Deposition of Ariel Roth




Plaintiffs, )
vs. ) No. LR-C-81-322
al., )
Defendants. )



Monday, November 16, 1981

Reported by:
Certificate No. 254, and
Certificate No. 193






- - -



1 Vita, Ariel A. Roth 5

2 Excerpt from Origins, Volume 6, No. 2,

1979, pages 57, 58 and 88 through 95 89

- - -


BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice of Taking
Deposition, and on Monday, November 16, 1981, commencing
at the hour of 9:55 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the offices
of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, One Market Plaza, San
Francisco, before us, JOHN F. KEATING and CAROLINE
ANDERSON, Certified Shorthand Reporters and Notaries
Public in and for the State of California, personally


called as a witness herein, who, being by me first duly
sworn, was thereupon examined and testified as
hereinafter set forth.

- - -

Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by STEPHEN
G. WOLFE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf
of the plaintiffs.

STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201,
represented by DAVID WILLIAMS, Deputy Attorney General,
appeared as counsel on behalf of the defendants.

- - -


MR. WOLFE: We'll begin with the stipulation only
that the sealing of the deposition is waived; the
deposition need not be signed by the witness before the
Notary who took the deposition.

Plaintiffs have requested that the signed deposition
be returned within five days of its receipt by the
witness, and our position would be that in view of the
short time remaining before trial, we are entitled to
use the deposition as though it had been signed if it
cannot be returned in that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The defendants will not stipulate
to do it within five days. We will, of course,, offer to
try to have it done as expeditiously as possible and
hope we can do it within that time period.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

- - -


being first duly sworn, testified as follows:


MR. WOLFE: Please state your name and address.

A. The name is Ariel Roth; the address is ****
****** **** ****, *********, ********** *****.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Wolfe, before we go any further,
I want to state for the record, we are here today
voluntarily appearing, producing Dr. Roth for this
deposition, and we are glad to do it to accommodate
the plaintiffs in this fashion.


We were asked to begin at 9:00 o'clock, but due to
the telephone conference call we were unable to, and
Dr. Roth, as well as Dr. Coffin in the other
deposition, have to leave at 4:00 o'clock to catch a

MR. WOLFE: It is understood that the deposition
must end at 4:00 p.m. today in order to accommodate
Dr. Roth's travel schedule.

We would hope that it will be, of course, concluded
by that time.

If it proves not to be, we expect to continue it to
some later date fairly soon, in the light of the trial

I'll ask the reporter to mark a document headed
"Vita, Ariel A. Roth" as Roth Deposition 1 for

[Document entitled "Vita, Ariel A.
Roth" was marked Exhibit No. 1
for identification.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, I'm handing you a copy
that was marked as Exhibit No. 1 to your deposition,
and I'll ask you if you recognize it.

A. Yes.

Q. What is it, sir?

A. It is my vita.

Q. Did you provide this document to the Attorney
General of Arkansas?

A. Right.


Q. Do you recall when that was?

A. I guess about two or three weeks ago.

Q. Sir, can you tell me when you had your first
contact with the representative of the Attorney General
of Arkansas for this case?

A. Just about that time.

Q. And what contact was that, sir?

A. It was a telephone call.

Q. Was the call to you from someone in the
Attorney General's office?

A. Yes.

It was Tim Humphries who called me.

Q. Do you know just when that was, sir?

A. About the middle of October, the latter part
of October, in there.

I don't have a record of the phone call.

Q. Do you recall the substance of your
conversation with Mr. Humphries on that occasion of the
first contact?

A. He was wondering if I would be willing to
help in connection with this court case.

Q. Did Mr. Humphries tell you how he had
received your name?

A. He mentioned that, I believe, Wendell Bird
had mentioned my name to him.

Q. Did Mr. Humphries say how he happened to
receive your name from Mr. Bird?

A. Yes.


Q. Have you heard since that time how Mr. Bird
happened to give your name to the Arkansas Attorney

A. No.

Q. Do you recall approximately how long it was
after your first conversation with Mr. Humphries that
you supplied your curriculum vitae to the Attorney

A. I would say about one day, I think.

There were several phone calls.

I think he asked for it the first day, and I sent
it to him at that time.

Q. Did you agree to appear as a witness in this
action on the occasion of your first phone call with
Mr. Humphries?

A. No.

Q. Sir, when did you agree to appear as a witness?

A. He called me about a week or two later.

Q. How many conversations had you had with
representatives of the Arkansas Attorney General in that
period between your first contact with Mr. Humphries and
your agreement to appear as a witness?

A. It seems to me there were three. I would
guess three.

Q. Were they all with Mr. Humphries?

A. Yes.

Well, that was -- a subsequent one was with the
secretary, but I think they were all with Mr. Humphries.


Q. Dr. Roth, I'll hand you now a copy of a
document which is defendants' first and second list of
witnesses in this case, and I'm opening it to a page in
which you are listed as a witness.

I'll ask you to look at the numbered paragraph 13,
which consists of your name and address and a short
description of your expected testimony.

[Short recess.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, have you ever seen the
document that I gave you, the list of witnesses, before?

A. No.

Q. Do you know how the Arkansas Attorney General
came into possession of the information about your
expected testimony that's on that list?

A. Over the telephone.

Q. Do you know when you gave that information to
the Arkansas Attorney General?

A. During one of those first three phone calls
that we referred to.

Q. Sir, I'll point out to you that witness list
was dated October 26th and ask you if that enables you
to be more certain about when you might have given the
information to the Arkansas Attorney General.

A. Before that.

Q. Sir, I'll show you another document, which is
plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories in this action,
and I'll ask you if you have ever seen that before.

MR. WILLIAMS: We will stipulate he hasn't, unless


he got it somewhere else other than from us.

THE WITNESS: I have not seen this before.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, if you will read that page,
you will see that it is a request for the defendants in
this action to provide certain information as to expert
witnesses who are expected to testify at trial.

Have you ever had any contact with the Arkansas
Attorney General in which they have asked you to provide
them with the information listed there?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to object.

That's ambiguous, because there are several items
of information.

If you could be more specific?

MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you had any contact with the
Arkansas Attorney General subsequent to the phone call
in which you said you gave him the information that
appears on the list of witnesses in which they asked you
for any of the information that's requested in the

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any contact with the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office since the time of
the telephone call in which you provided -- the
telephone call for the list of witnesses in which you
discussed your expected testimony at trial?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Last week, as travel arrangements were coming


near, were being arranged.

Q. Do you recall what day that was, sir?

A. Several days ago, I would guess, Monday,
Thursday and Friday, but it could be Wednesday, also.

Q. Sir, has anyone from the Arkansas Attorney
General's office ever asked you to send them copies of
your writings on science or Creation Science?

A. No.

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Williams, we would like to register
again our objection to your refusal to answer the
interrogatories and produce the documents requested in
the document request, particularly in light of the fact
that the subject apparently was discussed with Mr. Roth
at least once in preparation of the list of witnesses,
and one or more times last week since then, and we still
have been unable to acquire any sort of information,
being provided any information in response to

MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, I will respond to

We have provided his curriculum vitae to the

Further, we have provided the general subject matter
of his testimony and the list of witnesses, and he has
brought some documents with him, if you care to look at

That's entirely up to you.

MR. WOLFE: First, do I understand you to be


willing to stipulate that his expected testimony will
be no broader than what is -- what was provided to us on
the list of witnesses on October 26th?

A. I would say that he will testify on that

There are other possible areas of testimony, as well,
and I'll tell you, he will talk, perhaps about
catastrophism. He may also talk about some general
principles of science and how scientific models arise.

We also, in answer to the objection and response to
it -- this is not a typical case, Mr. Wolfe, where you
have a specific set of facts like in a medical malpractice

Until such time as our discovery is complete in
taking the depositions of plaintiffs' witnesses, we did
not know and we cannot know exactly what areas we will
want to cover with our witnesses.

MR. WOLFE: I see. Could you explain to me, sir,
how it is that you have become aware that Dr. Roth might
testify about catastrophism and the way in which certain
scientific principles arise without seeing fit to
provide that information to us in response to the
interrogatories or in any other fashion?

MR. WILLIAMS: Because we discussed it last night.

MR. WOLFE: Certainly, in addition to our objection
about the failure to respond to the discovery requests
in the interrogatories and document request, we would
certainly take the position that no witness is, could


properly be offering testimony on the subject as to which
we had no opportunity to make discovery, no notice as
to the possibility of such testimony.

MR. WILLIAMS: You are here to take this discovery
deposition. That's the purpose of the deposition.

MR. WOLFE: Yes, it is.

The second matter is to documents which Dr. Roth
may have brought with him today. I would very much like
to see any such documents, assuming you are willing to
make them available.

THE WITNESS: Listed in my vita are a number of

I have brought, I believe, an almost or an all
complete set of all my publications.

MR. WOLFE: All right, sir.

Q. Are there any other documents that you brought
with you?

A. The journal which I edit, Origins, has a
number of my publications in it in addition to this.

I have brought some correspondence, as requested,
and other statements. It may at times relate to the
issue. I have brought those along, statements made to
the State of California, to Oregon and so on regarding
this particular issue, which I thought were pertintent
to this deposition.

MR. WOLFE: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Back on the record.


Q. Dr. Roth, have you brought any other
materials that deal with statements you have made or
contacts you have had with the Arkansas Attorney General
concerning this case or other correspondence or
discussions you may have had concerning the subject of
Scientific Creation?

A. Not dealing with this case.

Now, which way do you want it?

Q. My question has two parts: contacts concerning
this case or any other material that you brought along,
that is, correspondence that you have had on the subject
of Scientific Creation.

A. I have had some correspondence with
evolutionists and creationists, and I brought back, which
I could obtain, with me.

Q. Are you willing to have me make copies of
those materials, as well?

A. Sure.

MR. WOLFE: We'll break for a few moments while I
arrange to have copies made of the documents which
Dr. Roth has provided to me just now.

Sir, I'll return these copies of Origins to you.

[Short recess.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, turning your attention
back to your vita, Exhibit 1 to the deposition, could
you tell me what your major area of study was at Pacific
Union College.

A. Biology.


Q. And in your graduate studies at the University
of Michigan?

A. For the Master's degree, it was either biology
or zoology. For the Ph.D. it was zoology.

Q. Sir, have you had any postdoctoral education
other than what is listed on your vita?

A. Not that I can think of.

Q. Would you tell me the subject of your Ph.D.

A. It was gametogenesis, g-a-m-e-t-o-g-e-n-e-s-i-s.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, I apologize for the
interruption. I believe you were giving us the title of
your Ph.D. dissertation.

A. All right.

We got to the word "gametogenesis," g-a-m-e-t-o-g-e-n-
e-s-i-s, in the final generation of Schistosomatium,
capital S-c-h-i-s-t-o-s-o-m-a-t-i-u-m, dotthitti, small

Q. Sir, had you any subspecialization within
zoology within your Ph.D. training?

A. Parasitology, p-a-r-a-s-i-t-o-l-o-g-y.

Q. Would you describe the training in radiation
biology that is mentioned on your vita?

A. It was a number of courses designed to give
me knowledge of how to use radioactive tracers in
biological research.

Q. How many courses were there, sir?


A. It has been a long time.

I think three or four.

Q. Were they ordinary graduate level courses at
the university?

A. Right.

Q. Were those courses undertaken at a regular
session or at summer school?

A. Regular session.

Q. Would you describe the training in geology and
mathematics at Riverside mentioned on your vita?

A. Mathematics, including a year of calculus.
The geology amounted to about three years of geology

By this I mean a three-year sequence, not three years
of full-time courses.

In other words, we would be talking about 12 to 16

Q. Were those courses at the graduate level?

A. No. Those were mostly -- well, I think all
were undergraduate or advanced undergraduate or lower
division undergraduate.

Q. Did you take a degree pursuant to either of

A. No.

Q. Are the three degrees listed on your vita the
only academic degrees that you have, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Were any of those degrees granted with honors?


A. No, I don't think so, no.

Q. Dr. Roth, does the section of your vita headed
"Employment" describe all of the teaching experience that
you have had?

A. I think so.

Q. Sir, what did you teach as a teaching
assistant at the University of Michigan?

A. I was an assistant in the basic course in

Q. And what did you teach at Pacific Union
College during the period you were employed there?

A. Probably, I would guess, 10 to 20 different
courses in biology.

Q. Were they graduate or undergraduate courses?

A. Those were all undergraduate courses.

Q. Does Pacific Union College grant graduate

A. They do now.

Q. Did they at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Did they grant graduate degrees in biology?

A. Yes.

Q. But the courses that you taught were all

A. To the best of my knowledge.

Q. Sir, what were your responsibilities as a
research assistant at Loma Linda University in 1957 and


A. I was studying the intermediate host of a
parasitic worm.

Q. And what parasitic worm was that, sir?

A. A schistosome, s-c-h-i-s-t-o-s-o-m-e.

Q. Sir, what were your responsibilities as a
professor of biology and chairman of the department at
Andrews University?

A. I taught courses and directed the program of
the department, as well as research in the department.

Q. Where is Andrews University, Dr. Roth?

A. It's in Berrien, B-e-r-r-i-e-n, Springs,

Q. Were the courses that you taught undergraduate
or graduate level courses.

A. At Andrews they were all undergraduate

Q. Did Andrews grant graduate degrees in biology
at the time you were there?

A. No.

Q. Would you describe your responsibilities as a
professor of biology and chairman of the department at
Loma Linda University from 1963 to 1971?

