McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project

Testimony of Professor Dorothy Nelkin, Professor of Sociology, Cornell University, NY (Plaintiffs Witness) - transcript paragraph formatted version. 


MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiff calls Professor Dorothy Nelkin. Mr. Dewey Crawford will handle the direct examination.



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



Q: Professor Nelkin, would you state your full name for the record, please?

A: Dorothy Nelkin.

Q: By whom are you presently employed?

A: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Q: Who position do you hold there?

A: I'm a professor in the Department of Sociology and in a program called Science Technology and Society.

Q: I'm going to ask that Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-Nine be passed to Professor Nelkin, and when that arrives, Professor Nelkin, I'm going to ask you if you can identify that as being your curriculum vitae?

A: (Examining same) Yes.

Q: Your career pattern has been a little bit unusual as


Q: (Continuing) far as academics, has it not, as far as obtaining your present academic position?

A: (Nodding affirmatively) Yes, it has. I think women often have unusual, women particularly in my generation often have unusual career patterns. I did not obtain a Ph.D., but instead worked my way into the profession by writing books and by getting some recognition on the basis of work. And Cornell was an open enough academic community to accept that as a reasonable equivalent.

Q: You are a full tenured professor at Cornell, are you not?

A: Yes. I have been since 1977. I have been a professor there since 1973 or something.

Q: And you have also been elected by your colleagues in the sociological profession as president of your academic society in sociology?

A: I was. I'm past president of the society called the Social Studies of Science. But that is rotating. I am no longer in the position.

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I would like to have Plaintiff's Exhibit Ninety-Nine for identification received into evidence as Professor Nelkin's curriculum vitae.

THE COURT: It will be received.


MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: Professor Nelkin, will you tell us briefly what your area of research and scholarship is?

A: Yes. I tend to focus my research on the social implications of science and technology. I study the questions of science and public participation and the relationship between science and the public. I have been particularly interested in my research on the way lay groups, lay groups can be used by— The way science becomes a source of legitimation, a source of credibility for many groups with other kinds of causes.

Q: Do you have any particular means or methods of approaching these subjects?

A: Well, I find it very useful to study conflicts, to study controversies, as a means of understanding what people really want, what their demands are, how they articulate these demands. And I have focused my work on controversy.

Q: Controversies involving science and technology?

A: Always involving some aspect of science or technology or both.

Q: Can you give us some examples of such disputes that you have studied or written about?

A: Well, I've worked on a lot, I've written a lot on technological siting disputes, like the siting of airports


A: (Continuing) or nuclear power plants. I've written

A: great deal on the nuclear debate, both in this country and in western Europe. I've studied the recombinant DNA dispute, a little bit on Laetrile dispute, again focusing on issues of expertise and the way people use experts and use science as a way to deal with these issues.

Q: Can you explain the methods which sociologists use in, drawing conclusions about controversies or the movements?

A: Well, sociologists use a great number of methods. My own method is to do extensive interviewing, but I start always by collecting the material of any group, or, not only of any group, but surrounding the issue that I am studying. I try to bury myself in the literature, whether it's legal literature, whether it's the documents produced by various groups, to really understand the issues. And after that I do extensive in-depth interviewing with people representing all sides of the controversy. I seldom concentrate on any one group. I try to understand their relationship to society. It's called, in its logical terms, extended case analysis.

Q: All right. Did you conduct such a study of the creation science movement?

A: Yes, I did.


Q: Would you tell me how you came to do that and when you did that?

A: I became interested in creation science movement around 1973-74, and started collecting material at that time, but then really began to pursue it as a full time research endeavor, I think it was '74 or '75. I, again, collected a lot of material that was written by the creationists, to try to understand and try to get myself under their skins, so to speak, to try to understand what they were thinking, what their concerns were, the diversity of their concerns. And then, also, I tried to look at a lot of other material from teachers, from scientists, from people in the California school. I focused primarily in California at that time, because that's where there was a lot of activity going on. After that, I went around and interviewed people. I interviewed at the Institute for Creation Research, several Morrises, Duane Gish, Lester Lane. I hung around here and talked to some students and some other people. I also went to the Creation Science Research Center and interviewed the Segraves. In addition, I also talked to teachers in various parts of the country, to educators, to school superintendents, people on the California school board, the revolutionists, Mr. Mayer of the Bible Science Curriculum Center, and


A: (Continuing) others, to try to understand the full dimensions of the dispute and to understand its dynamics.

Q: This work was not undertaken in connection with any lawsuit or consulting role for any organization, was it?

A: No, no. It came strictly out of my own curiosity, to understand how a movement that seemed to represent something which most scientists have assumed was long dormant, since 1925. How and why this had revived. Why did it all of a sudden begin to have some apparent political salience. Why this should reemerge at this particular point in time. What were the ideas being expressed at the time by the creationists themselves which would bring this kind of activity to the fore once more.

Q: Did you start off with any particular sympathies or feelings about the movement one way or the other?

A: Well, in some sense I did, because I thought it was kind of strange, as I mentioned, that this should all of a sudden in an age where science has a wide credibility, where scientific events seem to have been relatively well accepted, it seemed strange that this kind of challenge to contemporary science should arise. On the other hand, I started out — and I think this is evidenced in my other work — with some sense of sympathy for people who are challenging science and who feel that


A: (Continuing) their values are somehow disturbed by scientific research. And I started out with some genuine sense of sympathy for people who are concerned about their young and are concerned about the values being taught in school.

Q: After completing your study, did you publish your conclusions?

A: Yes. I published it in the book called, Science Textbook Controversies: The Politics of Equal Time, published by M. I. T. Press in 1977, was the first edition and it was in paperback in 1978.

Q: Did you also write several articles for magazines?

A: Yes. Really based on the same material that is in the book.

Q: As a result of your study, did you form any opinions about creation science?

A: Yes.

Q: Would you tell us, from a reasonable degree of scholarly certainty, what those opinions are?

A: Yes. Very briefly, there were several different conclusions. First of all, I found that the science of creationists, I felt on the basis of my interviews, to be part of a broader Fundamentalist movement, which is essentially opposed to modernism and to science as part of modernism. And they are opposed to it primarily for


A: (Continuing) religious and social reasons. And they were attempting to try to use, as some of the other groups had, science as a way to legitimate what they were saying, using science as a kind of political resource to legitimizes and give credibility to their own views concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible; Also, I found that one of the reasons underlying the whole of their activities were concerns about a growing secularism in society and a concern that this was going to cut down on the constituency would destroy the values of their young and have their youths— It was a very normal concern that their youths were going off in some direction that they themselves felt very uncomfortable with.

Q: Could you elaborate for me on what you mean when you say they were using science to legitimize their religious views?

A: Yes. Science generally has had a lot of salience in society. It has an image of neutrality, of objectivity. It is widely used by a lot of groups. I mean, after all the transcendental meditationists call themselves the Science of Creative Intelligence. When I looked at the Laetrile people, they used scientific evidence to document the applicancy of apricot pits. Every group that I have studied tends to draw scientific knowledge, scientific evidence, tries to incorporate them


A: (Continuing) into them, even if their concerns are religious or social or have to do with freedom of choice. They tend to be a translation of these values into scientific and technical terms. It seems to be a ubiquitous tendency in our society, and I think the creationists, as well, are doing this. This is a propagandistic kind of activity in my mind.

