Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P367-399


1 A (Continuing) philosopher I can distinguish between

2 science and religion. We are not talking about the

3 context of discovery here.

4 And as I say, in any case, creation science isn't

5 science. It's religion.

6 Q Do you agree with John Stuart Neill that, "If all

7 mankind, minus one, were of one opinion and only one

8 person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no

9 more justified silencing that one person that, had he had

10 the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

11 A Well, the subject is so strange that— You can't

12 shout "Fire" in a loud crowded cinema. Yes, I do,

13 right. I think it's a wonderful statement.

14 But of course, silencing somebody is different from not

15 allowing the teaching of religion in the science classroom.

16 Q Teaching religion in the science classroom is your

17 conclusion, is that correct?

18 A Right.

19 Q And Marxism is a religion in your mind?

20 A I certainly would not want Marxism—

21 THE COURT: Let's don't go through that again. He

22 is not going to admit what you want him to.

23 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm glad I've got one

24 philosophical convert here.



1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

2 Q Do you feel that the concept of a creator is an

3 inherently religious concept?

4 A Yes, I do.

5 Q So that the Creator should not be interjected into

6 the science classroom?

7 A Well, I mean, let's be reasonable about this. I

8 mean, for example, if you've got a biology class going,

9 and one of the kids asks you about, say, what's going on

10 in Arkansas at the moment, I wouldn't say, "Gosh, don't

11 talk about that. Wait until we get outside." No.

12 But I'd certainly say, "Look, if you want to talk about

13 this religion, then, you know, maybe we could wait until a

14 break," or something like that. Sure.

15 Q Does not The Origin of the Species conclude with a

16 reference to a creator and state that there is a grandeur

17 in this view of life with its several powers, having been

18 originally breathed by the Creator — with a capital C, I

19 might add — into a few forms or into one?

20 Does Darwin not call upon a creator in his book on The

21 Origin of the Species?

22 A Listen, before we—

23 Q Does he?

24 A Okay. Before we start on that, just pedantic, could

25 we get Darwin's book right. It's The Origin of Species.


1 A (Continuing) You said The Origin of the Species, if

2 we're going to be at this for two weeks—

3 Q Does he call upon a creator?

4 A Darwin certainly says that. But as I've said to you

5 a couple of weeks ago, Darwin later on modified what he

6 says and says, "Look, I'm talking metaphorically."

7 Q But would this subject, this book be appropriate for

8 consideration, in a science classroom?

9 A I certainly wouldn't want to use The Origin of

10 Species today in a science classroom. I'd certainly use

11 it in a historical context.

12 Q Or History of Science?

13 A Surely. Yes, I do indeed. It's one of the set

14 books in my course.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: I have no further questions, your

16 Honor.

17 THE COURT: Mr. Novik?



20 Q Doctor Ruse, you are a Canadian citizen?

21 A I am indeed.

22 Q Does Canada have a constitution?

23 A Well, ask me in a week or two. I think we might be

24 getting one.



1 Q Does Canada have a First Amendment?

2 A I'm afraid not.

3 Q Is there anything in Canada that prohibits the

4 teaching of religion in the public schools?

5 A I think it's a provincial situation.

6 Q That means it's up to each province?

7 A Yes. In fact, some provinces insist on it.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, I would like you to look at the statute

9 again, please, particularly Section 4(b). Section 4(b)

10 refers to scientific evidences.

11 What are those scientific evidences for?

12 A They are meaningless outside the context of the

13 theory.

14 Q In the statute, Doctor Ruse, what is the theory that

15 those scientific evidences are for?

16 A Are we looking at 4(b) now?

17 Q Yes.

18 A Well, as I said, I don't see a real theory here.

19 Q It says scientific evidences for—

20 A Well, a theory of evolution.

21 Q Now, if you will look up at 4(a), it says scientific

22 evidences for—

23 A Well, it's the theory of creation.

24 Q Doctor Ruse—

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object for the


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) record. It doesn't say

2 "theory" in either place.