A. The first part of that period I was chairman
of the graduate program because that was the only program
that Loma Linda had at that time, a graduate program in
biology where I taught graduate courses and directed
research and, of course, directed the program.

Later on Loma Linda University was tied in with an


undergraduate program, and I was chairman of both the
graduate and the undergraduate program at the latter part
of that period.

Q. Have your responsibilities at Loma Linda been
different during the time that you are associated with
Geoscience Research Institute?

A. Yes. My work is directed towards the
Geoscience Institute now.

Q. Would you describe that program and your
responsibilities in it?

A. I am the director of that program. The
responsibilities, of course, involve directing the research
and the other duties of that institute which deal with
studying the controversy between evolution and creation,
and presenting the results of our study.

Q. Does the Geoscience Research Institute grant

A. No.

Q. Does it engage in any research other than on
the controversy between Creation Science and Evolution
Science that you have just described?

A. I would have to qualify that.

It depends on what you mean on this issue. It's hard
to say. Some questions are related to this but may not
be directly involved in it.

All knowledge is good, and we are looking for truth.

Q. Would you describe the purpose or the aim of
the Geoscience Research Institute.


Is it aimed primarily at this body of knowledge of
creation, of evolution?

A. The aim of the institute, and this I will
state as my personal concern, is to find truth from a
broader context than is traditional in academic pursuits.

In other words, it is a multiple-disciplinary

Q. And is the subject matter of the institute's
research primarily Creation Science?

A. I would say truth.

Q. Are there any substantive areas of
concentration within the overall body of truth that the
Research Institute concentrates in?

A. Oh, I would say definitely the question of

Q. Could you tell me when the Geoscience Research
Institute was founded.

A. In 1958.

Q. Does it have a statement of purpose or the
like that you are aware of?

A. There is a statement that was voted several
years ago of purpose.

Q. Do you recall the substance of that
statement of purpose?

A. Essentially that the institute has a broad
approach to the issue. It is seeking truth on the basis
of studying a multiplicity of areas.

Q. Have you had any teaching responsibility since


the time you have been associated with the Geoscience
Research Institute?

A. I teach a course every other year for Loma
Linda University.

Q. What is that?

A. Paleontological, p-a-l-e-o-n-t-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l,

Q. Would you describe the subject matter, if you
can, briefly of your course.

A. It's an analysis of the fossil record and
various interpretations that are put thereon.

Q. Do you have textbooks for the course?

A. The last time I taught we used Dott and Baten,
D-o-t-t and B-a-t-e-n.

It's a history of the earth or earth history.

I'm sorry, I cannot give you the exact title.

It has the Dott and Baten textbook as a base.

Now I add supplemental materials to this.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you studied at any colleges
other than Pacific Union College, the University of
Michigan and the two University of California campuses
listed on your vita?

A. I audited a typing course once at Columbian
Union college in 1945.

Q. Are there any others?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you write a thesis for your Master's
degree at the University of Michigan?


A. No.

Q. Was your Ph.D. thesis published?

A. Only in abstract form.

Q. Sir, does the listing on your vita of grants
represent all of the grant applications that you have

A. I think so.

Q. Do you recall of any grant applications you
have made that were not funded?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe them for me, sir.

A. I applied to the National Institute of Health
for a grant to study the metabolism, m-e-t-a-b-o-l-i-s-m,
of schistosomes, s-c-h-i-s-t-o-s-o-m-e-s, and was turned

Q. When was that, sir?

A. In the early '60s, middle '60s, I would say.

Q. Do you have any knowledge why the grant
application was rejected?

A. One of the reviewers stated that he didn't
think the project was feasible.

Q. Do you have any knowledge about why it was
regarded as not feasible by that reviewer?

A. I'm afraid not, because a graduate student of
mine completed the project within two years after that.

Q. Have you had any other grant applications
which were not funded?

A. Not that I can recall right now.


Q. Are you a tenured professor at Loma Linda?

A. I don't think I am anymore.

I have been.

Since I am with the Geoscience Research Institute,
I'm not sure. I don't think I am.

Q. Have you been tenured at any institutions other
than Loma Linda?

A. Andrews University.

Q. Have you ever been denied tenure at any
institutions where you taught?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, is Andrews University accredited by
any accrediting body?

A. By the North Central Association.

Q. Was it accredited at the time you taught

A. Yes.

Q. And is Loma Linda accredited?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know by whom?

A. The Western Association of Secondary Schools
and Colleges.

Q. And has it been accredited throughout the
time you have been employed there?

A. Yes.

Q. Does Andrews University have any affiliation
with a religious institution?

A. It is a Seventh Day Adventist institution.


Q. Does Loma Linda University have any
affiliation with a religious institution?

A. Likewise, it is a Seventh Day Adventist

Q. Does Pacific Union College have any
affiliation with a religious institution?

A. It likewise is a Seventh Day Adventist

Q. Could you describe the current areas of
research that you are engaged in?

A. The main area of research I am dealing with
now is the area of coral reefs. I deal with both the
metabolism of present coral organisms and I am also
studying the structure of present and past coral reefs.

Q. How long have you been engaged in research in
those two areas?

A. About 11 years.

Q. And what was your research area prior to the
beginning of your research on coral reefs?

A. Schistosome worms.

Q. And had that been your area of research
interest from the time of your Ph.D. study?

A. Right.

Q. Can you tell me what precipitated your taking
up coral reef research and leaving off the research on

A. Several factors.

I have always been interested in marine biology,


and this was definitely a factor that influenced my
decision, because I wanted to get into the ocean and
study marine organisms.

Secondly, I felt that coral reefs had significant
implications in terms of philosophical implications
regarding past life.

Q. Could you explain the philosophical
implications that you just mentioned?

A. Part of the question relates to the authenticity
of ancient reefs and part of it to the rate of reformation.

Q. Will you explain to me what you mean by the
authenticity of ancient reefs.

A. In the fossil record we have structures that
are sometimes referred to as reefs. Are they real reefs
or not?

Q. Were there any reasons independent of your
interest in the coral reef questions about why you left
off your research in schistosomes?

A. Just those I mentioned.

Q. Sir, have you ever had any training or
education in marine biology?

A. I have taken course work in marine biology.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Pacific Union College, I would guess, about

Q. Was that undergraduate course work, sir?

A. That was undergraduate work.

Q. Have you done any graduate work in marine



A. You mean specific course work in marine

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Not that was related to marine biology, per

I might state, the course work that I took at
Berkeley, for instance, helmed me in doing research in
marine biology.

Q. That was the course work you took in the use
of radioactive tracers in biological research?

A. Right.

I should point out that the training I received at
the University of Michigan was in vertebrate zoology,
which deals more with marine organisms, although my
specialization is in parasitology, but marine parasites
are not uncommon. There is an overlap between the

Q. Were any of the parasites that you studied
in your Ph.D. research or subsequently marine parasites?

A. No. That is not those I did intensive research

Q. What are the hosts of the schistosomes, sir?

A. It varies and depends on which schistosome
you are dealing with.

The host of the one I was dealing with most of the
time in my research was man and a snail.

The host of the one I did my doctoral research on


was a meadow vole, v-o-l-e, meadow vole.

Q. And the snail that you referred to, was that
a freshwater snail?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, is it correct that the snail is an
intermediate host of schistosomes or the ones that you
studied and that man is the primary host or the one that
you were primarily interested in?

A. That's right.

Q. Is most of your study directed to man or to
the intermediate host?

A. Both, not man, the worm, the intermediate host.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any paid employment
other than what is listed on your vita?

Let me limit that to the time since your Ph.D. was

A. Only in terms of honoraria of one type or
another for writing an article or giving a talk.

Q. Sir, are you paid as the editor of Origins?

A. This is part of my duties as director of the
Geoscience Research Institute.

Q. Is Origins then a publication of the Geo.
Research Institute?

A. Right.

Q. When was Origins founded?

A. In 1974.

Q. Dr. Roth, did you have a research requirement
or responsibility when you were at Andrews University?


That is, were you expected to carry on research
while you were there?

A. No, but I did it.

Q. What were the responsibilities that you were
required to carry out in your paid employment there?

A. Chairing the department and teaching a limited
number of courses.

Q. Did you have any responsibility to publish
while you were at Andrews University?

A. It was encouraged.

Q. Did you have any research responsibility in the
biology department at Loma Linda?

A. There the concern for publication was much
more serious because that was a graduate program I was
dealing with, and you have no business in a graduate
program without doing research.

Q. Was it expected that professors at Loma Linda
in biology, in order to be tenured, would do research and

A. Very definitely.

Q. And do you have research and writing
responsibilities at the Geoscience Research Institute?

A. Very strongly encouraged.

It is similar to the academic community that
essentially, if you don't publish, you cannot be
considered a researcher.

Q. I see.

Sir, are you required to edit the journal, Origins,


as director of the Research Institute?

A. It's not required, but at present I do it.

Q. Who was your predecessor director of the
Research Institute?

A. Robert Brown, B-r-o-w-n.

Q. How long was he the director or the institute?

A. About eight years.

Q. Sir, do you receive any payment as the
editor of Origins separate from your salary as director
of the research institute?

A. No.

Q. Do you receive any payment as chairman of the
Biblical Research Institute of Science Council?

A. No.

Q. Were you paid as a consultant on creation to
the California State Board of Education?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you ever been fired or
dismissed from an academic position?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been subjected to academic
discipline at any institution?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been the subject of any
discipline or sanction by any professional group of which
you are a member?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you ever attended any symposia


or seminars in your area of research that are not listed
on your vita?

A. Lots of them.

Q. Are you able to estimate how many on an annual
basis or something of the sort?

A. Well, I make it a point to attend one or two
professional meetings every year.

Q. Could you tell me what journals in marine
biology you subscribe to?

A. Personally?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I do not subscribe to any personally.

Q. Are there any that are received by the
Geoscience Research Institute that you read regularly?

A. By Loma Linda University.

Q. All right, sir.

A. Marine biology is the main one.

Q. Are there others?

A. Not that I read regularly.

Q. Sir, referring to the professional societies
that are listed on your vita, will you describe to me
what the Society of Sigma Chi is?

A. This is an honorary scientific research

Q. Do you know approximately how many members it

A. I'm afraid not.

Certainly in the thousands.


Q. What are the requirements for membership?

A. You have to be a competent researcher.

Q. Can anyone join who wishes to and pays the
dues, or is it elective?

A. Elective.

Q. Are you aware of the criteria that are used
for election?

A. Participation in research and promise of future

Q. Can you tell me when you were elected to

A. In about 1950.

Q. At that time were you doing your graduate work
at the University of Michigan?

A. Right.

Q. Is it customary that one is sponsored for
membership by someone else already a member?

A. Yes, is part of the requirement, and it has
to go through a committee, also.

Q. Do you know by whom you were sponsored for

A. I believe it was my major professor at the
University of Michigan.

Q. And who was that, sir?

A. Dr. Arthur Woodhead, W-o-o-d-h-e-a-d.

Q. Dr. Roth, could you describe the American
Association for the Advancement of Science for me?

A. It is an association that has several



One, to bring together the American scientific
community and, secondly, to publish the journal, Science,
which is a journal dealing with a variety of scientific
subjects, mainly the biological and chemical sciences,
not so much the physical sciences.

Q. What are the criteria for membership in the
American association?

A. I believe just application.

Q. Do you know how many members it has,

A. I'm afraid not.

Again, in the thousands.

Q. Sir, have you ever held an office in the
American Association?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever received any award from the
American Association?

A. No.

Q. Does the American Association have any
meetings at which papers are presented?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how many each year?

A. They have one annual meeting a year, and then
they have subsections that meet between the annual
meetings, geographical subsections.

Q. Have you ever presented a paper at a meeting
of the association or a geographical subsection?


A. No.

Q. Are they listed in your list of publications?

A. Yes.

Q. Have any of those papers ever been published;
have any of those papers that you have presented at
meetings been published?

A. When you present a paper at a subsection it
is published in an abstract form.

Q. Returning for a moment to the Sigma Chi
Society, does that society publish a journal?

A. Yes

Q. Can you tell me what it is?

A. The American Scientist.

Q. Have you ever had any papers published in the
American Scientist?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever held an office in the Sigma Chi

A. No.

Q. Have you ever presented any papers at a
meeting of that society?

A. No.

The society does not have a general open research
paper-type of journal. This is more items of broad
interest, and their meetings, per se, are mostly
executive meetings, not general research.

Even though it is a research society, the meetings
are not concerned with research papers.


Q. Sir, as to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, are there membership categories
within the association that are honorary or elective?

A. I cannot answer that question right now.

Q. Do you know where I might find that out?

Is it in their bylaws or the magazine, Science, that
you know of?

A. At least in the magazine, Science, you could
fine the address of the association, and one could write
to them and find out what categories of membership they

Q. Can you tell me about the membership criteria
and purposes of the Geological Society of America?

A. As I recall, you have to be sponsored into
the society by two members of the society. It might be
one, but I think it is two.

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of the
Geological Society?

A. Not exactly. Somewhere in the late '60s or
early '70s.

Q. Do you know by whom you were sponsored for
that society?

A. I do not remember that.

Q. Have you ever been an officer of the Geological

A. No.

Q. Doctor, are you aware of whether the
Geological Society has any honorary or elective category


of membership?

A. Yes, I think so. I think they call them
fellows, f-e-l-l-o-w-s.

Q. Are you a fellow of the society?

A. No.

Q. Could you tell me when you became a member of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science?

A. I would guess the first time was in the '50s.

Q. Did your membership then lapse for some

A. I wouldn't be surprised.

Q. Can you tell me the membership criteria and the
purpose of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and

A. Again, I think the membership is a matter of
sponsorship from another member.

The purpose of the society is to, one, publish
information dealing with paleontology and sedimentology.

