1 Q Ten billion years ago?

2 A As far as we know.

3 Q Fifteen billion?

4 A I don't know how far back you want to take this, but

5 I think for the purposes of geology and the age of the

6 solar system, we are only interested in using radiometric

7 dating on objects we can possess in our hand, so we only

8 need to take that back about four and a half or five

9 billion years.

10 I think whether it's been constant fifteen billion years

11 is irrelevant, we have no way of getting samples that old.

12 We can only sample things that have been in the solar

13 system.

14 Q How old is the solar system, to the best of your

15 knowledge?

16 A As far as we know, it is four and a half billion

17 years old.

18 Q The solar system itself?

19 A The solar system itself. Now, when we talk about

20 the age of something like the solar system, you have to

21 understand that there was a finite period of time over

22 which that system formed, and we may be talking about a

23 period of a few hundred years, so it is not a precise

24 point in time, but some interval, but compared with the

25 age of the solar system, it is thought that that interval


1 A (Continuing) was probably rather short-a few

2 percent.

3 Q Are you aware of when those scientists hypothesized

4 or when the so-called Big Bang occurred, how many years

5 ago?

6 A No, I am not sure exactly when that was supposed--

7 Q Would the rate of radioactive decay have been

8 constant at the time of the Big Bang?

9 A I am not an astrophysicist. I don't know the

10 conditions that existed in the so-called primordial bowl

11 of soup, and so I am afraid I can't answer your question.

12 Q So you don't have any opinion as to whether it was

13 constant then?

14 A That's out of my field of expertise. I can't even

15 tell you whether there were atoms in the same sense that

16 we use that term now.

17 Q But you did state that it had always been constant

18 as far as you knew, but now you state you don't know about

19 the Big Bang, whether it was constant then; is that

20 correct?

21 A Well, what I said, it's been constant within the

22 limits in which we are interested. For the purposes of

23 radiometric dating it hardly matters whether it was

24 constant at the moment of the Big Bang. Let me say this-

25 Q I don't want to interrupt you.


1 A That's all right.

2 Q You say as far as you are concerned, for the

3 purposes of your concern it has been constant as far as

4 you know, and your purposes go back to the age of the

5 earth for four point five billion years; is that correct?

6 A Yes, that's correct.

7 Q But you base that age of the earth on the assumption

8 or on this requirement that it has always been constant;

9 is that correct?

10 A That is not entirely- That's correct, but it is

11 not an assumption. It is not fair to calculate it that

12 way. In a certain sense it is an assumption, but that

13 assumption has also been tested.

14 For example, if you look at the ages of the oldest,

15 least disturbed meteorites, these objects give ages at one

16 point five to four point six billion years. A variety of

17 different radioactive decay schemes, schemes it at

18 different half lives. They are based on different

19 elements. They would not give those identical ages if the

20 rate of decay had been constant.

21 Q But do those schemes that you mentioned there rely

22 upon the requirement that the rate of radioactive decay

23 has always been constant as well?

24 A Yes, they do.

25 Q So all methods you know would rely upon this, what


1 Q (Continuing) you termed a requirement and what I

2 termed an assumption; is that correct?

3 A That is correct.

4 Q The rate of decay is a statistical process, is it

5 not? I think you testified yesterday to that.

6 A Basically, it is.

7 Q Would you agree that any deviation in the rate of

8 decay would have to be accompanied by a change in physical

9 laws?

10 A As far as we know, any change in decay would have to

11 be accompanied by a change in physical laws, with the

12 exceptions that I mentioned yesterday. There are small

13 changes known in certain kinds of decay, specifically in

14 electron capture, a tenth of a percent.

15 Q What do you consider the strongest evidence for the

16 constant rate of radioactive decay?

17 A Well, I don't think I could give you a single piece

18 of strongest evidence, but I think the sum total of the

19 evidence, if I can simplify it, is that rates of decay

20 have been tested in the laboratory and found to be

21 essentially invariant.

22 Theory tells us those rates of decay should be

23 invariant. And when we are able to test those rates of

24 decay on undisturbed systems; that is, systems that we

25 have good reason to presume have been closed since their


1 A (Continuing) formation clear back to the oldest

2 objects known in the solar system, we find we get

3 consistent results using different decay schemes on

4 isotopes that decay at different rates.

5 So that is essentially a synopsis of the evidence for

6 constancy of decay.

7 Q Did you say- but is it not true that as long-

8 Well, if the rate of decay has varied and as long as the

9 variation would have been uniform, would you still get

10 these consistent results?

11 A It is possible to propose a set of conditions under

12 which you could get those consistent results.

13 THE COURT: Excuse me. I didn't understand that.

14 THE WITNESS: I think what he is saying is, is it

15 possible to vary the decay rate in such a way that you

16 could still get a consistent set of results by using

17 different decay schemes, and I think it is always possible

18 to propose such a set of circumstances, yes.

19 So that question is in the nature of a "what if", and

20 one can always come to the conclusion that you can

21 restructure science in such a way to make that "what if"

22 happen. But that is not the sort of thing we usually do

23 unless we have good reason to presume the physical laws

24 have changed, and we presume they have not.

25 The same is true with things like the speed of light,


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) gravitational constant and

2 so forth. May I elaborate just a little bit more? We are

3 not talking about small changes in decay. If the creation

4 scientists are correct and the earth is only ten thousand

5 years old, we are talking about many orders of magnitude,

6 thousands of times difference. The difference between the

7 age of the earth that scientists calculate and the age

8 that the creationists calculate are different by a factor

9 of four hundred and fifty thousand.

10 So you don't have to perturb the constancy of decay laws

11 a little bit; you have to perturb them a lot.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

13 Q Where in Act 590 is the age of the earth listed as

14 ten thousand years?

15 A It is not listed as ten thousand years in 590.

16 Q To you, as a geologist, would not an age of several

17 hundred million years still be relatively recent?

18 A That would be considered on the young side of middle

19 age, yes.

20 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, while we are on that

21 point, I have really been curious. What does the State

22 contend a teacher is supposed to interpret that to

23 mean- "relatively recent"? What is going to be your

24 contention, if you are a biology teacher and the biology

25 teacher tells the students about "relatively recent"?


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) What does that mean?

2 MR. WILLIAMS: I think it means a couple of things.

3 First of all, that there may be some doubt as to the

4 reliability of some of the dating methods which are

5 currently being used. Therefore, the generally accepted,

6 as described by Doctor Dalrymple, age of four point five

7 billion years may not be that certain.

