q Do you have any understanding of what
that statement means by a limited change model?
A Yes.
Q Could you explain what that means?
A Well, that organisms have changed to a
Frair 8
limited extent, rather than atolphylogeny. That would
include all animals.
Q Do you know what your testimony will
be at the trial?
A No.
Q Do you have any idea what you might
testify about?
A Well, I would try to answer the ques-
tions they ask.
Q Has the Attorney General ever said to
you what kinds of questions he would ask?
A That I have indicated that I would be
questioned about my stand, about my beliefs, perhaps
something about science.
MR. LAHIFF: Mr. Williams, I'd like to
have some kind of an idea what subjects or topics
this witness is going to be testifying about.
It is very unclear from our discussion
what he will be testifying about. It is very
hard to question him.
Do you have any idea at this time what
topics he will be covering during his testimony?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think our statement in
our list of witnesses is that he will discuss
Frair 9
the evidence which supports a limited changed
model specifically and the creation science
generally, and that generally is the subject
matter that he will be going into with this
witness.
He has a background in biochemetic
toxonomy, and he will be asking him questions
based on his work in the area, and the research
that he has done as it will relate to the cre-
ation science or evolution science model.
Q Doctor, could you describe what your
research has shown that would be supportive of the
creation science model?
A There's different ways of looking at
data. I don't think my findings are inconsistent with
a creation model.
Q Are your findings inconsistent with
an evolutionary model?
A I have many good friends who are evo-
lutionists who use my data appropriately, I think.
Q So you are saying then that your find-
ings are consistent with an evolutionary model?
A They can be utilized by people with
that approach.
Frair 10
Q What do you mean by the limits of the
limited change model?
A This is something that hasn't been
defined precisely.
Q Hasn't been defined precisely by whom?
A By many people that I know of.
Q Who are the many people?
A Well, those that are inclining toward
preference for a creation model.
Q How do you define the limits or what
are the limits of a limited change model to you?
A That is a very good question. These
are some of the things that I am thinking about. I
don't think that I can give a definitive answer.
Q What are you thinking about them?
A Well, I am hopeful that my research will
contribute to an understanding of the organisms I am
working on, and I hope it will be of value to all
scientists.
Q Is your research directed towards a
demonstration of the validity of the creation science
model?
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you saying is that
the sole purpose of his research?
Frair 11
Q Is that one of the purposes of your
research?
A I want to see the way things are going
to come out. I have certain presuppositions, as any
scientist has, and I want to follow the data the way
it seems to be leading.
Q Is the phrase limited change model
your description?
A Yes.
Q What do you mean by a limited change
model then?
A This is what some scientists would call
micro-evolution.
MR. LAHIFF: Can we take a break for a
few minutes.
(Short recess taken.)
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q Are you aware of any non-creationists
who would use the term limited change model?
A There are many who would stress this
aspect of it, perhaps with different words.
Q What do you mean by stress this aspect
of it?
A To go easy on the macro-evolution and
Frair 12
to think more in terms of micro-evolution.
Q Perhaps you could help me out by explain-
ing to me exactly what the limited change model is, so
that I have an understanding.
A It is a view of life that recognizes
changes to the extent that they can be demonstrated
convincingly.
Q What do you mean by changes?
A Variation.
Q What kinds of variation?
A For instance, the production of human
races.
Q I'm sorry, could you elaborate a little
bit on your answer?
A Certainly. Certain changes have been
necessary to produce the variety seen among the races
of mankind. That is what I am talking about.
Q How does that relate to the limited
change model or how does the limited change model
explain the variations?
A The limited change model would be hesi-
tant --
MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me. I find
it hard to concentrate when another conversation
Frair 13
is going on. Could we just go off the record
until the conversation is over?
MR. LAHIFF: All right.
A In the limited change model, there is
caution in relating one type of organism to another.
Q What do you mean by caution in relat-
ing one organism to another?
A The person operating with the limited
change model is under no compulsion to bridge gaps
between organisms.
Q Are evolutionary scientists under some
compulsion to bridge gaps?
A This has been my experience.
Q What kind of compulsion are they under?
A In my courses, we were frequently required
to fit the data into an evolutionary scheme.
Q From where does this compulsion arise?
MR. WILLIAMS: If you know. I think
the question may be calling for speculation on
the part of the witness.
MR. LAHIFF: I don't think it calls for
speculation. The witness has testified that
scientists who do not adhere to limited change
model are under some compulsion to bridge gaps,
Frair 14
and I'd like to know the course of this com-
pulsion.
A In most cases, I think it is based on
a prior acceptance of the macro-evolutionary view.
Q Do you use evolutionary ideas in your
scientific research?
A What do you mean by evolutionary ideas?
Q Do you refer to ancestors in your
research?
MR. WILLIAMS: I would object to that,
to the extent that it assumes a fact not in evi-
dence, that an ancestor is necessarily an evo-
lutionary concept.
MR. LAHIFF: Your objection is noted.
Q Could you answer the question?
A Would you repeat it?
MR. LAHIFF: Would you please repeat
the question.
(Question read by the Reporter.)
A I think in terms of ancestors for some
organisms with which I am working.
Q Do you use evolutionary terms in your
scientific research?
MR. WILLIAMS: Object to the question
Frair 15
as being ambiguous. What is an evolutionary
term?
Q What do you understand by an evolution-
ary term?
A I don't know.
Q You have no understanding of the term
evolution?
A I wouldn't say that.
MR. WILLIAMS: The problem is that evo-
lutionary term is so ambiguous as objective
that it is difficult for the witness to give
meaning to it.
If you would like to give a meaning to
it, it might assist him in trying to frame a
response to the question.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to have an under-
standing of the witness' understanding.
MR. WILLIAMS: Evolutionary term can
be referring to a word or can be a term of
years or anything.
Q I will ask the witness what he under-
stands the term evolution to mean.
A The term evolution popularly is used
today to refer to change, descent with modification.
Frair 16
Q Is that the only use of the term evo-
lution?
A Yes; when referring to living organisms.
Q What, to you, are the essentials of
evolution?
A Now, are you talking about what the evo-
lution view is?
Q Yes. What, to you, are the essentials
of the evolutionary model as you understand it?
A Variation, natural selection, survival
of the fittest, genetic continuity of the changes that
were produced in time.
Q What do you mean genetic continuity?
A That an organism passes to its off-
spring its genes.
Q Is relatedness of all organisms an ele-
ment of evolution?
A Now, what type of evolution are you
talking about?
Q How many types of evolution are there?
A Well, we have talked about micro-
evolution, and we have talked about macro-evolution.
Q Are there different mechanics for evo-
lution?
Frair 17
A Most evolutionists would rely on
genetic mechanisms.
Q What do you mean by genetic mechanisms?
A Things that would affect the gene pool.
Q Do you disagree with that?
A No.
Q How can the word ancestor be used in
a creationist's model?
A I think in the same sense that we com-
monly used the word ancestor in ordinary talk.
Q How do you use ancestor in ordinary talk?
A We are talking about our ancestors, our
parents, grandparents. When a lineage is well estab-
lished or appears obvious from the data.
Q Do you believe that all living organisms
are descended from a single source?
A This is the macro-evolution model. That
is not the creation model.
Q Do you accept that model?
A I have some hesitations about this.
Q What are your hesitations?
A I am not sure at this time that the data
is compelling.
Q Can you tell when evolution takes place
Frair 18
and when it doesn't?
A That is a good question. The problem
is to establish genetic continuity.
Q But can you tell when evolution takes
place and when it doesn't?
MR. WILLIAMS: Speaking to him, "you,"
in the sense of Dr. Frair personally as opposed
to anyone else in the community?
Q As opposed to scientists, evolutionists,
in general.
A When we are thinking in terms of cur-
rent extant organisms, there appears to be obvious
genetic continuity among some of these forms.
Q How would you account for this genetic
continuity?
A As part of micro-evolution.
Q Do you accept macro-evolution.
A Yes.
Q What data are you aware of that is
inconsistent with macro-evolution as you understand it?
A There seems to be considerable data
that would support a limited change model.
Q Could you describe that data for me?
A We mentioned human races. That is part
Frair 19
of a limited change model.
Q But could you explain the data? I don't
think simply observing that there are differences between
human races as a data, is inconsistent with macro-
evolution.
MR. WILLIAMS: Is that a question or was
that a statement?
MR. LAHIFF: That is a question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Could you read what he
said back.
MR. LAHIFF: Why don't I withdraw that
and ask a different question.
Q Could you identify for me, please, the
sources of the data that you believe are inconsistent
with macro-evolution?
A The problem is to establish a genetic
continuity between groups of organisms, diverse groups
of organisms.
Q I'm a non-scientist, so you'll have to
bear with me. Could you please define for me what you
mean by the term evolution?
A In a word, change.
Q Change with respect to what?
A Descent with modification.
Frair 20
Q What is the mechanism of evolution?
A There is a -- appears to be a change
in the genetic term.
Q What kind of a change in the genetic
term?
A Some kind of a modification that would
be passed to the offspring.
Q What do you mean by the term macro-
evolution?
A This is the term that refers to evolu-
tion that would link all living things on one tree.
Q Are all living things related on one
tree?
MR. WILLIAMS: On what? I didn't hear.
MR. LAHIFF: Tree.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
A I have some questions about that.
Q What are your questions?
A I am not sure at this time that the evi-
dence for this is compelling.
Q Is there any evidence to the contrary?
A I think there is.
Q What is the evidence to the contrary?
A The problem is establishing genetic
Frair 21
continuity between the diverse groups of organisms.
Q What is the evidence that shows that
there is no genetic continuity?
Perhaps you could define what you mean
by genetic continuity first.
A That the forms bear a relationship by
descent from one another.
Q And how do you determine the relation-
ship, that the forms are related?
A That is where the problem lies. It is
not easy to do so.
Q Whether or not it is easy or difficult
to do, is there any evidence that shows that there is
no genetic continuity?
A It seems obvious to me that some types
of turtles are related to some other types of turtles.
They are very similar structurally, live in the same
region.
Q How is that inconsistent with an evo-
lutionary model?
A This is consistent with a limited change
model.
Q Is it inconsistent with a macro-evolution-
ary model?
Frair 22
A Many scientists do not think so. I
have some reservations.
Q Which scientists, in addition to your-
self, have reservations?
A Would you like me to name some?
Q Please.
A There have been many over the years.
One who is prominently quoted today is G. I. Kerkut;
his book is Implications of Evolution.
Q Is G. I. Kerkut a creation scientist?
A Not that I know of.
Q Is he an evolutionist?
A He could be, but in his book he has made
a case for a -- well, if I can introduce a new term,
polyphyletic --
MR. WILLIAMS: Use the term that you are
comfortable with.
THE WITNESS: I am not sure if it is the
best term.
A But he is uncomfortable with a macro-
evolutionary model.
Q Does he propose an alternative evolu-
tionary model?
A It is not set forth with any rigor in
Frair 23
the book.
Q But he is not an evolutionist?
A He sees a lot of problems with this
model.
Q Whether he sees problems or not, is he
an evolutionist?
MR. WILLIAMS: If you know.
A I am not positive about that. He pre-
sents many of the problems in that book, and indicates
that -- he uses the term the gene theory of evolution
and the special theory of evolution.
The gene theory of evolution refers to
the macro; the special theory of evolution refers to
micro. But there are other books.
Q Does he accept the validity of the
limited change model?
A That would be the special theory, what
he calls the special theory.
Q But does he accept or adopt that model?
A I can't say that for sure.
Q How does the limited change model differ
from an evolutionary model?
A Well, as Kerkut indicates, the limited
change model or the special theory of evolution is well-
Frair 24
accepted and has considerable data to support it,
whereas the gene theory doesn't, because the gene
theory involves establishing a genetic continuity
between groups, diverse groups.
