Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P600-633
1 Q (Continuing) this." Was he correct in his
2 assertion that you have a direct interest in creation
3 science being shown to be incorrect?
4 A It has not been a very major interest of mine.
5 Q Is it a direct interest of yours, as Doctor
6 Patterson describes it?
7 A Could you define what "direct interest" means?
8 Q As opposed to an indirect interest?
9 A I don't want to be facetious, but it seems to me
10 major and minor interests are much more descriptive. It
11 is a very minor interest.
12 Q I have here a note, a copy of a note that you sent
13 to a gentleman at the law firm Skadden and Arps, where you
14 say in the third paragraph, "This is a case of great
15 importance and I stand willing to help in any way." Does
16 that indicate a minor interest in your life regarding
17 creation science?
18 A It indicates a major interest with respect to this
20 Q Is your theory that— Let me start over. Do you
21 know how life formed on the surface of the earth?
22 A I have a theory of how life formed on the surface
23 of the earth.
24 Q Have you been able to take that theory and create
25 life in the laboratory?
1 A No.
2 Q Let me repeat my question. Do you know how life
3 evolved on the surface of the earth?
4 THE COURT: He just answered that.
5 MR. CHILDS: I think he said he had a theory.
6 THE COURT: I think that is the answer. I think he
7 has a theory. He doesn't know for a fact.
8 MR. CHILDS: I think there has been a blurring in
9 the distinction between a theory and a fact in this
10 lawsuit, and that is the point I am attempting to make,
11 your Honor.
12 THE COURT: I don't know how it's blurred, but it
13 doesn't seem to me like that answer blurred it.
14 MR. CHILDS: I will move on, your Honor.
15 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
16 Q Is it your position— Let me start over again.
17 Have you attempted to apply the theory of thermodynamics
18 to post-life evolution?
19 A No.
20 Q In your opinion, is the case to be made for
21 post-life evolution less clear thermodynamically?
22 A Yes.
23 Q As I understand your concept of earth and sun, is
24 that thermodynamically in relation to the sun and earth
25 relation is in a state of unbalanced equilibrium?
1 A That's a fair statement.
2 Q And that when we use the phrase "an open system",
3 that can be translated into a non-equilibrium state?
4 A An open system is necessarily a non-equilibrium
5 state. A non-equilibrium system is not necessarily open.
6 Q And it's your position that the relationship of the
7 earth and the sun, is that it is a non-equilibrium state?
8 A The surface of the earth is in a non-equilibrium
9 state, yes.
10 Q What is your position as to whether or not the solar
11 system, the planets around our sun, is an
12 equilibrium or non-equilibrium state?
13 A The solar system is in a non-equilibrium state.
14 Q And what about the universe?
15 A That is a question in astrophysics that goes beyond
16 my area of expertise. That has to do with whether the
17 universe is closed or open.
18 Q Are there legitimate reputable scientist who
19 believe the universe is a closed system?
20 A That goes beyond my area of expertise.
21 Q I am not asking you to testify within your area of
22 expertise. I am asking you if you know of your own
23 personal knowledge whether there are reputable scientists
24 in the field who postulate that the universe is a closed
1 A I am not really equipped to evaluate astro-
2 physicists with respect to their competence.
3 Q Is there controversy in that field in that area?
4 A I believe there are astrophysicists who hold the
5 view that the universe is open, and there are astro-
6 physicists who hold the view that it is a closed universe,
8 Q Of the astrophysicists who hold the view the
9 universe is the closed system, do you know whether or not
10 they are creation scientists?
11 A I do not.
12 Q As I understood your direct testimony, there would
13 be a transmittal of either energy or matter between the
14 earth and the sun?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q Can you tell me what matter is transmitted between
17 the earth and the sun?
18 A There is some small flux of particulate matter from
19 the sun. It's really quite negligible compared to the
20 flow of energy in sunlight.
21 Q Is it possible to calculate the amount of energy
22 that the earth receives from the sun?
23 A Yes. One can do a quite accurate calculation of
25 Q Is it possible to accurately figure the amount of
1 Q (Continuing) radiation that the earth gives off?
2 A With somewhat less accuracy, but it can be
4 Q With what degree of accuracy can, what you referred
5 to last night as infrared radiation, be calculated?
