Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Deposition of Dr. Francisco J. Ayala - Day One - Page 2


A. Mathematics.

Q. Would you recognize him as an authority in
the area of mathematics?

A. I'm not an expert, but I hear he is, yes.

Q. Are you familiar with his work, "Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of

A. Yes.

Q. What is your general opinion of that work?

A. The work has many authors. Some things are
very good; some are poor.

Q. Are you aware that within that work he refers
to the theory of evolution as being "tautologous"?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion of that assessment?

A. That he is mistaken.

Q. Are you familiar with or do you know of
Paul Erlich and E. C. Birch?

A. Yes.

Q. You consider them to be authorities in their

MR. KLASFELD: What is their field?

MR. WILLIAMS: Biology.


MR. WILLIAMS: Q. They are at Stanford University
and the University of Sidney in Australia?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that they have opined that the


theory of evolution is not falsifiable?

A. No, I'm not specifically aware they have
said that.

Q. Are you aware that they have said it is
outside of empirical science?

A. No.

Q. Would you agree or disagree with that

A. That it is outside empirical science?

Q. Yes.

A. I disagree.

MR. ENNIS: Excuse me.

For the record, do you have a source for those
quotations you are relying upon?


That is from "Nature Magazine," Volume 214, page
252, 1967.

Q. Are you familiar with Nature Magazine?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider that to be a Creation
Science publication?

A. No.

Q. Would you consider it to be generally a
fair journal concerning the theory of evolution when it
discusses it?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a refereed journal?

A. Yes.


Q. Do you know who L. Harrison Matthews was or

A. No.

                                     - - -


Q. Do you know who Leon Harris is, C. Leon

A. No.

Q. Does that name mean anything to you?

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: Do you want to tell him who these
people are to see if that refreshes his recollection?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what I am looking for here.

Harris is with the Department of Biological
Sciences, State University of Arts and Sciences,
Plattsburgh, New York.

Q. Would it be correct, in your opinion, to
state that evolution presupposes no creator?

MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry -- I apologize -- what
did you say?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Would it be correct to state
that the evolution theory presupposes no creator?

A. Do you mean that it presupposes that there
is no creator?

MR. KLASFELD: Is your question, does the theory
of evolution presuppose that there is no creator?

MR. WILLIAMS: That is right.

THE WITNESS: No. It's irrelevant.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Does it presuppose there is a

A. No.

Q. So there is no presupposition of a creator
in evolution theory?


A. It's not testable.

Q. Are you aware that Sir Carl Popper stated
that evolution was not a science but a metaphysical
research program?

A. Yes, I am.

I am also aware he has retracted that.

Q. Where did he retract that?

A. Several places.

Q. Could you give me a citation?

A. I would have to research it.

I know at least two places where he has done that.

Q. Do you recall what publications those would
have occurred in?

A. That is what I would have to research to
remind myself.

He is a very prolific writer.

Q. Do you think at the time he said that he
didn't believe it?

A. That he didn't believe what he said?

Q. right.

A. No. I think he believed it.

Q. Now, one of your publications was published
in a text with Valentine.

A. Yes.

Q. Does that text include a statement that it
would be impossible to get the necessary --

MR. KLASFELD: Are you quoting, David?

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I am just summarizing,



Q. -- that it would be impossible to get the
necessary protein for life by chance?

A. I'm sorry, repeat the question.

Q. Does that text include a statement that
there would be no way of getting the necessary proteins
for life by chance?

A. I'm sure that the statement does not occur
in the book as you put it.

Q. Does that ring a bell as to statements in
there about the chance occurrence of proteins?

A. It rings many bells, yes, but I do not
recognize the statement.

Q. Have you not in some of your other writings,
Dr. Ayala, acknowledged there are many gaps in the
fossil record which remain unexplained?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any explanation for them

A. For what?

Q. For gaps in the fossil record.

A. For why there are gaps?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What is your explanation?

A. Our knowledge is limited. Not all organisms
are preserved as fossils, and we don't know all of the
fossils there are.


We need more grants.

MR. ENNIS: Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Back on the record.

Q. What is your opinion of the expertise of
Stephen J. Gould?

A. Very high.

Q. You have, have you not, written at least
one article criticizing some of the punctuated equilibrium
theories which he has postulated?

A. I have criticized some things related to the

Q. What in particular do you find to criticize
about his theory?

A. It's not about his theory but something
related to the theory, namely, the implication that it
might be incompatible with the formulations of
population genetics made by some Evolutionists.

Q. The article you wrote was with Stebbins; is
that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of another article that
Stebbins has written which says that natural selection
works only at the species level and from there you have
to extrapolate?

A. Not those specific words.

Q. Would you agree with that?

A. Natural selection works within a species,



Q. But from there you have to extrapolate?

A. From where to where?

Q. From the natural selection at the species
level you would have to extrapolate?

MR. ENNIS: Excuse me, David.

I have no objection to the witness answering that
question, but it might be useful if you say what you
mean by "extrapolate."