Q Is your limited change model the same
as Duane Gish's limited change model?
A Could you tell me what his is?
Q Do you have an understanding of what
his limited change model is?
A I am not sure.
Q Do you believe in the idea of originally
created kinds as described in Genesis ?
MR. WILLIAMS: I object. That question
assumes a fact not in evidence, that the --
first of all, Genesis talks about originally
created all kinds.
Q Does Genesis talk about originally or
specially created kinds?
MR. WILLIAMS: I assume here you are
asking him this question in his capacity as a
science professional?
MR. LAHIFF: Yes.
A Repeat the question, please.
MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the question.
Frair 25
(Question read.)
MR. WILLIAMS: If you know.
A Well, we are switching gears a little
bit here. We have been talking about scientific mate-
rial, now you are coming over to what the Bible says.
Q I know I am switching gears. I am per-
mitted to do that. In fact, I can switch back if I
want. That is really the glory of taking a deposition.
A When we are talking about the scientific
picture, I said how I felt about the overall scheme.
If you are talking about my philosophical view of the
Bible, I think the Bible -- the Bible does say "kinds,"
does talk about kinds in the book of Genesis. And it
won't be inconsistent with a limited change model to
think that way about Genesis.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is
literally true?
A What do you mean by literally true?
Q What do you mean by literally true?
A You are the one that asked the question.
Q I would like your understanding. That
is the purpose of a deposition, is to get your under-
standing.
MR. WILLIAMS: No. You are using a term;
Frair 26
do you believe the Bible is literally true,
which may have more than one meaning.
What Dr. Frair is trying to say is
simply that that is an ambiguous term and I
will object on that ground.
MR. LAHIFF: I am perfectly willing to
have Dr. Frair define what he understands liter-
ally true to mean and to answer the question
according to his definition.
MR. WILLIAMS: If you want to ask him
what literally true means, that is fine.
Q All right. What do you understand by
the phrase literally true?
MR. WILLIAMS: If it means anything to
you.
A I do feel that there's -- that it is
worth following the teachings of the Bible, that have
been official influence.
Q My question was your understanding of
the phrase literally true.
A My own view of this would be that one
can accept the teachings of the Bible literally or as
they appear to be.
Q You still haven't defined what you mean
Frair 27
by literally.
A Well, they are correct as they appear
to be, how's that?
Q Do you believe that the Biblical account
of Genesis is an accurate historical picture of crea-
tion?
A I don't look at -- I don't read Genesis
and understand it as though I was reading a scientific
textbook. I think there is a difference there.
Q But does it present an accurate his-
torical portrayal of description of creation?
A I think basically, basically it does.
Q Does Genesis talk about kinds?
A It says they are reproduced after their
kind.
Q Do you believe that turtles are a kind
as described in Genesis?
A That is what I am working on.
Q But do you believe it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking him as a
science professional or as a matter of his per-
sonal religious faith?
MR. LAHIFF: I will ask first as a matter
of personal belief.
Frair 28
MR. WILLIAMS: Personal belief?
MR. LAHIFF: Personal belief.
MR. WILLIAMS: As in personal religious
belief?
MR. LAHIFF: Personal religious belief.
A I can't -- I don't think I can answer
that question.
Q Why can't you answer the question?
A Because I don't have enough information
at this stage. I am still learning.
Q As a scientist, do you believe it?
A Well, now you are saying as a scientist
do I believe that the turtles fit the kinds in Genesis?
Q Yes. That is exactly what I am asking.
A That -- I don't seem to make sense out
of that, because as a scientist, I am trying to under-
stand relations among turtles, and possibly other
organisms.
Q Are turtles related to any other
organisms?
MR. WILLIAMS: What was the question
again?
Q Are turtles related to any other organisms?
A I know who asked that question.
Frair 29
Q I asked the question.
MR. WILLIAMS: I mean it is ambig-
uous to me. What do you mean by related?
Q Okay. We will go through this every
time if we have to. What do you understand by the
term related?
MR. WILLIAMS: I mean they are both
animals or what.
A The intent of the question os to find
out if I believe that turtles and other organisms would
participate in descent with modification; is that it?
Q Don't try and figure out the intent of
my question, just answer it.
A That is what you are asking me; is it
or isn't it?
Q Are turtles related to amniotes?
A What are amniotes?
Q You tell me what amniotes are.
A Reptiles, birds and mammals are.
Q Are turtles related to amniotes?
A These are organisms that have embryonic
membranes in the developmental process. They differ
from other organisms.
Q But are they related?
Frair 30
MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object on
the ground related is ambiguous. Related can
mean -- I can give you 2,000 definitions.
MR. LAHIFF: Maybe I do mean that they
are cousins.
Q Are they related as you understand the
term related to be?
A If you are talking about genetic con-
tinuity, we are right back to our question of limited
change and virtually unlimited change or micro-evolu-
tion or macro-evolution, gene theory and special theory,
and I don't feel that my own personal data on the basis
of my experience, I can answer that.
Q What does the word related mean in your
scientific papers?
A I have used the word. It would mean
that there was a genetic continuity among those organisms
involved.
Q Do other scientists believe that there
is a genetic continuity between turtles and other amniotes
A Most of them do.
Q Which scientists do not?
A Creationists would tend to question this.
Q Why would a creationist tend to question
Frair 31
it?
A Because they are not convinced that there
is a genetic continuity here.
Q But is there any data that shows that
there is not a genetic continuity?
A Well, I am still considering this.
Q But do you have any data to support your
considerations or your suppositions?
A Dr. Gaffney has produced a lot of infor-
mation that is very important in my considerations, and
I am looking at my own research, as well. I am still
in the process of evaluating this.
Q Is the data that Dr. Gaffney has pro-
duced inconsistent with evolution?
A He is a very respectable scientist and
I have a very --
Q But is it inconsistent with evolution?
A His philosophy is evolution.
Q So you are saying that the data is not
inconsistent with evolution?
A He certainly does not feel that it is.
Q Is his data inconsistent with a relation-
ship between turtles and other amniotes?
MR. WILLIAMS: He is here. Why don't
Frair 32
you ask him.
MR. LAHIFF: Dr. Gaffney is not here
to testify. Dr. Frair is.
MR. WILLIAMS: If you know. You can
answer to the extent of your knowledge. Obviously
Dr. Gaffney is here and if they would like to
ask him personally, he has been consulting with
them, but you can give answers to the extent
that you have knowledge and that you feel con-
fident that you can swear by.
A I have a high personal regard for Dr.
Gaffney.
Q I am not asking you about your high
personal regard for anyone.
A I just want to say that he, at this
stage, is --
Q Dr. Frair --
MR. WILLIAMS: Wait a second. He had
not finished the answer to the question.
A He is endeavoring to relate the turtles
to other amniotes.
Q Is the data that Dr. Gaffney has written
about inconsistent with evolution?
A I said I am not really prepared to
Frair 33
evaluate that in detail at this stage. I think I am
going to have to back off on that.
Q Why can't you give me an answer?
A Because I am not a paleontologist. He
is. He can evaluate his work.
Q Do you have any expertise at all in
paleontology?
A I have had one course in geology, but
I have had not much experience in paleontology.
Q What do you understand by the term crea-
tion model?
A Creation model would stress limited
change, micro-evolution, special theory.
Q Let's look at Act 590, which I would
like to have marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2.
(Above document marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2 for identification, this date.)
Q And I would direct your attention to
section 4, part A, which defines creation science as
the sudden creation of the universe, energy and life
from nothing.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have a copy of
that to look at?
MR. LAHIFF: Sure.
Frair 34
A Do you want me to comment on that state-
ment?
Q Do you personally believe that?
MR. WILLIAMS: Personal belief?
MR. LAHIFF: Personal belief, I am going
to ask him about his belief as a scientist.
MR. WILLIAMS: Wait a second. What now?
You said do you personally believe that as a
scientist.
MR. LAHIFF: I said then I am going to
ask him about his belief as a scientist.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
A Sudden creation of the universe, energy
and life from nothing. Now, I consider this --
Q Perhaps I should ask you, have you ever
seen this act before?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you realize that this is the act
that you are testifying or that you will testify in
favor of?
A I do.
Q Has that been explained to you?
A Yes.
Q Have you seen this statute before today?
Frair 35
A Yes.
Q When did you first see this statute?
A Oh, several weeks ago.
Q How did you obtain a copy of the
statute?
A Somebody sent me one.
Q Do you know who sent a copy to you?
A I think it was an organization in
Arkansas.
Q Has the Attorney General ever dis-
cussed the statute with you or anyone from the Attorney
General's office?
A Yes.
Q What was the discussion?
A In fact, they gave me a copy of this.
I mean, I had -- they sent me a copy fairly recently.
I haven't spent a lot of time studying it, but -- what
was that? What did you say?
Q Maybe I will change tact again. Could
you read to yourself, please, the definition 4A?
A Read for myself?
Q Read to yourself. I'd like to ask you
a few questions about it.
(Pause.)
Frair 36
Q Is the definition in 4A consistent
with your limited change model?
A I don't think I could personally --
well, let's see -- there are some aspects of this that
I feel that I understand better than others.
Q What aspects of that do you understand
better than others?
A Number 3 deals with the limited change
model. That aspect of it I feel I am more conversant
with than others.
Q Are there any parts of that definition
that you disagree with?
A There are some aspects of it that I
am less certain of than other aspects of it.
Q What aspects of it are you less certain
of?
A Well, I am a biologist, and I don't
feel that I am qualified to speak with any degree of
authority on the matters that deal with the geological
aspects of this.
Q Do you believe that there is any scien-
tific evidence that supports 4A3, "changes only within
fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and
animals"?
Frair 37
A This is the idea of genetic continuity,
and I think there's evidence for genetic continuity
within certain groups of organisms.
Q But is there any evidence of originally
created kinds of plants and animals?
A In my understanding, the kinds would be
separated by lack of genetic continuity.
Q Do you know if that phrase, "changes
only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of
plants and animals," is based on the Bible?
MR. WILLIAMS: You mean where it came
from in the act?
MR. LAHIFF: No. I know where it came
from in the act.
Q Do you believe that it is based on the
Biblical account of creation?
A It is not Biblical wording.
Q It is not Biblical wording, but is it
based on the description in Genesis?
MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to that.
I don't think he is qualified to answer that
question.
Q Do you read the Bible?
A Yes.
Frair 38
Q How often do you read the Bible?
A I usually read it each day.
Q Have you read Genesis?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me then whether or not the
phrase or the sentence "changes only within fixed limits
of originally created kinds of plants and animals" is
based on Genesis?
MR. WILLIAMS: As it is used in this
act, I don't think he is competent to testify
where it came from in this act. There is no
showing that he drafted it.
MR. LAHIFF: I am not asking him where
it came from in the act. I am asking him if
That is consistent with the description in
Genesis.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is a different ques-
tion. I have no problem with that.
A I think it could be considered consistent
with what Genesis says. Genesis says the organisms repro-
duced after their kinds.
Q Do you know what a kind is?
A That is a good question.
Q That is why I asked it.
Frair 39
A I am not prepared at this time to give
a good definition of a kind.
Q Why not?
A Because I don't think we have enough
evidence to --
Q Is there any evidence?
A Yes.
Q What is that evidence?
A The lack of genetic continuity between
groups.
Q Is the Bible a piece of evidence?
MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific evidence?
Q Piece of scientific evidence?
A No.
Q Was all kinds created during creation
week?
A Are you asking me what the Bible says?
Q I am asking you what the Bible says.
A The Bible has organisms created during
creation week.
Q Have new kinds arisen since creation
week?
MR. WILLIAMS: You are asking him again
as to his personal beliefs as opposed to what
Frair 40
scientific data tells you?