6 A Again, that would be generally an area that comes
7 from the field of atmospheric physics, which I am also not
8 an expert in, but my guess is that the flux of energy from
9 the earth can be calculated to within a couple of percents.
10 Q I believe in your direct testimony you said that
11 the concept of creation was not in scientific literature.
12 Did I hear your testimony correctly?
13 A I believe it was that the phrase "creation science"
14 does not occur in the scientific literature.
15 Q Could it possibly have been that sudden creation is
16 not in the scientific literature?
17 A That certainly is possible.
18 Q In your article, "Biology of Cosmological Science",
19 there is a paragraph that talks about creation. I'd like
20 you to read that paragraph yourself and tell me in what
21 sense you were using it?
22 A I believe the sense you have in mind is that this
23 view has two rather profound consequences. First, that the
24 universe has an origin, or as some would rather term it, a
25 creation, meaning that the universe has an origin as
1 A (Continuing) scientists would state it or a
2 creation as others, namely, theologians, would state it.
3 Q You weren't referring to scientists?
4 A No. That is not an article from scientific
5 literature. That is an article of a broader philosophical
7 Q It is the only one I could understand, Doctor
9 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, could I have a few minutes?
10 THE COURT: Yes. We will take ten minutes.
11 Right (Thereupon, Court was in
12 Right recess from 2:30 p.m.
13 Right until 2:40 p.m.)
14 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)
15 Q Doctor Morowitz, I want to return to the statements
16 last night about what public school teachers teach.
17 That's on page 56, if you want to refer back to that.
18 My question was, "Should the public school science
19 teachers teach what is accepted in the scientific
21 What is your feeling about that?
22 A I believe that that constitutes their subject
24 Q Do you think that high school or public school
25 science teachers should teach what is accepted in the
1 Q (Continuing) scientific community?
2 A I think the subject matter of science is defined by
3 what is accepted in the scientific community, yes.
4 Q I'm going to pass a book to you called The World of
5 Biology, published, copyrighted in 1974 by McGraw-Hill—
6 MR. CHILDS: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
7 THE COURT: Yes, sir. By the way, you all needn't
8 ask my permission to do that.
9 MR. CHILDS: Thank you, your Honor.
10 Q Would you please read that yourself?
11 A "Education, you know, means broadening, advancing,
12 and if you limit a teacher to only one side of anything,
13 the whole country will eventually have one thought, be one
14 individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every
15 problem or theory."
16 Q Does the line directly above that quote indicate
17 the source of that quote?
18 A Yes, it does.
19 Q Who is the source of that quote?
20 A John Thomas Scopes.
21 Q Who is John Thomas Scopes?
22 A Of the famous Scopes monkey trial.
23 Q Would you please read that one more time into the
25 A "Education, you know, means broadening, advancing,
607. Page is missing.
1 A It means there is a difference of opinion about
2 matters within the scientific community.
3 Q And the mere fact that somebody had articles
4 refused for publication would not indicate on its face or
5 by itself that they were an incompetent scientist?
6 A That's true.
7 Q One thing that I thought I heard during your direct
8 testimony was that the evolution of life itself is not
9 properly considered within the area of evolution?
10 A Within the area of the theory of evolution.
11 Q Okay. Do you find it personally offensive that
12 chemical evolution would be treated in the same context as
13 biological evolution?
14 A I don't find it offensive, I just don't feel that
15 they are of necessity lumped together because of different
16 methods by which we studied them.
17 Q And that was in reference to Act 590, was it not?
18 A Right.
19 Q Did I understand your testimony correctly, that you
20 thought it inappropriate that chemical evolution, or what
21 would commonly be called chemical evolution, be included
22 within the definition of evolution science in Act 590?
23 A I said that was not the usual usage.
24 Q Is it not customary in textbooks in the public
25 schools for the origins of life to be considered in the
1 Q (Continuing) same textbooks as biological
3 A Yes.
4 Q And did I also understand during your direct
5 testimony that a criticism that you have of Act 590 is
6 that it does not teach all origins of life?
