Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Line Numbered Transcripts Index - P667-699


1 A (Continuing) six definitions. Page 11 is

2 evolution, and there are also six definitions.

3 Q How do they compare to the definitions that appear

4 in Act 590?

5 A Well, except for the change of a word or two, they

6 appear to be identical.

7 Q What did you do with this information after you

8 received it?

9 A Well, after I received it, I looked through the

10 information, I studied it for some time. At, oh, I don't

11 know, maybe a week or two after that, the school board has

12 an education committee, and of course, they were aware

13 that Act 590 had been passed at that time and they wanted

14 an update on that.

15 And I went to the school board education committee and I

16 brought this material with me, and I expressed some

17 concern that if this were the manner in which we were to

18 implement Act 590, that I had some very severe

19 reservations about it. I didn't feel that it was at all

20 appropriate for use in the science classes.

21 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I would move admission of

22 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128.

23 THE COURT: It will be received.

24 Q Mr. Glasgow, will you refer to that, please, sir,

25 and tell the Court what your objections were to that


1 Q (Continuing) presentation or that two model

2 classroom approach?

3 A Well, my first objection-

4 THE COURT: What page are you on?

5 THE WITNESS: I'm looking at page 4. It's not

6 numbered sequentially all the way through.

7 THE COURT: Okay. I've got that page.

8 A At the top of that page it says that the two models

9 should be explained as alternative and mutually

10 exclusive. "Either of the data support random mechanistic

11 processes, no creator, or the data supports non-random

12 intelligent design or a creator." I found that extremely

13 objectionable.

14 Q Are there any other science courses in the Little

15 Rock School District that even mention a creator?

16 A No.

17 Q Will you turn to page 6 and tell the Court whether

18 there is anything there that you have previously

19 identified?

20 A Yes. I might mention that the pages prior to that

21 are discussing the two model approach, which is the basic

22 gist of the entire document. But at the bottom of page 6,

23 the last sentence, "Each individual should then prepare a

24 paper of at least five hundred words giving their personal

25 view."


1 Q How does giving personal views on a scientific

2 concept fit into the scheme of science education which

3 applies to—

4 A It has no place in the scheme of science.

5 THE COURT: Let me be sure I understand this, Mr.

6 Cearley. Is he suggesting that a student may be taught

7 that there is a creator or there is not, and that they

8 have to then give a paper stating their personal views on

9 whether or not there is a creator or not?

10 THE WITNESS: That's my understanding.

11 Q Move on through that, if you will, Mr. Glasgow, and

12 let me call your attention particularly to what is

13 labeled, it's about five or six pages from the back on an

14 unnumbered page, the label being "Likert Preference

15 Scale"

16 A Yes, I have that.

17 Q Did you have any comment about that to the

18 committee?

19 A Yes, I did.

20 Q Will you tell the court what that is, please?

21 A Yes. First of all, a Likert Preference Scale is a

22 series of statements in which you put an X on the blank

23 next to the statement that you feel comes closest to your

24 own ideas, and you mark only one X on this sheet. And it

25 has a series of eleven statements.


1 A (Continuing)

2 Statement number five is that evolution occurred—

3 THE COURT: Excuse me. What page are you referring

4 to?

5 MR. CEARLEY: It's an unnumbered page, your Honor,

6 that from the back is page 7.

7 THE COURT: Is it at the Pre and Post test?

8 THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's eight pages from the

9 back. I think it's immediately before the Pre-Post test.

10 MR. CEARLEY: It's labeled Likert Preference Scale.

11 THE COURT: Likert Preference Scale?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

13 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

14 Q To what language are you referring on that page,

15 Mr. Glasgow?

16 A Number 5. The statement made is that, "Evolution

17 occurred with the help of God." Number 10 is that,

18 "Creation is a fact that has been proven by scientific

19 studies." Number 11 is that, "Creation is a fact because

20 God has revealed it to us."

21 Keep in mind this is a series of statements that the

22 students are supposed to respond which one, "Which

23 statement do you feel comes closest to your ideas?"

24 Q Are there other choices of that sort presented in

25 the pre and post test for biology students?


