Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P267-299


1 Q Doctor Ruse, I'd like to explore each of those areas

2 with you. First, what is your understanding of the theory

3 of creation?

4 A Well, that the whole universe, including all

5 organisms and particularly including ourselves, was

6 created by some sort of supernatural power very recently.

7 As it was tacked on, the fact that having done this, he or

8 she decided to wipe a lot out by a big flood.

9 Q Where does that understanding of the theory of

10 creation come from?

11 A Well, my understanding comes from the reading of the

12 scientific creationist literature.

13 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't catch what you said

14 earlier. What was the question and the response? Do you

15 mind starting on that again?

16 MR. NOVIK: Not at all. Did you hear his

17 understanding of the theory of creation?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 MR. NOVIK: I could start after that.

20 THE COURT: Start with that, if you would.

21 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

22 Q What is your understanding of the theory of creation?

23 A That the world, the whole universe was created very




1 A (Continuing) recently. And when I talk about the

2 whole universe, I'm talking about all the organisms in it

3 including ourselves.

4 And as I said, sort of added on as sort of a — what

5 shall I say — a sub-clause, that some time after it was

6 done that everything or nearly everything was sort of

7 wiped out by a big flood.

8 Q How was that creation accomplished according to the

9 theory of creation?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection, your Honor, to the use of

11 the term "the theory of creation." As previously pursued

12 in our Motion in Limine, the term "theory of creation" is

13 used nowhere within the Act.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, a few more questions, and I

15 think that objection will answer itself.

16 THE COURT: Okay, sir. Go ahead.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe I asked you whether the

19 creation you mentioned was accomplished by any force?

20 A Yes. By a creator.

21 Q Where does your understanding of the theory of

22 creation come from?

23 A Well, from my reading of the scientific creationist

24 literature.

25 Q Is that theory of creation a part of Act 590?


1 A Well, I think so, yes.

2 Q Is the creation, the theory of creation that you

3 have identified in the creation science literature the

4 same as the creation science theory identified in Act 590?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Does Act 590 mention a creator with a capital C?

7 A It doesn't actually use the word.

8 Q Where do you see in Act 590 the theory of creation?

9 A Well, I see it very much in the first sentence of

10 4(a). And I think all the time when looking at 4(a), one

11 has got to compare it against 4(b) because these are

12 obviously intended as two alternative models.

13 And if you look, for example, at 4(b), you see that

14 evolution science means the scientific evidences for

15 evolution, inferences from those evidences.

16 We are talking about scientific evidences. Scientific

17 evidences for, well, what we mean, a theory. Scientific

18 evidences outside the context of a theory are really not

19 scientific evidences.

20 Q What theory do the scientific evidences in 4(b)

21 support?

22 A Well, they are talking about this theory of

23 evolution science. What I want to say is if we go back to

24 4(a), then if we are going to start talking about

25 scientific evidences, then presumably we are talking about


1 A (Continuing) scientific evidences for some theory.

2 And analogously, what we are talking about is the theory

3 of creation.

4 Q Where in Act 590 do you see a reference to a creator?

5 A Well, again, as I say, I don't see the word

6 creator. I think the, Act is very carefully written so

7 that I wouldn't.

8 However, I think if you look at 4(a)(1), sudden creation

9 of the universe, energy and life from nothing, I think a

10 creator is clearly presupposed here.

11 Again, if you look at 4(b)(1), which says "Emergence" —

12 that's not a word I care for particularly — "Emergence"

13 by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered

14 matter and emergence of life from non-life.

15 Now, you will notice that the key new word here is

16 naturalistic processes, which doesn't occur in 4(a)(1),

17 sudden creation.

18 So my inference is that we are dealing with

19 non-naturalistic processes in 4(a)(1) and non-naturalistic

20 processes, meaning by definition a creator.

21 Q Looking at—

22 THE COURT: Wait a second. Let's go back over that

23 again.

24 A What we are dealing with is the question of to what

25 extent 4(a)(1) implies some sort of non-naturalistic


1 A (Continuing) creator.

2 And the point I was trying to make, your Honor, was that

3 I think if you look at 4(b)(1), it says emergence—

4 THE COURT: Okay. Fine.

5 A —emergence by naturalistic processes.

6 I feel very strongly that to understand 4(a) you've

7 got to compare it all the time with 4(b) and vice versa.

8 And my point simply was that 4(b) talks about naturalistic

9 processes, so presumably in 4(a), which doesn't, we're

10 talking about non-naturalistic processes.