7 A No. I was criticizing the dual model point of view
8 which arises in the creation science literature. And Act
9 590 seems to follow through that dual model point of view,
10 indicating that there are only two models.
11 Q Did I understand you to say that Act 590 in some
12 way prohibits the teaching of an additional theory in the
13 public schools?
14 A I said it presents a two-model, a dual model point
15 of view.
16 Q Okay. In your reading of Act 590, did you see any
17 indication in itself which said this theory of panspermia
18 couldn't be called?
19 A No, I did not say that.
20 Q Would you very briefly tell Judge Overton what the
21 panspermia theory is?
22 A That is the theory that life on earth was
23 transported here from some other distant planet, galaxy,
24 or some other astral object.
25 Q Is that view held by reputable scientists within
1 Q (Continuing) what you consider to be the academic
2 community, the scientific community?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Who is someone that we might have already heard
5 about that holds that view?
6 A The most recent advocate of that book, I would
7 gather, from having read a review of a recent book of his,
8 is Frances Crick.
9 Q What about Sir Fred Hoyle?
10 A Again, I have not personally read Hoyle's work on
11 this, but I am told he accepts the point of view that the
12 earth passed through some rather prebiotic or biogenetic
13 material in space and was seeded from that source.
14 Q Is Sir Fred Hoyle a reputable scientist?
15 A He's a well known astrophysicist.
16 Q Well, is he reputable?
17 A That, again, you're going to be asking me to
18 evaluate people in astrophysics. I'm in no position to do
20 Q Well, before when you were telling about the
21 scientific community, I thought you were talking about a
22 broad mainstream of science.
23 A Yes. But the evaluations of people in astrophysics
24 is done by people in astrophysics.
25 Q Well, is he published in reputable journals?
1 A Yes.
2 Q Are his articles subject to peer review?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do his publications meet the criteria that are
5 ordinarily assigned to those who you would consider
7 A Yes. I'm not in any way trying to attack Fred
8 Hoyle. I'm simply stating that evaluating people in
9 astrophysics in not my field.
10 Q Okay.
11 MR. CHILDS: I have nothing further, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Any redirect?
13 MR. NOVIK: No redirect.
14 THE COURT: May Doctor Morowitz be excused?
15 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: You may be excused. Thank you, sir.
19 having been previously sworn, was examined and testified
20 as follows:
23 BY MR. WILLIAMS:
24 Q Would you agree that a theory is a structure of an
25 idea that explains and interprets the facts?
1 A Yes, I think that's a statement from my article in
2 Discover magazine.
3 Q So that would be your own personal definition of a
5 A Yes.
6 Q Are you a member of the Society for the Study of
8 A Yes, I am.
9 Q How long have you been a member of that
11 A I think since I was in graduate school. I'm not
12 sure. Probably about 1965.
13 Q Are you a member of the Education Committee of that
15 A Yes, I am.
16 Q And that was appointed by Doctor Ayala, or you were
17 requested to serve by him?
18 A Yes, I was requested to serve, and I'm not sure of
19 the chairman.
20 Q The chairman that Doctor Ayala appointed; is that
22 A Yes. Doctor Ayala sent the letter.
23 Q And one of the charges of that committee, in
24 essence, is to try to meet creation science and oppose it;
25 is it not?
1 A Yes.
2 Q Have you also been active in other efforts, or at least
3 involved in other efforts to oppose the teaching of
4 creation science?
5 A Mostly in my personal writings and studies, though
6 there was a brief committee, a committee of brief life set
7 up by the American Society of Naturalists, which is
8 another organization of professional evolutionists., I was
9 president pro tem through the death of the president and,
10 therefore, it fell my lot to appoint that committee.
11 Q And you are motivated to oppose creation science in
12 your professional concern as a scientist, is that correct,
13 Doctor Gould?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you have any political motivation in opposition
16 creation science?
17 A As Aristotle said, man is a political animal. I think
18 everything one does is partly in the context of one's
19 larger views.
20 Q Are you aware that one of plaintiffs' other
21 witnesses, Doctor Ruse, has termed you a Marxist biologist
22 whose theory does not qualify as, quote, science, close
24 A I've heard rumors to the effect about the first
25 statement. I don't know if the second one is juxtaposed
1 A (Continuing) or not. It doesn't sound like
2 something Michael would say, but then I wasn't here when
3 he said it.