3 THE WITNESS: No. But I said I can't understand it

4 without using the concept theory.

5 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

6 Q In 4(b), what scientific theory supports the

7 scientific evidences and inferences referred to?

8 A I'm sorry. Give that again?

9 Q In 4(b), what theory supports the scientific

10 evidences and inferences referred to? -

11 A I take it they are talking about the things covered

12 in 1 through 6.

13 Q What theory is that?

14 A Part of it is the evolutionary theory.

15 Q And in 4(a), what theory unifies the scientific

16 evidences and inferences referred to?

17 A Creation science theory.

18 Q Mr. Williams referred you to 4(a)(2), the

19 insufficiency of mutation and natural selection. What

20 theory does 4(a)(2) support?

21 A I take it, it's creation theory. As I say, it's

22 sort of funny because in another level, I think it's

23 supposed to be about creation theory, but in another

24 level, it seems to me to support evolutionary theory.

25 Q But it's in the statute as a support for creation


1 Q (Continuing) theory, is that correct?

2 A That seems to be, you know, a bit of a mixup.

3 Q When the statute speaks of insufficiency in 4(a)(2),

4 is that insufficiency because of natural processes?

5 A I suppose not. I suppose supernatural processes

6 would be presupposed.

7 Q When the statute speaks of insufficiency in 4(a)(2),

8 is that because of the act of a creator?

9 A Yes. Supernatural—

10 MR. WILLIAMS: I will object. I think it's

11 conjecture on the part of the witness. He's saying why

12 the statute speaks to this and why it does not. I think

13 it is conjecture on his part.

14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure I agree. I am

15 sorry.

16 THE COURT: That's overruled. Go ahead.

17 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

18 Q Mr. Williams took you through the statute, and I'd

19 like to do the same.

20 When in 4(a)(3), the statutes speaks of limited changes,

21 what theory is that evidence meant to support?

22 A Creation theory.

23 Q And in 4(a)(4) when the statutes speaks of separate

24 ancestry for man and apes, what theory is that meant to

25 support?


1 A The creation theory.

2 Q And in 4(a-)(5) when the statute speaks of earth's

3 geology, what theory is that meant to support?

4 A Creation theory.

5 Q And in 4(a)(6) when the statute speaks of the age of

6 the earth, what theory is that meant to support?

7 A Creation theory.

8 Q Doctor Ruse, looking at the statute, what are

9 evidences?

10 A I just don't know. Evidences don't mean anything

11 outside of scientific theory. That is meaningless and

12 it's misleading.

13 Q Are evidences facts or data or observations?

14 A Well, evidences can be facts, observations, data.

15 It doesn't make it scientific.

16 Q I was about to ask you whether evidences are

17 scientific?

18 A We are thinking like one at the moment, Mr. Novik.

19 Q I take it your answer is no?

20 A No.

21 Q When does evidence assume scientific significance?

22 A Only when you bind it together within a scientific

23 theory or a scientific hypothesis. Until that point—

24 THE COURT: That's all right. I've listened to that

25 earlier today. You don't need to go over it again.


1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

2 Q Can science have evidence divorced from a theory?

3 A No.

4 Q Can a science have an inference divorced from a

5 theory?

6 A No.

7 Q Have you ever seen anyone attempt to divorce an

8 evidence from its theory?

9 A Scientific creationists.

10 Q What is the effect of talking about data without

11 connecting it to its theory?

12 A Well, it's meaningless.

13 Q Can you teach science by only teaching evidences?

14 A No.

15 Q Can you teach science by only teaching inferences?

16 A No.

17 Q Do you have an opinion about why creation science

18 tries to speak about its scientific evidences and

19 inferences divorced from its theory?

20 A Because it's phony. It's religion. It's trying to

21 pretend it's something that it isn't.

22 Q And even though some evidence may look scientific,

23 is the theory of creation science scientific?

24 A No.

25 Q And even though some inferences may look scientific,


1 Q (Continuing) does it support a scientific theory of

2 creation?