1 A Yes, I would say that there are. Your Honor, on

2 the very next page, which is the pre and post test page,

3 at the bottom of that page, part C, number 4, is the

4 statement, one of several choices to choose from, I might

5 add, "Life is the result of a creator's design."

6 Q Is there another statement of that sort on page 4,

7 Mr. Glasgow, of that text?

8 A Yes. Under letter T, number 2, the question is,

9 "Which one of these creation concepts seems most doubtful

10 to you?" And number 2 is "A god of creation specially

11 designed all life on this planet."

12 Q Now, Mr. Glasgow, is this kind of presentation a

13 part of any science course in the Little Rock District now?

14 A No, it's certainly not.

15 Q What effect do you think, as science coordinator

16 supervisor, presentation of this kind of material would

17 have on science education in Little Rock?

18 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I don't think there's been

19 a showing that Mr. Glasgow would ever, in his professional

20 opinion, institute anything such as this. And during his

21 deposition he advised me that he would never recommend

22 anything to anybody that had religious references. And I

23 think that the plaintiffs are building a straw man and

24 then very thoroughly kicking it.

25 And I don't think there's any showing—


1 THE COURT: Is Doctor Bliss going to be a witness

2 in this case?

3 MR. CEARLEY: No, sir. But the plaintiffs' proof

4 intends to establish that there are no other sources for

5 this information other than these institutes.

6 THE COURT: Did Doctor Bliss actually hold this

7 seminar?

8 THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, I did not

9 attend, but yes, that was my understanding.

10 THE COURT: Did anybody attend?

11 MR. KAPLAN: One of the witnesses attended.

12 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, we will also have a

13 deposition to offer into the record that indicates that

14 the Fort Smith School District, in response to a request

15 from its superintendent to prepare teachers to teach

16 creation science, wrote to this same organization and

17 received back material similar, if not identical, to these

18 materials, in response to the fact that there is no other

19 place to get materials.

20 MR. CHILDS: Well, your Honor, I think in Mr.

21 Glasgow's deposition he indicated that it would be

22 possible, as hard as it might be to believe, that the

23 Little Rock School District people could actually develop

24 their own materials. And I think that the plaintiffs are

25 attempting to prove to the negative.


1 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

2 They are trying to prove that in the whole universe

3 there is no possible way that this material can be

4 developed and it's impossible.

5 MR. CEARLEY: That's what our testimony will be,

6 your Honor.

7 THE COURT: What's your objection? I understand

8 you're making an argument, but do you have a legal

9 objection to the evidence being legally inadmissible in

10 some way?

11 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor. I'm saying that this

12 information, until there has been a showing that what Mr.

13 Glasgow has been testifying about is going to be

14 instituted in the Little Rock schools, that it's premature

15 and it is irrelevant. And unless there is a showing that

16 this is the only material that can be incorporated in the

17 curriculum, it is also irrelevant.

18 THE COURT: Okay. That objection is overruled.

19 MR. CEARLEY: May I move on, your Honor?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

22 Q My question, Mr. Glasgow, was what effect teaching

23 pursuant to this kind of model would have on science

24 education in the Little Rock District?

25 A I think it would be extremely damaging to science


1 A (Continuing) education in the Little Rock School

2 District.

3 Q Can you implement — Let me rephrase that. How

4 would you, as science supervisor, implement the

5 requirements of Act 590 to give balanced treatment to

6 creation science?

7 A I don't know. I don't think I can implement the

8 provision of Act 590 to give balanced treatment.

9 Q For what reasons? Can you do it without teaching

10 religion or without religious references?

11 A No. You see, there are religious references in the

12 materials that are available, to my knowledge. I would

13 object very strenuously to including religion. Of course,

14 that wouldn't be allowed under any law that currently

15 exists that I know of. And that's the only thing that's

16 available, to my knowledge.

17 Q Do you know whether there are materials available

18 of a scientific nature that would be acceptable to you

19 that would support creation science?

20 A I haven't examined all of the scientific materials

21 that are available, but I have found none whatsoever that

22 would be suitable.

23 Q Would teaching creation science, Mr. Glasgow, have

24 any differing effect on students in the primary grades as

25 opposed to junior high as opposed to high school?