Another purpose is to conduct field trips to areas
of geological significance.

Q. Do you know how many members there are in
this society?

A. I'm afraid not.

Again, I would say in the thousands.

Q. Do you know when you became a member?

A. In the '70s.

Q. Do you know whether there is an elective or
honorary category of membership in this society?


A. I don't know of such.

Q. Can you describe the purposes and the
membership criteria of the Western Society of

A. I believe membership is on the basis of

Its purpose is to bring together for meetings
members in the western part of the United States
interested in biology.

It tends to deal with the biology of the Pacific as
a whole, whether it be marine biology or terrestrial

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of the
Western Society?

A. In the '70s.

Q. Have you ever been a member of -- I'm sorry,
an officer of the Western Society or the Society of
Economic Paleontologists?

A. No.

Q. Could you describe the membership criteria
of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists?

A. To be a full member you need to be a
practicing petroleum geologist.

For an associate member you just need the
sponsorship of one member -- not necessarily one member
but the sponsorship preferably of a member.

Q. Do you recall when you became a member of the
Association of Petroleum Geologists?


A. In the '70s, I guess, early '70s.

Q. Have you ever been an officer of that

A. No.

Q. Sir, have you ever been denied membership in
any professional association in which you sought

A. No.

Q. Have you ever terminated your membership in
any professional society other than the membership you
said of, perhaps, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science?

A. I used to be a member of the American
Microscopal Society and a member of the American Society
of Parasitologists.

Q. Could you tell me why you are no longer a
member of those two groups?

A. When my research interests shifted to coral
reefs, their membership was no longer as valuable to

Q. Dr. Roth, do you hold any adjunct teaching
positions or do you teach in any seminars other than
those that are reflected on your vita?

A. Not as a permanent -- I give lectures around,
but not adjunct positions, no.

Q. I see.

Sir, are you aware of an institution called the
Creation Research Society?


A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been a member?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of the Institute for Creation

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that institute?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of the Creation Science Research

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that Research Center?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been?

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of the Bible Science

A. Yes.

Q. Are you a member of that association?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever been a member of that

A. No.

Q. Have you heard of a group called The Citizens


for Fairness in Education?

A. I probably have.

It doesn't ring a bell with me right now, but the
name sounds familiar enough that I suspect I have.

Q. I take it that then you are not a member of
the group.

A. I am not a member.

Q. Have you heard of the Citizens for Balanced
Education as to Origin?

A. It sounds familiar again, but I am not a

Q. Sir, returning to your vita for a moment, it
states that you are chairman of the Biblical Research
Institute Science Council and have been since 1971.

A. Correct.

Q. Could you describe the Biblical Research
Institute for me, please.

A. The Biblical Research Institute is an
institute sponsored by the Seventh Day Adventist Church
for study in biblical research.

Q. What are the institute's membership criteria?

A. These are selected members, and I am not
aware of what criteria is employed to select the

Q. Are you a member of the institute?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. When did you become a member?

A. Last year.


Q. That's 1980?

A. 1980.

Q. Did you make an application or seek membership?

A. No. I was asked.

Q. By whom were you asked?

A. By the secretary of the General Conference of
Seventh Day Adventists.

Q. Could you describe for me what the Science
Council for Biblical Research Institute is?

A. The Science Council is part of the Biblical
Research Institute, and it is that part which deals with
the relationship of science to the Bible.

Q. Are all the members of the Science Council
also members of the Biblical Research Institute?

A. No.

Q. How did you come to be a member of the Science

A. I was asked.

Q. And that was in 1971?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall by whom you were asked?

A. Again, it would have been the secretary of
the General Conference.

This is the official channel.

Q. Does the Biblical Research Institute or the
Science Council have a statement of purpose or a
membership oath or bylaws that you have seen?

A. Not that I know of.


Q. Are you aware of the purpose of the Biblical
Research Institute?

A. To do research in biblical subjects.

Q. Is there any more specific purpose than that
that you know of?

A. Not that I have seen defined.

Q. Sir, referring to last year when I believe
you said that the secretary of the General Conference
of Seventh Day Adventists had asked you to become a
member of the Biblical Research Institute, can you give
me the name of that person?

A. Thompson, Ralph W. Thompson, I think.

Q. Do you recall what he said to you in asking
you to join?

A. It was a form letter, an assignment to a

Q. Do you know if you still have a copy of that

A. Probably somewhere in my files.

Q. I would request, if possible, you would look
to see if you have a copy of that and produce it to us
through Mr. Williams, subject to his acknowledgement
that it is relevant and we are entitled to it.

Do you recall the substance of the letter beyond
what you have told me already?

A. No. It's just a form letter. It's a form.
It is not even a letter.

As I recall, it is just a form that "you have been


assigned" to such and such a committee, check space so
and so with the chairmanship.

Q. So that you say it is not that you were
invited to membership but that you were assigned to the
committee by this Mr. Thompson?

A. Well, I was invited to be a member.

Q. I wasn't certain that I understood.

A. I'm making a difference between being
assigned and invited. I have the privilege of refusing.

Q. And I believe you said you had joined the
Science Council in 1971 pursuant to -- was that a similar
sort of invitation or assignment?

A. As far as I recall, exactly the same thing.

Q. Have you ever received any others from the
secretary of the General Conference?

A. Sure.

Q. Do you recall how many in the last dozen

A. Oh, maybe two or three others.

Q. Have you ever declined any of these

A. Not on a permanent basis, no.

Q. Have you ever declined any on any basis other
than permanent?

A. I have had time conflicts with some of the

Q. Dr. Roth, are you a member of any political
party other than the Republican or the Democratic party?


A, No.

Q. Are you a member of the Moral Majority?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any Right-to-Live groups?

A. No.

Q. Were you among the list of persons who applied
to intervene in this suit in July?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the record will reflect
that he was not.

MR. WOLFE: Thank you.

Q. Sir, are you a member of a church?

A. Of a church? Yes.

Q. What church is that?

A. The Seventh Day Adventists.

Q. When did you become a member?

A. About 1937, '38.

Q. Sir, have you been baptized in that church?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. At that time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just for the record, Mr. Wolfe, I
would like to object to the question going to his
religious background, unless some direct showing can be
made that there has been any compromising of the
science by the religious beliefs.

We are reserving that.

MR. WOLFE: I would say that we agree that the only
relevance that religion might have to the case is any


showing that it has detracted in any way from the
scientific objectivity; and the reason for the inquiry
is to determine whether or not that may be the case.

MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, have you ever held any office
in that church?

MR. WILLIAMS: You can go ahead and answer the

We have objected and we have reserved the right to
raise the relevancy question at the time of trial or at
any time that this matter should try to be introduced,
or this testimony.

THE WITNESS: I have been a deacon in the church
and a church elder.

MR. WOLFE: Q. How long have you been a deacon,

A. I just have to guess.

On and off, maybe 15 years.

Q. And how long have you been an elder?

A. Six years.

Q. Do you attend church services regularly, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you say how often, on an annual basis,

A. Every week.

Q. Do you belong to any groups within the church?

MR. WILLIAMS: You mean formal groups by that?



Q. Bible study groups, fellowship groups.

A. Not that I know of, no.

Q. Sir, do you consider yourself a
fundamentalist in religion?

A. You will have to define the term for me.

Q. Well, sir, I am not concerned with my
definition but rather your opinion of your own views.

Would you consider yourself a fundamentalist,
however you want to define it?

MR. WILLIAMS: I object to the question as being

MR. WOLFE: Very well, the objection is noted.

Q. You may answer.

A. I did not get your last statement.

Q. Mr. Williams' objection is on the record, and
you may answer.

A. I come back to the statement I made earlier,
and that is, I'll have to have the thing defined as to
what you mean; what is a fundamentalist?

Q. Sir, I think perhaps I haven't made myself

I'm not inquiring about whether you consider
yourself a fundamentalist based on my definition or some
other, but whether you would regard yourself as a
fundamentalist by whatever definition you have.

That is, my inquiry is about your opinion of the

MR. WILLIAMS: Again, just for the record, I want


to object.

The problem is, when you use the term
"fundamentalist," particularly in the abstract, he may
have something else in his mind and you may have
something different, so I think in the interest of
clarity, if you can segregate the criteria by which you
are measuring fundamentalism, I think it will facilitate
the deposition.

MR. WOLFE: I certainly am not making myself clear.

Q. Let me try once more.

I do not care about my own criteria, sir; I care
only about yours.

Let me put the first question.

Could you define for me your understanding of a
person who is a fundamentalist as to religion; and the
second question would be, do you consider yourself to be
one, given your definition?

A. I believe, as the term is being used now,
such as the implications of the Moral Majority, this
type of thing, I would not qualify as a fundamentalist.

If you want to say that is what a fundamentalist
is, I am not.

Q. Sir, can you tell me what you understand to
be the meaning of fundamentalism in religion?

A. I think -- no. I have to go look it up in
the dictionary.

I am not a theologian.

Q. So you have no understanding?


A. Of the term? I don't have a good definition in
my mind, no.

Q. Do you consider yourself a biblical literalist,

A. No.

Q. Do you have a personal religious advisor or

A. No.

Q. Have you an understanding of the term
"reborn Christian"?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you an understanding of the
term "reborn Christian"?

A. I think I know what that means.

Q. Sir, given the understanding that you have,
would you consider yourself a reborn Christian?

A. I think so, if you use that term loosely.

Q. Well, sir, how would you use the term "reborn"
and "born-again Christian"?

A. Well, I think some individuals feel that a
reborn Christian is a person who has had a certain
dramatic experience.

Others would feel it is a committed Christian.

I qualify more in the second category than on the

Q. Could you explain to me your understanding of
a person as a committed Christian?

A. It is a person who believes that the ideals


that Christ set up are a sound guide for life.

Q. Sir, have you ever done evangelical or
conversion work in the church?

A. Define "evangelical."

Q. Essentially, spreading the gospel, converting
those who are not believers in your church to such a

A. No.

Correction on that. I have talked to people about
my religion. I don't know if you call that
evangelizing. But nothing public, nothing in public.

Q. Sir, have you ever read the Bible?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what edition or versions you have

A. Quite a number of different versions.

Q. Can you tell me those that you recall?

A. Oh, King James, Standard Revised Version,
New English Bible, Phillips, Living Bible.

Q. About how often or when have you read the
Bible, these versions?

A. I have not read all of those versions, but I
have read from those versions.

Q. How often do you read the Bible?

A. Oh, several times a week.

Q. Do you as a marine biologist consult the
Bible at all?

A. No.


Q. Do you ever employ the Bible in your work?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the

MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you ever employ the Bible in
your work?

A. As a marine biologist?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I am not aware that the Bible says very much
about marine biology.

Q. I take it that your answer is that you do not
consult the Bible in your work as a marine biologist?

A. I don't think I ever have, no.

Q. Dr. Roth, do you believe that the Bible is
inerrant or infallible?

A. No.

Q. Do you believe that the Bible is literally

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: That question has been asked and

I object, also.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I think perhaps it hasn't been
exactly, but the record, in any case, will be what it

Q. Sir, does the Bible predict future events?

A. Certainly.

Q. Can you tell me which events?


A. In the Old Testament it predicted that Christ
would be crucified.

Q. Are you aware of any biblical predictions as
to the future that have not yet come to pass?

A. It talks about the second coming of Christ.

Q. Are you aware of any others?

A. Events that would precede this.

Q. Would you regard the Bible as a source of a
code of conduct for living?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you refer to the Bible as a source of
scientific learning at all?

A. It gives some scientific data.

Q. Could you explain to me what scientific data
the Bible gives?

A. It refers, for instance, to the structure of
the temple being such and such a size, and this is
measurable data.

Q. Has the Bible ever been an inspiration to
research that you have conducted?

A. I think it has given me some ideas, yes.

Q. Could you give me any instances?

A. The work on coral, for instance.

One gets new ideas about it by looking at, say,
the Bible.

Q. Could you give me an example of such ideas
that you may have derived from looking at the Bible?

A. Just in the general plant, not in the


scientific research, per se; just general ideas that
you can --

The Bible gives you a greater breadth of

I can get these ideas from other places. You can't
blame those on the Bible.

Q. I am not sure I understood your last sentence.

A. In cultural anthropology, for instance, you
can get ideas of different past histories for life on
earth. These can suggest different ideas to you as
you approach the analysis of coral reefs.

Q. Are you able to give any specific examples?

A. Well, the Gilgamesh Epic refers to certain
catastrophies in the past, or when I go look at certain
limestone units, I may say, "Well, maybe this epic was
correct, that there were some catastrophies in the past,"
and when I go to the Geological Society of American,
like I did three weeks ago, and hear about certain
catastrophies, I say, "Maybe Gilgamesh was correct."

Q. Has the Bible ever suggested any specific
method of investigation to you?

A. Not specific; science is too specialized.

Q. Any general methods that have been
suggested to you by the Bible?

A. Not on scientific; I would say just

Q. Would you say that the Bible has ever
suggested possible solutions to you for questions that

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Ariel Roth - Page 2


you have been researching?

A. You say has the Bible suggested possible

Q. Yes.

That is, would you say that your reading of the
Bible has ever suggested to you that the answer to some
problem that you were working on might be X or whatever?

A. I don't think one can divorce what he reads
from explanations he tries to arrive at entirely, but
in science, explanations can be of a variety of sources,

What I am trying to do is say the scientific
explanation need not be related to what I get from the
Bible or anthropology but it can influence one's
scientific explanation.