11 Q In 4(a), the language to compare with naturalistic

12 processes you said was sudden creation, is that correct?

13 A Yes. Right.

14 Q Now, looking at 4(b)(3) and 4(a)(3), can you comment

15 on those sections with respect to the issue of creator?

16 A 4(b)(3), "Emergence by mutation and natural

17 selection of present living kinds from simple earlier

18 kinds." Again, the word "kind" has a superfluous

19 connotation. It makes me feel a bit uncomfortable,

20 certainly in talking about it in the context of science.

21 Q But in 4(b)(3), does the Statute make reference to

22 naturalistic processes?

23 A Well, it doesn't mention naturalistic processes. It

24 doesn't use the word "naturalistic," but clearly one is

25 talking about naturalistic processes. Mutation, natural


1 A (Continuing) selection, these the epitome of

2 naturalistic processes.

3 Q Yes, sir. And how does that compare with 4(a)(3)?

4 A Well, one's only got changes only within fixed

5 limits of originally created kinds. And I take it

6 originally created since we are not dealing with natural-

7 istic processes. We are dealing with non-naturalistic

8 processes.

9 Q Does the word "kind" in 4(a)(3) have any special

10 significance in that context?

11 A Well, as I mentioned, the word kind certainly is not

12 a word which we find used by biologists. It's a word

13 which occurs in Genesis.

14 Q Do scientists use the word kind at all in any

15 professional taxonomic sense?

16 A Well, I'm sure if you went through the literature

17 you might find that some scientists some day. But, no,

18 it's not one of the categories.

19 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe you testified earlier that

20 each of the six elements of creation science identified in

21 Sections 4(a)(1) through 4(a)(6) were identical to the

22 elements of creation science as you knew them through the

23 literature. Is that so?

24 A Yes.



1 Q Would you please give an example of the similarity

2 between the elements of creation science in Act 590 and

3 the elements of creation science in the literature?

4 A Well, by an example, what I want to say is that

5 every one of these elements in 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), so on and

6 so forth, as you go down them, can be found mirrored

7 virtually exactly in almost the same order in Morris'

8 edited book, Scientific Creationism.

9 If one wants to pick out specific examples, for example,

10 section 4(a)(5) talks about a worldwide flood. And this

11 is something which is discussed at some length in

12 Scientific Creationism.

13 Q Doctor Ruse, I believe you also testified that

14 another similarity between creation science literature

15 generally and Act 590 is the reference to evolution

16 science in 4(b) of the Act, is that so?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you explain what you meant by that?

19 A Well, this term "evolution science," as we can see

20 in 4(b) includes a great many different things. And my

21 reading both of the work of scientists and the work of

22 scientific creationists is that it's only the scientific

23 creationists who want to deal with this as one package

24 deal. Evolutionists and other scientists separate them

25 out and deal with them separately.


1 Q What other scientific disciplines are implicated by

2 the provisions of 4(b)?

3 A Well, it's almost a question of what isn't. I would

4 say physics and chemistry in (b)(1). I would suspect that

5 most of the social sciences in (b)(4). I would have

6 thought geology in (b)(5).

7 Q Doctor Ruse, you are not a scientist, are you?

8 A No.

9 Q Do you have any training as a biologist?

10 A No.

11 Q Do you have any training in the philosophy and

12 history of biology?

13 A Yes.

14 Q What do scientists generally mean by the word

15 evolution?

16 A That organisms descended through constant generation

17 from one or a few kinds.

18 Q Does the theory of evolution presuppose the

19 nonexistence of a creator or the nonexistence of a God?

20 A I don't think the theory of evolution says anything

21 at all about the Creator. I mean, in other words, it

22 doesn't say if there is one; it doesn't say that there

23 isn't one.

24 Q Understanding that scientists do not generally use

25 the term, "evolution science," let me, nonetheless, direct


1 Q (Continuing) your attention to the definition of

2 evolution science in the Statute.

3 Looking first at Section 4(b)(1), what is your

4 professional assessment of 4(b)(1) as a scientific

5 statement?

6 A "Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe

7 from disordered matter and emergence of life from non-life."

8 Well, the word "emergence," I think, is not one that

9 scientists would readily use. But taken as it stands like

10 that, I think it's at least potentially a scientific

11 statement.

12 Q Does 4(b)(1) reflect an accurate description about

13 scientific learning about the origins of the universe and

14 the origins of life on this planet?

