Skip navigation.
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

Testimony of Marianne Wilson

Testimony of Marianne Wilson, Science Coordinator for Pulaski Co. School District (Plaintiffs Witness) - transcript paragraph formatted version.


Q: Can you tell us approximately how old this document is and how long it has been in effect?

A: Almost two months.

Q: So it's a quite recent publication, is that correct, or policy?

A: Yes. It was adopted, if my memory serves me correct, on October 13th.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, that concludes my interrogation of Mr. Bullington. Pursuant to an agreement which we have reached with counsel for the State, they have asked and we have agreed to defer his cross examination until after the direct examination of Ms. Marianne Wilson, if that is satisfactory with the Court.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, I would move admission of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 36, 37, 38 and 39.

THE COURT: They will be received.



called on behalf of the Plaintiffs herein, after having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:



Q: Tell us your name and address, please?


A: Marianne Wilson. **** ***** ****, Little Rock.

Q: Ms. Wilson, what's your occupation?

A: I'm the science coordinator for the Pulaski County School District.

Q: Tell me a little bit about your education, where you got your college and other degrees".

A: From the University of Central Arkansas in Conway, I have an M.S.E. degree in physical science. Also I have a B.S.E. degree in physical science.

Q: Have you got any work beyond, any hours beyond your Master of Science in Education?

A: I have fifteen hours above my Master's Degree.

Q: Can you tell me a little bit about your teaching experience in the classroom and about your administrative experience, also?

A: I was a classroom teacher for ten years, and I have held the position of science coordinator for two years.

Q: Did you serve in that science coordinator position for some period part-time before the two year experience you've just told us about?

A: I served in a similar position in that it was termed a science specialist, and parttime for six years.

Q: Ms. Wilson, let me hand you a document which has been marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 34, and can you tell me what that is?


A: It is my job classification.

Q: And are you responsible for performing all of the duties and responsibilities that are enumerated under the responsibility section of that document?

A: Yes, I am.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer Number 34.

THE COURT: Okay, sir.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Can you give me some brief notion, since we've already put your job description in evidence, of the broad areas of responsibility which you exercise?

A: All kinds of problems in the classroom. I help evaluate materials — materials meaning textbooks, media that are used in the classroom — assist the teacher in any kind of problems they have as far as correlation of materials, material content, supplemental materials, problems with students, student-teacher relationships and student-parent relationships, administrative procedures as far as evaluating.

Q: You evaluate the actual classroom science teacher?

A: I can if called, if asked to.

Q: Can you tell me something about the administrative hierarchy above you? That is, to whom do you report and to whom do those individuals report?

A: I report to Mr. Gene Jones who is responsible for secondary instructions, 7 through 12. He, in turn,


A: (Continuing) reports to Doctor Measel who is assistant superintendent for instruction, K through 12. He, in turn, reports to the superintendent of our schools, Mr. Tom Hardin.

Q: Can you tell me if any of those three people, Mr. Jones, Mr. Measel and Mr. Hardin, have any experience in science or in science education?

A: No.

Q: Are you, then, together with the one other science coordinator in the district, the highest ranking science curriculum individual employed by the Pulaski County Special School District?

A: Yes.

Q: Have you served on the State textbook selection committee?

A: Yes.

Q: And when did you serve in that capacity?

A: Late summer and early fall of 1979, I believe.

Q: Is that the last time that the State textbook selection committee for the sciences was convened?

A: And I must classify, it was for textbooks 9 through 12.

Q: 9 through 12?

A: 9 through 12.

Q: And how long is that selection good for?


A: Five years.

Q: Was evolution considered— I mean, was evolution present, at least, in all of the biology textbooks that you reviewed?

A: Yes.

Q: Tell me a little bit about Pulaski County itself, the size of the district?

A: The size in terms of the number of pupils?

Q: Please.

A: Approximately thirty-one hundred plus.

Q: Thirty-one hundred or—

A: I mean thousand. Excuse me.

Q: And, indeed, is that the largest school district in the State of Arkansas?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how many teachers do you have that are certified in science in grades 7 through 9?

A: Fifty-three.

Q: And do you know of your own knowledge approximately how many are in grades 10 through 12?

A: Close to the same number. Some of them overlap in that if we have a 7 through 12, school we might have a seventh grade teacher that also teaches tenth grade biology. So a few of those would be one and the same person.


Q: But these are all teachers—

A: For about ninety altogether.

Q: All right. And these teachers are all teachers whose certification by the State of Arkansas entitles them to teach in the area of the sciences, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you have to be certified separately for chemistry or biology or physics?

A: Yes.

Q: With regard to elementary teachers, do elementary teachers have to be separately certified in science?

A: No.

Q: What is their certification?

A: They just certify in elementary education, broad gambit.

Q: Can you tell me something about the range of experience and knowledge about scientific matters that you find even in those teachers who have science certifications?

A: We have people that have physical education degrees that because they took courses such as kinesiology they meet certification requirements in the State of Arkansas. Also, teachers in home economics because of different courses that they have taken meet science certification all the way up to people that have M.S.E. degrees in


A: (Continuing) biology or M.S.E., Master of Science in Education, degrees in physics, and even advanced work in some of those fields. So we have a very broad range of teacher training.

Q: Does that make a difference in how the curriculum coordinator has to operate and the problems that you face?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: Can you tell me something about that?

A: Well, some people, for example, a home ec teacher might be weak in the field of physics. And as far as, you know, having to get all the basic information or just understand some of the concepts in physics itself to teach the junior high students, so they certainly need more help than the person who has a Master's in physical science teaching, say, an eight grade student, who has a very good working knowledge of the subject area.