8 I think, secondly, our testimony will show that because

9 of this factor the age of the earth may, in fact, be

10 somewhat younger. The State, I don't think, is tied to

11 the age of ten thousand years as the plaintiff has tried

12 to pin on Act 590.

13 Indeed, the age of the earth is probably, in terms of

14 the overall creation science model, is probably, I would

15 say, the least important of those. I am not sure how much

16 the subject would come up in a biology class myself. I

17 have some questions about it myself.

18 THE COURT: Apparently the Act directs that it come

19 up. I'm curious about that.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, your Honor, the Act directs

21 that there be balanced treatment when there is scientific

22 evidence on either side. And doesn't it require that all-

23 THE COURT: I assume that any biology course will

24 address the age of the earth in some fashion, and they

25 will, I think, talk about radioactive decay and that


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) method of aging the world or

2 judging the age of the world. And I gather the Act also

3 directs the biology teacher to say something about a

4 relatively recent formation of the earth, and I'm puzzled

5 as to what the teacher is supposed to say.

6 Are they supposed to approach it in a negative fashion

7 and say, "No, it's not four and a half billion years

8 old"? And what if some student says, "Well, how old is

9 it, then, under this model?" What would they say?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, let me say that

11 I'm not engaged in curriculum design or materials design,

12 but as I understand it, I think that they could say that

13 there are besides this, other sciences, first of all, who

14 have some doubts as to this dating method. There are

15 other competent scientists who believe that the earth

16 might be, relatively speaking, to the four point five

17 billion years, relatively speaking, younger than that. I

18 don't think there is any one age which anyone would have

19 to be taught as an alternative age. I think it would be a

20 range of ages.

21 THE COURT: Well, again, what is that range, then?

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, your Honor, I would prefer, if

23 we could, to defer that to the presentation of our

24 testimony when we will get into that.

25 THE COURT: Maybe that would be best. It's just


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) something that keeps occurring

2 to me as we listen to the testimony here.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

4 Q Mr. Dalrymple, is it correct that you think that

5 geochronology establishes an age of the earth, not only

6 that the earth is several million years old, but also

7 establishes the age of the fossils which are enclosed in

8 the rocks?

9 A Yes. That's correct.

10 Q Is there any reliable method for gauging fossils

11 themselves that you are aware of?

12 A You mean dating the fossil specifically?

13 Q Yes.

14 A There is one method, but it does not go back very

15 far, and that's Carbon-14. The rest of the fossils on the

16 record are done by dating primarily igneous rocks that are

17 in known relationship to fossils. By an igneous rock, I

18 mean a rock that's cooled from a melt, like a lava flow or

19 granite.

20 Q How old would you say that geochronology establishes

21 the ages of the oldest fossils?

22 A Well, the oldest fossils that I know of - And I'm

23 not a paleontologist; I'm going to have to give you a

24 semi-layman's answer - that I know of are bacteria that

25 are found in certain shales in, I believe, Africa or South


1 A (Continuing) Africa. And if I remember correctly,

2 those are close to three billion years old.

3 Q You say you're not a paleontologist and you give a

4 lay answer, but the method of dating fossils actually

5 relies upon the dating of certain rocks around the fossil,

6 does it not?

7 A Well, not necessarily the rocks that actually

8 enclose the fossil, because most of the dating technicians

9 work on igneous rock or metamorphic rocks, that is,

10 crystalline rocks in which fossils don't occur.

11 But again, to take a simple case, if we had a

12 sedimentary bed that includes fossils and we have a lava

13 flow beneath that bed and another lava flow on top of that

14 bed. And if we date those two lava flows, then we have

15 sensibly dated the age of that fossil, or at least we have

16 bracketed the age of that fossil.

17 That's the general way in which fossils are dated

18 radiometrically.

19 Q Now, do you understand that biologists consider

20 these fossils enclosed in these rocks to be the relics or

21 the remnants of some evolutionary development?

22 A Well, I think the fossils are relics of an animal.

23 Q Would that be the evidence of the evolutionary

24 development?

25 A Well, as far as I know, yes.


1 Q Then would it be fair to say in your mind that the

2 ages for the various types of fossils have been most

3 precisely determined or measured by radioactive dating or

4 by geochronology?

5 A That sounds like a fair statement.

6 Q Since geochronology does play such an important role

7 on the ages of the rocks and the fossils, would you agree

8 that it would be important to know whether there is any

9 evidence which exists which would bear on the fundamental

10 premises of geochronology?

11 A Of course. Let me add that that's a subject that's

12 been discussed considerably in scientific literature.

13 We're always searching for that sort of thing. That's a

14 much debated question

15 Q I think you said yesterday that anyone who believes.

16 in a young age of the earth, in your opinion, to be not

17 too bright scientifically, and are in the same category as

18 people who believe that the earth is flat?

19 A Yes. I think if we are talking about people who

20 profess to be scientists and insist on ignoring what the

21 actual evidence is for the age of the earth, then I find

22 it difficult to think that their thought processes are

23 straight.

24 Q Is it true that you do not know of any scientists

25 who would not agree with you, with your viewpoint on this


1 Q (Continuing) radioactive dating and of the age of

2 the earth and fossils?

3 A Will you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand

4 it.

5 Q Is it true that you stated, I think in your

6 deposition, that you do not know of any scientist-

7 MR. ENNIS: Excuse me. If you're referring to the

8 deposition, please identify it, what page.

9 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not referring to a page at this

10 point, I'm asking a question.

11 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

12 Q Is it true that you do not know of any scientist who

13 does not agree with you and your view point and opinion as

14 to the age of the earth and the fossils?

15 A It depends on who you include in the word

16 "scientist". I think if you want to include people who

17 categorize themselves as creation scientists, then that

18 would not be a true statement. I know that some of those

19 do not agree.

20 As far as my colleagues, geologists, geochemists,

21 geophysicists and paleontologists, the ones that I know

22 of, I don't know of any who disagree that the earth is

23 very old or that radiometric dating is not a good way to

24 date the earth.

25 Q Are you aware of any creation scientist, then, who


1 Q (Continuing) has published evidence in the open

2 scientific literature who has questioned the fundamental

3 premises of geochronology by radioactive dating?

4 A I know of one.

5 Q Who is that?

6 A That's Robert Gentry. I should say that Robert

7 Gentry characterizes himself as a creation scientist, if I

8 understand what he's written.

9 Q Are you familiar with Paul Damon?

10 A Yes. I know him personally.

11 Q Who is Mr. Damon?

12 A Mr. Damon is a professor at the University of

13 Arizona at Tucson. He specializes in geochronology.

14 Q Are you aware that Mr. Damon has stated in a letter

15 that if Mr. Gentry's work is correct, that it casts in

16 doubt that entire science of geochronology?

