Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P062-099


1 A (Continuing[Covered]groups, but they

2 are something[Covered]ague or something

3 like that[Covered]eague, whatever,

4 the Bible Cr[Covered]of groups.

5 I might say[Covered]the question.

6 Q Would you[Covered]tion, sir.

7 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, I would object, since there

8 is a proper form to present a deposition to a witness, and

9 I would suggest to Mr. Campbell that he might ask the

10 witness if he recalls the particular question and answer.

11 I would object to this method of questioning my witness,

12 and particularly approaching it in this way.

13 THE COURT: Why don't you follow the procedure.

14 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

15 Q Professor Marsden, do you recall my asking you the

16 question, "Just so we can get this straight, and I don't

17 want to go back and repeat what we've talked about in

18 terms of your expertise, but will you be talking about

19 contemporary Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalism as it

20 exists today, or will you be narrowing your testimony to

21 fundamentalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century,

22 1920 or 1930."

23 And do you recall your answer to that?

24 A No, I don't.

25 Q (Reading) "I think, I guess I'll be emphasizing


1 Q (Continuing) Fundamentalism up to 1920 or 1930.

2 Perhaps--It depends on what I'm asked, I guess.

3 But suggesting there might be some connection with what

4 is going on today, but not presenting myself as an expert

5 on what is going on today, in that sense, or as a strong a

6 sense as I would from a historical source of things."

7 Do you recall that statement?

8 A Clearly at the time you were asking the question, I

9 was a bit off the guard. What I said was, they will be

10 emphasizing Fundamentalism of the Twenties or Thirties.

11 Perhaps, it depends on what I'm asked, I'm not as much an

12 expert on Fundamentalism today as I am in the past. Not in

13 as strong a sense.

14 So I meant to be qualifying it. At that time I wasn't

15 clear what was being asked of me or expected of me. I'm

16 willing to present myself as an expert an Fundamentalism

17 up to the 1930's, and to a somewhat lesser degree, I must

18 confess, at least somewhat of an expert on Fundamentalism

19 since then..

20 There are degrees of being experts.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, we would move to limit

22 Professor Marsden's expertise up to 1930 in the area of

23 Fundamentalism.

24 THE COURT: It's overruled.




3 Q Professor Marsden, you have continued to study

4 Fundamentalism right up until today, haven't you?

5 A Yes, I have.

6 Q And from your perspective as a church's authority,

7 isn't that correct?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q Now, did you, because your book stops at 1930, stop

10 to your research at 1930?

11 A No, I did not stop my research at 1930.

12 Q Now, did I engage your services in 1981 as an

13 expert?

14 A Yes, you did.

15 Q And as to what subject matter?

16 A On the history of Fundamentalism.

17 Q Any particular other topic?

18 A The history of Fundamentalism as it relates

19 particularly to Act 590.

20 Q Professor, could I ask you to describe for me the

21 circumstances of the development of the movement which we

22 describe as Fundamentalism in America?

23 A Fundamentalism is a movement that began as a

24 coalition primarily among evangelical Protestants in the

25 late nineteenth century. The distinguishing feature of


1 A (Continuing) Fundamentalists that distinguishes

2 them from related religious movements is their militancy

3 in opposition to what they called at the time Modernism,

4 which meant certain ideas that were pervasive in modern

5 secular culture, and equally to certain modern

6 esthesiologies that they saw as incorporating the secular

7 ideas into Christianity.

8 So the militancy in opposition to Modernism became the

9 distinguishing factor that brought together concerned to

10 evangelicalists from a variety of other traditions.

11 Q Did this movement of Fundamentalism have any other

12 goals?

13 A Yes. It had what it would describe as positive

14 goals of evangelization, converting people to Christianity.

15 Q And that's how you would define that term

16 "evangelization"?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Would you also describe it as spreading the faith?

19 A Yes. Certainly.

20 Q Could you describe furthers the development of

21 Fundamentalism again, starting in the mid-nineteenth

22 century?

23 A Sure. One has to go back to about a hundred years

24 ago and imagine the condition of America at that time,

25 which was a nation pervaded by a Protestant evangelical


1 A (Continuing) ethos. Protestant evangelicalism had

2 a special position in America because of its being here

3 first, primarily, and the revivalism of the nineteenth

4 century.

5 For instance, in the public schools in the mid and

6 latter nineteenth century, it was characteristic to use

7 McGuffey's Readers. And in McGuffey's Readers, there were

8 explicit Protestant principles taught. There were lessons

9 like, "The Bible - The Greatest of All Books," or "My

10 Mother's Bible," or "Observance of the Sabbath Rewarded."

11 And these sorts of doctrines were the standard American

12 doctrine equated often with being a good American.

13 Now, it's in that context that there are a number of

14 shocks that hit this Evangelical ethos in America. And

15 they combined social factors of change with very

16 spectacular intellectual changes that hit here roughly at

17 the same time, in the period from about 1870 through 1900.