MR. LAHIFF: Yes.
A I don't know. I know we have had
extinction.
Q What evidence would you seek in order
to determine what a kind is?
A One way to do this would be to estab-
lish genetic continuity by breeding experiments.
Q Is there any other method?
A There may be reproductive isolation
among organisms which still belong to the same kind.
And you would determine this by the overall morpho-
logical similarities.
Q Have you ever undertaken any research
to determine what a kind is?
A I think my research could be understood
within the kinds concept, and I have thought about this
and I have some --
Q What is a kind?
A What do you mean what is a kind? In
terms of what? In terms of science?
Q In terms of science, what is a kind?
A In terms of the act, I think the act
is saying that the one kind would not have a genetic
Frair 41
continuity with another kind. That is why I hesitate.
That is the way that I understand it.
Q The act doesn't say that?
A This is the way I understand it.
Q The act talks about originally created
kinds?
A Yes.
Q What is an originally created kind?
A Well, that would be the way the organism
was when it started.
Q Could you identify for me an originally
created kind?
A Very good question. Man.
Q Are there any other originally created
kinds?
A This is something that is being con-
sidered by many at this time.
Q Is there any evidence?
A I think as of -- as tentative operating
model you would think in terms of organisms that were
morphologically and physiologically diverse.
Q What is there about man that leads you
to believe that he is an originally created kind?
A There are many features of man that
Frair 42
set him apart as unique.
Q What features?
A Primarily his ability to symbolize,
speaking, writing.
Q What is an originally created kind?
A It is a group of organisms not genetic-
ally related by genetic continuity to other organisms.
Q How did man come about? Where did man
come from?
A I think I would have some hesitation
about relating him to the living apes.
Q But where did he come from?
A Well, he originated by creation, accord-
ing to the creation model.
Q Do you believe that that is how man
came about?
A That is my working assumption at this
time.
Q Do you have any evidence for the crea-
tion of man?
A I am not an anthropologist.
Q All right. Let's turn to turtles then.
Do you consider yourself to be an expert in the field
of turtles?
Frair 43
A On some aspects of turtles.
Q What aspects of turtles?
A Biochemical types.
Q Have you ever talked in any of your
scientific papers about turtles and ancestry among
different types of turtles?
A Yes.
Q Is a turtle an originally created kind
within the meaning of the act?
A I am not prepared to say that with a
strong degree of authority. I am working on that now,
thinking about it.
Q But do you have any evidence at all
that would lead you to believe that a turtle was an
originally created kind?
A Turtles are diverse from other organisms.
They have features that distinguish them from other
reptiles.
Q But is there any evidence that they are
an originally created kind?
A If there is a lack of genetic continuity
between them and other things, then there would be.
Q What is the definition of a species?
A Are you asking for scientific definition
Frair 44
of species?
Q Yes, a scientific definition of species.
A Species often are defined scientifically
as members of -- similar members of interbreeding popu-
lations.
Q Why can there be no evolution between
kinds?
A Well, this is what the creation model
postulates; that there isn't.
Q But is there any evidence to support
that?
A Well, the problem of establishing a
genetic continuity between diverse groups. That is
the problem we face; so that macro-evolutionists face.
Q Is there evidence that is supportive
of macro-evolution?
A There are a lot of excellent scientists,
including Dr. Zweifel and Dr. Gaffney, who feel there
is, and I respect that.
Q But is there any evidence that shows
that there is no macro-evolution?
A Yes.
Q What is that evidence?
A The problem associated with establishing
Frair 45
genetic continuity between diverse groups.
Q What evidence would you look for to
establish that originally created kinds, in fact,
exist.
A Many who have favored this approach
have felt that the very fact that organisms could be
grouped as separate from others is evidence of distinct-
ness among the various groups.
Q Do you consider the Biblical account of
creation and the evolution model to be in conflict?
A I have some good friends who believe
the Biblical account and also believe the macro-
evolution model, and I can respect that.
Q So you don't believe that there is any
necessary conflict?
A That's right.
Q Is your belief in the Bible one reason
for not accepting the evolution model?
A Indirectly.
Q Could you explain that?
A Because I believe the Bible I have
studied -- I have read some of the literature that is
not of great concern to many other people.
Q I don't understand what you mean by your
Frair 46
answer.
A Let me put it this way, because there
may be -- you are asking for my personal view now?
Q Yes.
A Personal, philosophical view. I am
speaking as an individual here. Because I have the
personal view of the Bible that I do, and because there
historically has been some problems in this region, I
have been compelled to read into the matter in a way
that I otherwise would not have been compelled to read.
And I had to make a decision on the basis of what I
found.
Q Do you know of any intermediate forms,
either fossil or living, between major kinds?
A No.
Q Do you know what an archaeopteryx is?
A Yes.
Q Do you consider that to be a transitional
form?
A It has been put forward as a transitional
form by those particularly who believe --
Q Do you believe that it is a transitional
form?
A I have some hesitation about accepting
Frair 47
it.
Q Why isn't it a transitional form?
A I am not certain at this stage. It
could be a separate kind.
Q If it could be a separate kind, what
characteristics are there of either a fossil or a
living organism that lead you to say, ah, that is a
separately created kind?
A Good question. Archaeopteryx has simi-
larities to dinosaurs and birds. I am aware of this.
Q Doesn't it have teeth and a bony tail
as a reptile does?
A It has teeth.
Q Didn't it have feathers, wings, and a
bill like a bird?
A Yes.
Q Then why isn't it a transitional form?
It seems to have characteristics both of birds and of
reptiles.
A That is true.
Q Don't all organisms retain some primi-
tive features?
MR. WILLIAMS: I object to that as being
overbroad. I can't understand the question.
Frair 48
Q Do you understand the question?
A I think I understand the context which
Dr. Gaffney is asking it.
Q I am asking the question.
A Same thing as you asking the question.
Q I am asking the questions.
MR. WILLIAMS: We can maintain that
illusion if you'd like.
Q There is absolutely no illusion. I am
asking the questions. Unfortunately Dr. Faair is not
answering them.
A I don't mean to be disrespectful.
MR. WILLIAMS: I really don't understand
the question, and I think that while --
DR. GAFFNEY: Tell you what --
MR. LAHIFF: Let's go off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the rec-
ord. May I have the question again.
(Question read.)
Q Do you understand the question?
A Yes.
Q Can you answer the question?
A Yes.
Frair 49
Q Please answer it.
A They do.
Q Are you familiar with the ichthyostega?
A No.
Q If a student in an Arkansas school were
to ask you what an originally created kind is, how
would you explain that?
A I would say that a kind would consti-
tute a group of organisms showing genetic discontinuity
with other groups or with other kinds.
Q Is that a species, that you have just
described?
A Not necessarily.
Q Do different kinds of animals have simi-
lar features as embryos that are lost in adults?
MR. WILLIAMS: Could you repeat the ques-
tion; I don't think I heard you.
Q Do different kinds of animals have simi-
lar features as embryos that are lost in adults?
A There are cases of this, yes.
Q Is this a breakdown between kinds?
A Not necessarily.
Q Why not necessarily?
A Because it could indicate some organs
Frair 50
which were lost in time.
Q What do you mean by lost in time?
A That they no longer show up in the adult
condition, whereas previously, previous adults had them.
Q What is the source of your belief that
there are originally created kinds?
A Because of the serious problems in
establishing genetic continuity between diverse groups.
Q Is it true that the creationist critique
of the details of evolution is based primarily on facts
and issues raised by evolutionary scientists, them-
selves?
A Repeat this.
MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the ques-
tion.
(Question read.)
A That certainly is an important aspect
of the situation.
Q Are creationists doing any original
research that you are aware of?
A Yes.
Q What research?
A I know creationists in a variety of
fields.
Transcript continued on next page
Frair 51
Q Could you identify them for me, please?
A A fellow that comes to mind --
MR. WILLIAMS: You can tell him what you
know.
A A name that comes to mind is E. Forbert
Smith. He's done a lot of work on alligators and a
variety of other organisms, thermo regulations.
Q Is there anything that he's discovered
inconsistent with evolution?
A He has serious problems with evolution.
Q What do you mean by serious problems?
A He feels on the basis of his knowledge,
research, that an evolution model is not the best way,
not the best fit for the data.
Q If characters were lost through
time, how were they obtained in the first place?
MR. WILLIAMS: If characters?
Q Characteristics, I should have probably
said.
A They were there when the organism had
its start.
Q Does that show relatedness, a common
ancestry?
A Within the group.
Frair 52
Q Are there any indications or scientific
evidence of relatedness between different groups? First
let me say what is a group to you?
A Are you thinking in terms of modern
scheme of classification that scientists use?
Q Yes.
A The toxonomic scheme that we utilize is
man-made, and continually is being modified. So, to
describe what creationists are calling "kinds" in terms
of the modern classifications system could be to pin
it down more specifically than would be warranted by
the data at this time.
Q What does a creationist mean by a
"kind"?
A He means a group that is genetically
unrelated by continuity from other groups.
Q Are any of the results of your own
research inconsistent with an evolutionary interpre-
tation?
A Evolutionists have used my information
in their schemes.
Q So the results of your research are
consistent with an evolutionary?
A I said that evolutionists have used my
Frair 53
data.
Q Have you ever used your data in an
article in support of the creation model?
A I have used my data within a mental
framework that was consistent with the creation model.
Q But have you ever taken the data that
you have developed through your research, prepared an
article in support of the creation model, submitted it
to a referee journal for publication?
MR. WILLIAMS: I object. That is a
compound question, at least three or four ques-
tions.
Q I will break it down. Have you ever
taken any of the data from your research and prepared
an article?
A Yes.
Q Has that article been in support of the
creation science model?
A It has encouraged investigation into
the possibilities of the creation model.
Q Have you ever written an article in
support of the creation science model using the research
that you have done?
A Our book has some information on that
Frair 54
line.
Q Have you ever written an article in
support of the creation science model and submitted it
to a referee journal?
A Very cautiously I have handled the mate-
rial in a way that would be consistent with creation
model.
Q Which articles are consistent with the
creation model that you have written?
A I think all of them would be.
Q Don't you talk about ancestors and
relatedness in many of your articles?
A Yes.
Q Isn't that inconsistent with the crea-
tion model?
A No.
Q Are there any statements in any of your
articles that directly draw a link between your research
and the creation science model?
A Say that again, please.
Q Is there anything in the articles that
you have published, any of the articles that you have
published, at which you make specific reference to the
creation science model?
Frair 55
A I don't recall whether I have used those
exact terms when dealing with publication of original
data.
Q Have you ever used the term limited
change model in any of your publications?
A Yes.
Q Have those publications been submitted
to referee journals?
A Say that again, please.
MR. LAHIFF: I'm sorry. Could you repeat
the question.
(Question read.)
A These articles have not been dealing with
original laboratory findings. They have been more of a
philosophical nature.
Q Why haven't you used any of your original
data in support of the creation science model or pre-
pared an article based on your original data supportive
of the creation science model?
A I don't think that my data is inconsistent
with a creation science model. I usually haven't been
dealing with material that would require this or point-
ing to an evolution model, either.
Q Why haven't you ever used your original
Frair 56
data to prepare an article in support of the creation
science model?
A Because I am still working on this.
I don't feel that it is solidified solid enough to be
handled with the degree of certainty that I would like
before I could do this.
Q Is there anything in any of the articles
that you have published in a referee journal that would
hold a scientist to an understanding that you support
the creation science model?
MR. WILLIAMS: You are talking now just
from reading the article itself?
Q Just from reading the article.
A It would depend on the background of the
person reading the article.
Q What background would lead a scientist
to believe that you support the creation science or the
limited change model?
