Deposition of Dennis Glasgow

CASE NO. LR-C-81-322

Plaintiff *
VS. *
ET AL. *
Defendant *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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


MS. LAURIE FERBER, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, 919 Third Avenue, New Yore,


MR. PHILIP KAPLAN, Kaplan, Hollingsworth, Brewer
& Bilheimer, 950 Tower Building, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201
** For the Plaintiffs

MR. CALLIS CHILDS, Assistant Attorney General,
Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
** For the Defendants

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

produced on behalf of the Defendants, taken in the above
styled and numbered cause on the 2nd day of December, 1981
before Michelle R. Nienstedt, a Notary Public in and for
Pulaski County, Arkansas at the office of Mr. Cearley,
1014 West Third, Little Rock, Arkansas at 12:15 p.m.

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

1100 N. University, Suite 223
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) 664-7357




Stipulations 3

Witness sworn in: DENNIS GLASGOW 3

Direct Examination by Mr. Childs 4

Defendant's Exhibits #1 through #10 introduced to
the record. 117

Defendant's Exhibits #11 through #17 introduced to
the record 118

[All exhibits found under separate cover]

Certificate 120



the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned
and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth testified as follows:



Q. Would you tell the court reporter your full name?

A. Dennis R. Glasgow.

Q. Where are you employed Mr. Glasgow?

A. With the Little Rock School District.

Q. And what is your -- what position do you have
with the Little Rock School District?

A. I am supervisor of science.

Q. Okay. And what do your responsibilities include?

S. First of all, as far as grade levels are concerned,
I am responsible for all science grades K through 12.
Primarily, I am a staff person. I do not have direct
responsibility or authority over the science teachers.
My role is primarily as consultant and helper to science
teachers. My role also includes curriculum, curriculum
development, curriculum revision. I have a large role in
selection of textbooks, development of curriculum
guides. I have a large role in scheduling in-service
courses and in-service meetings and so forth for science
teachers. And I'm the major advisor to the School


Board and the superintendent regarding all matters
concerning science.

Q. What is your educational background, college?

A. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Education
from Southern State College in Magnolia. I have a
Master's of Science degree with a major emphasis in
Biology and a minor in Education from Arkansas State
University. I have an Educational Specialist degree in
school administration from the University of Arkansas at

Q. Do you have any other hours, any other courses
other than those?

A. No.

Q. Okay. What impact will Act 590 have on the science
and non-science curricula in the Little Rock school

A. I'm not sure what impact it will have on the
non-science curricula. My determination is that, as far
as the science curricula are concerned, of course, at
this time I can't predict exactly what the impact will
be. But my idea is that certainly we do not have
materials within our present curriculum that I think
would meet the requirements of Act 590. So, materials
would have to be secured and/or developed to meet that.
Teachers, in my opinion, are not sufficiently trained


at this time to handle the components of Act 590. So,
it's my opinion that teacher training will have to
take place prior to implementation of that Act. From the
administrative end of it, that would be the impact.

Q. Is that the -- is that going to be the viewpoint
that you will be discussing your testimony from?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What -- when you said that -- to meet the
requirements of Act 590 that you would have to acquire
materials or develop materials, what were you referring
to as the requirements of Act 590?

A. Well, in Section 1 of Act 590 there is a
requirement for balanced treatment. And there's a
statement that textbooks, and lectures, and library
materials, and assorted things that are used in the
educational program must be -- or balanced treatment
must be given to those things taken as a whole. So,
since -- to my knowledge, the textbooks, the library
materials, the lectures, et cetera that we are using in
the science program in the Little Rock School District
do not give any treatment that I know of to Creation --
Creation Science as defined in the Act, then those
materials would have to be secured in my opinion.

Q. Where is Creation Science defined in the Act?

A. Section 4.


Q. A.

A. Section 4A, right.

Q. Okay. Do you anticipate that there will be any
difficulty in acquiring materials or developing materials?

A. Yes, I certainly do.

Q. Okay. Okay. What difficulty would you anticipate?

A. Well, as supervisor of science and having
responsibility in the area of curriculum, I frequently
attended regional science meetings, state science
meetings, et cetera during which there were exhibit
halls full of science materials; books, phamplets,
et cetera, just thousands of documents, things that
could be used in science. And I have not seen any in
those meetings that dealt with Creation Science. So,
consequently I don't view it as being a very easy matter
to secure materials that could be used.

Q. How difficult is it going to be?

A. Well, I don't know since we haven't tried to secure
any yet, but I anticipate that there will be a great deal
of difficulty since I, like I said, at these meetings,
I've not seen any.

Q. Is it going to be impossible?

A. It will be very difficult. I would hate to say
impossible. I hate to deal in absolute terms like
that. I have not seen anything that would be



Q. Well, I know there are various degrees of
difficulty. One difficulty would be presented if it were
not presented in the places that you customarily see
it presented, such as regional conventions. And then
there is a difficulty that you would encounter if it were
impossible. If it's going to be impossible for you to
acquire materials, I'd like you to tell me it is. If it's
just going to merely be difficult or very difficult, I'd
like for you to tell me that.

A. As far as Creation Science, as defined in the Act, I
don't think it would be impossible to acquire materials that
deal with those things as listed in the Act. I think there
is going to be great difficulty with the materials that we
might be able to obtain. I think there are materials
that can be obtained. I'm certainly not saying in any
way that they're suitable materials or that we could use
them. But there are some that could be obtained for the
purpose of preview or whatever.

Q. Okay. What kind of materials can be obtained?

A. The only materials I'm familiar with that can be
obtained that I have seen or looked over in a very --
not a very thorough manner, you know, just glanced over


Creation Science Institutes.

Q. Okay. And can you tell me the names of any of the
books that you've looked at?

A. Not offhand.

Q. Okay. Is there anything particularly wrong or
unacceptable about the books that you have glanced through?

A. Yes. The books that I have seen, in my opinion,
would not be acceptable.

Q. And why not?

A. Primarily because I don't think they fit in the
science curriculum.

Q. Is there anything in particular which would keep
them from fitting into the science curriculum?

A. Yes, to kind of go back to the front end of this,
since I haven't made this statement yet. I do not
view Creation Science, as defined in the Act, as
something that's appropriate for the science curriculum.

Q. Okay. And you're referring to section 4A, 1 through
6 where it gives the definition of Creation Science as
including --

A. Materials that would be used to support or that deal
with those particular ideas in section 4A are -- yes,
that's what I'm referring to.

Q. Okay. And -- okay. You had said that the Creation
Science materials were unacceptable.


A. In my opinion. I said I haven't looked at them
thoroughly. I've looked through them, you know, to a
greater degree than just thumbing through the pages. I
haven't studied those materials, but from what I have
seen of them I do not think that they would be

Q. Why would they not be appropriate?

A. Because I don't think the books represent science
as I know it.

Q. Okay. Is there any other reason that these books are
not acceptable?

A. Well, this would -- the primary reason is, like I
said, because they don't represent science.

A. I do think that they -- if not directly, they come
awful close to treating religion.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me anything in specific that you
saw in any of these Creation Science books that you
glanced through, which would relate to religion?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what was that?

A. The treatment of the geology of the earth that
deals with sudden changes in the earth or catastrophism
and that would give the earth a very short age, in
general. And specifically, the idea that there was a
worldwide flood.


Q. Okay. And you do not thing that that, well for
lack of better words, is within the broad mainstream of
scientific thought?

A. I do not.

Q. And you do not find it acceptable for that reason?
Let me ask you this. Did you object to Creation Science
materials that you glanced through because they referred
to the Bible or did you see any references to the Bible,
or Genesis, or anything like that?

A. Well, I hate to be hazy on this, but I do believe
that I saw reference to the Bible in some of the books
that I looked at. I cannot be specific on it because
it's been quite a time ago that I looked at the books.
And I did not look at them with the idea that I would be,
you know, trying to recall those things. I do -- it
seems like, can't be specific, that I do remember the
mention of the Bible in some of the books. Not only
books, but books and phamplets and so forth and so
on. I couldn't classify them all as text books. A few
of them were textbook sort of things. Some of them were
simply phamplets, handouts, news letters, and things
like that.

Q. Where did you see these?

A. Oh, it's probably been several places. I'm going
to give you all that I can remember. Six or seven years


ago, Duane Gish was a -- I can't remember whether it was
the Arkansas State Science Teachers meeting had him as a
speaker, or whether it was a Little Rock School District
Science meeting had him as a speaker. And there were
handouts available on tables for people to pick up at
that time. I believe also Richard Bliss, at later
sometime, was a speaker at one of those meetings. I
can't recall which one. Even at our science meeting this
year there were handouts available on Creation Science. I
secured -- no one sent me those books directly. I think
they were all form indirect sources, meetings and so forth
that I've attended. And I've picked up materials. And
Marianne Wilson had some books that she was using for
preview. I borrowed some through her that I looked through.

Q. Were you doing preview work?

A. Sort of an initial -- I felt like if I was going to
be faced with the issue, Act 590 had been passed at that
time, that perhaps it was time that I....

Q. Started getting ready, for lack of a better word.

A. Yeah, sort of.

Q. Now then, now you're aware that Section 2 prohibits
any references to religious writings, are you not?

A. Yes, I'm familiar with that.

Q. So, by definition, any text material or written
material that referred to the Bible would be prohibited


by the Act.

A. That's what's written in the section, yes.

Q. Okay. Would you anticipate recommending use in the
classroom of any textbook that had reference to religious

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now then, as I understand basically you're
going to testify that it's going to be very difficult to
acquire materials setting out the six items in the
definition in Section 4A?

A. That it will be difficult to acquire appropriate items
under that. I think items can be acquired.

Q. Tell me one more time what you mean when you say
appropriate -- or inappropriate.

A. Well, I've not seen anything yet that I deemed
appropriate. The things that I've seen have not, as I
think I said a minute ago, have not represented any
scientific thought that I've been exposed to. They've
not represented any information that I was presented in
any of the many science courses that I've taken. I've
not seen anything in scientific journals that I have
read that deals with this. And I've noticed on the
books that I received that they were either printed
through one of the other -- the Creation Science Research
Institutes, or whatever. There are three or four of


those. Or something like Eden productions or something
that does not represent a mainstream or even a scientific
organization that I was familiar to prior to several
years ago when I first heard, I guess, the word Creation
Science. It's not anything I've been exposed to. It's
not anything that's in the journals. It's not anything
that I was ever taught. It's not anything that I'm familiar
with. It seems like a very limited source of material. I
think that anytime anything is developed in the way of
curriculum, you would want a wide variety of materials from
a large number of different sources. And these seem to be
pretty much single source items that are not published by
mainstream scientific organizations. I do not feel like
that the six items under section 4A represent the current
mainstream thought in science. With all that in mind, I
don't find these appropriate for inclusion.

But as far as finding materials that
deal with these things, they can be found from, like I
said before, a limited number of sources that I know
of. So, from that standpoint the materials can be -- you
know, they can be acquired. If someone thought, which I
do not, that the materials were appropriate I would
think that it would be very useful from the standpoint
of developing some sort of curriculum to be able to get
information from more than what I consider one source.


Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it
you have two objections to materials that you are aware
of that could be acquired. One, is that insofar as
they have religious references, you think that would be

A. Yes.

Q. And two, insofar as they're outside the broad
mainstream of the scientific fields, they're inappropriate.
Is that a fair statement?

A. I might be a little more restrictive on your last
statement, as far as it being outside of the broad
mainstream. I might want to make that mainstream a
little bit broader than that. To my knowledge, if -- as
far as -- it's kind of hard for me to say exactly. I'm
not sure they're in the -- you talk about the mainstream.
I'm not even sure that it's in the fringes that I know of.
If it is in the fringes of science it' in the far extreme
fringes. So, as far as something not being in the
mainstream, meaning just the middle part of it and maybe
they're out in the, you know, the boundry part of science,
I'm not even sure they're there. In my opinion, these
things would be probably excluded from what I would
consider science at all. If they do touch on science
it would be just barely the edging into it.

Q. Are there any other objections that you have to


the materials that are available?

A. Not that I can think of at the current time.

Q. Okay. Can you develop materials from the scientific
fields which would support item number one in Section 4A?

A. Your question again?

Q. Can -- before I've been asking you about acquiring,
now I'm going to ask you about development within the
Little Rock public schools. Can you develop, from the
scientific journals that you're aware of, information which
would support -- scientific information which would support
number one in 4A?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Two?

A. No.

Q. Three?

A. No.

Q. Four?

A. No.

Q. Five?

A. No.

Q. Six?

A. No.

Q. Are you telling me that it's not in the literature or
that you're not aware of it?

A. Well, naturally that I'm not aware of it because I


haven't looked at all the literature.

Q. Okay. What, in your opinion, would be the
attributes of credible evidence in what you call science
of any of the items in 4A, 1 through 6?

A. I think to be credible and to be useful, the
information about our physical world, universe, whatever
is uncovered or discovered or found, or whatever by
a scientist, a legitimate working scientist. Or let's
just say a working scientist. I'm not sure how you would
determine how they're legitimate. I guess you could look at
their background and so forth. The tidbits or maybe even
major parts of information that is unearthed or discovered
or whatever, is interpreted -- usually informally.
colleagues with standing in the scientific community are
aware of it and they have an opportunity to critique it,
informally many times. Sometimes the close colleagues or
the person that maybe made the discovery or that came up
with the concept.