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, what does "extrapolation"
mean to you in this context or in general?

Does it not have a specific context, a specific
meaning in the area of science and ,more particularly,
in the area of Evolution Science?

A. Not more specific. I mean, I can acknowledge
the common meaning of the word "extrapolate" from what
we know in one place to --

Q. Excuse me.

Do you contrast extrapolation with interpolation?

A. No.

Q. How do you define "science"?

A. I believe I did that before.

MR. KLASFELD: I was going to say that you have,
not once but twice.


It is the knowledge of natural phenomena in terms
of explanatory principles that account for natural
phenomena in terms of natural laws that are genuinely



Well, I will change the "is" to "are," and I will
say that "are" genuinely testable.

We can stop there.

I was going to add a clarification, though.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My previous question actually
was what was a scientific theory, as I recall, and now
I'm asking you what is science.

A. Yes. That is why I included "the principles,"
you see.

Q. Can you define what is supernatural?

A. Yes. Something which is above nature.

Q. Would it mean it is above nature -- I will
withdraw that and rephrase it.

When you talk about supernatural as being above
nature, are there not certain things which you might
label as being supernatural, but at some point in the
future, as we learn more about the laws of nature, they
will no longer be supernatural?

A. I don't know of anything today which is

Q. But would you agree that our understanding
of the laws of nature are limited, that we don't know
all of the laws of nature?

A. Yes, very much so.

Q. So that if something should be labeled as
supernatural because it is above the laws of nature as
we now know them today, it might one day become subject


to the laws of nature as we better understand them?

MR. KLASFELD: No, Dave. It could be that
something is also subject to the laws of nature but we
don't yet understand it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to testify, or would you
like the Doctor to testify?

MR. KLASFELD: I was simply trying to point out
that your question said, if it's not one, it's the other,
and I wanted to point out that was not right, and I
don't want to allow you to put words in Dr. Ayala's

MR. WILLIAMS: I think Dr. Ayala can handle himself.
If he feels he can't, then perhaps he shouldn't be called
as a witness.

MR. KLASFELD: I can't let that go uncontested.
You know, I view myself as having a role in this
deposition, and I intend to pursue it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you making an objection?


My objection is that your question presupposed that
there could only be one possible answer, and that was
not true.

I would like you to restate the question in a way
that allows Dr. Ayala to answer it properly.

MR. WILLIAMS: How did my question presuppose
there could only be one answer?

MR. KLASFELD: We can talk about this as long as
you like.


What I understood you to say is that you tried to
characterize his answer that there were thinks in the
world we didn't know, and you tried to characterize that
as supernatural and if we found out and understood them
in the future, that they would then be subject to
natural laws.

That didn't, in my mind, accurately characterize
what it was that Dr. Ayala had said, which was that
everything in effect now is natural; some of those
things we understand today and some we don't, and when
we understand them in the future, it would simply be
our understanding of the natural laws that were always
in effect but we didn't understand them at this time
but gained an understanding of them at some time in the

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, when you talk about
the laws of nature which we know today and which we
have agreed we are limited in our knowledge of what
those laws are based on our knowledge today, if there
are things which cannot be explained by the laws of
nature as we know them today, would it not be possible
to characterize them as supernatural based on present

A. Your question is ambiguous.

If they cannot be explained today by the laws of
nature and our knowledge of the relevant facts that we
know, it still would not necessarily be supernatural.

Q. But based on our knowledge today, would


they not have to be supernatural because we can't
explain them by the laws of nature?

                                     - - -


A. No. I don't call supernatural something
which I cannot explain. I cannot explain how your brain
works, for example.

Q. Not that you can't explain but the laws of
nature can't explain; that is what I am talking about.

A. You said the laws of nature as we know
them today?

Q. Right.

How would you characterize that?

I am just curious.

How would you characterize something which is above
and beyond the laws of nature as we know them today?

A. As being beyond the laws of nature as we
know them today? I frankly do not understand the

MR. KLASFELD: Do you want to give him an example?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. You are saying you don't know
anything outside of the laws of nature; is that what you
were going to say?

A. That we know is outside the law of nature,

Q. Would you agree that the modern synthesis
theory of evolution is coming under criticism from other
Evolutionists today?

A. Some aspects of it are, yes.

From me, too.

Q. What aspects of it are you criticising?

A. Well, we are learning more things more


precisely and clarifying many of the concepts as we go

Q. What aspects of it particularly have you

A. I don't know that "criticise" is the proper
word, but to give an example, up to a few years ago it
was very often thought that most species evolved or
appeared very slowly; we know today that relatively
rapid speciation, formation of new species, is not a
rare phenomenon.

Q. Do you have any theory as to how to account
for the rapid speciation?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. I refer you to my writings again.

It's very difficult to summarize these things in
a single statement.

Q. I understand.

Could you try to think of some for me.

A. Well, by a variety of ways, one of them
being by polypoidy.

Q. Does the modern synthesis theory include
gradual changes?

Microevolution, perhaps it's called.