4 Q Have you ever written an article for Science for
5 the People about creationism?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And what is Science for the People?
8 A Science for the People is a magazine published in
9 Boston by scientists concerned with social issues, with
10 views to the left of center.
11 Q Their political views are to the left of center?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Did you not say in that article that creationism is
14 part of a program of the evangelical right in America, and
15 this movement considered peripheral a decade ago has
16 become central in Reaganland?
17 A Yes, I think that's correct. A somewhat
18 abbreviated assessment of what's happening in this nation
20 Q And did you not also state in this article and at
21 least one other that the Arkansas law requires equal time
22 for creation science in science classrooms?
23 A We discussed that in the deposition, Mr. Williams,
24 and I think I agreed at that time that the law says
25 balanced treatment and that perhaps I was incorrect in
1 A (Continuing) calling it equal time. Although I
2 don't really know what balanced treatment means. But
3 perhaps I did misstate that. And I think I also added I
4 have been wrong many times before.
5 Q And you relate creation science, do you not, to be
6 a link with anti-ERA, anti-abortion, and militant
8 A Yes, I think that it's programmed for various
9 evangelical groups that are part of the creation science
10 movement who support it. There are aspects of their
11 political program that include those.
12 I don't, by any means, think that's the entire story,
13 nor is it in any sense the only reasons for my opposition
14 to creation science. Indeed, the primary motivation in my
15 opposition, which by far predates ever hearing the name of
16 Jerry Falwell and others, is the lack of scientific nature
17 for it with respect to my profession, which is
18 evolutionary biologist.
19 Q Could you identify— Well, let me have this
20 marked, if I might, as Defendants' Exhibit Two.
21 Can you identify the article I'm showing you?
22 A This is the one.
23 Q Which one is that?
24 A The one from Science for the People.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, we'd like to have this
1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) submitted as Defendants'
2 Exhibit Two.
3 THE COURT: It will be received.
4 Q You have called or termed evolution to be a fact,
5 have you not?
6 A I have. It is also a theory.
7 Q But in your writing at the conclusion, that
8 evolution is a fact, the evidence that you rely on is
9 largely inference; is it not?
10 A I said in the Discovery article in which I made
11 that claim that there were three primary ways whereby
12 scientists are confident that evolution is a fact. Two of
13 them were direct, and only one indirect. I do think the
14 indirect category has the most persuasive evidence.
15 First, the direct evidence is that small scale evolution
16 as we've observed for over a hundred years. Secondly, the
17 direct evidence, that fossils, when, despite the
18 imperfections of the record, we have transitional forms.
19 And third, the very large class of indirect evidence which
20 encompasses such subjects as biogeography, vestigal
21 organs, homologies, embryologies, et cetera.
22 Q And in talking about the evolution that we have
23 observed, as you termed it, evolution in action, in the
24 last one hundred years, how much evolution have we
25 observed in the last one hundred years?
1 A About as much as one could reasonably hope to
2 observe in such a short space of time.
3 Q And in your deposition did you not tell me that was
4 literally nothing?
5 A I certainly didn't. Literally nothing? I don't
6 quite understand the context. I mean, it doesn't produce
7 new orders of animals. But you wouldn't expect that.
8 It's not nothing; it's the amount of steady change.
9 Do we have a corrected copy of the deposition?
10 Q I have never received a correct copy.
11 A Given my breakneck speed of talking, to which the
12 court reporter has so correctly objected, many things in
13 the original deposition do not come across correctly.
14 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, the only copy of Doctor
15 Gould's deposition that I have in my possession is a copy
16 of it that has not yet been corrected by the witness.
17 I believe that the only copy that was corrected by the
18 witness was delivered directly to the Attorney General's
20 MR. WILLIAMS: We have yet to receive it, your
21 Honor. It was to be delivered, but we have yet to receive
22 it, unfortunately.
23 THE COURT: Let's move on.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)
25 Q On page 106 of your deposition I asked you this
1 Q (Continuing) question: "How much do you think
2 we've been able to observe about evolution?" And you gave
3 this answer, "As much as we can really be expected to in
4 the time scale of a hundred years, which is nothing, since
5 the publication of The Origin of the Species.
