1 Q (Continuing) scope and sequence in the classroom,

2 the presentation of materials in a semester or a year?

3 It's a teaching technique. Scope and sequence. Scope the

4 course, sequence the course. Are you familiar with that?

5 A Are you talking about the over all plan by which you

6 will teach your students during the school year?

7 Q Yes.

8 A Yes.

9 Q Do you follow that sort of technique and that

10 procedure?

11 A Yes, I do.

12 Q Is that technique and that procedure for you to

13 outline a discussion of all the material in the biology

14 class you will teach, for instance, for the course of a

15 semester or the course for the year?

16 A Well, the entire scope is more or less pre-set in my

17 own mind by the time the school year begins. I may modify

18 my sequence based upon the students' ability to grasp

19 concepts and this type thing.

20 Q As you construct that sequence in conjunction with

21 the scope, do you intend to give balance to all ideas that

22 are recognized in biology or science?

23 A Of course not. We don't even touch on all of the

24 ideas in biology or science,

25 Q In the ideas that you teach where there are


1 Q (Continuing) conflicting theories, do you attempt

2 to give balance?

3 A If there are conflicting theories, and both of those

4 theories, again, comes from the framework of the

5 scientific community, then I think they both have credence

6 and both could and probably should be used.

7 Q Do you do that minute per minute in balance?

8 A There is no law saying that I have to, either.

9 Q As an educator, though, you don't do you?

10 A It's within my own personal discretion. If I feel

11 like both of these have merit, and it does have some

12 significance or meaning to my students, then I will do so,

13 yes.

14 Q And your interpretation of Act 590 is your

15 interpretation, correct? It hasn't been imposed upon you

16 by any higher authority in the sense of the school

17 district or the school Board or anyone else in terms of

18 what is balanced treatment?

19 A I don't understand that question.

20 Q Okay. No one has told you from your— Let me back

21 up. Has your principal, has your superintendent, has the

22 school board, the State of Arkansas or the State Depart-

23 ment of Education of Arkansas told you what balanced

24 treatment is?

25 A No, they have not.


1 Q So what you are testifying today is what you think

2 balanced treatment is?

3 A Well, I might classify that or categorize that

4 answer. According to this Act right here, the State of

5 Arkansas is telling me, I think, what balanced treatment

6 is.

7 Q But it's your definition?

8 A It's my interpretation of the statements, yes.

9 Q Now, in your educational philosophy, if you teach

10 two ideas in science, in biology, that you think have it

11 validity and merit, do you think you could teach them

12 sound in terms of educational policy or philosophy and not

13 give them minute for minute weight, is that correct?

14 A That's correct.

15 Q Then why can't you teach a creation explanation

16 alongside an evolution explanation and not give it minute

17 for minute accountability and still reach that balance?

18 A Because somewhere in here it does say that they will

19 be given equal treatment as a whole.

20 Q In other words, it's your problem, isn't it, Mr .

21 Coward? It's not the State's; it's your problem about

22 how to interpret this Act, is that right?

23 A I'm the one that's got to do it.

24 Q Now, if someone tells you, if the State tells you

25 what is balanced treatment, you can follow that, can't you?

A It will have to be much more explicit than it is in


1 A (Continuing) Act 590, yes.

2 Q If the State told you that the answer to balanced

3 treatment is what you presently do in the classroom now

4 when you weigh out how much time to give to any two

5 conflicting theories in biology, you could accept that and

6 teach it, couldn't you?

7 A I think that would be infringing on the right of

8 academic freedom if I did.

9 Q Why?

10 A The same point I made earlier, I don't think the

11 State should mandate within a given classroom that we do

12 or not do anything or say or not say anything.

13 Q If the State tells you as a professional, which

14 you've testified that you are a professional competent

15 teacher, as a professional competent teacher, you use your

16 best judgment to teach these two concepts and give them

17 balanced treatment as a whole, can you do that?

18 A I could do that if I had concepts that had equal

19 merit.

20 Q Assuming that you had concepts that had equal merit

21 in science, can you do that as an educator?

22 A I could if the concepts had equal merit, yes.

23 Q You said on your direct that balanced treatment

24 requirement of Act 590 affects your credibility as a

25 teacher. I don't understand that. Could you tell me what


1 Q (Continuing) that means?

2 A Well, there again, I assume "balanced" means being

3 impartial in the eyes of my students; not necessarily

4 taking sides on the issue.

5 I feel like if I try to remain impartial and run this

6 through under the guise of science and try to convince my

7 students that this is science and that this is good

8 science, that it all has credibility, I think they will

9 see through me like pea soup.

10 I think, there again, that that destroys my credibility

11 because they depend upon me as a professional educator for

12 some background in this area, some expertise in this area

13 to really decide what is good and what is valid and what

14 is, more or less, current and what is accepted.

15 I would be having to falsify my viewpoints and guard my

16 words so carefully because they would understand that I

17 was doing this.

18 Q I asked you earlier in this cross examination for an

19 explanation of origin. And you gave me an explanation

20 that was predicated on experiments done by Doctor Stanley

21 Miller, right?

22 A It's not an explanation of origin, no.

23 Q It was a statement of feasibility of origin, is that

24 right?

25 A That's correct.


1 Q All right. We won't quibble on words.

2 I asked you if your students asked you for an explana-

3 tion of origin, I think you responded that this was a

4 statement that you made about the feasibility of life

5 evolving from nonlife, is that right?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q Then I asked you were there any assumptions based on

8 that. What was your answer?

9 A I believe there are no assumptions based on that.

10 Q Then I asked you, do you know for a fact that the

11 earth's atmosphere contained the elements that you

12 identified or the ones we together tried to identify under

13 Doctor Miller's experiments?

14 A I was not there at that time.

15 Q That's correct. You were not.

16 Now, you don't know if that's what the earth's

17 atmosphere contained, correct? Do you tell your students

18 that?

19 A I tell them that I have to rely upon the best

20 available information.

21 Q Do you tell them about the possible inconsistency or

22 inaccuracy or assumption of that experiment that explains

23 the feasibility of life evolving from nonlife? Do you

24 tell them that?

