Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P567-599


1 A (Continuing) dentician. It is a rather nice

2 mixture.

3 Q What do you mean by `dentician'?

4 A Teeth. Sorry. Or a mixture of apelike and

5 humanlike features. Humans have a general shape of the

6 dentician of a parabola, where apes tend to have a more,

7 look at the molars and the incisors, rather more blocky or

8 what we call quadrate outline. The outline of the palate

9 and the upper jaw of Australopithecus afarensis is quite

10 blocky, as in apes, and yet in many respects the teeth are

11 more human in form, particularly in the reduction of the

12 canine.

13 So Australopithecus afarensis is a remarkable

14 intermediate form which mixes together apelike and

15 humanlike features, just as we would expect. And then

16 when you go to younger rocks in Africa, you find

17 transitional forms again.

18 The first representative of our own genus, for example,

19 a form called Homo habilis, is found in rocks less than

20 two million years old and is intermediate in cranial

21 capacity between Lucy and modern humans. It has a cranial

22 capacity of seven hundred to eight hundred cubic

23 centimeters, compared to thirteen or fourteen hundred for

24 modern humans, with approximately on the order of four

25 hundred or a little less for Lucy.


1 A (Continuing)

2 And then in younger rocks, you get the next species,

3 Homo erectus, or more popularly the Java or Peking Man,

4 which is the first form that migrated out of Africa and

5 came to inhabit other continents as well.

6 And it is again an intermediate between Homo habilis in

7 brain size and modern humans, with cranial capacities on

8 the order of a thousand cubic centimeters. And then

9 finally in a much more recent strata we get the first

10 remains of our own species, Homo sapiens.

11 Q How does creation science deal with this evidence of

12 transitional forms?

13 A Again, in the literature I've read, in the most part

14 by ignoring it and by citing examples from Henry Morris'

15 Scientific Creationism, again.

16 Henry Morris does two things simply to dismiss that

17 evidence. He argues that Australopithecus is not an

18 intermediate form, out entirely an all-ape, again by

19 citing a single citation from a news report, not from

20 primary literature.

21 He writes on page 173, this is now a citation from that

22 news report. "Australopithecus limb bone have been rare

23 finds, but Leakey now has a large sample. They portray

24 Australopithecus as long-armed and short-legged. He was

25 probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker, as many


1 A (Continuing) archaeologist presently believe."

2 Now, gorillas and chimps are knuckle-walkers, and the

3 implication is that the Australopithecus was just an ape.

4 But I don't know where that news report came from. We

5 certainly are quite confident from the pelvis and leg

6 bones that Australopithecus walked erect. There are

7 volumes devoted to that demonstration. That is certainly

8 not decided by a certain news report that seems to

9 indicate otherwise.

10 Morris then goes on to say, "In other words,

11 Australopithecus not only had a brain like an ape, but he

12 also looked like an ape and walked like a ape."

13 And the second thing that Henry Morris does is to argue

14 that contrary to the claim I just made, that there is a

15 temporally ordered sequence to the intermediate forms.

16 Morris argued that modern humans are found in the oldest

17 rocks that preserve any human remains. And he again cites

18 a news report, but misunderstands it or miscites it.

19 The news report says, "Last year Leakey and his

20 co-workers found three jaw bones, leg bones and more than

21 400 man-made stone tools. The specimens were attributed to

22 the genus Homo."

23 Now, the claim is, yes, they were attributed to the

24 genus Homo, but it is not our species. Leakey then goes

25 on to say, "It is not our species. In fact, these belong


1 A (Continuing) to the species Homo habilis. The

2 intermediate form of the cranial capacity was seven

3 hundred to eight hundred cubic centimeters, and does

4 not show, as Morris maintains, "that a fully modern human

5 existed in the ancient strata."

6 Q Professor Gould, are you familiar with the creation

7 science argument that there are explained gaps between

8 pre-Cambrian and Cambrian life?

9 A Yes, indeed. The pre-Cambrian fossil record was

10 pretty much nonexistent until twenty or thirty years

11 ago. Creationists used to like to make a big point of

12 that. They argued, `Look, for most of earth's history

13 until you get rocks that you say are six hundred million

14 years old, there were no fossils at all.'