Q: Let's, then, pay particular attention to the junior high school level. And can you tell me, please, the progression of science subjects as they are taught in the junior high schools, and describe for me in a very brief manner the kinds of subjects that are included each year?

A: In the seventh grade science classes, we emphasize life science, zoology and botany. In the eighth grade science classes, it's physical science which deals in the 25


A: (Continuing) fields of physics and chemistry. And in the ninth grade science classes, it is termed general science, but we have tried to make an emphasis on earth science. And then we try to introduce the field of biology in the last nine weeks of school because that's the next subject that they are going to in the tenth grade, and we want them to have a basis before they get there.

Q: Let me hand you a document which I have marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs' Number 26 and ask you if you can identify Number 26?

A: It is a chapter out of our Focus on Life Science text which we use in the seventh grade dealing— Well, the chapter is entitled, "The Theory of Evolution."

Q: And do you actually cover all of that material in the seventh grade? Not necessarily every word, but do you cover the chapter on evolution in the seventh grade?

A: Yes.

Q: And is that part of your core curriculum?

A: Yes.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer Number 26?

THE COURT: It will be received.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Before we go any further, let's talk about the curriculum. Let me hand you a document which I have


Q: (Continuing) marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 27 and ask if you can identify that?

A: It is copy of our "Outline of Content and Resource Units" that we have developed specifically for junior high science, grades 7 through


MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer Number 27.

THE COURT: It will be received.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Now, with particular reference to Number 27, I'd like for you to amplify for the Court, if you would, with regard to the structure of this document, and pay particular attention to some of these units at the back? Including oceanography, meteorology, geology, and how those came to be in the curriculum?

A: Well, we develop the unit. And by "well, I mean myself along with seventh, eighth and ninth grade teachers. We took our three books that we had adopted and kind of fixed in our minds, we isolated them from ever having science before in the elementary school and never getting science again after they left the ninth grade. And we wanted to try to give them as broad and comprehensive a scope in science as we possibly could. So we set out our three books and saw areas that they overlapped, and, you know, tried to decide—


A: (Continuing) For example, in the seventh grade textbook, they have a chapter on chemistry that deals with the atom. We also have those chapters dealing with chemistry in the eighth grade, so we saw no need in wasting time covering that chapter in the seventh grade since they were going to get it in the eighth grade. So we went through and kind of weeded out, you know, and pinpointed certain areas in instruction. Then we looked at the particular area to see if there was any weaknesses.

Q: Now, when you say "well, were you yourself involved in this process?

A: Yes.

Q: And is this document, Number 27, a product of your work as well as the work of your fellow teachers in the Pulaski County Special School District?

A: Yes. In fact, it has my name in the front.

Q: All right.

A: Okay. We looked at areas to see if everything was—for the weak areas. And for example, in the area of earth science, which we wanted particular emphasis on, one of the reasons being, usually a student had to have only one credit when they went to the high school, which was usually the biological science, so we definitely wanted them to have some knowledge of earth science.


A: (Continuing) So we beefed up, so to speak, the units of earth science in that we wrote supplemental units or resource units in the fields of, in this particular case, astronomy, geology, oceanography and meteorology.

Q: Tell me the process by which you developed those units? Where you looked for the materials, the kind of materials you included and so forth?

A: We looked for materials just about anywhere and everywhere we possibly could. As far as libraries, I usually have lists of references for that particular subject as far as content and then, too, for media because when you develop a resource unit, that means you don't have the material in a text. That's just by the lecture method, which is a poor method for junior high students to get turned on to. You have to present different types of media to explain the specific points, especially in science you need some type of bringing it more down to their level. So first of all, we wrote our objective, what was our objective for a particular unit. Then we wrote the topics that we wanted to cover and developed specific objectives for each topic. And then we pretty well made out an outline of content. We took the topics and broke them down as far as what exact items would fall into the


A: (Continuing) content. And then we wrote activities up that would demonstrate that topic . And then we wrote up vocabulary lists that the students would need, a working vocabulary, in order to understand, say, oceanography. Then we compiled a resource list that was anywhere from books in which you could find supplemental information, a film strip that would support that topic or bring it more to life, transparencies, slides, if there weren't any films, if there were any, pamphlets that you could write off to. We would, you, know, try to use like the weather bureau or Washington D.C. has a lot of free material that we can utilize in the classroom.

Q: Is cost a consideration when you do all this?

A: Oh, most definitely.

Q: Okay. And in all of these areas, does your school district already have materials that are on the approved instructional aids and auxiliaries that are approved by the state for which you can get supplemented income in its catalogue of materials? That is, do you already have all of this stuff in your library of materials?

A: Do we already have all the stuff that's on the state textbook list?

Q: No, no. That you have for your curriculum.


A: No.

Q: And how does a teacher go about getting that material if a teacher doesn't have it in the school?

A: Well, if it's something that we list— We specify if the document is free. And if it is, the teacher writes to the address that we have provided for them and request X number of copies — Sometimes they will just give you one — to use in her classroom. Or usually the teacher will go to the media director, also known as the librarian, to purchase film strips. We usually can never purchase a film because of the cost.

Q: Were you able for every single one of those units to find materials from regular science publishers and find materials in the literature in libraries in both your school library and public libraries

A: Yes.

Q: And did all of those meet the criteria that you have — we'll get to in a minute what those criteria are — that you have for scientific materials and materials done in a scientific method?

A: Yes. In fact, we didn't include them if we hadn't already looked at them.