17 A Which letter are you referring to?

18 Q Do you recall the letter which you gave to me from

19 EOS by Mr. Damon?

20 A Yes. I recall the general nature of that letter.

21 Q And do you recall that Mr. Damon said that if

22 history is correct, in his deductions it would call up to

23 question the entire science of geochronology?

24 A Well, I think that's the general sense of what Paul

25 Damon said, but I think it's an overstatement. I'm not


1 A (Continuing) sure I would agree with him on that.

2 Q Mr. Damon is not a creation scientist, is he?

3 A No. Doctor Damon is not a creation scientist,

4 by any means.

5 Q Would you consider him to be a competent scientist

6 and an authority in this field?

7 A Yes. He's extremely competent.

8 Q Are you aware as to whether Mr. Gentry has ever

9 offered or provided a way for his evidence to e falsified?

10 A I am aware that he has proposed one, but I do not

11 think his proposal would falsify it either one way or the

12 other.

13 Q Have you ever made any attempts, experiments that

14 would attempt to falsify his work?

15 A Well, there are a great many- I guess you're going

16 to have to tell me specifically what you mean by "his

17 work". If you could tell me the specific scientific

18 evidence you're talking about, then let's discuss that.

19 Q Well, first of all, do you like to think you keep

20 current on the scientific literature as it may affect

21 geochronology?

22 A Well, I keep as current as I can. There's a mass

23 amount of literature. In the building next to my office,

24 there are over two hundred fifty thousand volumes, mostly

25 on geology. It's extremely difficult to keep current.


1 A (Continuing) But I am currently relatively up on

2 the mainstream, anyway.

3 Q Certainly the most important points?

4 A I do my best.

5 Q And if someone had issued a study which would, if

6 true, call up to question the entire science of

7 geochronology, would you not want to be made aware of that

8 and look at that closely yourself, as an expert in the

9 field?

10 A Oh, yes, I would.

11 Q And as a matter of fact, your familiarity with Mr.

12 Gentry's work is limited, is it not, to an article that he

13 wrote in 1972 and a letter that he wrote in response to

14 Mr. Damon's letter, in terms of what you have read, is

15 that correct?

16 A Those are the things I can recall having read, and

17 the reports that I have some recollection of. I have

18 never been terribly interested in radioactive haloes, and

19 I have not followed that work very closely. And that is

20 the subject upon which Mr. Gentry has done most of his

21 research.

22 As I think I told you in the deposition, I'm not an

23 expert on that particular endeavor. I'm aware that Mr.

24 Gentry has issued a challenge, but I think that challenge

25 is meaningless.


1 Q Well, let me ask you this. You stated in the

2 deposition, did you not- Let me ask you the question,

3 can, to your knowledge, granite be synthesized in a

4 laboratory?

5 A I don't know of anyone who has synthesized a piece

6 of granite in a laboratory. What relevance does that have

7 to anything?

8 Q I'm asking you the question, can it be done?

9 A Well, in the future I suspect that it will be done.

10 Q I understand. But you said it has not been done yet?

11 A I'm not aware that it has been done. It's an

12 extremely difficult technical problem, and that's

13 basically what's behind it.

14 Q To the extent that you are familiar with Mr.

15 Gentry's work and that as you have reviewed it, would you

16 consider him to be a competent scientist?

17 A I think Mr. Gentry is regarded as a competent

18 scientist within his field of expertise, yes.

19 Q And you would agree with that?

20 A From what I've seen, that's a fair assessment of his

21 work, yes. He's a very, did some very careful

22 measurements, and by and large he comes to reasonable

23 conclusions, I think, with the possible exception of what

24 we're hedging around the fringes here, and that is his

25 experiment to falsify his relatively recent inception of


1 A (Continuing) the earth hypothesis. We have not

2 really discussed what his hypothesis is and what his

3 challenge is, we've sort of beat around the edges.

4 Q Well, you haven't read his articles that he wrote

5 since 1972, have you?

6 A No. That's true.

7 Q So if his hypothesis were in those articles, you

8 really wouldn't be able to talk about it, at any rate,

9 would you?

10 A His hypothesis, I believe, is pretty fairly covered

11 In those letters between, exchange of letters between

12 Damon and Gentry, and I can certainly discuss that part.

13 That's a very current exchange of letters. It is just a

14 few years old. And it is in that letter that he throws

15 down to challenge to geology to prove him wrong. What I'm

16 saying is, that challenge is meaningless.

17 Q Are you familiar with his studies of radio haloes?

18 A No, I'm not familiar with that work at all.

19 Q But to the extent that work shows that evidence that

20 these formations are only several thousand years old,

21 you're not familiar with that?

22 A I'm not familiar with that, and I'm not sure I would

23 accept your conclusion unless I did look into it.

24 Q If you're not familiar with it, I don't want to

25 question you about something you're not familiar with.


1 A Fair enough.

2 Q You have been active, of late, have you not, in

3 trying to formulate a resolution against creation science

4 in one of the professional societies to which you belong?

5 A That's true. The American Geophysical Union.

6 Q How do you go about writing that? Did you just sit

7 down and try to write something yourself?

8 A No. I requested from Bill Mayer copies of the

9 resolutions holding the teaching of creation science as

10 science in the classroom last March, so that I could see

11 the general form and tone of resolutions that had already

12 been passed by other principal scientific societies,

13 including the National Academy of Sciences. He sent me, I

14 believe, copies of about eight or nine.

15 And after reading through those, I drafted a proposal

16 which was sent around to members of the Council of the

17 American Geophysical Union. That proposal was discussed,

18 the resolution was modified, and a much abbreviated

19 resolution was adopted Sunday night.

20 Q I think you stated earlier that you reviewed quite a

21 bit of creation-science literature in preparation for your

22 testimony in this case and also a case in California, is

23 that correct?

24 A Yes. I think I've read either in whole or in part

25 about two dozen books and articles.


1 Q But on the list of books that you made or articles

2 that you have reviewed, you did not include any of Robert

3 Gentry's work as having been reviewed, did you?

4 A That's right. I did not.

5 Q Although you consider Gentry to be a creation

6 scientist?

7 A Well, yes. But, you know, the scientific literature

8 and even the creation science literature, which I do not

9 consider scientific literature - It's outside the

10 traditional literature - there is an enormously complex

11 business. There is a lot of it. And we can't review it

12 all.