15 Starting about 30 years ago, we began to develop a very

16 extensive and impressive fossil record of pre-Cambrian

17 creatures. They are, indeed, only single-celled

18 creatures. And the reason we haven't found them before is

19 because we were looking for larger fossils in different

20 kinds of rocks.

21 So creation scientists had to acknowledge that, and they

22 then shifted the argument and said that, "All right, these

23 are only single-celled creatures and they are not

24 ancestors to the more complicated forms that arise in the

25 Cambrian, but there are no fossils of multi-cellular


1 A (Continuing) animals before the Cambrian strata."

2 But we've known now for about twenty years that that,

3 too, is false. There is one rather well known fauna

4 called the Ediacaran fauna, after a place in Australia

5 where it was first found, but now, in fact, found on

6 almost every continent of the earth.

7 These fossils are pre-Cambrian. They are not very

8 ancient pre-Cambrian fossils. They occur in rocks pretty

9 much just before the Cambrian. They are caught all over

10 the world invariably in strata below the first appearance

11 of still invertebrate fossils.

12 And the creation scientists, as far as I can see, for

13 the most part, just simply ignore the existence of the

14 Ediacaran fauna. For example, Duane Gish, again, in

15 Evolution: The Fossils Say No cites, although this book

16 is published in 1979, cites the following quotation by a

17 paleontologist named T. Neville George on page 70, "Granted

18 an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and

19 not an act of special creation, the absence of any record

20 whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the

21 pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox

22 grounds as it was to Darwin."

23 That was a fair statement that T. Neville George made,

24 but he made it in 1960, so Mr. Gish must surely know of

25 the discovery of the Ediacaran fauna since then. I think


1 A (Continuing) he's misleading to the extreme in that

2 he continues to cite this earlier source when, in fact,

3 later discoveries had shown the existence of this

4 pre-Cambrian fauna.

5 Q Professor Gould, are there any natural law

6 explanations for the rapid diversification of

7 multicellular life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian

8 era?

9 A Yes, indeed. Without in any way trying to maintain

10 the problem has been solved - it has not - we have some

11 promise and possibilities based on natural law that may

12 very well tell a large part of the story.

13 Q What explanations are those?

14 A For example, I have said there was an extensive

15 record of pre-Cambrian single-celled creatures. But all

16 of these single-celled creatures reproduced asexually, at

17 least until late in the pre-Cambrian, as far as we can

18 tell. And animals that reproduced asexually, according to

19 Darwin's theory, have very little opportunity for

20 extensive evolutionary change.

21 Under Darwin's theory, natural selection requires a

22 large pool of variability, genetic variability, upon which

23 natural selection operates. And you can't generate that

24 pool of variability in asexual creatures. In asexual

25 creatures, the offspring will be exactly like their


1 A (Continuing) parents unless a new mutation occurs,

2 but mutations are rare. And you may have a lot of

3 favorable mutations, but there is no way you can mix them

4 together. One line has one mutation and another clone

5 another mutation.

6 But it is in sexual reproduction that you can bring

7 together the favorable mutations in several lines. But

8 each sexually produced creature represents a mixture of the

9 different genetic material of two different parents. And

10 that way you can bring together all the favorable

11 mutations and produce that normal pool of variability

12 without which natural selection can't operate.

13 So it may be that the so-called Cambrian explosion is a

14 consequence of the evolution of sexuality, which allowed

15 for the first time enough variability for Darwinian

16 process to operate.

17 Q Are there any other possible natural law

18 explanations?

19 A Yes, there are. One explanation that I find

20 intriguing which is complimentary and not contradictory to

21 the argument about sexuality, involves the characteristic

22 mode in which growth proceeds in all systems that have

23 characteristic properties. If 1 may have-

24 Q Would it help you to refer to Plaintiffs' Exhibit

25 101?


1 A Yes, please. I have an illustration here-

2 Q I believe the Court has a copy of that exhibit

3 already. What page are you referring to?

4 A It's on page 653. And here we are making an analogy

5 of bacterial growth, but it is talking about

6 characteristic growth in systems with the following

7 properties, where into a system with superabundant

8 resources you introduce for the first time a creature

9 capable of self multiplication. So that if, for example,

10 you introduce a single bacterial cell onto a plate of

11 nutrients upon which it can grow, initially you're not

12 going to see, although the rate of cell division doesn't

13 change, nothing much is going to happen if one bacterial

14 cell, then two, then four, then eight, then sixteen,

15 thirty-two. You still can't see it, so the increase

16 appears to be initially quite slow. We call it a lag

17 phase.