Q: How are texts selected for the school district in grades 7 through 9? We've had, some discussion about it, but we haven't had any complete analysis of the actual


Q: (Continuing) Mechanism in 7 through 9, or even in 10 through 12

A: All right. In 7 through 9, in particular, we have a junior high committee which is composed of seventh, eighth and ninth grade teachers. Then on the high school level if you are choosing a textbook for physics or for chemistry, a specific subject, there is a committee of physics teachers. Being more specific, the teachers are asked to serve on the committee. Sometimes for various reasons some teachers just literally don't want to be away from their classroom three or four times to serve on a committee or don't have the time for various reasons to be, you know, have time to go through all the texts and give them an adequate evaluation. But they are asked, and for the most part, they usually do serve on the committee. And the committee meets several times. We meet initially to establish our purpose and, you know, tell what's going to go on and get everybody's address right because then they are mailed all of the textbooks from the state textbook approved list because that's the only list we can use state monies to buy from. And we meet back again, usually for kind of a general discussion. Well, you know, do we want physical science in the eighth grade or do we want geology in the eighth


A: (Continuing) grade or do we want life science. We kind of come to a general consensus of what is going to be seventh, what's going to be eighth. And that's usually kind of set for us because a lot of times the publishers already have life science as seventh grade, like that. So we don't have a big decision there to make. And then more time is given to evaluate the textbooks. We kind of do a weeding down process and narrow them down to three books, sometimes two. Then those two books are taken back And the teachers that represent their school, they go then to the teachers in their school and let them have an opportunity. You know, like if there is a seventh grade teacher representing 7 through 9, if they are going to make a decision for those people, they like to have their input. And we battle it out and get one book.

Q: Is it possible for a student to complete the ninth grade with one of these general science courses and not have to take another science again by the time that student graduates from high school?

A: The requirements of our school district is they have two science credits.

Q: And that's in grades 7 through 9?


A: No. It's grades 9 through 12. They only start getting credit in the ninth grade.

Q: And they have to take one credit in the ninth grade, earth science?

A: That is a generally accepted rule that they have two science credits, one being in biology. It does not say specifically that that student has to take ninth grade science, but they always do.

Q: Does one of the credits have to be in biology?

A: I believe so. One of the credits is in biological science.

Q: Do all of the biology textbooks in your district deal with evolution and the theory of evolution?

A: Pardon.

Q: Do all of the biology texts in your school district deal with evolution?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it possible, indeed, to teach biology without teaching the theory of evolution?

A: Not in my opinion.

Q: There has been some reference here to a resolution by the Pulaski County Special School District regarding the teaching of creation science. Can you tell me when you first learned about such an effort?

A: Probably in late December.


Q: 1980?

A: 1980.

Q: Tell me how you learned?

A: Because I was visiting a school in which Mr. Fisher taught, Mr. Larry Fisher. And in talking to him in the office, he gave me a document and said, `I'm going to send this to the school board members and try to get on the agenda and get a proposal made in January.'

Q: Did he show you the proposal?

A: He showed me the proposal, and I briefly looked at it and gave it back to him, didn't think anything more about it, really.

Q: What is the next thing you heard about it?

A: He got on the agenda, and the school board passed a mandate that we were to incorporate a unit on creationism in our science class.

Q: Were you ever consulted by the board before that unit was, before that resolution of the school district?

A: No.

Q: Tell me then what is the next thing that you knew about or heard about in connection with the creation science unit?

A: I believe it was the day after the school board meeting, they called us in and said we were going to have to get a committee together. And since part of my job


A: (Continuing) description is to help in curriculum writing, I would be part of the committee. And we were going to have to come up with a curriculum to meet the requirements of the school board. And I said, `Could I see the proposal', and I read it.

Q: And what was your view after you read it?

A: Well, my view is that Mr. Fisher has the right to do that, by all means. I didn't know what scientific creationism was. I'd never come across it in my training as a science teacher. I didn't know what it was.

Q: Did you make some attempt—

A: In reading the points about the flood, since the only time I'd ever heard of a worldwide flood was in the book of Genesis, I kind of raised my eyebrows to it.

Q: Did you have any further discussions with him or with anyone else regarding this matter before the committee was appointed?

A: Mr. Fisher?

Q: Yes.

A: Before the committee actually first met, I think I probably asked him what was scientific creationism, and he gave me a general description. And he more or less said, `Did you see where I got it passed', kind of deal. Not any detailed discussion about it, no.

Q: Was the first committee meeting the first time that


Q: (Continuing) you heard anything in anymore detail about scientific creationism?

A: Yes.

Q: And Mr. Wood has already testified about that. And did you serve on that committee?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. Wood also testified that he reported back as spokesperson for that committee to the school district. And can you tell me what the reaction of the school district was and then what your involvement immediately after that became?

A: I attended the meeting, the school board meeting in which Mr. Wood presented the opinion of the committee. And my perception was that the school board said, `We didn't ask for your opinion; we asked you to write a curriculum. You didn't do what we told you to do. You know, go back, get busy.'

Q: What was your next involvement?

A: So right after the school board meeting, my boss, Mr. Dean Jones, called me in and said, `Get busy.' It was pointless to utilize the whole committee probably through monetary reasons. We couldn't release that many teachers to work as long as it did take us to work. You know, pay substitutes and whatever. You know, it just wouldn't be feasible to do that, plus the committee was opposed, too,


A: (Continuing) that this was just not valid science, and we were asking them to do something that they did not believe in, which causes some difficulty in itself.

Q: Were you opposed, also, or were you in favor?