18 The social changes were those associated with vast

19 immigration, the tremendous growth of the cities, and the

20 shift of the center of gravity toward the cities from the

21 countryside, and the general increase of pluralism in an

22 Industrial society.

23 In that context of social change then hit also higher

24 criticism of the Bible, which had been developing in

25 Germany since about 1800. And then more or less at the


1 A (Continuing) same time, here comes Darwinism, which

2 was taken by some people, at least, to be an implicit

3 attack on the veracity of the Bible.

4 Those factors converged, and different religious people,

5 different Protestants reacted in different ways. And

6 there were a group of them who decided that the best

7 defense was to take a strong stand at the most secure

8 position, which was a defense of the literal

9 interpretation of the Bible; concede nothing to modern

10 thought, defend the Bible at every point.

11 Those people who did that and who did it militantly, in

12 opposition to other religious groups and the secularists,

13 began to feed into the coalition that came to be known as

14 Fundamentalism.

15 There were, in this development, several traits of the

16 Fundamentalist, emergence of the Fundamentalist movement.

17 There were several sub-movements. One important one was

18 the emergency of a theology, basically an interpretation

19 of prophecy called dispensationalism.

20 Dispensationalism is relevant to this case in this

21 respect: That its hermeneutical principle, that is, its

22 principle of interpreting the Bible is the principle,

23 literal when possible.

24 And many Fundamentalists became dispensationists. Not

25 all. But dispensationalism was symptomatic of a tendency


1 A (Continuing) of people to say, in the late

2 nineteenth century, the literal interpretation of the

3 Bible is the best defense against modern thought.

4 Sometimes also, though not as much as usually is

5 imagined, opposition to Darwinism became a tenet of these

6 people who were defending literal interpretation.

7 Particularly in the South in the late nineteenth century,

8 Darwinism began to be a symbol of secularism, though this

9 didn't spread to the North until a somewhat later date.

10 Q Did it in fact spread to the North at a later date?

11 A Yes, it did. It gradually developed in the North,

12 or there were advocates saying that Darwinism was

13 necessarily antagonistic to Christianity right from the

14 start. I would say most Bible believing evangelicals in,

15 say, 1870, 1880, would have said Darwinism and literal or

16 conservative Biblical interpretations are to some degree

17 compatible. Not fully compatible, but given certain

18 amendments to one or the other, you could make them

19 compatible.

20 It's not until the period basically following World War

21 II that it becomes a large scale factor in Fundamentalism

22 in the North to oppose evolutions.

23 Q Did you say World War II?

24 A I'm sorry. If I did, I meant to say World War I

25 Q Focusing on the period following World War I, did


1 Q (Continuing) the Fundamentalist assault on

2 evolution come to the forefront at that time?

3 A That's correct. What happens is, before World War

4 I, as I was saying, Fundamentalists sometimes emphasized

5 opposition to evolution. But it was World War I that

6 rather dramatically brings us to the fore.

7 And it involved -- the story is, very briefly -- during

8 World War I there was a tremendous propaganda effort

9 against Germany. And the war was considered to be the war

10 to save civilization from barbarism. The war would make

11 the world safe for democracy.

12 In that context, American propaganda emphasized that the

13 reason why Germany had turned to barbarism was the

14 evolutionary philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and that

15 might be the right philosophy, as they said, was what

16 accounted for Germany's losing its Protestant Christian

17 heritage. The birthplace of Protestantism now turned to

18 barbarism.

19 Well, Fundamentalists picked this up, people like Bryan

20 picked this up and said the same thing could happen here.

21 And after World War I there was period much like the

22 period today, where there was a sense of general unease

23 for the progress of American civilization.

24 There was a sense that something had gone wrong; a

25 rather indefinite sense, not a real disaster, much like

the 1980's, it seems to me. And in that context, that


1 A (Continuing) saying evolution is a problem was

2 something that became convincing to a wide variety of

3 people.

4 So out of that World War I concern for the progress of

5 civilization, evolution began to emerge as a symbol of the

6 Fundamentalists fight against secularism.

7 Q Could you describe for me how the Fundamentalists

8 waged this campaign against evolution in this country?

9 A Primarily by working for legislation in the public

10 schools by getting state legislatures to pass acts banning

11 the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

12 They also worked within universities and colleges

13 sometimes to try to prevent the teaching of evolution, and

14 sometimes within their own schools they made them.

15 Now, usually for the first time anti-evolution became a

16 test of whether you were in or out.

17 Q Were Fundamentalists also pursuing this goal of

18 evangelization that you described earlier in your

19 testimony at this time?

20 A Certainly. That's correct.

21 Q Was there a model of origins put forward by

22 Fundamentalists during the 1920's?

23 A Yes, there was.

24 During the 1920's, Fundamentalists made it very clear

25 that the only adequate source for knowing about the


1 A (Continuing) questions of the origin of the

2 universe or the origins of the human race was the Bible.

3 The Bible alone was, after all, one of the hallmarks of

4 the whole Protestant heritage that they were defending.