1 A In my opinion, it would.

2 Q Would you tell the Court how and why?

3 A I think at the primary level students are very

4 trusting of their teachers. In fact, many primary

5 students accidently, a slip of the tongue, I guess, call

6 the teacher mom or daddy. And that they think the teacher

7 is the authority in the classroom.

8 And when you present something like balanced treatment

9 as far as Act 590 is concerned, I think the teacher is put

10 in the standpoint of not really being able to present what

11 is, what I would consider, science. Or they're really not

12 able to say, this is the way or that's the way. They just

13 have to throw it out there. And for students this young,

14 just to throw it out there for them, in my opinion, would

15 cause them to be insecure.

16 Secondly, even students at the primary level watch TV

17 and they look at encyclopedias and other things such as

18 this, and I think that looking at these sources of

19 information, they would certainly have been aware at some

20 time or other that most scientists think that dinosaurs

21 lived millions of years ago.

22 And if the teacher is required to say something

23 different than that, and if the teacher is not able to say

24 when they ask, "Well, which is it? Why are you saying

25 this and that and the TV show that I saw and the


1 A (Continuing) encyclopedia that I read said that

2 dinosaurs are millions of years old and you won't tell me?"

I think it's damaging to the security of the student,

4 and I think it lowers the students' opinion of the

5 teacher. I think it causes great difficulty for the

6 teacher in a situation like that.

7 Q How do elementary school students or primary grade

8 students relate to the concept of time?

9 A Well, time is a skill which is developed or a skill

10 in which development begins at that level. In fact, there

11 is a very conscious attempt on the part of the school to

12 develop concepts of time and space and distance and things

13 of this sort. So in answer to that, they do not have a

14 good concept of time and space.

15 Throughout the primary years and even in the

16 intermediate schools, these are things that are tried to,

17 that teachers try to deal with.

18 Q Have you dealt with that in any workshop fashion

19 for the primary grades?

20 A Well, we have as far as teachers are concerned. We

21 have an elementary science mini-course. By mini-course, I

22 mean a short course lasting three hours, in this case, for

23 primary teachers, that allows them to present the concept

24 of geological time to students.

25 And in this workshop for teachers, one activity that we


1 A (Continuing) undertake is the use of a string to

2 indicate geological time.

3 Q In what grade do you do this, Mr. Glasgow?

4 A I can't say for sure. Second grade, I believe.

5 Second or third, right at that level.

6 Q Go ahead.

7 A Two students get up at opposite ends of the room and

8 they are holding a string that is stretched across the

9 room. One student represents the beginning of the earth.

10 Other students are placed along that string in accordance

11 to the, like the first appearance of plants on earth, the

12 first appearance of animals, whatever, the first

13 appearance of the species, amphibians or reptiles,

14 et cetera, and the first appearance of man.

15 And I might indicate that man is located at the opposite

16 end from the beginning of the earth. There is just a

17 short distance between the appearance of man on earth and

18 the present.

19 This gives the student an idea of geological time, in

20 that of all the geological time that scientists and

21 geologists recognize, the appearance of man is just a very

22 small part at the opposite end.

23 Q Are these students who are involved in that

24 demonstration are seven years old, eight years old?

25 A Basically, yes. About that age.


1 Q Would that require a balanced presentation under

2 Act 590?

3 A I think definitely that it would.

4 Q How would you do that?

5 A Well, other than getting a short string maybe a

6 fraction of an inch long—

7 Q If you had to do that, Mr. Glasgow, how would you

8 try to do it?

9 A I couldn't do it.

10 Q Would there be a differing effect on students at

11 the junior high school level?

12 A In my opinion, there certainly would be. Junior

13 high students teenagers, are sort of rebellious by

14 nature. And I think they would go to almost any end —

15 some of them would, not all — some of them would go to

16 almost any end to catch the teacher in telling a falsehood

17 of some sort.

18 And I think that if you had to implement Act 590 in the

19 room, there would certainly be ample opportunity for

20 students to try to catch the teacher doing wrong. And

21 when they caught the teacher doing wrong, the teacher, in

22 my opinion, wouldn't even have the option of explaining,

23 well, this or that. It's just out there and, as I

24 understand it, you lay it out and the student choose, more

25 or less.