15 A It certainly doesn't represent the consensus. In

16 fact, there's quite a debate going on at the moment about

17 where life came from originally on this earth.

18 Certainly, I think a substantial body. of scientists

19 would think that it developed naturally on this earth from

20 inorganic matter.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, is the study of origins of the universe

22 and the study of origins of life on this planet the same

23 discipline in science?

24 A No, I would have said not. In fact, evolutionary

25 theory takes, as it were, like Mrs. Beeton's Cookbook, it


1 A (Continuing) take the organism or the initial

2 organisms given and t hen starts from there.

3 For example, The Origin of Species is very careful. it

4 never mentions about where life comes from. And I think

5 this has been a tradition of evolutionists. I mean,

6 obviously, evolutionists are going to be interested in the

7 topic, and today certainly textbooks will probably mention

8 it. But it's not part of the evolutionary theory proper.

9 Q What is your professional assessment of 4(b)(2)?

10 A "The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection

11 in bringing about development of present living kinds from

12 simple earlier kinds."

13 Well, it's potentially a scientific statement. I don't

14 thing that anybody has ever believed this.

15 Q That mutation and natural selection are sufficient?

16 A No. Charles Darwin didn't and today's evolutionists

17 would certainly want to put in other causes as well.

18 Q How does that provision in 4(b)(2) relate to the

19 provision in 4(a)(2)?

20 A "The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection

21 in bringing about development of all living kinds from a

22 single organism."

23 Well, in fact I think one would. find that most

24 evolutionists would feel more comfortable with 4(a)(2)

25 except I'm not sure they would want to, say it all came


1 A (Continuing) from a single organism.

2 In other words,. we've got sort of a paradoxical

3 situation here where I think the evolutionists would be

4 somewhat happier with part of 4(a) rather than 4(b).

5 Q Do you understand the meaning of Section 4(b)(3)?

6 A "Emergence by mutation and natural selection of

7 present living kinds from simple earlier kinds."

8 Well, I take it this mean this is what actually

9 occurred. I take it, it means it occurred by naturalistic

10 processes since we are comparing it with 4(a)(3), which

11 talks of originally created kinds.

12 With the proviso that the word "kind" is a bit of a,

13 what shall I say, mushy word. Yes, I think that is

14 something I understand.

15 Q Again referring to 4(a)(3), what does changes only

16 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

17 and animals mean?

18 A Obviously, on the one hand, one is making reference

19 to sort of supernatural causes starting everything. But

20 on the other hand, I see 4(a)(3) as an ad hoc device which

21 creationists have had to think up to get away from some of

22 the obvious indisputable cases of evolution that

23 evolutionists in the last hundred years have come across.

24 I mean, since Darwin, evolutionists have been working

25 hard to find places where they can say, "Look, here is


1 A (Continuing) something that actually did evolve

2 from one form to another," and they came up with some

3 examples.

4 Now, the scientific creationists can't get away from

5 this fact. And so, as I see it, what they've done is

6 they've sort of hurriedly, or not so hurriedly, added ad

7 hoc hypotheses to get around these sorts of problems.

8 For example, and probably the most famous case is of the

9 evolution of moths in England. England, as I'm sure

10 everybody knows, has gotten a lot dirtier in the last

11 hundred years because of the industrial revolution.

12 And a number of species of moths have gotten darker and

13 darker over the years.

14 Q Excuse me, Doctor Ruse. You are making reference to

15 a picture in what book?

16 A It's a Scientific American book called Evolution.

17 It first appeared as an issue of Scientific American, I

18 think, in September of '78.

19 Q What page are you referring to?

20 A I'm looking at page— Well, they don't put a page

21 number on it. It's two pages after 114. It's opposite an

22 article called "Adaptation" by Richard Lewontin.

23 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I intend to use this

24 reference solely for purposes of explaining the witness'

25 testimony. I believe that's appropriate under the rules.


1 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

2 MR. NOVIK: And I have no interest in admitting it

3 into evidence unless Mr. Williams would like to admit it.

4 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

5 Q Please proceed.

6 A Here is a classic case of evolution actually being

7 seen going on. If we look down at the bottom, we see that

8 there are two moths. You have to look rather hard to see

9 one of them.

10 And this, the model form was the standard original kind

11 of this particular sort of moth. And the main predator is

12 the robins who sort of fly along and eat the moths. And

13 obviously, they see the dark forms very easily, and so

14 they pick them off.