25 A Would you restate that?


1 Q Yes Do you tell your students when they ask you

2 about the feasibility of life evolving from nonlife, when

3 you tell them about the experiment of Doctor Miller, do

4 you tell them that that experiment may be predicated on

5 the assumption that the elements that were used —

6 ammonia, nitrogen, whatever they were — are assumed to be

7 those that were consistent with the atmosphere at the time

8 that this occurrence occurred four billion years ago or

9 whatever?

10 A No, I do not.

11 Q Now, if you don't, if I tell your students that,

12 does that affect your credibility with them?

13 A That, according to what the geophysicists and

14 geologists tell us, though, those were the conditions at

15 that time based on the best information that I have

16 available to me. As a science educator, I have to rely

17 upon the fact that those were the conditions at that time.

18 Q Based on the best information available to you at

19 the time?

20 A That's correct.

21 Q Now, do you not make that disclaimer to your

22 students?

23 A I think it's the general understanding within a

24 classroom that I am not a walking encyclopedia. I did not

25 perform these experimentations or observations myself.


1 A (Continuing) They know that I must pull from other resources;

2 that I am strictly the go-between.

3 Q Did you not just testify, though, it's a general

4 understanding in your classroom that your students look to

5 you to tell them what is correct in science?

6 A They look to me to decide what is the best informa-

7 tion available. There again, if there are conflicting

8 evidences, then I normally relate this, too. That's part

9 of the credibility, too.

10 You also have to point out sometimes the fallacy or the

11 flaws of a given hypothesis or whatever.

12 Q Do you do it with that one experiment? Do you ever

13 point out the fallacy or the flaws or the possibility of

14 those?

15 A I don't think I do on that particular experiment.

16 Q Have you ever done it?

17 A On that particular experiment?

18 Q Yes.

19 A I don't recall.

20 Q Have you ever given any other statement about the

21 feasibility of life from nonlife other than based on that

22 experiment?

23 A No. Because that is not really relevant to my

24 course content, that subject area.

25 Q But when asked, have you ever given any other


1 Q (Continuing) explanation?

2 A Not that I recollect.

3 Q Does that not affect your credibility

4 A I don't believe so.

5 Q Does that not indicate some sort of prejudicial or

6 propagandist type position in terms of an explanation of

7 origins of life from nonlife?

8 A I don't believe so.

9 MR. CLARK: I have no other questions of this

10 witness, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Any redirect?

12 MR. CEARLEY: Very briefly.




15 Q Mr. Coward, I've placed Defendants' Exhibit Number 4

16 back in front of you, which is the entire text of The

17 World of Biology published by McGraw-Hill. Would you look

18 inside the initial flyleaf, please, of that book, Mr.

19 Coward, and tell the Court what the copyright date is on

20 The World of Biology?

21 A It's 1974.

22 Q Will you turn to the first page in chapter 17. It

23 should be about page 393 or 395.

24 A 394, I believe.

25 Q I believe there is a statement of chapter learning


1 Q (Continuing) objective there, is that correct?

2 A Yes, there is.

3 Q What is the title of that chapter?

4 A "The Origins of Living Systems."

5 Q And what's the chapter learning objective?

6 A "Chapter learning objective. The student must be

7 able to complete an examination on the process of organic

8 evolution, including its history as a concept, modern

9 evolutionary synthesis, terminology and evidence bearing

10 upon its validity."

11 Q Now, turn, if you will, over to the portion of that

12 chapter that Mr. Clark had you read from. It appears, I

13 believe, on page 415. In fact, turn to page 414, if you

14 would, the first full paragraph from the top on page 414.

15 Will you read that, please, sir?

16 A "To sum it up, the vast majority of biologists

17 consider the evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of

18 evolution. That is, that the diversity of organisms is

19 best and most simply explained in terms of evolution.

20 Most scientists, while readily conceding that some of the

21 hypotheses about particular events may have to be modified

22 as new evidence is found, still accept the concept of

23 evolution as one of the most fundamental theories of

24 biology."

25 Q And the next paragraph is titled in bold type,


1 Q (Continuing) "Creationism". Will you read the

2 first three sentences in that, please, sir?

3 A "A few scientists, even today, remain unconvinced,

4 however, holding the view that evolutionary theory does

5 not satisfactorily explain all the facts and that the

6 divine creation of organisms is, at least, as probable.

7 This view is called Creationism is generally ignored in

8 the science textbooks on the grounds that it is not a

9 scientific explanation."

10 Q Will you read the next two sentences, please?

11 A "Thus far, at least, most of the concepts

12 surrounding Creationism have been of the kind accessible

13 to the techniques of the scientific inquiry."

14 Q will you read that sentence again, please, sir, Mr.

15 Coward?

16 A "Thus far, at least, most of the concepts

17 surrounding Creationism have not been of the kind

18 accessible to the techniques of the scientific inquiry."

19 Q And the next sentence?

20 A "Consequently, Creationism is generally held to be

21 an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In the words of an American

22 Association for the Advancement of Science, the statements

23 about Creation that are part of many religions have no

24 place in the domain of science and should not be regarded

25 as reasonable alternatives to the scientific explanations


1 A (Continuing) for the origin and evolution of life."

2 Q How does the language which you've just read compare

3 to the treatment of creation science and other biology

4 text that you are aware of in which it is presented?

5 A I would say that the main thrust of this is the same;

6 that it is generally not accepted. It may be

7 acknowledged or mentioned in a given text, but generally,

8 there is the overall viewpoint that some people might hold

9 this view, but it does not come from the realm of the

10 scientific framework and is not acceptable as an

11 alternative theory to evolution.

12 Q Will you look down to the next to the last paragraph

13 in the text on page 414?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Do you see there the second sentence beginning, "For

16 one thing ...

17 A Yes, I do.

18 Q Will you read that, please, sir?

19 A "For one thing, consideration of creationist

20 arguments should help considerably to delineate the nature

21 of science."

22 Q How would it do that?

23 A I think, there again, it would be the point of

24 confusing students to really what is science and what is

25 not, how do we make scientific investigation and inquiry.


1 A (Continuing) I think my students would have a hard

2 time understanding even what science is by the time I got

3 through with the creationist point of view,

4 Q Now, Mr. Coward, will you turn over to page 417 of

5 that book, please? Is that the last page in that chapter?

6 A Yes, it is.

7 Q Does that conclude with a bibliography for further

8 reading?