6 A I'm sorry. I mean, which is very little time.
7 That's clearly an incorrect statement. Indeed, what
8 you're quoting is, of course, inconsistent with the first
9 statement. It's unlikely that that's what I really
10 meant. I said, as much as we can expect to observe.
11 If I said, "which is nothing", I meant that a hundred
12 years is so little time it doesn't amount to very much.
13 It's remarkable we've observed as much as we have. But
14 that would be corrected in the corrected copy when you get
15 it. I'm sorry.
16 Q In terms of the evidence, the physical evidence we
17 have observed, you do mention in this article The Peppered
18 Moths, which has been referred to before in this
19 courtroom. Now I want to see if I understand how you view
20 this. Did these moths change color?
21 A Evolution changes gene frequencies within
22 populations. What happened in the case of the peppered
23 moths is that before industrial soot blackened the trees
24 around Manchester, that the moths which exist in two
25 different forms, depending on which state of the gene they
1 A (Continuing) have, basically peppered and black,
2 with very few black ones, almost all the moths in the
3 population were peppered, when industrial soot blackened
4 the trees in England, there was very strong selection for
5 the first time against peppered moths, which had been
6 virtually invisible against the lighter trees.
7 And there was then for the first time an advantage to
8 the black moths, as we call them, black moths, a few of
9 them. And within fifty years the population consisted
10 almost entirely of black moths, and that's natural
12 Q But did the peppered moths reproduce into black
14 A No. What happened was what the theory of natural
15 selection predicts would happen, namely, that from a
16 spectrum of variability, which included the peppered moths
17 and black moths, the gene frequencies changed, indeed, the
18 gene from black moths — the gene that produces black
19 colors, excuse me, increased markedly and frequently
20 within the population until virtually all moths were black.
21 Q And in 1850, we had two types of moths, black and
23 A Yes. Very, very deep black. Almost all-
24 Q And today we have two types of moths, black and
1 A Almost all black. That's what evolution is,
2 natural selection of change of gene frequency.
3 Q Were there any new species generated through this
5 A Not in the case of the peppered moths. There are
6 species that have been generated in other ways.
7 Q I think you stated earlier that your second and
8 third reasons, besides evolution in action, in which your
9 primary example was the peppered moths—
10 A No, I had other examples, the evolution of the
11 D.D.T. resistance, which is the incorporation of new
12 mutation in various forms and the production of new
13 species of plants due to conflict.
14 Q All right.
15 A But yes, I mentioned the peppered moths as a
17 Q But your second and third reasons do rely on
18 inference, do they not?
19 A The second reason I regard as reasonably direct,
20 mainly temporal sequences of fossils. I guess insofar as
21 we don't have a time machine that would take us back two
22 hundred million years, it's not direct visual observation.
23 But to me we are often seeing pretty largely the
24 evolutionary sequences that develop. I think the second
25 category is somewhere in between the direct, visual
1 A (Continuing) observation and the more inferential
2 character. But the third, I might say, the inference is
3 as good a method in science as direct observation. It's
4 not very often that, in fact, we reject conclusions merely
5 through direct vision or sight.
6 Nobody has ever seen an atom or an electron or gravity,
7 for that matter.
8 Q But inference is a process of essentially logic, is
9 it not, of looking at what we have now and trying to—
10 A And drawing out what conclusions we can from it
11 after inference is as inescapable as visual observations.
12 Q Is there any subjectivity in arriving at an
14 A We do see subjectivity, and lack of certainty is,
15 indeed, never certainty in science. I think it's
16 notorious how often even eye witness testimony can be
17 fallible. There just is no certainty in science. I don't
18 think that well documented inferences necessarily is any
19 way secure in certain forms of eye—
20 THE COURT: Excuse me. Do you mind speaking into
21 the microphone. Some of us are having a problem—
22 A Yes. Sorry.
23 Q You've been offered as an expert also, Doctor
24 Gould, on the history of evolutionary theory or
25 evolutionary thought, I think.
1 A Yes.
2 Q As an expert on that area, would you want to be
3 aware of any challenges to evolutionary theory?