Q: What do creation scientists find objectionable in science?

A: Well, there are several feelings that run through. One which is very, very strong is a concern about science representing some sort of flux, some sort of change; a great deal of uncertainty. And, as you know, in our society there is a great deal of concern about uncertainty at the present point. Order is a very fundamental value to the scientist, and a scientist's order is a question of design creates a sense of order. Second of all, there is a profound concern about immorality and concern about creating a moral environment, and an association with the evolution theory and the relationships between man and animals is a sore spot of immorality.

Q: Have you selected, at my request, a illustrative statement from creation scientists which shows that point?


A: Yeah. I have a couple of quotes. One from Wendell Bird, who is an attorney who writes—

Q: Who does he work for?

A: He's a member of the Institute of Creation Research. And in an argument about evolution in public schools, what creationists can do, he writes, "Christians are commanded to be lights for a crooked and perverse nation, and are to stand against the devil with the armour of God. Christians have a responsibility to ensure light and to oppose evil in the public school system, because our country is shaped powerfully by the public school curriculum and our tax dollars finance public education."

Q: Is that a part of an article describing how Creationists can get creation science in the public schools?

A: Well, the subtitle above that is, "The Responsibility: Creationists Should Request Instruction in Scientific Creationism."

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the reference to that document. There has been no authentication of that article. I have not seen it. If it is an exhibit, it has not been referred to as one as such. Further, I want to enter an objection to this line of inquiry on the grounds, again, of relevancy. This witness


MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) is painting with a very broad brush that all of these things have occurred. I don't think there has been a sufficient showing that a sufficient study has been made to, first of all, make these conclusions; secondly, to relate to this lawsuit that we are concerned with here today.

THE COURT: I don't know how many objections that amounts to. Let's take them one at a time. I think what she's reading from is part of the plaintiffs' pretrial appendix to the brief. I've read it somewhere else when I was reading some material for the trial, and I think it's in that.

MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, it's Exhibit Eighty-three for identification. It's an excerpt from a periodical which ICR publishes called Impact. It's a self-authenticating document under federal rules covering newspapers and periodicals. It's also information on which Professor Nelkin has, in part, formed her conclusions and comes in as material forming the basis of an expert's opinion and is also admissible for that reason.

THE COURT: I agree with that. But he is saying he hasn't seen the document. I think it is in information that has been furnished, at least, to me.

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we provided them with all copies of exhibits that were marked for identification.


MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) It's page 126 of Exhibit for Identification Eighty-three, which was served on the Attorney General's office.

THE COURT: in response to the other objection, I think the material is relevant. I think she is qualified to express opinions as an expert.

MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: We're not going to belabor the point. There was a second vocation I think you selected?

A: Yes. In my interviews I found that the creationists were relating evolution theories to everything, from Communism to sexual promiscuity to the decline of the family, and at that time to streaking. Henry Morris in Scientific Creationism writes, "The results of two generations of this evolutionary indoctrination have been devastating. Secularized schools have begotten a secularized society. The child is the father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is merely an evolved beast, the man he becomes will behave as a beast, either aggressively struggling for supremacy himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders." I think that essentially documents what we have found or I have found in my own research.

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would like to move


MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) that Exhibit Eighty-three, from which she previously read, and Exhibit Seventy-six, which have both been marked for identification, be received into evidence.

THE COURT: They will be received. And Mr. Williams, I will note your objection to those two documents.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, your Honor.

A: The third thing that comes through is the concern about secularism and implication for the literal interpretation, that this would essentially defy the literal interpretation of Genesis and consequently it in a loss of faith. And this comes through very clearly in a quote from Robert Kofahl in the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. That's Exhibit Eighty-eight, I think.

Q: It's page 141. Would you read the quotation you selected from the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Professor Nelkin?

A: "The reason God the Creator worked for some fifteen hundred years—"

Q: Professor, excuse me. Would you slow down a little bit? People are having trouble understanding you.

A: Okay. Let me skip down a little so it won't take so long. "But to have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved, a


A: (Continuing) sinner must believe what the Bible says about his personal sin and guilt before a holy God and about what Christ has done to save him. Anything, therefore, which stands in the way of faith in the Bible as the Word of God can keep sinful men and women from the Savior whom they must know or perish. Supposedly scientific theories such as evolution which contradict the Bible can cause some people to doubt the Bible and thus hinder them from coming in humble faith to Jesus Christ for salvation." I think that's the essence of the quote.

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, we would ask that Exhibit Eighty-eight marked for identification be received into evidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: I object on the same grounds, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will receive Exhibit Eighty-eight, but I don't understand how that relates to the creation science theory. Is that the product of the Institute, or one of—

MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: Would you tell us who published the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter? Which organization does this come from, Professor Nelkin?

A: It's published by Beta Books in San Diego, and it


A: (Continuing) is, I believe, if I remember right, Kofahl is a member, is or was a member of the Institute for Creation Research. And I make a strong association between the Institute for Creation Research, which has been a primary organization among scientific creationists and Act 590.

Q: I'm going to explore that point with you in just a moment, Professor Nelkin. Your testimony is that that book is by a prominent spokesman of the creation science movement?

A: Yes.

Q: How do creation scientists respond to the concerns that you've just articulated?

A: Well, first of all, their aim and their intention, as far as I could discern, was really to convince people to essentially believe their beliefs, convergent in the sense of convergence of ideas. They want people to believe their definition of reality. And in order to do that, they really felt it was incumbent upon them in today's age to call into question scientific ideas and to give their own ideas a sense of scientific credibility. How they do that is partly, mostly through negative argument, to try to undermine, to try to present arguments that would undermine evolution theories. And to argue therefore, if you can undermine evolution theories, then


A: (Continuing) the creationism appeared as the only alternative. Their methods of research, however, to somebody who were very familiar with scientific methods of research don't quite fit. They, first of all, start with a priori assumption. Rather than keeping an open mind about the evidence, they really use evidence in order to prove what they would like to prove.

Q: Professor Nelkin, have you studied ordinary scientists?

A: Yeah. I don't know if you want a quote on the way they approach things on their a priori assumptions or not. Would that be useful to you?

Q: Certainly, go ahead. Identify what you are reading from.

A: Oh, yeah. This from, again, from Henry Morris. Scientific Creationism is the name of the book. It is Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California.

Q: I believe that is Exhibit 76.

A: The exhibit is 76, yes. "It should be emphasized that this order is followed, not because of scientific data are considered more reliable than Biblical doctrine. To the contrary, it is precisely because Biblical revolution is absolutely authoritative and persistent that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the


A: (Continuing) same testimony as that of the scripture." "There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible and, therefore, there is no need to fear that a truly scientific comparison of any aspect of the two models of origins can ever yield a verdict in favor of evolution." Very straightforward statement.

MR. CRAWFORD: I would ask that that be received in evidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I will object again.

THE COURT: You don't need to restate the grounds of to the objection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like to add one other thing. I think the point does need to be made, and I am sure the Court is aware of this, but ICR, any group, is not on trial. What we are trying is the constitutionality of this Act. At this point, I have not seen evidence going to whether this Act is constitutional or not. There has been a lot of so-called background, which is totally irrelevant from a legal perspective. What does the Act require? That is what we are concerned about. What does the Act on its face require? The Act has not even been implemented yet.


MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) What they are, in effect, saying, as I understand it is, the Act can't be implemented because of some of these problems with some of the writings. The Act hasn't been implemented yet and they can't challenge it except as to its constitutionality on its face.

THE COURT: I appreciate the argument you are making. I read it in the Brief, and I make the same ruling on it. I think, in order to save a lot of time and to save a lot of effort on your part, if you would just tell me you object on the ground that it is not relevant or on the grounds previously stated, that will help. You don't need to make an argument each time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, your Honor.

MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: Let me address that point. I think the record already reflects that many of the publications of the Institute for Creation Research are published in two editions; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Is Evolution: The Fossils Say No by Duane T. Gish an illustration of that?

A: Yes. There seems to be one for public schools and one for general public.


Q: I think the Attorney General's office has already made the point that when we asked the ICR for those documents and they produced them to us, they put—

MR.WILLIAMS: I object to that characterization. I never made that point. I made the stipulation in response to a request.

THE COURT: Wait just a second. He is going to withdraw that statement. Go ahead and just ask her the question.

MR.CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: You are familiar with the way scientists operate?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you familiar with any other set of texts which carry labels in them designating whether it is religious or science?

A: No, I have never heard of it before. I can't imagine that just simply semantic changes in books which really carry the same message would really make any difference, and I have never seen any scientific books which are written several in editions except for efforts to popularize them. But that does not try to say that one is scientific and one is not.

Q: Let me turn now and ask you some specific questions about the scientific-creation roots. You heard Professor Marsden testify earlier today?


A: Yes.

Q: Did you hear him mention the American Scientific Affiliation?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you give us a brief description of the creation-science groups and their development?

A: Okay. The American Scientific Affiliation was developed, I believe, in 1941 or the early 1940's. At that time, most of the creationists, as I understand, were members of that affiliation. They began to split with it in the late 1950's, early 1960's, because it was really not Fundamentalist enough with respect particularly to science. There were several things that occurred at that period. First was the public concern about science education, about the lag of the United States behind the Soviets, the Russians. In particular, that was evidenced by Sputnik, and that caused the National Science Foundation to develop a whole series of federal programs in physics and in biology, which attempted to create science textbooks for the public schools that were more in tune with the latest developments in contemporary science. There was a Darwin centennial in 1959 in which a big case was made to the fact that in biology textbooks in particular there was an extraordinary lag between what was


A: (Continuing) known within the scientific community and how this was portrayed in the public schools. On the basis of that, the Biology Science Curriculum Study was developed and created books more in keeping with contemporary and well accepted research. So then you began to have public school textbooks in the early Sixties which were developing evolution theories. There were several other things. The Supreme Court ruling in 1963 on prayer in schools was an issue which irritated a number of people. In California, and that's where a lot of the action is at this time or was at that time, Max Rafferty was very concerned about godlessness in the school system.

Q: Who is Max Rafferty?

A: Max Rafferty was Superintendent of Schools for the State of California at that time, a Fundamentalist, and extremely concerned about the lack of religion in the public schools. He used words like `godlessness' and `secularism' and was very concerned, so he had a little form of political support. At the same time the creationists began, Henry Morris, in particular, began to write books that began to have a dissemination among certain groups. At that time, also, the Creation Research Society split away from the ASA, the American Scientific Affiliation, to


A: (Continuing) form their own group. I believe it was in 1963. They had an oath, which I don't have with me.

Q: Is this a copy of that?

A: Yes.

Q: Let me pass you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification which, along with the other exhibits for identification, have been provided to the Attorney General's office, and I will ask you, please, if you can identify that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, at this time, if I might, I would just like to make an objection on the grounds of hearsay. All this that this witness is testifying to is to hearsay.

THE COURT: Okay, sir. I will note that objection.

MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: Did you identify Exhibit 115?

A: I can't defend myself against hearsay.

Q: If you would, please, just describe for us what Exhibit 115 is.

A: Exhibit 115 is a brochure from the Creation Research Society, a Xerox of a brochure, with a brief history of the organization organized in 1963, firmly committed to scientific special creation.

Q: Is there an oath which Creation Research Society members must take?


A: There is a position statement, and then on the application form, to become a voting member you have to have a degree in some recognized area of science. In addition, all members must subscribe to the following: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple-historical truths. Second, "All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds." Third, "The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effects. Fourth, "Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as ones man and one woman, and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come


A: (Continuing) only through accepting Jesus Christ as our savior." That is the oath or what members have to subscribe to in the ISCRS.

Q: Is that a leading creation-science organization?

A: Yes, although it did split once again. These groups tend to split over certain issues. There was a leadership dispute and the CSRC, the Creation Science Research Center then formed in the late Sixties, and that became, by and large, a publishing organization. Then there was a copyright dispute and there was also a dispute over strategy, and it split once more. Henry Morris formed the ICR. It's like the government with all these acronyms. The Institute for Creation Research, which went to Christian Heritage College, which was a new organization in El Cajon, California, supported by the Scott Memorial Baptist Church, and it became the research institute, the research arm and teaching arm also, in the scientific area of Christian Heritage College, which at that time its president was Tim LaHaye.

Q: Could you tell us, please, if there are other organizations that come to mind?

A: The Bible Science Association is another one and that's been much more of a mass based organization, which serves as a means to disseminate a lot of the material.


A: (Continuing) Most of the documents, most of the lectures, most of the activities of the people in the ICR, which is now the most active organization, are the lecturers in almost entirely Bible colleges and other religious organizations, and also their writings are published primarily through religious sources.

Q: Are those the leading national organizations dedicated to promoting creation-science?

A: Those, at this moment, are the leading Organizations. I think they have subgroups in various states, but these are the leading major national organizations, yes.

Q: You told us you conducted your study in I think you said around '74 or '75?

A: '76, yes. '75-'76 was the main part of it, yes.

Q: Have you had occasion to update your research since that time?

A: Well, when one does research like that and moves on to other things, what one does is to continually collect material and stick it in the file. I don't really have time to look at it terribly carefully. I was called on the Sacramento case. Was it a year ago—January. The attorney general there had called me. I could not participate in it because I was off to France on sabbatical. But I did have — Again, as it began to come


A: (Continuing) up, I began to review the material I had collected in the meantime. And then obviously knowing that this was coming up, I have been intensively immersed in material recently. So, I feel pretty up to date.

Q: Has anything in the material you have reviewed recently changed your conclusions?

A: No. It has only reinforced it. The only difference I seek really, is it seems to me that in some sense the creationists are a little more politically astute. They have changed — The effort to completely separate, which I really can't quite encompass, I can't quite understand how they can do this, the effort to completely separate biblical creationism from scientific creationism is demarcated just a little bit. There seems to be some conflict within the organization, and I think that is reflected in this split, a conflict within the organization about how to maintain an appeal to a basically religious constituents on the one hand, and gain scientific credibility on the other. I seem to read in their literature at this point a sense of contradiction as they are pulled in two directions.

MR. CRAWFORD: I think I failed to offer into evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 115 for identification. It's the Creation Research Society oath, and I ask that that be received.


THE COURT: That will be received.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would like my objection made on the grounds previously stated, plus no authentication.

MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing)

Q: Did you, based on your interviews, were you able to create a composite picture of the creation-science leaders based on the research?