And if all that goes all right,
usually it's either -- the information with the
interpretation is published in a scientific journal or
it's presented as a paper, and is printed in the
proceedings of some sort of convention or conference, or
something. And that gives scientists all over the world
an opportunity to look at the information, to critique


it, to duplicate it if they wish, to respond by subsequent
articles in those journals. After it's met all of those
criteria, then depending upon whether it survived all of
that as a legitimate piece of information, if it did
survive all of those steps that I just mentioned, then I
feel like it's a legitimate bit of information that could
be used by a science educator in teaching students.

Q. Okay. One of the things that you said is that it
would be a legitimate scientist. What is -- would be a
legitimate scientist?

A. Well, as you recall, when I said that I said, "I
don't now how exactly how you would go about defining
that." But I would think a legitimate -- I can't say
this absolutely because sometimes, I guess it would
be possible although I'm not personally familiar with
the -- people that have no recognition in the scientific
community, I suppose sometimes might come up with
something that would meet all of these tests. But
usually it's someone that has previous publications in the
respected mainstream of scientific journals whether it's
a -- may be a professor or a teacher at some major or
even minor university.

But I would say that the main factor
that I would use in establishing whether a person was a
legitimate scientist or not is the past work that they


had done in an area and the past publications that they
had had. Although I'm not saying -- there may be some
legitimate people that -- you have to publish a first
time. So, you know, even if someone hasn't published
before there's always a first time. I'm not saying that
you -- this is an absolute. But as a general rule of
thumb in my mind, that's what a legitimate scientist would

Q. Well, is it generally -- is it generally true that
-- that you need to -- let's say if you were in physics,
that you would go to -- and I don't even know which
schools which they have the best graduate work in physics,
but is that generally how it works? Do your graduate work
and Ph.D. work.

A. I don't know whether you could say generally. That
would be a major -- one of the major avenues that the
research would be generated, et cetera. I don't think
all of your research is done at the major universities,
but that would -- some of the most prominent stuff, I
guess, would be.

Q. Okay. Anything else that you can think of that would
lend credibility or legitimacy to a scientist?

A. Well yeah, there would be other things. Membership
in professional scientific organizations and academies,
respectability among colleagues in the field, things


such as that.

Q. Honors that you might have won in the field?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Anything else you can think of?

A. No, not offhand.

Q. Okay. Would there be -- well is it generally that
-- is it generally true, or most of the times true, or
never true that legitimate scientists basically have a
particular area of expertise that they work within? Or
do they -- I mean, like -- do physicists do chemical
engineering research, or do they pretty well stay within
their fields?

A. Well, I would say it would be a fair statement to say
that they stay within their fields usually.

Q. You talked about you have what would be called
informal review by colleagues. Would that usually be a
situation where you would say if you were to take physics
again at the Physics Department at Berkeley, that you
would send a rough draft around to the colleagues in that

A. Yes.

Q. Is that customarily done?

A. Since I'm not involved in research. I can't say it's
customarily done. I think that it is.

Q. And then you said something about that you do the


research and you interpret -- interpretation was involved
in it.

A. Well, you gather data or you discover tidbits
of information. The raw data or the information in and
of itself is not useful in most cases unless it's
interpreted some way. So, I think generally some
interpretation or conclusions of data --

Q. Predictions.

A. Predictions, conclusions or whatever have to be

Q. Okay. How do you -- is there anyway -- any kind of
information that scientists have in reaching their

A. Is there any kind of information that they have in
reaching their interpretations? You mean other than the
information at hand. that's part of the data that was

Q. Right.

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. Well, like a physicist would -- let's say that a --
that you would -- that you're a physicist and you're
doing research and you find some sort of
sub-sub-sub-atomic particle that is behaving in a
particular sort of way. What -- if you're a physicist,
is there any kind of particular reference posed or


guidelines that you'd have in interpreting your data?

A. Of course, there would be all the work that was
done before you.

Q. Okay.

A. You know, most scientific endeavors include a
review of the literature. So, I assume that any person that
was going to interpret that would base that upon
knowledge that was gathered by previous people and that
had been published previously, et cetera.

Q. So, you basically would be -- you would look
to what had gone before and interpreting the data that
you have.

A. You would certainly take what had gone on before in
mind when you interpreted it.

Q. Okay. What do you do if your data, you observe
the data and you apply everything that is -- that has
been published before and you take all the laws, theorems,
and reasoning analysis and you look at all of it. And
what, in your data, cannot rationally be interpreted
based on that information, rationally or logically or

A. Well, I assume that that would be the point that
you would go to your colleagues and so forth to -- for

Q. Okay. And they said --


A. If you discovered some physical phenomena that's
there, that's behaving in a certain way and you don't
understand or can't interpret why it's behaving that
way or whatever, the fact that it is is useful
information even though maybe no prediction can be --
prediction or conclusions or whatever can be made
regarding that. In this instance, the information in
itself in the example that you gave, if you found a
sub-atomic particle behaving in a certain way, that
information in itself would be worth while and would
probably be published without interpretation.

Q. Okay. Let's suppose that you go to your colleagues
informally, and then you publish your information in a
pure review publication and everybody says that's very
interesting, but it doesn't fit any of the laws, or
theories, or predictions that have ever been made, what does
that mean?

A. Well I'm going to try to answer that. I'm not exactly
sure, so as I answer your questions why don't --

Q. Let me give you an example. There was a lady that
got an award within the last two weeks that came up with
a theory in 1951 talking gene mutation, which was
published and forgotten. And it's taken some, I think,
20 years -- I think the 70's was the first time that
anybody went back and said "Hey, this lady is right."


How does that happen that somebody can be absolutely
correct, be published and be totally ignored?

A. Well, the same -- I'm not saying that's extremely
rare. I would think that would be something that might
be reasonably common. Gregor Mendel, for instance, in
his initial work on heredity published a paper, and it
was rediscovered a number of years lateer. In his
case, the scientific technology -- I think some of
Einstein's work was the same way. The technology, at
that time, was not sufficient to allow, you know, a good
interpretation of the information. It might be that the
-- if that is the first tidbit of information that's
unearthed regarding this particular think that there is
simply not enough information that's been accumulated in
order to organize it in anyway that is understandable.
Maybe it has to wait for years for other bits of information
which might be yielded by advanced technology or whatever to
come about -- to accumulate enough information that could be
organized in some meaningful way.

Q. Well, wasn't Mendel's work directly contrary to the
accepted views in the broad mainstream of science at
the time?

A. I can't answer that.

Q. What about Einstein's views and interpretations,
weren't they directly contrary to all accepted views in


his field at the time?

A. I can't answer that. I would hazard a guess. I
would say that some of it, in both cases, possibly was.

MS. FERBER: For the record, I must
indicate that we do not intend to offer Mr. Glasgow as an
expert on science, nor on religion, nor as an expert on
education in general. And I will have a continuing
objection to questions which attempt to put him in the
the posture of an expert in science.

MR. CHILDS: Ms. Ferber, anytime that a
witness tells me that he's going to refer to the opinions
of what he considers the scientific peers, the scientific
community, then I think that opens up to show whether or
not he knows what he's talking about.

MS. FERBER: I understand the necessity
for your line of questioning. I just want that on the


Q. Okay. Now then, what about Darwin? Were his
views contrary to all of the -- I think there was one guy
who had published something about his time named Walter.

A. Wallace.

Q. Wallace. And other than those two, and maybe one or
two others, they were contrary to everything that
everybody else believed?


A. My understanding is that that's basically correct.

Q. What about Galileo?

A. I think that would be a fair assumption based upon
what I have studied about it.

Q. Newton?

A. I think this would be, like I said before, not an
uncommon occurrence. When something -- something is
discovered that is new and that's maybe isolated that
needs additional data to support it, initial ideas
may not be accepted entirely.

Q. And you think that's a perfectly legitimate
process? Let me rephrase. Do you think that is a
legitimate process?

A. Sure.

Q. You don't see any problem with science, as an
establishment, keeping out new ideas?

A. Science as an establishment doing what?

Q. Keeping out new ideas, new interpretations.

A. Keeping out.

Q. New ideas or retarding their being disseminated.

A. No. I think I answered right. I forget what you
asked. No, I do not think it's the purpose of science to
keep out or retard new ideas?

Q. Well if the legitimacy of new ideas is to be
judged in light of what is currently known, then any idea


by definition which is contrary to what is commonly known
or accepted is going to be rejected?

A. None of the ideas that you've talked about are
rejected -- were rejected. They're all still here.
As far as I know they -- of course, I can't -- I don't
know what the situation exactly was back with Galileo, et
cetera. But the common ideas, Darwin for instance. His
ideas were published in legitimate journals and so forth.
And they had peer review. And in fact, most of them,
even though they were contrary to the views at the time,
were accepted among the scientific community, to my
knowledge relatively quickly. Although that wouldn't
have to necessarily be true. I think things can be
legitimate, can be published, can go through that same
process I talked about whether they are uniformly supported
by other people or not.

Q. Well, how long does it take an idea to appear,
become, for lack of a better word, legitimized and
then to appear in a textbook?

A. Well, of course that would vary so greatly that it
would be hard to answer your question.

Q. Can you give me an example, any example of how long
it has taken for any particular idea?

A. To go through the process and to appear in a
textbook. Well, let's take -- I'm just going have to


give you a very general idea because that's all I know.

Q. Okay.

A. And I don't even know when the research was started,
so I can't even say that. But from the information on
genetic engineering, et cetera, its just recently been
in textbooks. I don't know how long ago that was
initiated. I would -- the first initiation of it could
have been a long time ago, but I would say, not even
commenting on how long the research took but to get a
textbook printed, to get the ideas and get them in a
textbook and get them printed, would take several years.

Q. I know -- I understand that ya'll have to use the
textbooks that ya'll have for five years.

A. That's right.

Q. So the minimum amount of time that, if you just go
into textbooks not supplemental material or reference
material, but just textbooks, would be five years?

A. Would be five years at the end of our five year

Q. Right.

A. The first year of our adoption, of course, would
entail --

Q. Would at least be at least --

A. One to five -- well, how ever long it takes to
publish, probably two to seven years or whatever.


Q. You're right, I'm sorry. What do you think the
scientific community's reaction would have been if Albert
Einstein had appeared at the New York legislature? When
did he publish -- when did Einstein publish the
principles of relativity?

A. I don't know.

Q. Let's say 1927. Let's say that he had appeared at
the New York legislature in 1927 and said "I have a
revelation. I have figured it all out, and E squared. And I want you to aquire a law requiring the
physics teachers in the State of New York to teach my
theory." What would have been the scientific community's

A. That's hard for me to guess. If I were a member of
the scientific community myself, at that time, and what I
think other members would do is that they would strenuously
object to that.

Q. Okay. Now then, we were talking about developing
materials. And I'm not quite sure how we got off -- and
we started talking about the scientific process, and
how ideas developed in the scientific community, and
interpretation in journals and all of that. And my
question is, can you develop materials, as opposed to
acquire, can you develop materials which would serve as a
textbook or supplemental materials for students which


would show the scientific evidence for one through
six in Section 4A?

A. Not in my opinion.

Q. Okay. And as I understand it, your opinion is that it
can't be done because it's not science?

A. That's correct.

Q. What are you going to do if you are given a choice
of putting something together or losing your employment?

MS. FERBER: If you are prepared to
answer that.

Q. If you're prepared to answer that. I think that
that would be a necessity -- a possible situation that
you could very well be faced with if we prevail on
the constitutionality of Act 590.

A. I'm not prepared to answer positively. I can tell
you what I want I hope I would do.

Q. What do you hope you will do?

A. If it came down to -- to doing what I think you
said, and if you mean putting -- well, I guess I better
not answer. I don't know exactly what you mean by
putting something together or losing my employment.

Q. Well, the Act requires that a balanced treatment
for what is defined -- what is called Creation Science
and is defined in one through six. I'm just wondering
what you're going to do.


A. Your question is, if I have a choice of -- first of
all, if I had the individual responsibility, which I
do not, but if I had the responsibility of developing
something that would meet the requirements of Act 590
or lose my employment. Is that what your question is

Q. I hate to ask you that kind of a question, but I think
that that is -- I think that's probably more real an
alternative than Ms. Ferber does, but I think that's
a very strong possibility.

A. I think it's -- I think I have options before
it comes to that. If it did come to that, I presume I
would lose my employment.

Q. Okay. Well, do you think that the legislature
has left you any discretion to decide what science is
under the Act? You referring to the Little Rock public
schools or school districts.

MS. FERBER: Excuse me. to determine what
science is?

MR. CHILDS: Yes. To make any
personal interpretations of what is science or what is
not science.

A. My first impression is that my answer would be now.
But on the other hand, I don't think Act 590 is clear in
many respects. I think that it is up to someone to


interpret. But my way of interpreting it is that very
little discretion is left in that area.

Q. Well, the legislature has said that we want the
scientific evidence which supports 4A, 1 through 6
given a balanced treatment within the public schools.
And the people who, in the public schools, have the
responsibility for doing this very thing are people like
yourself in positions similar to the one that you hold. And
if they all lie down and say, "I can't do it." then
that's going to put their school districts and school
boards in a real bind. They're going to have to find
somebody else to do it. And I just don't want that
to have to happen. And I have a hard time believing that
you can't take whatever evidence is available, which
doesn't refer to the Bible, and put it together on
1 through 6.