4 A Sure.
5 Q Have you read and studied, for example, a book
6 an individual named Kirka called The Implications of
8 A Since you called it to my attention, I have indeed
9 read it. I've got it right here.
10 Q Does Kirka develop a general theory of evolution?
11 A He developed something he calls a general theory of
12 evolution. He is not an anti-evolutionist.
13 Q He is not an anti-evolutionist?
14 A No.
15 Q Could I perhaps borrow that for a moment?
16 A Sure.
17 Q Kirka says there are seven basic assumptions in the
18 theory of evolution, does he not?
19 A Yes. That may be six or seven. I remember that
21 Q Does he find any of those assumptions to be beyond
23 A The book is primarily a critique of the notion that
25 Q I'm sorry. I-
1 A You'll have to show me the list. I gave you the
2 one copy I had.
3 Q I'll be glad to show you the book. I asked you did
4 he find any proof for any of those assumptions?
5 A Let me review the list of assumptions. What page
6 are you on? Do you remember where they were?
7 Q I think they're throughout the book.
8 A I see the assumptions. Shall I read them?
9 Q Yes.
10 A The assumptions all have to do with a particular
11 path of history, along with nonliving things that gave
12 rise to living material. Two, spontaneous generation
13 occurred only once. Three, the viruses, bacteria, plants
14 and animals are all interrelated. Four, the protozoa gave
15 rise to metazoa, from single cell to multi-cell creatures.
16 Fifth, that various invertebrate following are
17 interrelated. Sixth, that invertebrates gave rise to
18 vertebrates. And seventh, that invertebrate fish gave
19 rise to amphibian, amphibian to reptiles, and reptiles to
20 birds and mammals.
21 So you see, the set of statements is about the actual
22 path for the history of life. His book calls into
23 question particularly the second one. His main argument
24 appears that is quite consistent with the evidence as we
25 have it, that life might have originated more than one
1 A (Continuing) time on earth. But it's not a
2 critique of whether or not evolution is the mechanism
3 whereby changes in the history of life have occurred.
4 It is disputing the particular pathways. At one point
5 he argues, for example, that it may be true that the
6 metazoa, that is the multi-cellular animals, arose not
7 from protozoa, single-celled animals, but perhaps from
8 single-celled creatures that we call plants, which by the
9 way is an outmoded system of classification.
10 Q Would you say that Kirka is not an
11 anti-evolutionist, in your opinion?
12 A He is not an anti-evolutionist. He says in the
13 last page that he accepts, he calls it a special theory of
14 evolution, namely the mechanics of the process of change
15 is evolutionary.
16 He is disputing, and I don't agree with him in all
17 cases, he is disputing our assurance in knowing the actual
18 pathways of change.
19 Q Does he also talk about that there are certain
20 misconceptions and half truths in evolutionary theory?
21 A Oh, there are, yes. We feel like it is important
22 for scientists to analyze them and be critical.
23 Q Would you recognize this book as being something
24 of, to the degree that it talks about it, an authority or
25 authoritative work on evolution?
1 A It was written in 1960, and I would say much of it
2 is now outdated. I think even in the context of 1960 it's
3 not a book that I regard as particularly strong of the
4 book that were made different assessments of. I would
5 certainly include it within the traditions of science.
6 Q Doctor Gould, if you would, I would like for you
7 to, in the conclusion, read, beginning, "Most students..."
8 A Sure. The whole thing?
9 Q Yes.
10 A That's a lot. "Most students become acquainted with
11 many of the current concepts of biology while still
12 at school, and at an age when most people are, on the
13 whole, uncritical. Then, when they come to study the
14 subject in more detail, they have in their minds several
15 half-truths and misconceptions which tend to prevent them
16 from coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation."
17 I might say I don't agree with that. I think we teach a
18 lot of pap, and having taught is one of the reasons why my
19 associates and I developed punctuated equilibrium as an
20 alternative to the gradualism that I can have no
21 justification is a universal incident.