3 A No.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Your Honor, I want to

5 object on the grounds, first of all, it's leading, and I

6 think it's— I think we've been over this before.

7 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

8 MR. NOVIK: I have no further questions.

9 THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Williams?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Nothing, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: We will reconvene at 1:30.

12 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30

13 p.m.)

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I would like to be permitted

15 to recall Doctor Ruse very briefly.

16 For the record, although plaintiffs do not believe that

17 evolution or the scientific merit of evolution is in

18 issue, the Court has permitted the defendants to raise

19 that question. And for the limited purpose of responding,

20 I'd like to ask Doctor Ruse a few questions.

21 Thereupon,



23 was recalled for further examination, and testified as

24 follows:





2 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

3 Q Doctor Ruse, is evolution based on natural law?

4 A Yes, it is.

5 Q Is evolution explanatory?

6 A Yes, it is.

7 Q Is evolution testable?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Is evolution tentative?

10 A Yes.

11 Q In your professional opinion as a philosopher of

12 science, is evolution science?

13 A Yes.

14 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions

15 of the witness.

16 In the course of the witness' direct examination, he

17 referred to a number of documents, Exhibit 74 and 75, 78

18 and 84 for identification. I move they be admitted into

19 evidence.

20 THE COURT: They will be received.

21 MR. NOVIK: Thank you very much. No further

22 questions.




25 Q You stated that evolution was a fact?


1 A I have in my book, yes.

2 Q What is a tentative fact?

3 A Tentative fact?

4 Q Yes.

5 A I think it's the question of the approach that

6 somebody takes to it. One holds something tentatively.

7 But it's a fact that I have a heart. If you ask me my

8 justification or something like this, of course,

9 ultimately I have to say, logically I cannot logically

10 prove it as I do in mathematics.

11 But I can simply say the fact that I have a heart. And

12 you have a heart, too, Mr. Williams.

13 Q The fact of evolution, you have testified to, has

14 been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

15 A Beyond reasonable doubt.

16 Q But yet you say you think it's still tentative? Is

17 that your answer?

18 A I'm using the word "tentative" here today in the

19 sense that it's not logically proven. There are some

20 things which, you know, I think it would be very difficult

21 to imagine, but I'm not saying logically I couldn't

22 imagine it, very difficult to imagine that it wouldn't be

23 true.

24 I mean, I find it very difficult to imagine that neither

25 of us have got hearts.


1 A (Continuing)

2 On the other hand, I've never seen one, or rather,

3 haven't seen yours and I haven't seen mine.

4 So in that sense I'm talking about it being a fact, that

5 it's something I'm quite sure is true, but in that

6 tentative sense, if you like the logical sense, it's

7 tentative.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

9 (Witness excused)




(Reporter's Note: The testimony


of Francisco Ayala not included


in Volume II, and will be made a


separate volume.)












1 Thereupon,



3 called in behalf of the Plaintiffs herein, after having

4 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

5 testified as follows:




8 Q Tell us your name and your address, please?

9 A James Leon Holsted. 4900 Edgemere Drive, North

10 Little Rock.

11 Q What is your business or occupation, Mr. Holsted?

12 A Independent businessman in North Little Rock, real

13 estate business and other investments.

14 Q Mr. Holsted, are you currently a member of the

15 Arkansas Senate?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q Can you tell me for how long you have been a member?

18 A I'm concluding my first term. It was a four year

19 term.

20 Q This last session, then, would have been your second

21 session?

22 A Correct.

23 Q Are you familiar with the piece of legislation that

24 became Act 590 of 1981?

25 A Yes, sir.


1 Q Who introduced that bill in the Senate of Arkansas?

2 A I did.

3 Q Can you tell me what your first contact was with the

4 legislation that became Act 590?

5 A I received a copy of a model piece of legislation in

6 the mail from a constituent.

7 Q And was that constituent Carl Hunt?

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q What did you do with it when you received it?