A. Please rephrase the question using only one
of the two words at a time. They are incompatible.

MR. KLASFELD: Thank you. You are doing my job
better than I am.


MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Does the modern synthesis theory
of evolution include gradual change?

A. At some levels, yes, and it doesn't, as well.
It depends also on the definition of "gradual."

Q. Define "microevolution" for me.

A. Evolution within a given species.

Q. Could you give me an example, a simple
example of microevolution?

A. Changes in gene frequencies in any given
species, the drosophila melanogaster, for example.

Q. When is the first time you studied or heard
of the term "Creation Science"?

A. In the last year or two.

Q. I take it then you have never studied it in
any of your formal education.

A. Creation Science?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Where did you first hear the term?

A. I'm not sure.

Probably in the context of the law in Arkansas.

Q. Well, that was only passed this year, you

A. Yes.

I am not sure.

Q. You brought some books with you, and for the
record, they are Creation, the Facts of Life by Gary
Parker; The Scientific Case for Creation by Henry M.


Morris; Evolution, the Fossils say "No" by Duane Gish;
Scientific Creationism by --

MR. ENNIS: By Henry Morris.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. -- by Henry Morris, yes.

And Biology, a Search for Order and Complexity by
Moore and Slusher.

MR. ENNIS: That is our Exhibit No. 1, as we all

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you read all of those?

A. Not everything.

Q. Have you read parts of each of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there any other documents you have read
which form the basis for your opinions on Creation

A. Yes.

Q. What are the other documents?

A. A number of papers, articles in various

Q. Do you recall any specifically now?

A. Yes.

A series of five or six articles in a journal,
written by Mr. Armstrong.

I think the title of the journal is --

Do any of you know it?

MR. ENNIS: Do you want me to volunteer?

MR. WILLIAMS: Go ahead.

MR. ENNIS: Is it "Creation Research"?


MR. WILLIAMS: No. It's "Truth" or something like

MR. ENNIS: Oh, "Plain Truth"?

MR. WILLIAMS: "Plain Truth," thank you.

Q. That is by Garner Ted Armstrong.

Is that the fellow's name?

A. Yes.

And others.

Q. The others, were they also in religious

A. Well, those of Creation Research Institute
and such publications, yes.

Q. You said you have read some other
publications by the Creation Institute, and I am not
aware of any institute called that.

A. I mean the Institute for Creation Research.

Q. Other publications from them?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it upon the basis of reading these
books and these articles you mentioned by Garner
Armstrong and others that you have arrived at your
opinion as to what Creation Science is; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you read Act 590 of 1981 from the State
of Arkansas?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you read that?

A. In total, yesterday.


Q. Section 4(b) of Act 590 states:
"'Evolution Science' means the
scientific evidences for evolution
and inferences from those scientific

MR. KLASFELD: Go more slowly.

THE WITNESS: And read it clearly, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I am sorry. Why don't you just
read Section 4(b) to yourself.

A. I will.

Q. Have you now had a chance to read Section
4(b) of the act?

A. Yes.

Q. First of all, what is your opinion of the
definition given to "Evolution Science"?

A. That it is confusing.

Q. How is it confusing?

A. Well, the term "Evolution Science" as
written is not a term which would appear in ordinary
scientific language.

It misses the main point as to what the science of
evolution or the sciences that dealt with evolution are.

Q. When you say it misses the main point, what
do you mean?

A. Science is primarily intellectual constructs


of theories.

Q. How does that miss that point then?

A. It just talks in terms of scientific
evidences and inferences. It seems to imply a notion
of science which is at least antiquated by 300 years
in this context.
I find it confusing.

Q. All right.

Are you looking at the part there, subpart 1,
where it says, "Emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe from disordered matter and emergence of
life from nonlife," and are you aware of any evidence
which goes against that statement?

A. The emergence by naturalistic processes of
the universe --

MR. KLASFELD: I just want to make one point.

As I recall, Mr. Williams read him that before,
and he said that wasn't part of evolution.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking him that. I'm asking
him if he is aware of any evidence against that

MR. KLASFELD: If the statement makes any sense
to you, you can answer.

THE WITNESS: It makes dubious sense.

The universe cannot emerge. I find the statement
confusing, and from my understanding of it, I don't
know of evidence against it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Subsection 2 states:


"The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about
development of present living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds."

Are you aware of any evidence against that

A. Very definitely.

Those processes are not sufficient.

Q. In what way are they insufficient?

A. You need many other processes: general
genetic drift, environmental interactions, interactions
between organisms of different kinds and so on.

Q. so then if we look back up to Section 4(a)
where it states that "Creation Science includes the
scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate, (No. 2) the insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development within
all living kinds from a single organism," would you
find yourself more in agreement with that statement
than the statement at (b)(2)?

MR. ENNIS: I object.

THE WITNESS: With neither.

MR. ENNIS: He has said he is more in agreement
with 4(b)?