9 A Yes, it does.

10 Q Will you read the first two sentences in that first

11 paragraph where it says, "For further reading"? It

12 begins, "A mountainous accumulation ...

13 A Okay. "A mountainous accumulation of literature has

14 grown up on the subject of evolution. We have tried to

15 provide only some of the more readable and popular

16 evolutionary works here. Additional references are easily

17 obtained in the card catalogue of any good library. We

18 have taken more pains to obtain a fair sized listing of

19 creationist literature since this is not readily

20 available, and what is available is often irresponsible.

21 Creationist titles are starred."

22 Q How does that statement compared with your review of

23 creation literature?

24 A It's almost as if I had written it.

25 Q And finally, Mr. Coward, will you look down to the


1 Q (Continuing) bibliography, which is in alphabetical

2 order, and after Norman MacBeth, tell the Court who is

3 cited there for further reading on creation?

4 A It would be John Moore and Harold Slusher, who are

5 the authors of this book.

6 Q Which book?

7 A I'm sorry. I'm incorrect on that point.

8 Q They are the authors of what book as shown?

9 A They are authors of the book, Biology: A Search for

10 Order in Complexity.

11 Q That's been entered in the record as Plaintiffs'

12 Exhibit 129, is that correct?

13 A Yes, that's correct.

14 MR. CEARLEY: That's all I have, your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Clark?

16 MR. CLARK: Yes, sir. Just one moment.




19 Q While you have that publication in front, Mr.

20 Coward, there's one little excerpt I'd like for you to

21 read, also. Let's go back to page 414, the final

22 paragraph on that page begins with "finally". Would you

23 read that?

24 A "Finally, we cannot imagine that the cause of truth

25 is served by keeping unpopular or minority ideas under


1 A (Continuing) wraps. Today's students are much less

2 inclined than those of former generations to unquestion-

3 ably accept the pronouncements of authority. Specious

4 arguments can only be exposed by examining them. Nothing

5 is so unscientific as the inquisition mentality that has

6 served, as it thought, the truth, by seeking to suppress

7 or conceal dissent rather than by grappling with it.

8 Therefore, we will briefly state, for those who are

9 interested, several major theses of the creationist

10 position and a few of these questions raised by this

11 dispute. In general, the majority of creationists support

12 their view with most or all of the following arguments."

13 Q There's a list of some six or so arguments?

14 A Six, I believe.

15 Q And on the last page that you read, on page 417 on

16 the various authors, you noted that those materials that

17 were creationist in origin were starred, is that correct?

18 A That is correct.

19 Q Mr. Coward, I asked you if you'd done any

20 independent research to see if there was any scientific

21 validity to a creation explanation. I think your answer

22 was no. Is that not correct?

23 A That is correct.

24 Q Would you read now about two thirds of the way down

25 to an article entitled, "Kenyon, Dean Kenyon and Gary


1 Q (Continuing) Steinman? What is the title of that?

2 A "Biochemical Predestination."

3 Q Who is it published by?

4 A It's McGraw-Hill in New York.

5 Q When is it dated?

6 A 1969.

7 Q If I told you Mr. Kenyon had been on the list of the

8 witnesses the State would call to prove the creation

9 explanation of first life or of origin, would you say

10 that's a noncreationist publication

11 A Not necessarily.

12 Q Would you say by definition of this text it is?

13 A (No response)

14 Q It either is or it isn't, Mr. Coward.

15 A I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

16 Q This text said that those pieces of literature which

17 were creationist would be starred, did it not?

18 A That's correct.

19 Q Is that one starred?

20 A No, it is not.

21 Q Would that be a representation in the scientific

22 community?

23 A According to the people who did the starring on this

24 page, yes.

25 MR. CLARK: Thank you.


1 THE COURT: You can step down, Mr. Coward.

2 Mr. Cearley?

3 MR. CEARLEY: Mr. Bill Wood.

4 Your Honor, Mr. Gary Crawford will handle the direct

5 examination of Mr. Wood.

6 Thereupon,



8 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

9 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

10 testified as follows:




13 Q Would you state your full name for the record,

14 please?

15 A My name is William Carroll Wood.

16 Q And would you tell us your age and occupation?

17 A I'm 37 years of age. I am a science teacher at John

18 L. McClellan High School in the Pulaski County Special

19 School District.

20 Q What is your educational and professional background

21 A My educational background is that I have a Bachelor

22 of Science Degree in zoology from the University of

23 Arkansas. I am currently working on my Master's Degree in

24 educational administration at the University of Arkansas.

25 And I have twelve hours of graduate credit in physics


1 A (Continuing) dealing primarily with the teaching of

2 high school physics concepts.

3 Q You presently teach what, physics and chemistry?

4 A Yes, I do.

5 Q At what level?

6 A This is primarily to the eleventh and twelfth grade

7 level in public high school.

8 Q Are you a member of any professional organizations?

9 A Yes, I am. I am a member of the Arkansas Education

10 Association, National Education Association, the Pulaski

11 Association of Classroom Teachers. I am a member of the

12 National Science Teachers Association, and until recently

13 was a member of the Arkansas-Oklahoma-Kansas Society of

14 Physics Teachers.

15 Q And would you tell me just briefly if you received

16 any honors or awards?

17 A With respect to teaching?

18 Q Yes.

19 A In 1974, I was named an outstanding young educator

20 by the Little Rock Jaycees. In 1975, I was honored as

21 being selected as an outstanding physics teacher in the

22 Arkansas-Oklahoma-Kansas Society, area of the Society of

23 Physics Teachers.

24 That same year I was selected as one of one hundred

25 physics teachers nationwide to be so honored to go to Bell


1 A (Continuing) Laboratories in New Jersey to a

2 science recognition and symposium. And recently, this

3 school year, I was named as the outstanding teacher in the

4 Pulaski County Special School District.

5 Q Mr. Wood, when was the first time you heard about

6 creation science?

7 A The first time that I heard about creation science

8 was with regard to an action that took place at our

9 particular school board meeting last January. At this

10 school board meeting, it is my understanding that Mr.

11 Larry Fisher made a proposal to the school board to

12 involve a unit on creation science.