MS. FERBER: I object to --

Q. Is it something that's personal with you? Is this
a personal feeling with you?

MS. FERBER: I object to the form of
the question. And counsel is basically making a speech
and asking over again the questions which he's already
directed to Mr. Glasgow.

Q. Let me ask you, is this a personal feeling which
you've had? Please disregard what I've said before.


A. I've spent quite a number of years in my preparation
in science. And I guess through my experiences with
science, I'm appreciative of what science is. And yes,
it's a personal, professional, ethical issue with me.
And it would be very similar I guess to some medical
researcher saying, "Well, you have to give equal or
balanced treatment to the people that say the creams
in the "Parade" magazine on Sunday that you rub on your
bald scalp grows hair." Their research or their evidence
must be given balanced treatment with
that of your medical research. That's the way I view

Q. Well, do you feel personally offended that the --
that the legislature would suppose to have the expertise
to make this kind of decision?

A. Personally and professionally offended, yes.

Q. Basically, it's not their job?

A. That's my feeling.

Q. Okay.

MS. FERBER: Mr. Childs, whenever
you're at an appropriate breaking place, can I take a
short recess?

MR. CHILDS: You timed it perfectly.


Q. How are evolution and creationism treated in


textbooks currently approved for use in Arkansas and
the Little Rock school systems? And would the best
way to do that be book by book?

A. That would -- yeah, that would be suitable.

Q. Why don't you tell me generally how evolution and
creationism are treated.

MS. FERBER: Would you break that into
two questions, please? How evolution is treated and how
creationism is treated.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you this question first. Is
there a difference between books in use in Arkansas,
approved for use in Arkansas and books approved for use in
the Little Rock school systems?

A. The books approved for use in the Little Rock
school system are chosen from those that are approved
by the State of Arkansas.

Q. So, we can --

A. I can respond to those in Little Rock. I'm not
familiar with all of the books that are on the state list.

Q. Okay. So, your testimony is the books that are
approved -- that are on the Arkansas list that are
used in Little Rock?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. Now then --

MS. FERBER: For purposes of this


deposition, that would be the scope of his testimony on
those questions.

MR. CHILDS: Okay. Is that going to be
the scope of his testimony at the trial?

MS. FERBER: I imagine it will be, but
we certainly reserve the right to show Mr. Glasgow other
books approved for use in Arkansas which he may have
seen in the past.

MR. CHILDS: Well, if he's going to
testify about any books other than the ones that we have
-- that copies have been made of, which will be made
exhibits today, we would expect that he be made available
for a limited deposition of those. Is there any problem
with that.

MS. FERBER: I don't anticipate that
there is. I mean we are reserving our right to ask him if
he has other information as to other textbooks.

MR. CHILDS: I don't have any problem
with that. I just want to be able to have a chance to
talk to him about it.

MS. FERBER: I'm sure that we can agree
on the proper procedure for handling that.


Q. Now then, so we're going to talk about the ones that
you're familiar with today, today. Generally, how is


evolution treated in the books that are used -- currently
in use in Little Rock school system?

A. Would -- would you want to define or give me some
idea of what you mean by evolution? Are you including
things related to or similar to those things that are
listed in Act 590 as Evolution Science.

Q. Well, I'm merely using the language that counsel
for the plaintiff has used in describing your testimony
to state that you will "survey and testify about how
evolution and creationism are treated in textbooks
currently approved for use in Arkansas and in the Little
Rock school systems."

A. Okay. I'll do that.

Q. I cannot vouch for how they defined evolution.

MS. FERBER: I think we trust using Mr.
Glasgow that.

A. You want me to start?

Q. Just tell me generally, first.

A. First of all, what -- the way we're defining
evolution I think is a legitimate way as far as this
whole proceeding is concerned, are those things that
would be concerned with biological or organic evolution,
plus those things that would be concerned with age of the
earth, origin of the universe, formation of the solar
system, and such things as that. Generally -- generally


speaking, at the lower grades, as would be true with any
any subject really any science type subject, there is not
an in depth discussion of anything in particular.
However, there are things that are consistent with my
understanding of what evolution is. And even though you
read that page and it doesn't say evolution, such and
such, such and such, such and such, the implication to
anyone, -- any teacher, would be that this is
concerned with either organic evolution or evolution of
the physical universe of some sort. It starts really --
I think 2nd grade is the first place in which some
mention is made of either -- that which has something to do
with the age of the earth, the age of the universe,
creation of the solar system or evolution of living kinds,
and continues to some degree
in, I believe, 2nd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade and 6th
grade even though it's not an in depth discussion. It's not
a chapter designated solely to discussion of such things,
but it does appear. Things that would concern me, things
that in my mind or in my way, like I said earlier, Act 590
to me is not clear. But you have to interpret what you think
it's about. And these are things that, in my mind, would
require implementation of provisions of Act 590.

And there are quite a few things at the
elementary level. Biology -- or lets go back. Life


Science, that's 7th grade, has some things. Physical
Science at the 8th grade has very little concern with
that because that's not the primary focus of that course.
Earth Science, which in Little Rock, we deal with at the
9th grade, would contain considerable information that
would be dealing with evolution as defined. You don't
use the word evolution, but age of the earth, origin of the
universe, and things such as that. A very substantial
portion of that book deals with that. Biology, the -- I
would say threads of evolution run throughout the book,
almost every chapter in the book. Primarily, in this
case, concern with organic evolution, specific species,
or families, or orders, or whatever of animals changing
over time to different species, families, orders, et
cetera. And organic evolution is present pretty much
throughout the Biology book. Chemistry at the 11th grade,
to my knowledge, has very little that would pertain directly
to that. And likewise, Physics at the 12th grade level has
very little that would pertain directly to this. There's
not anything in either Chemistry or Physics that I've
identified as something that would be involved in this. We
have an advanced Biology course that's offered at the 12th
grade, it's an elective course. And it, to even a greater
degree than the 10th grade Biology, would deal with
evolution. It's an advanced, sort of an honors, college --


Q. Bound.

A. -- honors, college bound type course that actually
uses college textbooks. And to a very significant
degree, I think, evolution is found in that book from
cover to cover almost.

So, summarizing my answer, I would say
to a significant degree in my mind at the elementary
level, evolution is treated in the forms that I've talked
about. And Earth Science and Biology, both the 10th
grade Biology and 12th grade advanced biology, evolution
is a major portion of those courses. It's not treated
to any large degree in Physical Science, Physics or

Q. Okay. What about creationism as it's used in the
counsel -- plaintiffs' counsel's description of your

MS. FERBER: Excuse me, creationism is
used in the description of testimony as it relates
to its treatment in textbooks currently approved for
use in Arkansas, Little Rock.

MR. CHILDS: Right.

A. There is a reference to creationism in the teacher's
edition part of the biology textbook that we currently

Q. Which says that -- refers to it as creationism


being a subject for a paper, possible research project as
to religion. Is that the one you're referring to?

A. Do you mind if I refer?

Q. No, I don't mind at all.

A. I could pick better out of here. I know it's in

MS. FERBER: If you have a copy of that,
I'd appreciate if you could also find it also in the copy,
so that we can put it in the record.

Q. I will. Let's see what page it's on first.
Here it is. Page 3 of the teacher's part of Modern

Q. What's that exhibit number on the label?

A. Nine.

Q. Defendant's Exhibit #9.

A. Throughout biology -- the teacher's part -- the
teacher background information of the biology text there are
little sections called challenges in biology. And this
particular one is dealing with the origin of life on earth.
And it states that, "one of the major challenges in biology
is the answer to the question of how life first originated
on the earth. Two of the the most well known are those
expressed by the creationist and the biochemist. The
creationist theory generally theorizes that life was created
by God and that the fundamental teachings of the Old


Testament are true in detail. The biochemist's theory, on
the other hand, theorizes that life originated from a
chemical soup. The soup contained such elements as carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and so forth." It simply states
that this question or controversy remains as a challenge in
biology. "Although both these theories have been considered
opposite, many responsible persons do not subscribe totally
to either theory. Recent discoveries in science make this
truely a challenge in biology."

Q. Does that infer that only irresponsible persons
subscribe to only one theory?

A. No. It says, "Many responsible persons." I don't
think it says all responsible persons.

Q. Why didn't it just say many persons?

A. Why doesn't it say just many persons?

Q. Yeah, what does responsible add to that sentence?
It says "Although both these theories," referring to
creationist theory and biochemistry theory "have been
considered opposite. Many responsible persons do not
subscribe totally to either theory." dose that infer that
only irresponsible persons subscribe only to one theory.

A. That's not my interpretation.

Q. Okay.

A. As far as I know, that's the extent and the
substance of creationism in the textbooks that we use in


Little Rock.

Q. Is this is it, you're referring to the third column
on page 3 of Defendants Exhibit 9.

A. Yes.

Q. And that's it.

A. I think so. It's the only one I'm --

Q. I'm not going to hold you to that, but that's all
that you're aware of?

A. That's all that I had -- yeah, that I was -- the
only one that I noticed and had ear marked in my book.

Q. I take it you've looked for any references to
creationism or whatever.

A. I've looked.

Q. And that's the only one you found?

A. [Witness nods.]

Q. Okay.

MS. FERBER: Excuse me, I'm going to
have to take another short recess if counsel would like
us to provide the papers that are due.

MR. CHILD: Well, I'm not certain that I
wouldn't rather that those be filed tomorrow. But we can
take a recess, yes certainly.


Q. Let me ask you a question. Under 4 -- Section 4B
of the Act, 1 through 6, does -- does this definition of


evolution science describe evolution as you understand

A. Not entirely and completely. It's an approximate
facsimile of my understanding of evolution.

Q. I'm sure -- are you saying that it is much more
complex than this definition would indicate?

A. No.. I'm just saying that -- well it, of course,
includes subcomponents et cetera that would be much more
complex than that. But my statement that I made is
that some of these aren't entirely 100% accurate as far
as my understanding of what evolution -- as far as my
understanding of a -- what most scientists regard as the
process of evolution.

Q. Are any of them inaccurate in what they actually
say, in what the definitions actually state? And if so,
which ones?

A. First, I would like to --

Q. Okay.

A. As far as inaccuracy, the word "kind" in number
three is not part of my vocabulary as it concerns
evolution. I've never really used that word or heard it
used in the courses that I've taken and my knowledge of
evolution. That's not necessarily an inaccuracy it's
just not the correct terminology Q. Okay.

A. Number five, I don't think is an accurate


representation. I don't think number five -- number five
would generally be true. I don't think that it would be
held in complete agreement among scientists.

Q. As to uniformitarianism?

A. I think generally, most scientists and people that
-- teachers that I've had, et cetera, would generally
accept uniformitarianism as an accurate representation
of the earth's geology. I don't think that would
necessarily be true. I think some people are saying that
there might be some times during the earth's geology
that the processes weren't necessarily as slow and
gradual and uniform, possibly, as they are now. But I
think that is generally what that -- generally would be
true with that exception.

A. Okay. I'm not sure that all scientists agree that
mutation and natural selection are entirely adequate
either. Generally, I think that would be reasonably

Q. Okay. I think in two they also use the phrase

A. That's what I mentioned earlier. Yes, I'm not
familiar with what word in the context of evolution.

Q. If -- let's try again. When Judge Overton rules
that Act 590 is constitutional, what kind of changes will be
required in the textbooks?


A. Well, according to Act 590, we're not going to have
to throw out our textbooks. Let's assume that it were in
place next year, we are not going to have to throw our
textbooks out that we have now. And we've got three more
years left on our adoption. But in subsequent adoptions,
I would imagine that we would need to choose textbooks
with a more balanced view than what the current ones

Q. What would you be required to do to bring your
textbooks into compliance with Act 590?

A. My opinion is that -- well, let me go back and
make sure I understand what you're saying. The textbooks
that we have now or textbooks that will be used in the

Q. I -- let's talk about what changes would be
required in the materials that you presently have on
hand, what would you be required to do?

A. I think we would be required, first of all, to
purchase additional library materials. You wouldn't
necessarily call those textbooks, but reference books
for the library. I think we could keep the textbooks
that we have, but might need to purchase additional
supplementary books, maybe classroom sets, not
necessarily for each student to supplement what we have
now. I think that additional -- again, not talking about


textbooks necessarily. I assume you want a more general

Q. Right.

A. Additional materials in the form of films,
filmstrips, possibly pamphlets or handouts or district --
as far as purchasing things; films, filmstrips, pamphlets,
booklets supplementary textbooks would have to be

Q. Do you anticipate that it would be necessary or --
necessary to print up some of your own supplemental
reference material?

A. I think it would be, yes.

Q. Do you think that would be something that you would
have to do or something that you could do?

A. Well, in my -- where I'm coming from, I think that
is something that we could have to do.

Q. Okay. What Creation Science articles are you
familiar with?

A. Creation Science articles, like magazine articles?

Q. Publications.

A. Publications, just anything.

Q. Well, I believe you said that you had -- that Dr.
Gish, and that's G0i-s-h and Dr. Bliss had been here. Are
there any other creationists that you're familiar with?