1 A (Continuing) I think the students in this

2 sort of a circus atmosphere would lose respect for the

3 teacher, the teacher would lose respect for himself or

4 herself, and it would be very degrading and very damaging

5 to the science classes.

6 Q And would your thoughts differ on high school

7 students, say, in an advanced biology course?

8 A I think we have fairly sophisticated students at

9 the twelfth grade level in advanced biology. Many of

10 these students go off to the major universities throughout

11 the country. I think that they could see through this

12 attempt to try to give legitimacy to two things that in

13 the scientific community aren't equally legitimate. In

14 fact, one has no legitimacy at all.

15 And I think that they would just, you know, think,

16 `Well, teacher doesn't know what they're talking about. I

17 don't buy that.' And perhaps because of that attitude,

18 they might not buy into other things that might be

19 presented during that course.

20 Q Does the subject of religion ever come up in

21 biology classes?

22 A Well, I can't answer that for sure. I would say

23 that in the context of presenting religion as a integral

24 part or, indeed, any part of a science course, no.

25 I would say, also, that since Act 590 has been in the


1 A (Continuing) news, I'm sure that almost all of our

2 biology teachers in the district have informed the

3 students as to what Act 590 is and what it's all about

4 so that they could keep up with it on the news, et cetera.

5 Q What is the educational purpose as you see it in

6 teaching creation science under Act 590?

7 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I really don't think that

8 would be in this particular witness' area of expertise.

9 It would be pure speculation, and I would object to that

10 very much.

11 THE COURT: It's overruled.

12 A I do not think there would be an educational

13 purpose at all. In fact, it would be damaging as far as

14 education is concerned.

15 Q What is the situation within the Little Rock School

16 District right now with regard to its ability to hire

17 qualified science teachers?

18 A Well, oddly enough, the supply of teachers in the

19 nation as a whole and certainly in Arkansas is such that

20 usually you have quite a few to select from. But in the

21 areas of science and math, there is still a shortage of

22 teachers in the state of Arkansas, and we have a great

23 deal of difficulty in getting qualified teachers in those

24 areas.

25 Q Do primary grade science teachers have a solid


1 Q (Continuing) science background?

2 A No, they do not, unfortunately.

3 Q Do you perceive any effect on the district's

4 ability to hire science teachers by implementation of Act

5 590?

6 A There is no question in my mind that it would

7 greatly hinder the district's effort to hire science

8 teachers.

9 Q Finally, Mr. Glasgow, can you tell the Court, if

10 you know, what you will do or if you have any plans to

11 implement Act 590?

12 A Do I have any present plans? The answer is

13 certainly no. Do I have any future plans? I don't know.

14 I can't see any way that I can do it. I don't know how I

15 can do it. I can't formulate plans if I don't know how.

16 It's rather difficult to answer that question.

17 MR. CEARLEY: No further questions.

18 THE COURT: Let me ask you a couple of questions

19 dealing with the definition of sections. In section 4

20 (a), I assume you've given this some thought and read what

21 little material there is, but how do you propose to

22 explain the `sudden creation of the universe' unless you

23 have reference to the creator, or divine creation? Do you

24 know of any way? Is there anything in the literature

25 anywhere?


1 THE WITNESS: No, sir. I might mention regarding

2 all these definitions, I grew up in Nashville, Arkansas,

3 in a Baptist church, a very, you might classify it a

4 fundamentalist religion. The first time I came across any

5 of these particular ideas, as such, was in my Sunday

6 School class.

7 THE COURT: I appreciate that, but I'm trying to

8 figure out if there is any way you've thought of to

9 accommodate some practical questions that I can imagine

10 will come from the students about, for instance, the

11 worldwide flood. How are you going to suggest to the

12 teachers that they respond to those questions?

13 THE WITNESS: I can't suggest. There is no

14 scientific evidence that I have ever heard of that would

15 indicate that there was a worldwide flood. I would have

16 extreme difficulty in thinking or imagining how water

17 could cover the entire earth, all the tall mountains,

18 et cetera all over the earth at one time.