A: Well, it's not really a composite picture in any kind of technical or statistical sense. However, I was told an awful lot of times that these were people who were brought up in Fundamentalist families. They were bright kids who went off to college, and got trained as scientists. They continually had some trouble reconciling what they were learning with the Fundamentalist background. Resorted often to a theistic evolution, essentially saying that God was responsible for change. But, then, somewhere later, felt kind of uncomfortable with all of this and turned to creationism when that alternative occurred. They were attracted to this as a way to reconcile their own self doubts. This is a story I heard again and again in my interviews. Recently got reconfirmed in something that I read by Gary Parker where he says that God told him this essentially. God essentially changed his mind and opened


A: (Continuing) up new kinds of possibilities with the science in creationism, so the internal conflict didn't really register.

Q: Professor Nelkin, have you read Act 590?

A: Yes, I have read Act 590.

Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether Act 590 reflects a connection with the creation-science organizations which you've just described?

A: Yes, in a couple of ways. Going through, it looked awfully familiar, a lot of it. An awful lot of it seems to have come almost word by word, except in a somewhat different order, from a resolution that was written up, a model resolution that was written by—Was it Wendell Bird—Bird from Institution of Creation Research. In checking over that, the wording was almost identical. The order of the items was somewhat different. In terms of the definition of creationism, it is the kind of definition of creationism I have seen again and again in creationist writings. The same items appear, slightly different wording, but they are fundamentally no different than the statements that come out of the organizations, such as the Institution for Creation Research.

Q: Could I ask that Exhibit 106 for identification be passed to you, and ask if you can identify that as being


Q: (Continuing) the Resolution that you referred to.

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I think I've got the wrong exhibit number. If I may, on redirect, I will put that in through her, and I think that will save some time. No more questions.



Q: Ms. Nelkin, isn't it true that your predominant area of study into the creation-science movement, as you have termed it, came from approximately 1973 up through 1977?

A: Yes, my primary time in which I was studying that movement, yes.

Q: And since 1977, say, one of your average weeks, how much time have you spent in studying creation-science?

A: Very little on a regular basis until very recently, and then it's been full-time again.

Q: Until how recently?

A: I picked it up for a couple of weeks in January, a year ago. Then I picked it up, the material up again—Had a lot of it on hand so that it was not hard to get at—about three or four weeks ago.

Q: But even during that time you weren't spending full-time, were you?

A: I was also teaching my classes. Researchers in universities don't have full time for research. We do


A: (Continuing) other things. But in another sense, also I've been teaching about the dispute, looking at the controversy in my classes each year, so I've kept up on the material to do that.

Q: As a matter of fact, when you wrote your book in 1977, at that point, really, your research effectively ended, didn't it?

A: For the purposes of what I was writing then, yes. Since then, I have resumed it.

Q: For the purposes of testifying in two lawsuits?

A: No. One lawsuit. I did not testify in the other lawsuit because I was in Paris at the time it was held.

Q: But you did look at it at times because of the lawsuit?

A: I looked at it, the material because of that, yes, and for the purpose of testifying in this lawsuit, and also because of considerable interest, again, because of the lawsuit. So, I've taken it up again, yes.

Q: When you began studying what you call the science textbook controversy— First of all, the question of the science textbook controversies includes something more in your mind than merely creation-science, does it not?

A: When I was studying those controversies, there was a simultaneous dispute going on called "The Man, a Course of study" dispute, which raised a lot of the same issues.


A: (Continuing) So, I used that, as well as another example.

Q: What was "The Man, a Course of Study" dispute?

A: It was a social science curriculum developed by the National Science Foundation do teach at the younger school level. I think it was fifth and sixth grades.

Q: Describe, if you would, the general approach of "The Man, a Course of Study.

MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I don't understand the relevance of this. Professor Nelkin's book was called The Scientific Textbook Controversies. She studied two controversies; one over creationism and one over some humanities textbooks that were also controversial at that time. It is a second controversy. If your Honor wants to hear it, fine, but I really don't see the materiality of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, there are two purposes. First of all, in Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 for identification, an article by Ms. Nelkin, this is gone into in some depth. There appears to be, to some degree, an effort to kind of intertwine the two controversies. I want to make clear that they are not intertwined. Second, in "Man, A Course of Study", there were some concepts studied which were highly controversial. They were formulated by some scientists from the National


MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing) Science Foundation, funding, at least. Fifth and sixth graders were studying such questions about what is human about human beings and they were studying animal behavior and how it related to humans. The concepts, even Ms. Nelkin has admitted, were highly controversial and somewhat problematic. There has been an argument made by the plaintiffs in this case that you shouldn't force on high school students this false ploy between what they see as religion and science, that high school students are too impressionable. I would points out that if fifth and sixth graders are not too impressionable to look at these issues in the view of the scientists, who Ms. Nelkin I think acknowledges competent scientists, neither should high school students be too impressionable to look at the facts on both sides of the question of origins.

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, it seems very collateral to me.

THE COURT: I think it would be easier just to listen to the testimony. I think, really, the relevance of that is kind of remote but if you want to go into that, that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think it will take that long, your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Would you repeat your question? I


THE WITNESS: (Continuing) couldn't follow your line of argument.

MR. WILLIAMS: That was a statement. That was not a question. Let, me ask you the question now.

THE WITNESS: All right.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: "The Man, A Course of Study", could you just give me a brief sketch of the sort of issues that were being present to fifth and sixth graders in that curriculum?

A: This is an effort to teach students about values. It did have an evolutionary component because it made assumptions that there, were genetic relationships between man and animals, and it looked at animal behavior. It was widely considered to be an interesting course. Its methodology was somewhat controversial because it allowed—It was not rote teaching. It was teaching which involved a lot of participation, a lot of discussion by students. Some of the major concerns came up about whether this was an appropriate methodology through which to teach students or whether children should be simply told by their teachers what is right and what is wrong. That was a controversial aspect of that dispute.

Q: And the scientists who formulated that based on your studies felt this would be an appropriate course of study


Q: (Continuing) for fifth and sixth graders; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: They didn't feel that fifth and sixth graders were too impressionable to handle these questions; is that correct?

A: No. I think it was the assumption that fifth and sixth graders are pretty intelligent and thoughtful human beings and could, yes, deal with it.

Q: The controversy over "Man, A Course of Study", do you know whether—Well, first of all—that course was ever protested in Arkansas?

A: I don't remember. It was protested in a number of states. Arkansas could have been one of them, but I really don't remember whether Arkansas was, in fact a state in which it was protested.

Q: Isn't it true that you don't necessarily see "Man, A Course of Study" in the creation-science movement, as you have termed it, to be one and the same? Those are interrelated in terms of the same people were involved?

A: There is some overlapping in the people involved in the two studies. John Conlan, for example, the representative, got involved and was also very supportive of the creationist movement. And his aide, I can't remember, a British guy, also got involved. Yes, there was some relationship. The Galbraiths in Texas also got


A: (Continuing) very agitated about that, similarly agitated about the teaching of the evolution theory. Yes, there were some connections.

Q: The groups you previously identified as being the leading creation-science groups, did any of them take a formal position on "Man, A Course of Study", to the best of your knowledge?

A: I don't believe so, but I am not sure. I don't remember.