10 A Looked it over. I'd been contacted by him to see if

11 I'd be interested in introducing that piece of legis-

12 lation. I didn't know anything about it, so I asked him

13 to send me some background information. And I think he

14 sent me a copy of the bill. I'm not certain if he sent

15 one or Larry Fisher sent me one. It was between those two

16 that I believe I got a copy of the bill.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, defendants would object

18 to this line of inquiry. I think that we have already

19 essentially agreed to stipulations as to legislative

20 history, as such, that is relevant, when it was

21 introduced, how many votes it had, the hearing. And

22 anything else Senator Holsted might have to say as to

23 intent, personal motivation, that this is irrelevant to

24 the question of determining legislative intent as we've

25 argued in our brief, that the testimony of a legislator


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) given, particularly after

2 enactment of the bill, are not probative, certainly of

3 what a legislator might have thought, and clearly not as

4 to what the legislature intended. We are dealing with one

5 hundred thirty-five members and not one member in

6 determining legislative intent.

7 We have an act which is quite clear on its face as to

8 what the intent is, and it is not ambiguous as to its

9 intent. Therefore, we would object on the grounds of

10 relevance.

11 THE COURT: Since the Arkansas Legislature does not

12 make a record of its legislative process such as Congress

13 does so we can find out what the legislators thought about

14 it and what the arguments were on the floor and that sort

15 of thing, I think it's appropriate that he testify about

16 the process the bill went through as it was passed.

17 Very frankly, I'm not so sure about what his personal

18 intentions were and that sort of thing, but if I use any

19 of that evidence as part of the decision, I'll make a note

20 of that and note your objection so the objection will be

21 preserved.

22 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

23 Q Did you also receive, prior to the enactment of the

24 bill, some materials from various creation science

25 organizations and groups?


1 A Prior to the enactment, I received some materials;

2 not prior to the introduction.

3 Q So between the time that you first introduced it in

4 the Senate and the time it was finally passed, can you

5 tell me the groups from which you received such materials?

6 A No. I received some preliminary materials from Mr.

7 Hunt. And then I was inundated through the mails as more

8 publicity came out about the legislation. I stuck it

9 aside. I didn't have time to read everything that came

10 in. I didn't really pay any attention to most of it.

11 Q You did have some communications from the Institute

12 for Creation Research, did you not?

13 A That was one of them that sent some material, yes.

14 Q And particularly, did you receive letters from Mr.

15 Gish and communications from Mr. Gish?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And from Mr. Morris?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And from Mr. Wysong?

20 A Yes. I believe I did from him, also.

21 Q And from Mr. Bliss?

22 A Yes. I recall those names. I'm not sure what kind

23 of materials I received from them other than some

24 preliminary letters.

25 Q And did you receive information from Creation

Science Research Center in San Diego, also, the Segraves


1 Q (Continuing) institution?

2 A Yes.

3 Q All those before the bill was actually enacted?

4 A Correct.

5 Q Do you recall how long before the introduction of

6 the bill you did actually receive the bill?

7 A Approximately two to three weeks, the best of my

8 recollection. I looked at it a couple of weeks, I think,

9 before I introduced it.

10 Q What did you do with it when you received it?

11 A Looked at it. I read some of the materials that Mr.

12 Hunt gave me, thumbed through it, and looked at that

13 material.

14 Read the legislation to see if I could introduce that bill

15 and stand up before the Senate and try to pass it.

16 Q Did you give it to any Arkansas body in the

17 legislature or associate with a legislator in an attempt

18 to put it into final form?

19 A I gave it to the Legislative Council to draft it

20 when I did decide to introduce it, yes. It had to be

21 drafted in the form we introduce them in Arkansas.

22 Q Senator, I'm going to show you a document which has

23 been marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs'

24 Exhibit Number 33 and ask you if that is the bill you

25 received from your constituent, Mr. Hunt, and which you

transmitted to the Legislative Council?


1 A Yes. This appears to be, but those marks on it

2 were— This is not, exactly the same one, but a close

3 facsimile to the one I received from him.