19 I don't know— I can't think of any way. I know of no

20 materials that could be used. I couldn't even suggest to

21 the teachers how they could give balanced treatment to

22 that without bringing in religion.

23 THE COURT: What is your interpretation of

24 `relatively recent inception of the earth and living

25 kinds'?


Page is missing.


1 MR. CHILDS: I anticipate it will take considerably

2 beyond five o'clock.

3 THE COURT: Well, at the rate the government pays me,

4 I just have to work longer than this.




7 Q Mr. Glasgow, have you had an opportunity to read

8 through your deposition?

9 A Yes, I have.

10 Q Are there any changes that you want to make in that

11 deposition, or have you made any changes in your

12 deposition?

13 A Any substantial changes. I think some of the

14 sentence structure with commas here and there, I didn't

15 make that sort of change.

16 Q Do you remember that you provided me with Exhibit

17 17 at your deposition?

18 A I assume. I don't know what that exhibit is.

19 Q Which relates to the list materials.

20 A Yes.

21 Q Okay. Do you remember that there was a three page

22 abstract on top of those materials?

23 A May I find those materials? I think they're still

24 here.

25 Yes, I recall that.


1 Q Okay. What was the exhibit that Mr. Cearley put

2 into evidence of the Bliss materials?

3 A That was called the Two Model Approach.

4 MR. CHILDS: May I approach, your Honor?


6 Q I want to provide you with a copy that they

7 provided to Judge Overton of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128 and

8 ask you if there is any difference between Plaintiffs'

9 Exhibit 128 and the exhibit that you provided at your

10 deposition, which was Defendants' Exhibit 17?

11 A You'll have to give me a moment to look. As I

12 said, these pages aren't numbered—

13 THE COURT: Do you have anything particular in mind?

14 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor. It's a three page

15 abstract that was a Ph.D. thesis that was attached to the—

16 THE COURT: Do you mean Doctor Bliss?

17 MR. CHILDS: Yes, your Honor. Which was not

18 included within Plaintiffs' Exhibit 128, I believe.

19 Q Is that correct?

20 A I think it is. I didn't see that.

21 Q What does the abstract of Doctor Bliss' Ph.D.

22 thesis indicate?

23 A I haven't looked at it in some time. Do you want

24 me to read it over and summarize, or what? Is there some

25 part you want me to—


1 Q Well, we took your deposition on December 2nd.

2 A Yes.

3 Q You saw it at that time, is that correct?

4 A No, sir. The three page abstract?

5 Q Yes, sir.

6 A I don't recall seeing it, no.

7 Q Do you recall—

8 A I have seen it before. It was with this material

9 when I originally received it. But this material has been

10 sorted through and the pages are not numbered and it's not

11 stapled together.

12 But I do recall seeing it when he gave it to me.

13 Q Do you have any present recollection of what that

14 abstract indicates?

15 A No, I don't.

16 Q Would you take a moment to read it?

17 A Yes, I will.

18 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I wish, for the record,

19 anyway, interpose an objection, if Mr. Childs intends to

20 question Doctor Bliss' opinions, on the grounds that we

21 have offered and will continue to offer a number of

22 publications from the Institute of Creation Research as

23 being the only materials available with which to teach

24 creation science.

25 The abstract that Mr. Childs is looking at presents, I


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing) think, results of a Ph.D.

2 thesis or something of that sort that Doctor Bliss was

3 involved in, and relates to the applicancy of the two

4 model approach as a teaching tool.

5 And I just wish to note that I think that it is entirely

6 irrelevant; that being a matter of his opinion only and

7 not authored to anyone as materials toward teaching under

8 a two model approach.

9 THE COURT: Well, if Doctor Bliss doesn't come

10 testify, I don't care much what the abstract says about

11 his opinions. I won't give any weight to those.

12 Q What does the abstract indicate?

13 A It indicates to me that he evidently undertook a

14 study — you said it was his thesis or dissertation or

15 whatever — to assess differences in concept, development

16 and principle learning between students studying the

17 origin of life from a two model approach compared to those

18 using only a single model approach.

19 Q Does he indicate that the students that were

20 subjected or exposed to a two model approach showed

21 significant improvement in concept development and

22 cognitive skills compared to those studying evolution only?