A Because in my publications, I don't say
a lot about evolution the way many people writing about
these topics do. I have been more cautious in the way
I have handled the material. And somebody could get
this by careful reading.
Q I am sorry, why haven't you?
Frair 57
A Because I feel it is better science.
Q What is better science?
A To be very cautious in handling the
data.
Q How would you test the assumptions of
the limited change model?
A What assumptions are you referring to?
Q How would you test the limited change
model?
A By looking for ways to establish a
genetic continuity between diverse groups.
Q Do you have any assumptions about what
you might find?
A If we could do this, it would discredit
the limited change model, and anybody who has a model
who is a scientist must be looking for information that
will falsify his position.
Q Am I correct that you have testified you
believe that the Bible, the Biblical account of crea-
tion is literally true?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think that is a mis-
characterization of his testimony.
Q If this is not accurate, please let me
know.
Frair 58
MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the Reporter could
read it back. It was about a fairly accurate
historical account. I think that is the words
to the effect, though I may be paraphrasing.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is liter-
ally true?
MR. WILLIAMS: You are asking him as
to his personal belief?
MR. LAHIFF: As a scientist.
MR. WILLIAMS: As a scientist, do you
believe the Bible is literally correct?
A Well, I'm a human being. As far as --
and as a person, I accept the Bible as a guide for my
life, what I endeavor to do.
Q But do you believe that the Bible is
literally true?
MR. WILLIAMS: As a scientist?
Q As a scientist.
A You mean based on my scientific studies?
Q Based on your scientific studies.
A I had a belief in the Bible prior to
science, and science has encouraged this belief, rather
than tended to break it down.
Q How has science encouraged your belief?
Frair 59
A There is beauty in studying science,
and there's something there that can point to something
beyond, beyond science. I have had many scientists
say this to me, also.
Q But is the beauty or the elegance of
nature in any way inconsistent with evolution?
A I guess evolutionists don't think so.
Q Evolution is an elegant theory, isn't
it?
A What do you mean by elegant?
MR. LAHIFF: I will withdraw the ques-
tion.
Please read the previous question.
(Question read.)
Q Do you think so?
A Not necessarily.
Q Not necessarily? Could you elaborate on
that for me, please?
A Darwin, himself, spoke about the grandeur
of the evolution scheme that, in addition, there was some-
thing that God breathed into living things.
I think that he, at that time, had a
feeling for --
Q But he didn't think the grandeur of
Frair 60
nature was inconsistent with nature?
A No, he didn't, that's right. But he
also at that time felt -- pointed to God.
Q Could you describe for me what the
scientific method is?
A According to the classic understanding,
scientific method involves making observations, setting
up working hypotheses, testing these hypotheses, modify-
ing these hypotheses, and predicting what you will get
in the future.
Q That is it?
A That is it.
Q Do you accept that?
A Yes.
Q Is that how you undertake your work?
A Yes.
Q Let's try and explore how we would use
the scientific method as you understand it to try and
determine the existence of originally created kinds.
Is there any way to use the scientific
method to determine whether or not there is originally
created kinds?
A Here we face the question of can you
apply the scientific method in history. This is a serious
Frair 61
problem.
Q Is it your testimony that you can't
use the scientific method to determine the existence
of originally created kinds?
A Certainly not with the same rigor that
you can do so with conditions that can be repeated.
Q But do you consider creation science
to be a science?
A It depends on your definition of science.
How do I define science?
Q Can you apply -- I'll ask you that later
but can you apply the scientific method to creation
science?
A Not the repeatability and the verifying
it like we normally think of in science with control
groups, et cetera.
Q Can you please look again at Act 590,
the definition of creation science, and explain to me
which of the elements of that definition can be tested
by the scientific method, as you defined it to me
(handing)?
A Sudden creation -- I am just reading
them over.
Q Why don't you read them to yourself.
Frair 62
A All right.
And make a comment on it.
(Pause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, let me
interpose an objection. I think that your ques-
tion may mischaracterize the act.
The definition given of creation science
is scientific evidence for creation and infer-
ences therefrom, if I recall correctly.
It then lists some sub-parts, and I
think your question either implies or pre-
supposes that it is an all-inclusive list, and
I am not sure at all that it is.
MR. LAHIFF: I will clear that up. My
question does not imply that that is an all-
inclusive list.
A There are certain aspects of this that
is subject to scientific investigation.
Q Which ones?
A I am looking right now at number 4,
which refers to sufficiency of mutation and natural
selection in bringing about development. We can examine
mutations.
Q Okay. Why don't you just point out those
Frair 63
that you believe the scientific method can be applied to
and then we will explore them in a little detail?
A On the basis of my field and my under-
standing, I would say number 2, in the biological field
we'd have number 2, number 3, and then certain of the
other ones, I think other people would probably feel
could be tested to some degree or another.
I am looking at those particularly in
biology that I would know more about. But I wouldn't
want to exclude -- except in the sense that we are talk-
ing about here.
How are you going to look at the number
1 -- I don't see much hope for that. From the stand-
point of scientific method, all we can do would be just
infer that this --
Q What scientific evidence is there that
supports the creation model that "The insufficiency of
mutation and natural selection in bringing about develop-
ment of all living kings from a single organism."?
A If we think about subject of mutations,
virtually all the mutations that we know about today are
harmful.
Q But there are some beneficial mutations,
are there not?
Frair 64
A The beneficial mutations that we talk
about are valid to certain organisms in certain
environmental conditions.
Q Are you finished with your answer?
A Yes.
Q What observations are there that you
could point to that show the insufficiency of muta-
tion and natural selection in bringing about development?
A Most mutations are harmful. That ties
it up in essence.
Q But just because most mutations are
harmful doesn't necessarily mean that there are bene-
ficial mutations?
A There can be mutations which are accepted
by the environment.
Q Is that evolution?
A Yes. It is micro-evolution. It is a
limited change model.
Q Is it a limited change model or merely
a description of evolution?
A It is a phenomenon that we can observe
that fits very well with the limited change model.
Q But is it inconsistent with evolution,
with macro-evolution? In other words, what I am trying
Frair 65
to say is, you would agree that there is such a thing
as micro-evolution?
A Yes.
Q Does the existence of the process of
micro-evolution disprove the existence of the process
of macro-evolution?
A Not necessarily.
Q What is macro-evolution to you?
A Macro-evolution is large change; change
that occurs that would be conceived as occurring between
major groups.
Q Is there any evidence in support of what
you term macro-evolution?
A There are a lot of very respectable
scientists who are macro-evolutionists, and they are
very intelligent people, and I don't deny can see things
that way.
Q Where does micro-evolution end and crea-
tion science begin?
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't understand the
question, I'm sorry.
A I don't either.
Q What you are calling micro-evolution is,
in fact, evolution, is it not?
Frair 66
A Yes.
Q What are the limits on that kind of
evolution?
A How far we can reasonably expect that
there was a genetic continuity among the organisms.
Q How far back can you take that?
A That is really the essence of what we
are talking about. And I think -- I wish I could give
a definite answer, but we'd have to do this in modern
toxonomic terms.
Q What is your working hypothesis about
the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a
single organism?
MR. WILLIAMS: If you have one.
A Repeat it, please.
Q You have testified that you can apply
the scientific method to 4A2 in Act 590. 4A2 states
the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in
bringing about development of all living kinds from a
single organism.
Do you have a working hypothesis to
explain that insufficiency?
A Well, this working hypothesis would be
Frair 67
that the kinds are not genetically related.
Q How can we test that hypothesis?
A I am looking for good ways to test it
now.
Q Is that hypothesis predictive?
A To the extent that we would anticipate
finding new organisms and -- no, let me change that. I
don't mean to say that. I'd like to think about that a
little bit more.
Q For how long a period of time has micro-
evolution been proceeding?
A Good question. I don't know. I don't
think I can give a definite answer on that.
Q What do you consider to be the age of
the earth?
A I know the ages that have been proposed
by different scientists.
Q What age do you accept?
A I am not willing to commit myself on
that point.
Q Do you have an understanding, a belief,
an idea, a feeling, anything about the age of the earth?
A I'm not willing to make a definitive
comment about that now.
Frair 68
Q Why aren't you willing? Is it because
you don't know or you just don't want to testify about
that?
A Well, there's a certain amount of uncer-
tainty in my mind.
Q What amount of time would be necessary
to explain the diversity of life as it exists today?
MR. WILLIAMS: You mean with respect to
the creation science model or evolution science
model?
Q From your perspective.
A Well, we'd have to understand mutation
rates in the past, and there's some question about that.
Q Do you have any feeling as a scientist
how long it would take to explain the observed diversity
given the concept of micro-evolution?
A That is a very, very good question. I
think I prefer not to speak definitively to that, because
I have to do some more evaluation of information.
Q Is there an age of the earth that crea-
tion scientists usually ascribe?
A Many of them feel that it was relatively
recent.
Q By relatively recent, what do you mean?
Frair 69
More than 10,000, less than 10,000 years?
A Many of them are saying 10,000 to
15,000 years.
Q What do most scientists currently
believe the age of the earth to be?
A The vicinity of five billion years.
Q As between those two estimations of
the age of the earth, which would you accept?
A I am not willing to be pinned down on
that at this stage.
Q If the earth were only 10,000 years old,
would it be possible in that period of time for the
observed diversity of life today to have come about?
A That is a very difficult question to
answer.
Q Do you have any belief on that or any
understanding?
A If this was a case, we would have to
know what the mutation, what rate of change there was
at that time. I can't point a data in my own field
that would help to answer that question.
Q What would change the rate of mutation?
A Maybe the cosmic rays coming in might
have an influence.
Frair 70
Q Do you believe that the rate of muta-
tion is variable?
A It could be.
Q Do you believe that there has ever been
any suspension of natural laws?
A What do you mean by that?
Q Well, do you have an understanding of
what suspension of natural laws means?
A What are you trying to ask with that
question? What kind of natural law is he thinking about?
Gravity or --
Q Yes; has there ever been a period of time
when the law of gravity was not in existence?
A Not as far as I know.
MR. LAHIFF: All right. I'd like to take
a break. I have to stretch my legs.
(Recess taken.)
MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the record.
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q Do you recognize any creation science
texts as authoritative?
A There have been some very good pieces
of scientific literature that has been produced.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you mean authoritative
Frair 71
as under Act 590? My point is that we are
dealing with a lawsuit over the creation
science model as it is defined in Act 590.
There may or may not be similarities between
other writings which purport to discuss crea-
tion science and what Act 590 requires.
MR. LAHIFF: I don't understand.
MR. WILLIAMS: I guess my objection is
that your question may be ambiguous if you are
not talking about the creation science model
as described in Act 590.
MR. LAHIFF: No. I will ask that ques-
tion. I am just asking a general one first.
A My bibliography in this book, Case For
Creation, recite a number of works which I think are
very respectable when it comes to this issue.
Q Are you aware of any textbooks that
would be consistent with the creation science model as
described in Act 590?
A Yes.
Q Could you identify those for me, please?
MR. WILLIAMS: I want just to interject
for the record that as long as you are not ask-
ing for a legal judgment, as to what would be.
Frair 72
MR. LAHIFF: No. Not a legal judgment.
MR. WILLIAMS: As to what would be suf-
ficient under Act 590.
A Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris.
Q Any others?
A You what books that are going to agree
point for point with the 590?
Q No. Books that are consistent with
Article 590. I recognize that it would be difficult to
find a book that is completely consistent in all respects
with 590.
MR. WILLIAMS: I take it implicit in
your question would be books which would not
include any religious references or religious
instruction.
A That is the problem.
Q What is the problem? Do all creation
science books have Biblical references in reference to
the Creator?
A I can give you lots of books that are
consistent with a limited change model. Strictly scien-
tific books, we have mentioned Kerkut. I can give you
a whole list of names.