13 Q I pass you what has been marked as Plaintiffs'

14 Exhibit 28 for identification. Could you tell me, please,

15 what that is?

16 A This is a copy of the materials or the proposal that

17 Mr. Fisher made at this presentation to the school board.

18 Q And have you compared Exhibit 28, at my request, to

19 the model resolution written by Wendell Bird and published

20 by the Institute for Creation Research which is a part of

21 Exhibit 83 previously admitted in this case?

22 A Yes, I have.

23 Q What did you find?

24 A I found that they were identical in scope and in

25 content. The only difference that I saw was the addition


Page is missing


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) committee which I've just

2 asked him about. He was elected spokesperson of it before

3 the school board. And I will interrogate him only about

4 those matters.

5 THE COURT: Go ahead.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

7 Q Who were the members of that committee, in a general

8 way?

9 A Well, it was my understanding, if I may continue my

10 answer, it was my understanding then that the school board

11 members or the school board directed the administration to

12 form a committee and look into the matter of formulating a

13 unit.

14 I was then contacted as to my desire, if I wanted to

15 serve on such a unit, on such a committee, and I did. We

16 held a meeting, at which time we generally discussed why

17 we were there, and that's when I first saw this.

18 Q You are referring to Exhibit 28?

19 A Yes.

20 We were given materials by Larry Fisher at that time,

21 and we were to look at these materials for— I believe

22 the time span between the first meeting and the second

23 meeting of our committee was about two weeks, at which

24 time we were supposed to come back and make a report on

25 what we had found.


1 Q Who were the members of the committee?

2 A Well, I don't remember all of their names

3 particularly, but they work for different regions within

4 our public schools. There were teachers of science on the

5 high school and junior high level. There were central

6 administrative personnel — I believe at that meeting

7 Doctor Harold Measel, assistant superintendent there

8 was a curriculum person; there was a science coordinator,

9 a social studies coordinator, a person from our media

10 area, and a school board member.

11 Q Now, this was before Act 590 was even introduced

12 into the State Legislature?

13 A Yes, that's true.

14 Q Which creation science books did you examine, did

15 the committee examine?

16 A I have before me a list of these books. I did not

17 remember all of these, and this has been drawn up as an

18 effort of two or three people for us to remember what

19 books were on this list.

20 Q After reviewing that list, you now have a general

21 recollection that those were among the books that were

22 examined by the committee?

23 A Yes, I do.

24 Q Would you please read the list of those books? And

25 I think we have provided to you next to the name of the


1 Q Which books did you examine in detail yourself?

2 A I examined the first two, I believe.

3 Q That's The Age of the Earth by Slusher, which is

4 Exhibit 73?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field by

7 Barnes?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Those are the two.

10 Were you in the courtroom when Doctor Dalrymple

11 testified?

12 A Yes, I was.

13 Q Are those the two books that he mentioned in his

14 testimony or do you recall?

15 A I recall that he mentioned some books. I do not

16 recall all that he mentioned, no.

17 Q As a result of the conclusions that the committee

18 reached, what did the committee do?

19 A The committee then made a report back to the school

20 board, and I was elected spokesman to do so.

21 Q And what report did you make to the school board on

22 behalf of the committee?

23 A I made the report that we could not draw up a unit

24 on creation science because we couldn't find any evidence

25 for creation science in the materials that had been


1 A (Continuing) presented to us. We couldn't find any

2 science.

3 Q All right. Nevertheless, the school board directed

4 that a unit be written, is that correct?

5 A That is my understanding.

6 Q And another committee, a committee of two persons

7 was subsequently appointed to do that?

8 A Yes, that's right.

9 Q Mr. Wood, are you familiar with the provisions of

10 Act 590?

11 A Yes.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, before I go

13 into that, I would like to move the admission of the

14 Exhibits which Mr. Wood referred to that previously have

15 not been submitted. That's Exhibits 71, 72, 73, 77, 79,

16 80, 81 and 82.

17 THE COURT: Those will be received.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

19 Q Mr. Wood, have you read and analyzed Act 590 to

20 determine what the Act will require of you as a classroom

21 teacher?

22 A Yes, I have.

23 Q Have you made an effort to determine whether or not

24 the subject matter in your physics or chemistry classes

25 will trigger the balanced treatment requirement of Act 590?


1 A Yes, I have.

2 Q And what conclusions have you reached?

3 A I have reached the conclusion that there are several

4 general areas, both in chemistry and in physics, which

5 could, indeed, trigger Act 590.

6 Q Could you tell us in a brief fashion what those are

7 in each course?

8 A Yes. In chemistry, there are concepts at the

9 beginning of most every textbook that deals specifically

10 with measuring techniques. And in those measuring

11 techniques, the textbook may or may not, depending on the

12 type, on the book that you are using, may mention the

13 concept of measuring great distances in space in terms of

14 light years.

15 There is another area in chemistry which may be

16 included, which would be any science or chemical investi-

17 gations of fossil fuels and their origins. There may also

18 be in general chemistry text chapters relating to or

19 concepts dealing with the concept of radioactivity.

20 In physics, again, most every science book speaks in

21 general about the types of measurements that will be made

22 in that particular field. And in physics, once again, the

23 area of measurement which would involve great distances,

24 the mention of light years.

25 If you deal in any way with astronomy concepts, if you


1 A (Continuing) were to deal with the concept of the

2 Doppler effect, which the Doppler effect can be used to

3 show and has been used to show the tremendous distances

4 that exist in space; also in radiometric dating methods,

5 particular Carbon-14. And these are the general areas in

6 which these might be presented.

7 Q And do those areas all necessarily require a

8 discussion or understanding by the student that the earth

9 and, indeed, the universe is very, very old?

10 A Yes. I think that that would be a conclusion of

11 some of the information in the texts.

12 Q Now, you've identified those areas that you believe

13 would trigger the balancing requirement of Act 590. As an

14 educator reading the Act, what, in your opinion, would you

15 be required to do as a classroom teacher?

16 A I believe in these areas I would be required to give

17 balanced treatment.

18 Q Again, as a science educator, what do you think

19 "balanced treatment" means?

20 A Balanced treatment, to me, means equal dignity and

21 equal treatment. It requires me to spend the same amount

22 of time or the same amount of effort in developing a

23 concept. It requires me to have a basis for incorporating

24 it into our body of knowledge. It requires me to make

25 sure that I am totally objective in my presentation.