Q. Are you able to explain the way in which the
Bible might influence your scientific explanation in
any particular instance?

A. It could suggest some ideas to be tested.

Q. Do you recall any specific occasion that has
been the case?

A. Well, I'll get back to -- it can suggest a
catastrophism, but other sources can suggest the same

I will add to that comment that many geologists
are suggesting catastrophism, and they have gotten
their ideas from the data, science or their experiments
or from concepts that they have imagined.


In science we are concerned about whether the data
fits the concept, not especially where the concept comes

Archimides got his concept of buoyancy from a

Q. Dr. Roth, have you done any research in

A. Not directly.

Q. Have you done any indirectly?

A. I've analyzed some structures in terms of
whether or not they might be deposited rapidly or slowly.

Q. Have you had any geology training or any
training related to catastrophism other than what you
mentioned earlier, your geology study at U.C. Riverside?

A. Not formal training.

Of course, most geologists have not had training
in this direction because this is a new trend in

Q. Have you had any geology training at all
other than what we discussed earlier about your work at
U.C. Riverside?

A. Not formal training.

Q. Have you had any informal training?

A. Well, whenever one goes out in the field and
field conferences, he learns quite a bit. When one
goes to scientific meetings, he learns quite a bit.

Q. Are there any other bases than the geology
training you had at U.C. Riverside and these references


that you have made to scientific conferences and field
trips for your knowledge or views in catastrophism?

A. Geological literature.

Q. What geological literature in this area have
you read?

A. Well, I get all these journals of which I am
a member of the society. I don't read every journal.
I wish I had time to. But that's part of it.

And, of course, there are reference books.

Q. Could you tell me the primary reference books
and journals in this area that you read?

A. Geological Society of America bulletin,
The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists
bulletin, The American Association of Petroleum
Geologists bulletin, books of one type and another.

Q. Do you recall any titles?

A. The Nature of the Stratographical Record by

Q. Do you recall by whom that is published,

A. No.

It is in England. It is British.

Q. Any others?

A. Not right offhand.

Q. Sir, would you regard yourself as an expert
in geology or catastrophism?

A. No.

If I can amplify on that, I am an expert in no


area. The more you study, the more you realize how
little you know.

Q. Would you say then that you regard your
command of geology and catastrophism as the equivalent
of your command of marine biology?

A. No, not as good.

Q. And is it correct then that you would not
regard yourself as an expert in marine biology, either?

A. Well --

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say for the record,
obviously, who is an expert has a legal connotation.


MR. WILLIAMS: And Dr. Roth, despite his own
modesty, we would consider him legally to be an expert.

MR. WOLFE: My inquiry is not based on who may
or may not be legally qualified but, rather, Dr. Roth's
own appraisal of his interest in his work, and that's
what I am making inquiry about.

THE WITNESS: To the extent that you call a person
who has published a number of papers in this area an
expert, I would qualify.

MR. WOLFE: Q. That is, in marine biology?

A. Marine biology.

Q. Would you say that you qualify as an expert
in geology or catastrophism by the same criteria?

A. By the same criteria, I would say no.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can we break now?

[Recess taken.]


Q. Dr. Roth, have you had any contact with the
defendants in this action about the case?

A. No.

MR. WILLIAMS: You are talking now about the
defendants, the named defendants?

MR. WOLFE: The named defendants in the action.

THE WITNESS: You mean the persons whose names are
at --

MR. WOLFE: Q. They are approximately the
Arkansas State Board of Education and its members.

A. No.

Q. Have you had any contact with any Creation
Science groups or institutions about this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen a copy of the statute that
is at issue in this action?

A. This?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. When did you obtain a copy of the statute?

A. Two or three weeks ago.

Q. From whom?

A. The Attorney General's office.

Q. Had you ever seen it prior to that time?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen a model Creation Science
bill drafted by any Creation Science group in the past?

A. I have seen some drafted. As models, no.


Q. Have you ever seen bills which were submitted
in other state legislatures than Arkansas?

A. The one that was submitted in Oregon.

Q. When was that, sir?

A. Last spring.

Q. What was the occasion for your seeing that

A. When they asked me to come up there and speak
on behalf of that bill.

Q. Who asked you do that?

A. Congressman Davis.

Q. Was he the Oregon congressman?

A. He was one of the sponsors of the bill.

Q. Sir, do you know a man named -- I will with-
draw that. I take it back. I do not withdraw it. You
mentioned Mr. Bird earlier, but do you know Mr. Wendell

A. I have heard of him. I have never met him.

Q. Have you ever had any correspondence or
telephone conversation with Mr. Bird?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had a phone or letter
communication with John Whitehead?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell me when and on what subjects?
Were there copies of correspondence with Mr. Whitehead
among those that you offered to me earlier today?

A. Yes.


Q. Do you recall the subject on which you
corresponded with Mr. Whitehead?

A. It was about a debate, a written debate in
Liberty Magazine over the issue of whether or not
creation should be taught in the public schools, and I
was debating Bill Mayer. I wanted some constitutional
advice from a constitutional lawyer.

Q. And Mr. Whitehead offered some advice on that

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever had any contact with Mr.
Whitehead about this case?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever had any contact with Mr.
Whitehead about the Arkansas statute?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever communicated with Mr. Whitehead
about the Oregon statute or any model statute?

A. No. You still have my publications. I can't
look it up.

Q. They are still being copied.

Sir. have you ever given testimony in the past in
a court action or before any legislative or administrative

A. Yes.

Q. On what occasions?

A. State Board of California.

Q. And what was the subject?


A. Whether or not creation should be included
in the public schools.

Q. Have you ever given testimony to any other
school board or board of education?

A. Oregon.

Q. And when was that, sir?

A. Last spring.

Q. Was that before the Oregon Legislature?

A. That was before the Education Committee of the
Oregon Legislature.

Q. Have you ever given testimony before in any
court action?

A. Not related to this subject?

Q. Would you tell me what subjects?

A. Well, I will have to change. I don't think
in court. I don't think I have given testimony in court
on any subject. I made a deposition before but not
testimony in court.

Q. What was the subject of the action in which
you previously gave a deposition?

A. It was about a road near my house which has
a dangerous curve on it, and I was asked to testify
regarding the accidents that occur there near my house.

Q. Sir, have you ever been paid for any of the
appearances that you have just mentioned before the
California Board of Education, the Education Committee
of the Oregon Legislature?

A. Unfortunately, no.


Q. Do you ever recall having given other
prior testimony on any subject before a legislative body
or administrative government body?

A. I can't think of any.

Q. Have you ever made speeches or taken part in
debates about Creation Science or evolution in the past?

A. Yes.

Q. On what occasions, sir?

A. The written debate that you have in Liberty
Magazine was orally presented between Dr. Bill Mayer who
was the proponent for excluding creation from the public
schools and myself suggesting that it ought to be

I have talked at the University of California at
Riverside on the subject of creation to the Geology
Department at a seminar.

Then at the San Diego State University I put on a
series of seminars there once.

I taught a course at DeAnza College on the subject,
West Valley College also. I will correct that last
statement. I have given -- no, that was a course also.
Correction. Back to where we were. DeAnza College and
West Valley College.

Then, of course, on numerous occasions lectures to
classes, Seventh-Day Adventist Church groups.

Q. When you say "lectures to classes" do you
mean college courses or --

A. Yes.


Q. Have you ever been paid for any of the
appearances for the written debate that you mentioned
just now?

A. Yes.

Q. For which ones?

A. What is that?

Q. For which ones?

A. The Liberty. They gave me an honorarium for
that for both the oral and the written.

Q. Do you recall how much that was, sir?

A. Roughly it was around a little less than
500 for the written one and somewhere around 200 for the

Q. Did the documents that you gave me earlier
include the copies of or the transcript of any of these
classes or debates that you have mentioned?

A. Yes, the Liberty debate is among those
documents as one of my publications.

Q. Do you have transcripts of any of these
debates or classes that were not included among those that
you gave to me this morning?

A. Well, let's put it this way: The oral
debate was essentially the written. However, I probably
did not read it per se; I talked. No transcripts.

Q. Sir, have you ever heard the opinion
expresses that Creation Science is really just a ploy or
a device of propagating Christian faith?

A. Yes.


Q. On what occasions have you heard that?

A. I cannot tell you exactly. I don't want to
implicate somebody when I'm not sure they said it, but I
think Bill Mayer says it in the debate. I'm not sure.
I would have to read it to tell you.

Q. Do you recall any other instance?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever heard that Creation Scientists
state that position?

A. Creation Scientists what?

Q. Have you ever heard a Creation Scientist
state a position that Creation Science is a device or
ploy for spreading the Christian faith?

A. No.

Q. Sir, have you ever had any criminal arrests or

A. Traffic tickets.













Q. Other than that?

A. No.

Q. Dr. Roth, when did you first hear about this
court case brought in federal court in the District of

A. About the ACLU case?

Q. Yes, sir, this suit.

A. About three or four weeks ago.

Q. And from whom did you hear it?

A. Tim Humphries.

Q. And have you had contact with anyone at the
Arkansas Attorney General's office aside from
Mr. Humphries and Mr. Williams about this suit?

A. Except the secretaries who deal with travel
arrangements, that's all.

Q. Sir, are you being paid for your appearances
in this action?

A. No.

Q. Are you receiving expenses or any fee for

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what expenses you receive?

A. Actual cost.

Q. By whom are they being reimbursed to you?

A. By the Attorney General's Office, I guess,
or the State of Arkansas. I don't know which one.

The State.

Q. Have you spoken to anyone other than persons


with the Arkansas Attorney General about testifying in
this case?

A. No.

I might correct that.

My wife, secretaries in my office. That's all.

[Luncheon recess.]

- - -


1:20 O'CLOCK P.M.

- - -


MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, have you discussed the
testimony that you expect to give at trial with anyone
at the Attorney General's office?

A. I didn't know I was going to give testimony.

Q. Your testimony at trial.

A. Well, I will answer questions.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. That is my understanding, that this is what
it would be.

Q. Have you discussed with the Attorney General
the subject matter of the questions that you will be
asked and the responses that you will give?

A. No.

Q. Have you discussed generally the subject
matter in which the questions might be put to you?

A. Well, certainly it will revolve around this
statement here to the extent he asks me which area I
was a specialist in.

Q. Have you discussed any other subject matters
with the Attorney General?

A. No.

Just for information, Tim Humphries is not the
Attorney General, is he?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, he is not the Attorney General.


He is a law clerk within our office.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Have you discussed the subject
matter about which you might testify with anyone in the
Attorney General's office?

Did you discuss it with Mr. Humphries over the phone?

A. No, not at the office.

Q. Have you discussed with Mr. Williams or
anyone else the deposition that is being taken here

A. We discussed it last night in terms of what
it would be like.

Q. Did you during that time discuss the areas
on which you might give testimony or answer questions at

A. No.

Q. Have you described to anyone from the
Attorney General's office the areas of which you would be
willing to speak at trial?

[Discussion off the record.]

THE WITNESS: Please word your question again.

MR. WOLFE: Will you read back the question,

[Record read.]

THE WITNESS: I have talked to Mr. Williams here
about the catastrophism.

MR. WOLFE: Q. About any other areas?

A. These right here, just those, my specialty.

Q. About coral reefs?


A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Roth, have you discussed with anyone else
outside the Attorney General's office the possible
areas of your testimony at trial?

A. No.

Dr. Coffin. I have discussed with Dr. Coffin the
areas that I might cover.

Q. And when was that, sir?

A. Last week.

Q. What was the occasion of your discussion with
Dr. Coffin?

A. I was in his office and we were discussing
what areas we felt more competent in.

Q. Do you recall the substance of your discussion
with Dr. Coffin about the areas in which you might

A. It was very brief.

I said, "I will discuss the nature of the
scientific method," and he would work on the fossil

That was as far as it went, a very brief

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, could you define Creation
Science as you understand it.

A. It's the study of that evidence from science
that suggests maybe some intelligent design in the
nature about us.


Q. Do you consider yourself a Creation

A. It depends on how you want to define
"science," as to what is involved here. If you define
"science" as limited to naturalistic explanations, then
you would get a conflict of terminology here, and the
answer to your question rests on your definition of

Q. Does Creation Science, as you defined it just
a moment ago, confine itself to naturalistic

A. It could if you assumed that design occurred
by naturalistic means.

Q. Do you yourself assume in your work that
Creation Science is confined to naturalistic means?

A. In my work -- you mean research?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I don't touch on that subject hardly in my

You question was, do I consider in my work that
Creation Science occurred by naturalistic means.

Q. Do you assume that Creation Science is
limited to naturalistic explanations?

A. I don't have an answer to that because I
don't know how creation could have occurred.

Q. And I take it then that you don't make
assumptions about the matter, either?

A. Whether or not it's naturalistic?


Q. Yes.

A. I wonder about it.

Do I make an assumption? I can make assumptions,
but they are revisable.

Q. What assumptions do you make currently about
Creation Science and whether or not it includes only
naturalistic means?

A. Well, if you assume that design was by
naturalistic means, then you could say yes, sure, it's
all naturalistic. If you assume no, that this involved
what we want to call something beyond naturalistic,
then the answer is no.

Q. Do you yourself make any assumptions, either
of those assumptions, about whether or not naturalistic
means are within Creation Science or whether it's
limited to them?

A. I am more comfortable with the possibility I
don't understand what is going on here and that
naturalistic answers may not answer all the reality, but
I cannot say this as a scientist. I cannot say this is
the way it was, because I don't have the evidence for

Q. Is your understanding of Creation Science as
a general discipline that it does or does not confine
itself to naturalistic means?