5 The Bible alone was the source of knowing about evolution.

6 And God was the only person who was there, and so forth.

7 Q I'm sorry?

8 A God alone was the only source for knowing about

9 creation. And God was the only person there. And so to

10 learn about it, we have to read about that in the Bible.

11 There were one or two people, two at least, who were at

12 that time trying to marshal scientific evidence to fit a

13 very conservative reading of the Bible. A man named G.M.

14 Price, and another man named Harry Rimer were the primary

15 defenders of pitting scientific investigation into this

16 literal interpretation.

17 Q Did all Fundamentalists derive this scientific

18 constructive origins from the literal interpretation of

19 Genesis at that time?

20 A Yes, they did, though there are degrees of

21 literalism. One of the interesting factors is that,

22 William Jennings Bryan, at the time of the Scopes trial,

23 was a Biblical literalist. But as many Biblical

24 literalists were at that time, he was convinced that the

25 days referred to in Genesis One could be long periods of


1 A (Continuing) time.

2 For instance, " God rested on the seventh day." He did

3 not just rest for twenty-four hours, he rested for a

4 longer period of time, so the days of creation could be

5 longer.

6 Bryan said at the trial, `It seems to me just as easy to

7 believe that God created the world in six million years,

8 six hundred million years, whatever you want, as to

9 believe he created it in six days.' The length of

10 creation at that time wasn't considered to be a necessary

11 tenet of literalism. It is only since then that a certain

12 group of Fundamentalists has made that into a special test.

13 Q So what you're saying, then, Professor, is the

14 interpretation of the Biblical account of origins became

15 even more literalistically interpreted by Fundamentalists

16 after 1920?

17 A That's correct. What happened was that opposition

18 to evolution became more and more a symbol and a test of

19 being in or out of the true Fundamental faith.

20 And so in that sort of context was the tendency to drive

21 out middle positions. And what the history of the

22 development of Fundamentalism and evolution is the history

23 of driving out the middle positions until you end up with

24 only two positions: One, creationism, and everything else

25 in the world, any others view, is some species of


1 A (Continuing) compromise with evolution.

2 Q That mental process, from a church historian's point

3 of view, could you describe that as dualism?

4 A Well, it ends up with a very dualistic outlook, yes.

5 Q Thank you.

6 What happened to this Fundamentalist movement

7 particularly focused on the-- focusing on origins between

8 the 1930's and up until about the 1950's?

9 A During the 1930's, Fundamentalism after the Scopes

10 trial tended to be a rebuilding, forming independent

11 groups and churches and so forth, and working, shoring up

12 its own resources. And by about the 1940's and `50's,

13 there begins to be a very perceptible split within the

14 Fundamentalist movement.

15 The split is a split that is called, the one party, the

16 more moderate party came to be known as

17 neo-evangelicalism. On the other hand, the

18 Fundamentalists who wanted to preserve the Fundamentalist

19 division became more and more hard line, more and more

20 insisting on the classic tenets of Fundamentalist faith.

21 Q Did the more moderate view have an opposite number,

22 if I might use that expression, in the area of scientific

23 investigation?

24 A Yes. The more moderate view involved people who

25 continued to say that, as has been done since the


1 A (Continuing) inception of Darwinism, that there were

2 ways of being faithful to the infallibility of the Bible,

3 even the inerrancy of the Bible, that did not necessarily

4 rule out all process in God's way of creating; that it's a

5 false choice between evolutionism on the one hand and

6 creationism on the other hand. And many of the

7 neo-evangelicals in the 1950's and since then have

8 emphasized that, particularly in an organization known as

9 the American Scientific Affiliation.

10 Q As a church historian, Professor Marsden, do you see

11 any essential similarity between the Fundamentalism of the

12 late 1920's and Fundamentalism today?

13 A There's a great deal of, both similarity and

14 continuity. The main contours of the movement are the

15 same. That is, militant opposition to what was called

16 modernism, what has now come to be called more likely

17 secular-humanism, continues to be the glue that brings

18 together a coalition.

19 On the periphery of the movement, of course, there is

20 some variety. Any movement that has been around as long

21 as Fundamentalism has some change. For instance, the

22 hardening of the categories kind of phenomenon just

23 described tends to be one of the changes that has taken

24 place since the 1920's.

25 In many respects, there is a striking similarity.


1 Q Is there any similarity between the Fundamentalist

2 movement of the 1920's and Fundamentalism today, with

3 reference to the view of the factual inerrancy of the

4 Genesis account of creation?

5 A Yes, there is. There continues to be an emphasis on

6 Genesis and the literal interpretation of Genesis as the

7 primary source of our knowledge about the origins. And as

8 I said, more emphasis on this being a young earth, a

9 twenty-four hour day, six day creation.

10 Q Now, at the time that Fundamentalist Christians were

11 coping with modernism as you described it from a

12 historical perspective, were other groups in America

13 to coping in different ways?

14 A That's correct. There's a whole spectrum of opinion

15 among Christians relating to the question of origins,

16 evolution, and the like. And in that spectrum, you name

17 it, you can find any variety of relating Christianity to

18 science.