4 Q You mean, it's a photocopy of the one?

5 A Yes. And I think— Let me see if all the

6 sections— Yes.

7 MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer number 33.

8 THE COURT: It will be received.

9 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing.)

10 Q Can you tell me whether, when the Legislative

11 Council concluded its work on the model bill which had

12 been transmitted to you, whether there were any changes?

13 A I seem to recall that they took out the short title

14 provision in it. And I think that was basically the only

15 change.

16 Q In other words, by the time it got to be introduced

17 in the Arkansas Senate, except for some very, very minor

18 changes, particularly with regard to the title, it was

19 identical?

20 A Correct.

21 Q And can you tell me if you learned, either then or

22 subsequently, who the author of that bill was?

23 A I learned after the passage of the bill and signing

24 of the Act where the legislation came from or who the

25 author was.


1 Q And did it come from Paul Ellwanger?

2 A That is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.

3 Q And do you know how you learned that it came from

4 Mr. Ellwanger?

5 A I don't have any idea who told me. I can't remember.

6 You know, I talked with so many people about it, so many

7 people said that, I don't recall the first one who said it.

8 Q You learned at least from sufficient numbers of

9 persons to satisfy yourself that it did come from Mr.

10 Ellwanger?

11 A That's correct.

12 Q Now, we have entered into some stipulations with

13 regard to the actual dates and the mechanism by which the

14 bill went from Senate Bill 42 to Act 590. But I would

15 like briefly to discuss with you something about the

16 hearing process.

17 Were there any hearings before the Senate?

18 A We had what you might consider a hearing when we

19 discussed it on the Senate floor.

20 Q There were no committee hearings at any rate in the

21 Senate?

22 A No.

23 Q And can you tell us approximately how long the

24 debate before the full Senate was?

25 A Probably fifteen to thirty minutes.


1 Q You told us in your deposition that Senators Hendren

2 and Howell spoke in favor of the bill. Were there any

3 other Senators who spoke in favor of the bill?

4 A I don't recall anyone else speaking in favor of the

5 bill.

6 Q Was there anyone in opposition to the bill?

7 A I was trying to remember. I think some people spoke

8 in opposition in the manner of asking questions when

9 someone was speaking for the bill.

10 Do you understand? That's the way you try to oppose a

11 piece of legislation. Many times you ask questions about

12 it from the floor, but don't actually come down to the

13 podium and speak about it.

14 And there were quite a few questions asked, but I don't

15 remember anyone taking the floor and actively speaking

16 against the bill.

17 Q Do you recall how many votes there were against the

18 bill in the Senate?

19 A No, sir, I have forgotten. It's a matter of record

20 that we can find out. It passed, though.

21 Q Do you recall how long the actual debate was?

22 A Fifteen to thirty minutes, to the best of my

23 recollection.

24 Q I'm sorry. I had forgotten that I'd asked you that.

25 Was there a prior announcement other than the morning


1 Q (Continuing) calendar that indicated that Senate

2 Bill 482 was going to be debated that day?

3 A No more than we do on any other piece of legis-

4 lation. In fact, sometimes the authors don't even know

5 when their legislation is going to come up for a vote.

6 Now, we discussed it in the quiet room that day. And I

7 remember quite a few of the Senators meeting in there, and

8 I told them I was going to try to get it up for a vote.

9 But I didn't know if I was even going to be able to get

10 it up for a vote, or not.

11 Q Prior to your own introduction of Senate Bill 482,

12 had you conducted a review of the biology texts then

13 currently in use in any of the school districts in

14 Arkansas?

15 A I looked at the text used in North Little Rock and

16 visited with the gentleman that bought text books for the

17 North Little Rock school system to get his ideas of what

18 was being used around the state. He's pretty familiar

19 with what was being taught around the state.

20 Q And had you had some previous acquaintance with him?

21 A Yes. He's a friend of mine.

22 Q A parent of your legislative assistant, is that

23 correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Now, what did you discover upon your review of those biology texts?