1 Q Well, whatever balanced treatment means, how do you

2 feel as a science educator about having to give balanced

3 treatment to creation science?

4 A Well, I don't like it because I don't think it's

5 science. I think it's religion.

6 Q What makes you think that?

7 A Well, if you refer to the Act in Section 4(a), the

8 only theme that I can see that is weaved through any of

9 these concepts are the concepts that one would find in the

10 Bible in Genesis.

11 Q You're talking about the six items that make up the

12 definition of creation science in Section 4(a) of Act 590?

13 A Yes, I am.

14 Q As an educator, do you find that you must use some

15 sort of unifying theme for the presentation of fact in

16 your courses?

17 A Yes. This is a most important aspect of science.

18 Science cannot be a shotgun approach to information. My

19 personal methods of teaching is something that I call the

20 spiral approach.

21 We start off with basic information, of which we have an

22 understanding. And through the scope of our year, we add

23 to that information. And we build— If you can imagine

24 drawing a spiral spring, and the spiral goes upward. We

25 cover the same or keep coming back to the same conceptual


1 A (Continuing) ideas of science and see how these

2 ideas are tied together in a unifying idea.

3 And what I attempt to do is increase the students'

4 knowledge both in depth of his actual world and in the

5 breadth of it, how can we once again apply this same idea

6 to include more of what we see in the world around us.

7 Q What appears to you— As an educator, again, what

8 appears as the unifying theme of creation science as it is

9 defined in the Act?

10 A The unifying theme is Genesis.

11 Q Do you perceive that the Creator plays an important

12 role in that definition?

13 A From my standpoint of how I treat material in the

14 science classroom, a spiral attempting or attempting to

15 make a spiral out of these six items, would point to a

16 creator, whereas a spiral using naturalistic ideas point

17 to and give a better understanding of the naturalistic

18 world.

19 Q If Act 590 is found to be constitutional, what would

20 you choose to do in your classroom?

21 A I would choose not to teach these areas that I think

22 would trigger the Act.

23 Q What's the effect of that going to be on your course

24 curriculum?

25 A Well, I thought about that some. And some of the


1 A (Continuing) effects are going to be that it can be

2 detrimental to the students. And the reason it can be is,

3 I don't believe that we can get a total spiral picture or

4 the student cannot have presented to him a total spiral

5 picture of the inner workings and inner weavings of

6 science concept.

7 This may affect him later. I have no evidence to prove

8 this, out there may be some effect later when this

9 student— As many as I have that go on to college, there

10 may be some effect detrimentally.

11 Q You do consider yourself a professional classroom

12 educator, do you not?

13 A Yes, I do.

14 Q In your opinion, what sort of responsibility does a

15 professional educator have toward the students in the

16 classroom?

17 A The scope of that is tremendous. I believe that as

18 a professional educator I have an academic responsibility

19 to my students to present them to the best of my abilities

20 those materials that are, deemed as the ideas that are

21 consistent with a community of science ideas.

22 I must use materials that I have, I think, anyway, have

23 been scrutinized, have weathered the test of time and are

24 accepted in the scientific community.

25 I can't very simply teach things because I have a


1 A (Continuing) captive audience. That would not be

2 academic responsibility in any way in my understanding of

3 the term.

4 Q How do the provisions of Act 590 fit into that

5 analysis of your professional responsibility

6 A Well, Act 590, I believe, makes a mockery of that.

7 Q Would you feel comfortable answering questions from

8 your students about matters that would trigger the

9 balancing requirement?

10 A I would feel very shaky about doing something like

11 that because it requires balanced treatment. And the

12 balanced treatment requires me to have the material to

13 give the same sort of basic understanding to this idea.

14 So I would not feel good about answering spontaneous

15 questions that might trigger it.

16 Q How easy is it for a teacher in the public schools

17 to get into trouble because of what he or she says in the

18 classroom?

19 A I don't know that I have any basis of drawing that

20 conclusion. We have ways, administrative ways of

21 correcting deficiencies. Our school board has rules and

22 regulations that we follow.

23 And I'm sure that in the violation of these, a teacher

24 could certainly get in trouble, if that's the way I under-

25 stand you are phrasing the question.


1 Q Mr. Wood, are you a scientist yourself?

2 A No, I am not a scientist. I'm a science teacher.

3 And I see that I am on, if I might use a comparison there,

4 different rungs of the ladder. I'm a disseminator. I try

5 to give to students who are coming to me with, not with a

6 variety of backgrounds, but within those backgrounds,

7 their science levels are not all the same. Their mathe-

8 matical levels are not all the same.

9 And it is my job on my rung of the ladder to start

10 building in these students scientific ideas, how science

11 works and what science is.

12 I don't consider myself to be a practicing scientist. I

13 consider myself as a practicing teacher.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you.

15 THE COURT: Is that all, Mr. Crawford?

16 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, your Honor.

17 THE COURT: We will take a recess until— I suppose

18 we need to take up this matter about the witnesses. We

19 will be in recess until 1:30, and I would like to speak

20 with the attorneys in my office and Judge Byrd at 1:00

21 o'clock, if we could.

22 (Thereupon, Court was in

23 recess from 12:05 p.m.

24 until 1:30 p.m.)



1 (In Chambers - 1:00 p.m.)

2 THE COURT: Judge Byrd, I did an in camera review of

3 these materials. And this material was just loose. I

4 don't know to which file it belongs.

5 JUDGE BYRD: They were originally segregated.

6 MR. CLARK: They were all in one group as one

7 witness.

8 MS KERR: I think that's Mr. Hunt's.

9 JUDGE BYRD: To be candid with the Court, we don't

10 mind them having this information. To be candid with the

11 Court, I talked it over with my folks. They asked for all

12 of our records.

13 Now, in Reverend Blount's records, if I can pull it, I

14 believe it's three letters.

15 THE COURT: I looked at these, and—

16 JUDGE BYRD: Reverend Blount is the only one—

17 THE COURT: Let me finish. I looked at these, and

18 those are things which appear to be in some respects kind

19 of personal and part of some letters from some people who

20 were supporters. And I didn't see that they were

21 particularly relevant.