A. There are some names I'm familiar with, and I've


looked through some of the books. I regret to say now
though that I haven't looked through the books, or I
haven't retained or matched names to books and all that
thing now. And I can't quote you what any particular
person said. But I am aware of other people. Henry
Morris has written some books that I have looked over. I
think Harold Slusher is another person that I'm aware of
that has written some materials. Some of them -- I've
already said Bliss. I don't know whether all the articles
I've read, the little pamphlets and handouts have actually
had an author as such, but were -- came from the
Institute for Creation Science or Creation Research, or

Q. Okay.

A. I've also -- to answer the question, I read in the
"Science Teacher," which is a magazine that's put out
by the National Science Teachers Association a couple of
years ago had four articles in it. Two of them were by
evolutionists and two were by creationists. And I
don't remember the names of any of the authors on those
four, but they were sort of a compare and contrast to
bring people up-to-date on the things. I read those. I
don't recall the authors though.

Q. What's the name of that publication?

A. That I'm referring to.


Q. Yeah.

A. The "Science Teacher."

Q. And when was this?

A. It was -- I can't say specifically. I can find it,
but it was probably three to five years ago.

Q. Would you find that for me, I'd be interested in
looking at it?

A. Sure.

Q. Off the record.

[Off the record discussion.]

Q. Okay. You've testified that -- that you're
familiar with the publications, generally, by the
creationists regarding what is referred to as Creation
Science, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Can you tell me any -- and you've indicated that
you don't think much of it, is that an accurate --

A. That's accurate.

Q. And you don't think that it's science, it's not
even bad science, it's just not science at all; is that

A. Well, that's 99 and 99/100% accurate. I said
some of the -- I don't know that the conclusions -- and
the overall view I would say is not even bad science.
But some of the information that they use did appear in


scientific journals. I feel it was taken, a lot of it,
out of context. In that respect, it might border in
science. As far as the overall general idea and
conclusions and so forth of the books, I wouldn't regard
them as science. That would be a correct idea of my --

Q. Okay. And I will -- as a preface to my next
question, I want you to answer that I realize now low
your regard and opinion is of this. But with that in
mind, could you tell me one theory that you are aware
of which would support any one of the six items, that is
put forward as supporting anyone of the six items under
Section 4A?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. One, or several, or what?

Q. Let's just start at the beginning, and we're going
to go through them from there.

A. One bit of information that's used is that the
fossil record is not in the -- first of all, the fossil
record has gaps in it according to these publications.
Second of all, the fossil record is not in the sequence
that evolutionists conclude that it might be in. Well,
let me look at these. That there are no current living
interimmediate or transition forms. That there are very
few transition forms in the fossil record. I think


that a lot of fossils appeared -- seemed to have appeared
rather suddenly. As I said before, there didn't seem to
be transition forms leading up to them. I don't know
whether you -- I'm just going to go into a discussion.
I don't know that all of these would classify as evidence.
In fact, I don't know whether any of them would be
particularly, but the vestigial organs, that X number of
years ago there were X number of vestigial organs that were
considered present by people in scientific community. And
that since then, some of those that were formerly considered
vestigial organs, which had no apparent use, a use or
function for those had been discovered since then. Those
are some of the things. I'm sure I could brain storm

Q. Would you, please?

A. Okay. The occurrence of marine fossils on areas
that are now dry land. The inadequacy, or inaccuracy, or
inerrorsy [sic.] of radioactive dating. The probability,
mathematical probability of a given mutation. First of
all being successful, and second of all, of enough of
them being put together in a string to have accomplished
the complexity that's present in current day living
things. The presence of feathers on archeoptaryx [sic.],
which would indicate that it is indeed a bird and not a
lizard, or even a transition from a reptile to a bird.


The unlikelihood that atoms and molecules could -- that
chance occurrences could ever account for atoms and
molecules joining up and forming more complex things,
and more complex than that, and eventually ending up with
the degree of complexity that we have today. That's all I
can think of at the moment unless you want me just to sit
for a long time.

Q. That's actually very good, actually very good.
Have you made an attempt to read all of the creationist
material that has been published or is available?

A. I have not made an attempt to read all of the material
that is published, no.

Q. Okay. Have you have you made an attempt to keep up
with the current literature to determine whether or not it
would support what's been referred to as Creation Science?
Have you made any kind of ongoing attempt to analyze the
literature to determine whether or not it supports Evolution
and/or Creation Science?

A. In a general manner, I have.

Q. Okay. Have you read -- have you read all of the

A. Well, I'm sure I haven't.

Q. Okay. So, it would be true that -- when you
say that the evidence supporting Creation Science is
unacceptable to you, as a scientist, you're only

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dennis Glasgow - Page 2


referring to that which you've read?

A. I would like to first of all say that I do not
consider myself a scientist, I am an educator. And as an
educator, it's not my responsibility to judge information as
to whether it is scientifically, technically correct or not.
And I don't have the expertise to do that. Generally,
from my background and experience, you know, I have had
some experience in science, some training in science. I
can make some general judgments as to whether something
conforms to what I consider the processes of science, et
cetera. But generally, as an educator and a non-expert
on the very technical aspects of science, I rely upon the
scientific community, scientific publications,
professional groups of scientists, et cetera for my

Q. Well then, do I understand you to say that when you
said when -- you testified earlier that what you had
read was unacceptable; one, because it was not accepted
in the scientific community; and two, because it had
religious references. In reference to the scientific
community you were only saying that it was unacceptable
because it was not accepted in the scientific community? If
you want me to rephrase that question, I will.

A. You might. I think I understand it, but go ahead.

Q. Okay. Did you before say that what you had read
regarding Creation Science was unacceptable to you


professionally and personally?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And professionally, was it unacceptable to
you because it was not accepted in the scientific community?

A. That's a major factor, that's not the only factor.

Q. Okay. And what other factor was there?

A. Well I'm not completely unaware of science. And
the appropriate process for discovering information,
publishing, the process of science. That's one thing that
we really deal with in the public schools, the process of
science. And I don't have to be a professional scientist
to realize that the information -- or not the information
as such, but the conclusions or the interpretations of
the information that I've seen supporting Creation
Science have not been published in the mainstream of
scientific journals or really in anything that I'm aware
of that is a scientific journals, not to say that some
tidbits of information haven't been published.

But if you recall, I said the process
is to discover the raw data or collect the information
and then to apply an interpretation or interpret that
information. The raw data -- some of the things that I
mentioned are found in scientific journals and are part
of science. But the interpretations that's put on that
data I've not found in scientific journals. So, as a


process, sure the scientists don't accept it. And I feel,
as a science educator I am to teach what is determined as
science by scientists. But on a more personal note,
I realize what the process of science is and I can figure
out from reading and observing the world and reading the
journals and books, et cetera that this has not, in my
opinion, gone through the rigorous process that would cause
it to be legitimate science for teaching the students in the
public schools.

Q. Are you contending that all of the evidence regarding
Creation Science -- excuse me, let me rephrase that. Are
you contending that none of the evidence supporting
Creation Science have been published in, for lack of
a better word, accepted scientific journals?

A. You may have to define evidence or else I'll
qualify my statement with some definition of evidence.
As I said before, the raw data for that, to my knowledge,
has been published at one time or another in different
scientific journals. The interpretation of that data
that would fit it to these six things in Section 4A, I
have not seen published in any scientific journals.
Again, I'm saying I'm not a scientist. And I don't claim
to have read all of it or anything else. But to my
knowledge, that would be a true statement.

Q. In other words, you don't know. Could be, might


be, might not be.

A. Well, I'll say with my background in science, and
the courses I've taken, and the seminars I've attended I've
never been exposed to it.

Q. Okay Let -- you have brought today Xeroxed copies
of pages out of some books. And I'd like for you to
go through those books and state the name of the book,
the course name, the grade level, and the impact that Act
590 would have on each of those books.

A. The first book is "Holt Elementary Science." The
course name is just Elementary Science. The grade is
grade 2. I tell you what I'm going to do, mine is all
paper clipped, so I'm going to find this page first
and then that page. Is that all right?

Q. That's fine.

A. On -- now, the things that I've identified are
things that in my mind could possibly, and most of them
likely some of them maybe not as likely but I didn't make
that judgment, brain storm things that would possibly
be affected by Act 590.

The first one in grade 2, the book
that I just referred to, is found on the teacher's
edition, page T-110.

Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you if the copies have been
marked Defendant's Exhibit #10?


A. Yes, it has.

Q. Okay. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

A. On that page, as far as teacher matter is
concerned, there is a statement that "animals can be
classified as amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and
mammals." This, roughly speaking, is a phylogenetic
arrangement, not in the exact order. But if teachers deal
with this, as many of them probably will, it will be in an
exact phylogenetic classification going from less complex
forms to more complex forms, which possibly could trigger
Act 590. On page T-111, the very next page, is a statement,
again in the teacher matter, teacher background information,
that states that, "A group of reptiles known as dinosaurs
once lived on earth. These animals could not adapt to the
changing conditions of our earth and became extinct about
sixty-five million years ago. Evidence of dinosaurs is found
in fossil remains and footprints." I think the key phrase
here is that dinosaurs once lived on earth, they are no
longer living, and they became extinct about sixty-five
million years could trigger Act 590 from the standpoint of
the earth being a lot older, I think, than the Creation
Science so called model, or idea, or theories, whatever you
want to call them would suggest. In the same book on page
T-131. Q. Yes.

A. In the student matter is a statement that "A very


long time ago animals called dinosaurs lived on the earth."
"A very long time ago," I think would be the triggering
phrase since, in the teacher matter that goes with this and
I think I stated before in elementary books very little
information is given, much of the supplementary information
is given only to the teacher to use in discussion with the
children. In the teacher edition under the motivation part,
right underneath that it says, "Tell the children a long
time ago the earth was very different from the way it is
today. It was much warmer, different kinds of plants grew,
and different types of animals lived. The type of animal
that lived then was a dinosaur." Ask the children, have you
ever seen movies that show dinosaurs? Many times they are
pictured as mean monsters. Explain that people did not live
on earth at the same time when dinosaurs lived." I think --
first of all, just the mention of dinosaurs and that they
lived a long time ago could possibly trigger it. The fact
that it states that people did not live at the same time
that dinosurs lived could possibly be opposed to Creation
Science. And those are the only statements in that
particular book. Q. Would it present insurmountable
problems to prepare instructions for use with this teacher's
edition, Exhibit #10?

A. To prepare what?

Q. A supplement to be used with this teacher's edition?


A. For what purpose, to balance those ideas?

Q. Yeah, to balance these ideas out.

A. It would be possible to do that.

Q. Okay.

A. I might say since -- I think I need to say it is
that I do not think it would be appropriate or legitimate
science to do that.

Q. Okay. What's your next book? Is that Exhibit #6.

A. Next is Exhibit #6, "Holt Elementary Science."
Again, this is the elementary science program, grade

Q. Okay.

A. The first page is T-8.

Q. Okay.

A. At the top of the -- at the top of the page,
and I might mention for your information that the student,
the exact pge is in the student text that is found in
the teacher's text. You understand that don't you?

Q. I figured that out on the last book.

A. "Geologists call this movement continental drift.
They think that over many years the continents drifted
apart at a rate of one to ten centimeters a year." It
goes on to discuss that. But that would be the primary
thing, that the continents were once altogether and
drifted apart. And the rate of drift would be something


that would trigger Act 590. On the next page too --

Q. Why would that -- why would that trigger 590? A.
Well first of all, drifting at the rate of one to ten
centimeters, I haven't figured it up, I would imagine that
it's going to take quite a number of years for that. And
second of all, the fact that all the continents were once
together, as such. It's my opinion that this is not
something that would be one of the components of Creation

Q. The only thing that I could see that this would have
anything to do with would be age of the earth, under six.
Am I missing something?

A. That would -- that was the main reason I put it

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead.

A. The next page simply has the -- it's the same thing,
I just checked it. There is a little diagram showing
continental drift. The next page T-10, "The plate
tectonic theory has been proposed to explain continental
drift, I think would be a triggerer. Plate tectonics is
a slow process that would go along with the --

Q. Age concept?

A. Well, not only age, but the gradual uniform changes
in the earth.

Q. Okay. Okay.


Q. And that explains or is used to explain how such large
masses of land ie., the continents are able to drift apart?

Q. Okay.

A. The next one is really the same sort of thing.
It's on page T-13.

Q. Okay.

A. "Spreading of the sea floor is believed to be the
reason why the plates of the crust move. The continents
are carried along with the moving plates like in your
activity," it's just an extension of the thing I
mentioned earlier.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-23, "Look closely at this picture. It
shows a fossil of a sea animal that lived a long time ago.
This fossil was found in rocks that now are part of a
large mountain. How did a sea animal get to the top
of a mountain." I think that is a potential triggerer of
Act 590?

Q. Which part?

A. Well, the whole thing. "How did the fish get
to the top of the mountain"? If you'll notice, over --
maybe I should have marked that. My background of how to
deal with this would cause me to not include everything,
I guess. But on the lesson background right over to the
right of that, it talks about folded mountains folding


together, lifting of rocks, fault-block mountains, so
forth. So, the assumption is from the background
information given a teacher is that the gradual squeezing
together, and lifting, and fault-blocks, and so forth would
have raised the fish that would normally have been found in
the ocean, to an area on dry land which is at the top.

Q. I see how it could relate to item six, which is age
of the earth. But it also.

A. Well, if you'll go to the Creation Science part of
it, it talks about the relatively recent -- number five,

Q. Six. Okay. Five, I'm sorry.

A. Five, a worldwide flood. So.... Now, when I'm
thinking of these, I'm thinking of potential things that
could trigger Act 590. It's not only what the teacher
says, but the questions that it might generate in the
students, et cetera.