A: I was not in favor. I still wanted to know what creationism was exactly. I had an open mind about it. I guess I thought if I sat quietly enough, it would slide under the door and nobody would notice. But anyway, partly because of my job position, I was asked to write the curriculum. It was myself and Mr. Fisher and then Mr. Jones would also, and he was on the original committee, too. We would be the three people involved in completing the task. Mr. Fisher, because he proposed it and because he did have in his possession all of the materials that, or the only materials that we knew of at the time.

Q: Can you tell me approximately when you began working with Mr. Fisher and the mechanism that you set up by which you first began to undertake the development of this curriculum?

A: Well, the proposal was made at the January board meeting. We met a two times. We reported to the February board meeting. So we started work in late February. The first thing I did was to ask Mr. Fisher— I sat down with him. You know, I wanted him to go over just exactly what


A: (Continuing) this was. I couldn't exactly accept it just because he said what scientific creationism was. You know, it was just kind of `so what.' So I asked him to give me some books. I myself on the committee had not taken a book and reviewed it and reported to the committee. By the time it got around to me, the books were all taken. That was the reason I didn't get a book. So I took some books and began reading.

Q: Do you recall the books that you did take?

A: The Genesis Flood, Evolution: The Fossils Say No. There was a book, Origins: Two Model Approach. I would, like, take a book and take it back to him, and he'd give me another book.

Q: Do you recall approximately how many you read through this process?

A: Through the entire process of developing the unit?

Q: Yes.

A: And read in its entirety?

Q: Well, at least excerpts from?

A: Fifteen to twenty books.

Q: Have you told us now—

A: From Mr. Fisher.

Q: Right. And did you read books and investigate other materials other than those that he gave you?


A: Yes.

Q: All right. We'll get to that in just a minute. Tell us now about the timing and the mechanism. After receiving this first group of books, what did you do?

A: Well, it was obvious to me because of the subject matter that it dealt with, and too, Because then the legislature passed a bill which was the same thing.

Q: Are you talking about Act 590?

A: Act 590.

Q: All right.

A: Because of the fact that it dealt, and it dealt in geology, it dealt in chemistry, physics, biology, I felt like we really needed experts in those particular fields. And in the meantime, too, Mr. Fisher and I were, like, writing an introduction to our unit, trying to come up with an introduction. We were trying to come up with an outline. Then when the bill passed, you know, the outline fell in our lap. So we got an outline.

I contacted biology professors for their help, could they, you know, tell me some sources to go to to expedite the matter because Mr. Jones was prodding me, you know, `Let's get this done', and kept saying, `Well, we are going to present it to the April board meeting.' You know, just keeping me going. So I was trying to find ways to expedite writing the unit using legitimate sources.


A: (Continuing) We took the bill and made an outline, a major outline using the bill because then we were going to have to comply with the law anyway, and there was no sense in, you know, wasting our time. We put it in terms of complying with the law.

We took the six points of the bill and divided them in biological science or physical science because that's the way science usually falls, one or the other. There were several drafts made of the unit. We would write something like, for example, if it said "no ancestor to man or ape". Then we'd go back and say, `No, we are going to take out all negative references whatsoever.' If "no" is a negative reference, we are going to have to reword this where it says "separability of man and ape". You know, we tried to make it as positive an outlook as possible.

In the meantime, I was looking at, reading the books and things like that, looking for information.

Q: Let me hand you first two documents. One which has been previously marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 24, and another Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 25 for identification and ask you if you can identify each of those documents?

A: They are drafts, two drafts that were typed of my


A: (Continuing) outline or my unit on creationism.

Q: Can you tell me approximately when in the stage of development of the unit those happened and why you had these two drafts and why didn't even settle on these two?

A: I can't give you an exact day, but you mean like this was the first one and this was the second one?

Q: Yes. Which one was the first one? 24 or 25?

A: Let me look just a second. 24 was the first typed draft, and 25 was the second one. One of the reasons that we did away with 25 has already been stated by Mr. Wood. 25 is a more, it's where I took an article and read it and made an outline of the article itself or what I thought appeared in the article.

And I did away with that for the fact that that was simply my opinion. And I didn't want a teacher to not read the article, to read my opinion. You know, you and could read the same two articles and come up with two entirely different conclusions. And that was one of the reasons.

I did outline it in detail, too, because I went through a lot of material, and I needed something on paper that refreshed my memory and told me what I read because if you read about Australopithecus and Ramapithecus, those words weren't really in my working vocabulary until then, and I needed something concrete so that I could refer to it


A: (Continuing) easily. And this was one of the reasons I made the draft, too.

You know, we thought about using it, out then discarded it because we wanted the teacher to read the article.

MR. KAPLAN_: Your Honor, we would offer Number 24 and Number


THE COURT: They will be received.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, for the record, I'd like to state that Defendants want to object to this entire line of inquiry on the ground that it really is premature and speculative.

We came here prepared to try this case on the basis of whether this Act is constitutional on its face. And the Plaintiffs appear to be trying to show that's it's going to be unconstitutional as applied, trying to use this, perhaps, as an example.

And on those grounds, we are not prepared to try that particular issue. We are here to try it on its face since it is not yet implemented. We would claim some prejudice and surprise on that ground.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, there was clearly full interrogation in this matter in her deposition. It doesn't go to application either. It just is another peg in our theory with regard to how it is absolutely impossible to devise something that is science to conform


MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing) with Act 590.

THE COURT: That's overruled.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: All right. I want to elaborate a little bit further about 24 and 25. As I understand from your testimony, what you did was to take Act 590 and instead of having six points, you joined two and now had five points. Now, the evidences that are evident or that appear in the outlines 24 and 25, how did you get those individual points, and how did they make their way into the outline? An article, for example, about Australopithecus?