A. It could go either way.

Q. Do you have any understanding about what is
the current -- let me say it another way.


Do you think there is an identifiable assumption
either that naturalistic means are the only ones to be
considered or that extranaturalistic means will be
considered made by most Creation Scientists today?

A. In terms of some of the scientific data, it
is hard for us to fit what we see into our present
understanding of the naturalistic means; but our
knowledge is so limited that I think one needs to be

- - -


Q. Sir, once again, given what you said about
Creation Science, do you consider yourself a Creation

A. Again, I will come back to your definition
of science. If you say science is purely naturalistic,
then I can't say that, but if you say this science does
allow for other aspects, then I can live with Creation

Q. Do you consider yourself that science only
allows for naturalistic explanations?

A. Historically it has not. There is a tendency
in modern science to move in that direction, but when the
foundations of our science were laid these were very much
in a non-naturalistic mode.

Q. I take it you have said that science at one
time or its origins did allow for non-natural explanations,
but that the current tendency is not to do so?

A. Right.

Q. Do you subscribe to that current tendency to
embrace only naturalistic explanations?

A. Well, again I have to come back to this
unknown. I don't know if it's naturalistic or not.
You are asking me to commit myself on something that I
don't have detailed knowledge of how it could have
happened. I don't have that. It could have been by
naturalistic means. It could not have been by naturalistic
means, but some of the founders, to bet back to the other
point I mentioned, some of the founders of science were


definitely creationists, for example, Newton and Agassiz,

Q. Dr. Roth, do you have a belief about whether
creation proceeded only by or whether the origin of the
earth and life on earth proceeded only by naturalistic

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking the witness his
professional opinion as a scientist?


THE WITNESS: On the basis of scientific data that
I have right now, I cannot answer that question.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Do you have a belief, a personal
belief, about the question apart from science?

A. Well, I certainly have certain personal
beliefs, yes, very definitely.

Q. And what are they?

A. On the basis of what I see about me it seems
to me that design of some kind seems to be implied in the
nature I see about me.

Q. Sir, then if we define Creation Science as a
science of origins and one which allows for origination
of the earth and life on earth by naturalistic or non-
naturalistic means, would you define yourself as a creation-

A. No, because science has to be open to other
ideas as well. You have to evaluate other ideas. You
are moving into an area of dogma and away from science in
that particular suggestion you make.


Q. Sir, have you read various books and
publications about Creation Science or Scientific Creation-

A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever attended any lectures or
seminars in the area?

A. Some.

Q. Do you regard Creation Science or Scientific
Creationism based on your experience with it as a science?

A. If you want to define "science" as
testable, predictable, I would say no. This narrows
science down to a very narrow spear of operation. I
would say then you don't have Creation Science, but if
you define it the way it's usually defined as a search
for explanations about nature, then very definitely there
is Creation Science.

MR. WOLFE: Will you read the last answer back,

[Read record]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, would you define marine
biology as a science under one or both of those

A. There is no question it fits very conveniently
under the second one and pretty well under the first.

Q. Would you regard Evolution Science as a
science under either of those two definitions?

A. I would say perhaps the same as I did for
creation. If you are going to limit your definition of


science to the testable and the predictable, then you
would have to say evolution does not fit into science.

If you are speaking of the common definition, a
search for explanations about nature, then I think
evolution can fit under science.

Q. Sir, would you regard Evolution Science as
a religion?

A. You will have to define religion for me.

Q. Let me begin by asking you to define religion.

MR. WILLIAMS: I will have to object. I don't think
he is qualified nor has he been offered as an expert to
define what religion is. We will have other witnesses
on that point, I think, on both sides.

MR. WOLFE: I expect that is right, but we have
been already discussing several areas in which it's not
clear whether Dr. Roth will ever be qualified as a
witness, so I don't know that we could distinguish whether
or not he is able to answer that question on that ground.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't mind him answering as long as
he is obviously giving a layman's understanding of what he
might consider to be religion.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know that I want to tell
Dr. Roth that he is no more than a layman, but I agree
with you that he has not as yet been qualified as an
expert on religion and may in fact never be. I simply
want to ask him now for the purposes of our discussion
if he could define religion as he understands it.

THE WITNESS: There are different definitions of


religion. Under some of them evolution is a religion;
under others it is not.

MR. WOLFE: Q. Could you explain to me the
definitions of religion that you are thinking of?

A. Some consider religion as involving some type
of deity. Others understand that, of course, you would
say evolution probably does not qualify as a religion.

Sometimes religion is defined as a nondeistic
belief. It's a system of belief and does not involve
deism, and I would say evolution qualifies as a religion
under that definition.

Q. Would you say that Creation Science is religion
under either of those two definitions?

A. Yes, you could put it under both of those.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Sir, could you turn your attention
to the Arkansas statute. I believe you have a copy of it

Looking at Section 4 of the Act which is headed
Definitions, could you read the Section A, the definition
of Creation Science and Section B, the definition of
Evolution Science?

A. All right.

Q. Sir, would you consider yourself a Creation
Scientist given the definition of Creation Science in
this Act?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider yourself an Evolution


Scientist given the definition of Evolution Science?

A. I am closer to the creation than the

Q. Well, are you able to give a yes or no answer
as to whether or not you regard yourself as an Evolution

A. I need to define evolution.

Q. The definition that we are using is the one
in the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the extent that question may assume
a fact not in evidence that the definition of the Act is
an all-inclusive definition.

MR. WOLFE: Well, I don't know whether the definition
purports to be all-inclusive or not, but I'm simply asking
does Dr. Roth consider himself an Evolution Scientist given
this definition in the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I think technically the
definition is the first sentence of Section A and B.
That is the definition.

THE WITNESS: Again, I will state I fit better with
A than with B. I did not write these definitions.









MR. WOLFE: Q. I understand that.

Would you say that it is possible to be both a
Creation Scientist and an Evolution Scientist?

A. It is possible to believe in parts of both of
these, very definitely.

Q. Looking at the definition of Evolution
Science and within that subsection after the listing of
six items that Evolution Science is stated as including,
do you agree with or believe in all or any of those six?

A. Under B?

Q. Yes.

A. The one that I have some -- I am able to
relate to No. 3.

Q. You are saying that you do not agree with item
3 under B?

A. It would depend on how you define some of the
terms there. I can relate to the fact that we do have
variation in nature at present.

Q. Are you able to agree or accept the other
Items 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 and 6?

A. They seem less likely than the counterparts
in Section A above.

Q. As between Item 3 and Section A and Item 3
and Section B which as you suggest I think appear to be
counterparts, do you regard one of them as more likely than
the other?

A. Yes, I would say A is more likely, but the way
3 is worded under B, I'm not satisfied that this is a


good counterpart to 3 under A.

Q. Sir, talking about the items under Creation
Science in the Act and taking them in reverse order, No.
6 says that "Creation Science includes scientific evidences
and related inferences that indicate a relatively recent
inception of the earth and living kinds. The Evolution
Science counterpart is listed as the scientific evidences
and related inferences that indicate an inception several
billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

A. Yes.

Q. Do you yourself have a view as to the scientific
evidence as to the age of inception of the earth and
living kinds?

A. You are distinguishing here the difference
between the matter of the earth and the living organisms
on it, is that right?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, sir, it appears to me the Act makes that
decision. In terms of my personal beliefs I guess I would
not fit under either definition there in that my personal
beliefs are that I think maybe the matter of the earth
has been here for a long time but not the living kinds on

Q. Could you restate or are you able to state
what your belief would be about these questions?

A. Well, take No. 6 under B. I would say an
inception of several billion years ago the earth and much
later of life instead of somewhat.


Q. Can you be more specific about the time of the
inception of life?

A. I would say maybe only a few thousand years.

Q. Are you able to explain briefly what
scientific evidences you would point to for the inception
of matter of earth several billion years ago?

MR. WILLIAMS: As I understood the question before
you are talking of personal belief which may or may not
be the same as his professional belief based on scientific

THE WITNESS: Which do you want? You asked my
personal belief in the previous question.

MR. WOLFE: Then please let me be clear that I
understood your testimony.

Your testimony was that your personal belief would
be that the inception of matter of the earth might have
been several billion years ago and that the inception of
life would have been much later, perhaps only a few
thousand years ago.

A. Right.

Q. Would your scientific opinion be any different?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Can you tell me on what you would base your
opinion that the inception of the earth or at least the
matter of the earth is likely to have been several billion
years ago?

A. One of the strongest arguments is radiometric
dating, potassium argon dating, uranium dating, robidium


strontium dating.

Q. And what evidence causes you to place the
inception of life much later than that?

A. Those layers of earth that have evidences of
past life in them should have disappeared long ago if the
earth is as old as ordinary evolutionary interpretation

Q. Sir, I'm not certain that I understood that.

A. In the geologic column we have many layers.
These are being eroded at present and it is on the basis
of the amount of sediment in the rivers. One can
calculate how long it would take to erode these layers of
the geological column.

The figures usually given for eroding our present
continent down to a flat level are about ten to twenty
million years. How come we have this whole geologic
column for 600 million years. I am suggesting a much
shorter time than the age of the matter of earth.

[Discussion off the record]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, did I understand then that
you regard radiometric dating as important evidence for
a great age for the earth?

A. It seems to me that it suggests this.

Q. Do you regard efforts to date fossil-bearing
geologic strata with radiometric techniques that indicate
ages of a million years for, say, Hominid, H-o-m-i-n-i-d
fossils in East Africa or mammals in the Cretaceous
in North America as tending to indicate that life was in


fact on earth say a million or two million years ago in the
case of East Africa fossils or much longer in the case of
mammals in North America?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think he may have understood that
question. I'm not sure I did. I understood the facts you
gave. I'm not sure I know what the question was though.

MR. WOLFE: I understood Dr. Roth to say that he
regarded radiometric dating as some evidence for an old
inception of the matter of the earth itself but that he
regarded the inception of life as likely to have come
much later, and I wondered if that means that you do not
accept efforts to date fossil life forms with radiometric
dating that give dates of more than a few thousand years

THE WITNESS: One cannot be as sure with the
techniques you are suggesting as with the ones that I
referred to earlier because in the techniques you are
suggesting we are dating not the fossils themselves but
layers in which you find the fossils, and the problem of
inherited age from reworked older material makes that
system less secure than one where you don't have that

Q. Are you aware of any efforts to date fossil
horizons with radiometric techniques that you regard as
more persuasive or more strongly made than others or do
you regard them as simply inherently unreliable because of
this indirect dating method?

A. I'm not a specialist in this area. I do not


have the knowledge to evaluate it that carefully.

Q. But would it be correct to say that if you
were satisfied about the connection between the fossil
occurrence and the radiometric date or the geologic
stratum, then you would be willing to accept the date as
being a date for the fossil?

A. No. We have to base our evidence on a lot of
things. This will not alleviate at all the erosion picture
that I mentioned to you earlier. To build one's view of
truth on one narrow bit of evidence is not sound.




















Q. Dr. Roth, the list of witnesses that was
submitted states that you will discuss "findings from
his research on coral reefs past and present which
indicates support for the Creation Science model."

Could you describe the findings from your research
that are referred to in that description?

A. One of the findings of my research is that
ultraviolet lights inhibits coral reef growth near the

We have analyzed the effect of different wavelengths
of light on coral growth, and we find that ultraviolet
does inhibit while the others tended to enhance it.

Ultraviolet light is absorbed more readily as
light penetrates the ocean than visible light.

This suggests that coral reefs may not grow as
rapidly at the surface where the ultraviolet light is
more abundant than further down on the reef.

This in turn raises questions regarding evaluating
the rate of growth at the surface compared to further
down where there is greater potential, where there is
less ultraviolet light.

A second factor would be temperature, where we have
found that raising the temperature increases the rate
of growth of coral.

Since the paleontological record suggests warmer
temperatures in the past, reefs may have grown faster
in the past. Adding calcium ion in the sea appears to
increase the rate of coral growth.


If there was a greater concentration of calcium
ion present, then one might expect faster coral growth.

These factors may explain why one sees -- back up
-- may explain why in the literature fairly rapid
growth has been reported, much faster than is normally
noted at the surface.

Q. Sir, how does the work that you have just
described bear on the question of origins of life and
Creation Science?

A. It suggests that events in the past may have
occurred more rapidly than is generally assumed.

Q. And what is the importance to Creation
Science of evidence which suggests events in the past
could have taken place more rapidly than they are found
to at the present?

A. Well, one of the problems that evolution
faces, if I can answer it from the other side, is that
by all our best estimates there is not enough time for
evolution to have taken place.

When you look at the data that suggests that the
earth may be younger than generally assumed, this
also fits into that picture and hence supports the
idea that purely naturalist explanations may not be as
correct as other models.

Q. Sir, I am not certain that I understood the
last couple of things that you said.

I take it that you would regard your research on
reefs as supporting the Creation Science explanation as


opposed to an Evolution Science explanation for the
origin of life; is that right?

A. You have to define "support."

Are we working in a disprove mode here or are we
working in a mode of science where we say, "Well, it
looks like this supports this"?

This is where I think we are having difficulty.

Q. In which mode would you regard as your working
relevant to the question of origins?

A. In the disprove mode, the work that I would
think would eliminate the disprove for the Creation Science
has been able to occur rapidly. It favors more rapid
action, is what it does.