I can see very logical questions
when you deal with that and when the statement is that
this fish fossil is on top of the mountain, of the student
saying, "How did it get there?" And some of them might
say this, or some might say that. I can see that some of
them might say that there was a worldwide flood. I think
that this could generate something that could get into
the the area of necessitating some sort of balanced


treatment of ideas generated in class.

Q. It might relate to catastrophism, but I'm not sure
how it would relate to -- but it's five and six is where
you would see it relating. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. A.
On page T-33, it talks about erosion and over a long period
of time rivers can cut very deeply into rock. And then it
gives you a picture below that of the Grand Canyon, and
asks, "How do you think the Grand Canyon was formed?" I
think this would be a potential triggerer of Act 590 under
the age of the earth?

Q. Okay.

A. Number six. On page T-220, "Dinosaurs lived a long
time ago. They survived for over sixty million years.
Today there is not a single dinosaur alive. Have any
other living things disappeared from the earth?" That
would be same thing, the age of the earth.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #1, "Holt
Elementary Science." The course is elementary science.
The grade level is grade 5. On page T-238, in the
teacher's notes -- this lesson briefly describes
scientific theories about the origin of the universe.
And it goes on to state that there is going to be some
discussion about the Steady-State Theory, the Pulsating
Theory, and the Big-Bang theory. These would all -- I


presume would possibly come under number one as far as
Section 4A. Number one, sudden creation from nothing.
And number six, the age of the earth.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-239, "However, the galaxy is millions of
light-years further away from earth than the
constellation." This is a potential triggerer under
Section 4A, number six, age of the earth.

Q. Okay where are you referring to all this

A. No, it's right here.

Q. However, the galaxies --

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

A. On the next page, T-240, there are a couple of of
things, there is one that's underlined. That's all
basically the same.

Q. What page are you on?

A. T-240.

Q. Okay.

A. Is there something here that I didn't underline

Q. Rather than read all of this --

A. Okay. In the student part of it, all of the
information that is listed on page 240, I think would


possibly trigger Act 590 in that it talks about the
theories on how the universe originated. It states that
one theory suggests that the universe is at least ten
billion years old. Another theory states that the
universe explodes, comes together and explodes again about
once every eighty billion years.

Q. Okay.

A. Which, again, is concerned with the age of the

Q. Okay. That is item six.

A. Okay. In relation to Defendant's Exhibit #6, and
Defendant's Exhibit #1, would it pose any great
difficulty to make the materials available that would
give balanced treatment in those.

A. There is no problem in putting something together
that would give balanced treatment. But as I stated
before, I don't think it is appropriate, or
professionally, or even ethical in my mind to do so.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #4, "Holt
Elementary Science," elementary science course, grade

Q. Let me take a suggestion as we're going through
these. If they're marked ing the exhibit why don't we
just -- instead of reading them, just tell me which


section you think triggers these sections.

A. Okay.

MR. KAPLAN: You go ahead. I'm going
to excuse myself for just a second, but go ahead.

A. On page T-54, the first paragraph of the student
edition would trigger, in my mind, Act 590.

Q. What section? I mean what number of 590?

A. The age of the earth. On page T-55, the teacher
background information, midway through that information
it says, "Ask: Do you know how long ago the dinosaurs
were on the earth?" The next two or three sentences that
are in black print, I think would trigger Act 590, under
the age of the earth. On page T -- on page T-92 under
lesson background information, all of the materials
that are underlined in the exhibit would under the
Section five, six, three, two, and one. I went through
that rather fast. But I believe those would be because
it talks about age of the earth. It talks about simple
forms of life appeared first, complex form laters, so

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-92, the student matter, the first two
sentences that are underlined in the exhibit talks
about the earth being millions of years old. That would
trigger it under part six, about the age of the earth.


On page T-93, there is a sentence that's underlined about
continental drift. I think that would trigger it under
section six and section five. On page T-94 there is
a statement that's underlined in the student edition, in the
exhibit, about the evolution of a horse, with diagrams. I
think this would trigger Act 590 under section six, under
section three, under section two, section one. On page
T-95, all of the printed material in the student part that's
underlined in the exhibit, it talks about the fossilization
of rocks in the Grand Canyon, that the lower layers contain
simple fossils and fossils of a more complex, higher animals
are found in the upper layers. And that simple forms of
life developed first and complex forms later. This would
trigger Act 590 under sections one, two, three, possibly
four although not directly, five, and six. It's really the
same thing -- the same parts that would be triggered on page
T-96 in the teacher matter at the bottom of the paper. It's
simply a summary of what I've talked about on the previous
couple of pages. On pate T-97 under lesson background
information; it talks about index fossils, it talks about
radioactive dating, methods that have been used to determine
the age of rocks. I think this would trigger Act 590 under
section six on the age of the earth. On page T-98, in the
student edition, there are a few sentences underlined in the
exhibit that deal with indexed fossils of strange animals


that lived 225 to 600 million years ago. This would trigger
it under section six on the age of the earth. The next page
is T-99. The very first sentence in the student edition
states that dinosaurs were on the earth from 70 million to
225 million years ago. That would trigger Act 590 under
section six, age of the earth. On page T-100 there is a
paragraph near the bottom of the student part of the page
that talks about rocks being 4.5 billion years ago. That
would be -- trigger Act 590 under section six, age of the
earth. On page T-102 -- first of all, although this is not
underlined in the exhibit, the teacher background
information refers to 4.6 billion years, 70 million, that
whole section talks about the age of the earth.

Q. Which has been marked beside of it in blue.

A. Okay. The other part in the student matter talks
about dinosaurs living on the earth 70 million to 225
million years ago, and trilobites from 225 to 60 million
years ago is underlined in the student edition. Age of
the earth would be the part that it deals about. On page
T-103 there's several portions, they're all underlined
in the exhibit. They talk again about 70 million years,
230 million years. That part is age of the earth.
However, the sentence on the bottom of the page that's
also underlined, "most geologists agree that the first forms
of life on earth developed during this period of the earth's


past," which would trigger one, two, three, five, six.

Q. Excuse me. Who would you consider the best science
textbook publishing companies in the country, the best

A. I can't say who the best three are. I can indicate
that as far as biology is concerned, Modern Biology that's
published by Holt, Rinehart & Winston is a leading seller.
I'm not even aware who the second best seller or third
best seller are in --

Q. What about in chemistry?

A. I can't say.

Q. Physics?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

A. On page T-104, practically all the information
in the student book is underlined in the exhibit. It
talks about continental drift. It talks about water and
the warm oceans being filled with fairly simply forms of
animals, as time went on the first fish appeared as
sort of an evolutionary sequence dealt with there. That
would trigger section one, two, three, potentially
four, five, and six. At the bottom of the page, on T-104,
there is another statement that talks about the Mesozoic
Age being the age of the great reptiles of the dinosaurs.
That would be concerned with all of those same sections that


I indicated a minute ago. On page T-105, the underlined
material in the exhibit is about the Cenozic Age became
known as the age of the mammals. It has a list of certain
mammals that appeared on earth, and it includes humans
during that time. I think that would potentially trigger
all six parts of the Section 4A. On page T-106 is simply a
little chart that indicates the events in the history of the
life -- Events in the history of life. There's a little
arrow drawn in the exhibit pointing to that. And it's
simply a method of using, in this case, a long piece of
adding machine tape to mark off the different events during
the history of the earth, such as the first appearance of
amphibians, et cetera. I think this would potentially
trigger all six components in Section 4A. On page T-107
there's a statement in the little box called main ideas,
that's underlined, that simply states the earth -- it's
believed the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I didn't
underline the bottom part, but really all of that section,
it talks about "evidence indicates that within each major
time period changes led to the development of new forms of

Q. What would that trigger?

A. I think the development of new forms of life and the
age that's indicated there would trigger all six parts of
Section 4A.


Q. How would it trigger catastrophism under five?

A. Well, it may not deal as directly with that as
it does some of the other ones, but it indicates that
there was a gradual process during which new forms of
life developed over a period of 4.6 billion years. And
to some degree it might -- if catastrophism was indicated
there, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood,
it seems that all of these forms of life would have been
wiped out at that time.

Q. Okay. I understand.

A. On page T-222, underlined in the exhibit is a
statement about oil and natural gas being derived from
the bodies of microscopic animals that lived many
millions of years ago. That would trigger number six
under Section 4A.

Q. Okay.

A. On page T-259 is a chart, that's indicated with a
little circle and a blue arrow, that has a time scale
that goes back to four billion years ago, and has people
living -- well, I'm sorry. I'm in error. The four billion
is the number of people, not the number of years ago. It
goes back to -- I believe I was in error when I read this.
That's not a triggerer. I thought it was years and it's
people, that wouldn't be one.

Q. Okay. Would there be any problem with providing


balanced treatment in Defendant's Exhibit #4?

A. Yes, I think there would be a trouble in providing
balanced treatment in all of them. As far as, is it
possible to give them some sort of information that
would tend to balance this, I think that that could be
accomplished. Again, I think it would be unprofessional
and unethical, as a science educator, to do such.

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #2. The name
of the book is "Life Science," published by Silver
Burdett. The course time is "Life Science," and the
grade level is 7. On the front matter, table of
contents, page -- VI, although it's not that clear
lable in the book with some marks, is the sequence of
chapters which would indicate to most teachers, to
me, and to many students some phylogenetic arrangement
of chapters. It starts out with, Sponges and
Coelenterates and works up in manner that's accepted to
people that subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, and
evolutionary sequence going from simple to animals
up to more complex ones. the vertebrates. That could
trigger, in Section 4A, number one, number two, number
three, number four, number five, and number six. On page
228 at the last three sentences on that page, it mentioned
that fish fossils are the oldest of all vertebrate fossils.


Biologists think fish were the first animals and the
ancestors of all other vertebrates.

Q. With your permission, I'm going to put page 228 on
this exhibit because it doesn't appear on this copy.

A. Okay. I think that would trigger all six parts
of Section 4A.

Q. What about page 229? No, I'm sorry you're right.

A. On page 302, and it's not marked, but the
inscription under the photograph on that page talks about
coal being formed from large forrests that existed
millions of years ago. That part of it would trigger
section six, age of the earth. Or part six under section
4A. The student matter on that page is basically
the same thing there, it is underlined and it would
trigger age of the earth, part six of section 4A.

Q. Could balanced material be made available for
Defendant's Exhibit #2?

A. As on the other ones, some sort of material could
be put together that might balance that. I don't think
that any legitimate scientific material could be put

Q. Okay.

A. The next book is Defendant's Exhibit #3. The name
of the book is "Physical Science," published by Silver
Burdett. The course name is "Physical Science." The


grade level is 8. And I think there are two parts of
this that might come into play under Act 590. The first
one is on page 191. Well, I notice that has page 190. I
might mention on some of these pages I didn't underline
every single thing, I just picked out the gist of it.
These couple of pages though are dealing with methods of
dating fossils and rocks and so forth. The part that
I underlined on page 191 is talking about uranium dating
and mentions a method that's been used to date rocks that
are 4.6 billion years old. That would be age of the
earth, part six, Section 4A. The other excerpt is
on page 292 under "fossil fuels." It's underlined in
the exhibit, fossil fuels formed from plants and animals
that died millions of years ago. Section -- part six,
Section 4A.

Q. Could that be balanced out in Defendant's Exhibit

A. You could give the students, again, something
that would balance that. But I don't think you could
give them anything legitimate in the scientific sense
that would balance it.

The next book is Defendant's Exhibit
#5. The name of the book is "Focus On Earth Science,"
published by Merrill. The course name is "Earth Science."
The grade level is 9. The first page is page four. The


information is underlined in the exhibit. It talks about
theories, about the origin of the universe, the Big-Bang
Theory. I think most -- most of the front information,
since this is "Earth Science" rather than "Live Science" is
going to primarily deal with the age of the earth and part
five, catastrophism as this particular page number reference
does. On page 15 there is a section that's underlined in
the exhibit that deals with a formation of infant stars
and that they're still being formed at the current time.
That would be age of the earth, section six. On page 19,
underlined in the exhibit, is talking about a galaxy that's
2,200,000 light-years from earth. That would trigger part
six of Section 4A. On page 27, underlined in the exhibit,
are some ideas or some different theories about the origin
of the solar system and the earth, the near-collision
hypothesis, the Kant-Laplace hypothesis. And on page 28, the
third of those, the modern dust cloud theory. These would
all trigger section six and probably number five, too. On
page 151 there is a discussion, a brief discussion of
uniformitarianism, which would certainly trigger section --
part five of Section 4A. On page 163, underlined in the
exhibit, a statement about rocks being 3.77 to 3.75 billion
years old, which would be age of the earth part six under
Section 4A. On page 222 -- did I miss a page?

Q. I've got something here on the missing link to


mammoth cave.