19 Q Is there any particular number of points which

20 defined Fundamentalism from a historical perspective?

21 A No, there's not. Fundamentalists emphasized certain

22 fundamentals of the faith. That has something to do with

23 the origin of the term "Fundamentalism". Views like the

24 virgin birth were defended as fundamentals of Christianity.


1 A (Continuing) It used to be thought that there were

2 just five fundamentals around with which the movement had

3 coalesced.

4 In fact, that turned out to be an error made by the

5 first historian of the movement, a man named Stewart Cole

6 in 1931. Some years ago, about ten years ago, that was

7 discovered to be a sort of mythology, that there were five

8 points of Fundamentalism.

9 In fact, sometimes there were fourteen points, sometimes

10 there were five, sometimes there were seven; sometimes

11 there were different numbers for different groups. There

12 were some groups that didn't even have a list.

13 Q Did you find that Fundamentalism was embraced only

14 by Protestants in this country?

15 A No. It's a coalition at the heart of which are

16 evangelical Protestants, primarily in the revivalist

17 tradition. But that coalition has brought into it people

18 from other groups, Catholics, Mormons, even sometimes

19 conservative Jews, Seventh Day Adventists. Certainly all

20 sorts of people might come into the Fundamentalist

21 movement as they become militantly opposed to some aspect

22 of modern religion.

23 Q In the course of your studies as a religious

24 historian, are you familiar with the phrase "religious

25 apologetics"?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Do you have a definition which you might make

3 reference to at this point of that phrase?

4 A Religious apologetics is simply an attempt to defend

5 the faith against its critics.

6 Q Were the Fundamentalists in the historical period

7 you made reference to engaged in religious apologetics in

8 the arena of science and education?

9 A Yes. Certainly.

10 Q Was that the reference you made earlier to the

11 scientific works of Mr. Price and Mr. Rimer?

12 A Right. They would be the best examples of doing

13 that.

14 Q Are you familiar with what might be described as

15 creation science?

16 A Yes, I am.

17 Q Are you familiar with the organizations that

18 presently promote creation science?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of

21 professional certainty as to whether the groups involved

22 in the creation science movement are part of the

23 Fundamentalist movement?

24 A Yes, they certainly are.

25 Q Is that your opinion?


1 A That's my opinion, yes.

2 Q Upon what do you base that opinion, sir?

3 A Well, I base that opinion on my research into the

4 history of Fundamentalism, looking at documents published

5 by such groups and seeing the convergence of their views

6 with Fundamentalist views.

7 Q And have you examined these creation science groups

8 in the ordinary course of your scholarship?

9 A Yes.

10 Q In other words, without particular reference to my

11 engagement of you as an expert?

12 A To some degree, yes.

13 Q And also to some degree with reference to my asking

14 you to look at creation science?

15 A Yes. Certainly.

16 Q Does the creation science movement today contain any

17 elements found in the Fundamentalist movement as you have

18 described it historically?

19 A The creation science movement today does contain

20 elements that are strikingly and typically

21 Fundamentalist. One is the creation science movement,

22 from its inception, has emphasized the divine creation and

23 literalistic interpretation of the Bible, which tends to

24 be a leading trait of Fundamentalism, and necessarily

25 opposed to all forms of evolutionalism.


1 A (Continuing) So, for instance, if you look at a

2 book like Henry Morris' The Troubled Waters of Evolution--

3 Q Professor Marsden, would having that book facilitate

4 your testimony in this connection?

5 A Yes, it would.

6 Q You were about to make reference to one of those,

7 Professor. Could you, before you begin to read, identify

8 the book by author, title, and page?

9 A This is a book by Henry M. Morris, The Troubled

10 Waters of Evolution, published by C.L.P. Publishers, San

11 Diego, California. Copyright 1974.

12 I am going to refer to page 10.

13 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, at this point I would state

14 for the record that Professor Marsden has brought this

15 book with him, and I would like to see if we have got a

16 document, Exhibit Number Four, at this time. If I may

17 have a moment to do that.

18 Q You brought those books with you, didn't you?

19 A Well, yes, I did. Actually I brought my copies.

20 These are copies of the same books.

21 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, we are going to offer a

22 record designation to the pages to which Professor Marsden

23 makes reference. We will insert in the blank exhibit

24 numbers that are in the record at this point as Exhibit

25 Number Thirty, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, by Henry


1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) Morris, and provide copies

2 to counsel for the defendants at this point.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, in I might interject, it

4 would assist us greatly if we could have a copy of that

5 book now to look at, so we can prepare our cross

6 examination. Without that, I think we would be prejudiced.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy?

8 MR. SIANO: There are only two.

9 THE COURT: Fine. You can look at my copy.

10 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

11 Q You were about to make reference to those, Professor?

12 A Yes. One characteristic of Fundamentalism has been

13 to emphasize, as you described it, the dualistic

14 position. That is, that there are only two positions,

15 they say, that are positions. There is the position of

16 creationism now defined as twenty-four hour a day

17 creationism, virtually, at least, and everything else,

18 which is evolution.