Q: In your article entitled Science-Textbook Controversies, which has been previously admitted as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, you state that, referring to textbooks published by the Biological Science Curricula Study Committee, you said, quote, All three reflected the fact that modern biological research is based on evolutionary assumptions, close quote?

A: Yes.

Q: So, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that somehow creation-science was based on some sort of a priori assumptions. Is not evolution also based on some a priori assumptions?

A: What is the beginning part again?

Q: You were talking about three textbooks. Three textbooks were developed, each emphasizing a different aspect of current biological research. Molecular biology,



[Page Missing]



A: (Continuing) data and to understand.

Q: Let me ask, you, in Exhibit 1 you state that creation-scientists believe, quote, that all basic types of living things, including man, were made by a direct creative act of God during the creation week."

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell me where does creation-science, as it is defined in Act 590, say that all living things were created in one week.

A: Act 590 denies—

Q: I am asking if you can tell me where.

A: I think it does not state that exactly in that way, and it does not also want to use the word "God", but I find it very difficult to distinguish the notion of a creator and world by design without— I mean, I think that is the semantic equivalent.

Q: But you studied this, not from you own personal opinion but you studied it as a social science, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: So I want to ask you, not your personal opinion but what you have been able to determine from studying this question.

A: My opinion is based on what I studied.

Q: But where in Act 590 does it state that man was


Q: (Continuing) created within one week?

A: It does not go into that kind of detail.

Q: Where in Act 590 does it say that, quote, God, close quote, did the creating?

A: No, Act 590 does not go into the absolute details.

Q: It doesn't say that, does it?

A: No.

Q: You further state in Exhibit 1 that many nonscientists believe that science is authoritative, exact and definitive?

A: Yes.

Q: And, further, that few textbooks are careful to stress the distinction between facts and interpretation?

A: Yes.

Q: —Or to suggest that intuition and speculation actually guide the development of scientific concepts?

A: (Nodding affirmatively)

Q: First of all, that's an acknowledgment by you, is it not, that things such as intuition and speculation do lead to scientific concepts?

A: I think there is a great deal of speculation in science, and then it's tested, systematically tested; approached with skepticism and tested, yes.

Q: Can't the shortcomings you have pinpointed on textbooks lead to false impression that what are


Q: (Continuing) scientific theories are facts?

A: I think there is a lot of room for improvement in science popularization. I've written a great deal about this. I think it's a very difficult thing to do to convey both the subtlety and the complexity of science and yet convey it at a level at which it can be understood and which the innuendoes and the procedures and the kinds of insights that go into science are conveyed. It's a major challenge to the scientific community.

Q: Who was Julian Huxley?

A: Julian Huxley was a biologist in the Nineteenth century.

Q: Would it be fair to say he was a proponent of evolution?

A: Well, and he and other people have used—There are a lot of people who have used evolution theory for purposes—special purposes. I am not sure scientists can do anything about that. Scientific theories are amenable to being exploited and used.

Q: So evolutionary theory can be abused?

A: Every science and every religious theory can be abused by the public if somebody cares to do so, yes.

Q: As you understand or what you know about Julian Huxley, was he someone who adopted or adhered to the theory of evolution?


A: I believe so.

Q: Are you aware that he called the concept of evolution a naturalistic religion?

A: (Nodding affirmatively)

Q: So, at least, Huxley saw some sort of religion being based on evolution, did he not?

A: There were a lot of Nineteenth-century scientists who really looked to religion as a way to document the existence of God, yes. That was characteristic of a lot of Darwin's contemporaries and, in fact, his contemporaries in the scientific community were—had a lot of problems with Darwinian theory, yes. In the Nineteenth century, definitely.

Q: In your article that I just quoted from, is not one of you conclusions, "that questions which have normally been resolved by professional consensus are being brought into the political arena"?

A: Yes.

Q: Is your conclusion not further that, "The processes resulting in democratic values such as freedom of choice, equality and fairness enter into science policy"?

A: Yes, and when it comes to the determination of scientific theory—

Q: I am asking if that is your conclusion?

A: No, because you are taking it out of context.


Q: I don't want to take it out of context. Let me read you the quote.

MR. CRAWFORD: What are you reading?

MR. WILLIAMS: Exhibit 1, page 30, the last sentence.

Q: "As questions that are normally resolved by professional consensus are brought into the political arena, and as democratic values such as freedom of choice, equality and fairness enter into science policy, the consequences of such resistance to science may be painful." First of all, is that correct?

A: Yes. I want to underline the word `policy'. I don't want that to be shown in the record to say science.

Q: I think I read `policy', did I not?

A: But I want to emphasize that.

Q: You didn't emphasize it in your article.

MR. CRAWFORD: If Mr. Williams intends to interrogate Professor Nelkin at some length about this article, I would like to give her a copy of it for her reference.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've just finished my questioning on the article, Mr. Crawford.

THE WITNESS: May I add a point to that, because I think it,- again, is out of context. I do not think that values of democracy and fairness enter the judgment as to what is valid scientific theory.


MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: But they do into valid science policy?

A: Into science policy, where money should be allocated for science, et cetera. But into theories of science, science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy. Achievement, bodies of knowledge, an acceptable set of procedures, these are the things that define science, not democracy, not audience applause.

Q: I want to refer you now to Exhibit 2 for identification of the plaintiffs' case. This is your article entitled, "Science, Rationality and the Creation/Evolution Dispute". Do you not state in this article that an argument that, quote, science is natural, close quote; it is simply not convincing on historical grounds?

A: Yes. The argument the scientists make, I think, is a defensive one that exaggerates the total neutrality and objectivity of science, and it allows people to abuse science by having, by taking political recourse to that concept.

Q: In fact, you go on to say that "Neutral—"

MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, I am sorry to keep intruding, but if he could just identify where he is reading—

MR. WILLIAMS: Page 12 of the article.


Q: That, in fact, "Neutral, apolitical criteria have very little meaning in the context of science education"; isn't that right?

A: Historically, yes.

Q: You state, do you not, that in discussing, at the top of page 15, the conflict between creation science and evolution, you state, quote, "As each side defends its position and criticizes the other, their arguments are strikingly similar. Indeed, the debate often sounds like a battle between two dogmatic groups as the anti-dogmatic norms of science fade with the effort to convey the validity of a scientific theory. At times, in the course of the dispute, it becomes difficult to distinguish science from politics and ideology, a fact which only reinforces creationist claims"?

A: Yes, because the dispute has taken—

Q: First of all, let me ask you a question about that.

A: Sure.

Q: What you are saying here, is it not, is that there is a parallel between the arguments made by the creationists and the evolutionists?

A: Yes. What I'm saying, though, in a larger sense is that scientists have not, because they have been somewhat isolated from such political challenges, are not very experienced in dealing with such challenges, and I think


A: (Continuing) that is a real problem in this day and age. So that when they tend to get confronted by a great number of attacks, they tend to respond very, I feel, much too defensively and instead of just sticking to their guns, essentially fall into the trap of creating parallel arguments.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, this has been previously marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Number 2. Unless the plaintiffs have some intention of offering it into evidence, I would like to offer it into evidence as a defendant's exhibit.

MR. CRAWFORD: I have no objection.

THE COURT: It will be received.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: Ms. Nelkin, are you aware that some scientific journals have established a policy of refusing any consideration of any articles on creation science?

A: I am not aware it is policy. I know there's been problems in peer reviewing them.