13 Every time I review even a short paper, it takes me

14 several hours to read it, I have to think about the logic

15 involved in the data, I have to reread it several times to

16 be sure I understand what the author has said; I have to

17 go back through the author's references and sometimes read

18 as many as twenty or thirty papers that the author has

19 referenced to find out whether what has been referenced is

20 true or makes any sense; I have to check the calculations

21 to find out if they are correct. It's an enormous job.

22 And given the limited amount of time that I have to put in

23 on this, reviewing the creation science literature is not

24 a terribly productive thing for a scientist to do.

25 Q How many articles or books have you reviewed,


1 Q (Continuing) approximately?

2 A You mean in creation science literature?

3 Q Creation science literature.

4 A I think it was approximately twenty-four or

5 twenty-five, something like that, as best I can remember.

6 I gave you a complete list, which is as accurate as I can

7 recall.

8 Q And if there were articles in the open scientific

9 literature - Excuse me - in referee journals which

10 supported the creation science model, would that not be

11 something you would want to look at in trying to review

12 the creation science literature?

13 A Yes, and I did look at a number of those. And I

14 still found no evidence.

15 Q But you didn't look at any from Mr. Gentry?

16 A No, I did not. That's one I didn't get around to.

17 There's quite a few others I haven't gotten around to. I

18 probably never will look into all the creationists

19 literature.

20 I can't even look into all the legitimate scientific

21 literature. But I can go so far as to say that every case

22 that I have looked into in detail has had very, very

23 serious flaws. And I think I've looked at a

24 representative sample.

25 And also in Gentry's work, he's proposed a very tiny


1 A (Continuing) mystery which is balanced on the other

2 side by an enormous amount of evidence. And I think it's

3 important to know what the answer to that little mystery

4 is. But I don't think you can take one little fact for

5 which we now have no answer, and try to balance, say that

6 equals a preponderance of evidence on the other side.

7 That's just not quite the way the scales tip.

8 Q If that tiny mystery, at least by one authority who

9 you acknowledge his authority, has been said, if correct,

10 call to question the entire science of geochronology.

11 A Well, that's what Damon said. And I also said that

12 I did not agree with Paul Damon in that statement. I

13 think that's an overstatement of the case by a long way.

14 I think that Paul in that case was engaging in rhetoric.

15 Q What is your personal belief as to the existence of

16 a God?

17 A Well, I consider my religion a highly personal

18 matter, and I've never required personally anything other

19 than explaining the world we see around us by natural

20 events. But I try to remain rather open minded on the

21 subject.

22 So I guess at best I can tell you that I have not come

23 to any firm conclusion that I am not willing to change in

24 the future.

25 Q Did you not tell me during your deposition that you


1 Q (Continuing) would be something between an agnostic

2 and an atheist; is that correct?

3 A No. I said about halfway between an agnostic and an

4 atheist. But the reason I said that was because you were

5 trying to get me to label myself. And I think I also said

6 that I do not label myself. But you were insistent that I

7 give you some answer on that scale, and I'm afraid that's

8 the best I can do. I'm not happy with that answer, but I

9 simply can't do any better.

10 Q But you also stated, did you not, that you had not

11 seen any proof of a God?

12 A I think I did say that. Yes.

13 Q Nonetheless, you would agree that a religious person

14 can be a competent scientist?

15 A Absolutely, and I know a number of them.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions, Your Honor.





20 Q Doctor Dalrymple, Mr. Williams asked you about a

21 resolution of the American Geophysical Union. What is the

22 American Geophysical Union?

23 A The American Geophysical Union is the largest

24 society of physicists- Well, let me take that back. I

25 think it's one of the largest societies of geophysicists


1 A (Continuing) in North America. The American

2 Society for Exploration of Geophysicists may be larger.

3 I'm not sure.

4 It consists of a variety of sections that include

5 scientists working on geochemistry, seismology, petrology,

6 hydrology, planetology, astronomy, meteorology, upper

7 atmosphere physics, and so forth. Anything to do with the

8 physics and chemistry of the earth is included in the

9 American Geophysical Union.

10 Q Mr. Williams brought out on his cross examination

11 that you had worked on a proposed resolution to be

12 considered by the American Geophysical Union on this

13 subject, is that correct?

14 A Yes, I have.

15 Q And he brought out that in the course of working on

16 that resolution, you asked to see if other scientific

17 organizations had adopted resolutions on teaching of

18 creation science in public schools?

19 A That's correct.

20 Q What other resolutions did you obtain from which

21 other organizations?

22 A Well, I'm not sure I can remember them all. They

23 were mostly biological societies. There was the National

24 Association of Biology Teachers, there was the National

25 Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the


1 A (Continuing) Advancement of Sciences has a

2 resolution, and there were five or six others whose names

3 I don't remember at the moment. They are all included

4 in the material I think I gave to Mr. Williams.

5 Q These are other scientific organizations that have

6 adopted resolutions opposing the teaching of creation

7 science in public schools?

8 A Yes. They have opposed the teaching of creation

9 science as science. I want to e very specific about

10 that. Most organizations are not opposed to teaching it

11 as a part of a social science curriculum.

12 Q Do you have the power or authority by yourself to

13 issue a resolution on behalf of the American Geophysical

14 Union?

15 A No, of course not. I can only submit one to the

16 Council for approval.

17 Q And you testified during cross examination that on

18 December 6th the Council of the American Geophysical Union

19 did, in fact, adopt a resolution, is that correct?

20 A Yes. It was Sunday night, if that was December 6th.

21 Q I'd like to show you a document and ask you if that

22 document reflects the resolution adopted by the American

23 Geophysical Union?

24 A Yes, that is the resolution.

25 Q Could you please read it for the record?


1 A Yes, I will. It's preceded by the following

2 statement. It says: "The final resolution was passed

3 unanimously by the Council of the American Geophysical

4 Union on Sunday, December 6, 1981."

5 Then the resolution reads as follows: "The Council of

6 the American Geophysical Union notes with concern the

7 the continuing efforts by creationists for administrative,

8 legislative, and political action designed to require the

9 teaching of creationism as a scientific theory.

10 "The American Geophysical Union is opposed to all

11 efforts to require the teaching of creationism or any

12 other religious tenets as science."

13 That's the end of the resolution.

14 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I would like to move that

15 that resolution be received in evidence as a plaintiffs'

16 exhibit.

17 THE COURT: It will be received.

18 MR. ENNIS: Do we know which number it will be

19 assigned?