MR. KLASFELD: He is asking if he is.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am asking if he is.

THE WITNESS: You have read a compound statement
which started with (a), and then went into (a)(2).


Will you rephrase the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Let's just talk about No. 2

Under (a)(2), "The insufficiency of mutation and
natural selection in bringing about development of all
living kinds from a single organism," we have read that

Now, (b)(2) we have previously read?

A. Yes.

Q. Between those two statements, would you
find yourself more in agreement with one than the other?

A. If they are understood literally, with a
literal meaning of the word "insufficiency," I would
be more in agreement with 2.

Q. 2 what?

A. I'm sorry, with (a)(2).

And that is because (b)(2) is a distortion.

Q. In your opinion?

A. Yes.

I thought you were asking my opinion.

                                     - - -


Q. Yes, I was.

(b)(3) starts with the word "emergency," and I
think we can agree that means, or that should be
"emergence." It's a typographical error.

It says:

"Emergence by mutation and natural
selection of present living kinds
from simpler earlier kinds."

Are you aware of evidence which is against that

A. No.

MR. KLASFELD: I am sorry, excuse me, David.

Why don't you ask him first if he agrees with the
statement and then ask him if there is evidence against

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I am not really concerned
with whether he agrees with it or not.

MR. ENNIS: But let me say for the record that the
confusion here is that the statute purports to define
what evolutionary theory means, and the first question
is whether Dr. Ayala agrees with the statutory
definition of evolution, and the second question then
is if he knows of evidence contrary to that statutory

You are assuming he agrees with the statutory
definition when you proceed directly to the second

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm really not assuming that. I


am really not. I just want to know if he knows, taking
that statement at face value, of any evidence against it.

THE WITNESS: If the statement is understood as
"emergence by mutation and natural selection as well
as other processes," et cetera, then I do not know any
evidence against it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. (4) states:

"Emergence of man from a common
ancestor with apes."

Are you aware of any evidence against that statement?

A. No.

I do not like the word "emergence," and this keeps
repeating it. It's not a proper word.

Q. Why do you not like that word?

A. Because "emergence" has certain implications
in science and in the philosophy of science.

If he would say "evolution of man from a common
ancestor with apes," I do not know of any statement
against it so long as women are included.

Q. (5) states:

"Explanation of the earth's geology
and the evolutionary sequence by

Are you aware of any evidence against that statement?

A. In the normal tradition of uniformitarianism,

Q. What evidence are you aware of against the


A. We know that geological processes change
through time, tectonics, for example.

MR. KLASFELD: T-e-c-t-o-n-i-c-s.

THE WITNESS: That is one example of geological
processes not having been uniform through time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Doctor, concerning (5), again,
what other evidence is there against the statement?

A. I have said I am not an expert in geology,
but I think uniformitarianism in the traditional sense
of that word is not generally accepted in geology in
that many processes are not uniformitarian.

Earthquakes occur, for example.

Q. Would that be catastrophic?

A. Not in the traditional sense of catastrophism.

Q. Is there not in geology some talk of
catastrophism and a movement toward catastrophism?

A. In the 19th Century there was a polemic
between uniformitarianism and catastrophism.

I think, in my limited knowledge in this field,
that today no true expert in the field would call
himself either a uniformist or catastrophist. That is
a problem we are having all of the time, you know.

Q. No. (6) says:

"An inception several billion
years ago of the earth and somewhat
later of life."

Do you know of any evidence, scientific evidence,
that is against that?


A. No, I don't.

Q. Could you please state for me the reasons
why you oppose the teaching of Creation Science?

A. Because it is not science; and also, because
endangers the teaching of religion.

Q. It endangers the teaching of religion?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, tell me first of all why it's not

A. I don't know of any of their statements
that are testable in the scientific sense.

Q. What if there were such statements?

A. Well, the theory, as such, in terms of
general principles is not testable.

Specific statements of fact may be testable, but
that is relatively trivial in science. What has to be
testable is the theory, the principles.

Q. Is the general theory of evolution testable?

A. Yes. The principles that make up the theory
of evolution are testable, yes.

Q. But your definition of evolution is much
more narrow, is it not, than what some people would
consider to be or what some experts would consider to
be the theory of evolution?

A. I think most experts would say there are
several ways of speaking about the theory of evolution,
and the more precise way, I feel, is that it is a
biological theory that applies to the evolution of


life. I think most experts would define it that way.

Q. But evolution can take into consideration,
can it not, merely the evolution of life, in the terms
as you have defined it, from one form of life to
another, but it can also take into consideration the
evolution of the universe?

A. Yes.

Or the evolution of this dialogue between you and
me and --

Q. I'm talking about evolution in the
scientific sense: evolution in the universe, evolution
in the earth itself, as well as evolution of life from

A. Evolution of human history, evolution of
sociological systems, evolution of political systems,
which are scientific.

Evolution comes in many things, and I think it is
wise to define the context in which one is speaking.