22 JUDGE BYRD: There is one letter in there that might

23 be a little— If I can leave these out, there may be one

24 more that may affect my folks?

25 THE COURT: Here is the material from Mr. Hunt's


1 THE COURT: (Continuing) file.

2 JUDGE BYRD: Now, the files belong to these folks.

3 We are willing for folks to copy them, but we want the

4 files back. We don't mind those.

5 MS KERR: Your Honor, we obviously haven't had a

6 chance to see what those documents are. To the extent

7 that they deal with the efforts made by these people to

8 communicate with the legislature and to lobby and gain

9 support for the bill, we think they are relevant.

10 THE COURT: We can make this a long drawn out thing

11 or not, out let me tell you, you don't care about what's

12 in there . And if you want to insist on it, we will go

13 ahead and go through the whole process, but I promise you,

14 you aren't the least bit interested in that. If you are

15 willing to take my word for that, that will save a lot of

16 time.

17 MR. CEARLEY: We are willing to do that, your Honor.

18 JUDGE BYRD: As far as Ms. Kerr is concerned, I will

19 sit down and go over it with her if she wants to make an

20 objection. We just don't want them out for general

21 information.

22 MS KERR: Let me point out that I offered to

23 stipulate to the confidentiality of these documents at the

24 very first instance.

25 JUDGE BYRD: Well, I understand your stipulation,


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) but you represent your clients.

2 THE COURT: well, here are the two files, and that,

3 material is just loose.

4 MS KERR: This is Curtis Thomas' material.

5 MR. CLARK: The loose material is Mr. Thomas'

6 material.

7 MR. CEARLEY: Judge, we will copy that this

8 afternoon and return it to Judge Byrd.

9 MR. CLARK: Judge Byrd, I do have at counsel table

10 the depositions, the originals to be signed by your

11 clients that we have gotten back.

12 Now, we are you going to have to see about getting that

13 done because Mr. Cearley wants to offer them into

14 evidence. We object on grounds of relevance, but—

15 MR. CEARLEY: We'd like to have them signed unless

16 you are willing to waive signature.

17 JUDGE BYRD: I am not willing to waive it, but I

18 don't run the Court. I just represent the clients. If

19 Steve wants to waive it, I can't keep him from waiving it.

20 THE COURT: I think the client has the right to

21 insist on reading and signing the deposition.

22 JUDGE BYRD: They wanted to read and sign it. Now,

23 your Honor, we practiced law around here a long time, and

24 ordinarily we could stipulate. I will only have one of

25 them available this afternoon. I'll have to run the


1 JUDGE BYRD: (Continuing) others down.

2 MR. CEARLEY: I'll be happy to do whatever I can to

3 assist in that.

4 JUDGE BYRD: Let me consult with my clients. The

5 reason I gave Mr. Clark the records, as you know, I have a

6 real bad back, and some days I can't make it go. And I

7 didn't want to hold up the Court's process.

8 THE COURT: I appreciate that.

9 JUDGE BYRD: That was the purpose of it.

10 (Thereupon, the in chambers hearing was concluded.)


(Open Court - 1:30 p.m.)




14 Q Mr. Woods, was the creation unit, which was your

15 Exhibit Number 4 to the deposition made an exhibit—

16 MR. CRAWFORD: if your Honor please, I think I can

17 clear that up for Mr. Childs.

18 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

19 Q Would you tell Judge Overton what you understand

20 this creation unit to be?

21 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, just a point of

22 inquiry, this is the creation unit with respect to which

23 Mr. Childs objected on the grounds the witness didn't have

24 personal knowledge, and I promised not to interrogate him

25 on that. And I don't know whether he intends to. We are


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) going to call Mary Ann Wilson

2 who is the author of that document as our next witness, so

3 I'm just advising the Attorney General's office in the

4 interest of expedition, if they wish to take advantage of

5 it.

6 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I do not intend to question

7 Mr. Wood as to his personal knowledge of the formulation

8 of this material. What I want to question him about is

9 whether or not this would provide scientific evidence

10 regarding Act 590.

11 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

12 Q Mr. Wood, can you identify that as Exhibit Number 4

13 to your deposition?

14 A Yes, I can.

15 Q The first page is an outline of content. Under

16 Roman numeral 1, it appears "Biological" and under A,

17 "Evidences that Imply Separability of Man and Other

18 Primate Ancestry." Would you refer over in the outline

19 under 1, Roman numeral I(a)(1).

20 A I have it.

21 Q What is indicated there?

22 A Do you wish me to read this?

23 Q Yes, please.

24 A "Item 1(a), evidences that imply separability of man

25 and other primate ancestry, genus Ramapithecus whose only


1 A (Continuing) remains are fragments of jaws with

2 teeth, has for many years been put forward as an

3 evolutionary ancestor of man. Analyses of the data by

4 David Pilbeam of Yale indicates Ramapithecus as probably

5 neither an ancestor of modern humans nor modern apes."

6 Q And where did that appear?

7 A That appeared in Science Digest, April, 1981, Volume

8 89, Number 3, page 36.

9 Q Under Roman Numeral 1(a)(2), what does it state?

10 A "The genus, Australopithecus, after study by Oxnard

11 and others, appears to have too many specialized and

12 ape-like characteristics to either be in the direct

13 ancestry of man or the direct line leading to man."

14 Doctor Charles F. Oxnard, "Australopithecus versus the

15 Computer", University of Chicago Magazine, 1974, page 8,

16 and A. Montagu, "Man, His First Million Years", World

17 Publishers, Yonkers, New York, pages 51 through 52, 1957.

18 Q In reference to the material under Roman numeral

19 1(a)(1) and (2), do those appear to be publications, or

20 creation science publications

21 A I don't recognize them to be creation science

22 publications.

23 MR. CRAWFORD: if your Honor please, there is more

24 than one draft of this document. I don't know which one

25 Mr. Childs is referring to. If he could tell me that, I


1 MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) could follow along with him.

2 MR. CHILDS: It's Defendants' Exhibit 3 and Wilson's

3 Exhibit 4 and Wood.

4 THE WITNESS: May I say that this is not the final

5 document that I understand the committee came up with.

6 This is one that I was presented with to view in light of

7 some of the findings of the committee that was appointed

8 to come up with a model.