Q: Let me refer you back to Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1—Excuse me. Do you recall an article you wrote on "Creation vs. Evolution: The Politics of Science Education"?

A: Yes.


Q: Do you recall in that article you discussed the fact that the National Association of Biology Teachers, their journal stopped publishing any creationist articles by November of 1972?

A: Yes. It was deluged with articles that stated from preconceptions that simply—

Q: I am not asking where they came from. I am asking if you are aware whether, in fact, they stopped accepting articles?

A: Yes, I remember the article and the debate at that time.

Q: Thank you very much. Ms. Nelkin, you do not believe in the existence of a God, do you?

A: No.

Q: But you believe that a religious person can be a competent scientist, don't you?

A: Certainly.

Q: in your study of science, have you come to a conclusion that we now have a purity of science so that society no longer affects science and the scientific method?

A: Do I believe that?

Q: In your studies, have you come to that conclusion?

A: That the purity of science no longer—No, I have not


A: (Continuing) come to that conclusion.

Q: As a matter of fact, would you say the opposite is true, that society to some degree does tend to affect science?

A: That is not the opposite, but to some degree there is, yes, certainly.

Q: You also have looked, have you not, at the way courts have generally handled scientific questions?

A: Yes.

Q: And you have some doubts personally about the ability of a court to handle a scientific question, don't you?

A: That is a very complicated question to answer briefly. I think there is a tendency for a lot of technical questions that come to the court to be translated into scientific and technical terms; that a lot of these cases, Vermont Yankee, for example, for one thing, have become very difficult in terms of the ability of the courts to gain sufficient technical competence to make judgments as to whether, in fact, the agencies are doing their jobs. I am very familiar with the Bazelon-Levanthal argument as to the extent to which courts should be buttressing their technical competence or whether they should simply refer these cases back to the agencies that do have the


A: (Continuing) technical competence or to the legislature to handle them. I have generally come out on the latter side, the Bazelon side to this, that the practical notion of training lawyers to be both scientists and lawyers at the same time, and judges also, to have them technically competent in all fields that are going to come before them, really doesn't work out very well.

Q: So you've come up on the side of referring it back to the administrative agency or the legislature where it came from?

MR. CRAWFORD: I object.

MR. WILLIAMS: That was her testimony, I believe.

MR. CRAWFORD: I heard the word `legislature' that I had not heard before.

THE WITNESS: That was in the Vermont Yankee case. I don't think that applies to every —I certainly don't think it applies to this case, but I'm looking at the Vermont Yankee case in particular.

MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Ms. Nelkin. First of all, we have an objection. Your Honor, if I could ask the witness—

MR. CRAWFORD: I heard what she said.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.


MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: Do you think academic freedom includes necessarily the freedom to teach anything an individual wants to teach at any particular time?

MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor, please, I am going to object. We have not tendered Professor Nelkin as an expert on academic freedom. We tendered her as an expert on sociology of science and controversies involving science. I think to take her into the field of academic freedom and areas in which she doesn't necessarily claim expertise is inappropriate.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, she is a professor at Cornell University. I am not asking her for a legal judgment; I am asking her as a member of the academic community.

THE COURT: That's fine. That's overruled.

THE WITNESS: So the question is, do I think— Would you repeat the question, please?

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: Do you think that academic freedom includes necessarily the freedom to teach anything that an individual wants to teach at any particular time?

A: No.

Q: Do you think that a teacher has to agree with a theory before they can effectively teach it?


A: No.

Q: In fact, you teach theories you don't agree with?

A: Let me quality that. I teach in a private university, at the university level only. I have never taught in the public schools, and I really do not want to comment—I cannot comment on the question of academic freedom in the public school context. There is nothing either in anything I have studied or my own personal experience that would allow me to do that with any confidence.

Q: But in teaching concepts, many times a university like Cornell would be similar to any public institution, would it not?

A: I teach mostly graduate students over the age of twenty. I would imagine, having never taught but having had teenage kids myself, there must be some difference in the way one teaches.

Q: Do you think the evolution model of origins should be subject to criticism?

A: I think all science should be subject to criticism. It's fundamental.

Q: You are using it in its nonreligious sense, I take it?

A: Yes. That's an unintended pun. Excuse me.

Q: Do you object to the creationist or creation science


Q: (Continuing) position of origins being discussed in a humanities or social science class?

A: I have no objection do the history of religious theory being taught in a history course.

Q: Don't you believe it is possible for a scientist to do superb scientific work, and then someone else label it as religion?

A: Do I think—What was the double negative?

Q: Do you think it is possible for a scientist to do superb scientific work and for someone else to label that as religion?

A: Well, it depends on the nature—You are putting such

A: loaded word on `superb'. On what criteria are you using the word `superb'? I mean, what's `superb'? I can't answer the question because of the way it's framed.

Q: Do you recall during your deposition when I asked you a question to that effect, and you said, quote, I can very well conceive of a first rate scientist doing superb science, and somebody else comes along and says, "No, I think that is a religion"?

A: Yes. I believe that was at the end of six hours of grilling in a hot room at LaGuardia Airport, and I think by that time I am really not sure what I said, but that's all right.

Q: Would you say that you, in writing your book on


Q: (Continuing) Science-Textbook Controversies, ever made a scientific judgment about the validity of creationism or evolution theories?

A: Have I ever made a scientific judgment on the basis of biological science—Its validity in terms of—I have not, no. I am not a biologist.

Q: But isn't it true that you actually began with the presupposition that creation-science was not science and was religion?

A: Yes.

Q: So you did make a judgment, did you not?

A: It is not a scientific judgment in the sense that— Yes, I did make a judgment.

Q: The organizations you mentioned, ICR and some of the other acronyms, do you have any personal knowledge as to whether any of those groups had any input in drafting Act 590?

A: I gather there was an effort on the part of ICR to have an input. I don't know whether Ellwanger or any of his people actually talked —No, I don't know. I don't know the specifics of the relationships that went into drafting that legislation. It's very clear from the language that Ellwanger had certainly read material by Bird and had certainly read the material in ICR. Whether he had personal contact with the individuals who wrote


A: (Continuing) those articles, I don't know.

Q: So in other words—I am not sure I understand your testimony. In terms of what happened here in Arkansas in 1981 as opposed to what you were studying back in 1977,

A: No, no, no, no. You asked about Act 590.

Q: I am asking about 590. I am asking about the passage of 590.

A: Okay. In the passage of 590—In the drafting of 590, it is completely evident to me from looking at the text that Ellwanger had drafted it or whoever had drafted it had seen creationist material from the California creationists.

Q: So you think from looking at it—

A: Whether he talked to the people there, I don't know whether he actually was on the telephone or met with those people. I don't know the personal relationship. I know that he would have had to have seen the documents and used them because they are almost word for word.

Q: What you are doing there—I asked you a question, do you have any personal knowledge. You are trying to, on the basis off comparison and somewhat conjecture you are trying to say what you think happened; isn't that correct?

A: No, no, no. Personal knowledge can come from reading.

MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the argumentative nature


MR. CRAWFORD: (Continuing) of the question. I believe she answered it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked her if she had any personal knowledge.

THE COURT: I thought she had answered it. I gather she does not.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: You will agree you are not qualified as an expert to make a decision as to whether creation-science is a valid scientific model?