19 So in this book by Morris, he says this on page 10,

20 "Sometimes, evolution is described as God's method of

21 creation, in an attempt to make it more palatable to

22 die-hard creationists, but this device has never been

25 satisfactory, either to evolutionists or creationists."


1 A (Continuing) Now, Morris, the origin of that sort

2 of sentiment, you trace in Morris' own thoughts of this--

3 Q Are these books all in?

4 You may make reference to that in Exhibit Number

5 Thirty-One at this point.

6 A There is a second book called, by Henry M. Morris

7 again, called, Studies in the Bible and Science, which is

8 a collection of essays by Morris published by Presbyterian

9 and Reform Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1966,

10 copyright.

11 In 1963, Morris delivered an address at the American

12 Scientific Affiliation around the same time, I think, as

13 the emergence of the Creation Research Society, and the

14 theme of the address was "No Compromise". That's a

15 characteristic Fundamentalist emphasis, you're either with

16 us or you're with Satan. And Morris said that in just so

17 many words. On page 102--

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I object to the last

19 comment, certainly, concerning a statement. Perhaps I

20 misunderstood, but if he is making reference to a speech

21 that was given that he does not have, that would violate

22 the best evidence rule and I would move to strike that.

23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm sorry. This is a

24 quotation from that speech. This is a collection of

25 essays.


1 MR. WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the objection, Your

2 Honor.

3 A He says this-- Well, he's referring to another

4 point there. He says, "And this should be true more than

5 anywhere else in connection with the philosophy of

6 evolution, since as been pointed out above" -- And he has

7 just argued this at some length -- "as has been pointed

8 out above, this philosophy", that is evolution, "is really

9 the foundation--" The philosophy of evolution is really

10 the foundation, "of the very rebellion of Satan himself

11 and of every evil system which he has devised since that

12 time to oppose the sovereignty and grace of God in this

13 universe."

14 So there you have it. On the one side is evolution and

15 every evil philosophy on the side of Satan, or you can

16 have creationism. No middle ground.

17 Q Do creation scientists today, as you understand

18 them, share any common characteristics of early

19 Fundamentalists in insisting that the Bible is the source

20 of their creation science models?

21 A That's correct. Often in creation science

22 literature it is stressed that the Bible is the only

23 source for finding out about origins.

24 For instance, here is another book by Duane T. Gish,

25 called Evolution: The Fossils Say No. This book is


1 A (Continuing) published by Creation Life Publishers,

2 San Diego, Californian copyrighted, the first edition,

3 1972.

4 In this book, Mr. Gish, on page 42, makes a

5 characteristic statement in his definition of creation.

6 He says, "By creation we mean the bringing into being of

7 the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of

8 sudden or fiat creation," -- and this is the key --

9 "described in the first two chapters of Genesis."

10 That's just the very definition of creation in many

11 creation science publications. Henry Morris says this

12 even more strongly in a book, The Studies in the Bible of

13 Science.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would have to interject

15 at this point an objection. This has absolutely, without

16 question, no relevance to Act 590. We're talking now

17 about a statement where someone said that creation is as

18 described in Genesis. This Act specifically prohibits any

19 mention to Genesis. I fail to see what relevance it has.

20 Obviously, it cannot go to the legislative intent. These

21 people did not pass Act 590; the Arkansas Legislature did.

22 We have an Act which is specific, and we should look at

23 the Act. This is irrelevant.

24 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, in addition to the


1 MR. SIANO: (Continuing) memorandum that the

2 Plaintiffs submitted earlier this morning on the question

3 of relevance, I will speak briefly to that point, if your

4 Honor feels it appropriate at this time.

5 THE COURT: I think maybe you should. And

6 incidentally, the memorandum was never given to me. I've

7 never read it.

8 MR. SIANO: Excuse me, your Honor. I think it was

9 conveyed to a member of the Court's staff earlier this

10 morning.

11 THE COURT: Well, the first I heard of it was when

12 we were getting ready to walk in the courtroom this

13 morning. I haven't read it.

14 MR. SIANO: In that case, I'll be a little more

15 detailed. I'm sorry about the time it will take.

16 Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, your

17 Honor, the test of relevance is a logical test. It's a

18 test as to whether the proper evidence has a tendency in

19 logic to make the point being proposed more likely to have

20 occurred; or the point being opposed less likely to have

21 occurred.

22 Now, in this case it is the point to be made by the

23 Plaintiffs that the entire body of writings of the

24 creation science movement display their purpose as being

25 religious. And that this purpose, this religious purpose,


1 MR. SIANO: (continuing) is intrinsic in the

2 writings of the creation science movement.

3 And that we believe that this is relevant, your Honor,

4 logically likely to make the fact finder conclude that the

5 term, creation science, is, in fact, a religious

6 apologetic, in that all the writings advance a religious

7 thought.