1 A The only theory being presented in the school

2 systems for the origin of life was the evolutionary theory.

3 Q That's the only theory you found present in those

4 texts?

5 A That's correct.

6 Q Did you discuss with this gentleman— Mr. Dyer, I

7 think, his name was?

8 A Correct.

8 Q —whether any other alternatives or any other

10 theories were under discussion in the North Little Rock

11 public schools?

12 A Yes. I asked him if he knew of anything being

13 taught anywhere in the state, as well as in North Little

14 Rock.

15 Q And did he respond negatively to that?

16 A He responded that he didn't know of anything else

17 being taught.

18 Q Was this lack of anything other than evolution

19 theory being under discussion or being taught one of the

20 primary motivations for your introduction of this piece of

21 legislation?

22 A Well, I felt like, that was the only way the

23 legislation could pass. If anything else was being

24 taught, there was no need for the legislation.

25 Q The bill passed the Senate and went to the House, is


1 Q (Continuing) that correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q There was a committee meeting before which this bill

4 was discussed in the House, is that correct?

5 A Correct.

6 Q And that discussion took place one morning, and you

7 yourself were present?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q And do you recall that the committee met for

10 approximately thirty minutes, fifteen minutes on this bill

11 and approximately fifteen on another bill?

12 A I think they limited the debate to ten minutes a

13 side on this.

14 Q And do you recall the individuals who spoke on

15 behalf of the legislation in the House?

16 A Myself and Cliff Hoofman.

17 Q Cliff Hoofman is a member of the Arkansas House?

18 A He was the one that was handling it in the House for

19 me. And I believe Larry Fisher spoke for the bill.

20 Q And do you recall the individuals who spoke against

21 the legislation in the House committee?

22 A Mike Wilson, who is a member of the House, and a

23 representative of the Arkansas Education Association. I

24 don't recall if there was a third one. I thought there

25 was a third one, but I don't recall who spoke against it.


1 Q And then the bill was enacted in July and signed by

2 the governor and became Act 590?

3 A It went to the House floor first.

4 Q Right. I'm sorry.

5 A Then was debated on the House floor, and then it

6 went to the governor's office.

7 Q Do you recall the length of time it was debated on

8 the House floor?

9 A Seemed like all afternoon. They would pass it, and

10 they would try to repeal the vote, rescind the vote, do

11 something else with it and table it. It was quite a bit

12 of parliamentary movement going on at that time.

13 Q Did you witness part of it, or was it reported to

14 you?

15 A It was reported to me. I was back in the Senate.

16 Q Prior to your putting the bill up in the Senate, or,

17 indeed, at any time during the entire legislative process,

18 did you have any discussions with the Department of

19 Education regarding this matter, the bill?

20 A No.

21 Q Did you have any discussion with any teacher

22 organizations?

23 A No.

24 Q Did you have any discussion with individual science

25 teachers or curriculum coordinators regarding the bill,

other than Mr. Fisher?


1 A No, not really.

2 Q You did have some material, though, that had been

3 submitted to you during this process where it was going

4 through the legislative mill?

5 A Correct.

6 Q And you have supplied some of those or, at least,

7 copies of virtually everything that you had to us, is that

8 right?

9 A I think I did. A big box of stuff.

10 Q Did you ever ask the Attorney General for an opinion

11 regarding the constitutionality of the bill?

12 A No. We were in the closing days of the session.

13 Had a week, maybe a week and a half when I started the

14 process. There would have never been time to get an

15 opinion out of his office on the constitutionality of that

16 issue.

17 Q Was one of the materials that you had received in

18 our packet an indication that Attorneys General in other

19 states had indicated some considerable doubts about the

20 constitutionality of the bill?

21 A Probably I did, but that's not unusual. I think

22 everybody, when they want to try to defeat a bill on the

23 floor of the Senate, will get up and say it's unconsti-

24 tutional.

25 The only way you can determine whether it's


1 A (Continuing) unconstitutional or not is through

2 this process; not any other way.