20 THE COURT: I don't.

21 MR. ENNIS: We'll take care of that detail later.

22 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

23 Q Doctor Gentry, Mr. Williams asked you some

24 questions-

25 A Doctor who?


1 Q Doctor Dalrymple. Mr. Williams asked you some

2 questions about Mr. Gentry's hypothesis. Are you familiar

3 with that hypothesis?

4 A Well, I'm familiar with it if it is accurately

5 represented in the exchange of letters published in EOS

6 between Mr. Gentry and Doctor Damon.

7 Q Does Mr. Gentry's hypothesis depend upon

8 supernatural causes?

9 A Yes, it does.

10 Q Could you explain, please?

11 A Well, I think it might be best explained if I could

12 simply read his two statements from his letter, and then I

13 won't misquote him, if that would be permissible.

14 Q Do you have that with you?

15 A No, I don't, but it was supplied in the material

16 that I gave in my deposition.

17 MR. ENNIS: I have been informed that we can mark

18 the resolution of the American Geophysical Union as

19 Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number Twenty-eight.

20 THE COURT: It will be received.

21 A Yes, I have it now.

22 Q Doctor Dalrymple, would you please read from that

23 document, after describing what it is?

24 A Yes. It's just a couple of sentences. It's State's

25 Exhibit Number Nine, is the way it's marked. It's two


1 A (Continuing) letters that appeared, actually three

2 letters that appeared in a column for that purpose in

3 EOS. EOS is the transactions of the American Geophysical

4 Union. It's a newsletter in which letters like this are

5 commonly exchanged.

6 It's Volume 60, Number 22; May 29, 1979, page 474. In

7 Mr. Gentry's response to Doctor Damon, he makes the

8 following statement: "And as far as a new comprehensive

9 theory is concerned, I would replace the once singularity

10 of the Big Bang with two major cosmos-related

11 singularities (in which I exclude any implications about

12 extraterrestrial life-related phenomena) derived from the

13 historic Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the events

14 associated with (1) the galaxies (including the Milky Way)

15 being Created ex nihilo by Fiat nearly 6 millennia ago and

16 (2) a later catastrophe which resulted in a solar

17 system-wide disturbance that was manifested on earth

18 primarily as a worldwide flood with subsequent crustal

19 adjustments."

20 And then he goes on.

21 Q During cross examination Mr. Williams asked you if

22 Mr. Gentry's argument or hypothesis could be falsified.

23 Has Mr. Gentry proposed a method for falsifying his

24 hypothesis?

25 A Yes, he has proposed a test and that is the one I


1 A (Continuing) characterized as meaningless.

2 Q Why would it be meaningless?

3 A Let me first see if I can find a statement of the

4 test, and I will explain that. I have it now.

5 THE COURT: May I read what you quoted from the

6 newsletter before you go to that?

7 Okay, sir.

8 A The experiment that Doctor Gentry proposed-

9 THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. As I

10 understand it, that's his conclusion. I still don't

11 understand what his theory is.

12 THE WITNESS: He has proposed that it is either a

13 theory or a hypothesis that he says can be falsified.

14 THE COURT: What's the basis for the proposal? How

15 does he come up with that?

16 THE WITNESS: Well, basically what he has found is

17 there is a series of radioactive haloes within minerals in

18 the rocks. Many minerals like mica include very tiny

19 particles of other minerals that are radioactive, little

20 crystals of zircon and things like that, that have a lot

21 of uranium in them.

22 And as the uranium decays, the alpha particles will not

23 decay, but travel outward through the mica. And they

24 cause radiation damage in the mica around the radioactive

25 particle. And the distance that those particles travel is


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) indicated by these

2 radioactive haloes. And that distance is related directly

3 to the energy of the decay. And from the energy of the

4 decay, it is thought that we can identify the isotopes.

5 That's the kind of work that Gentry has been doing.

6 And what he has found is that he has identified certain

7 haloes which he claims are from Polonium-218. Now,

8 Polonium-218 is one of the isotopes intermediate in the

9 decay chain between uranium and lead.

10 Uranium doesn't decay directly from lead. It goes

11 through a whole series of intermediate products, each of

12 which is radioactive and in turn decays.

13 Polonium-218 is derived in this occasion from Radon

14 222. And what he has found is that the Polonium haloes,

15 and this is what he claims to have found, are the

16 Polonium-2l8 haloes, but not Radon-222 haloes. And

17 therefore, he says that the Polonium could not have come

18 from the decay of Radium, therefore it could not have come

19 from the normal decay change.

20 And he says, how did it get there? And then he says

21 that the only way it could have gotten there unsupported

22 Radon-222 decay is to have been primordial Polonium,

23 that is Polonium that was created at the time the solar

24 system was created, or the universe.

25 Well, the problem with that is Polonium-2l8 has a


1 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) half-life of only about

2 three minutes, I believe it is. So that if you have a

3 granitic body, a rock that comes from the melt, that

4 contains this mica, and it cools down, it takes millions

5 of years for body like that to cool.

6 So that by the time the body cooled, all the Polonium

7 would have decayed, since it has an extremely short

8 half-life. Therefore, there would be no Polonium in the

9 body to cause the Polonium haloes.

10 So what he is saying, this is primordial Polonium;

11 therefore, the granite mass in which it occurs could not

12 have cooled slowly; therefore, it must have been created

13 by fiat, instantly.

14 And the experiment he has proposed to falsify this is

15 that he says he will accept this hypothesis as false when

16 somebody can synthesize a piece of granite in the

17 laboratory.

18 And I'm claiming that that would be a meaningless

19 experiment.

20 Does that- I know this is a rather complicated subject.

21 THE COURT: I am not sure I understand all of this

22 process. Obviously I don't understand all of this

23 process, but why don't you go ahead, Mr. Ennis?

24 MR. ENNIS: Yes, your Honor. Obviously, your Honor,

25 these subjects are somewhat complex, and if the Court has


1 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing) additional questions, I'd hope

2 that the Court would feel free to ask the witness directly.

3 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

4 Q Why, in your opinion, would the test proposed by Mr.

5 Gentry not falsify his hypothesis?

6 A Let me read specifically first what his proposal

7 is. He said, "I would consider my thesis essentially

8 falsified if and when geologists synthesize a hand-sized

9 specimen of a typical biotite barium granite and/or a

10 similar sized crystal of biotite."

11 And if I understand what he's saying there, he's saying

12 that since his proposal requires that granite form

13 rapidly, instantly, by instantaneous creation, that he

14 does not see any evidence that these granites, in fact,

15 cool slowly; his evidence said they cool rapidly. And he

16 would accept as evidence if somebody could synthesize a

17 piece of granite in the laboratory.