A: Mr. Fisher and I sat down with the material that Mr. Fisher had. Going through the material, the creationists would cite an evidence to support a particular point. And in every case, the points that were in the bill were in all the creationist material, sometimes verbatim. So it was easy to put them in their right category. And we would list, you know— We would come up with, you know, ten or twelve.

Q: Now, can you tell me if in your meetings with Mr. Fisher you established any criteria to which you, at least, attempted to adhere with regard to how the outline and the material, the supplemental unit on creationism, was going to be devised?

A: Yes. I would tell him that, `Let's, if we were


A: (Continuing) going to support a point, let's find evidence from a legitimate science article. Let's try to steer away from anything that was from a creation publisher, and I mean that with a little c , any creation publisher or any affiliate of. Let's try to, you know, get in our community, our scientific community.

Q: After you got all of these materials down, all of these evidences that he gave you, what did you do to attempt to find some scientific community evidence for every single one of those points? Tell me the process by which you attempted to do this?

A: I solicited help from, or even some people said they'd help me. For example, I would ask in the area of biology to meet with biology professors from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Central Arkansas because they were close. No other reason. You know, it was not feasible to, we didn't have the money and they certainly wouldn't come down here, so we used local people.

And sat down with biology teachers in biology and sat down with physics teachers, physics professors in physics, and geology and chemistry.

Mr. Jones and I would sit down with them. We would take the unit and they would look at the points, and we would ask them— We would tell them our purpose, and we would


A: (Continuing) ask them, `Now, look, you are not trying to refute the evidence. You are looking at it through a creationist's point of view. Can you— Is there any way an inference can be made on this point and hold water.'

Sometimes they were very helpful. You know, they really tried. Some of the professors, you know, all but asked us to leave. They just saw no point in doing this type of thing.

MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I'd like to object if this evidence is being offered for the truth as contained therein. We would object on the basis it was hearsay- As I understand, it's being offered solely to show the process that this lady went through. If I'm correct in that, I have no objection.

THE COURT: That's the way I understand it is offered.

MR. KAPLAN: That's right.

A: (Continuing) Say, for example, if there was one of the topics that had several evidences cited, we would go through each one of them, or they would for me and say, `Maybe you can support this; maybe you can't', or `There's no sense wasting your time', or `Yeah, you know, you might could look through this.' And we would weed them down.


Q: For all the evidences that you had when you went through your first compilation and you listed all of these evidences after sitting down with Fisher, were you ever able to find in the case of one single one any documentation from the scientific community to establish one of those evidences?

A: No.

Q: But you came up with a unit?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, let's go through that unit and see what happens?

THE COURT: Why don't we take about a fifteen minute recess, Mr. Kaplan.

(Thereupon, Court was in
recess from 3:20 p.m. to
3:40 p.m.)

JUDGE BYRD: Your Honor, it is stipulated that C. A. Hunt's deposition can be introduced without him signing it and that his exhibits can be attached to it. He handed them to me and Steve and a verity of them has to come through that chain. The same goes true for Reverend W. A. Blount.

Now, the witnesses ask that they be furnished a copy of their deposition so they could look at it in case somebody asks them a question about it.


MR. CEARLEY: We would be happy to furnish copies, your Honor. And my understanding is that we now have an agreement whereby we can attach the documents as exhibits to the deposition without authenticating them by having the witnesses come in again.


MR. CEARLEY: I intend to introduce all of them, two of them with signatures and two without signatures.


JUDGE BYRD: And my witnesses are no longer under subpoena?

THE COURT: No, sir.

MR. CLARK: That's our agreement, your Honor. Of course, we object to the relevancy of this, but you know our objections.



Q: Ms. Wilson, you were about to begin the identification of the unit which you finally developed. Let me hand you now what I have previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 18 for identification and ask you if you can identify that?

A: It is the unit that I presented to our school board in September, an outline of our unit on creation.

Q: Is that the only thing that you presented to the


Q: (Continuing) school board?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that in a final teachable form?

A: By no means.

Q: Let me hand you now a document which I have marked previously for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs, Exhibit Number 19 and ask if you can identify this?

A: This is Appendix I which correlates my outline under "Ancestry of Man and Ape".

Q: Can you tell the Court, please, the kinds of documents which are found in Appendix I?

A: Two articles. One that deals with Australopithecus and the other one deals with Ramapithecus.

Q: And now can you identify for me serially Plaintiffs' Exhibits 20 through 23?

A: Upon scanning these, they are Appendices II through V which correlate to my outline that was in my unit that I presented to the school board.

Q: Were any of the Appendices I through V actually presented to the school board?

A: No.

Q: Now, the outline as it appeared that is 18—

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer 18 through 24. I'm sorry. Through 23.

THE COURT: Those will be received under the same


THE COURT: (Continuing) objection.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Let's take a look at 18 The outline itself is now considerably briefer and in word form as opposed to sentence form, is that correct, or as opposed to paragraph form?

A: Yes.

Q: And can you tell me why you chose to follow that procedure as opposed to the full paragraph development that you had previously?

A: Because the full paragraph one was my perception of the articles and not— Just my opinion.

Q: Now, the material that was in the paragraphs in the earlier forms, numbers 24 and 25, did they all find themselves into numbers 19 through 23 in some way or at least most of it?

A: The materials that were in the first draft, did they find themselves into—

Q: Yes.

A: Not all of them.

Q: Let's go over these appendices and see, at least, what you did and how you yourself felt about them. Handing you now Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 19. Tell me the source from which you obtained 19, the two 25


Q: (Continuing) articles that you've already told us are in 19?