15 However, over the last hundred years or so because of

16 the industrial revolution, parts of England has gotten a

17 lot dirtier around Birmingham and these sort of places.

18 So consequently, the trees have sort of changed from the

19 bottom form up to looking much more like the top form.

20 And what has happened is that the moths have evolved

21 along with the change in the trees, so that now what

22 happens — and there is experimental evidence to show this

23 — robins are much more likely to pick off the original

24 model forms.

25 Here we have got a beautiful case of evolution in


1 A (Continuing) action, natural selection working.

2 Scientists and biologists have studied it time and again.

3 They found that it happens with other species of moths, so

4 on and so forth.

5 It's evolution that you just can't get away from.

6 Q How did the creation scientists deal with this

7 question of evolution?

8 A Well, what they do is they try to run around it.

9 They introduce, as I said, ad hoc hypotheses saying, "Oh,

10 well, we're not against all forms of evolution. In fact,

11 we ourselves admit a certain amount of evolution. It's

12 just only evolution within fixed kinds."

13 "In other words, we admit to evolution that

14 evolutionists have found. That's just not enough."

15 Q In terms of the philosophy of science, what is the

16 significance of the contrast between the unrestrained

17 evolutionary change identified in 4(b)(3) and accepted by

18 most scientists, and the evolutionary changes only within

19 fixed limits of created kinds referred to in 4(a)(3)?

20 A Well, I would want to say this means that

21 evolutionary theory is, lays itself open to falsification

22 in a way and testing in a way that so-called creation

23 science doesn't, and that it leads to a certain sort, of

24 fertility.

25 One expects to see evolution occurring and having


1 A (Continuing) occurred so very much more generally.

2 And this, of course, is the sort of thing one expects of a

3 Science.

4 Q In your reading of the creation science literature,

5 have you found any explanation, scientific explanation

6 from the creation scientists as to why evolution should

7 stop at the limit of a kind?

8 A Not really, no.

9 Q Doctor Ruse, let me direct your attention to Section

10 4(b)(4) and ask your professional assessment of that

11 section?

12 A Well, emergence, I guess one would say, that man and

13 apes— Emergence of man from a common ancestor with

14 apes. I think that evolutionists would certainly want to

15 agree that man and woman, too, come from common ancestors

16 with gorillas, orangutans.

17 Of course, nobody has ever wanted to claim that we come

18 from a common ancestors of apes or monkeys which are

19 living today.

20 Q How does that relate to 4(a)(4)?

21 A Well, again, separate ancestry for man and apes,

22 which, again, is something which is very important within

23 the scientific creationist literature, is something which

24 is, what can I say, again shows some sort of special

25 consideration for man and certainly puts in mind that the


1 A (Continuing) Creator had some sort of special place

2 for man in mind when he set about doing his job.

3 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at Sections 4(a)(5) and

4 4(b)(5), do you understand the use of the words "catastro-

5 phism" and "uniformitarianism" as used in the Statute?

6 A Not really.

7 Q What is your understanding, then, of how uniformi-

8 tarianism is used in the creation science literature?

9 A Well, I think they, confuse issues. What they say

10 uniformitarianism is, is causes of the same kind and the

11 same intensity interacting today have been responsible for

12 the gradual development of the earth up to its present

13 form.

14 Q Is that something that scientists agree on today?

15 A Certainly not. Scientists today certainly think

16 that in the earth's past there were all sorts of events

17 which occurred which are not of the kind which occur today.

18 Q Were they, nonetheless, a junction of the same

19 operation of natural law?

20 A Yes. Of course, this is the trouble. What one's

21 got is just sort of conflation, I think, in the scientific

22 creationist literature between two possible senses of

23 uniformitarianism.

24 And if by uniformitarianism, you mean exactly the same

25 laws and the same kinds of causes, like the law of


1 A (Continuing) gravity, then I don't think any

2 scientist — well, I know that no scientist, no geologist

3 is going to deny that.

4 But then on the other hand, if you want to mean by

5 uniformitarianism, not only the same causes, same laws,

6 but always acting in the same intensity, the same amount

7 of rain, the same amount of frost, then certainly

8 scientists today don't accept this.

9 Q How do you interpret catastrophism in 4(a)(5)?

10 A "Explanation of the earth's geology by

11 catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide

12 flood

13 Well, my understanding is that what we've got is some

14 sort of special divine intervention at this point bringing

15 about major upheavals of one sort or another.