Q. So that I take it that you mean one argument
against Creation Science is that it doesn't generally
allow enough time for certain observed things to have

A. There is some data in that direction, yes.

Q. And the fact that your work suggests coral
reefs might have grown faster in the past than is
usually reported at present would tend to support the
notion that presently observed --

A. This is not a strong argument against Creation

Q. Can you summarize for me your understanding
of the argument against Creation Science, that it does
not allow enough time for the presently observed coral
reefs or whatever to have come about.


A. The argument is along the line that some of
our coral reefs are fairly large and it would take a long
time for them to grow.

Q. Have you published any material on
specifically this question of whether or not coral reefs
have had enough time to grow as they presently are seen
to under the Creation Science model?

A. Not specifically on that subject.

I touched on it in the manuscript which was

Q. And when was that, sir?

A. Last year.

Q. To whom, or to what journal was the manuscript

A. I believe it was the Journal of Marine

Q. Were you given any understanding as to why
it was rejected?

A. In general, it was felt the article was too
long, the manuscript was too long.

Q. Were there any other reasons given?

A. The reason given, another reason that was
given was that they felt the data was -- did not support
the conclusions.

I must clarify this point by stating my comments
about the rates of reef growth were incidental to the
research; they were in the discussion of the paper;
let's put it that way.


If you are familiar with scientific papers, they
were not a part of the data.

I can further state, the article has been accepted
for publication, although in much reduced form that
does not include the question of the rate of growth of
coral reefs.

Q. And it was accepted by the Journal of Marine

A. No. I did not resubmit it.

Q. By what journal?

A. Pacific Science has accepted it.

Q. Pass to the last entry on your publications

A. Yes. It is not published yet, but it is in

Q. Sir, is the Journal of Marine Science what is
known as a referreed process in the journals?

A. Well, it is usually sent to two individuals
who are considered competent in the area, and they
anonymously criticise the manuscript and evaluate it.

Q. And then the manuscript is either accepted
or not for publication based upon these comments?

A. These comments.

Q. Sir, is Pacific Science a referreed journal?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the journal that you edit, Origins, a
referreed journal?

A. Yes.


Q. Is Marine Biology a referreed journal?

A. Yes.

Q. And the Journal of Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, as you recognize, I am asking you about
names that I find in your publications list.

Could you tell me about the Journal of the
Association of Adventists Behavioral Scientists; is that
a referreed journal?

A. I do not know.

It is a small publication. The only issue I've seen
is the one in which I happen to have an article that was
reprinted from Origins.

Their policy, their editorial policies I'm not
familiar with.

Q. Sir, could you explain to me what it means that
an article is published as an abstract or in abstract

A. It is only an abstract when it states that.

When you go to a scientific meeting, before your
paper is accepted for presentation, you have to submit
an abstract that is evaluated, and that abstract is
published as part of the proceedings of that meeting.

Q. Are the papers themselves then published, as
a rule?

A. You can publish, and people often do publish
an extensive paper beyond that.


Other times, sometimes the abstract is sufficient
to make the point. You don't bother to produce a more
lengthy presentation.

Q. How long are the abstracts of papers,

A. 300, 500 words. They are brief.

Q. Sir, have you had any other articles which
you submitted for publication which were rejected?

A. I cannot recall of any others except this
last one that I have had trouble with.

Q. Did you include, among the publications that
you gave me this morning, a copy of this article which
is in the press but not yet printed?

A. No.

Q. Did you include a list of the manuscript which
you submitted to Journal of Marine Science but which was

A. No.

Q. I would request, if possible, that you make
available to us copies of each of those, both the
paper in Pacific Science and the earlier manuscript that
you submitted to the Journal of Marine Science.

Sir, were the comments of the reviewers of your
piece submitted to the Journal of Marine Science made
available to you or only described to you?

A. I would have to look back to find out how
they were presented to me.

At times the comments are made, and at other times


the editor writes you a letter telling you what the
reviewers state.

I don't know which way it was.

Q. I would also request, if you have the letter
or copies of those comments, that you produce them, as

Can you recall for me in any more detail the comments
you mentioned before about the submission to the Journal
of Marine Science, a comment by reviewer that the data
was felt not to support the conclusion?

A. As I recall, the statement was not supported.

Q. And I take it that you do not know the
identity of the reviewer who made the comment.

A. No.

MR. WOLFE: I'll ask the reporter to mark as
Roth Deposition No. 2 an excerpt from the journal,
Origins, Volume 6, No. 2, 1979, including pages 57, 58
and 88 through 95.

[Excerpt from Origins, Volume 6,
No. 2, 1979, pages 57, 58 and 88
through 95 was marked Exhibit No.
2 for identification.]

MR. WOLFE: Q. Dr. Roth, before we turn to Exhibit
No. 2, do I understand it to be your opinion that the work
you have done suggests that a relatively short period of
time would have been enough for coral reefs to grow to
the extent that they are known to have reached in the
world today?


A. It favors a shorter time period.

I have not demonstrated that they grew that fast.
I have shown some factors that show that they grow faster
than was thought.

Q. Do you have a view as to the length of time
which is necessary or which is sufficient to account
for the present extent of coral reefs?

A. Well, if you take a figure such as those that
have been obtained by soundings, where I believe we get
40 centimeters per year, it would only take two or
3000 years to grow our deepest reef.

Q. Sir, what are the deepest known reefs?

A. Eniwetok Atoll is the deepest known reef.
It has a depth of 4,610 feet.

Q. And you are not aware of any deeper reefs in
any other areas?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what is regarded as the deepest
known reef in these United States, in Florida or the

A. I can't give you figures.

They are considered very shallow compared to

- - -


Q. Do you regard the figure you mentioned just
a moment ago of 40 centimeters per year as growth rate,
which I believe you said was derived from soundings,
as a reliable estimate or approximation of coral reef

A. There was another estimate that wasn't quite
different from that. Some coral are known to go 26
centimeters, which is not all that far off.

So it is not just a single study that I'm referring

Q. Would the rate of coral reef growth vary from
one geographic location to another?

A. Very definitely.

Q, What factors would cause that variation?

A. Temperature is probably the dominant factor,
and coral reefs grow faster in tropical regions than in
subtropical ones.

Q. Do you know where these soundings were taken
from which the growth rate that you mentioned were

A. They were in the western Pacific.

Q. Do you know if it is mentioned in your
article in origins, the one that was marked as Exhibit
No. 2?

A. In this issue I believe the references are

Q. Sir, on page 90 in the article there is a
reference to soundings of reefs in the last full paragraph


at the bottom of the page.

A. You have two papers there, Sewell and

Q. Are they the instances that you were thinking

A. Right.

Q. Would you expect that growth rate in the
Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal are comparable to
those that would be found at Eniwetok Atoll?

A. About. They are both close to the equator and
Eniwetok is 11 degrees north of the equator.

Q. Do you know the latitude of the Andaman
Islands offhand?

A. No, I'm sorry.

Q. Do you know the location of the other instance
mentioned there in the Celebes?

A. It is right near there where it's awful hot.

Q. Do you know if that's close or further from
the equator than Eniwetok?

A. Than 11 degrees? I would have to look at an

Q. Can you tell me, is there any rule of thumb,
or are you aware of any way of assessing the different
growth rates that would exist from a position on the
equator compared to the one 11 degrees north?

A. Actually the position on the equator is not
a very good index of how rapid a reef grows, nor is it a
good index of temperature of the water, it is your ocean


currents that determine this. But it so happens in the
western parts of our oceans, whether it be the Atlantic or
the Pacific, we have our warmest temperatures.

Q. Do you know offhand whether the Celebes and
Eniwetok would be essentially comparable in water

A. Eniwetok might be a little bit cooler at

Q. Do you know if that would make any significant
difference in coral growth rates?

A. It probably would affect it.

Q. I guess that would make the growth rate
somewhat slower than Eniwetok?

A. If we assume that our previous statements
are correct.

Q. Sir, have there been other efforts to estimate
coral reef growth rates other than these that are based on

A. Quite a number.

Q. What other methods are used?

A. Measurement of reef growth rate at the
surface, measuring the result of the coral organisms
themselves, measuring the rate of absorption calcium
carbonate by the reef, and combinations of other
factors. Putting together all that you can gather --

Q. Do you know if these other methods that you
have just mentioned generally give rates greater or
lesser than this one derived from, or that we have seen


derived from soundings?

A. Well, some methods of reef, of actual measure-
ment of coral give what you might call comparable figures,
like the paper by Lewis, I mentioned.

On the other hand, it is generally assumed coral
reef growth is very much slower than in sub-centimeter
to centimeter level per year.

Q. When you say generally assumed, you mean by --

A. Well, on the basis of certain assumptions, on
the basis of the fact that some coral grows slowly and
some grows fast.

The general conclusion is that coral reefs grow
very slowly.

These measurements, however, are at the surface of
the ocean where there is probably some interference from
ultraviolet light.

Q. Are you aware of other people working in your
field who would support your opinion, that is, of these
relatively rapid coral growth rates?

A. Certainly some of them support the idea that
some coral grow very rapidly or they wouldn't have
published the results.

Q. Are you aware of any who support the notion
that corals generally, or that reefs have grown more
rapidly than these slower rates you've mentioned?

A. Just those papers that deal with soundings
and those that deal with the actual growth rates on coral,
not reefs as a whole, no.


Q. Sir, do you know what method was used to
derive these growth rates based on soundings?

A. They used soundings.

Q. Probably now I'm about to reveal how little
I know about the area.

Is this a matter of going out and taking a sounding
and coming back three years later and taking another

A. Right.

Q. I see. The dates that are mentioned in these
two papers in your article, 1935 and 1932, do you know
when those soundings were taken?

A. I could not give you that offhand.

Q. They were sometime prior to the dates of these

A. Obviously.

Q. Do you know approximately when?

A. I suspect scores of years between the two

Q. Do you know if these soundings were taken by
physical means, actually lowering a wire or rope or

A. Yes.

Q. Could they have been done by sonar at that

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you read these papers?

A. I've read those papers but I would not, I


don't recall exactly which techniques they used there.

Q. Do you know what effort they make, or what
means they use to make certain that they come back to the
same place to make the sounding the second time?

A. I am not that familiar with the technique.

Q. Are these rates derived from soundings
generally regarded as reliable?

A. Highly reliable. They guide shipping, they
have to be reliable, otherwise you would lose boats.

Q. Are they regarded by marine biologists, or
coral researchers, as a reliable way to estimate growth

A. They have not addressed themselves to soundings.
The techniques they use and the techniques I use are

Q. I see. I didn't understand in your last
answer, you said the techniques they used and the
techniques I use. Who did you mean by "they"?

A. You were talking about marine biologists?

Q. Yes.

A. The techniques that marine biologists use,
including myself, are different than soundings.

Q. Why is that, sir?

A. Well, I presume that under the pressure of
publication, and so on, to take a sounding at one time
and then go back forty years later to take another
sounding is not very productive of getting papers out
under the pressure of publishing.


So, I think more rapid techniques are favored.





























Q. Do you know if the authors of the two papers
on soundings that are mentioned here actually performed
both sets of soundings themselves?

A. No.

I would have to go back to the papers and check

Q. Would you regard it as essential to accuracy
in the soundings that they have been taken by the same
investigator on both occasions?

A. I suppose it would help.

I don't think the technique is that vague.

Q. I take it you have never used soundings

A. No.

Q. And you are not aware of any papers published
based on soundings since these two that you have cited?

A. The one mentioned in the Introduction there
just suggested by Ladd, that an error was made or that
coral reefs grew very rapidly because of a ship that
got trapped.

That's the only other reference I can refer to here,
Ladd of the U.S.G.S., but he was just suggesting maybe
these things grew faster than is generally assumed,
and that's why this ship foundered.

Q. You say that he made that suggestion.

Did he offer -- had he done any research or any
study that suggested that?

A. Based strictly on the fact that boat was



Q. Did he suggest any other possible explanation?

A. I don't recall.

He just cautiously suggested maybe these things
grow faster than is generally assumed.

It is just a suggestion on his part.

Q. Sir, who would you regard as the most
knowledgeable researchers in the area of coral reef
growth rates?

A. Keith Chave, Steve Smith. I would not
exclude myself from the group.

Q. Any others?

A. Not that I can think of right now.

Q. Is there any journal that's more important
than others in this area, that is, coral reef growth

A. I don't think so.

As the literature reveals, it is pretty well spread
out over quite a number of marine biology type of

Q. Are there any books in the area that you are
aware of that are particularly useful or important?

A. Not especially.

There have been some technique books put out.

One technique book I can think of that has been
put out, but I know of no books that have really
addressed themselves to this particular issue.

Q. Sir, what was the technique book that you


refer to?

A. I cannot give you the reference right offhand.

It was edited by Johaness, Johaness and another
editor, Stoddart.

Stoddart may be the senior editor on -- I don't know,
one or the other.

Q. Sir, are you familiar with the International
Coral Reefs Symposia that are held from time to time?

Have you ever attended one of those symposia?

A. No, I have not attended one.

Q. Do you know how many have been held?

A. Not offhand.

I think I have missed several. I suspect it is
around every four years.

Q. Would you regard them as important gatherings
of people in your field?

A. Yes.

Q. Are papers presented at these symposia?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they generally by the important
investigators in the area?

A. Right.

Q. Are proceedings or a journal or a text of the
thing published?

A. Proceedings are published.

Q. Are they published each time one is held?

A. As far as I know.

Q. Have you ever read any of these proceedings



A. Sure.

Q. Do you have those volumes yourself?

A. Not personally.

Q. Does the Geoscience Research have them in its

A. I cannot answer that. I do not know the list
of all the holdings of the library.

Q. I think you said a moment ago that you had
read some of these proceedings volumes.

Do you recall where you obtained them?