Q. Have you discussed the creation model of
origins in your classroom?

A. Yes.

Q. In what context?

A. Trying to explain that there is not
incompatibility between the message of creation as
conveyed in Genesis and the theory of evolution. It
is only a literal interpretation that is incompatible.
But the Bible, as most theologians understand it, is
not incompatible.


MR. KLASFELD: If I could just interject a
question, please, which of your classes was this in?

THE WITNESS: In almost all of them, at different
levels of complexity or sophistication.

Part of my goal is to avoid the problem that I
have with this kind of situation, namely, that people
feel obliged to reject their religious convictions after
they become overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution,
and I think that they feel obliged to reject it when
they have been told that the two are incompatible, and
I think that is unfortunate, because they are not

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Your rejection of religious
values came after you learned about science?

A. I don't reject religious values.

Q. You don't personally reject them?

A. Oh, no.

Q. You still hold the beliefs of the Roman
Catholic Church?

A. No.

Q. What religious values do you hold to?

                                     - - -


A. Oh, very many. Respect for human life,
respect for the universe, respect for people who believe
in the Catholic principles, and others, Protestant, that
exist over this.

Q. Is that a religious belief?

A. Certainly it is a religious value.

Q. Respect for human life is a religious value?

A. Yes.

Q. Respect for others is a religious value?

A. For persons.

Q. It is a religious belief, you say?

A. A religious value. I would not call it a
belief. We are talking about respect and it's not a
belief. Respect refers to attitudes, to values.

Q. How do you differentiate between a religious
belief and a religious respect?

A. Respect is a matter of attitude. Belief is a
matter of thinking, an intellectual matter.

Q. Is it a religious belief for you that you
have a respect for people who have faith?

A. It's a religious value.

Q. A religious value.

How is that value necessarily religious?

A. Because it has to do with the ultimate
meaning of life and the universe.

Q. And how does that, in your mind, become

A. That is what religion is, concern for ultimate


values and the significance of the universe and human
life, or life, if you want it more generally.

Q. I am curious because you have stated that in
1967 or 1966 you ceased to be a member of the Roman
Catholic Church, but you state that you have religious
respect but no longer have religious belief; is that

A. Religious values.

Religious respect, I don't know. I don't know that
that is a very meaningful phrase.

I have religious values, yes. And I have religious
beliefs also.

Q. What are those religious beliefs?

A. That there is goodness in nature.

I think we went through some of them before.

Q. Are there any others besides goodness in

A. Just that human life is sacred.

Q. How do you define "religion"?

A. As concern for -- as ultimate concern. Let
me put it that way. Ultimate concern. That is my
definition of religion.

Q. That has no meaning to me. I don't under-
stand it.

A. There is a book by a great American
theologian which has that title as the definition of

Q. "Ultimate concern"?


A. Ultimate religion is ultimate concern.

Q. For what?

A. For the ultimate significance thing.

Q. Of life, would that be one of them?

A. Yes.

Q. Of the universe, would that be another?

A. Yes.

Q. What else, ultimate concern for anything
else you can think of?

A. There is nothing beyond the universe. Concern
for life is a qualification.

Q. The universe we start with and we come into
life; is that correct?

Can we come in any further when we talk about the
ultimate concern for --

A. Human life.

Q. Human life.

Who is this book by, by the way?

A. Paul Tillich, T-i-l-l-i-c-h.

Q. And what was the name of it again, do you
recall it?

A. Not exactly. I recall that he defines
religion as ultimate concern.

Q. So you would generally agree with Tillich's
definition of religion?

A. As one definition.

Q. As one which you can personally agree with?

A. Yes. And I hope everybody else does.


Q. Are you familiar with the term "humanism"?

A. Excuse me.

Q. Are you familiar with the term "humanism"?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the Society of
Religious Humanists at all?

A. Very vaguely.

Q. Would you consider, under Tillich's definition,
humanism to be a form of religion?

A. Possibly. Some people would. I wouldn't.

Q. I'm sorry. I didn't understand you.

A. You see, it depends on what you mean by
"humanism," so I have to qualify it.

Q. What definition of humanism would you include
as a religion?

A. Can you give me a list of definitions of
humanism? And then I will tell you which one.

Q. I think your answer to me was that, depending
upon how humanism is defined, it can be a religion, so
there is obviously something in your mind which constitutes
religion from the prospective of humanism and I would
like you to tell me that.

A. One definition of humanism is valuing the
human person or persons as the greatest value in the
universe. Now, that is consistent with a religious view.

Q. All right. Do any of the organizations to
which you belong have a position on whether the creation
model of origin should be discussed in the classroom?


A. In an officially formulated policy?

Q. Yes, something which has been articulated
either orally or in writing.

A. You mean explicit formulation?

Q. Right.

A. I think not.

Q. When you have discussed creation in the class-
room, I take it from your comments that you would be
discussing creation from what you considered to be the
religious sense of the word.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you had any difficulty with your

A. Yes.

Q. What are some difficulties you have

A. Well, students from time to time come for
clarification and some of them come with objections.
The majority, however, find relief.