8 Furthermore, the defendants' witnesses have stated in

9 their depositions that the gentlemen, particularly

10 referred to in this case as to this witness, Mr. Morris

11 and Mr. Gish, are authorities on the topic of creation

12 science. And that, therefore, we believe what is being

13 put before the Court are these relevant sections of these

14 books which bear upon the question of religious purpose,

15 or argue quite strenuously in opposition to the

16 defendants' position that creation science is, in fact,

17 science, and not a religious apologetic.

18 And it is offered for that purpose, and that is why

19 we're offering these writings, to show the religious

20 purpose and intent of the creation science movement.

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the plaintiffs cannot

22 overcome the section of the Act which specifically

23 prohibits any religious instruction. Merely because

24 someone calls it creation science somewhere out in the

25 world does not mean it complies with Act 590, just as


1 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) evolution may have been

2 abused in the past for some doctrine which it does not

3 fairly characterize. So it is irrelevant to the question

4 at hand.

5 THE COURT: Well, I'll have to wait and see what the

6 witnesses say about how much they relied on Mr. Gish and

7 Mr. Morris and other writers in that connection. If the

8 people the creation scientists are relying upon are people

9 who write in terms of religious writings, I think that

10 would be relevant.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think our point is that

12 to the extent that there are writings out there which have

13 religious references and talk about creation science, they

14 cannot be used under Act 590. It is specifically

15 prohibited.

16 THE COURT: I appreciate that, yes, sir. But I

17 don't think the writers can call it religion for one

18 purpose and science for another, if that's what they have

19 done in these writings. And they underpin it with

20 religious writings, then I don't think they can just take

21 the hat off and say, "Well, we're talking about science

22 now." I think that's the point the Plaintiffs are trying

23 to make.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: That may be true, But I just wanted

25 to make the point, your Honor, that these individuals are--


1 THE COURT: I appreciate the point that you're

2 making. They can't teach out of the book in school. I

3 understand that, and they wouldn't be used in school, or

4 even those viewpoints wouldn't be used in school

5 necessarily.

6 I think the evidence is admissible and relevant.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor.

8 MR. SIANO: (Continuing)

9 Q Professor Marsden, you have in front of you a copy

10 of Exhibit Twenty-Nine in evidence, Act. 590 of 1981. You

11 have, in fact, seen that Act before, have you not?

12 A That is correct.

13 Q Do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether the

14 definition of creation science as set forth in Section

15 4(a) of Act 590 is a statement of Fundamentalist belief?

16 A Yes, I do.

17 Q As a professional opinion to a reasonable degree of

18 certainty, could you state what that opinion is?

19 A Yes. The striking thing to me about reading this

20 Act is that when reading it, as a historian one is quite

21 aware of the variety of opinions that there have been on

22 relating science to the Bible. There are numbers of

23 things that might plausibly be called creation science in

24 the sense of using science to confirm or to agree with the

25 Bible in some way or another.


1 A (Continuing) This Act singles out and gives

2 preferential treatment to just one such view, one that is

3 very easily identifiable as a characteristically

4 Fundamentalist view.

5 Q Now, is there an interpretation of Genesis from a

6 Fundamentalist perspective that coincides with subdivision

7 1 of Section 4(a), "Sudden creation of the universe,

8 energy, and life from nothing"?

9 A Yes. The anti-evolutionism characteristics of

10 Fundamentalist would emphasize the word "sudden".

11 Q And is there an interpretation, a Fundamentalist

12 interpretation of Genesis that coincides with point 2 of

13 Section 4(a), "Insufficiency of mutation and national

14 selection in bringing about the development of all living

15 kinds from a single organism"?

16 A Yes. The word "kinds" is a word that appears in

17 Genesis One several times and which is characteristic of

18 Fundamentalist talk about the subject.

19 Q Now, is there a Fundamentalist view of Genesis that

20 coincides with point 3 of Section 4(a), "Changes only

21 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

22 and animals"?

23 A Yes. Genesis One repeatedly says that they brought

24 forth after their kind. And that's interpreted by

25 Fundamentalists to mean that you can't change from one


1 A (Continuing) kind or species to another.

2 Q Is there an interpretation of Fundamentalist view of

3 Genesis that coincides with point 4 of Section 4(a),

4 "Separate ancestry for man and apes"?

5 A Yes. That's an elaboration of the previous point,

6 that different kinds don't change into each other.

7 Q Is there a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis

8 that coincides with point 5 of Section 4 a, "Explanation

9 of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the

10 occurrence of a worldwide flood"?

11 A Yes. Point 5 is particularly characteristic of a

12 branch of Fundamentalism that is the one that is

13 associated with what is now widely called creation science

14 that emphasizes flood geology, as it's called, and

15 catastrophism as a way of explaining the fossil evidence.

16 Q That flood that Fundamentalists talk about, is that

17 the Noachian flood?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Is there an interpretation in the Fundamentalist

20 view of Genesis that coincides with point 6 of Section

21 4(a), "A relatively recent inception of the earth and

22 living kinds"?