A. Probably University of California Riverside,
if not at Loma Linda University Library or if not,
University of California at Los Angeles.

I go to a number of libraries and I don't remember
which ones I happened to pick up a certain volume.

Q. Sir, are you aware of any papers that have
been presented at any of the symposia that agree with
your views about more rapid rates of growth for coral
than for reefs?

A. No.

I think the last one that was held in Australia,
my name was mentioned several times, and my research
was mentioned several times in connection with the fact
of light, but not in connection with reef growth.

Q. Sir, returning for a moment to the methods of
measuring reef growth, as you mentioned earlier, you
referred to measurement of reef growth at the surface.

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Ariel Roth - Page 3


Could you explain to me just how such measurements
would be taken?

A. The most simple technique is to mark a piece
of coral and then come back a few months later and see
how much it has grown.

Q. A second method you mentioned was measurement
of the growth of coral organisms themselves.

Can you tell me how that will be carried out?

A. I guess that what I -- the technique that I
just gave you applies to the second method we have
mentioned where you would actually measure the organism
itself, either directly, or you can use indirect methods.

For the reef itself, probably indirect techniques,
such as those used by Steve Smith, may give you quicker

Q. What indirect techniques were those?

A. He measured the rate of calcium absorption
as the water traveled over the reef.

Q. Have you ever used any of these methods that
you have described yourself?

I believe you stated earlier that you had never
done any soundings. Have you used any other methods?

A. No.

Q. Sir, what method do you use when you are
carrying out your work on whether ultraviolet light
inhibits reef growth?

A. I use the rate of uptake of radioactive


Q. Can you tell me how that method proceeds?

A. Basically, what you do is to put the coral in
a medium that contains some radioactive calcium, mix it
in with the calcium ions of the seawater. The coral
will take up the radioactive and nonradioactive calcium.

Depending on how rapidly they take up this
radioactive or nonradioactive calcium, you can determine
how fast it is growing by converting uptake of the
radioactive calcium into total calcium and then into
calcium carbonate, which is the skeleton of the coral.

Q. Do other researchers use this method of
measuring the rate of uptake of radioactive calcium?

A. It has been used by quite a number of workers.

Q. Sir, if we could turn now to your article in
Origins that we have marked as Exhibit 2, looking at
page 89, I think the second page of the article, there
is a reference in the middle of the paragraph on that
page to the Great Barrier Reef off Australia, and
drilling operations, and I will quote, "Drilling
operations down through this structure have run into
quartz sand (a non-reef type of sediment) at less than
200 meters, indicating that it is a very shallow
structure that does not necessarily require a vast amount
of time for development."

Sir, are you aware of any other drilling that has
ever been done on the Great Barrier Reef that indicated
a greater depth to the structure than 200 meters?

A. No.


Q. Do you know what sort of equipment the
investigator, Dr. Stoddart, apparently was using in this
drilling operation that is referred to?

A. Dr. Stoddart did not do that. He was just
reporting another scientific report in his review.

Q. I see.

Do you know the maximum drilling capacity of the
equipment that was used?

A. No.

- - -


Q. Have you ever heard of any drilling carried out
on the Great Barrier Reef which ran through reef structure
and then into quartz sand and when carried deeper ran
into new reef structure underneath the quarts sand layer?

A. I do not know of such instance-

Q. Are you aware of any depths derived from
drilling operations in Florida, the Bahamas and depths
and restructures there that have been derived from

A. I have.

As I mentioned earlier, in general the Caribbean
reefs are considered to be quite shallow. There is
carbonate material below and I think there is controversy
as to whether or not it is reef material or not.

Q. So that I take it that in Florida then there
is some material that's generally agreed to be reef
material and then additional depths below it as to which
there is not general agreement with whether it is or is
not reef material?

A. I don't know if that is in Florida, but it is
in the Western Atlantic.

Q. Do you, yourself, have a few as to this other
carbonate material below the reef material and whether
it is or is not reef?

A. I have never studied it.

Q. I see.

Do you have any view, either based upon your study,
or based upon reliance upon another authority whom you


respect on that question, whether that material is or
is not reef material?

A. It would be reliance on another authority.

Q. Do you have another authority in mind on whom
you rely, or do you have a view on that question?

A. I would have to go back to the scientific
literature to find out who the authority is on that.

I think there are some question about it.

Q. Do you have in mind now the depth of material
that would be reef material in that area if in fact one
accepted that the carbonate material were reef material?

A. It is very great.

Q. Do you know if it is greater than the depth of
the drilling mentioned at Eniwetok in your article?

A. I wouldn't be surprised, I would not be sur-

Q. If you assumed that the lower carbonate material
that we have been discussing, as to which there is con-
troversy about its nature, were reef material, would that
change your opinion about the likelihood that creation
science offered enough time for that reef material to have
accumulated within the time assumed to have passed since
the origins of life?

A. It would certainly be in the balance against

Q. Sir, turning to page 90 of your article, the
first full paragraph at the top of the page, the sentence
near the, or several sentences in the middle of that


paragraph which read, "Light is also important for coral
reef growth. Coral are colonial animals many of which
harbor symbiotic algal plants that require light. One
will not get the luxuriant type of growth necessary for
live reef survival without light."

Sir, I take it that applies to light at wavelengths
other than ultraviolet?

A. Visible light, mainly.

Q. Because I understand you had stated that your
research earlier indicates that ultraviolet light is
actually harmful?

A. Right.

Q. So that I take it, then, that as to visible
light, coral reef growth will be best the closer to the
surface it is, assuming that that means it gets more light
than at depth?

A. We don't have data to make that statement yet.

It would be a reasonable assumption to make.

One would think that would be the case, but there is
a factor known as photo-inhibition where visible light
interferes with photosynthesis, which could interfere
with the function of the algae, or could interfere with
coral reef growth which might not be related to ultra-
violet light.

Q. Sir, returning to your discussion of ultraviolet
light earlier, I believe you stated that ultraviolet
light is absorbed by water and that it is absorbed more
than some of the other wavelengths, the visible white



A. Right.

Q. Do you have any opinion about what depths
probably gives the best growth for coral rates or the
highest rates of growth in coral?

A. No, I don't.

Ultraviolet light is not absorbable as readily by
the sea as the textbooks state.

There is a very common error in textbooks.

I don't know how it got in, but it's been copied and
recopied, in a few centimeters you lose all your ultra-
violet light, and this is not the case, it is much further

And actual measurements which have been done varies
according to the kind of water.

In clear water you have much more transmission of
ultraviolet light than in cloudy water where ultraviolet
light is absorbed preferentially over visible light,
compared to clear waters.

Experimentation needs to be done to determine what
depth it would be best at.

Q. Do you have, base on that work you have done
with ultraviolet light so far, do you have a view as to
at what depth you would get, you would be likely to get
growth rate measurements that were relatively uncontem-
plated by this ultraviolet inhibition?

A. Ultraviolet light does not stop all of a sud-
den at one particular point in the sea, it is an exponen-


tial decay, and while you get less and less as you go
down, there is no one point where you can say, "Ultra-
violet light stops here."

Visible light also decreases.

A lot of research needs to be done in this area,
which is very fascinating, and that is to determine
what is the ideal balance here between getting the maxi-
mum visible light and the minimum ultraviolet light.

This research has not been done.

Q. Are you able to make any estimate or approxi-

Would the range of this balance, maximum visible
light, minimum ultraviolet, be at a depth of centimeters
or a few meters?

A. I would guess a few meters, the range.

Q. So that below that you wouldn't regard ultra-
violet inhibition as an important problem?

A. Right.

Q. Sir, referring again to page 90, and a study
by Chave, Smith and Roy, it says, they suggest, "Net
rates of growth of .8 to 26 millimeters per year."

A. Right.

Q. "The net growth rate of a reef is the combina-
tion of total carbonate production less carbonate losses
by biological, chemical and physical factors."

Sir, do you know at what depth the findings that
were studied by Chave, Smith and Roy were taken?

A. They did not do the actual measurements



Q. Yes, sir, I understand.

It says that they were analyzing findings of other

Do you recall at what level the measurements were
taken by others that they studied were?

A. They used the general literature, it was at
the surface.

Q. I see.

Do you know whether Odom and Odom, who are mentioned
later in that paragraph, suggesting a growth rate of
80 millimeters per year did surface investigation?

A. This was a surface, definitely a surface area
in their study.

- - -


Q. The next study you mentioned is Smith and
Kinsey, using an analysis of the carbon dioxide system
in seawater, suggesting a growth rate of two to five
millimeters per year.

A. That was a very surficial study, also.

By "surficial" I mean very near the surface.

Q. Are you aware of any growth rate studies
which have been made on reefs at depths below, say, I
believe you said a few meters below the surface.

A. Just those soundings. Those soundings are at
that depth.

Q. Would it change your opinion of the
reliability ot find out that there had been growth rate
studies done at depths of between five and 20 meters
that gave very low growth rates?

A. It would strain the suggestion, no question.

Q. Sir, I believe you go on then to list three
factors which suggest that reef growth might take place
faster than surficial measurements indicate, and one of
them is that surficial estimates may be inhibited by
ultraviolet light.

The second that you mentioned on page 91 is that
in addition to ultraviolet light, surficial estimates
might be lowered because of inhibition of the coral
organisms when they are exposed to air during very low
tides, for instance.

Would you also regard that factor as minimized or
eliminated if measurements were taken between five and


20 meters below the surface?

A. Yes. They could not be exposed. They would
not be killed, actually, as they are sometimes.

Sometimes the coral organisms are killed at low
tide due to too much exposure to air.

Q. Sir, the third factor that you referred to,
toward the bottom of page 91, is that there may be
other sources of carbonate on a reef other than the
growth rate on corals themselves, and you referred to a
study indicating that a reef might act as a filter for
carbonate in seawater, and another referring to the
possibility that sediments on or near the bottom might
contribute to reef growth due to upslope movement?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any studies on reefs that
indicate upslope movement of sediments?

A. Well, this horizon guyot, I suppose you would
call it, it certainly is the base of the reef; at least
it's the same type of structure as a reef, except it
does not reach the surface.

Q. Would that horizon guyot have any actual
living coral reef on it?

A. Not at present.

Q. Do you have any notion of how much below
present sea level the top of horizon guyot might be?

A. It is probably about one to one and a half

Q. If we were referring to a reef which was near


the surface, what would you expect to be the source of
sediment which might be trapped on the reef?

A. Upwelling.

Q. And the upwelling would bring that sediment
from where?

A. From further down.

Q. I see.

From how much further down?

A. The floor of the ocean or sediment that's
suspended in the seawater.

Q. Sir, I'm sorry, I can't recall if I asked you
this question or not.

Are you aware of any study that has been done of
the possible upslope movement of sediment at or near the
surface, rather than at a depth of one or one and a half

A. There are rather outstanding examples of very
rapid movement at the surface on the reefs during typhoons
and storms, where blocks 10 to 20 feet in diameter have
been pushed up on top of the reef.

Q. Yes, sir, I believe they are mentioned on
the next page.

Before we turn to that, are you aware of any
studies of simple current-produced upslope movements
taken at or near the surface or on any living reef as
opposed to on a submerged guyot?

A. Upswelling is probably a phenomenon that
occurs probably around all reefs, and if there is any


sediment in the seawater, as you expect in most cases,
the reef can act as a trap for that sediment.

Q. Sir, I don't want to be rude and cut you off,
but since you have to leave in a very short time, my
question is not what you might surmise, but are you
aware of any studies of upslope movement of sediment
which have been carried out on reefs or within, let's
say, 50 meters of the surface as opposed to a depth of
greater than one kilometer?

A. I cannot imagine that such studies have not
been done.

Q. All right, sir.

Please, I don't want to be rude, but are you aware
of any?

A. No, if that's what you want.

Q. Yes, sir.

Sir, there is some references then to rapid growth
rates for corals, and you state that "the fastest growth
rate reported for any coral is the stag's horn species
Acropora cervicornis."

Sir, are growth rates for Acropora representative
of all reef corals?

A. No.

I stated so in the article.

Q. I take it that they are significantly more
rapid in their growth rates than other reef corals?

A. Right.

Q. Sir, are you able to tell me what percentage


of the corals on a given reef would be Acropora?

A. This would vary very much according to --
sometimes you find complete, almost a complete stand of
Acropora in a wide portion of reef. Other times you
hardly find any.

Q. Is there a generalization that you could

A. Probably not.

Q. I take it then the relationship between
Acropora growth rates and the growth rates of any given
reef would obviously depend upon the percentage of the
reef corals that were made up of Acropora; is that

A. Certainly.

Q. Is Acropora, is it a surface coral or does it
grow at depth?

A. Well, no corals grow significantly at depth.

Maybe I misunderstood your question.

What do you mean by "surface" and "depth"?

Let's put it this way. Acropora grows very well
for several meters down.

Q. And then you say for several meters?

A. Scores of meters, let's put it that way.

Q. You say scores of meters. Do you mean two-
score, threescore?

A. I have seen Acropora down 50, 60 feet.

Q. So that's as much as 20 meters?

A. Right.


Q. I take it then -- I'm sorry, I believe I've
asked that already.

Would you regard evidence that Acropora was
primarily -- I'm sorry, I'll restate that.

Would you regard evidence that Acropora is generally
a small percentage of the coral in reefs as diminishing
the importance of fast Acropora growth rates to reef
growth rates?