Q That is not my question. My question
Frair 73
is books that are consistent with the creation science
model as described in Article 590, which I will show
you again (handing).
A I think generally the Zimmerman books
would be consistent with this. Paul Zimmerman is
editor, Creation Evolution, but they do include material
on theology in those books, as well.
But the scientific part of it would
certainly be consistent with this.
Q Is your limited change model equivalent
to the creation science model as described in Act 590?
A Say that again.
Q Is your limited change model, of the
limited change model that we have been talking about
today, equivalent to the creation science model described
in Act 590?
A Are you talking about my personal posi-
tion, what we would put forth here, for instance?
Q Yes, your description for me of the
limited change model, is that consistent with Act 590's
description of the creation sciences?
A It won't go into all of the aspects of
it the way this does.
Q There are differences. Is it possible
Frair 74
to discuss the creation science model as described in
Act 590, without references to a Creator?
MR. WILLIAMS: Is it possible what
again?
MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat my ques-
tion.
(Question read.)
A Could I ask what you mean by Creator?
Q What do you mean by a Creator?
A Give it back to me.
Q Yes.
A This is the way lawyers do it. I am
learning a lot about lawyers.
Q I said that is what is fun about it.
A I have a lot of respect for lawyers.
MR. WILLIAMS: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
A I forgot the question.
Q What do you mean by a Creator?
A Okay. Something that got the thing
going. How's that? That something could be a small
s or a capital S. I don't want to volunteer too much
information here.
Something that got the thing going,
Frair 75
period.
Q You did say small s or capital S.
What did you mean by small s or capital S?
A I didn't mean to say that. I mean
usually we write God with a capital G.
Q So when you said capital S. small s,
you meant a G?
A I think what I am trying to say is that
creation model certainly implies something there other
than what is resident within matter itself. That is
what I am trying to say.
Q Can you describe for me the fundamental
difference between creation science and evolution
science?
MR. WILLIAMS: Assuming there is one
fundamental difference.
Q Assuming there is.
A Well, the creation science points to a
time of beginning.
Q What does the creation science model
say about the beginning?
A For the time of beginning -- I am try-
ing to give it something that would encompass the whole
business, and I find it very difficult.
Frair 76
I am thinking in terms of living things,
but I realize that this creation model has the whole
universe in it, which I don't object to, including
that in the creation model. but it is not easy for me
right now to make a brief statement about the essence
of the whole thing.
It's taken them six points to get it
across.
Q Is there more than one kind or one type
of turtle?
A What do you mean by type of turtle?
Q What do you understand type of turtle
to mean?
A Here we go again. If you are talking
about species, there are many species of turtles. If
you are talking about genus, there are many of them,
as well.
If you are talking about family, there
are a number of them. If you are talking about super-
family -- I'll let it go at family.
We can get into families and super-
families and that. I don't mean to belabor it.
Q Are the types of turtles that you have
just described consistent with the notion of kind in the
Frair 77
Bible?
A I am thinking about that?
Q What are you thinking about it?
A You mean are you asking if I am putting
my scientific information together with the Bible at
this point?
Q Yes.
A I don't think I can -- it could be
consistent with it, I could say that. I think, at this
stage. I don't see an inconsistency, let me put it that
way.
Q Is it inconsistent with evolution?
A Is?
Q Is it inconsistent with evolution?
A You mean macro-evolution?
Q Yes.
A Many people feel it isn't.
Q Would most scientists consider that
the different families, species and genus of turtles
to be consistent with an evolutionary model?
A Most scientists would.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as Plain-
tiff's Exhibit 3, an article contributed by you
to the Creation Research Quarterly, entitled
Frair 78
The Protostomia-Deuterostomia Theory.
(Above document marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 3 for identification, this date.)
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q Is that your article, Doctor?
A Yes.
Q Do you draw any conclusions from that
article which support the creation science model?
A The purpose of this article was to point
out a difficulty with the evolution model and to
encourage scholarship involved in re-evaluating the
evolution model.
Q You make a reference in this article to
Soren Lovtrup. He is an evolutionist, is he not?
A Yes.
Q Why did you choose to publish this in
Creation Research Society Quarterly and not in the
referee journal, if the purpose was to encourage
research?
A The purpose is that in the hopes that
some who are operating with the evolution model and
who read this journal would note this material, because
Lovtrup published the original data in a regular scien-
tific journal.
Frair 79
Q And you didn't think that was sufficient
to create any interest?
A No. This is just a news, a comment.
It is just a comment on his paper. It is in the recent
events section of the journal, what is going on in
science today, I think, kind of a thing.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as Plain-
tiff's Exhibit 4, a copy of your curriculum
vitae.
(Copy of Dr. Wayne Frair's curriculum
vitae marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for identi-
fication, this date.)
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q I'd like to flush out some of the details
if I might. Did you have any sub-specialty within the
field of zoology when you received your AB degree from
Houghton College?
A No.
Q Did you have any sub-specialty when you
received your MA in embryology from the University of
Massachusetts?
A Embryology.
Q No sub-specialty within the field of
embryology?
Frair 80
A Embryology would be a sub-specialty
within the field of zoology. That was a broadly-based
Master's degree, and embryology was the specialty.
Q Could you describe for me what serology
is?
A Studies of the blood serum of any
organism.
Q Is it possible to have a sub-specialty
within the field of serology?
A Serology is a tool for studying various
organisms biochemically, and I am studying primarily
reptiles, using that tool.
Q The only sub-specialty within serology
would be with reference to a particular kind of organism
then?
A That's right. Applying the methodology.
Q Have you received any honors that are
not listed on your curriculum vitae?
A No.
Q Have you had any continuing education
that is not listed on your curriculum vitae?
Frair 81
A This is quite excellent. Anything would
be of minor nature, like evening courses or something
like that.
Q What kind of evening courses have you
taken?
A I took an evening course in nutrition.
Q Anything else?
A Nothing of significance to compare with
these formal -- these are all formalized courses in
these schools, professional courses. There hasn't been --
well, my church, we have Sunday school type courses, that
kind of thing.
Q What kind of courses have you taken for
your church?
THE WITNESS: I don't know; should I?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
A I'm not sure how this ties in, but we
have Bible courses there.
Q Have you ever taken a course at your
church dealing with creation science?
A Yes.
Q And who taught that course?
A Another professor.
Q What is his or her name?
Frair 82
A Dr. Ault.
Q Is that the only course that you have
taken through your church that dealt with creation
science?
A There have been courses that referred
to the subject. Another fellow named Slingo was teach-
ing the course.
Q I'm sorry. Could you spell that?
A Roy Slingo, S-l-i-n-g-o.
Q And what was the title of his course?
A I don't remember. Current science or
creation. Something along that line, because it covered
the subject.
Q Were there any other courses you are
aware of relating to current science or creation science?
A That I have taken, I don't recall any
right now.
Q Could you describe for me the substance
of Professor Ault's course on creation science?
A This was a Bible course. This is a
Sunday school class for adults we have every Sunday
morning; the adults in my church go to classes, and
he was teaching a course dealing with the book of
Genesis, and so it was necessary to discuss this to
Frair 83
some extent when he was covering the early chapters of
Genesis.
Q And what did he say about Genesis?
A Oh, I don't remember the details, but
he considered the various views regarding the origin
of living things.
Q Did he discuss evolution?
A Yes.
Q What did he say about evolution?
A I don't remember the details, but he did
indicate some of the views that are held by people
today.
Q Was it scientifically accurate?
A Oh, yes; yes.
Q What did Professor Slingo -- is he a
professor, Professor Slingo?
A He is a public school teacher. Ault
isn't a profession; he's a doctor.
Q He is a doctor of what?
A Geology.
Q And Mr. Slingo?
A Is a biology teacher in high school.
Q And what did his course cover?
A He talked about some of the issues, and
Frair 84
there was some information pertaining to his situation
in the public school.
Q What do you mean his situation in the
public school?
A He teaches in a public school, and he
presents creation science and evolution science there
in his high school routinely.
Q Have you received any grants?
A Yes.
Q What have these grants been for?
A My research.
Q How many grants have you received?
A Close to ten, I suppose.
Q And from whom have you received these
grants?
A Research Corporation -- well, the col-
lege has received some money that has gone toward my
research from National Science Foundation and buying
equipment, and paying student help.
Sigma Xi, that's a research organiza-
tion. The faculty advancement fund for our college was
given this.
Q Any others?
A That is all I can think of right now.
Frair 85
Q And what topics -- is that a correct
word -- have you been researching?
A Mostly biochemical toxonomy.
Q Have you ever received a grant from a
creations science organization?
A No.
Q Have you ever made an application for
a grant that wasn't funded?
A Yes.
Q And what were the topics of those pro-
posals?
A I had only one grant that was turned
down, when the national science -- you asked for the
topics, not who. It dealt with soft-shell turtles.
Q What about soft-shell turtles?
A Biochemical toxonomy of soft-shell
turtles.
Q Have you ever had a grant from any
foundation or institution supporting research into the
limited change model?
A No.
Q What was your PhD thesis on?
A Reptiles. Mostly turtles.
Q Was that published?
Frair 86
A No.
Q And --
A Not as a whole.
Q Have you done any other research other
than those that you have described so far?
A Everything is on that list.
Q Do you hold any other teaching posi-
tions other than are described in your curriculum vitae?
A No.
Q Are you the member of the adjunct faculty
of any institution?
A No.
Q Do you serve as a consultant to any
institution?
A No.
Q Or any organization, any creation science
organization?
A No.
Q Have you ever taught at any symposia?
A Taught at a symposium? I am trying to
think. I have participated in symposiums.
Q I'm sorry. Taught is a wrong term. Have
you ever participated in a symposium?
A Yes.
Frair 87
Q What have these symposia dealt with?
A Well, I was in one some years ago that
was dealing with the ecological crisis.
Q And who sponsored that symposium?
A This is the American Scientific Affilia-
tion.
Q Have you ever participated in a
symposium sponsored by a creation science organization?
A Another one on sea turtles/
Q Who sponsored that?
A The American Society of Zoologists.
Q Do you consider yourself to have a par-
ticular field of expertise?
A Yes.
Q And what field is that?
A biochemical toxonomy or biochemical
systematics. One or the other. Systematics is a little
broader.
Q Do you concentrate on any particular
organism?
A Turtles.
Q Do you consider yourself to be an expert
on turtles?
A Yes.
Frair 88
Q You are currently employed at the King's
College?
A The King's College, yes.
Q What courses do you teach at King's
College?
A I'm teaching a course in concepts of
biology now. I'm teaching a course in introduction to
research. Science methods, that's what I'm teaching
now.
Q Does the King's College grant graduate
degrees?
A No.
Q Do you supervise any research?
A Yes.
Q What kind of research do you supervise?
A Whatever our students may be interested
in, within the limits of my capabilities. as offering
some helpful guidance.
Q In order to teach at the King's college,
were you required to sign a statement of belief or a
statement of doctrine?
A Yes.
Q What is that statement of belief or
statement of doctrine?
Frair 89
A It includes the fact that I am a
Christian.
Q Does it include any reference to your
acceptance of the literal truth of the Bible?
A There is a statement in there about
believing the Bible, yes.
Q What is the statement in there?
A I would have to get the exact wording;
I don't know it right offhand.
MR. LAHIFF: Excuse me. Mr. Williams,
could we be provided with a copy of that state-
ment?
MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. You will
provide a copy of that to me and I will forward
it up to you.
Q Is there any statement in that statement
of doctrine that talks about the inerrancy of the Bible?
A Yes.
Q Do you personally believe in that state-
ment of doctrine?
A Yes.
Q Does that statement of doctrine have
any impact on your scientific research?
A Yes.