A. Oh yeah, the front of that.

Q. What page is that?

A. That's not part of it.

Q. Okay.

A. On page 222 underlined, it talks about glaciers
and the ice ages, and talks about the earliest known ice
age sixty million years ago, et cetera. That would
trigger under age of the earth, part six, section 4A. On
page 267 there are a couple of things. There is a little
statement that's underlined, first of all, that indicates
age of the dinosaurs over sixty million years ago. That
would be section six. It talks about the pterosaurs,
flying reptiles. And that, although not directly,
could potentially trigger some of the other sections
on -- well, section one, two, three, four, and five,
although the main -- main part of that, it would be
section six on age of the earth. There's another little
statement at the bottom of that page, "The rock is
firsthand evidence that the earth is still in the process
of evolving." That would be part five, one -- part one
and five. The next page is 277, age of the earth. The
parts underlined in the book are in the exhibit. And the
next page is 289. There are several passages that are
underlined in the exhibit that talk about continental drift,


glacial deposits in South America and Africa 250 million
years ago, and another reference to 250 million years ago.
So, this would all be age of the earth, section six. The
next, page 290, simply as a diagram of continental drift,
which would be -- And on the figure that explains this, it
gives reference to 200 million years ago. Age of the earth
is what that would trigger. The next page, there's another
statement that -- about 200 million years ago. That would
be age of the earth. There is another statement up above it
that I didn't underline about a fossil of a small
hippopotamus like reptile. I don't know if that necessarily
would trigger anything, but it might trigger all components
of this. The next page is 301, age of the earth. It's
underlined in the exhibit. On page 305 it talks about the
geologic column, that part is underlined in the book. That
would trigger age of the earth, to some extent the other
ones in that the geologic column, the sequence of life is
judged by the appearance of fossils in the geologic column.
On page 308 -- I think that page was inadvertently left
out. We can make a copy of that page and give it to you. It
talks about --

Q. Just read what it says in total.

A. On page 308, in the student material, small
differences among individuals may lead, gradually, to the
development of a new species. There appear to be several


reasons why species change. And there's some assorted
things that go with that, but those are the main key

Q. Okay.

A. Also in the teacher matter in the left hand column
in small print, there is a statement that "The
fundamental unit of classification for organism is the
species. In geologic time species overlap, and species
boundries are difficult to draw. Groups of species with
similar characteristics belong to the same genus.
Every organism has a two named designation with the
genus named first and the species named second." And it
talks about species -- this is not in the book, this is
my opinion of how it would trigger Act 590. It talks
about species overlapping in time. I think that would
pretty well trigger all parts of Section 4A, as would
the part in the student book about individuals gradually
changing into new species. I know what they did. On page
310 is a discussion of some of the key words, and sentences
are underlined in the exhibit, on mutations, changes in
plants and animals over time, algae being one of the
earliest plant like organisms, much simpler than trees. I
think that could potentially trigger all six parts of
Section 4A. The next page is fairly similar. It talks
about index fossils, and this information is underlined in


the exhibit. Index fossils are used to divide geologic time
into units, the age of fossils is found by their position in
the rock beds, and there are a few other things there. This
would trigger, I think, all six parts of Section 4A. There
is a little statement that's underlined on page 312 about
index fossils. The best ones are those that are widely
disbursed and that have evolved rapidly. That would
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. The next
page is 314. It has a multiple choice question for the
student there about the age of the earth and the three
choices are, "2.7, 3, 4.5." That would trigger the age of
the earth. It talks about index fossil, down at the bottom
that's underlined in the exhibit, a species, fossil species
abundant over a period of 40 million years by useful as an
index fossil. I think that could potentially trigger all
six parts, primarily, the age of the earth. On page 317,
there are several things underlined that talk about the
geological time periods. It lists 600 million years a
couple of time here. So, that would trigger the age of the
earth. On page 318 is a chart, geologic time scale, that
would trigger all six parts of Section 4A. On page 319, in
the teacher comments, is something about dates over two
billion years old. That would trigger the age of the
earth. On page 320 is a statement that's underlined in the
exhibit about 600 million years ago. And also, that part is


found in a discussion of the geologic time periods. That
would trigger all six parts of 4A, specifically part six, on
the age of the earth. On page 322, are several statements
about marine invertebrates being the earliest none animals
and trilobites being related distinctly to crabs and
lobsters. That would potentially trigger all six parts on
Section 4A. The next part on page 323, underlined the --
underlined in -- there is a little mark over on the side to
indicate that really all of the information on this page is
included. It simply talks about when land plants first
appeared some animals moved to the land, the change from
marine to land animals began, fish were the first animals,
back boned animals, amphibians came on later, and so forth
and so on. That would trigger all six parts of Section 4A.
On page 324 is a discussion of plate tectonics, and also the
evolution of plants and animals that could possibly trigger
all six parts of section six, 4A. On page 325, all of the
information on that page again is dealing with the geologic
time periods and the animals that appeared, and developed,
and dominated during those different periods. That could
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. On page
326 there is a mark in the exhibit indicating all of that
page. Again, it talks about the evolution of animals and
plants during geologic time periods. That could trigger all
six parts of section 4A.


Page 327 is simply a continuation of the previous couple
of pages. The entire page is marked in the exhibit.
And it could trigger all six parts of Section 4A. I
might also mention on page 327, that there's a little
figure on the side of the page that gives a diagram of
a generalized reptile and a generalized primitive mammal
that compares those two. That again could possibly
trigger all six parts of Section 4A.

Q. Could I see your book on that, I'm not sure about
it? Keep going.

A. On page 329 is a statement that's underlined
concerning the fact that animals did not follow the same
line of development on two separate continents. That could
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. Part 330,
there is nothing on the page indicating, but the entire
page, as now marked off, indicates age of the earth. It has
some things about 65 million years ago. Let's just call it
the bottom printed part of the page. I think the top part
may too, but I would have to refer to other material to
determine that. On page 331, underlined in the exhibit, is
something about primitive man, pro Cro-Magnon man living in
southern Europe from 5,000 to 35,000 years B.C. That could
potentially trigger all six parts of Section 4A. On page
484 there is a statement that's underlined in the exhibit
about fossil fuels being formed millions of years ago on the


earth's crust, which could potentially trigger all six
sections in -- all six parts of Section 4A.

Q. How would it trigger four? On page 448.

A. Well first of all, let me admit that I'm not
examining each one of these. I'm just giving you an
overall view. So, let me think about it for a minute.
Fossil fuels are formed from plants and animals that lived
millions of years ago. I don't think it would trigger
section four. Would primarily trigger section A, could
trigger section one, potentially section two, section
three, and section six.

Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you
anticipate that -- Phil, maybe you can help us. Do you
anticipate that these textbooks will be submitted as
exhibits themselves, as marked.

MR. KAPLAN: The pages will, only those
portions which we believe will trigger Act 590, in
accordance with the Judge's earlier feelings that he
would not want to read an entire textbook. We will
submit only those pages which we believe are likely to
trigger the Act. We will also probably not do that
with every witness who has ever referred to a textbook
It will be primarily Wood, and Glasgow, and Coward,
I think, rather than go through it with every single
witness. We'll just do it primarily with those three



MR. CHILDS: Well, just assuming that,
which one do you intend to use first, if you can tell

MR. KAPLAN: I have no idea right now.

MR. CHILDS: Well, if Judge Overton
said you were only going to be able to do that with one,
who would it be?

MR. KAPLAN: In all likelihood, right
now it would probably be Roger -- I mean, Dennis, but my
feeling is that we will probably, under 901, put all of
the books in the self authentication provision.

MR. CHILDS: Okay. And then also just
putting in just copies of the pages?

MR. KAPLAN: That's correct. And then
if you wanted to put in copies of other parts of the
book, you could.

WITNESS: I might say, if we are off
the record that --

MR. KAPLAN: We're on the record.

MR. CHILDS: We can go off the record
if you want to. Or you can just say it on the record.

WITNESS: I can say it on the record.
The next three books that I'm going to be dealing with,
regular biology that's taught at the 10th grade and a


couple of different books that we use for advanced biology,
almost the entire book, in my opinion, will trigger. And
it's going to be rather time consuming to --

MR. CHILDS: It will get laborious.

WITNESS: Well, if we go through every
single instance it would be impossible. It would take us
several weeks to do that. I can refer to chapters
and give an overview of the chapter or whatever you
want to do.

MR. KAPLAN: The reason is, for
example, in Biology Today, but Kirk, there is --
where says it. Page 18, "after a lenthy discussion,
that is why the principle of evolution is the major
unifying theme of this book. This book happens to
be a thousand pages in length. The same is probably true
of Biology Second Edition, Addison-Wesley.

WITNESS: That's why I say that it's
substantially, on these biology books, substantially
the entire book. Not on every page, but it's quite


Q. Okay. In reference to Defendant's Exhibit 5,
which is the book that we just finished, could balanced
treatment be provided for that book?

A. As I've said earlier, something could be put


together that would balance it on the surface. I don't,
again, feel like that would be appropriate or that
there is any legitimate scientific information that could
be used.

Q. Is that also true for Defendant's Exhibit 9,
Defendant's Exhibit 8, and Defendant's Exhibit 7?

A. Yes, that would be true for all of those.

Q. Okay. Okay. Now then, I gave you a card earlier
which has some information printed on it -- well, written
on it which says, "Material should never be excluded
or removed simply because it expresses unpopular or
controversial views or because it coincides with
particular religious views. And I want to ask you if --
if you agree or disagree with that statement.

A. I just -- I may need some water in a minute. I
generally agree with that. It's very difficult for me to
totally agree with anything that has the word "never" in

Q. Well, if -- do you think that some unpopular
or controversial views -- or material containing unpopular
or controversial view should, on some occasions, be
excluded or removed?

A. I would say that I think that it would be a very rare
situation that they would be removed. To sort of clarify my
thinking on it just a bit. The value of different sorts of


information in a course vary. And if the information is
important information that's necessary and that represents
the main line of thinking in a particular subject area,
then I don't feel that it should be removed or excluded
simply because it was unpopular, controversial, or it
coincided with particular religious views if that material
is appropriate for the students at that level. If the
material is not important or necessary for that course, or
if it is not appropriate for the developmental level of the
student, or it's beyond their comprehension or something,
then I think that it possibly could be.

Q. Possibly could be what?

A. Could possibly be excluded or removed if the material
is marginal material anyway. You know, you have X
amount of -- well, in any course you have entirely more
material than can possibly be covered in a given year.
Some of that material is very important material. It
develops major generalizations and concepts within the
course. The important material, I don't think should be
excluded or removed simply because it is controversial
or unpopular or coincides with particular religious
views. I think if the material is not necessary to
develop important generalizations and concepts in the
course, that some of that fringe material or background
material that's used in a supportive role, if it's very


unpopular or controversial or coincides with particular
religious views, in that case I can see or I can think in
my mind -- if it's not really important for the course
that it should be excluded, but not --

Q. Okay. Who -- go head.

A. -- if it's important information and an important
part of that particular discipline?

Q. Okay. Who is qualified to make the decision
on whether it's important or not?

A. Well, there would be several people that would be
qualified. First of all, I don't think -- I said this a
minute ago. I think I touched on it. It should be
appropriate material for that particular course. Now,
who would determine if the material is appropriate for a
given course would probably be a committee of teachers.
On occasion it might be myself as science supervisor or
some other person in the administration. I don't
necessarily think that in earth -- or in the chemistry
that you need to teach things that are found in biology,
or something of that sort. So, that sort of thing, it
might be a committee of teachers or someone in the
administration. As far as smaller tidbits of information,
et cetera, that could normally be included within the
course description, and the goals, and objectives for a
particular course, it's up to the individual teacher in


my mind to make that decision.

Q. Okay. I've also given you a opportunity to look at
page 224 from the N.E.A. handbook for 1980-'81. I'm
referring you to D3 on academic freedom. And I'm going to
ask you if you've had a chance to read that.

A. I have.

Q. Do you agree or disagree with that position?

A. As I read it a minute ago, I agreed with it. I'm
quickly scanning through it again.

Q. To make sure the Defendant's counsel hasn't --

A. The statement, taking as a whole, I agree with.

Q. Is there any part of it that you disagree with.

A. No, not taken as a whole.

Q. Okay. What academic freedom do you have or is
available to the classroom teacher in the Little Rock public

A. The right or the responsibility, the freedom to,
within the confines of the goals and objectives and the
course outline for a given course; and within the
confines of a -- the matter normally considered in a
particular discipline, the teacher has the freedom to
make judgments regarding two things. First of all,
content to be included and excluded. And second of all,
methods to be used in presenting the content.

Q. Does anybody else have any say so on content?


A. Well as far as content, that would normally be
included within a given course, it's up to the individual
teacher. As far as including -- as far as determining
what content, the overall types of content that are --
should be included in a given course, other people as I
indicated before.

Q. Ya'll have some sort of curriculum guide?

A. Yes.

Q. And how is that developed?

A. A curriculum guide is is developed by a committee
of teachers, and myself or previous people who were in
my position. There is usually a representative from
each school that's involved. And normally a week or two
weeks or sometimes three weeks during the summer is spent
developing that.

Q. Well, what affect does it have on the individual
classroom teacher's academic freedom?

A. The curriculum guide as implemented in Little Rock
outlines those things that the committee, and in affect
the school district even though the board doesn't have to
approve such things and the administration usually doesn't
look at them, but in the mind of those people, the
important things that should be covered during that
course. It is not really that restrictive of the
academic freedom of the teachers, in that I don't think


there is any expectation that teachers can only cover
what's in the curriculum guide. I don't think that
was ever the intent. The curriculum guide is to serve as a
guide for things that are important for students to
know in that particular course.

Q. Well, are they -- I understand it as a guide.
And my question is, can a classroom science teacher
safely ignore the guide in it's entirety?

A. Well, my answer to that is not based upon experience
because we've never had a teacher who has ignored the
guide. My answer is, yes, that the there would be some
severe problems for the teacher if they totally ignored the

Q. So, it's not strictly what the individual classroom
teacher wants in the contents of the course that matter?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Does the school board ever make any
indications that it wants particular subject matter
covered in the schools?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Could they?