23 A That's what's indicated on page 3.

24 Q Was a secondary spin-off that he described seem to

25 show that the students taught in the two model fashion


1 Q (Continuing) would be more critical and willing to

2 change ideas as new data came to the scene?

3 A That's what he demonstrates—

4 THE COURT: Maybe my response to his objection

5 wasn't very clear, but if Doctor Bliss doesn't come and

6 describe how he arrived at these conclusions, I don't care

7 what the conclusions. They are meaningless to me. It's

8 just completely hearsay, not evidence.

9 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I think that ordinarily it

10 would be, but this man is testifying as a curriculum

11 development expert, and if these are the kinds of

12 materials that he would ordinarily rely on, I think that

13 we can get in through this witness.

14 THE WITNESS: May I interject? Is It appropriate?

15 THE COURT: It's fine with me. We will just turn

16 this into an open forum, so go ahead.

17 THE WITNESS: I might say, this is simply an

18 abstract. It presents none of his research.

19 THE COURT: I understand that, and that's the

20 reason why it's meaningless to me. I'm not giving any

21 weight to it. And I'm just suggesting that maybe if you

22 just want to put it into the record for some purpose, you

23 don't need to read it to me because I'm not going to give

24 any weight to it unless Doctor Bliss comes here to testify.

25 MR. CHILDS: What's Defendants' next number? I


1 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing) would ask that this be marked

2 a Defendant's Exhibit Number 3 and ask that it be admitted

3 in the record.

4 THE COURT: Yes, sir. We'll put it in the record,

5 with that qualification.

6 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

7 Q Have you seen any other material which would

8 indicate that a two model approach helps children learn?

9 A No.

10 Q Have you seen anything to the contrary?

11 A No.

12 Q Do you have any explanation of how these three

13 pages would be in the exhibit that you produced at your

14 deposition and they would not be in the exhibit to be put

15 in the evidence by the plaintiffs?

16 A No.

17 Q What is the basis of your conclusion that

18 `balanced' means `equal'?

19 A I don't believe I said that `balanced means `equal'.

20 I said `balanced' means equal emphasis or equal legitimacy.

21 Q And what does that mean?

22 A Well, I think I said at the beginning, I don't

23 really understand what it means. But because I am a

24 working practitioner in the area of education, and this is

25 going to affect me in a matter of just a few months, I've


1 A (Continuing) had to assume something, although the

2 grounds upon which my assumption is made are almost

3 nonexistent. I just grabbed something out of the air.

4 That's what my assumption is.

5 Q Do you interpret `balanced' to require that equal

6 amounts of time be spent?

7 A I don't think equal amounts of time. I think equal

8 emphasis and equal legitimacy. You don't exactly give

9 them equal amounts of time. I don't view that as a

10 problem, that particular statement.

11 Q Do you interpret `balanced' to mean that a

12 professional school teacher could not express their

13 professional opinion as to the merits or demerits of

14 either model?

15 A I might preface that by saying, as I've said a

16 couple of times before, that I really don't understand

17 what it means. Because I have to implement this, if

18 nothing's done, next September. I had to assume some

19 things. And yes, I would assume that under my operational

20 definition that I've given to it that this would not be

21 allowed.

22 Q Is that what you read into the Act, or is that what

23 the Act actually says? Well, let me rephrase the

24 question. Do you see anything in Act 590 which

25 specifically says that a professional school teacher


1 Q (Continuing) cannot offer their professional

2 judgment on either of these two models?

3 A No, I don't see anything in the Act.

4 Q Do you still hold to the belief that the reason that

5 you think that `balanced' means `equal' is because of what

6 Doctor Bliss told you?

7 A Of course, I make judgments based upon all past

8 knowledge, whether conscious or not. I assume that would

9 possibly be a factor, yes.

10 Q That was one of the things you told me at your

11 deposition, was that the reason that you thought

12 `balanced' meant `equal' was because of your meeting with

13 Doctor Bliss.

14 Do you recall that?

15 A No, I don't.

16 THE COURT: I don't think he has necessarily denied

17 it. I just think he said he doesn't recall it.