16 Q Doctor Ruse, do you find much reference to the words

17 "uniformitarianism" and "catastrophism" in the creation

18 science literature?

19 A Oh, yes.

20 Q What is your professional opinion about the

21 significance of the worldwide flood contention as it

22 relates to creation science?

23 A Well, it certainly puts— I mean, again, this is

24 something which comes up again and again in the creation

25 science literature. And it's obviously to be identified

with Noah's flood. I mean, Genesis Flood, for example, is


1 A (Continuing) quite explicit on this.

2 By Genesis Flood, I'm referring to one of the creation

3 science books.

4 Q Who is the author?

5 A Whitcomb and Morris. I think it was published in

6 1961.

7 Q Doctor Ruse, what is the relationship between a

8 worldwide flood and the subject of origins, which, after

9 all, purport to be the subject of this statute?

10 A Well, I don't think there is any relationship. I

11 think it's something which is being tacked on to, as it

12 were, added on to Genesis. I mean, if you're going to

13 talk about worldwide floods, why not talk about the

14 Chicago fire.

15 Q Finally, Doctor Ruse, do you have any professional

16 observation with respect to Subsection 6 of 4(b)?

17 A Yes. I'd say that an inception several billion

18 years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life, I think

19 that evolutionists would accept this.

20 Q And how does that relate to 4(a)(6)?

21 A Well, a relatively recent inception of the earth and

22 living kinds, again, this is the position which is taken

23 in the scientific Creationist literature.

24 No actual times are given here. I mean, I take it, it

25 could be anything from five million years ago to about a


1 A (Continuing) week last Thursday. But certainly we

2 think it would be interpreted in this way, along with the

3 scientific creationist literature that what we are talking

4 about is six, ten thousand years ago. The sort of Genesis

5 scale that we heard about yesterday.

6 Q Do you find that theory of a young earth in the

7 creation science literature?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Do you find that theory of a young earth any place

10 other than in the creation science literature?

11 A No.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, does a creation theory necessarily

13 require a young earth?

14 A I wouldn't have thought so, no. I would have

15 thought that one could have a relatively old earth and

16 still have some sort of creation theory.

17 Q Doctor Ruse, you also testified that another

18 similarity between the Statute and the body of creation

19 science literature is the reliance on a two model approach

20 to the teaching of origins?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Would you please describe what you meant by that?

23 A Well, what `I mean by this is that everything is

24 being polarized in the Act. And this polarization is

25 something which is very distinctive of the scientific


1 A (Continuing) creationist literature. You've got to

2 be either one or the other.

3 And as I see matters, truly, and if you look at what

4 evolutionists and other scientists are saying is, they are

5 saying, "Well, no, there could be other options." One

6 doesn't have to say, "Well, it must be one or it must be

7 the other." There are all sorts of possibilities.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, the Act 590 does not use the words

9 "dual model approach." Where do you see references to

10 this so-called dual model approach that you've identified

11 in the creation science literature?

12 A Well, just as a point of order, Mr. Novik, on page

13 one I see "balanced treatment of these two models." So, I

14 mean, I think we are getting very close to a talk of dual is

15 models.

16 But of course, dual model approach is something which is

17 adopted time and again in scientific creationist

18 literature. I mean, for example, once again referring to

19 Morris' book, the two models are set out quite

20 explicitly side by side, and they look very much like

21 4(a) and 4(b).

22 Q Have you encountered this so-called dual model

23 approach to teaching science any place other than the

24 creation science literature?

25 A No.


1 Q Doctor Ruse, as a philosopher of science, what is

2 your professional opinion about the logic of the dual

3 model approach by which disproof of evolution is offered

4 as proof of creation?

5 A Well, it seems to me sort of fallacious because what

6 one is saying is you've got two alternatives and they are

7 contradictious.

8 And as I understand the true situation, what one's got

9 is several options. Not all of them could be true, but at

10 least one's got more than just two options.

11 Q Can you give an example of a particular discipline

12 of science which the creationists set up as a dual model,

13 but, in fact, you see more than two theories at work?

14 A Yes. Well, if you look, for example, at 4(b)(1),

15 "emergency by naturalistic processes of the universe from

16 disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife,"

17 well, if one's going to talk about this, in fact, there

18 are all sorts of hypotheses. I mean, there's several-

19 Q Excuse me. Are you referring to the "origin of the

20 universe or to the origin of life?