A. I'm not sure. I presume that they could.

Q. What about principals, high school principals?

A. I doubt that they have that authority.

Q. You want to take a short break?



Q. What about the legislature?

A. I kind of forgot the question. Do they have
the authority?

Q. Uh-huh. To indicate to the classroom teacher
subject matter content. And I don't want to leave the
Governor out, the legislature and the Governor?

A. My opinion -- first of all, legally, I don't know I
can't say. As far as I'm concerned, the legislature, the
-- you didn't say state in general, Department of
Education, I don't know whether you meant them or not.
Over the specific content say at that time might be included
within a biology course, I don't think that they should have
any say so about that.

Q. What about the State Board of Education as to
classroom content?

A. As far as content within a particular course, I
don't think they should have any affect. And to my
knowledge, they don't have any affect.

A. Now, they do -- if I may carry on. They do, for
the purpose of accrediting the school, require that
certain courses be offered. I mean you have to offer X
number of units of English, and X number of units of math,
and X number of units of science, et cetera in order to
get a certain accreditdation. But as far as them


determining specific day to day content within a given
course, I'm not aware that that's a practice or even
that that's ever occurred.

Q. And the State Board has an indirect affect on
classroom subject matter content in that they have
approved lists of textbooks?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any other indirect affect as to course
content, subject matter content. A. Well, the -- I don't
know about all areas, but in science I don't think it's
up to date. It's several years ago old. There is guidelines
-- some sort of guidelines booklet for science that has a
listing of concepts, et cetera. That is not, to my
knowledge, and certainly in practice, not any sort of a
dictate to the schools. It's just simply from the State
Department level that indicates to the schools. This is
sort of a model science curriculum or something. And it's
offered there for our use in developing our own curricular,

Q. It's not any kind of a requirement?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Are you familiar with CARE?

A. With care, is that an acronym?

Q. For Coalition Advocating Responsible Education.

A. No, I'm not.


Q. Let me read you some names and ask you if you know
any of these people. Pat Bennett?

A. No.

Q. Ermalee Boice?

A. No.

Q. Connie Bond?

A. No.

Q. Ed Bullington?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Earl Carter?

A. No.

Q. Bob Cearley?

A. I think I know him.

Q. Sheryl Dunn?

A. No.

Q. Gene Jones?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Robbie Keopple?

A. No.

Q. Bettye Kerns?

A. No.

Q. Bobby Lester?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Gene Manfredini?

A. No.


Q. Harold Measel?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you know Harold?

A. Harold is in the administration of the Pulaski
County schools. Assistant superintendent, or something.

Q. John Purtle?

A. I'm not sure, the name sounds familiar.

Q. Justice John Purtle?

A. I've heard of him.

Q. Frank Smith?

A. No.

Q. Karl Steinkraus?

A. No.

Q. Fred Williams?

A. No.

Q. Mike Wilson?

A. Heard of him.

Q. Are you aware of any move within the Little Rock
school system to have a policy on academic responsibility
or academic freedom adopted by the Little Rock School

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Has any -- are you aware of any research which has
shown any use for the appendix in the human body?

A. No.


Q. And have you done any research or read any articles
which set out the mathematical probabilities of the
evolution of life from non-life?

A. I have.

Q. And what are those calculations?

A. I don't know.

Q. Where did you see them?

A. I can't identify the source specifically, but
I think it was from one of the Creation Science
publications from some of the research institutes in

Q. Could you give me any information that would help me
identify it?

A. No, I can't.

Q. Are you -- have you been given a list of the
documents that we wanted you to produce?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there any documents on this list that you have in
your possession, custody, or control?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what are those documents.

A. That thing with the little clip on it.

Q. What in the Phi Delta Kappan were you referring

A. On page 95 there is an article By Harvey Seigle,


"Creationism, Evolution and Education; the California
fiasco. On page 98 there is an article by Thomas J.
Flygrae entitled "The Case Of Seagraves vs. The State
Of California.

MR. KAPLAN: Spell Flygrae's last name.

A. F-l-y-g-r-a-e.

Q. Okay. Let me have that magazine back, please.
There is a letter here dated April 28th, 1981 from Dr.
Richard B. Bliss, director of curricular development,
Institute of Creation Research where he indicates
that he met with you. When did you meet with Dr. Bliss?

A. I don't recall. Probably -- I think he was very
prompt in sending the letter. I think it was probably is
a week or two prior to the letter.

Q. Okay. What happened a week or two prior to the
letter that you met Dr. Bliss?

A. Ed Gran, from U.A.L.R. called me on the phone
and -- as I recall it was Ed, and said that Bliss was going
to be in town and would I mind meeting with him. And I said,
"no, I wouldn't mind." And -- consequently, the next day or
the next week, I don't remember what it was, but whenever
the day was that he was going to be there that I would say
that I would meet with him, Bliss and Ed Gran couldn't come.

Someone else came, I don't even remember who it is. I
think it was -- well, I don't even know. I thought it was


someone else from U.L.A.R., but I'm not sure, brought Bliss
by. And we sat down and chatted for maybe an hour.

Q. Who is Ed Gran?

A. Ed Gran is an instructor at U.A.L.R. in the Physics
Department, I believe.

Q. Is he a creationist?

A. Yes.

Q. How long have you known Mr. Gran.

A. I believe when he called me was -- I think I'd
heard of him before, but --

Q. He called you up out of the blue, basically?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Are you a member of the Phi Delta Kappa.

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Okay. There is a set of documents here, the first
sheet appears at the top "Creation Unit." Can you tell
me what these documents are?

A. This is a rough draft of a unit that was put
together at the direction of the Pulaski County School

Q. Where did you get that?

A. I believe Marianne Wilson gave that to me.

Q. What was the occasion for you getting that from Ms.

A. I called her as I -- I don't know whether I called


her or not, but I contacted her. I don't remember when
it was, early last summer I think. Shortly after -- a
couple of months after Act 590 had been signed by the
Governor. And as the person primarily responsible for
organizing or coordinating curriclum development in Little
Rock and knowing that Act 590 had been passed, I gave
her a call asking her if she had any materials on
Creation Science, and she did. And I borrowed that
material from her. And at the same time she gave me a
copy of this.

A. The -- I've known previously that the unit was being
developed because I teach out at U.A.L.R. at night. And
-- I know him very well, I can't think of his name now.
I'll probably grab it in the minute. One of the faculty
members on the staff out at U.A.L.R. served as a
consultant to Marianne Wilson during the development of
this. And he said that -- had mentioned to me on a
couple of occasions that he was working with her. So, I
may have asked her. I don't recall whether I asked
if she had anything on paper regarding that or whether he
volunteered it. But anyway, I secured it at the same
time I borrowed the books from her.

Q. Which you've previously told me about?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Okay. Can I have that back, please? did


Dr. Krain, that's K-r-a-i-n, send you an article entitled
"The 'Creation Science' Controversy in Arkansas: A
Struggle For The Control Of The Science Classrooms."

A. He did.

Q. What would you say is the basic gist of Dr.
Krain's article, or paper? I guess it would be more
accurately described as a paper.

A. Well, I haven't read it in sometime, but I think
the overall approach is one from the philosophical
standpoint of science and religion and so forth. I
don't remember very many specifics. I can say that
the overall emphasis of his was in favor of -- in favor
of Evolution being taught in the classroom and against
the inclusion of Creation Science material.

Q. Okay. And there is an article you've also provided
us with a, three column article entitled "When It Becomes
Science, Teach It." And it appears in the lower right
corner, June 5, 1981. And it appears to be a letter to
the editor of the Arkansas Gazette, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And this is an article that -- a letter that
you sent for publication to the Gazette?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Does this letter accurately state what you believe?

A. Yes, it does. I might add, as a matter of


clarification on the letter, I don't know whether everyone
that reads it could detect a little tongue in cheek
comments on the last part. In the letter, I said that I
would recommend that if Act 590 survives, that balanced
treatment be given. I stated, I'm sure somewhere
earlier, that there was no accurate definition in Act 590
that I could find exactly what balanced treatment was
and that could be interpreted many different ways.
And I suggested that my interpretation would be balanced
according to the relative weight or percentage of
scientists that accept Evolution vs. those accept
Creation Science, with the inference being that in the
scientific community very few would accept Creation
Science, thus you could balance it by dealing with
creation science to a very small extent.

Q. One one hundreth of 1% of the time.

A. Something like that.

Q. And that was a -- meant tongue and cheek?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Okay. Anything else in here that can't be
interpreted the way it's written?

A. No.

Q. You've also presented us with a copy of the of an
article by Stephen J. Gool from "Discover," which apparently
is a magazine, May 1981 entitled "Evolution As Fact And
Theory." I'd like to ask you how you came to have this



A. As I mentioned before, I teach out at U.A.L.R. at
night. And I thought of the man's name, Bill Bowen who's
a professor of Botany at U.A.L.R. was the consultant
to Marianne Wilson and others. I'm not sure exactly who
all the others are regarding the development of the
Creation Unit. And I've had a chance for a few minutes --
he's usually leaving when I'm going out to teach at
night. And we've talk about it on several occasions and
he offered that to me. I think it was right after I'd
met with Bliss or something. I don't recall the exact
circumstances, but that's where I got it.

Q. Okay. What do you teach out at U.A.L.R.?

A. Principles of biology.

Q. And what level course --

A. Freshman course.

Q. I'm going to hand you these papers and ask you if --
if they are in order or just tell me what they are.
They don't seem to be in any particular order.

A. Well, these -- Richard Bliss, when I met with
him that one time, which is the only time I've met
with him that I know of, was giving a workshop. I
believe at Conway, is that where Arkansas Baptist
College, some --

Q. Central Baptist College?


A. -- college in Conway, that particular weekend and
I wasn't able to attend the workshop. And I asked him if
he had any information on what he was presenting during
the workshop, and he did. And he gave it to me and
I made a copy of it, and that's what this is.

Q. Are you a member of the A.C.L.U.?

A. I'm not.

Q. Did you get a letter from the A.C.L.U. soliciting
your membership?

A. I did.

Q. Okay. And did you also get a pamphlet from the
American Civil Liberties Union entitled "Guardian of

A. I don't recall getting that.

Q. Would you take a look at this letter which has been
marked as Defendant's Exhibit #1 to Wood's deposition?

A. Okay.

Q. That the form -- does that a appear to be the same
kind of letter that you got?

A. It does.

Q. Okay. Do you know how they got your name?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. Okay. Are there any other documents in your
possession, or your custody, or within your control which
would relate directly or indirectly to any of the twenty

Transcript continued on next page

Deposition of Dennis Glasgow - Page 3


categories on the sheet described "documents to be

A. Not other than -- I've lost my paper that I had.
There was a series of four articles; two were supportive
of Creation Science and two supportive of Evolution that
appeared in the "Science Teacher" that you asked if I
could get a copy. And I've got that. I failed to bring
it today, I forgot about it.

Q. Okay. Night find a witness there you never can
tell. I would appreciate if you would make those
available to us. Okay. do you teach any other courses
other than the one at U.A.L.R.?

A. No, other than lately I've taught several what we call
in-service mini courses. That's an in service, little
short blocks of in-service training for teachers. But
as far as college credit courses or anything of that sort,
of courses with students in them as such, I don't.

Q. Is there anything you will testify about concerning
textbook selection, decisions that we haven't previously
covered in your deposition? That's one of the subject
matters as being shown that you will testify about at the

A. I don't think we've covered textbook selection
to any degree. There is not a whole lot to say.

Q. Okay. Then just say it very briefly.


A. The State Department of Education selects, by some
method, I would assume by area of the state, et cetera, a
State Textbook Committee. And they select books to be on
the state list, and they're not restricted to the number of
books that they can select. Every book that's submitted,
they can put on there if they want to. But they make that
decision, and the State Department of Education issues a
list of these state approved books. And I'm responsible for
contacting the principals and asking them to recommend
teachers to serve on this committee. Frequently there are
more people recommended than can actually serve. And I
recommend the teachers to be on the committee to the
assistant superintendent wh approves that. I try to balance
them according to to school, sex, race and so forth. The
committee convenes. We have a copy -- write to the
publishers and asked them to send us a copy -- complimentary
copy of those books. They do.

Q. Immediately.

A. Well pretty close, they want our business. And there
is usually some sort of textbook caravan where all the
publishers come around and have a little set-up and a
booth. Some of us usually go to that. And then
finally, we look through the books and usually have some
sort of criteria that is developed within the committee
itself, nothing formal or districtwide or anything. And


we judge the books upon the criteria developed within
that committee and eventually decide on a certain book
that we want to use. And those books are recommended to the
Board of Education who approves them or disapproves them.
I've never known them to do that.

Q. Would Act 590 have any affect on that process?

A. No, I don't think there would be any affect on the

Q. Okay. It says that -- the list of witnesses
designation says that you will testify generally
concerning Creation Science. Have we covered that

A. To my knowledge we've -- during the couple of hours
or so that we've been here, I've stated my -- I assume
it's my professional and personal opinion about it. And
I think we've covered all of that.