18 Q Are you denying that you said that?

19 A No.

20 Q Wouldn't the legislature have made it clear if that

21 was their intent?

22 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I can't think of any way

23 that question is permissible. That's why we're here.

24 Q Let me ask another question, then.

25 What is the current practice in the Little Rock School


1 Q (Continuing) District as to science teachers

2 rendering their personal opinion, excuse me, their

3 professional opinion about the subject matter that they

4 teach?

5 A Would you restate the first part of that? What is

6 the practice?

7 Q What is the current practice in the classroom in the

8 Little Rock School District as to whether or not science

9 teachers can give their professional opinion about the

10 subject matter of what they are teaching?

11 A I don't know that there is any common practice. I

12 can't imagine too many instances that teachers would need

13 to give a professional opinion on something they're

14 teaching.

15 Q I'm not sure that I understand you, Mr. Glasgow.

16 A I think that in things that we teach in science, I

17 think teachers realize that not all scientists hold to all

18 the same theories or things of that sort; that there are

19 disagreements. But I can't recall any classroom that I've

20 ever been in where the teacher had to make a professional

21 opinion about something that was being treated in that

22 class as science.

23 Q Are you telling me that the materials that are

24 presented in the public science schoolrooms does not have

25 any kind of element to it which would cause differences of


1 Q (Continuing) opinion?

2 A I think there might be differences of opinion. But

3 I can't recall of any class that I've ever been in - I

4 may be wrong, but I just don't recall any class that I've

5 been in where the teacher had to give a professional

6 opinion that `this is whatever' and that `this is not' or

7 anything of that sort.

8 I think they present the material. I think they might

9 say that `the majority of scientists believe this; other

10 scientists might believe this, others might believe

11 that.' I don't think they give a professional opinion.

12 I, as a professional scientist, which, in fact, they are

13 not; they are science educators. But I, as a professional

14 educator, `deem this science to be more appropriate or

15 more valid than this science,' just for example.

16 I can't recall that there was ever the necessity for

17 that.

18 Q As an educator, is it your responsibility to judge

19 information as to whether it is scientifically,

20 technically correct or not?

21 A I can view that question from a couple of different

22 viewpoints. Can you restate it in a different manner?

23 I'm not exactly sure—

24 Q Do you consider yourself a scientist or as an

25 educator?


1 A I consider myself an educator.

2 Q As an educator, is it your responsibility to judge

3 information as to whether it is scientifically,

4 technically correct or not?

5 A I'm not sure that I would agree that it would be my

6 responsibility to determine whether it was technically

7 correct or whatever. It's my responsibility as an

8 educator to accept information that comes from the realm

9 of science, the scientific community. And that which does

10 not come from that area, it's the scientists' job to

11 debate the technical merits of the data that is presented.

12 Q Would it be safe to state that you accept as true

13 what is accepted as true in the scientific community?

14 A No, sir, that wouldn't be a correct statement. I

15 accept as science what comes from the scientific

16 community. I don't accept it as true. I don't think a

17 scientist would, either.

18 Q Well, are you teaching falsehoods?

19 A No, sir. I think it has been presented before,

20 science is not a matter of true and false or right and

21 wrong.

22 Q Do you rely upon the scientific community,

23 scientific publication, professional groups of scientists,

24 for your information?

25 A Yes.


1 Q Do you question, as a scientist, that information?

2 A I'm not a scientist, I'm an educator, and it's not

3 my responsibility to question the information. I'm a

4 science teacher or science educator; I teach science.

5 The scientists, as I said before, debate the merits of

6 the information.

7 Q And you do not?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q How much do you know about John Thomas Scopes?

10 THE COURT: Could you narrow the question down a

11 little bit?

12 Q What do you know about John Thomas Scopes' attitude

13 about education in the classroom?

14 A Well, I think that perhaps your original statement

15 didn't need to be narrowed, because I know very little at

16 all.

17 In fact, I'd say nothing. I wouldn't be comfortable in

18 saying anything about his philosophy in the classroom.

19 Q Well, I've got a book, and there is a statement

20 about that that I'd like to present.

21 MR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I recognize the flair that

22 this line of questioning presents, but I don't think it's

23 a proper line of questioning, unless he wants to ask Mr.