Q. I am sorry. What did you say?

A. The majority find relief.

MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry, David. Was your
question there --

Dr. Ayala testified previously, I think, that some
of the students he had found difficulty with their own
religious beliefs and the massive amount of scientific
information they were getting. Was your question about
whether there were people who, on the other hand,


continued to believe in --

MR. WILLAIMS: I asked him the question whether he
had any difficulties with his students and he started to
answer on that point, so I was going to get him to go
ahead and answer.

MR. KLASFELD: I'm sorry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So the difficulties, as I under-
stand them, Doctor, have been that some students have
objected to the notion that science, the scientific
theory of evolution, and their own religious theory of
creation or origin, were not inconsistent?

A. No.

What I said was that some students come with
objections to my interpretation of the Bible, for
example. Most of the students come for clarification,
trying to understand.

Q. When you say they come to you, they come to
you personally, outside of class, you mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you feel that is unhealthy that they have
these questions?

A. Oh, no.

Q. Do you feel like it's unhealthy to discuss
creation in a science classroom as a matter of academic


A. Discussing it as science, yes.

Q. Well, do you feel it's unhealthy to discuss it
as being religious in a science class?

A. Well, I dedicate only a few -- a small amount
of time to it, and that is why most of the clarifications
take place at my own time and expense afterwards. I
think it's fair to the students, since it's such an
important issue, to spend a few minutes on it.

Q. About how many minutes would you spend on it?

A. It depends on what course it is, but maybe
fifteen minutes, half an hour.

Q. fifteen minutes to a half an hour?

A. Yes.

Q. What courses would you go into this in?

A. In general genetics, when we come to
evolutionary genetics; in my evolution course; and of
course, in the philosophy of biology course.

Q. How many years have you done this?

A. Since I have been teaching these courses.

Q. If a student does take a literal interpre-
tation of the account of Genesis, would then the theory
of religious creation we are talking about now in
Genesis, would the theory of evolution be incompatible?

A. The theory of evolution is incompatible with
a literal description of the origins of man in Genesis,

Q. Here are some of the texts you have brought
with you.


As to the articles you have read, for example, by
Mr. Armstrong, did they include some religious or
scriptural references?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that any scriptural reference
is prohibited by Act 590 or any religious writings or
religious references?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that, wasn't it in the first
few editions of Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species,"
that he made reference to a creator?

A. Yes. In the next to the last paragraph.

Q. Is it correct that he stated that the first
life had been breathed into these forms by a creator,
that there was a grandeur in this view -- I think his
words are "there is some grandeur in this view."

A. Yes.

Q. Would you think that would be an inappropriate
study for a science class or a student to read "On the
Origin of the Species," which talks about a creator?

A. No, because it's one paragraph out of 450

Q. Sure.

A. As I told you, I spent a few minutes on the
matter, too, so I hardly disagree.

Q. but in that book,, did not Darwin, if you will,
ascribe to the creator a role in evolution; he was not
talking strictly, perhaps, in a religious sense there,


but he was writing a book on science and he said that the
creator had done this?

A. No. He said there is grandeur in this view
of the universe, which is where the -- I am paraphrasing
-- where the creator does not necessarily create every-
thing but has created the world whereby the laws can
evolve and produce this enormous variety and beauty.
I am paraphrasing.

His point, however, is that what he says is that
there is grandeur in this view of the world as evolving.
That is why the creator doesn't have to be put in every
little thing there but there is change by natural laws.
That is what he is saying, and I feel there is grandeur
in that view.

Q. So I take it you would not object to that
being read, that work being read and studied by a science
student, although he does mention the concept of a

A. No, I do not object to it.

Q. Do you have an opinion on the origin of the

A. May I ask for a clarification: the universe
as we know it today or the very beginning of everything,
the very beginning of matter, of reality?

Q. Well, let's start with the universe as we
know it today.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion on that?


A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion?

- - -


A. Living things have evolved gradually, have
diversified, have become extinct.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

A. Living things have evolved gradually,
diversified into main species, and at different times
some species have become extinct.

Q. I don't mean to cut you off, but I am
really talking about the universe in terms of the
planets and stars.

A. Oh, I'm glad you clarified that.

When somebody talks to me about the universe, the
most important universe is the living things.

Q. I understand that might be to you, but I
am asking about the universe in terms of the planets
and stars and all of that.

Do you have an opinion as to that?

A. I accept what astronomists generally say,
namely, that they are a result of what is referred to
as a big bang.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to what caused
the big bang?

A. No.

Well, let me qualify that. It depends on what you
mean by "cause."

Yes, in terms of the physical forces. Matter
cannot stay together that way. So my answer would be
yes, if that is what you mean.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to how the


matter came together?

A. No.

Q. Do you ascribe to the notion of the
pulsating --

Is that right? Isn't there a notion that if it
was pulsating, the bang, then it will come back together

A. I think that is a possibility.

It's not generally accepted; but I have no position
on that.