18 But eventually it starts to increase much more rapidly;

19 you get a million, then two million, then four million,

20 then eight million. Even though the rate of cell division

21 hasn't changed, the appearance of the increase has

22 accelerated enormously. We call that the lag phase.

23 Then eventually it reaches the point where there is as

24 many bacteria as the medium can support and then it tapers

25 off and you have a so-called plateau. And that gives rise


1 A (Continuing) to the so called S shape, or the

2 Sigmoid curve, after the initial slow lag phase to the

3 rapid log phase and the later plateau.

4 Now, when you plot the increase of organic diversity

5 through pre-Cambrian and Cambrian transition, you seem to

6 have a very good fit to that S-shaped curve, which is what

7 you'd expect in any system in which into a regime of

8 superabundant resources you introduce a creature capable

9 of self multiplication for the first time.

10 So the lag phase is presumably indicated by the slow

11 increase in numbers of organisms at the end of the

12 pre-Cambrian, culminating in the Ediacaran fauna. The log

13 phase represents the rapid acceleration, not acceleration,

14 but rapid increase in numbers of forms that we would expect

15 in such a system gives analogous to the million, two

16 million, four million bacteria and the later plateau.

17 And, therefore, I think ordinary Sigmoidal growth may

18 well represent the Cambrian explosion. In other words,

19 the argument is the Cambrian explosion is, the log phase if

20 one is using Sigmoidal processes.

21 Q Does creation science take care of these two

22 alternative natural law explanations?

23 A I have not seen them depicted in the creation

24 science literature that I've read.

25 Q Professor Gould, does evolutionary theory presuppose


1 Q (Continuing) the absence of a creator?

2 A Certainly not. Indeed, many of my colleagues are

3 devoutly religious people. Evolution as a science does

4 not talk about the existence of a creator. It is quite

5 consistent with one or without one, so long as the creator

6 works by natural laws.

7 Q Professor Gould, do you have a professional opinion

8 concerning creation science in the areas of paleontology

9 and geology?

10 A Yes, indeed. I think they proceed by misquotation,

11 by selective quotation, and by invoking supernatural

12 intervention to produce the basic kinds of life, all of

13 which are not only unscientific, but represent skill and

14 rhetoric rather than science.

15 MR. NOVIK: I have no further questions, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: The court will be in recess until 1:30.

17 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

18 from 12:30 p.m. until 1:40 p.m.)

19 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I will just state for the

20 record, I appreciate the opportunity to finish reading

21 Doctor Morowitz' deposition which was taken last night,

22 and the opportunity to collect my thoughts for this cross

23 examination.




1 Thereupon,



3 having been previously sworn, was examined and testified

4 as follows:





8 Q Doctor Morowitz, has Mr. Novik advised you that

9 Judge Overton wants all witnesses to respond to the

10 questions that are actually asked in this courtroom?

11 A Pardon?

12 Q Has Mr. Novik told you that Judge Overton wants you

13 to respond directly to the questions that are actually

14 asked of you?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q When were you first contacted about being a witness

17 in this lawsuit?

18 A Sometime within the last few weeks. I believe it

19 was in late October, although— The reason I'm

20 equivocating a bit is I was called as a consultant first,

21 to discuss some aspects of the case as an expert

22 consultant, and then my role as a witness emerged from

23 that. And the exact date of that transition, I'm not

24 clear on.

25 Q When were you first contacted to be expert to


1 Q (Continuing) advise plaintiffs in this case.

2 A Sometime in October.

3 Q Okay. I believe last night you told us that you

4 were first contacted one to two months ago?

5 A That would be sometime in October, yes.

6 Q When were you first advised that you would actually

7 testify in this lawsuit?

8 A I believe that was about two weeks ago.

9 Q Were you advised that your testimony would be

10 because that Doctor Carl Sagan was unable to testify?

11 A I did not discuss that with anyone, no.

12 Q Were you told why you would be a witness here?

13 A No, I was not told; I was asked to be a witness.

14 Q When was the subject matter of your testimony first

15 discussed?

16 A At that time.

17 Q That was some two weeks ago?

18 A Yes. Whenever it was that I agreed to be a witness.

19 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor., the proposed testimony of

20 Doctor Carl Sagan was the nature of science, why creation

21 science is not science, and the relevancy of astronomy to

22 creation science.