A. Are you saying, if there is as few number
of Acropora, would this tend to say that reefs don't
grow as fast?

Q. If you were convinced or if evidence suggested
that Acropora was commonly a small constituent among the
corals on reefs, would that diminish its importance as
an indicator that reef growth might be faster than
generally accepted?

A. Obviously.

- - -


Q. Sir, still on page 92.

There is a reference there to a study by Shinn in

Do you know the depth at which --

A. Just a few feet down.

Q. I'm sorry, you have anticipated my question.
Let me make certain that I had it right.

Do you know the depth at which Shinn studied the
growth in that study?

And your answer is a few feet down?

A. Yes.

Q. I believe you mentioned earlier the fact
that typhoons frequently build reefs by bringing up
large blocks and large amounts of debris onto reefs,
and you have referenced a couple of instances of that
on page 92 of your article.

Are you aware of any studies, or are you able to
generalize about the net effect of typhoons?

A. No.

Q. Do typhoons occasionally produce a great deal
of erosion of reefs, as well as depositings?

A. The only cases I know of are where there have
been significant transport onto the reef from below, but
I have not -- I cannot state that I have looked at every
article in this area.

I have not made an exhaustive study of this.

Q. Do you have any knowledge or are you able to
make any estimate of whether typhoons are net depositors


or adders to reef growth or net eroders or subtractors
from reef growth?

A. No, I could not answer that question.

Q. Sir, going back to page 92, that study by
Shinn in 1976, you say that "Shinn studied the growth of
this species following destruction in a hurricane near

Do you know how much coral destruction was found in
that study?

Was that a significant subtraction from the reef
in that area?

A, He showed pictures of it that show a fair
amount of debris of coral still there.

So I don't think there was all that much extraction
from it.

Q. Sir, looking at now page 93 of your article,
you state in the last full paragraph on that page that
there are three main factors that you have mentioned
that indicate that reef growth may be faster than
surficial measurements would indicate.

And then you state, "Before any final conclusions
can be arrived at, one must also take into consideration
those factors that contribute to the attrition of

And the three listed there are destruction by
corallivores-- sir, are you aware of any studies that
seek to estimate the attrition factor by corallivores?

A. I don't know of any such. I doubt that


there has been an estimate of how significant it is.

Q. Are you able, from your own knowledge, to make
any estimate about how that --

A. No, and I don't know of anybody else that has
been able to arrive at that.

When these are considered estimates, they are
considered as unknown factors, to the best of my

But these are probably real factors, although the
quantity is unknown.

Q. Are you or has anyone been able to indicate
whether that factor may be greater or less in extent
than any of the three factors contributing to rapid
reef growth, as you mentioned earlier in the article?

A. Well, it certainly can't be faster than the
growth rate; otherwise, you would have no coral there at

And the fact that you have a lot of coral that's in
good shape indicates that this is probably a minor
factor, nevertheless a real one.

Q. Sir, I wanted to ask you about one factor that
I'm not sure is incorporated in your list of three.

Have you ever seen any studies of the possibility
of the depression, local depression of the earth's
crust under growing reef in the rate of reef growth?

A. This, I would probably not expect that to be
that great because the density of the material that you
are pushing down below is much greater than the density


of the reef itself.

Q. Would that be the case when you had reef
structure growing on, say, the quartz sand that was
referred to earlier in the Great Barrier Reef?

Would you say you would still not expect to find
depression of the underlying sediment?

A. Quartz sand probably has about the same
density as carbonate sand or reef material, so I don't
think that would make a different factor.

Q. And as to factors 2 and 3 listed there,
possible chemical breakdown and mechanical destruction
by waves and downslope of movement, are you aware of
anyone else or have you been able to make any estimates
as to the magnitude of those factors?

A. No.

There are just suggestions here for people to
think about as they study this problem.

Possibly chemical breakdown could occur locally,
possibly. I don't think it would be significant in that
the seawater surface tends to be supersaturated and
therefore a solution of carbonates is very unlikely.

Q. And I take it you also are not aware of any
study of the magnitude of the mechanical destruction
or downslope movement?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of anyone who has ever been
able to estimate whether the net effect of downslope
movement and upslope movement would be in one direction


or the other?

A. These are factors that, as far as I know,
have never been measured.

Q. Then do you have any opinion about whether the
net effect of these two movements, upslope and
downslope, would be in one direction or the other?

A. Well, certainly downslope movement doesn't
go on forever because the reef builds up, so it has to
be net up.

Q. Sir, turning to page 94 in your article,
there is a reference to the experiments that you and
graduate students under you have conducted, indicating
that the rate of coral growth could be nearly
doubled by an increase in seawater temperature of 5

It says that this was true, at least temporarily.

Could you explain to me why that qualification
about temporary increase is included?

A. Because in the experiments that we conducted,
these were short-term experiments using radioactive
calcium under controlled conditions, and we only ran
the experiments for short periods of time. We felt
that was a more accurate measurement of the potential
because of the difficulty in keeping the coral under
laboratory conditions, under controlled conditions.

These organisms do not do well in the laboratory,
and because of this we try to keep the time at a
minimum so we would have as fresh an organism to test


as possible.

Q. Did you find in these studies on raised
temperatures about the coral growth rates go up and then
remain steady at a plateau?

A. Not very much of a plateau.

Q. Did they decrease at all after the initial

A. It tends to decrease, and you kill them.

They are pretty temperature-sensitive.

You kill them -- 10 degrees more will usually kill
the coral.

Q. But when you simply raised the temperature
5 degrees, did they go from whatever their growth rate
had been and up to nearly double?

A. Gradually.

Q. And then did they maintain that increased
growth rate?

A. Not for -- I mean, it is a curve. It drops
back down afterwards.

Q. Even if the temperature is maintained?

A. No.

If the temperature is maintained, as far as we have
been able to test over a couple hours, the extra growth
rate is maintained.

Maybe I'm missing your question.

Q. Sir, I wondered if you raised the temperature
of the water 5 degrees centigrade, how long does it
take for the growth rate to nearly double?


A. As far as we know, it is instantaneous.

- - -


Q. If you maintained the temperature for several
hours did the rate continue at that nearly doubled level?

A. A couple of hours we will say, yes; beyond that
we have not tested. That's why the qualification is there.

Q. And you say you haven't tested because
evidently the elevated temperature kills them?

A. No, not in this case.

We can keep them for, I am sure we can keep them for
longer periods than that. It is just a question of the
time it takes for these experiments, because one of the
things you are probably not aware of, we are dealing here
with highly variable organisms and it takes a great deal
of work to determine one point. Some coral tips will
grow as much as 20 to 30 times as fast as another.

So you can imagine what the statistical problems and
the evaluation problems are involved in connection with
that, hence the data comes very slow.

Q. Sir, do you have any views as to what
mechanisms in nature might have been the occasion for
seawater temperatures in creating 5 degrees centigrade?

A. One of the most popular ideas is that possibly
there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse glass in that it
allows the visible light to come through and the infrared
light is trapped. Hence, the greenhouse gets warm.

Carbon dioxide can act in more or less that same
fashion, hence, it is assumed if there was more carbon
dioxide in the air in the past, the temperatures of the


world would have been warmer than at present.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence of that having
been the case?

A. Evidence that is used for, one bit of
evidence that is used for it is the fact that plants
tend to do better in an atmosphere that is increased in
carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is occasionally added to greenhouses
to get the plants to grow better, hence, it looks like
maybe the plants were adapted to a different carbon
dioxide level than we have at present.

Q. Are you aware of any evidence that that
mechanism, or any other, may have actually raised the
seawater temperature by five degrees centigrade within
the few thousand year period that's posited by Creation

A. Certainly the fact that the fossil record
shows tropical organisms way beyond the Arctic Circle suggests
that life has been here under much warmer conditions than
at present.

Q. I see. And you regard that as having taken
place within the past few thousand years?

A. Yes.

Q. Sir, the last sentence of your paper is,
"Our present knowledge does not preclude rapid rates of
development; some factors definitely facilitate it."

Would you say that our present knowledge establishes
rapid rates of development?


A. No, no.

Q. You would say no more than that it simply does
not preclude their having existed in the past?

A. Right.

Q. And in addition to the factors that
definitely facilitate it, is it true that there are some
factors that definitely inhibit rapid rates of growth?

A. Cooler temperatures, lack of nutrients.

Life is a delicate thing.

Q. Isn't it true that you listed several, three,
in your article, factors that inhibit rapid rates of

A. Right.

Q. So that you have listed three factors which
would facilitate and there which would inhibit it?

A. Right. I would call that a balanced

MR. WOLFE: Mr. Williams said when we began today,
he said it was necessary for you to leave about 4:00,
and I observed it's about 4:00 o'clock right now.

I, for sure, do not want to interfere with you making
your plane.

I wonder whether it is possible, before we stop for
today, to agree to a time when we might conclude the
deposition on another occasion?

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have any suggestions?

MR. WOLFE: Well, I think, I can make myself
available pretty much whenever Dr. Roth can be.


I think the problem is he must leave and I expect
the problem at another time would be when he would be
available because he is not doing this all the time.

Another problem, even allowing for our respective
positions about whether or not you have made proper
discovery about what areas he might testify in, if I don't
know that he is limited to coral reefs, then I want
to be able to talk about catastrophism and the
possibility that he will address general scientific
principles and the like.

So it is even hard to estimate how long it will
take to finish when we didn't even agree what areas he
is liable to testify on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say that we don't, by talking
about it, even agree to it being resumed.

I don't know how long we have been here, but it's
been approximately since 10:00 o'clock, with several
interruptions, I recognize, but I think it is probably
an adequate amount of time.

However, if you have any proposals I will certainly
be glad to look at this for a continuation and get
together with Dr. Roth.

The very real problem is going to be to find time
when I can be back here in view of the other depositions
to which I'm already committed to and intend to take,
and also the fast approach of the trial date.

MR. WOLFE: The thing that concerns me most is the
fact that I came today expecting that Dr. Roth was going


to testify, as the witness list said, about coral reefs,
and that is the deposition that I have prepared to take.
And the time that we have had would be very nearly time
enough, if that were to be it.

But the fact that you are unwilling to stipulate that
his testimony will be confined to that, means that I do
not even known that this has been the half of the
deposition that I would want to take, because you
introduced other areas that are at least as large as this

MR. WILLIAMS: I wouldn't anticipate that they would
be as large, as long as this one.

To the extent that we are going to call upon Dr.
Roth for other areas, that will be dictated by what is
going to be presented by plaintiffs, and I'm not in a
position to have that. At this point I haven't deposed
the plaintiffs' witnesses.

MR. WOLFE: Well, then, in terms of suggestions, I
would undertake to make myself available to continue the
deposition at any time when Dr. Roth is available, and
it is probably easier if it happens during the time when
we are all gathered here on the West Coast. On the other
hand, we all have other things to do while we are here.

If there is any other time between now and the end
of this week, on Saturday, when Dr. Roth is available,
and there is someone available to appear from the
Attorney General's office to attend the deposition, that
is clearly most probable and that's my first suggestion.


It would help a great deal in the continuation if
you could either stipulate that the witness list is, in
fact, going to be the last word and that coral reefs will
be the area in which he testifies, or if you want to now
at this moment make an effort to add other areas, that
you at least put a cutoff on the ones that you have added
today as opposed to holding out the possibility when
depositions are taken next week you will want to add
others in ten days.

MR. WILLIAMS: At this time I don't have any present
intention to add significant other areas. However, I'm
not going to preclude myself from adding as the case
develops, and the proof of the plaintiffs develops.
That would hamstring me.
















MR. WOLFE: And I expect that I can sympathize with
that to some extent.

On the other hand, you have clearly the obligation,
as you come up with new notions about what any one of
these witnesses are going to testify about, to give us
notice and an opportunity for discovery.

MR. WILLIAMS: I told you the other two areas today
that I would anticipate presently, and if there should
be any other areas that do arise, we will give prominent
attention to that.

MR. WOLFE: I would suggest, if Dr. Roth can be
available, and someone from the Attorney General's Office
can appear with him, we try to find another time before
this time on Saturday in order to conclude.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I can tell you without looking
at my schedule, because it has been somewhat -- I think
long labors have gone into the schedule for this, and I
don't honestly feel there will be much other time this
week, with the fact that other depositions are scheduled
and other work in progress, and I think we'll have to
be leaving this area at various times, and I feel like it
will not be feasible to this week.

MR. WOLFE: Well, then again, I'm trying to
distinguish between preaching and honesty.

I really think it's been impossible to really
substantially conclude the deposition because there is a
great deal that Dr. Roth has done that we haven't been
able to talk about, and this recent appearance of


catastrophism and general scientific principles testimony,
I was not prepared to take a deposition in those areas
since today was apparently the first that we knew of
the possibility of there being testimony there.

So if it is not going to be possible this week, I
hope we can work out another time when we will be able
to take additional testimony, and failing that, we will
reserve our fight to make application to preclude
testimony in areas as to which we have had neither
adequate notice or adequate discovery.

Dr. Roth, thank you very much.

[Whereupon, the deposition was adjourned, to be
continued at a time and place to be set by counsel.]

- - -



) ss.


I hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing
deposition named


was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and
place therein stated; that the testimony of said witness
was reported by


Certified Shorthand Reporters and disinterested persons,
and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting, and
that the pertinent provisions of the applicable code
or rules of civil procedure relating to the original
transcript of deposition for reading, correcting and
signing have been complied with.

And I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to said
deposition, nor in any way interested in the outcome
of the cause in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my seal of office the ________ day of
November 1981.



I have read the foregoing transcript and desire
to make the following corrections.

Reads Should Read

Page Line Page Line