21 A I'm sorry. I'm talking specifically about the

22 origin of life here on earth, which certainly seems to be

23 included under 4(b)(l).

24 And there are all sorts of hypotheses being floated

25 around at the moment. I mean, on the one hand you've got


1 A (Continuing) people who believe some sort of, form

2 of, and by Genesis that life is created or life was

3 produced by natural law gradually from inorganic matter

4 here on earth. And there's certainly several hypotheses

5 about how this might have happened.

6 Then, again, for example, just recently Francis Crick,

7 Nobel prize winner of Watson-Crick fame, has suggested

8 that maybe life here on earth was seeded by intelligent

9 beings from outer space.

10 Then, again, another idea coming out of England, Sir

11 Fred Hoyle, and a colleague of his, Wickramasinghe, who I

12 think is one of the defendants' witnesses, they suggested

13 that possibly life came here on earth because we were

14 somehow passed through some sort of comet or some comet

15 passed close to us which carried life.

16 So, what I'm saying is that there are three, four, five

17 hypotheses being floated around at the moment as to how

18 life started here on earth.

19 And as I see it, this 4(a), 4(b) is sort of locking us

20 into saying that it is just one.

21 Q Does the two model approach take into account these

22 various theories of how life began?

23 A No. I think it sort of, what shall I say, pushes

24 them all together. They are very different.

25 Q And as a philosopher of science, focusing


1 Q (Continuing) specifically on this issue of the

2 origins of life, what do you think about, what is your

3 professional opinion about the logic of doing that?

4 A I think it's fallacious.

5 Q Now, we've been using The Origins of Life as an

6 example. Does creation science, as you know it in the

7 literature, apply the same two model approach to every

8 other aspect of the issues raised in its model?

9 A Yes, I think it does. Yes. For example, I was

10 thinking of some aptitude towards geology. Either you've

11 got to be a uniformitarian, whatever that means, or you've

12 got to be a catastrophist.

13 And I think that geologist today would certainly want to

14 sort out a lot of different options here.

15 Q Doctor Ruse, having examined the creationist

16 literature at great length, do you have a professional

17 opinion about whether creation science measures up to the

18 standards and characteristics of science that you have

19 previously identified in your testimony here today?

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q What is that opinion?

22 A I don't think it does.

23 Q Does creation science rely on natural law which you

24 identified as the first characteristic of science?

25 A It does not. It evokes miracles.


1 Q Would you explain that a bit?

2 A Well, by reading the creation science and having

3 thought about specific examples, if you want me to, is

4 that creation scientists quite openly and frequently talk

5 of supernatural interventions or processes lying outside

6 natural law.

7 Again, this goes back to something which was being

8 talked about yesterday. Nobody is saying that religion is

9 false. The point is it's not science.

10 Q Are there any examples in the creation science

11 literature that you've read that creation science does not

12 rely on natural law?

13 A Yes, there are.

14 Q Do you know of any such examples?

15 A Yes. I can give you some examples.

16 Q Could you give us one?

17 A Yes. For example, Doctor Gish's book, Evolution:

18 The Fossils Say No, states this quite explicitly.

19 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, this book identified by the

20 witness as being produced by the plaintiffs as plaintiffs,

21 exhibit 78 for identification, certain portions of that

22 book have been extracted and introduced for identification.

23 I believe Doctor Ruse is going to refer to a page that

24 has been already produced.

25 THE COURT: All right, sir.


1 A Mr. Novik, before I begin, perhaps I might note that

2 since this book was discussed yesterday that this edition

3 we are dealing with here states quite explicitly on the

4 front page that it's the public school edition, and there

5 are no disclaimers on the inside cover.

6 Okay. I'm turning now to page 40 of Evolution: The

7 Fossils Say No by Doctor Duane Gish. And this was

8 published in 1978, or at least this edition. I think it

9 came out earlier.

10 And I quote: "By creation, we mean the bringing into

11 being by a supernatural Creator — That's a capital C, by

12 the way — of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the

13 process of sudden, or fiat, creation.

14 "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes

15 He used, for," and this is all now in italics, "He used

16 processes which are not now operating anywhere in the

17 natural universe," end italics. "This is why we refer to

18 creation as special creation. We cannot discover by

19 scientific investigations anything about the creative

20 processes used by the Creator."

21 I don't think you can get much more blatant than that.

22 Q As a philosopher of science, what do you make of

23 that statement?