23 It's my understanding, based on discussing with Mr. Dave

24 Williams of our office, is that Doctor Morowitz would be a

25 substitute for Doctor Sagan. I would move at this time


1 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing) that all of Doctor Morowitz'

2 testimony which was outside the scope of what we were

3 originally advised by the plaintiffs be struck from the

4 record.

5 THE COURT: it seems to me like if you took Doctor

6 Morowitz' deposition last night, that a timely motion in

7 that connection would have been before he testified today.

8 MR. CHILDS: Well, your Honor, I think the Court

9 can consider at this point as only a tender in his

10 testimony for purposes of review.

11 THE COURT: I will deny that motion.

12 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

13 Doctor Morowitz, would you please tell Judge

14 Overton and the people here in the courtroom what

15 thermodynamics in an equilibrium state means?

16 A Thermodynamics is a field of study. It is the

17 study of energy transformations in equilibrium systems.

18 That is the field called classical thermodynamics, which

19 the term `thermodynamics' is usually used, is the study of

20 transformations of state in equilibrium systems.

21 Q Last night you told me that you have made some

22 calculations regarding the possibilities or probabilities

23 of life originating from non-life in an equilibrium state,

24 did you not?

25 A That is correct.


1 Q Would you tell Judge Overton what the odds of life

2 emerging from non-life in an equilibrium state are,

3 according to your calculations?

4 A All right. Ten to the minus ten to the tenth.

5 Q Could you relate that so that us non-scientists can

6 understand that?

7 A All right. That is one over one followed by ten

8 million zeros.

9 Q Ten million?

10 A Ten billion zeros.

11 Q Ten billion?

12 A Right.

13 Q Now then, as I understand your testimony, the

14 calculations based on an equilibrium state cannot be

15 applied to the surface of the earth?

16 A That is correct.

17 Q Can you tell me the first time that science-

18 THE COURT: Excuse me. What was that question?

19 I didn't catch the question. The last question you

20 asked, what was that?

21 MR. CHILDS: I don't have any idea. We can have

22 the court reporter read it back.

23 THE COURT: No, no. Maybe it wasn't that important.

24 MR. CHILDS: Let me see if we can start over again.

25 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

Q Historically, have biologists considered the


1 Q (Continuing) equilibrium theory of thermodynamics

2 applicable to the evolution of life?

3 A By and large, biologists have not dealt with that

4 subject. Thermodynamics has been the subject of

5 physicists and physical chemists.

6 Most biologists are not terribly well informed on

7 thermodynamics.

8 Q Okay. Let me repeat my question. Historically,

9 where the area of thermodynamics has been applied to the

10 evolution of life, has it not been the calculations that

11 would be derived from the equilibrium state?

12 A I don't know of any such specific calculations, so

13 I'm unable to answer your question. I don't recall any

14 such calculations.

15 Q Last night in your deposition you mentioned the

16 name Ilya - and I'll have to spell it —

17 P-r-i-g-o-g-i-n-e.

18 A Right.

19 Q Would you pronounce that for me, please?

20 A Prigogine.

21 Q Are you familiar with an article that appeared in

22 Physics Today in November of 1972 entitled Thermodynamics

23 of Evolution, subheading being, "The functional order

24 maintained within living systems seems to defy the second

25 law. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics describes how such


1 Q (Continuing) systems come to terms with entropy."

2 A I have read that article, yes.

3 Q Do you presently recall in this article the quote,

4 "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation

5 of biological structures. The probability that at

6 ordinary temperatures a macro, m-a-c-r-o, scopic number of

7 molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly

8 structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing

9 living organisms is vanishingly small"?

10 A Now, what's your question?

11 Q My question was, do you recall, do you remember

12 that statement in the article?

13 A No, I do not.

14 Q Would not that appear to be the application of the

15 calculations from equilibrium state thermodynamics to the

16 evolution of life on the surface of the earth?

17 A Well, much of Prigogine's work has dealt with

18 non-equilibrium dynamics. I think if you read on

19 following that quotation, he gets into a little more

20 detail about how the problem is solved. If you go just

21 following that quotation, the next sentence or two.

22 MR. NOVIK: Perhaps it would help if the witness

23 had a copy of the offer.