23 A Yes. That again is characteristic of a particular

24 subbranch of Fundamentalism which emphasizes the

25 twenty-four hour day creationism, and therefore quite a


1 A (Continuing) young earth.

2 Q Professor Marsden, are there other sections of Act

3 590 of 1981 that in your professional opinion reflect

4 aspects of Fundamentalism in America as you know it?

5 A Yes, there are.

6 Q I'll ask you to focus first on Section 4(b) and the

7 subdivisions therein, please.

8 A Yes. Without going through--

9 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed the question.

10 Q Can I ask you, Professor, to focus now on Section


12 A Yes.

13 In Section 4(b), without going through the details of

14 it, the general characterization of evolution science

15 there is one that makes evolution science, it seems to me,

16 virtually necessarily a wholly naturalistic process. And

17 it's one that is written as the inverse of the special

18 flood geology kind of science of 4(a).

19 Q In other words, that's establishing a dualist

20 definition in this action?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q I'll direct your attention to Section 6. Are there

23 any particular points in Section 6 that reflect typical

24 literalist Fundamentalism as you understand it?

25 A Right. There's a striking one here in Section 6,


1 A (Continuing) the third line, where -- this is the

2 legislative purpose, the declaration of purpose. One of

3 the purposes is to insure neutrality toward students'

4 diverse religious conviction.

5 Now, it seems to me that the only way that you can

6 suppose that presenting just two positions, or giving a

7 privileged position to just two positions, amounted to

8 neutrality, was if you thought there were only two

9 positions. If you thought there were fifteen positions,

10 you wouldn't say this is ensuring neutrality by giving a

11 privileged position to just one.

12 So this reflects the kind of Fundamentalist thinking

13 that I quoted from the books, particular the book by Henry

14 Morris.

15 MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.





19 Q Professor Marsden, I'd like to ask you a few

20 questions about the books which are introduced. I'm

21 sorry, but I did not get all the exhibit numbers.

22 The Morris book, The Troubled Waters of Evolution,

23 that's Exhibit Thirty-One, is that correct?

24 A I believe that's correct, or Thirty.

25 Q Thirty. The Morris book on The Bible and Science.


1 A Thirty-one.

2 Q And finally, the Gish book, Evolution: The Fossils

3 Say No.

4 A Seventy-eight, I believe.

5 MR. SIANO: Your Honor, for the record I'll state

6 that there are two editions to that book, and we believe

7 it's Seventy-eight. The other is Seventy-seven. I

8 believe we questioned him out of Seventy-eight.

9 Q Professor Marsden, where did you get these books?

10 A Where did I get the books?

11 Q Yes, sir.

12 A Well the fact of the matter is that I brought these

13 three books with me on the airplane. My attorney said--

14 One of them is a library book, and they said, "We have the

15 same book." Let's use our copy.

16 Q Where did you get these books that you brought with

17 you?

18 A The ones I brought with me, a couple were in my

19 personal library, and the other one was in Calvin College

20 library.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, may I approach the

22 witness.

23 THE COURT: You may.

24 MR. CAMPBELL: (Continuing)

25 Q According to plaintiff's Exhibit Number Thirty,


1 Q (Continuing) which is the Morris book, The Troubled

2 Waters of Evolution, would you please read to me the

3 inside cover of that book, please?

4 A The inside cover has pasted in this statement, "This

5 book is not designed or appropriate for public school use

6 and should not be used in public schools in any way." It

7 continues in smaller print, "Books for public schools

8 discuss scientific evidence as supports creation science

9 or evolution science. This book instead discusses

10 religious concepts or materials that support Creationist

11 religion or evolutionist religion, and such religious

12 material should not be used in public schools."

13 Q I'd like you to examine Plaintiff's Exhibit

14 Thirty-one, which is the Morris book, The Bible and

15 Science, and tell the Court whether or not that same

16 disclaimer appears in that book?

17 A Yes. The same disclaimer is in this book. I don't

18 know whether it's relevant. I don't think these are in my

19 copies.

20 Q I appreciate that. Exhibit Number Seventy-eight,

21 which is the Gish book, is a similar disclaimer in there?

22 A Yes. Same thing.

23 Q What research have your done on Fundamentalism in

24 Arkansas in 1981?

25 A What research have I done on it?


1 Q Yes, sir.

2 A In Arkansas, particularly?

3 Q In 1981?

4 A This is the first time I've been to Arkansas, was

5 yesterday afternoon, in 1981. I have tried to keep up

6 with this case, primarily, and I followed Fundamentalism

7 in the country in a general way in 1981.

8 Q Would it be fair to say that you have not done any

9 research on Fundamentalism in Arkansas in 1981?

10 A No, I wouldn't say so, because since being asked to

11 testify, I have considered this law and Fundamentalism as

12 it relates to that law, and talked to numbers of people

13 about that. So I have done some research.

14 Q Fundamentalism is a coalition of various movements,

15 isn't it?

16 A Yes, it is.

17 Q Can you distinguish Fundamentalism as it existed up

18 to 1925 from contemporary Fundamentalism?