A: One of them was from a creation publication. The other one was from "Science Digest", April 1981.

Q: Now, you told us already that you had said to Mr. Fisher that you did not want to use any material from one of the creationists publications. Can you tell me why you violated that self-imposed rule?

A: Because I just simply could not find any other material.

Q: Do you believe in your best judgment that either of those two articles supports any of the positions with regard to scientific creationism?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Why did you include it?

A: I had to come up with something.

Q: The material from "Science Digest", can you explain to us what that is and whether it supports any kind of separate ancestry for man and animal?

A: The article is entitled "Ancestors", and the only reason that I came up with this article was, I was at a particular school — This is not in answer to your question — and the librarian happened to say, `Aren't you working on creationism.' Here's an— They found an article with monkeys on it, So they gave it to me.


A: (Continuing) Okay. But I did read the article. And it is establishing that there was a separate ancestry for, I believe, that it was not in the line for Australopithecus.

Q: Tell us again what the assertion of the article is, rather than my characterizing it?

A: That it was in a separate line of ancestry. It didn't fall in between man— It wasn't in, like, monkey, the Australopithecus, and then man itself. Separate.

Q: With regard to Number 20, can you take a look at that?

A: This is Appendix II that evidences, that imply changes only within fixed limits. And it contains articles on— It contains both articles from creation publishers. And there is an article from the "Scientific Monthly."

Q: Does the article from "Scientific Monthly" establish in any way or conclude or lead one to conclude in any way that there was change within some fixed limits?

A: No. The article in "Scientific Monthly" was simply that the Tuatara, which is a small reptile, has been around for a long time.

Q: Anything in Appendix II which establishes any proposition in a scientific manner for separate, for change within fixed limits?


A: Not directly at all.

Q: With regard to Number 21, Appendix III, can you tell me what is there?

A: It is the appendix for the young earth and solar system. There is an article from "Readers Digest" about atomic clocks.

Q: Is "Readers Digest" a science source?

A: No.

Q: Is there anything in that article or any of the other articles in Appendix III which establish the proposition for, that any of the creationists seek to establish?

A: The point to establish that there was a young earth, and that's why the article was written? No.

Q: These articles, are the points of the articles for an entirely purpose?

A: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to object on the grounds of the best evidence rule. I think the articles themselves are the best evidence of the content. And to try to prove their content or the conclusions by the testimony of this witness is improper.

THE COURT: That's overruled.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: In regard to Number 22, Appendix IV, can you tell us


Q: (Continuing) what that shows and what you did find?

A: This seeked to support the global, as we had it stated first of all, global hydraulic cataclysm, which is the flood.

Q: Were you able to find anything to support a scientific theory or any scientific basis in the worldwide flood?

A: Everything that is in here is from a creation publication, and no.

Q: Were you able to ascertain in any of your readings what the worldwide flood was?

A: No. The only reference to a worldwide flood that I know of is in the book of Genesis.

Q: Appendix V, Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 23?

A: This supports or is for the evidences on thermal dynamics. And it is excerpts from our textbook that we use in our physics classes in Pulaski County Special School.

Q: Is there anything in Exhibit Number 23 which speaks to support and does support in a scientific way the creationist viewpoint with regard to the second law of thermodynamics

A: Not as I understand thermodynamics and as the scientific community understands thermodynamics, no.

Q: Is this unit, even with the appendices attached, in


Q: (Continuing) teachable form?

A: No.

Q: Is it anything which you could or would teach?

A: No.

Q: Why did you come up with it, Ms. Wilson?

A: Because our board told us to come up with a unit. We told them we could not come up with a science unit.

Q: What is this unit?

A: The intent of the unit was a view of creationism, to present creationism from a creationist point of view, present evidences to support creationism from the eyes of a creationist, how they would interpret.

Q: And if it is not science, as you understand it as a science educator, what is it?

A: It's just a view.

Q: Did you ever meet with Mr. Bliss or Doctor Bliss?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell me how that came about?

A: He was in the Little Rock area or in Arkansas, specifically the Little Rock area, to conduct some workshops — one in Conway and one in Fort Smith — on the two model approach.

And because of his information that he knew that we were writing a unit or we were going to possibly implement a unit on creationism, he came to us to talk about being a


A: (Continuing) source.

Q: Did you attend a workshop with him?

A: He came and spoke with me personally and with Mr. Jones and with Doctor Measel. And then he told us that he was having a workshop in Conway at Central Baptist College, and I did attend his workshop.

Q: Did you do anything with regard to adopting his two model approach?

A: No, because as Mr. Glasgow has already stated, in looking at his method of presenting the information and one of the scales that he used in his packet on attitudes, we teach the cognitive process; not attitudes. And he referred to a creator in his two model approach. And I threw his material in the trash.

Q: Did you also get material from a man named Sunderland?

A: Yes.

Q: Before I go into the Sunderland material, had you ever had any experience with a confrontive or two model approach before?

A: One of the books that I looked at that Mr. Fisher had, in particular, advocated the two concepts, the two model approach to teaching.

Q: Have you ever experienced it before in connection with any instruction that took place in the science


Q: (Continuing) classroom?

A: No.

Q: How about the material from Sunderland?

A: Mr. Sunderland was an independent who had developed a slide presentation on the subject. And we were trying to get away from creationist publishers, getting material as independent as possible.

And we looked at his material. In fact, purchased his slide presentation.

Q: In connection with your deposition, did you supply to Mr. Childs the transcript of the film strip that goes along with the film strip for the Sunderland material?

A: The slide presentation of it, yes.

Q: Let me hand that to you and ask you to look at paragraph number seven and read paragraph number seven?