24 THE COURT: It doesn't sound like he needs one to

25 me.


1 Q Professor Morowitz, if you need to refer to the

2 article, I only have one copy, I'll be glad it share it

3 with you. Is that okay?

4 A Yes.

5 Q My question is, in the historical perspective of

6 application in the field of thermodynamics to the creation

7 of life from non-life, were not your calculations, your

8 type of calculations based on an equilibrium state applied

9 to the model?

10 A The calculations based on an equilibrium state were

11 to show that life could not arise in an equilibrium

12 state. That was the scientific thrust of the argument.

13 And to my knowledge, that is the only case I'm aware of

14 where that kind of calculations has been used.

15 It is to show the necessity of open system

16 thermodynamics to study this kind of phenomenon.

17 Q I'll read you another quote. "A number of

18 investigators have believed that the origin required so

19 many chance events of such low probability that we have no

20 way of studying it within the framework of science, even

21 though it involves perfectly normal laws of nature."

22 Do you recall that statement?

23 A Yes. I wrote it.

24 Q Okay. And I believe that was with — Who was that

25 with?


1 A I believe that occurs in an article with Kimbel

2 Smith.

3 Q And then another quote in here, "The view that

4 life's origin cannot be predicted from physics because of

5 the dominance of chance factors was elaborated by Jack

6 Monod," M-o-n-o-d, "in his book Chance and Necessity." Do

7 you recall that?

8 A Yes. The article then goes on to criticize what's

9 wrong with those points of view and why they were

10 incorrect.

11 Q Bear with me, if you will.

12 My understanding of what happened in the history of the

13 application of thermodynamics to the evolution of life

14 itself, was that the first model that was applied was the

15 one that they were familiar with, which was the

16 equilibrium state.

17 A No. Monod did not deal with thermodynamics at all

18 in his work. Monod dealt with mutation rates, not with

19 thermodynamics.

20 Q Okay. Are you telling me that I'm wrong in my

21 understanding, that the first model that was applied was

22 the equilibrium state of thermodynamics?

23 A Other than the calculation of mine which you cited

24 which was designed to show that life could not arise in an

25 equilibrium system and must take place in an open system,


1 A (Continuing) I don't know of other calculations,

2 thermodynamic calculations related to the origin of life.

3 Q You're not aware of anybody in the field that

4 applied equilibrium theory to the evolution of life?

5 A To the origin of life.

6 Q To the origin of life?

7 A I don't recall any such calculations.

8 Q When did you do your calculations applying

9 equilibrium theory?

10 A 1966.

11 Q And when did you come up with your theory that it's

12 not equilibrium theory that should be applied, but rather

13 it should be non-equilibrium theory?

14 A I can't give you a date. Ever since I've been

15 involved in this field, probably since 1951, I believe

16 that required non-equilibrium theory, but I can't give you

17 an exact date.

18 Q When did you first postulate your theory in writing

19 that the non-equilibrium state is the correct one to apply

20 to the evolution of life itself?

21 A My book was published in 1968.

22 Q I believe that's the book that you provided to me

23 last night called Energy Flow in Biology?

24 A That is correct.

25 Q Are you familiar with the work of a fellow named Miller?


1 A Stanley Miller?

2 Q I believe so, yes, sir.

3 A There are a lot of people named Miller.

4 Q Are there any Millers other than Stanley Miller

5 that would be working in your particular area of endeavor?

6 A Not that I'm aware of.

7 Q Did Mr. Miller, or let's say Doctor Miller, did

8 Doctor Miller come up with anything unusual in the 1950's

9 in his research?

10 A Yes.

11 Q What did he come up with?

12 A In Miller's experiments, he took a system of

13 methane, ammonia and water, and in a closed system he

14 provided energy through an electrical, high frequency

15 electrical spark discharge, and he demonstrated the

16 synthesis of amino acids, carbocyclic acids, and other

17 prebiotic intermediates.

18 Q Who was the previous historian, excuse me, the

19 previous scientist in history who dealt with that same

20 subject matter on a significant basis?

21 A The origin of life?

22 Q Yes.

23 A Prior to the Miller experiment, I would say that

24 the leading name in that field was A.I. O'Parin.

25 Q And prior to that?


1 A Prior to that, in a sense, the field didn't really

2 exist.