22 To continue with Kirka, "In addition, with the uniform
23 pattern of education, most students tend to have the same
24 sort of educational background, and so in conversation and
25 discussion they accept common fallacies and agree on
1 A (Continuing) matters based on these fallacies. It
2 would seem good principle to encourage the study of
3 scientific heresies. There is always the danger-" I
4 might say I agree with that, too.
5 "There is always the danger that a reader might be
6 seduced by one of these heresies, but the danger is
7 neither as great nor as serious as the danger of having
8 scientists brought up in a tight mental straight jacket,
9 or taking them so quickly through a subject that they have
10 no time to analyze and digest the material and study it.
11 "Careful perusal of the heresies will also indicate the
12 facts in favor of the currently accepted doctrines, and if
13 the evidence against a theory is overwhelming and that
14 there is no other satisfactory theory to take its place,
15 we should just have to say that we do not yet know the
17 My interpretation of that paragraph is—
18 Q You have now finished reading that part now, have
19 you not?
20 A I have.
21 Q I don't want to cut you off.
22 A That's fine. I'm sorry. You only asked me to read
23 it, not give you an exegesis.
24 Q Do you think it would good, then— I think you
25 said you agree with that portion where it said to
1 Q (Continuing) encourage the study of scientific
2 heresy? It would be a good idea?
3 A Yes. But note the phrase "scientific heresies".
4 Q Yes. Well, would it heresy to propose, perhaps, a
5 new idea of what is science?
6 A A new idea of what is science? It's almost a
7 definitional matter, isn't it? It isn't an argument about
8 substance, it's an argument about words and their
9 meanings. No, I wouldn't call that part of an heretical
11 Q Isn't what Kirka is saying there, as you understand
12 it, that if you have these scientific heresies to be
13 studied, even though they may be terribly minority
14 opinions, that through this clash of ideas, opposing
15 ideas, that the students can better understand the
16 predominate scientific thought, and when they do work
17 themselves, they can come to it with a fresh appraisal and
18 a fresh outlook?
19 A Yes, and I agree with that. Remember the
20 scientific heresy he is teaching in this book is the
21 notion that life may have arisen from non-life on earth
22 more than once. It's a scientific heresy. I repeat, not
23 one that is outside science.
24 Q There is nothing which insulates scientists from
25 being dogmatic and elitist, is there?
1 A Nothing— I didn't understand the question.
2 Q Are scientists not at times dogmatic and elitist?
3 A Scientists are human beings. Some people are
4 dogmatic and elitist. And it is my regret that sometimes
5 scientists are, too, some individuals. I think that among
6 folks I've known, scientists as a group are generally more
7 free from those attitudes than some people, but they are
8 human beings.
9 Q Have you not also described science or scientists
10 as perhaps to appear, at least, as, quote, the new
11 priesthood, close quote?
12 A You'd have to read me the quotation. There is that
13 tendency sometimes. As in the television ads where a
14 scientist comes on in a white coat and says, `drink this
15 brand of orange juice because it's better for you.'
16 Q I think you earlier stated that as far as you know,
17 there is no new evidence and no new idea for creation
18 science in the past one hundred years; is that true?
19 A I think I said since William Jennings Bryan and the
20 Scopes trial I have seen no new arguments from the
22 Q The metaphor that I think you used earlier this
23 morning on the fossil record, that it's like a book where
24 you have only certain pages, and of the pages you have,
25 you have only certain words, and of the words you have,
1 Q (Continuing) you have only certain letters-
2 A Yes.
3 Q If you had a book like that, do you think you could
4 read it coherently if it were as sparse as that in its
6 A It depends on what criteria and inference I had
7 before me for filling in bits and pieces.
8 Q But if you have that criteria, you have to fill in,
9 do you not, in order to make sense, to make a coherent
10 whole out of the book?
11 A There are different ways that scientists fill in.
12 What I was referring to in the metaphor of the book is the
13 geological record in any one spot.
14 Now, suppose you had a thousand copies of the Iliad and
15 each one only had a few letters, but it was a different
16 few letters in each copy. You could, by gathering
17 together the thousand copies, piece together a more
18 coherent version that you might even be able to read
19 completely. You might not still have every letter.
20 That's pretty much what you do in geology. In any one
21 spot the record is as poor, as Lyell describes it, but by
22 bringing together the evidence from many spots, you can
23 get a much more complete story.