9 I understand this is not their working format at this

10 time.

11 MR. CHILDS: I understand that.

12 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

13 Q Now then, my question is, is the information under

14 Roman numeral 1(a)(1) and (2) evidence that implies

15 separability of man and other primate ancestry?

16 A That's what it says on this piece of paper, yes, sir.

17 Q Do you have the scientific sophistication to tell me

18 if this is true or not?

19 A I couldn't make an opinion on that. I don't have

20 the whole article here. This is someone else's. For me,

21 this is tertiary information. This is information that

22 somebody else has interpreted from someone else.

23 I would have to see some sources that I could— I would

24 have to have the whole article myself. And then if you

25 are asking me to evaluate this material, then of course,


1 A (Continuing) it would take me some time. I would

2 have to look at their footnotes. I would have to be in a

3 position to have these materials accessed to me so that I

4 could make a decision in relation to whether I

5 particularly thought that this assumption in I(a)(1) was a

6 true analysis of what the article so stipulated.

7 I would also make the same comment for I(a)(2).

8 Q Turn over to Roman numeral I(b), please. Under

9 number 2, what does that state?

10 A Are you asking me to read I(b)(2)?

11 Q Yes, please.

12 A "Mendel's laws of genetics explain almost all of the

13 physical variations that are observed within like

14 categories such as the dog family. These laws, in their

15 modern day refinement, seem to indicate limits to such

16 variation."

17 Q Do you understand what that statement is saying in a

18 scientific sense?

19 A I understand what this paragraph says. I am able to

20 glean a meaning for me from this reading, yes.

21 Q Would that be evidence that imply changes only

22 within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants

23 and animals, which is Roman numeral I(b)?

24 A I don't think this meets the criteria in any way for

25 evidence.


1 Q What is this?

2 A This is somebody's interpretation of something to do

3 within like categories in the dog family. Those are very

4 loose terms . I don't know anything about the dog family,

5 and I don't know what the laws are of Mendel's genetics,

6 offhand, to be conversant with you about them and their

7 modern day refinements. It seems to indicate limits to

8 such variation. I'd have to know what variation we are

9 talking about.

10 Q What about under Roman numeral I(c).

11 A Yes. I'm with you.

12 Q It's headed "Evidences Implying a Sudden Creation of

13 Life."

14 A Yes. I'm with you.

15 Q Would you please read that?

16 A I(c)(1) states, "Polonium-218, Bismuth-214 and

17 Polonium-214 have half lives of 3 minutes, 19 minutes and

18 1.47 x 10 to the negative fourth seconds respectively.

19 The existence of these elements is indicated by the

20 Pleochroic—" I suppose that's how you pronounce it.

21 "—Halos without evidence of parent nuclides of the

22 uranium series argues for an initial sudden creation of

23 these elements."

24 "Critique of Radiometric Dating" by Slusher, Institute

25 for Creation Research, 1973, page 19. "Cosmological


1 A (Continuing) Implications of Extinct Radioactive

2 from Pleochroic Halos" by Robert V. Gentry, Creation

3 Research Society Quarterly, 3.2, 1966, page 17 through 20.

4 Q Can you tell me whether or not this information

5 would be evidence implying a sudden creation of life?

6 A Again, I am having to answer you that this is

7 someone's interpretation of the evidence. I see no

8 evidence presented here in terms of how this experiment or

9 how these words tie together to give this meaning to it.

10 It requires that, if I'm to evaluate this one particular

11 thing, that I be able to see how those evidences do relate

12 to that as you are using the term "evidence."

13 Q When you were serving on this committee selecting,

14 reviewing what you call creation science materials, did

15 any of these concepts that we've gone over in this outline

16 come to your attention?

17 A I believe that there is a couple of concepts that

18 are in here, but I would have to have a moment to find

19 them in this whole work.

20 Q Tell us about the ones that we've gone over?

21 A The ones that we've gone over?

22 Q Yes.

23 A In the textbooks that I previewed, no.

24 Q Under Roman numeral I(c)(3), would you please read

25 that?


1 A I(c) (3)?

2 Q Yes, sir.

3 A "Symbiotic relationships such as exist between algae

4 and fungi in the lichens imply sudden creation. The

5 complexity, variety and perfection of parasitic

6 adaptation, particularly where animals and plants are

7 interdependent, or where a parasite demands several hosts,

8 imply sudden creation of all of the systems.

9 The pronuba moth and the yucca plant provide an excellent

10 example of plant-insect interdependence." Evan Shute,

11 "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution", Nutley, New Jersey,

12 Craig Press, 1961, page 62.

13 Q Do you know if the Craig Press is a creation science

14 publication?

15 A I have no idea. I've never heard of the Craig Press.

16 Q Do you consider this as evidence in support of the

17 concept of a sudden creation of life?

18 A No, I wouldn't.

19 Q Would you please read the information under Roman

20 numeral I(c)(5)?

21 A "The sudden appearance of diverse multicellular life

22 forms all together in the fossil record without trace of

23 previous ancestry implies that all were suddenly created."

24 Q Would you consider that evidence in support of a

25 model of sudden creation?


1 A No, I would not.

2 Q Under Roman numeral II(a) headed "Evidences that

3 imply young earth and solar system," would you please read

4 the information in (1)?

5 A "Atomic Clocks, which have for the last 22 years

6 measured the earth's spin rate to the nearest billionth of

7 a second, have consistently found that the earth is

8 slowing down at the rate of almost one second a year. If

9 the earth were billions of years old, it's initial spin

10 rate would have been fantastically rapid, so rapid that

11 major distortions in the shape of the earth would have

12 occurred." Arthur Fisher, "The Riddle of the Leap

13 Second," Popular Science, Volume 202, March 1973, pages

14 110, 113 and 164 to 166. Air Force Cambridge Research

15 Laboratory, "Earth Motions and Their Effects on Air Force

16 Systems," November, 1975, page 6. Jack Fincher, "And Now,

17 Atomic Clocks," Reader's Digest, Volume 3, November, 1977,

18 page 34.

19 Q Do you consider any of the information in Roman

20 numeral II(a)(1) as evidence implying a young earth and

21 solar system?

22 A I didn't hear the first part.

23 Q Would you consider the information you have just

24 read as evidence implying a young earth and solar system?