3 Q Why was that?

4 A Because people believed through the 1800's that

5 life arose spontaneously all the time; that maggots arose

6 and became meat, and mice old piles of rags and so forth

7 and so on. And as long as people believed that, there was

8 no need to have a theory of the origin of life.

9 Q Who put that theory to rest?

10 A Louis Pasteur.

11 Q And what were Doctor Pasteur's experiments?

12 A Basically his final experiments that were most

13 persuasive in this field consisted of flasks of sterile

14 medium to which no organisms were admitted, and these

15 flasks remained sterile for long periods of time.

16 Q So?

17 A Meaning no growth of living organisms occurred in

18 them.

19 Q What work has been done since Stanley Miller's

20 work in the area of generating life in the laboratory?

21 A Well, there have been some several thousand

22 experiments on the, of the type done by Miller, follow-up

23 experiments, where various energy sources have been

24 flowed; there has been the flow of various kinds of

25 energy through systems of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and


1 A (Continuing) oxygen, and there has been a study of

2 the kinds of molecules that are produced in such energy

3 flow systems.

4 These experiments universally show that the flow of

5 energy through a system orders it in a molecular sense.

6 Q Has anybody created life by the flow of energy?

7 A Have any of those experiments resulted in the

8 synthesis of a living cell? Is that the question?

9 Q Yes, sir.

10 A No. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

11 Q Would you say that this area has received intensive

12 scientific scrutiny in the scientific community?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Do you have any explanation of why you have not

15 been able to synthesize life in the laboratory?

16 A It's an extremely difficult problem.

17 Q What is the difficult —

18 A I would point out to you that we have put far more

19 money into trying to cure cancer, and that is still an

20 unsolved problem, also. We have put far more time, money,

21 effort and human endeavor into that problem, and that is

22 also an unsolved problem because it is a very difficult

23 problem.

24 Q What is the information you need to accomplish that?

25 A To accomplish the synthesis of a living cell?


1 Q Yes, sir.

2 A Two kinds of information. One is the detailed

3 understanding of the chemical structure of the small

4 molecules, micro molecules, organelles and other

5 structures that make up a living cell. And secondly, one

6 has to know the kinetic processes by which those

7 structures came about in prebiotic systems.

8 Q In perusing some of the literature that you've

9 written last night, I came up with an article which would

10 seem to indicate that sincerely believe that given enough

11 time and research, that you or scientists like you can

12 ultimately go back to the ultimate combinations of atoms

13 which led to the formation of molecules.

14 A That is not a question.

15 Q Do you recall an article to that effect?

16 A Well, you said "we can go back to that" and then

17 there should be an `and' clause, `and do some things'.

18 Q Do you believe that you can go back and ultimately

19 understand how atoms combined to form molecules?

20 A That is a branch of chemistry. That is rather well

21 understood.

22 Q Well, I'm talking about the first molecules on the

23 surface of the earth.

24 Do you understand my question?

25 A No, I don't.


1 MR. CHILDS: May I approach the witness, your Honor?


3 Q The article that I have is Biology as a

4 Cosmological Science, reprinted from Main Currents and

5 Modern Thought, volume 28, number 5, May through June,

6 1972.

7 Page 50 to, well, the page number I have on this is

8 615186. The first column is in brackets. I'd like you to

9 read that paragraph, please.

10 A "If we are able to obtain the kind of theory of

11 self-order, this kind of theory of self-ordering should

12 challenge us to apply the most profound insights we can

13 muster to link biology to non-equilibrium physical

14 chemistry."

15 "The job seems very formidable indeed, but the rewards

16 could be very great; the ability to seek out our origins

17 in terms of a law that would promulgate our action. This

18 is truly a new frontier, and one that challenges the

19 maximum intellectual effort of which we are all capable."

20 Q Do I understand this paragraph to mean that you

21 believe that you and scientists from the scientific

22 community can explain the origins of man in terms of the

23 laws of atomic interaction?

24 A I believe that the origin of life can be explained

25 in terms of the laws of atomic interactions.


1 Q Historically, has there seen a conflict between

2 biology and physics as it relates to the three laws of

3 thermodynamics?

4 A Yes, there has.

5 Q When did that conflict appear?

6 A The conflict appeared at the time of the appearance

7 of Darwin's Origin of Species.

8 Q Why did that conflict between biology and physics

9 appear?