18 There are a couple of problems with that. In the first

19 place, we know that these granites did form slowly from a

20 liquid from the following evidence: These rocks contain

21 certain kinds of textures which are only found in rocks

22 that cool from a liquid. And we can observe that in two

23 ways, these textures. They are called igneous and

24 crystalline textures.

25 We can observe these textures by crystallizing compounds

481. Page is missing.


1 A (Continuing) a liquid. There is no other way that

2 they could have formed.

3 The other problem with Gentry's proposal is that the

4 crystallization of granite is an enormously difficult

5 technical problem, and that's all it is. We can't

6 crystallize granite in the laboratory, and he's proposing

7 a hand-sized specimen. That's something like this, I

8 presume.

9 In the first place, the business of crystallizing rocks

10 at temperatures, most of them crystallize at temperatures

11 between seven hundred and twelve hundred degrees

12 centigrade. The temperatures are high. And in the case

13 of granites and metamorphic rocks, sometimes the pressures

14 are high, many kilobars. So it takes a rather elaborate,

15 sometimes dangerous apparatus to do this.

16 And the apparatus is of such a size that usually what we

17 have to crystallize is very tiny pieces. I don't know of

18 anyone who has developed an apparatus to crystallize

19 anything that's hand-sized.

20 So he's thrown down a challenge that's impossible at the

21 moment, within the limits of the present technical

22 knowledge.

23 The second thing is that the crystallization of granite,

24 the reason we have not been able to crystallize even a

25 tiny piece in the laboratory that I know if, unless there


1 A (Continuing) has been a recent breakthrough, is

2 essentially an experimental one. It's a kinetic problem.

3 Anyone who has tried to grow crystals in a laboratory

4 knows that it's very difficult to do if you don't seed the

5 melt. That is, you have to start with some kind of a

6 little tiny crystal to begin with. And when the

7 semi-conductor industry, for example, grows crystals to

8 use in watches like this, they always have to start with a

9 little tiny seed crystal. And once you have that tiny

10 seed crystal, then you can get it to crystallize.

11 So it's basically a problem of getting the reaction to

12 go, it's a problem of nucleation, getting it started, and

13 it's a problem of kinetics, getting the reaction to go on

14 these viscous melts that are very hot under high pressure.

15 And what I'm saying is that even if we could crystallize

16 a piece of hand-sized granite in the laboratory, it would

17 prove nothing. All it would represent would be a

18 technical breakthrough. All of a sudden scientists would

19 be able to perform experiments that we cannot now perform.

20 But in terms of throwing down a challenge to the age of

21 the earth, that's a meaningless experiment. So he's

22 thrown down a challenge that has no meaning, hand-sized

23 crystallized granite. And he's saying, `If you don't meet

24 it, then I won't accept your evidence.' Well, it's a

25 meaningless challenge. It's not an experiment.


1 Q Doctor Dalrymple, if I understand correctly,

2 Polonium-218 is the product of the radioactive decay of

3 Radon-222, is that correct?

4 A Yes, that's correct.

5 Q And does Polonium-218 occur through any other

6 process?

7 A Not as far as I know. I suspect you could make it

8 in a nuclear reactor, but I don't know that. I'm not

9 sure, but I don't think Polonium-2l8 is a product of any

10 other decay chain.

11 Q So if there were Polonium-218 in a rock which did

12 not have any previous Radon-222 in that rock, then that

13 existence of Polonium-218 would mean that the laws of

14 physics as you understand them would have had to have been

15 suspended for that Polonium to be there; is that correct?

16 A Well, if that were the case, it might or it might

17 not. But there are a couple of other possibilities. One

18 is that perhaps Gentry is mistaken about the halo. It may

19 not have been Polonium-218. The second one is that it's

20 possible that he's not been able to identify the Radon-222

21 halo. Maybe it's been erased, and maybe for reasons we

22 don't understand, it was never created.

23 This is why I say It's just a tiny mystery. We have

24 lots of these in science, little things that we can't

25 quite explain. But we don't throw those on the scale and


1 A (continuing) claim that they outweigh everything

2 else. That's simply not a rational way to operate.

3 I would be very interested to know what the ultimate

4 solution to this problem is, and I suspect eventually

5 there will be a natural explanation found for it.

6 Q Does Mr. Gentry's data provide scientific evidence

7 from which you conclude that the earth is relatively young?

8 A Well, I certainly wouldn't reach that conclusion,

9 because that evidence has to be balanced by everything

10 else we know, and everything else we know tells us that

11 it's extremely old.

12 The other thing that I should mention, and I forgot to

13 make this in my previous point, if I could, and that is

14 that Mr. Gentry seems to be saying that the crystalline

15 rocks; the basic rocks, the old rocks of the contents were

16 forms instantaneously. And he uses granite.

17 But the thing that he seems to overlook is that not all

18 these old rocks are granites. In fact, there are lava

19 flows included in those old rocks, there are sediments

20 included in those old rocks. These sediments were

21 deposited in oceans, they were deposited in lakes. They

22 are even pre-Cambrian glacial deposits that tells that the

23 glaciers were on the earth a long, long time ago.

24 So it's impossible to characterize all of the old

25 crystalline rocks as being just granite. Granite is a


1 A (Continuing) very special rock type, and it makes

2 up a rather small percentage of the pre-Cambrian or the

3 old crystalline rocks that formed before the continents.

4 MR. ENNIS: May I have one moment, your Honor?

5 THE COURT: Sure.

6 MR. ENNIS: No further questions, but I would like

7 to state for the record, I have now been informed that

8 Exhibit 28 was not an available number for exhibits, so if

9 we could remark the resolution of the American Geophysical

10 Union with the exhibit number 122 for plaintiffs. I

11 believe that is an available number.

12 THE COURT: Mr. Williams, do you have any more

13 questions?

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Briefly, your Honor.

15 May I approach the witness, your Honor?

16 THE COURT: Yes.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Inasmuch as the witness is quoting

18 from this letter, I would like to have it introduced into

19 evidence so that it can be read in the context, these two

20 pages from Forum EOS dated May 29, 1979. We could make

21 these Defendant's Exhibit 1.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. WILLIAMS: I'll have it marked.




Q You state that the challenge which Mr. Gentry has


1 Q (Continuing) issued, if I understand you, is

2 essentially impossible?

3 A It is presently impossible within our present

4 technical capability. There have been people working on

5 this, and I suspect someday we'll be able to do it.

6 Q Is it not true that you can take a pile of

7 sedimentary rocks and by applying heat and pressure just

8 simply convert that to something like a granite?