25 A No.


1 THE COURT: Mr. Childs, did you take his deposition?

2 MR. CHILDS: Yes, I did.

3 THE COURT: Did you go through all this in the

4 deposition?

5 MR. CHILDS: No, I didn't, unfortunately.

6 THE COURT: Maybe you could ask him if there is

7 anything on that outline that he considers evidence

8 supporting those propositions and save us all a lot of

9 time if all we are going to get is negative answers.

10 And I assume that something out of the Reader's Digest

11 he's not going to consider that to be scientific evidence

12 in support of the proposition.

13 MR. CHILDS: Let me just go through the publishers,

14 your Honor.

15 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

16 Q Under Roman numeral II(a)(2), that information

17 appears to be from Melvin A. Cook, "Prehistory and Earth

18 Models," London, Max Parrish, 1966.

19 A What are you asking me, sir?

20 Q Does that— Let me rephrase the question. Do you

21 know if Max Parrish Publishing in London is a creation

22 science organization?

23 A I'm not familiar with it. Maybe I can save the

24 Court some time, I am not familiar with a lot of these

25 publications listed here, and this is certainly one that 1


1 (TM) ing) am not familiar with to any degree.

2 (TM) but under Roman numeral II(a)(3), which is

3 (TM) erica? Are you familiar with Scientific

4 (TM)

5 (TM) m.

6 (TM) a creation science publication?

7 (TM) s not.

8 (TM) er Roman numeral II (a)(4), is Physics Today

9 (TM) cuse me. Are Physics Today and Science,

10 (TM) eation science publications?

11 (TM) on't believe they are creationist literature

12 (TM) is.

13 (TM) er (5) it shows Presbyterian and Reform

14 (TM) mpany. Do you know if that's a creation

15 (TM) shing company?

16 (TM) not.

17 (TM) out Natural History?

18 (TM) is not.

19 (TM) ack to that point to clarify my answer here.

20 (TM) d on that too quickly.

21 (TM) rence to what?

22 (TM) stion was asked me, I believe, if I thought

23 (TM) ian and Reform publication was a creationist

24 (TM) My answer is I do not know if it is or not.

25 (TM) out Natural History?


1 A I do not think Natural History is a creationist.

2 Q And Roman numeral II(a)(6), refers to the

3 Astrophysical Journal. Do you know if that would be a

4 creation science publication?

5 A I am not sure that it is, but I am guessing that it

6 isn't.

7 Q Did you have an opportunity to review the

8 information in this creation unit publication

9 A Are you asking me if I reviewed this?

10 Q Yes, sir.

11 A Yes, I did.

12 MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, I would just

13 note for the record the fact that it is not a publi-

14 cation. It's an initial draft of a creation unit

15 developed internally within the school system.

16 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I will object to that

17 statement. I think—

18 THE COURT: Let's go on.

19 MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I move that this document

20 be admitted as Defendants' Exhibit 5.

21 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

22 Q Mr. Wood, is there anything in Defendants' Exhibit

23 Number 5 that you would consider as evidence supporting

24 Section 4(a) of Act 590?

25 A Are you asking me if there is science evidence?


1 Q Yes. Is there anything that would be included in

2 Defendants' Exhibit 5 which would support as evidence

3 Section 4(a) in Act 590?

4 A I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

5 Q I'm not saying it is. I'm asking if you see

6 anything in Defendants' Exhibit 5 which you would consider

7 scientific evidence in support of 4(a) in the Act?

8 A No, I would not.

9 Q Would you tell me why not?

10 A Evidence in itself does not make a science. All I

11 see in Exhibit 5 there are paragraphs of unrelated

12 material that never really show or point to one thing. I

13 don't see any interweaving of these ideas except as I made

14 in my direct testimony; that the interweaving in Section

15 4(a) is that that points to Genesis.

16 Q Do I understand you to be saying that all inform-

17 ation has to be related together before it can be

18 considered scientific evidence?

19 A Yes. That is the nature of scientific evidence.

20 Scientific evidence— Evidence in itself doesn't mean

21 anything. If I might use an example, if I saw these

22 pictures around the wall here out in different places,

23 they in themselves wouldn't mean anything.

24 Q Does the concept of evolution, as you are describing

25 it, does it all fit together in some sort of manner?


1 A Yes.

2 Q And how does it fit together?

3 A It fits together in that generally the same

4 conclusions have been reached by different areas of

5 investigations. And there has been, and I believe has

6 been indicated by witnesses up here previously, that there

7 is a preponderance of that evidence; not just from one

8 area of biology, but from the fossil record and from other

9 areas that we normally say that do operations within our

10 scientific community.

11 Q What do you do with observed phenomena which do not

12 fit into this construct that you are talking about?

13 A What do I do with it?

14 Q Yes. What would you do with it?

15 A Well, I can't speak as a scientist because I'm not

16 one. If you're asking me to speculate on what I would do

17 with it, I can speculate on it only as a person and not as

18 an expert in the field.

19 Can you tell this Court if you know how the

20 scientific community handles observed phenomena which do

21 not fit without the construct of evolution?

22 A I believe that they report it, and I believe that

23 they set it up for other people to falsify or to prove in

24 order to show consistent trends in this information that

25 you are talking about.


1 Q What do they do with information that they cannot

2 explain within the structure that they have?

3 A The very nature of science deals with those problems

4 in my understanding of science. That is not something in

5 science to be swept under the rug. That is something in

6 science to be looked at in terms of challenges.

7 Q Well, I'm asking you if you can tell me what happens

8 when there is a particular piece of observed phenomenon

9 which cannot be explained in the scientific community?

10 THE COURT: He's told you two different ways.

11 MR. CHILDS: Perhaps he has, your Honor, but maybe I

12 missed it.

13 THE COURT: Okay.

14 MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

15 Q Would you like for me to rephrase the question?

16 A Yes, if you don't mind.

17 Q Were you aware of any situations where there has

18 been observed phenomenon which would stand the entire

19 construct on its head? Do you know what happens in that

20 kind of situation?

21 A I don't believe I can go that far to say that I know

22 of something that would stand the entire construct on its

23 head.

24 There may be areas that have long been held that some

25 new observations might point to different conclusions than