10 A Because at the time of the first formulation —

11 That followed very shortly the formulation of the second

12 law of thermodynamics, and people at that time thought

13 there was a conflict between the disordering influences

14 mandated by the laws of physics and the ordering

15 influences mandated by the laws of evolution.

16 Q And in your article you say that this apparent

17 conflict, quote, still rages today among some who have

18 failed to grasp the real nature of the problem." Now, I

19 wonder if you could tell me who those people are?

20 A Well, I should point out that it also states in

21 there that the problem was essentially solved in 1886 by

22 Bolzmann, B-o-l-z-m-a-n-n. And it has been a subtle

23 problem, and a number of people have simply not understood

24 the solution and therefore there has been some residual

25 argument.


1 A (Continuing)

2 I would say by 1981 that has been almost entirely

3 cleared up, and I know of no one other than the creation

4 scientists who have any qualms about there being any

5 conflict between life and the laws of thermodynamics.

6 Q Do you know of a fellow named Sir Fred Hoyle, or

7 know of Sir Fred Hoyle?

8 A I have heard of Fred Hoyle, yes.

9 Q What is his particular area of expertise?

10 A Professor Hoyle is an astrophysicist.

11 Q Does the field of astrophysics include a

12 familiarity with thermodynamics?

13 A It might. I mean, there are a number of fields

14 within astrophysics. Some of them would certainly require

15 thermodynamics. All of them would not.

16 Q Are you aware that Sir Hoyle has come up with some

17 probabilities which would indicate that the origination of

18 life itself on the planet earth is impossible?

19 A I have not read that work by Hoyle.

20 Q Are you aware that those are basically

21 conclusions?

22 A I have not heard — I have not read that work

23 directly.

24 Have you heard that? I'm not asking if you've read

25 the books. Have you heard, do you understand that within


1 Q (Continuing) the scientific community?

2 A No. I had not heard that before my deposition.

3 Q Is Jack Monod a molecular biologist?

4 A He was a molecular biologist?

5 Q Is he deceased?

6 A He's now deceased.

7 Q Did he write a book called Chance and Necessity in

8 1971?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you've spent a great deal of time putting his

11 thesis about the origin of life to rest, have you not?

12 A I have certainly disagreed with his views about the

13 origin of life.

14 Q When was your first contact with a Doctor Robert E.

15 Kofahl?

16 A I don't remember the date. I had some brief

17 correspondence with him, probably be on the order of ten

18 years ago.

19 Q And what was your interest in communicating with

20 Doctor Kofahl?

21 A I had, shortly before that, heard of the work of

22 the Creation Research Institute. And since I do some

23 writing in these problems of the origin of life, I wanted

24 to find out what their views were.

25 Q For what purpose?


1 A Information.

2 Q You provided last night two letters, one dated

3 August 10, 1976, to Doctor Kofahl, and a letter asking for

4 his writings which would constitute a contemporary

5 statement of fundamentalism, and a letter of September 2,

6 1976, thanking him for his letter.

7 Do you have his letter of August 24, 1976?

8 A No. I went through my files in gathering any

9 material for the deposition, and those were the only two

10 letters from that correspondence that I found.

11 Q Do you consider the creation explanation or a

12 source of life being creation rather than chemical

13 evolution a threat to your position in the scientific

14 community?

15 A No. Because the idea is totally outside the

16 scientific community.

17 Q And how do you define the scientific community?

18 A Well, I think you're asking for a sociological

19 definition since you are asking if it affected my position

20 in the community. If you want a sociological definition,

21 that should be posed to those persons making a living in

22 the field.

23 Q I asked you about your definition of science last

24 night, didn't I?

25 A We discussed it briefly.


1 Q Do you recall what your definition of science was

2 last night?

3 A Well, if you have it, it would be helpful. I don't

4 remember the exact words that I used.

5 Q It's on page 56, if you would.

6 On the bottom of page 56, line 24, I asked you the

7 question, "Should the public schools' science teachers

8 teach what is accepted in the scientific community?"

9 What is your answer on line 1 and line 2 of page 57?

10 A That defines what science is. "Science is a social

11 activity."

12 Q Science is what is accepted in the scientific

13 community.

14 A That is correct.

15 Q Which when you reduce it down to its simplest terms

16 means that if the people like you or in the scientific

17 community don't believe in it, then it's not science?