Q. So you have no general position as to what
brought that matter together in the first place?

A. That is right.

Q. Do you ascribe to any personal hypothesis
on that?

A. My own?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Do you have one you agree with?

A. No.

Q. Do you have one that you agree is more
authoritative or more likely than others?

A. No.

Q. What is your opinion, if you have one, on
the origin of man?

A. Mankind came by evolution from nonhuman
ancestors, I suppose is what you are referring to.

Q. Are there any transitional forms that you


know of to those nonhuman ancestors?

A. Between nonhuman ancestors and present

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What are the ones that you believe are
transitional forms?

A. Australopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus.

Q. When you speak of australopithecus, how do
you determine that it was not human?

A. It was human.

Q. It was human?

A. I thought the question was between modern
mankind and nonhuman ancestors.

Q. So it was fully human?

A. It was humanoid.

It's not homo sapien.

If by "fully human" you mean homo sapiens, it
wasn't. If you mean it belongs to the family of hominids,
it was.

Q. Have you an opinion on the origin of the

A. Yes.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. The general one accepted by astronomers.

Q. You have to forgive me. Could you describe

A. You realize it's not my field of knowledge,


so your knowledge and my knowledge may not be
different in this case.

It's just that it formed by condensation of gases
that were rotating with the sun or around the sun.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is just a housekeeping matter.
Are you going to provide the documents in our document

MR. KLASFELD: Absolutely.

MR. ENNIS: Those we don't object to.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

When will those be provided?

MR. ENNIS: As fast as we can get them to you.

MR. KLASFELD: We will give Dr. Ayala a copy of
them and --

MR. WILLIAMS: Can I get them in the next couple

MR. KLASFELD: Well, we hope so.

MR. ENNIS: I can't answer that because we don't
know if there is one that is responsive or 4000 that
are responsive. We will do our best to discuss it with
Dr. Ayala today and get the documents to you as fast as
we can.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Have you done any consulting
work, Doctor?

                                     - - -


A. What do you mean by "consulting"? Students
consult me all the time.

Q. I mean for pay.

For example, with businesses or other entities.

A. Not with businesses but with the U.S.

Q. The grants we talked about, or something
other than that?

A. Advisory bodies in the Federal Government.

Q. Have these been compensated positions?

First, are they listed on your curriculum vitae?

A. Probably. I didn't list everything so let
me check.

Q. How much were you paid for these; for
example, as a member of the advisory general medical
sciences council of HEW?

A. $100 per day for services.

Q. Would that be the same for all of them?

A. I think so.

Q. Approximately how many days have you served?

A. In a year?

Q. Yes.

A. Six to eight a year.

Q. Would these also be in the area of your
expertise in evolutionary biology?

A. My expertise is relevant there, yes.

Q. Have you ever written anything on the subject
of Creation Science?


A. No.

Q. Have you given any interviews on the subject?

A. Do you mean public interviews?

Q. Yes. Interviews which have been published.

A. I don't think so, no.

Q. Have you ever made any speeches on the

A. No.

Q. Have you in any form, other than entirely
private conversations, ever made any comments on the
subject of Creation Science?

A. I have.

Q. Where?

A. Well, in passing, for example, at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution last
June, July, a brief comment.

Q. Do you recall the comment or was there a
recording made of it?

A. No, I am sure there is no recording.

Q. Tell me about the Society for the Study of

Where is it located?

A. Off the record, in Heaven.

On the record, there is no formal physical location.
There is an office of an editor, an office of the
treasurer, an office of the secretary and the president,
and these people change from year to year. They are
scientists that get elected.


Q. Does it publish a journal?

A. Yes.

Q. What journal is that?

A. "Evolution."

Q. Have you been an officer of that organization?

A. Yes.

Q. What offices?

A. Vice president and president elect and

Q. Is there a stated position or purpose of the
organization reduced to writing?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a copy of that?

A. Not with me.

Q. Do you have a copy at your office?

A. I can get it. It's probably in the library.
It's probably in the records.

Q. If you could give me a citation to that or if
you could provide me with a copy, I would like to have
one. You could provide it to your attorneys.

A. All right.

Q. The general thrust of the organization, I
would take it, though, is the study of evolution, is it

A. Yes. A variation on evolution or anything
relevant to evolution, yes.

Q. To further knowledge concerning evolution,
would that be correct?


A. Further knowledge concerning matters of
evolution, yes. The order of the words is very important.
Concerning knowledge, it is.

Q. I understand.

Has the Society had as its purpose to study whether
evolutionary theory is correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Has the Society or any of its members ever
published a paper which said that evolutionary theory
might not be correct?

A. Do you mean parts of evolutionary theory?
You realize that evolutionary theory is a big name for
many, many things.

Q. I am speaking of evolutionary theory in
general, not just a small part of evolutionary theory but
the theory in general.