24 Glasgow if he recognizes Mr. Scopes as an expert in the

25 area of education or something of that sort.


1 MR. CEARLEY: (Continuing)

2 1 think it's an improper question and I object to it.

3 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, if the objection is to

4 show—

5 THE COURT: To save time, just go ahead and ask him

6 about it.

7 Q Were you in court earlier when Doctor Morowitz—

8 A Read the same thing, I believe. Yes.

9 THE COURT: Is that what you were going to ask him?

10 MR. CHILDS: Yes, sir.

11 THE WITNESS: "Education, you know, means—"

12 THE COURT: You don't need to read that. We all

13 heard it.

14 MR. CHILDS: Continuing)

15 Q Do you subscribe to Mr. Scopes' theory of education?

16 A I've indicated already, I don't know what his theory

17 or philosophy of education is.

18 Q Well, do you believe in teaching every aspect of

19 every problem or theory?

20 A No.

21 Q Do you believe that if you limit a teacher to

22 teaching only one side of everything, this country will

23 eventually have only one thought and be only one

24 individual?

25 A No.


1 Q Do you think that education should be a broadening

2 and advancing experience for your students?

3 A I think I could generally subscribe to that.

4 Q I just want to make sure that I understand what

5 you're saying. And if I misstate what you said, you

6 correct me.

7 As I understand it, your position is that high school

8 science classroom teachers and junior high classroom

9 science teachers should pass along, without question, what

10 is accepted within the scientific community. Is that an

11 accurate or inaccurate characterization of your testimony?

12 A I think that's inaccurate.

13 Q Would you please tell me specifically how it's

14 inaccurate?

15 A I think that students have a right to question

16 anything in their own mind. But students at this level do

17 not have the professional backgrounds or the expertise or

18 whatever to make judgments regarding the validity of

19 anything in the area of science.

20 In fact I, as a person who has, oh, I don't know, maybe

21 a hundred some-odd hours in science, most of the things,

22 the data that is generated in science, I don't have the

23 background and I'm not able to make judgements as to

24 whether it's right or wrong. It takes someone with a

25 great deal of technical expertise and someone that has


1 A (Continuing) worked in that area for a great length

2 of time.

3 Certainly if I can't, students aren't able to make

4 that. But in the sense that they can question, if they

5 want to question, that's all right. I don't think that's

6 appropriate for a student. Well, I don't say that they

7 can't say it, but if a student says, `teacher, I don't

8 agree with that particular theory', they can say that if

9 they want to, but I don't think it's appropriate for the

10 teacher to go into any sort of a detailed discussion as to

11 the merits of that particular thing, because I don't think

12 either the teacher or the students has the skills, the

13 capability to make those judgments.

14 Q Let me restate my characterization of your

15 testimony, which would be, do you think that classroom

16 teachers should pass along to their students what is

17 accepted within the scientific community because neither

18 the teachers nor the students have the ability to

19 distinguish between good science and bad science?

20 A That's basically correct.

21 Q Did I misstate it in any way?

22 A Well, I think there could possibly be exceptions.

23 I'm not saying that that's true a hundred percent of the

24 time. There might be some areas that they could make

25 judgments on, I don't know. But basically that would be


1 A (Continuing) true.

2 I think it's the duty of science teachers to teach

3 science. We don't formulate the science, we simply teach

4 it.

5 Q Do you remember I asked you a hypothetical about

6 Albert Einstein at your deposition?

7 A Yes, sir.

8 Q My hypothetical was, let us say that he appeared at

9 the New York Legislature at the time that he was ready to

10 publish his materials on the principle of relativity, and

11 he advised the New York Legislature that he had a

12 revelation, and that that revelation was that E=MC2, and

13 that he wanted to require the New York Legislature to pass

14 a law to teach his theory of relativity. Do you remember

15 that hypothetical?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And I asked you what would have been the scientific

18 community's reaction. Do you remember your response to

19 that?

20 A I assume my response is basically the same. I don't

21 remember exactly what I said at that time. I don't think

22 the scientific community would think very highly of that

23 at all.

24 Q I would like for you to read your response on page

25 28, line 14 through 17.