THE COURT: What is this now?

MR. KAPLAN: This is another piece of creation science material purchased by the Pulaski County Special School District.

THE WITNESS: This is the transcript to the slide presentation.


MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Would you read number seven?

A: "The creation model, on the other hand, holds that


A: (Continuing) the universe could not have generated itself. It is incapable of doing so on the basis of the observable scientific law now operating. Therefore, creation postulates that the universe and all living things must have been created by a supernatural power external to the universe. Various organisms, including man, are functionally complete when created."

Q: And the very next paragraph?

A: "The creation model states that the Creator created certain basic kinds of life which had in their genes the capability to vary and survive in a changing environment. The original created kinds cannot be precisely defined just as there is no exact definition of the species."

Q: Read number sixteen.

A: "Keep in mind that the two models are totally of life. Opposite explanations for the origin of life. Evolution says there has been one continuous development from a common ancestor. Creation says there is a sudden creation of complete functional organisms. Both cannot be correct, and the fossil records should completely agree with one and totally contradict the other. An unbiased assessment of the fossils should clearly show which model is correct. What should it show in each case?"

Q: That's all right. What I'm really concerned about here is, in your entire


Q: (Continuing) educational experience, have you ever come across any kind of teaching technique that asks students to make this kind of decision as to something being right or something being wrong?

A: No, not in science.

Q: How long would it take to— Strike that.

THE COURT: May I ask a question? Were they proposing that these materials be used in public schools? Was there any disclaimer associated with them?

THE WITNESS: From Mr. Sunderland?

THE COURT: Or Doctor Bliss?

THE WITNESS: No, Doctor Bliss, I mean he wanted to conduct an in-service for our teachers. That was his purpose in meeting with me.

He, in fact, told me how much it would be to have him come to our school district. And, you know, he was looking at the calendar as to what days he could— You know, we have teachers report on a certain day, and when he could meet.

And Sunderland, there was no disclaimer at all. You know, it was anybody and everybody could purchase it.

THE COURT: Who is Sunderland associated with?

MR. KAPLAN: He, apparently, is a single individual in Apalachin, New York.


MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Were you able to find any materials at all in your investigation and preparation for the unit that you developed that supported in a scientific manner any proposition advanced by the creation science position?

A: No.

Q: Were you able to find any materials that were devoid of religious references or religious background

A: No.

Q: in your view, were you able in the science, in the unit, rather, that you did develop, to divorce from that unit references to religion?

A: No.

MR. KAPLAN: That's all.



Ms. Wilson, I don't have but just a few questions.

Q: You do believe the State has the right to prescribe curriculum for the public schools?

A: Do I believe the State has a right?

Q: To prescribe curriculum for public schools.

A: To tell us what to teach, is that what you mean?

Q: Yes, ma'am.

A: No.

Q: Do you think the State can prescribe curriculum to


Q: (Continuing) the public schools?

MR. KAPLAN: Objection, your Honor. It calls for a legal conclusion from this witness.

MR. CLARK: Your Honor, she stated— I'm asking her to respond to a similar question that she answered in her deposition.


A: I think I said in my deposition that we'll find out when the ruling is made on this case.

Q: Did you not say, "Yes. Now we're talking about raw political power"?

A: Well,—

Q: Do you believe that the recent origin of man and earth may or may not be inherently religious?

A: Repeat the question, please.

Q: Do you believe that the recent origin of man or earth may or may not be inherently religious? Let's say that it may not be inherently religious, how about that?

A: I believe it may or may not be.

Q: Now, do you believe it may not be?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you consider yourself to be a scientist?

A: A science educator.

Q: Would you define that for me? What is a science


Q: (Continuing) educator?

A: A person who disseminates or facilitates scientific information from the scientific community.

Q: Can a science educator evaluate science?

A: In terms of its educational purpose, yes.

Q: In compiling the unit that your compiled, did you discard any materials because you could not understand them?

A: No. I had to have some help sometimes in understanding them, yes. But the sole reason to discard them was that I couldn't understand them, no.

Q: Do you remember in your deposition a response to a question about Exhibit Number 5—

A: Pleochroic Haloes?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: Did you discard that because you couldn't understand it?

A: I'd never heard of it. I think I stated that in my deposition it was given to me as an evidence. And I believe that one of the scientists testified he didn't call them, I don't think he used the term "pleochroic haloes", but he was talking about polonium and the haloes that they radiated on their breakdown. In my evidence they called it "pleochroic haloes." I am


A: (Continuing) a chemistry teacher or was a chemistry teacher. And in my training I had never heard of it. I asked other chemistry teachers what was a pleochroic halo. I asked Mr. Fisher what was a pleochroic halo. He Had supplied me with the evidence.

I asked college chemistry teachers what was a pleochroic halo. Am I to expect a home economics teacher to understand this concept?

I had to go back, and Mr. Fisher did, I asked him to find the article that he used this reference from. And he brought it to me and I read it. And I discarded it on the basis that if I had to go through all that trouble to figure it out, think what trouble it would create in a classroom, especially in an eighth grade classroom where we are dealing with thirteen year olds that barely understand the concept of what an atom is.

Q: I appreciate your explanation, but the question remains the same. Did you throw it out because you didn't understand it?

A: I understand what it is, yes. No, I didn't throw it out because I did not understand it.

Q: Then you do understand what pleochroic haloes are?

A: Yes.

Q: So you did not discard the material because you did not understand it?


A: Right

Q: Do you recall in your deposition when you were asked about nuclides of uranium, "We threw that one out, I think." "Why did you throw it out?" "Well, one reason—

A: Could you tell me what page your reading from, please?