A. Well, I don't think anybody has published
that the whole of evolution theory is not correct.

[Brief recess]

- - -


MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you define academic

A. Yes. I suppose privilege of a person in an
academic position to express his or her views concerning
the subject matter in which he or she is a specialist.

Q. Do you think in order to teach a subject that
a teacher must agree with all the theories he is

A. Definitely not.

Q. You refer to it as a privilege.

A. Freedom is a privilege. Call it a right.
I'm not an expert in such things.

Q. Well, would you agree that the manner in
which courses are to be taught particularly in public
schools and public secondary schools there are some
limits on the manner in which they can be taught?

A. Oh, surely.

Q. and subject to appropriate control by the
state and local authorities that are appropriate, that is
an appropriate exercise of sometimes limiting academic
freedom? Sometimes it would be appropriate to limit
absolute academic freedom?

A. No, I do not agree with that. I do not agree
that the state or anybody has the right to interfere with
academic freedom of a teacher, academic freedom as I
have defined it.

Q. And you have defined it as the freedom to
give their professional opinion about a particular theory


within their area of expertise, is that correct?

A. The freedom to express their views and make
a fair presentation of what their field of knowledge is,

Q. I think there are two parts in there perhaps.
You said one, to express their views, and then you said
something about to make a fair presentation.

A. Well, if a teacher is not making a fair
presentation, then he should be removed.

Q. What is a fair presentation?

A. Generally it is very difficult recognizing
what is generally accepted, what is generally accepted
and making those presentations which are presentations
which are irrelevant.

Q. Isn't that a highly subjective area?

A. I think the area of freedom concerns human
rights and exercises, and there is an element of
subjectivity in its application.

Q. If there is a teacher who in their honest
professional opinion believes that there is scientific
evidence to support the theory of Creation Science, do
you think they should be prohibited from teaching that?

MR. ENNIS: Objection. Are you asking the question
of the witness if this is a matter of law?

MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of academic freedom that
he has espoused.

THE WITNESS: Somebody who is engaged to teach the


MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Is not entitled to teach the
matter of evolution, the subject matter of science?

A. Within science he is teaching evolution as
part of his duty on the subject of evolution.

Q. He is teaching chemistry and he feels there
is evidence to support the theory of Creation Science
in the area of the origin of first life and the way the
chemicals came together and he wants to teach that.

A. I don't think that subject belongs within the
area of chemistry. It's not a subject of teaching within

Q. I appreciate you feel that way, Doctor, but
my question is if he sincerely feels --

A. I think a teacher who teaches things which
are not within the general subject matter of what is
the agreed consensus as to what belongs in the field is
not a competent teacher. He should be removed.

Q. So if someone teaches something which is
not generally recognized, they should be removed?

A. As relevant to the subject matter. If I
asked to teach sociology and start to lecture on genetics,
I should be removed from teaching sociology.

Q. If many years ago before Copernicus's
theory concerning the fact we don't have a geocentric
universe, before that was accepted, if a teacher taught
that theory before it was accepted by the scientific
community, if a teacher taught it, should he have been
fired under your opinion?


A. If he was teaching a subject which was
totally irrelevant to the subject matter he was charged
to teach, yes. You are changing the grounds of the
previous question.

Q. Perhaps my question was ambiguous. Let me
clarify it. I have in mind, for example, a chemistry
teacher who in his chemistry course deals with, as I
understand it, the origin of first life, and he mentions
in there how it would be possible for certain elements
to come together to form some form of "life," and he
wants to include in that discussion some of what he
considers to be evidence for Creation Science, that is
the very high odds against that occurring by pure
science, other than having it occur with some force?

MR. ENNIS: I object because it was done twice
now before. Evidence against the formulation of those
proteins based on probability is not evidence for

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what part of this lawsuit
is about.

MR. ENNIS: Your question assumes the answer to

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm saying in this teacher's
opinion he thinks that it is.

THE WITNESS: First, is it part of the syllabus
of chemistry to deal with the origin of life? I think
it's not part of the syllabus of chemistry classes, so
I think he would have to be told it's not part of the



Q. What if it is?

A. But it isn't.

Q. What if he is not given a syllabus and has
the freedom to choose that?

A. That is precisely where there is a general
agreed consensus in the scientific community or local
boards as to what belongs appropriately within a given
field of science and that is for science really to
establish what is an appropriate field of science.

I'm not trying to be difficult. It is difficult
for me to handle the question.

Q. We have gone back to the essential premise,
one of academic freedom, and as I understood what you
were saying about academic freedom you would not want
a teacher to be limited in the manner in which they
could teach.

A. So long as he does it on the basis of
appropriate knowledge.

Q. Appropriate knowledge. All right.

And how do you define what is appropriate knowledge?

A. Well, being knowledgeable in the field and
able to judge the evidence as it exists, the principles
as they are known by the scientific community at large.

Q. So now let's go back to my other example.
At one time under your definition I assume that
Copernicus's theory of the universe could not have been
taught because at one time it was not generally accepted

Transcript continued on next page