Frair 90
Q What kind of an impact does it have?
A I think it makes me a better researcher.
Q How does it make you a better researcher?
A Because I look at nature as part of
God's handiwork.
Q How does that make you a better
researcher, though? Is it necessary to look at or to
understand nature to be God's handiwork to do research?
A No.
Q Did you speak to anyone at the King's
College about your testimony here, and about your testimony
at the deposition today?
A Some people there know I am hers.
Q Did they encourage you to attend today?
A I said that I was going.
Q Well, did they encourage you to attend?
A Well, they really have nothing to say
about it. My secretary knows. She's taking the day
off.
Q Is there anyone at the King's College
who encouraged you to testify in this case?
A I think another member of our department
told me he hoped it went well.
Q Did anyone at the King's College tell
Frair 91
you that they thought it would be advisable for you
to testify?
A Not that I remember, no.
Q Did you discuss what your testimony
might be with anyone at the King's College?
A I didn't know what I was in for.
Q Did you discuss what you might be in
for with anyone at the King's College?
A Well, perhaps I mentioned the fact that
I was down here for a deposition, whatever that was.
Q But that is the extent of it?
A Yes. I'm just finding out now what
depositions are all about.
Q What is the Creation Research Society
of which your curriculum vitae indicates that you were
a board member and a secretary?
A It is a scientific society.
Q And what is its purpose?
A To do scientific research and to pub-
lish this research.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as plain-
tiffs' exhibit, an application for for admission
to the Creation Research Society.
Frair 92
(Application marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 5 for identification, this date.)
(Document handed to witness.)
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q Do you recall filling out a membership
blank like that?
A Yes.
Q Are you a voting member of the Creation
Research Society?
A Yes.
Q Did you sign the oath or do you sub-
scribe to the statement of belief, I should say?
A Yes.
Q What does statement of belief number
one mean, that the Bible is scientifically true in all
of its original autographs?
A I'm not a theologian, but my understand-
ing is that it was without error in the original draft.
Q Have you read the original autographs?
A I would if they were available in trans-
lation.
Q Then how can you say that the original
autographs are scientifically true, if you have never
read them?
Frair 93
A This is consistent with the inerrancy
statement of conservative Biblical scholars.
Q Do you believe that the account of
origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple
historical truths?
A Yes.
Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence
that is true?
A We are back to the scientific method
again. It is not easy to investigate historic events
by the scientific manner.
Q Is there any evidence, though?
A I see no conflict between what I know
of science and the way I understand Genesis.
Q Do you believe that all basic types of
living things, including man, were made by direct
Creator acts of God during creation week?
A Yes.
Q Do you believe that whatever biological
changes have occurred since creation have accomplished
only changes within the original created kinds?
A Yes.
Q How many original created kinds were
there?
Frair 94
A I don't know.
Q Does anyone know?
A I do not know that.
Q Do you know what an originally created
kind is?
A Yes.
Q What is an originally created kind?
A It constitutes a group of organisms
genetically disconnected by line of descent from other
groups of organisms.
Q Isn't there a body of scientific evi-
dence that demonstrates that all organisms are genetic-
ally connected?
A No. There are some people who believe
this.
Q But isn't there a body of scientific
data that supports that belief?
A There are many scientists who believe
that the data which is available does support that
belief.
Q Do you have any scientific data which
does not support that belief?
A Yes.
Q And what is that data?
Frair 95
A This is information which makes it
very difficult to make a line of genetic continuity
between groups of organisms.
Q How do evolutionary scientists deal
with that data?
A They assume that there's a genetic
continuity.
Q Is that an assumption or a conclusion
drawn from observation?
A An assumption.
Q Is there any scientific evidence for
the great flood described in Genesis?
A There are geologists who feel that there
is.
Q And who are those geologists?
A There's a man named Steve Austin.
Q Is that view generally held within the
scientific community?
A No.
Q What evidence does Mr. Austin put forth
to support his belief in a Genesis flood?
A Noachian deluge is a better way to say
it. I don't think I am in a position to evaluate what
he says about this situation.
Frair 96
Q What is the Missouri Association for
Creation?
A It is a group which believes in a crea-
tion model.
Q Do they have any statement of belief
or statement of purpose?
A I'd have to check this. I get a
publication from them periodically. That is mostly
what I know about the organization.
Q Do they do anything in addition to pub-
lish journals?
A Hold meetings.
Q Have you ever attended any of their
meetings?
A No.
Q What kind of articles appear in their
journals?
A Usually professors there will write
articles dealing with this, the creation model.
Q What is the Victoria Institute?
A It is an organization in England.
Q And what is the purpose of the organi-
zation?
A To understand the relationships between
Frair 97
science and the Bible.
Q Are you an active member of the Vic-
toria Institute?
A Only in that I receive their publica-
tion periodically.
Q Have you ever written anything for
publication in their journal?
A No.
Q What is the creation science movement?
A This is another European -- it is a
Scotch, Scottish based, I think it is Glascow based
organization promoting creations.
Q How did you become to be aware of the
Victoria Institute?
A I have known about it for maybe 20
years.
Q Do you recall how you first came to be
aware of it?
A Not particularly.
Q Do you recall how you first became aware
of the creation science movement?
A I think I saw an advertisement.
Q In what publication?
A I think it was the Bible Science News
Frair 98
Letter, but I am not certain or that.
Q What is the Creation Social Science
and Humanities Society?
A That is an organization run by social
scientists who were concerned about or who believe in
a creation model.
Q What is the Evangelical Theological
Society?
A This is an organization primarily of
theologians who have a -- primarily have conservative
theologians.
Q How did you come to be a member of the
Evangelical Society?
A I wanted to see what they were think-
ing.
Q Did they include non-theologians as
members?
A Usually not.
Q How were you able to become a member,
then?
A I joined many years ago, and I think
at that time they deemed my background and my training
strong enough to permit me to become a member.
Q What is there in your background or
Frair 99
training?
A I have had some undergraduate educa-
tion in Biblical studies.
Q What kind of training?
A Formal courses as part of my degree
work.
Q Does the King's College have any
religious affiliation?
A No.
Q Would the King's College be considered
a Christian school?
A Yes.
Q In what sense is it a Christian school?
A In that the program is Christian.
Q What do you mean by the program is
Christian?
A There is an emphasis in the whole pro-
gram of the college upon Christian living.
Q What is the National Association of
Evangelicals?
A This is an umbrella organization for
many Christian groups.
Q What is its function?
A To provide unity.
Frair 100
Q Does either the Evangelical Theological
Society or the National Association of Evangelicals
take a position on the validity of the creation science
model?
A I don't think so.
Q Apart from your position as board mem-
ber and secretary of the Creation Research Society,
have you ever held an office in any of these creation
or Evangelical organizations?
A Only as is indicated on the sheet you
have there.
Q That only indicates that you were
secretary of the Creation Research Society. Have you
been an officer of any other organization?
A Just what is there. That's all.
Q What is your religion?
A Christian.
Q Do you belong to a particular church?
A I attend a Baptist church.
Q How long have you attended a Baptist
church?
A The particular church that I attend now
I have been attending for about 12 years.
Q Have you ever held any office in the
Frair 101
church?
A No.
Q Is there a particular point in your
life that you can identify as when you embraced
Christianity?
A Yes.
Q At what point is that?
A When I was in the Navy.
Q And what event or series of events led
you to embrace Christianity?
(Continued on page 102.)
Frair 102
A Other associates were speaking to me
and I realized that this met the needs of my life as
a person.
Q Do you attend church regularly?
A I do.
Q Do you belong to any church groups?
A Like what?
Q Does the church sponsor any organiza-
tion? Does the church sponsor any groups of which you
are a member, apart from attending the church?
A I participate in meetings, different
types of meetings.
That's about it.
Q What types of meetings?
A They will have socials from time to
time, for instance.
Q Do you consider yourself to be a
Fundamentalist?
A What's a Fundamentalist?
Q What do you understand by the term
"fundamentalism"?
A People have different definitions of
that term.
Q What would your definition be?
Frair 103
A Possibly, somebody who holds to the
fundamentals of Christian faith.
Q Given that definition, do you believe
yourself to be a Fundamentlist?
A Well, it would be necessary to talk
about the fundamentals.
Q What are the fundamentals, then?
THE WITNESS: Do we get into this?
MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that
you know, or you have an opinion, you can give
your opinion.
I don't mind that you are asking him
the question. I do not think this individual
has been qualified as a witness on what is a
fundamental or on religious matters.
He can give, perhaps, an impression,
his statement or opinion, but it would not be
in the nature of an expert.
MR. LAHIFF: It may, in fact, be
based on his membership in these organizations.
His membership in these organizations
may have some bearing on whether or not he is
an expert in theology.
Let's go off the record for a second.
Frair 104
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. LAHIFF: Let's go back on the
record.
BY MR. LAHIFF:
Q Do you have problems with the term
"Fundamentalist"?
You gave me a definition of "Fundamen-
talist". I then asked you, if given that definition,
you considered yourself to be a Fundamentalist, and
you told me it depends on what the fundamentals are.
I then asked you what are the fundamen-
tals, and, at that point, you had a problem.
What are the fundamentals?
A Most conservative Christians would be-
lieve that the Bible is their guide for life; that
man is a sinner, that Christ died for the sins of man-
kind, that Christ is coming again.
We could insert in there that Christ
was resurrected, and that he's coming.
I think those would be the fundamentals
that the National Association of Evangelicals would say
hold Christians together.
Q Given all of that, do you consider
yourself to be Fundamentalist?
Frair 105
A I prescribe to those concepts.
Q Do you have a personal religious
counsellor?
A I don't know what that is.
Q Do you have someone that you turn to
about questions of faith or religion?
A We have a pastor of my group, who is
kind of in charge of our group. I think that he
would be in that role.
Q Did you discuss your testimony with him
at all?
A No.
Q Which version of the Bible do you
read?
A Currently, I'm reading the New Interna-
tional version.
Q Have you read any other versions?
A Yes.
Q Which ones?
MR. WILLIAMS: You mean entirely?
MR. LAHIFF: No.
In part.
A Many other versions.
Q Could you identify them for me?
Frair 106
A King James Version, Revised Standard
Version.
Q Any other versions?
A American Standard.
Q Any others?
A Living Bible.
Q Have you read each of these in full,
or only in part?
A I think I've read them in full.
Q Have you read any other versions?
A Yes.
Q Which versions?
A I've read Goodspeed. I've read the
Williams translation; Philips translation of the
New Testament.
Q I didn't know there were so many.
How often do you read the Bible?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think he's answered
earlier that he read it daily, I believe, or
almost daily.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q You do read the Bible daily, or almost
daily?
A Yes.
Frair 107
Q Do you, as a scientist, consult the
Bible?
A No.
Q Do you consider the Bible to be a
source of personal revelation?
A Yes.
Q Is a belief in evolution inconsistent
with a commitment to God?
A No.
Many evolutionists do not feel that it
is.
Q Do you consider it to be inconsistent
with a commitment to God?
A Not necessarily.
Q Would you elaborate on what you mean
by "not necessarily"?
A It could be for some people.
Q Which people?
A People who use evolution as a substitute
for religion.
Q Do you believe that the choice between
either creation-science or evolution to be an act of
faith?
A Basically, yes.
Frair 108
Q Does the Bible predict future events?
A Yes.
Q What events does it predict?
A Christ is coming back.
Q Any other events?
A Yes.
Q What other events?
A It predicted that Israel would return
to their land.
Q Anything else that you are aware of?
Any other predictions?
A There are other predictions mentioned
in the Book of Revelations, for instance.
Q What events does that predict?
A Some things that will be associated
with end times.
Q What kind of events are associated with
end times?
A Judgement.
Q Do you consider the Bible to be a source
of scientific learning?