9 A Something like a granite, yes, that's true. But

10 it's something like a granite, but they have quite

11 different textures. When you do that, you now have a

12 metamorphic rock, and it has a different fabric, and it

13 has a different texture, which is quite distinct from a

14 igneous texture. They are very easily identified from

15 both a hand specimen and a microscope. Any third year

16 geology student could tell you if you handle a piece of

17 rock whether it's igneous or metamorphic. It's a very

18 simple problem.

19 Q But it is quite similar to a granite, but you just

20 can't quite get it to be a granite, can you?

21 A Well, granite sort of has two connotations. In the

22 first place, in the strict sense, granite is a composition

23 only. It's a composition of an igneous rock. Granite is

24 a word that we use for rock classification.

25 It is also used in a looser sense, and that looser sense


1 A (Continuing) includes all igneous rocks that cool

2 deep within the earth. And they would include things like

3 quartz, diorite- I won't bother to tell you what those

4 are, but they are a range of composition.

5 Sometimes granite is used in that loose sense. People

6 say that the Sierra Nevada is composed primarily of

7 granite. Well, technically there is no granite in the

8 Sierra Nevada. They are slightly different compositions.

9 It is also used to describe the compositions of certain

10 types of metamorphic rocks. So you have to be a little

11 careful when you use the term `granite' and be sure that

12 we know exactly in what sense we are using that word.

13 Q Now, you stated that you think, in trying to explain

14 why Gentry's theory might not be correct or not that

15 important, you said that perhaps he misidentified some of

16 the haloes, and I think you also said that perhaps he had

17 mismeasured something, is that correct?

18 A Well, I think those were the same statement. I'm

19 just offering that as an alternative hypothesis.

20 Q Do you know that's what happened?

21 A Oh, no, no.

22 Q You have not made any of these studies and

23 determined that yourself, have you?

24 A No, no.

25 Q We've already had testimony in the record, Doctor


1 Q (Continuing) Dalrymple, in this case yesterday from

2 another of plaintiffs' witnesses that science is not

3 concerned with where a theory comes from, a model comes

4 from, it's concerned with whether the data fit the

5 model. Would you agree with that?

6 A Well, I think that that sounds like a fair statement,

7 yes. If you mean by that that we don't really care who

8 proposes it. Is that- I'm not sure I understand the

9 sense of your question. That's the way I took it anyway.

10 Do you mean that is anyone eligible to propose something

11 like that and will it be considered?

12 Q Not just who proposes it, but the source from which

13 they get it or their motivation. Those aren't important.

14 The important thing is that the data fit what has been

15 proposed.

16 A Well, the motivation might be important. For

17 example, I think we went over this in the deposition a

18 little bit. You don't just simply propose a theory. What

19 you really propose is a hypothesis or something smaller in

20 scale. A theory only becomes accepted as a theory in the

21 scientific theory when there is a large amount of evidence

22 -- I would characterize it as a preponderance of evidence -

23 to support that theory.

24 That doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. At some

25 time in the future it may have to be modified. But we


1 A (Continuing) don't just characterize any idea as a

2 theory. I think we start with something much less

3 tentative. And even a hypothesis is usually proposed to

4 explain some set of facts so that- One thing we're not

5 allowed to do in science is to let any kind of belief or

6 prejudice drive our hypotheses or theories. We're not

7 supposed to become personally involved in them.

8 And this is why I say that motivation might be

9 important. We are not out to prove our personal beliefs.

10 What we're out to do is seek the truth within the limited

11 framework within which science operates.

12 So that's why I say that motivation might be important.

13 If someone is out to prove something for their own

14 benefit, then their motivation might come into it.

15 Q If someone had proposed, for example, a theory or

16 hypothesis motivated by their own political ideology,

17 would you be concerned about that, as long as the data fit

18 the hypothesis or the theory?

19 A I think as long as the data, if it was proposed on a

20 reasonable basis, on the basis of existing data, then I

21 think in a case like that, that would be perfectly

22 acceptable. As long as the motivation was truly divorced

23 from the hypothesis, then I would have no problem with it.

24 Q By the way, you differentiated between a hypothesis

25 and a theory. Is it true that a hypothesis is something


1 Q (Continuing) more tentative, in your mind, and a

2 theory is perhaps more established, and at some point a

3 theory becomes a fact?

4 A No, I don't put them together in quite that

5 difference, but I'll explain to you as best I can what my

6 notion of those terms are.

7 I think a fact — facts are data. That's the way I

8 consider facts. A fact is if we measured the length of

9 this box a number of times and determined that it's three

10 and a half feet long, then that becomes a relatively

11 indisputable fact.

12 There is a difference, in my mind, between a theory and

13 a hypothesis, both in scale and in the degree of proof

14 behind it. I think a hypothesis can be a relatively small

15 thing. We might again hypothesize that this box is three

16 and a half feet long, and we could test that hypothesis by

17 making measurements and find out whether that is true or

18 false. That could be a reasonable hypothesis.

19 Or it might be bigger. After it become rather firmly

20 established, after there is a lot of evidence for it, then

21 it is adopted as a theory. And I think if you look in

22 places like Webster's Dictionary, I think you will find

23 that there is a distinction made there in the degree of

24 tentativeness.

25 Theories are fairly firmly established things. Now,


1 A (Continuing) sometimes we find that they are not

2 true and have to modify them, but there is this degree of

3 scale between hypothesis and theory.

4 Q For example, Copernicus proposed a theory, did he

5 not—

6 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I didn't object earlier to

7 this line of questioning, but I think it's entirely

8 outside the scope of my redirect examination.

9 THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's limited by

10 that, or it wouldn't be as far as I'm concerned, but where

11 are you going with it?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I think I'm going, this

13 particular line of testimony is important to show that

14 there is perhaps not an accord among even the Plaintiffs'

15 scientists as to what is a fact, what's a theory, what's a

16 hypothesis.

17 And I think it goes to the fact that there is no

18 unanimity on these things, even among the plaintiffs' own

19 scientists. I think that has some relevance at least to

20 the argument which the plaintiffs are making as to whether

21 this is a scientific theory in looking at creation science.

22 THE COURT: Well, I would take notice that there's

23 probably not unanimity among all the scientists.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Fine.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q As part of Defendants' Exhibit 1, Mr. Gentry quotes


1 Q (Continuing) from a National Academy of Science

2 Resolution of April of 1976, which reads in part: "That

3 the search for knowledge and understanding of the physical

4 universe and of living things that inhabit it should be

5 conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom,

6 without religious, political, or ideological

7 restrictions. That freedom of inquiry and dissemination

8 of ideas require that those so engaged should be free to

9 search where their inquiry leads, without political

10 censorship and without fear of retribution and consequence

11 of unpopularity of their conclusions. Those who challenge

12 existing theory must be protected from retaliatory

13 reactions."

