Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

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