19 A The core of the movement is the same, its militancy

20 and opposition to modernism or secular humanism. There

21 are some differences. For instance, today Fundamentalism

22 has a much more mass media aspect. I think that has

23 changed some of the emphases that are associated with the

24 movement.

25 Q Is it your opinion that Act 590 is exclusively a


1 Q (Continuing) product of Fundamentalism?

2 A No, not exclusively Fundamentalist.

3 Q Do Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation?

4 A Many Fundamentalists believe in a six day creation,

5 yes.

6 Q Do you see the words, "Six day creation", in Act 590?

7 A The words, "Six day creation", are avoided in Act

8 590.

9 Q You said they are what?

10 A They are avoided in Act 590. That's a conclusion.

11 I do not see them.

12 Q Fundamentalists have historically opposed the

13 teaching evolution in the school room, haven't they?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Act 590 permits evolution to be taught in the school

16 room, doesn't it?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Can you separate a religious creator from scientific

19 creation?

20 A From scientific creation as defined in this Act?

21 Q Yes, sir.

22 A No. It seems to me that the very word, "creation",

23 entails "creator".

24 Q You have always studied a creator in a religious


1 Q (Continuing) context, haven't you?

2 A Well, creator is used in all sorts of contexts.

3 Q But you've always studied it in a religious context,

4 haven't you?

5 A Not necessarily, no.

6 Q How else have you studied creator?

7 A Well, I've studied-- Do you mean-- Creator of

8 what, in what sense?

9 Q Have you studied the concept of Creator always in a

10 religious context?

11 A No. I've studied-- For instance, creator might be

12 used in the sense of the Creation of the American

13 Republic, which is the title of a book. And the creators

14 of the American Republic would be the people like Thomas

15 Jefferson. So creator in itself has all sorts of meanings.

16 Q You have never studied a creator in a scientific

17 concept have you, or as a scientific concept?

18 A Studied a creator as a scientific concept? I have

19 studied a lot of the relationship between a creator and

20 scientific concepts.

21 Q But you are not a scientist, are you?

22 A I'm a historian, and historians have to do a lot of

23 history of science to some extent.

24 Q But you are not trained a scientist, are you?


1 A I'm not trained as a scientist, no.

2 Q All Fundamentalists don't hold to the six part

3 definition of creation science in Act 590, do they?

4 A That's correct. Not all Fundamentalists would hold

5 to that view. But of course, that's--

6 Q Thank you.

7 Fundamentalists view sanctification in different ways,

8 don't they?

9 A Yes, they do.

10 Q Fundamentalists view free will in different ways,

11 don't they?

12 A They are sub groups within the movement on all these

13 points.

14 Q Fundamentalists view dispensationalism in different

15 ways, don't they?

16 A There are subgroups on that, too.

17 Q Fundamentalists view revivalism in different ways,

18 don't they?

19 A There are subgroups on that, too. Correct.

20 Q Fundamentalists view creation science in different

21 ways don't they?

22 A There are subgroups in their views that, too.

23 Q Act 590 prohibits any religious instruction or

24 references to religious materials, doesn't it?

25 A That's what it says, yes.


1 Q From a historical perspective, hasn't Fundamentalism

2 embraced or championed the scientific method of inquiry?

3 A It has talked a great deal about championing the

4 scientific method of inquiry. It is typical for

5 Fundamentalists to say the facts of science versus the

6 theory of evolution, for instance.

7 MR. CAMPBELL: I have no further questions.

8 MR. SIANO: Very briefly, Your Honor.





12 Q These books that you brought with you, these are

13 your own copies, aren't they?

14 A None of the books in this courtroom is my copy. I

15 brought-- I have in my hotel room across the street three

16 copies of these books. And since you had these, we

17 decided to use these.

18 Q The ones that you brought with you from Grand Rapids

19 didn't have these little labels in them, did they?

20 A I wouldn't swear to that. I'm pretty sure. I'm

21 sure this one doesn't.

22 Q The Bible and Science, that one doesn't have any

23 label in it? You're certain of that, under oath?

24 A Well, I am-- I am ninety-nine percent sure. I'd


1 A (Continuing) be willing to bet.

2 Q So as far as you can remember, the books you got in

3 the ordinary course of business didn't have these labels

4 in them?

5 A I certainly didn't notice it on the particular three

6 I had.

7 MR. SIANO: I'd say for the record, Your Honor, the

8 books we got, we got in the document production from the

9 organizations themselves, and that's where we got the

10 labels.

11 MR. SIANO: (Continuing):

12 Q You identified Calvin College. Could you just tell

13 me what Calvin College is, since I didn't ask you about

14 that, sir?

15 A Yes. Calvin College is the college of the Christian

16 Reform Church, which is the Dutch equivalent of a

17 Presbyterian Church.

18 Q It is, in fact, evangelical?

19 A Calvin College is an evangelical in what is called

20 reformed credo-denomination. It's a conservative

21 Christian basically.

22 MR. SIANO: No further questions, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: You can step down. Thank you.

24 This would probably be a good time to break for

25 lunch. We'll reconvene at 1:30 p.m.