3 Q Do you recall that there was a letter from a number

4 of creation science proponents to the Attorney General of

5 South Carolina questioning the Attorney General's opinion

6 which said that the bill was unconstitutional?

7 A I may have had one. I didn't think that was very

8 relevant. You get letters like that all day long that say

9 all kinds of different things.

10 Q I just want to show you the materials that you

11 submitted to us and ask you do you recall that this letter

12 from John Whitehead, Randall Byrd, and a Chief Judge

13 Braswell Dean to the Honorable Richard Riddon,

14 R-i-d-d-o-n, deals with the Attorney General's opinion in

15 South Carolina?

16 A I remember seeing that.

17 Q This did not prompt you to make further inquiry

18 about the constitutionality of the legislation, however,

19 is that correct?

20 A No sir. As I've' stated before— Maybe I didn't

21 state this. But the Attorney' General's opinion is just an

22 opinion.

23 And while it's a well researched opinion and he tries to

24 give the best opinion he feels like will be held up in a

25 court of law, it's just an opinion.

Q Do you recall whether any of the sections were


1 Q (Continuing) amended from the time 482 was first

2 introduced until it became 590?

3 A No, sir, they were not amended.

4 Q We've talked about your feeling regarding the lack

5 of anything but evolution being taught as a motivator in

6 the introduction of the bill.

7 Were there other motivations for you in the introduction

8 of the bill?

9 A Not really.

10 Q Were your own individual deep religious convictions

11 part of the motivation in introducing the bill?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to again object on

13 the grounds of relevance, particularly on this point. I

14 think the cases are quite clear that the motive even

15 Epperson itself— Epperson says—

16 THE COURT: I'll make that same ruling. I'll let

17 that evidence go in. If I use that evidence. If I use

18 that evidence in the decision, I will make a note of it.

19 MR. WILLIAMS: For purposes of efficiency, I would

20 like the record to reflect my objection as continuing to

21 this line of inquiry.

22 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

23 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

24 Q Were your own individual deeply held religious

25 convictions a significant motivation in your introduction

of this legislation?


1 A Certainly it would have to be compatible with what I

2 believe in. I'm not going to introduce legislation that I

3 can't stand before the Senate and present as something I

4 can't believe in.

5 Q Well, even in addition to it being compatible, is it

6 not true that you said contemporaneous with the intro-

7 duction of the legislation that you introduced the

8 legislation because of your deeply held religious

9 convictions?

10 A Did I say that? Are you stating I said that?

11 Q I'm asking you is it not true that you said that

12 contemporaneous with, at the same time, that you

13 introduced the bill?

14 We are talking about that same time span while the bill

15 is going through the legislative process and immediately

16 after its enactment.

17 Did you not say that the motivating or, at least, a

18 significant motivating factor in the introduction of the

19 legislation was your own deeply held religious conviction?

20 A I probably said that at one time or another during

21 the course of the legislation.

22 Q Indeed, as late as yesterday, did you not say that

23 God had spoken to you at the time and told you to sponsor

24 the bill?

25 A No. I can't believe somebody said I said that. I


1 A (Continuing) didn't say that.

2 Q You didn't say that?

3 A No. I've been misquoted so many times, and I

4 definitely remember yesterday. A week ago would be

5 difficult, but I definitely remember yesterday.

6 Q Do you yourself hold to a literal interpretation of

7 the Bible?

8 A Yes, I do.

9 Q You are Methodist, are you not?

10 A That is correct.

11 Q Did you not say that at the time of the enactment of

12 the bill that the bill favors the views of Biblical

13 literalists?

14 A Yes. I was asked did this favor some particular

15 view over another. And I said perhaps it does.

16 Q And that the view that was favored was the view of

17 the Biblical literalists, is that correct?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Did you not also say contemporaneous with the

20 enactment of the bill that the strongest supporters of Act

21 590 would be those holding to a fundamentalist view of

22 Christianity?

23 A Correct.

24 Q Did you not say also contemporaneous with the

25 enactment of the bill, and do you not now believe that


1 Q (Continuing) creation science presupposes the

2 existence of a creator?