24 A Well, it's certainly not science.

25 Q Doctor Ruse, with respect to the second


1 Q (Continuing) characteristic of science that you

2 mentioned earlier, the matter of explanation, do you think

3 that creation science is explanatory?

4 A No, I don't because I think that as soon as anything

5 comes up, they evoke all sorts of ad hoc hypotheses, which

6 are naturally explanatory.

7 To give you an example which has a nice historical

8 connotation, there is a widespread phenomenon in the

9 organic world known as homology. That's to say, the sort

10 of structural similarities that you find, say, for

11 example, between the bones of animals of different species.

12 The bones of the human arm, for example, are very

13 similar to the bones of the horse, the foreleg of the

14 horse, the wing of the bat, the flipper of the porpoise

15 and all these sorts of things.

16 Now, these are real problems for creationists because

17 they are used for different functions and yet, why should

18 you have these similarities.

19 What creationists say, and incidentally, this is

20 something that people used to say before Darwinism, "Oh,

21 well, if you don't find any homologies, then God was just

22 working His purpose out. If you do find homologies, then,

23 well, God would have a special plan in mind."

24 I mean, in other words, it doesn't matter what comes up,

25 you know, we've got an explanation. And something which


1 A (Continuing) can explain anything is certainly no

2 true scientific explanation at all.

3 Q But isn't the creation science theory explanatory in

4 some sense? For example, the eye has to be admitted to be

5 a remarkable organ. Creation science would say it was

6 made by the Creator. Isn't that an explanation?

7 A Well, it's an explanation, but it's not a scientific

8 explanation because you are evoking a creator, you are not

9 doing it through natural law. And basically, you are not

10 saying, for example, why one eye is one way, another eye

11 is another way or particular features of the eye, per se.

12 Q Doctor Ruse, do you think that creation science is

13 testable?

14 A Not really genuinely testable, I wouldn't say.

15 Q Could you explain that?

16 A Again, this goes back to some of the points we've

17 been making. Every time one comes up with any kind of

18 evidence, the creation scientists, as I see it, sort of

19 wriggle around it.

20 One comes up with the case, for example, of the moth

21 saying, "Oh, no, this is not something which counts

22 against us." One comes up with fossil record, "Oh, no,

23 this is not something which counts against us."

24 Everything and nothing—



1 Q Is creation science falsifiable?

2 A No.

3 I'm sorry. As I was saying, there's basically nothing

4 one can think of that creation scientists couldn't fit

5 in. And I'll go even further than this, the creation

6 scientists themselves are quite explicit about this in

7 their writings.

8 They state time and again that, "Look folks, we start

9 with the Bible, this is our framework. If it doesn't fit

10 in, then we are not going to accept it."

11 Q And do you have any examples of that?

12 A Yes. I think I could give you some examples of that.

13 Q And what is that specific example?

14 A Well, one thing is the oath or the pledge that one

15 has to sign or accept if one's going to become a member of

16 the Creation Research Society, which is, I think, a

17 society out in California, founded in California for

18 creation scientists with masters or other degrees.

19 And it states quite explicitly in that—

20 Q Excuse me. Do you have a copy of that oath?

21 A Yes, I do. Do you want me to read some of this?

22 THE COURT: Is that different from the oath that was

23 read yesterday?

24 MR. NOVIK: No, it's not, your Honor. I'm not going

25 to have him read it.


1 THE COURT: You don't need to read it again for me.

2 I heard it yesterday.

3 MR. NOVIK: Yes, sir.

4 A Also, if you look in the literature itself, you find

5 explicitly time and again stated that one must follow the

6 limits set by the Bible.

7 Q Doctor Ruse, does this also bear on whether creation

8 science is tentative?

9 A Yes. Well, as I said earlier on, I mean, these are

10 all really very much a package deal, these various

11 features we are talking about.

12 And it's obviously the case that nothing is going to

13 shake the position of creation scientists about their

14 fundamental claims.

15 Q Do you have an example in the creation science

16 literature of creation science not being tentative?

17 A Yes. In, I think it's Kofahl and Segraves' The

18 Creation Explanation there is several cases.

19 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, the book, The Creation

20 Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution,

21 written by Kofahl and Segraves has been identified as an

22 exhibit for identification, number 87.

23 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

24 Q Doctor Ruse, would you identify for us the portion

25 of the book you are referring to?