14 Do you agree with that statement?

15 A Yes, I would subscribe to that.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

17 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

18 MR. ENNIS: He may, your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Thank you.

20 Why don't we take about a ten minute recess.

21 (Thereupon, court was in

22 recess from 10:10 a.m. to

23 10:25 a.m.)




1 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, Plaintiffs call Doctor

2 Harold Morowitz.

3 Thereupon,



5 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

6 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

7 testified as follows:




10 Q Doctor Morowitz, would you please state your full

11 name for the record?

12 A Harold J. Morowitz.

13 Q What is your occupation?

14 A I'm professor of molecular biophysics and

15 biochemistry at Yale University. I'm also professor of

16 biology and Master at Pierson College.

17 Q Doctor Morowitz, I show you this curriculum vitae

18 (Handing same to witness). Is that yours?

19 A Yes.

20 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, plaintiffs move the

21 admission of Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 93 for

22 identification, the curriculum vitae of Doctor Harold

23 Morowitz.

24 THE COURT: It will be received.



1 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

2 Doctor Morowitz, what is your particular area of

3 academic expertise?

4 A I have been actively doing research in various

5 areas of biophysics and biochemistry, with particular

6 emphasis on the thermodynamic foundations of biology and

7 the problems of the origins of life, or biogenesis.

8 MR. NOVIK: Your Honor, based on the qualifications

9 of the witness as disclosed in his curriculum vitae and

10 the description just now given by Doctor Morowitz of his

11 area of academic interest and expertise, Plaintiffs move

12 that Doctor Morowitz be accepted as an expert in

13 biophysics and biochemistry, particularly with respect to

14 the origin of life and the thermodynamic foundation of

15 biology and the laws of thermodynamics.

16 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, we would agree that Doctor

17 Morowitz is sufficiently qualified to offer his opinions

18 in these areas.

19 MR. NOVIK: (Continuing)

20 Q Doctor Morowitz, let me show you a copy of Act 590

21 marked, I believe, Exhibit 29 in these proceedings.

22 Had you read this Act before?

23 A Yes, I have.

24 Q Would you look at Section 4 of this statute,

25 particularly Section 4 (a), purporting to define creation


1 Q (Continuing) science. Do you see any reference in

2 that section to the origin of life?

3 A 4 (a) (1) refers to sudden creation of life from nothing.

5 Q And is `sudden creation' a term that has scientific

6 meaning to you?

7 A No. To my knowledge it is not a term in scientific

8 literature or in general use in the scientific community.

9 Q Do you know the meaning of the words `sudden

10 creation'?

11 A `Sudden creation' assumes a creator, and, as such,

12 implies the supernatural explanation, and, therefore, lies

13 outside the bounds of normal science.

14 Q Does the statute give you any indication that 4 (a)

15 (1), `sudden creation' implies supernatural processes?

16 A Yes. Because if one looks at 4 (b) (1) and the (a)

17 and (b) sections are put into step by step opposition, 4

18 (b) (1) refers to emergence by naturalistic processes of

19 several things, ending with "of life from nonlife". And

20 so since (b) refers to emergence by naturalistic

21 processes, (a) must assume under creation that is by

22 supernatural processes.

23 Q Are you familiar with creation science literature?

24 A Yes, I am.

25 Q What have you read?


1 A I've read a number of works by Henry Morris,

2 Scientific Creationism, Scientific Case for Creation, I've

3 read the Kofahl and Segraves work on the creation

4 explanation, I've read the Wysong work on the

5 creation-evolution controversy, and a number of shorter

6 works.

7 Q Have you also engaged in the creation science

8 debates?

9 A Yes, on two occasions. On one occasion I debated

10 with Doctor Duane Gish, and on another occasion I debated

11 with Kelly Segraves.

12 Q Now, based on your knowledge of creation science

13 generally, from those debates and from your reading of

14 creation science literature, is Act 590 consistent with

15 the theory of creation science found in that literature?

16 A Yes. The format as it's spelled out in Section 4

17 (a), (1) through (6) is similar, almost identical with the

18 methods that the arguments are presented in creation

19 science books.

20 Q Would you now, please, look at the definition of

21 evolution-science in Section 4 (b)?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Do you see any reference to the origin of life in

24 that section?

25 A Yes. The phrase, "Emergence by naturalistic


1 A (Continuing) processes of life from nonlife."

2 Q Now, as a scientist studying the origins of life,

3 do you find it meaningful to include that study within the

4 scope of evolution-science as defined in the statute?

5 A Well, I don't find evolution-science a phrase that

6 occurs normally in the scientific community. Section 4

7 (b) groups together in an ad hoc fashion a number of

8 subjects which are normally not treated together under a

9 single topic in the scientific literature. Therefore, I

10 don't find evolution-science very meaningful.

11 These subjects are generally treated by very varying

12 methods. And in addition, evolution theory, as it is

13 normally used in science, is used in a much narrower

14 context, dealing in the speciation and the development of

15 species in higher taxa, rather than the rather broad array

16 of subjects that are linked together in Section 4 (b).

17 Q Does the theory of evolution as used by scientists

18 include the study of the origins of life?

19 A Normally that's treated as a separate subject in a

20 technical sense.

21 Q What is your understanding of the relationship

22 between Sections 4 (a) (1) and 4 (b) (1) as they pertain

23 to the origins of life on this planet?

24 A Well, I think that's what normally is referred to

25 in the creation-science literature as the dual model. And


1 A (Continuing) the implication there is that there

2 are only two possible explanations, either a creation

3 explanation or an evolution explanation, and the

4 reputation of one, therefore, forces the acceptance of the

5 other.

6 I find that to be a rather distorted view, since there

7 are many creation explanations, and there are also a

8 variety of scientific explanations of the origin of life

9 so that it is quite deceptive to just present it as a

10 two-view model.

11 Q Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, is

12 the dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life

13 on this planet a scientific approach to that subject?

14 A No.

15 Q Why is that?

16 A Because as I just stated, one of the explanations

17 lies outside of science. It is a supernatural

18 explanation, and, therefore, its investigation lies

19 outside the bounds of science.

20 In addition, as I've also stated, the acceptance of

21 owning two views is a totally inaccurate representation of

22 the large multiplicity of views that are held on these

23 issues.

24 Q Doctor Morowitz, do you know how life was first

25 formed on this planet?