A No.
Q Has the Bible ever been an inspiration
for your research?
Frair 109
A Indirectly, yes.
Q How, indirectly?
A It has.
Because I believe the Bible, I have
studied into some matters that I probably would not
have studied otherwise.
Q Such as?
A Matters regarding creation and evolution.
Q Specifically, what matters involving
creation and evolution?
A What model should I hold, creation
model or evolution model.
Q Has the Bible ever given you a specific
project to investigate?
A I know that it has for some people,
but I can't say that it has for me.
Q Has it ever suggested methods of inves-
tigation?
A Not directly.
Q Could you elaborate on that?
A I have learned certain scientific
procedures which I don't find in the Bible.
Q Such as?
A My biochemical taxonomy work. The tools
Frair 110
I use have been learned in science classes, university
classes.
Q But, how does that relate to the Bible?
A It doesn't.
You asked me if I had obtained any of
the methodology in my science from the Bible; is that
right?
Q Right.
And, I understood you to say, "indirectly
A Well, indirectly, in that I'm concerned
about what is the best view to hold creation model,
evolution model.
So, this inspires me to follow procedures
that can help me in understanding that.
Q How does the Bible have an impact on
which model you choose?
A Well, if it weren't for the fact that I
believed the Bible, I probably wouldn't concern myself
as much about this issue.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is
scientifically true?
A I don't recognize scientific errors
in the Bible.
Q What description of scientific processes
Frair 111
or events are set forth in the Bible?
A I have to think about that a little bit
more.
Q If in an experiment, you derive some
data which was in conflict with the scientific truths
expressed in the Bible, what would you do?
A I'd continue my studies, looking into
it in more detail.
Q What is your political affiliation?
A I vote for candidates who I think are
best in the office.
Q Are you a member of the Moral Majority?
A I'm a registered Republican.
Q Are you a member of the Moral Majority?
A I get their publications, or I get some-
thing from them.
Q Have you had any contact with any of
the defendants in this case?
A No.
Except as we talked about earlier,
I was called my Mr. Humphries on the phone.
Q Mr. Humphries isn't a defendant.
MR. WILLIAMS: He's talking about
counsel for the defendants.
Frair 112
THE WITNESS: Who are the defendants?
MR. WILLIAMS: He can show you.
Q I'll show you a copy of a motion to
intervene as parties defendant, and ask you if you
had any contact with the defendants or applicants for
intervention.
(Handing to witness)
A Have I had any contact with these
people?
MR. WILLIAMS: Except for the State
of Arkansas.
A (Continuing)
I don't know any of these people.
Q The next page has a reference to
applicants for intervention.
Have you had any contact with any of
those individuals?
A I don't recognize any of these names.
Q Have you ever had any contact with an
individual by the name of Wendell Bird?
A I heard him speak last summer.
Q But, have you had any contact with
him about this case?
A No.
Frair 113
Q Have you had any contact with an indi-
vidual by the name of John Whitehead?
A No.
Q Have you ever testified before in any
court proceedings?
A No.
Q Have you ever testified in any legisla-
tive proceeding?
A No.
Q Have you ever testified in any administra
tive proceeding?
A No.
Q Before any school boards?
A No.
Q Have you ever participated in any
debates dealing with creation-science?
A yes.
Q Where were those debates held, or where
was that debate held?
A I guess you could call it a debate,
but I was in a meeting in Philadelphia about eight years
ago.
Q Who participated?
A There was an evolutionist named
Frair 114
Roellig, R-O-E-L-L-I-G.
He represented evolution. I represented
creation.
Q Who sponsored the debate?
A I think it was -- the Christian Medical
Society was there, and there may have been another
sponsor, as well.
Q What is the Christian Medical Society?
A It's an organization mostly of physicians
who are conservative Christians.
Q Does it take a position on the creation-
science model?
A I don't think so.
Q It has in the past at least sponsored
one debate?
A It has just a regular meeting, and they
were discussing the issue.
Q Are there any transcripts available of
that?
A I don't know.
Q Were you paid for your appearance?
A I forget.
I think they paid my expenses.
Q Are you receiving any remuneration for
Frair 115
your testimony today?
A No.
Q Are your expenses being paid?
A Yes.
Q Are you receiving any remuneration for
your testimony at the trial?
A Not that I know of.
Q Are your expenses being paid?
A I hope so.
Q Have you ever been arrested?
A Not for other than speeding.
Do you call that being arrested?
Q Were you arrested, or did you just re-
ceive a ticket?
A Just a ticket, that's all.
I've never been put in jail, if that's
what you mean.
Q Do you consider yourself to be a crea-
tion scientist?
A Yes.
Q Why do you consider yourself to be a
creation scientist?
A Primarily because I hold to a limited
change model.
Frair 116
Q Any other reasons?
A That's the main reason.
Q Do you believe yourself to be a crea-
tion scientist because of your belief in the inerrancy
of the Bible?
A No.
Q Could you define creation-science as
you practice it?
A Creation-science is the hypothetical
or the theory that basic groups of organisms are not
genetically related.
Q Are there any other elements to the
creation-science model?
MR. WILLIAMS: Your question was as
he practices it?
Q The first question was as he practices.
Now I'm asking: Are there any other
elements to the creation-science model?
A It can include other aspects, yes.
Q Do you know if your testimony will be
limited to a description or a discussion of the limited
change model?
A I don't know.
Depending on what I get asked, I suppose.
Frair 117
Q Do you have any expertise in any of
the other elements of the creation-science model?
A I'm not a geologist. I'm not a cos-
mogonist.
I'm a biologist. That's all. That's
where my expertise lies.
Q Have you always been a creation scien-
tist?
A I would say no.
Q When did you become a creation scientist?
A I believe my thinking on this was solidi-
fied during the 1950's, after reading certain materials.
Q What materials did you read?
A Frank L. Marsh's book, Evolution, Crea-
tion and Science. John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis and
Evolution.
Q Did any particular event precipitate
or act as a significant cause for your becoming a
creation scientist?
A Well, I think I had to have some kind
of a position, because I have a position on the Bible.
I had to have a position on the way I
viewed living things.
Q Do you consider your becoming a creation
Frair 118
scientist as involving a religious experience?
A No.
No, I don't.
Q Do you do work in the field of creation-
science?
A I do scientific research, and the results
of my research can be interpreted by those who study it.
Q Do you consider evolution to be a science
A It can be considered a science in the
same sense that creation is.
Q What are the attributes of science?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think we went over
that this morning.
MR. LAHIFF: This morning, we described
what scientific methodology was.
I'd like to know what the attributes
of science are.
A Are you looking for a definition of
science?
Q Do you consider one of the attributes
of science to be falsifiability?
A Yes.
Q Observability?
A Yes.
Frair 119
Q What about testability?
A Yes.
Q What about predictability?
A Yes. Definitely.
Q Are there any other attributes of the
science other than the ones that I've mentioned?
A You said "observability"?
Q I did.
A Observability, testability, falsifiabi-
lity, and predictability.
That covers it quite well.
Q Does evolution measure up to those
attributes which we've just been talking about?
A The problem comes with the testability.
Q What's the problem with testability?
A Because it's a historic event, and we
cannot test an historic event using a scientific method.
Q Does creation-science measure up to the
attributes of the science that we've just discussed?
A In the same sense that "evolution-
science" would.
Q Is there any fact or series of facts
that would lead you to doubt the validity of the crea-
tion-science model?
Frair 120
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
a fact that he presently knows, or any con-
ceivable set of facts?
MR. LAHIFF: Any conceivable set of
facts.
A I mean, as far as I presently know, I
would say -- I'd have to say no. No.
Say the question again, would you please?
MR. LAHIFF: Could you repeat the ques-
tion?
(Question read by the Court Reporter.)
A Yes, I would say it was.
Q What are those facts?
A These would be facts which could demon-
strate the genetic continuity between groups.
Q Do you believe that creation-science
and evolution-science are equally non-scientific with
respect to the fact they can't be tested?
A Yes.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to take a little
break.
I think that I'll be done in a little
bit.
(Recess taken)
Frair 121
(After recess)
Q What book or books would you consider
representative of the creation-science viewpoint?
MR. WILLIAMS: Creation-science view-
point at large, or as opposed to under Act 590?
A I think that we have referred to some of
them in the bibliography of our book.
Q Could you just give me the names of
them, please?
A Yes.
The Zimmerman series of books. They
are the best.
Q This morning, I asked you about books
that you would consider authoritative, and you identi-
fied Scientific Creations by Henry Morris.
Would that book be considered represen-
tative, as well?
A It represents a more narrower view than
may be given in some other books.
Q But, it is representative of creation-
science?
A It represents a good many creation
scientists, but it is not as general as some of the books
like those of Zimmerman or of Klotz.
Frair 122
Klotz is another good one.
Q Could you give me the title of that,
please?
A Genes, Genesis and Evolution.
Q If I wanted to learn about creation-
science, what books would you recommend to me?
A Are you coming at this from the stand-
point of a scientist?
Q Non-scientist; a layman.
A From the standpoint of Christianity or
just general knowledge?
Q Just general knowledge?
A I think I probably would recommend as
a first book, Parker's book.
I don't remember the title of it.
A new book that deals with the subject.
Q Do you have any idea of what the title
might be?
A I can get it for you.
Q Could you?
Do you know of any creation-science
books that reflect the creation-science model as
described in Act 590?
A Please repeat that question.
Frair 123
(Record read)
A I think Henry Morris' book, Scientific
Creationism, would be one that would do that.
That's one of them.
Q How would creation-science be taught
in a classroom?
A It would depend somewhat on responsibi-
lity of the teacher to inform himself about the position.
Q Have you ever taught a course in crea-
tion-science?
A Yes.
Q What courses have you taught?
A I teach a course entitled "Creation and
Evolution".
Q Is that the only course that you've
ever taught dealing with creation-science?
A Well, over the years, I've taught dif-
ferent courses, but this is a current course that we
offer at our college.
Q What textbook do you use?
A We utilize some creation literature
and evolution literature.
Q Which creation-science literature do
you utilize?
Frair 124
A In one assignment, they are required to
read the "American Biology Teacher" article by Duane
Gish on creation.
And, they are also required to read an
article by D.B. Zhansky entitled "Nothing Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution".
So, they get both sides of the question.
Q Do they read any other creation-science
material?
A My book is utilized.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is evidence
of creation?
A That the Bible is?
Q Evidence, a piece of evidence.
MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific evidence,
you mean?
MR. LAHIFF: Yes.
A No. No.
I said that before.
Q Does the creation-science model require
the suspension of natural laws or processes?
A It certainly suggests something special
happened at the start.
Q What's "the start"?
Frair 125
A When these organisms appeared.
Q Under the creation-science model, how
did they appear?
A They're here, and before that, they
weren't here.
Q Did God create them under the creation-
science model?
A No.
Not necessarily.
Q Do you personally believe that God
created them?
A You're asking me --
Q Your personal belief.
A I think I've stated that in print.
Q As a scientist, are you aware of any
evidence of the suspension of natural laws or processes?
A Scientists -- science or scientists
operate on the basis of faith in these laws, and this
is the whole basis of science.
Q Could you define "religion" for me,
please?
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think this
witness is competent to make a definition or
give a definition of "religion".
Frair 126
He is a scientist.
MR. LAHIFF: Again, based on his member-
ship in some of these evangelical associations,
and his long study of the Bible, I think he's
competent to define "religion".
MR. WILLIAMS: He stated that he was
accepted for membership in those societies or
organizations not on the basis, necessarily, of
his religious beliefs, but some of his training
and some of his other background that he had.
MR. LAHIFF: I think that his training
would qualify him as an expert.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would point out that
his last formal course that he said that he took
was at undergraduate school.