A: I would rather that the discussions of the scientific content be left to biologists who are much more competent than I am. They will be here in droves, so I think I would rather leave all the scientific questions to them.

Q: I am not asking you a question as to whether you would. I am asking you a question—perhaps you didn't hear—that you would agree that you are not competent to make a decision—You are not qualified as a scientific expert to make a decision as to whether creation-science is valid science?

A: That's right.

Q: According to your studies, is it not true that what constitutes science can be either a question of philosophy, sociology, or history, depending upon whose


Q: (Continuing) study you look at?

A: Say that again.

Q: According to your studies, is it not true that what constitutes science, depending upon whose study you look at, is a question of philosophy, sociology or history?

A: Have I ever said that? I don't, I really don't understand your question.

Q: Let me refer you back to your deposition where I asked you this question: "Is it correct to say that what constitutes science is a philosophical question", and you gave me this answer: "Well, it depends on whose study. It can be a philosophical, a sociological question or a historical question".

A: What was the context of that, because I really don't understand what I said at the moment?

MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, from what page is he reading?

MR. WILLIAMS: Page 89.

THE WITNESS: What was the context of the—What were we talking about at that point?

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: I was asking you what constitutes science.

A: All right. Science constitutes a body of knowledge and a set of procedures that are widely accepted by the scientific community at a given time. In terms of


A: (Continuing) historical, this may change, in terms of history, but at this point, at any given point in time it is the body of knowledge that exists and a set of procedures that are widely accepted by a scientific community.

Q: In other words, if you told me that answer on November 22, 1981, you are now changing that answer as to what constitutes science?

A: I don't think it contradicts what I said there. I said that there are historical— I mean, I think if you asked that question as to what constituted science in the nineteenth century or the eighteenth century, the body of knowledge and the set of procedures at that time might have been somewhat different, yes. Certainly the body of knowledge would have been different than two hundred years ago.

Q: You have looked at science and you have to understand science to write about it, to some degree, don't you?

A: I understand methodology, the approach to science. I do not understand all the technical details of it.

Q: To the best of your knowledge, based on your study, are theories of origin testable?

A: A science is not defined only in those terms.

Q: I am asking you the question now: Are theories of


Q: (Continuing) origin testable, to the best of your knowledge?

A: To the best of my knowledge, they are not directly testable by observation.

Q: Is evolution based on the presupposition of no creator?

A: It is based on the presupposition that there are natural processes at work. It is totally irrelevant as to whether —Nobody would ever ask that question.

Q: I asked it on November 22nd. I asked you this question on your deposition on page 94: "Is evolution based on the presupposition of no creator?" Answer: "Yes. Evolution theory is based on the supposition that there is no creator who at a given period of time has created the world, close quote. Do you recall giving that answer?

A: Okay, yeah, I suppose I did give that answer but, possibly, I guess I was confused. There is really no presupposition. It's almost irrelevant, but I think, yes, if you ask biologists whether they presuppose underlying evolution theory that there was a creator that created the universe in six days, they would say no. They would assume that does not exist.

Q: But at the time you gave this answer, that was correct to the best of your knowledge, was it not?


A: I guess, yes.

MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, may I pass the witness a copy of the deposition? She was asked to elaborate on the answer.

THE WITNESS: I would like to see it in context. Again, it's page 146 of 147 pages.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not asking you the question that was asked there, Ms. Nelkin.

THE WITNESS: And I said, "I think the existence or non-existence" — I am reading from the same thing you are reading — "is not relevant."

MR. WILLIAMS: I am going to ask, your Honor—I asked her about the specific question, and she said she gave it. Now if Mr. Crawford wants to bring up anything else on redirect, I think that's entirely appropriate.

THE WITNESS: I did not give—

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

MR. WILLIAMS: I will object to Mr. Crawford referring Ms. Nelkin to a page in the deposition which I did not refer to. If he wants to bring it up on redirect, I think that's certainly appropriate.

THE COURT: Well, it doesn't make any different when it's brought up if it's convenient. We are not trying it before a jury.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that, your Honor.


MR. CRAWFORD: Your Honor, may the witness continue?

THE WITNESS: May I ask my lawyer a question?

MR. CRAWFORD: Just answer the question.

THE COURT: I think it's probably best, Mr. Williams, if you go ahead and ask the questions, and she can answer those. Then, Mr. Crawford, you will get a chance to ask her some questions.

MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: Is the presupposition of no creator subject to being tested, to your knowledge?

A: No, it's not subject to being tested.

Q: Is that presupposition based an a priori assumption?

A: The presupposition there is a creator?

Q: That there is no creator in evolution.

A: As I said in my deposition, it's totally irrelevant. It would not even come up.

Q: I am asking a question. Is that presupposition of no creator in evolution based on any a priori assumption?

A: Ask it again carefully at this point.

Q: Is the presupposition of no creator in evolution based on an a priori assumption?

A: Some scientists that I know do believe in God and others do not.

Q: I am not asking you that question. I am asking you


Q: (Continuing) if the presupposition of no creator in evolution theory is based on an a priori assumption?

A: But there is no creator. It's a tautology.

Q: I am asking you a question. Is it based on an a priori assumption, Ms. Nelkin?

A: Yes, I guess it's an a priori assumption. If one believes there is no creator, then one believes there is no creator.

Q: To the extent that there may be some scientific evidence in support of the creation-science model of origins, would you favor its discussion in the classroom?

A: That's a big if.

Q: But I am asking you if there is.

A: My own belief is that it is fundamentally a religion.

Q: I didn't ask you if it was a religion.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I would ask that the witness be instructed to answer my question.

THE WITNESS: My belief is that it is a contradiction in terms. It's very hard to answer a question in which I believe there is a contradiction of terms. It's too hypothetical for me to be able to answer.

Q: On November 22, when I asked you that question—On page 95, I asked you this question: "If there were some scientific evidence in support of the creation-science theory of origins, would you favor its discussion in the


Q: (Continuing) classroom?" You gave me this answer: "If there were really valid material, again that is not an effort to prove the existence of God, of course." Is that the correct question and answer?

A: That is in the testimony, and after reading that I was kind of appalled at being led into saying that.

Q: Did I drive you to say it?

A: No, but again that was pretty fatiguing circumstances and one gets clearly sloppy at that time. I don't believe, again, that it's relevant. It's too hypothetical when you are talking about religion.

Q: Do you recall when I took your deposition I told you if you didn't understand any question I asked, please tell me and I would rephrase it?

A: Yes. That is why I am being careful to do so now.

Q: Do you agree with the creation-scientists who say that evolution is not a fact but a theory?

A: Evolution is a theory, yes.

Q: Do you think that religion can be based on science?

A: No. I think it is a separate domain, a separate domain of belief.

Q: Let me refer you to page 102 of your deposition where I asked this question: "Can religion be based on science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think people have a lot of faith in science." And you continue.


A: I said no, based on faith I didn't say yes. At least in the copy I've got. Is there a discrepancy in the copies?

Q: Would you look at the next line, line 21 and 22?

A: Question: "Do you think religion can be based on science?" Answer: "No, based on faith. " Question: "Can religion be based on science?" Answer: "Yes, but I think people have a lot of faith in science."

Q: So did you not tell me in answer to my question that yes, religion can be based on science?