1 A Yes. Referring to the book, The Creation

2 Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution, on

3 page 40 we find the following statement: "Ultimate

4 historical evidence always involves human eyewitness

5 testimony or documents left by eyewitnesses, but no such

6 testimony or documents are available for the early history

7 of the earth."

8 "One document, however, purports to give authoritative

9 testimony about the early earth from a Person — Capital

10 P, Person — who was present. This document is the Bible,

11 and its contents are to be classified not as scientific

12 evidence but as divine revelation. Such revelation is

13 either accepted by faith or rejected. Christians by faith

14 accept the biblical revelation in all of its details,

15 including its reports of early earth history. Thus the

16 Christian student of origins approaches the evidence from

17 geology and paleontology with the biblical record in mind,

18 interpreting that evidence in accord with the facts

19 divinely revealed in the Bible."

20 That is not tentative and that is not science.

21 Q Doctor Ruse, do you find that creation science

22 measures up to the methodological considerations you

23 described earlier as significant in distinguishing

24 scientific from nonscientific endeavors?

25 A No. My feeling is that really it doesn't. I think


1 A (Continuing) that, for example, they play all sorts

2 of slights of hand; they quote all sorts of eminent

3 evolutionists out of context, implying that evolutionists

4 are not saying quite what they are saying, implying they

5 are saying other sorts of things.

6 In other words, what I'm saying is, I think that the

7 creation scientists do all sorts of things that I teach my

8 students in introductory logic not to do.

9 Q With respect to the quotation out of context, do you

10 have an example of that?

11 A Yes. For example, if we look at Parker — this is

12 the recent book—

13 MR. NOVIK: Excuse me, Doctor Ruse.

14 Your Honor, the witness is referring to a book by Gary

15 Parker entitled Creation: The Facts of Life. It has

16 previously been marked for identification as exhibit 84.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Would you identify the page you are referring to?

19 A Yes. I'm looking now at page 144.

20 And incidentally, what we're talking about and what

21 Parker is going to be referring to is the article by

22 Lewontin, your Honor, which is in the book you've already

23 got upon your desk, Evolution, and it's the page exactly

24 opposite the picture of the moths.

25 And what I'm suggesting is that Parker takes Lewontin


1 A (Continuing) right out of context. It certainly

2 leaves the impression that Lewontin is saying something

3 other than what he's really saying.

4 Q The Lewontin article is on what page?

5 A It's page 115. 1 don't think it's numbered.

6 Just as a little background, Lewontin is not an eminent

7 evolutionist, but he states quite categorically on that

8 page that he is, that he accepts the evolutionary theory.

9 If you look at the final column there half way down,

10 beginning at the paragraph, Lewontin talks about the

11 modern view of adaptation is the external world has

12 certain problems and so on and so forth.

13 Q You were going to identify an out of context

14 quotation?

15 A Yes. Now, what Parker says, and I quote, is: "Then

16 there's 'the marvelous fit of organisms to the

17 environment,' the special adaptations of cleaner fish,

18 woodpeckers, bombardier beetles, etc., etc., — what

19 Darwin called `Difficulties with the Theory,' and what

20 Harvard's Lewontin (1978) called 'the chief evidence of a

21 Supreme Designer.'"

22 The quote is "the chief evidence of a Supreme

23 Designer." In fact, if you look at the original, you will

24 see that this actual passage occurs in the second column.

25 And what Lewontin is saying in the old days before we


1 A (Continuing) taught Darwin, people believed that

2 adaptation was the evidence of a designer.

3 The first paragraph, "It was the marvelous fit of

4 organisms to the environment much more than the diversity

5 of forms." That was the chief evidence of a Supreme

6 Designer.

7 Q So Lewontin was referring to the belief in a Supreme

8 Designer prior to Darwin?

9 A Certainly.

10 Q And it's quoted in Parker as if he believed

11 presently in the evidences of a designer?

12 A That's right.

13 Personally, that strikes me as a rather sleazy practice.

14 Q Doctor Ruse, you also mentioned honesty as a methodo-

15 logical type attribute of science. Do you believe that

16 creation science approaches its subject honestly?

17 A I really don't. I think that one gets all sorts of—

18 THE COURT: Who wrote the Creation book?

19 A This is Creation: The Facts of Life by Gary E.

20 Parker.

21 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

22 Q Doctor Ruse, do you believe that creation science

23 approaches its subject honestly?

24 A No, I don't.

25 Q Would you explain that, please?