Q. Okay. Do you know anybody that works for the
Little Rock public schools who disagrees with you about
Act 590?

A. I do.

Q. Who?

A. Irving Seager is a biology teacher at Parkview.

Q. How do you spell his first name?

A. I-r-v-i-n-g.

Q. Last name?


A. S-e-a-g-e-r.

Q. Where does he teach?

A. Parkview.

Q. Anybody else?

A. I'm not absolutely sure, I'll give it to you anyway,
Bill Conley, C-o-n-l-e-y.

Q. Where does he live?

A. Where does he live? He's here in Little Rock, a

Q. And where does he teach?

A. Booker Junior High.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Anybody else in the -- what we'll call the
management level that disagrees with you?

A. In the Little Rock schools?

Q. Right.

A. No.

Q. What about in the Pulaski County school system.

A. I'm -- you know, I can't say for certain. I don't
even know their names. Evidently, there's someone on the
Board of Education that probably disagrees since they
directed Creation Science to be part of the curriculum
there. I don't know who it was.

Q. Okay. What about Pulaski County teachers?


A. I'm familiar with --

Q. Larry Fisher?

A. Fisher.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Are you a member of A.E.A., N.E.A., or PACT?

A. No.

Q. Are you a member of any organizations which have a
position that you are aware of either stated or unstated
on Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. What organization is that?

A. Arkansas Academy of Science.

Q. Okay. What is the Arkansas Academy of Science?

A. I guess it's open to anyone that wants to join. In
affect though, or in practice it's primarily composed
of university professors within the various areas of
science. There's some people from industry in there,
but primarily professors.

Q. Have they taken a position on Act 590?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that readily available to the public?
Where would I go and get a copy of it? If it's in
writing, I haven't even asked you that. Is it in writing?

A. I would assume that it is, I can't say that it is.


I went to a meeting and I know that there was a model or
a rough draft of some sort of a resolution that they

A. I assume that -- and I can't even say who the
secretary of the group is. I assume it's in their minutes.
It was noted in a letter or in an editorial column in the
Gazette that they had passed a resolution against Act 590.
The -- Dr. Robinson at Southern State or South Arkansas
University is the president of that organization. I'm sure
one could be obtained, but I'm not -- I don't have one and
I've never had one. In fact, I wasn't even there to vote on
it. They were -- I think there was a reading of the
resolution one day in the meeting, and they were to vote on
it the next day and I wasn't in attendance that day.

Q. Any other organizations?

A. Well, not against Act 590 in particular. I belong
to the National Science Teachers Association, and I know
that they are against inclusion of Creation Science in
the biology classroom. I've not seen anything directed
specifically to Act 590.

Q. Any other organizations that you're a member of?

A. That are -- that have come out in --

Q. Let's just say without reference to Act 590.

Q. Well, I've already mentioned I'm a member of the Phi
Delta Kappa educational fraternity.


Q. Is that an honorary fraternity? It sounds like it
is one of the honorary.

A. I guess it is.

Q. Okay.

A. Let's see, I'm a member of the Arkansas Science
Teachers Association, we have not taken any position on
Act 590. I guess that's it.

Q. Have you ever written anything other than this
letter to the Gazette, including papers, articles, or
books on the subject of origins or creationism?

A. I have not.

Q. Have you ever lectured -- have you ever taught a
creation model?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Have you taught an evolution model or taught
evolution, as you understand it?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever testified in the court of law?

A. Period?

Q. Period.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever testified before a school board?

A. Testified, no; presented reports, yes.

Q. Okay. What kind of reports have you presented?
Let me ask you this. Have you ever presented a report on


creationism and/or evolution?

A. I have to a school board committee.

Q. Okay. And when was that?

A. I don't know, within the last year. It was after
Act 590 was passed, but it was several months ago, before
the summer I think.

Q. Was any record made of your report?

A. No.

Q. Who was there?

A. Two school board members, it's called the Education
Committee. There were two school board members. I think
the associate superintendent for educational programs,
Dr. Williams, was there. And the assistant superintendent
for program implementation, Dr. Wettle, as I recall was
there for part of it. And there was some patron of the
district that was there for another report, that wasn't
the only report that day. In fact, there may have been
two or three other people there, but they weren't school

Q. What members of the Board were there?

A. C.O. Magee and Fay Southern, I believe.

Q. What did you tell them in your report?

A. I told them -- I briefly explained what Act 590 was
or the components of that. I think I generally gave them
my opinion as supervisor of science on -- well, I do


remember I went over part of -- this was after my meeting
with Richard Bliss and I presented some of this
information to him. The two model approach, some of
the things that are in this as to how he, during my
meeting with him, explained that this -- Act 590 could be
implemented. And then I gave them my personal opinion about
it, which you know what that is. But it's that I thought
was unfortunate that Act 590 was passed. It has a potential
to create some problems in our classes as far as trying to
get materials together. And it's going to be -- probably
cost us some money to do this. I'm against it and I hope
that it never goes through so we don't have to worry about,
generally is what I said.

Q. Have you been a witness in any other situation or
given reports?

A. Well, I've given reports for --

Q. Years.

A. Not in the sense I think you're talking about.

Q. Creationism or evolution?

A. No.

Q. Do you see anything in the Act which would prohibit
a teacher from expressing his or her professional opinion
concerning the relative scientific strengths or weaknesses
of either model?

A. Yes, I do.


Q. And where is that?

A. First, let me preface my remarks by saying that the
requirement for balanced treatment is something that
is not clear, in that you have to give it some sort of
interpretation. My interpretation of balanceed treatment
is that equal weight, or equal emphasis, or equal
legitimacy must be given to meet the requirements of
this Act. I think that a teacher, through body language
or any sort of other things, when -- if you're presenting
two things can very suddenly let the students know which the
teacher thinks is the right thing. So, in that context, I
think if two things are presented and the teacher says that,
"my opinion is that this is right and that this is just a
bunch of trash," that that does not meet the requirement of
Act 590.

Q. And that -- and you reached that conclusion based
on your interpretation and understanding of balanced?

A. To a degree. And my interpretation of the entire
intent, et cetera of this plus my conversation with
Bliss, and just everything together, fitting in,
led me to believe that it couldn't be balanced if you
presented two things and then the teacher said, "my
opinion is that this is the right way and that this is

Q. I'm referring to what's in the Act itself. Is


there anything other than the use of balanced treatment
that would lead you to believe that a teacher could not
express his or her personal opinion of the validity of
the model?

A. Well, there are a lot of things that are not clear
in here. And I don't know -- I don't see anything
specifically that states a teacher cannot express

Q. Okay. Can the creation model, as defined in
section 4A, be presented without reference to any religious

A. I don't believe that it can.

Q. Why?

A. First of all, if a teacher was a computer or if the
students had their mouths taped shut and their ears
stopped up you could get up there and give a lecture
without directly mentioning religion. Although I think
it would come very close to it, in my mind. But classes
aren't taught that way, classes are taught on the basis
of discussion and so forth. And almost everything that I
can see that would be presented in support of Creation
Science would raise questions in the minds of the
students that would be expressed in class. And I think
those -- many of those questions, without a doubt in
my mind, I'm firmly convinced of this, that religious


questions will be raised by the students. And on the
other hand, a teacher would have to be, in my mind, very
skillful, exceedingly skillful, maybe even reading from a
prepared script or something to keep from infringing
on religion themselves.

Q. Okay. What does section two say in reference to

A. Section two states that the treatment of either
Evolution Science or Creation Science shall be limited
to scientific evidences for each model, and must not
include any religious instruction.

Q. I mean there's something else it says also.

A. Or references to religious rights. There was a
part I left about about inferences from these evidences.

Q. Can Creation Science be taught without reference to
the Bible?

A. As far as footnoting the Bible, yeah. Without
reference, in the broader sense, no.

Q. Well, I want to ask you some very specific
questions. Can a high school student be taught that
there was a worldwide flood without telling him that it
was Noah's flood?

A. My opinion on that is strictly that the teacher can
get up there and make that statement without reference to
the fact that it's Noah's flood, but it's very obvious


to me, and I feel sure that when you talk about a
worldwide flood and the majority of the students, the
first thing that's going pop in their mind is going to be
Noah's flood. And that their little hands or big hands,
or whatever is going to pop up in the air and then
questions are going to result.

Q. Are you saying that they can or cannot be taught
without reference to the Bible?

A. In my mind or understanding of the word teach, it
cannot be.

Q. Can the subject matter be presented verbally
or in textbook form, or in filmstrips without the words
Genesis, Adam and Eve, or Noah to be contained therein?

A. Yes, it can.

Q. Okay. Would it be safe to say that you're trying to
tell me that you think that the student's would naturally
assume that this was a Genesis version of science?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you find that objectionable?

A. I can't say that I find that specific aspect of
it objectionable.

Q. Very briefly, where do you go to church?

A. I do not.

Q. Are you an atheist?

A. I am not.


Q. Or do you believe in God?

A. I do.

Q. Are you --

A. I might say I belong -- I am on the membership roll
of a Baptist church. However, I haven't attended church
in several years.

Q. How many years?

A. I attended church regularly probably fifteen
years ago. I have been in church several times, but I
haven't been a regular attender.

Q. Why have you stopped being a regular attender?

A. The reason I stopped is because I belong to a Baptist
church. And as I went to Sunday school and we had
discussions, there was a lot of discussion in our church
about the old Church of Christ or the old Catholics. And
members of our church put down other religion. And I came
to the conclusion, in my mind, that people all different
denomintions and religions have just as good of ideas in
faith as anyone else. And I decided then, that although I
am a religious person, I do pray, I do believe in God, I do
not belong to a denomination for that purpose, the in
fighting that seems to take place in my past experiences
between denominations that one is right and one's not.

Q. How often do you pray?

A. Well, it's kind of hard to put a number on that


thing. I don't pray daily. I would say I probably
pray monthly anyway.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes, I'm married.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. I do.

Q. Do they attend church?

A. Yes, they do. The youngest is three months old.
He hasn't been to church other than to be baptized, yet
he was baptized and they do attend church, as does my

Q. Do they attend the Baptist church?

A. They do not.

Q. Where do they go to church?

A. Catholic.

Q. Do you know Bill Wood?

A. I met Bill Wood for the first time, Sunday.

Q. And where was that?

A. Right in this office.

Q. When you came down for your deposition?

A. Well, I thought this was my deposition.

Q. We had scheduled your deposition before, was that --

A. No, no. It was to discuss with attorneys here, my
testimony at the trial.

Q. Was Mr. Wood there?


A. He was in a meeting prior to my coming in and we met
as we exchanged -- he walked out and I came in.

Q. Okay. You know Ron Coward?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. What did you discuss with the lawyers here

A. I discussed what my testimony would be in the trial.

Q. Do you know how they got your name as a witness.

A. Generally, yes. I didn't ask specifically.

Q. How did they get your name as a witness?

A. I wrote my letter to the Gazette. After that I
was contacted by Bob Cearley, and he came up and we had
a discussion about my role as supervisor of science, and
so forth. And during that time, I can't say for sure
this is how it happened, but I was discussing giving my
opinion on it. And he said "Would you be willing to testify
to that?" And I said, "Yes, I would." And it went from

Q. Do you know if anybody else in the Little Rock
school system was contacted about being a witness
in this lawsuit.

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Has -- have you gotten the approval of anybody in
the school district to be a witness in this lawsuit?

A. They know about it, there was no approval given.


Q. Okay,. Who did you tell.

A. I told the superintendent, I told the associate
superintendent, I've told the assistant superintendent,
and I've told the School Board.

Q. And did any of them agree that you should be a

A. No.

Q. Did any of them indicate any dismay that you were
going to be a witness?

A. No.

Q. Did any of them indicate that they thought it was a
good idea?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Okay. I want to make some -- what's our next
Exhibit number? I'm going to move that Exhibits 1
through 10 be made part of the deposition.

[Thereupon Defendant's Exhibits #1
throught #10 were introduced to the record.]

Q. And I'm going to ask that the papers which show
"Creation Unit" be Exhibit 11.

The two articles from Phi Delta Kappan to be Exhibit
12. The letter from Richard Bliss to be Exhibit 13. The
cover letter and article from Dr. Krain, K-r-a-i-n,
be Exhibit 14. The letter to the editor of the Gazette
be Exhibit 15. The essay by Steven J. Gould be 16.


And the articles given by Dr. Richard Bliss to Mr.
Glasgow be Exhibit 17. And that's all I have.

[Thereupon Defendant's Exhibits #11
through #17 were introduced to the record.]

[Thereupon the above styled deposition
was concluded at 4:50 p.m.]

* * * * * * * * * *





REPORTING SERVICE, a Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated
by me in the caption on the foregoing deposition are true;
and that the foregoing deposition of the witness was
transcribed by me or under my supervision on the STENO-CAT
Computerized Transcription System from my machine
shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out in the
caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and
sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

the 3rd of December, 1981.

Michelle R. Nienstedt, Notary Public
in and for Pulaski County, AR

My commission expires 1-13-85

1100 N. University, Suite 223
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) 664-7357



I, Dennis R. Glasgow, the witness, hereby certify
that I have thoroughly read the transcript of my deposition
taken on the 30th day of November, 1981, and have made any
necessary changes or corrections to make the transcript a
true and accurate accounting of my testimony given on that


(Date signed)

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

) ss.

I, Linda J. McClellan, A Notary Public in and for Pulaski
County of Arkansas do hereby certify that the above deposition
was read, corrected and signed in my presence.

9th day of December, 1981.

My commission expires
on June 10, 1984 LINDA J. McClellan
Notary Public