24 Q Were you not describing this book to be the entire
25 fossil record?
1 A I meant to describe it as the record of only one
3 Q I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
4 A I meant to describe it as the record of only one
5 person. Realize, please, that many fossils are
6 geographically very limited in their extent, and so,
7 therefore, there is a limited number of places. The
8 record of any particular fossil is likely to be that way.
9 But the entire larger scale record of the history of life
10 would be pieced together much better.
11 Q Do you consider the use of the word `creator' to be
12 an inherently religious word or religious concept?
13 A It's a word that has so many different vernacular
14 meanings that it's not inherently so. Indeed Darwin uses
15 it himself once or twice, in a metaphorical sense, not to
16 mean supernatural disruption of natural law. Einstein
17 used it in metaphorical senses.
18 Q You wrote a part of a biology textbook, did you not?
19 A Yes, I did. It's called A View of Life.
20 Q A View of Life?
21 A Yes.
22 Q What part did you write?
23 A I wrote the concluding chapters, five or six of
24 them, on evolutionary theory and its implications.
25 Q Do you— First of all let me ask you, do you
1 Q (Continuing) consider the origins of life to be
2 part of the theory of evolution?
3 A It's not part of the theory of evolution as studied by—
5 Q Is it part of evolutionary biology?
6 A It's part of biology. It happened to come into
7 chapters that I wrote, and I think you'll see four pages I
8 wrote on the subject of the history and the treatment of
9 that subject in recent biology textbooks.
10 Q But in treating evolutionary biology, you treated
11 the origin of the first life, did you not?
12 A I would say those chapters are about evolutionary
13 biology and about the whole field we call whole animal
14 biology. There are other subjects treated in those
15 chapters, particularly in the last chapter on the ecology,
16 that are not themselves part of evolutionary biology.
17 Q And in this book, you state at page 689, "Two broad
18 and fascinating questions arise from this scenario for the
19 origin of life. First, given a primordial soup was a
20 complex joining together of organic molecules to form life
21 an inevitable result or a lucky accident."
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you consider those two parts of that question to
24 be scientific theories or to be testable of scientific
1 A Yes. Those are two alternate views that have been
2 proposed. Again, I disclaim— That is a very short
3 section or a few pages on something I don't know a lot
4 about. I'm sure Mr. Morris will come back and give much
6 Q Did you write this?
7 A Oh, yes. Because I'm aware that any textbook
8 writer, of course, is compelled in treating an entire
9 field to deal, at least, summarily with subjects that are
10 not directly within the realm of their expertise. And in
11 so doing, you summarize what the prevailing opinions in
12 the scientific community are. And those, if I understand
13 the literature, are the two major views.
14 One, that the origin of life was virtually chemically
15 inevitable, and one that each step in the sequence is
16 fairly chancy, but given the immense age of the earth, it
17 was bound to happen.
18 Q You further asked the question, "Is life on our
19 planet the product of a single origin?"
20 A Yes. That's Kirka's question.
21 Q Is that testable?
22 A Yes. By inference. It's going to be very
23 difficult to get a—
24 Q By inference?
25 A Most of science's testables are by inference.
1 A (Continuing) There is no way we can go back and
2 look, but what you do is you study the detail of nature
3 biochemical similarities in all forms of life. And from
4 our knowledge of chemistry, which mine is so meager I
5 wouldn't dare to go further, you make assessments of the
6 probability that such great similarities could arise
7 independently more than once.
8 But it is, again, not—
9 Q But using those similarities, are they not subject
10 to more than one interpretation, Doctor Gould?
11 A I gave both interpretations in the book.
12 Q Right.
13 So it's an either/or question?
14 A I guess so, as a matter of definition, either it
15 arose once or it arose more than once, or didn't arise
16 at all.
17 Q And there's no way we can really accurately know
18 how if it arose once or more than once, is there?
19 A Well, I really don't know. You'd have to ask my
20 chemical friends. There may be ways of obtaining pretty
21 fair certainty based on biochemical similarities, but I
22 really don't know that subject. That's why, as I said,
23 I've listed both possibilities.
24 Q This textbook was written for what level?
25 A Introductory college.