18 A Of course, the community has rules by which it

19 operates. This is not a random acceptance or rejection by

20 the community. The community has rules dealing with

21 natural law, testability, explanatory power, and a number

22 of other rules like that which relates to what is accepted

23 and what is not accepted in the scientific community.

24 There was some implication the way you asked that

25 question that this was a capricious sort of choice on the


1 A (Continuing) part of a community of scholars.

2 it is not a capricious choice. It's a community of

3 scholars who are very dedicated to a discipline by which

4 information is evaluated.

5 Q Isn't that your viewpoint as somebody being on the

6 inside looking out?

7 A I don't really know how to answer that question.

8 Q Well, it sort of sounds to me like somebody might

9 be a member of a country club looking at all the people

10 who are not a member of the club. They make their own

11 rules and they decide who will be admitted.

12 A Again, you're making the assumption that the rules

13 are capricious. The rules are not capricious, because

14 nature is a hard taskmaster.

15 Q Who makes the rules?

16 A The rules are ultimately, come from natural law.

17 The understanding of those rules is the task of a group of

18 people who are trying to understand that natural law,

19 trying to study that natural law.

20 Q Are you trying to say that this is some kind of

21 interpretation of the data that people perceive of what

22 they see around them?

23 A Science deals with observations. You go from

24 observation to constructs, which would be what you would

25 call hypothesis, theories, and then you go back through


1 A (Continuing) the loop of verification, and back to

2 the observables again. And this is the general procedure

3 by which science operates.

4 Q Can you tell me the name of one Ivy League

5 university that has a creation science scientist on that

6 staff?

7 A No, I cannot.

8 Q Can you tell me one graduate school that you would

9 consider reputable in the United States that has a

10 creation scientist on the staff?

11 A No, I cannot.

12 Q Can you give me the names of a single journal that

13 you would consider reputable that has a creation-scientist

14 who reviews articles submitted for publication?

15 A No, I cannot. On the other hand, I cannot give you

16 the name of a single Ivy League school or major university

17 or major journal in which the flat earth theory was

18 published or reviewed.

19 Q What about the theory of phlogiston?

20 A I cannot give you the name of a single such

21 institution or journal which would consider it.

22 Q What is there about the concept of flat earth which

23 requires that it not be taught?

24 A It's wrong.

25 Q Would you say that everybody in the scientific


1 Q (Continuing) community that you know of agrees

2 that it's wrong, the people that you know and respect?

3 A Two hundred years ago this was not true, or four

4 hundred years ago this was not true.

5 Q Let me restate my question.

6 A It is universally accepted — I will answer your

7 question. It is universally accepted that the flat earth

8 theory is wrong.

9 Q Is it your conclusion as to what has been referred

10 to in this trial as creation science is also wrong?

11 A It is not science.

12 Q No. My question is, is it not also your conclusion

13 that it is wrong in the same sense that the flat earth

14 theory is wrong?

15 A Aspects of it which are lumped into that section

16 4(a) 1 through 6 of the law are certainly wrong.

17 Q And the people you know and respect in the

18 scientific community also think that creation science is

19 wrong?

20 A That those aspects of it are wrong, yes.

21 Q So where is the democratic process that you refer

22 to in the scientific community for creation science views?

23 A Well-

24 Q For creation science views?

25 A Anyone's ideas are open-


1 Q Please try to answer my question.

2 A I am.

3 Q Where is the democratic process in the scientific

4 community that will allow creation science views to be

5 presented?

6 A Well, you just gave an example — When I wrote to

7 Doctor Kofahl and asked him for a copy of his papers.

8 Q Didn't you get Doctor Kofahl's papers so that you

9 could tear them apart?

10 A I got them so I could evaluate them.

11 Q To show that they were wrong?

12 A That was not the conclusion prior to evaluating

13 them. I wouldn't have needed to have gotten them if I had

14 made the conclusion before evaluating them.

15 Q Do you know a Doctor John W. Patterson?

16 A I don't know him. I have corresponded with him.

17 Q He sent you a draft, a proposed draft, of an

18 article to be submitted to the Creation Research Society.

19 Do you know why he sent it to you?

20 A I believe he had covered some thermodynamics in the

21 article, and he asked me for my opinion on them.

22 Q He says in the second paragraph, "I am alerting you

23 to this because I know you have either been directly

24 involved with the creationists in the past or, at least, I

25 have a reason to believe you have a direct interest in