Q Whether you're an expert or not, could
you define "religion" for me?
A The philosophy of life, the main philo-
sophy of life.
The person's -- the guiding philosophy
of his life.
Q The guiding philosophy of life is
religion?
A I'm thinking about that.
Frair 127
Q Are you nodding your head "yes,"
that you do consider that a definition?
A Yes, yes, I do.
Q Is it necessary to have any reference
to a creator in a religion?
A No.
Q Do you consider evolution to be a religion
A It can be.
Q How can it be a religion?
A If a man or if a person uses it as the
guiding philosophy of his life.
Q Who are the authorities who agree with
your understanding of the limited change model?
A Are you talking about secular authorities
or religious authorities?
Q I'd like both, secular and religious.
A Okay.
Q Why don't you give us the secular authori-
ties first?
A Leo F. Berg, B-E-R-G, Nomogenesis or
Evolution Determined by Lay; Austin H. Clark, Zoogenesis;
another one would be Herbert Nilsson, N-I-L-S-S-O-N,
Synthetische Art Bildung.
Kerkut is another one.
Frair 128
Well, Kerkut.
Q Kerkut is an evolutionist; isn't he?
A Well, I guess he is, but he's not happy
with it.
I've tried to give ones that were, had
more consistence with the limited change, but strictly
on the scientific work, no religion whatsoever involved
in their work, to my way of thinking.
Q Is it limited to the three authors that
you've just mentioned?
A No.
But, they are outstanding.
Q Which religious authors agree with your
description of the limited change model?
A There are many.
Q Could you give a few examples?
A Here's one, Ritland, R-I-T-L-A-N-D,
A Search for Meaning and Nature.
That is the title of his book.
The book by Gary Parker.
Q That was the book that you discussed
earlier, the title of which you could not recall?
A That's right.
I think the Zimmerman series would be
Frair 129
consistent with that approach.
Q Have you ever heard any creation scientist
say the creation-science is a ploy to spread the faith?
A I don't think I directly have heard that.
Q Indirectly, have you heard that?
A There may be some who are using it that
way.
Q Do you use it that way?
A Basically, no.
Q Could you elaborate on that?
What do you mean by "basically, no"?
A I think of this as a model for understand-
ing the past history, and when I deal with this subject,
it's with that approach.
Q With what approach?
A With expressing it in terms of understand-
ing what happened in the past and how organisms are sup-
posed to be thought out today.
But, I'm a scientist, and I think of it
in that light.
Q But, do you think that it is useful in
spreading the faith?
A I know of some evolutionists who use
that doctrine to spread atheistic humanism.
Frair 130
Q I'm not speaking about evolutionists
who attempt to spread atheistic humanism.
Do you believe the creation-science
model is useful in spreading your Christian Faith?
MR. WILLIAMS: In other words, you're
saying one of the purposes?
You're saying is it useful?
Q Is it useful?
MR. WILLIAMS: As opposed to can it be
used for that, without consideration of whether
that is a proper use of it?
MR. LAHIFF: Right.
A I don't make a point of using this.
Q But, have you?
A Have I?
Q Yes.
Have you?
You said that you don't make a point of
it?
A I don't make a practice of it.
I'm trying to think about this a little
bit more. I want to give you a fair answer.
The answer is no to that.
Q The three books that you've described
Frair 131
as agreeing with your position, authored by Berg,
Clark, and Nilsson, are they in general circulation
and usage?
A Clark is an older book.
Yes, Bert, and as far as I know,
Nilsson is.
Q Are they generally accepted?
A They are not well-known by the scientific
community.
Q But, are they generally accepted by the
scientific community?
A As far as I know, when they read them.
These men were all competent scientists.
Q I gather if they're not generally known,
then they can't be generally accepted?
A Yes.
MR. LAHIFF: I'd like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 a photocopy of the book
that you brought with you to the deposition
today, The Case for Creation, co-authored by
Wayne Frair and P. William Davis, with Bates
numbers 135031 through 135078.
(Photocopy of book entitled The Case
for Creation marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for
Frair 132
Identification.)
Q On Page 7, the second paragraph, the
last two lines read:
"The doctrine of evolution in its
present form is the creation of men of genius.
To underestimate it and its impact is danger-
ous."
What do you mean by that?
A You must remember that this book was
written for -- primarily for Christians. It contains
accurate scientific information.
And, we're considering here a philoso-
phy of evolution as extended to the field of religion.
Q Is there some distinction between your
writings for Christians and your writings for scientists?
A Yes.
Q What is the distinction?
A This book was designed for a more
general audience. It's less technical.
Q Is that the only distinction between
when you address a Christian audience and a scientific
audience, the level of the sophistication of the material
presented?
A It depends on what I'm discussing in
Frair 133
front of the scientific audience.
Q What do you mean by "the impact of
evolution is dangerous"?
A If it becomes a religion.
Q Is evolution now a religion?
A For some people.
Q Creation-science is not a religion?
A No.
Q Why is creation-science not a religion
and evolution is?
A I'd have to think about that some more.
Creation-science could be consistent
with many formal religions.
Q Which formal religions could it be con-
sistent with?
A Any formal religion that recognizes some
power beyond nature.
Q Isn't the creation-science model consist-
ent only with religions which believe in the literal
account of creation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Which account?
Q (Continuing)
In Genesis?
A No.
Frair 134
Absolutely not. Not at all.
Q Do you believe that science cannot give
man an understanding of the universe?
A The scientific method is very valuable
for understanding the universe.
It's a valuable tool.
Q But, do you believe that only God or
the Creator can know the universe as it really is?
A Science is an approach. Science deals
with statistical probabilities.
In other words, there's a percentage of
doubt in science.
Q You have written, however, on Page 18
of your book, which you co-authored, The Case for
Creation, that:
"As Christians, we believe that only
God can know the universe as it really is."
A I believe that.
I am speaking there as a Christian,
however.
Q Does your Christian faith put any
limits on you as a scientist?
A No.
My Christian faith is an encouragement
Frair 135
to understand it.
Q I don't mean to be rude or argue, but
you state that "only God can know the universe as it
really is," and, yet, you also say that your Christian
faith doesn't put any limits on you as a scientist.
How can both of those statements be
reconciled?
A Perhaps, I should back off of that.
My Christian faith would not permit me
to infringe on the rights of other people on the basis
of science.
Q I don't understand what you mean by
that answer.
A There have been people in the past who
have abused other members of mankind in order to obtain
scientific information.
I, as a Christian, would be prohibited
from that type of research.
Q How many views of the origin and develop-
ment of life are there?
MR. WILLIAMS: Scientific or religious?
MR. LAHIFF: Scientific.
A Basically, there would be two.
Q What are those two?
Frair 136
A Creation and evolution.
Q Which of those two views do you accept?
A Creation.
Q What do you understand by "creation"
then?
MR. WILLIAMS: You answered that ques-
tion already.
A Groups or organisms not genetically
connected.
Q That's "creation"?
A That's a limited-kind model.
Q I asked you what creation is, not for
what a limited-kind model, but what is creation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
creation in the sense of creation-science, or
are you talking about creation in the sense of
religion?
Q You testified that there are only two
processes, evolution or creation?
A Yes.
Q What is creation?
A Creation is a model that involves a
starting point for organisms which are not connected,
they didn't come from common ancestors.
Frair 137
Q Who or what created them?
A I think creation implies that there's
something beyond matter.
Q What beyond matter?
A A force, a power, something that was
active there at that time.
Q Was that force or matter a natural
process, something that could be understood by a
scientist?
A I think there's an implication in the
creation that there could be something that would extend
beyond science.
I don't want to rule out the possibility
of understanding more than we do.
Q But, at some point, science can take us
no further, and faith begins?
A In a sense, that's true.
Q In what sense is it true?
A In the sense that science deals with
material that's observable -- that's obtainable through
the senses.
Q On Page 79 of your book, the first
paragraph, the last two sentences of the first paragraph,
you quote such a theory, and in the context of this
Frair 138
paragraph, you state:
"An alternative to evolution to be
adequate, must take full account of all
scientific data, and if it is to be Christian,
it must additionally accept and build upon
biblical revelation as valid information."
A I believe that.
Q Do you believe that the creation-science
model is Christian?
A No. Absolutely not.
Q Do you believe the creation-science
model is an alternative to evolution?
A Of course.
Q I'll be honest with you, I don't under-
stand how you can write that first paragraph and then
not admit that the creation-science model is Christian
and builds upon biblical revelation.
A Such a theory to be adequate, must take
account of all scientific data.
You can have a Christian -- you can have
a creation model built upon the scientific data.
Q That is not Christian?
A That's right.
That's what we have with your 590.
Frair 139
To me, that's very clear.
Q But, it does make reference to creation?
A Yes.
Q And to the sudden creation of the universe,
energy and life from nothing?
A What does that have to do with Christianity
Q I'm asking you.
Does it have anything to do with Chris-
tianity?
A No.
Not necessarily.
It may be consistent with a Christian
position, but there's no compulsion to go from that to
Christianity.
Remember, this book is written for
Christians. You can have the creation position as stated
in that law without Christianity at all.
You can belong to another religion or
no religion.
I mean, you'd have, I think, to recognize
something there at the start.
Q Can you have reference to a Creator and
not have it be religious in content?
A Let us say philosophical rather than
Frair 140
religious.
Religion is a more personal thing, and
I think you can.
Q What is evangelical research?
A Where are you looking?
Q Page 82, second paragraph, first sentence.
A This would be research carried on by
conservative Christians.
Q Have you ever conducted any evangelical
research?
A Yes.
Q What research?
A In the sense I just described it, I can
consider my research that type of research.
Q Yet, you still have no idea what a
"kind" is?
A I didn't say I had no idea what a "kind"
is.
Q Can you point to a "kind"?
A I already mentioned mankind.
Q Isn't there scientific evidence that
shows that mankind is related to other creatures?
A There's a big gap that exists between
man and --
Frair 141
Q But, isn't there evidence that shows
that man is related to other living creatures?
A There's evidence which some people
interpret to indicate that man bears a genetic rela-
tionship to organisms.
Q Is there any evidence to the contrary?
A I think --
Q I'm not talking now about a different
interpretation of the evidence.
But, is there any evidence to the con-
trary?
A To me, the gap between mankind and apes
is very significant.
MR. LAHIFF: I have no further questions.
MR. WILLIAMS: No questions.
(End of proceedings)
.o0o.
__________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this___day of_____________, 1981.
_________________________________
November 25, 1981 142
I N D E X
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
Wayne Frair Mr. Williams 3
EXHIBITS
PLAINTIFFS' FOR ID.
1 Defendants; list of witnesses. 7
2 Copy of Act 590. 33
3 Article entitled The Proto-
stomia-Deuterostomia Theory. 78
4 Copy of Dr. Wayne Frair's
curriculum vitae. 79
5 Application for Admission to
the Creation Research Society. 91
6 Copy of Case For Creation 131
143
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
I,Perry Auerbach, a Notary Public, duly qualifie
to act in and for the City of New York in the County of N
York, State of New York, do hereby certify that the witne
WAYNE FRAIR, was by me first duly sworn
according to law, to testify to the truth, the whole trut
and nothing but the truth, relating to said cause; that
deposition of the said witness was taken down by me
stenographically and reduced to typewriting under my
supervision and control; that there was an appearance on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and appearance on behalf of the
defendants;
That the said deposition was taken at the offices
Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 919 Third Avenue,
New York, New York, on the 25th day of November, 1981,
at 9:45 a.m., and that the foregoing testimony is a
complete, true and correct transcript of the testimony
given by the witness;
That I am not interested in the outcome of this
action or related to any of the parties or counsel.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 26th day of November, 1981.
_______________________________
Perry Auerbach, CSR, RPR