Q: Yes. I'm reading from page 49, beginning at line 20. Actually beginning with the question, line 17. "In Exhibit 5 to Fisher's deposition, under Roman numeral I, he talks about—" It reads on to say, "nuclides of uranium."

"We threw that out, I think." Question, "Why did you throw it out?" Answer, "One reason— May I see what you are talking about?" Question, "Sure. Right there." Answer, "What did you say?" Question, "First paragraph-" Answer, "It was a piece of literature that was— It talked about pleochroic haloes. We couldn't find anybody that knew what pleochroic haloes were. That's one reason we threw it out. I thought that was a pretty good reason."

Now, did you throw it out because you didn't know what it was?

A: I think you are taking that out of context. As I explained, I couldn't find anybody—

Q: Ms. Wilson, you either threw it out because you


Q: (Continuing) didn't know what it was or you did. Yes or no. Did you throw it out because you didn't know what it was?

A: I threw it out.

Q: Did you throw it out because you did not know what a pleochroic halo is?

A: I do now and did understand what a pleochroic halo was. I'll answer your question, yes, I threw it out. I think I explained why.

Q: if in your deposition you said you threw it out because you didn't know what it was, that's incorrect?

A: Yes. In the deposition I went through the part that we couldn't find anybody that understood it.

Q: Have you, in your curriculum development in this area or any other area, ever thrown something out because you couldn't figure out what it was or someone else couldn't tell you?

A: No.

Q: You are positive of that?

A: Not to my knowledge. That threw out specific pieces of material because we did not understand them—is that your question?

Q: That's what I asked?

A: No, not to my knowledge.

Q: In terms of curriculum development for science,


Q: (Continuing) that's your responsibility, is that not correct?

A: Yes.

Q: In terms of curriculum development for science, do you always throw out ideas that you don't understand?

MR. KAPLAN: Objection. She never testified to that, your Honor.

MR. CLARK: I'm asking her if she has in the past, your Honor, because she did in this instance, or at least she indicates she threw it out, she first said, because she didn't know what it was.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase that question, Mr. Clark.

MR. CLARK: I'll just withdraw it, Judge.

MR. CLARK: (Continuing)

Q: What kind of search did you actually— How exhaustive was your search for scientific evidences for a creation explanation, Ms. Wilson?

A: It was not completely exhausted. As I stated in the—

Q: Is it a continuing search?

A: Am I still looking?

Q: Yes.

A: I was told to table my work by my school board. In other words, `Don't spend anymore time on it.' I have


A: (Continuing) other things to do. I've already spent a vast amount of time, and I was told not to until a ruling was made by the Court.

Q: You were on the state textbook committee to select the science text, is that correct, in '79., I believe you testified to?

A: Yes. For grades 9 through 12.

Q: Does that include biology texts?

A: Yes.

Q: So you selected the group of texts that were on that list or helped select?

A: I helped, yes.

Q: Do you have some familiarity with each of those texts?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you aware that four of those texts have some reference to the creation explanation of first origin?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you contact any of those textbook publishers and/or authors about scientific evidences that would support creation explanation of origin?

A: In developing my unit?

Q: Yes.

A: No. I believe they did not present them in terms of a science explanation.


MR. CLARK: I don't think I have any other questions, Judge.

MR. KAPLAN: No redirect.

THE COURT: You can stand down.

MR. CHILDS: I would like to say, your Honor, I appreciate counsel for plaintiffs agreeing to let us put this cross examination over for just a little while.



having been previously sworn or affirmed, being called for cross examination, was examined and testified as follows:



Q: Mr. Bullington, you discussed in your direct testimony an organization described with an acronym of CARE, C-A-R-E. What does that stand for?

A: Coalition Advocating Responsible Education.

Q: Was Act 590 one of the activities that took place that concerned your coalition?

A: Yes.

Q: And was the purpose of this CARE organization the promulgation of the statement on academic responsibility that was— Let me start over,


Q: (Continuing) Was one of the things that you all set out to do was prepare a statement of academic responsibility to be adopted by the Pulaski County Special School District?

A: Yes. That was one of our primary purposes.

Q: And in that statement on academic responsibility, is there any indication that both sides of issues should be heard in the classroom?

A: I would like to see a copy of it. I mean, I was involved in writing it, but it's—

MR. CHILDS: I will have to ask plaintiffs' counsel for a copy.

THE WITNESS: And your question again, please?

MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

Q: Is there anything in that statement on academic responsibility which was adopted by the Pulaski County Special District which indicated that both sides of issues should be presented in the classroom?

A: I suppose you could give that interpretation of sorts to number seven.

Q: Now, then, in that statement on academic responsibility, does the board delegate to the administration and teachers the duty to implement all policies adopted by the board?

A: The board establishes policies, and the administrative staff and teachers implement policies.


Q: Would it be safe to describe that delegation of authority only being to the implementation of policies approved by the board? And if you want me to rephrase the question, I will try.

A: If I understand it correctly, you are asking me if we are to, if we only implement policies that the board has directed us to implement.

Q: Yes.

A: And that would be true.

Q: You heard Marianne Wilson testify that she had a supervisor named Gene Jones, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: Is Gene Jones a member of your coalition?

A: Yes, he is.

Q: And is Mr. Bob Cearley, who is one of the counsel for plaintiffs, also a member of that organization?

A: He is a member; not an active member.

MR. CHILDS: I have no further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. KAPLAN: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down. Mr. Cearley, how many more witnesses do you have?

MR. CEARLEY: Doctor Mayer is on the stand, and he is the plaintiffs final witness.

THE COURT: Okay. How long will he take?