3 A Correct.

4 Q Did you not say that this bill's reference to

5 creation means a divine creator?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q Now, if— I'm going to ask you to tell me now from

8 your own view of this legislation as the person who

9 shepherded it through—

10 THE COURT: Wait a second. Where did he say he made

11 the last two statements?

12 Q Did you not say that publicly to the press and to

13 anyone else who asked you?

14 A Yes.

15 THE COURT: Not on the Senate floor, anyway?

16 MR. KAPLAN: No, not on the Senate floor.

17 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

18 Q These press accounts, however, were contemporaneous

19 with the legislative process, were they not?

20 A No.

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to

22 that question.

23 A No, they were not.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: That is a fact not in evidence.

25 think it's contrary to what actually occurred.


1 MR. KAPLAN: I am not certain where we are now. Let

2 me just ask a new question.

3 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

4 Q Is it your view that this bill, which presupposes a

5 divine creator complies with the First Amendment of the

6 Constitution because it doesn't teach one particular view

7 of religion?

8 A Right.

9 Q That is, Methodist over Baptist or Catholic over Jew?

10 A Right. It doesn't mention any particular god.

11 Q And is it your view that it is not religion because

12 there is a specific prohibition against using religious

13 writings? Indeed, one could not bring Genesis into the

14 classroom under this particular legislation?

15 A Correct.

16 Q And that is your view of why this is not in conflict

17 with the First Amendment?

18 A Correct. My layman's view, you have to understand.

19 Q Let me briefly discuss with you some of the specific

20 portions of the bill. There is in the introduction to the

21 bill an injunction or a rationale for the enactment with

22 regard to and states as follows, "To prohibit religious

23 instruction concerning origins."

24 Prior to the enactment, were you aware of any

25 instruction, religious instruction regarding origins in


1 Q (Continuing) the public schools?

2 A No, I wasn't.

3 Q Let, me ask you, as far as you are concerned, what

4 that phrase means, to prohibit religious instruction

5 concerning origins?

6 A To not allow anybody to use Genesis in the classroom.

7 Q Isn't that what you are concerned about here?

8 A And any other religious writings, no matter if it

9 would be Genesis or whatever, of any other religion.

10 If you're planning on going down through every one of

11 those parts of the bill, I can save you some time on that.

12 Q No, I'm not going to do every one. The Judge

13 wouldn't let me anyway. I want to ask you just about a

14 few more.

15 A Okay.

16 Q I want to ask you about balance and what balance

17 means to you?

18 A Balance to me means equal emphasis. I don't think

19 you measure balance by the amount of time, but it does

20 mean equal emphasis from one subject matter to another.

21 Q Does it also, within your constellation of balance

22 and how you view balance, mean that a teacher could not

23 say, "Okay,' we're going to spend our ten minutes here or

24 however much is necessary to balance," and then say, "But

25 I disclaim any view of creation science; I don't like it?"


1 A A teacher could do that and there would be no way of

2 getting around it. But I believe in the professionalism

3 of the teachers we have in Arkansas, and I believe that

4 professional ethics would not allow him to do that.

5 Q Do you believe if a district— Is it your view that

6 if a district said, "Now, look, we want balanced treatment

7 and we don't want any comment," that a teacher could be

8 terminated because of the teachers failure and refusal to

9 avoid these disclaimers?

10 A I think if a school district, wanted to do that and

11 school board, that's completely under their right to do

12 that. If a teacher doesn't teach English and she's

13 supposed to be teaching English, they can terminate her

14 for that.

15 Q Do you know, whether there was any inquiry other than

16 what already existed in the bill with regard, to the

17 legislative findings as they appear in the bill?

18 A No, sir.

19 Q That's there was no inquiry other than what was

20 already written down here?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q And indeed, there was no legislative discussion

23 about that isn't that correct?

24 A About what?

25 Q About findings other—