A: There are a number of typographical errors that have come through in this. I can't believe that inconsistency. The first thing, I said no, it's based on faith, and then the second, I said yes. Apparently, the same question, at least, as it was typed. But I said, "Yes, I think people have a lot of faith in science, not as a way to justify it. I believe people who have religious beliefs should not have to justify them in terms of science, and if they do justify them in terms of science it is a way to gain a wider credibility and to try to act as missionaries and convert others to those beliefs." The question may have been distorted or I may have interpreted it the second time in a different way.

Q: On page 103, you continued, I asked you the question again: "Do you think it would be possible to base a


(Continuing) religion on science?" Answer: —

A: And I said it would be inappropriate. It would be possible—Anything is possible, but I said it would be inappropriate.

Q: So your answer there was that religion can be based on science; isn't that correct?

A: No, my first answer was—

MR. CRAWFORD: If your Honor please, the testimony has been brought out and your Honor can draw your own conclusions about it. This is going on at some length.

MR. WILLIAMS: (Continuing)

Q: Do you think religion can be based on evolution?

A: No. I would like to separate the two domains.

Q: Do you recall that I asked you about that and you said that there were some minor religions that you think might be based on evolution?

A: I thought you asked me whether it should be.

Q: Could be?

A: Yeah, I think that there's lots of people who can make and use science in any way they choose, and there are religions who do base themselves on—Transcendental meditation, for example, calls itself a science of scientific intelligence, yes. There are a lot of religions that claim to base themselves on science, yep. but that doesn't mean I am saying it's appropriate.


Q: I understand you are not putting your imprimatur or saying that's a correct thing to do, but you are just acknowledging that it has, in fact occurred. Do you think a teacher has a right as a matter of academic freedom to profess his or her professional judgment in the classroom?

A: Again, I would rather—There is a whole section on this, I believe, on academic freedom, and I would rather have that kind of question delayed to that section of the trial.

Q: Attorneys for the plaintiffs have made that objection, and it's been overruled. So I would like you, if you could, to answer my question.

A: You are saying at the college level at which I teach—Yes, we are allowed to interject our own opinions in classrooms, yes.

Q: Do you think if a teacher has reviewed the data in a field and has done so in a responsible fashion, and has concluded there is support for the theory of creation science, that that teacher should be free to discuss it in the classroom?

A: At the public school level, no. In biology class, no.

Q: I asked you that question, and you gave me this answer: "I guess so, but I would say he or she had not


(Continuing) done his homework very well." But you did say, "I guess so", so that they should as a matter of academic freedom be able to teach that; isn't that correct?

A: Well, I hadn't thought that through very well at that time. A lot of these questions came rapid fire over six hours.

Q: Your research on creation-science, you say, as I understand it, that creationists argue that Genesis is not religious dogma but an inerrant scientific hypothesis capable of evaluation on scientific procedures; is that correct?

A: Say that again. Creationists—

Q: —that Genesis is not religious dogma but an inerrant scientific hypothesis capable of evaluation on scientific procedures.

A: That evolution theory is not scientific? No, it's not scientific dogma.

Q: No, no.

A: All right, repeat the whole question right from the beginning.

Q: Has your research shown that creationists argue that Genesis is not religious dogma but an inerrant scientific hypothesis capable of evaluation on scientific procedures?

A: That's what creationists claim, yes.


Q: Does Act 590 allow Genesis to be used in the classroom?

A: Yes. Not—If it's scientifically—Apparently, —It is based on the assumption that one can create textbooks that will document the scientific validity of that.

Q: Could you show me in Act 590 where it says they can use Genesis?

A: In their definitions, they don't use the word `Genesis' but they essentially lay out the definitions of creation-science based on Genesis.

Q: That's your opinion; is that correct?

A: That's my opinion, yes.

Q: Have you read Section 2, which prohibits any religious instruction or any reference to religious writings?

A: Yes, but I find the whole thing so internally contradictory that I have real problems with it.

Q: Do you consider Genesis to be a religious writing?

A: Yes.

Q: One of the studies quoted - in your book, or referenced, says that, "Groups committed to particular assumptions tend to suppress dissent evidence and criticism, only encourages increasing activities in support of the existing beliefs." Do you recall that?

A: Yes, I recall that.


Q: Do you recall where that came from?

A: It came in the analysis. It referred back to how creationists could consistently ignore things like the evidence in evolution theory by radiocarbon dating. It seemed to me it was a very interesting example of the hypothesis developed by the psychologist, Festinger, about how you can't continually suppress evidence.

Q: Let me make sure. That finding was actually made by Festinger. Did Festinger relate that to creation scientists?

A: No, he did that with respect to another group. But the point of his argument was to establish a general principle of how a group, because of certain social reinforcement and other kinds of reasons are able to essentially rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Q: That statement would be true for, perhaps, a lot of groups, not just creationist scientists; isn't that right?

A: Certainly.

Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether textbook publishers, if this Act should be upheld or similar acts should be upheld, would publish texts in conformity with this Act, that being balanced treatment, treating the scientific evidences for both evolution and creation-science?


A: No. I don't think there should be balanced treatment.

Q: No, I am not asking if there should, but whether textbook publishers would publish texts to comply with the Act?

A: Oh, I think some of them would if the act were passed in states where there is a big textbook market. There is money in it.

Q: And while you are a sociologist, that is properly considered a form of science, is it not?

A: There is some argument about that.

Q: Do you consider yourself to be a scientist of a type?

A: Of a type, of a kind.

Q: I am asking you the question, do you?

A: Yeah.

Q: And as a scientist you want, to be as accurate as possible, isn't that right?

A: I try very hard to be.

Q: Your book that you wrote, page 19, said that, "In Arkansas, Governor Faubus defended anti-evolution legislation throughout the Sixties"?

A: Yes.

Q: On what basis did you make that conclusion?

A: You are asking about the evidence that I dredged up some five or six years ago, and I don't remember the exact


A: (Continuing) nature of the evidence.

Q: How many times did Governor Faubus make any statement in support of anti-evolution legislation in the 1960's?

A: I don't remember. It was not a central part of my book.

Q: But you did make the assertion that he defended it throughout the 1960's; isn't that correct?

A: (Nodding affirmatively.)

Q: You don't know now—

A: I don't remember how many times or what— I don't remember the exact reference, the exact data, from which I drew that argument. That was researched a long time ago.

Q: Isn't it typical or normal when you are relying on— First of all, in the 1960's did you come to Arkansas and examine this question?

A: No. The focus of my research was —When one does research, one focuses on a certain aspect of a subject and not—try to build up from secondary sources a lot of the surrounding material. If one had to do primary research on every aspect of a book, there would be no studies done.

Q: But you did not footnote, did you, giving any authority for that assertion that you made?

A: I don't remember if there is a footnote. Is there no footnote on there? I don't remember whether there is or


A: (Continuing) not.

Q: Ms. Nelkin, I would like to show you this book. Is this a copy of your book?

A: Yes. It's a copy of the first hardback edition, yes.

Q: Directing your attention to page 70, do you not state that, "Other Bible schools, such as Bob Jones University in Arkansas, teach courses—"

A: Which is not in Arkansas. That got changed immediately to South Carolina in the second edition. Yes, there are occasionally small mistakes that are made that, hopefully, get corrected right away. As you know, during the deposition my copy of the book did not have Arkansas and yours did.

Q: But there is Arkansas in here so at some point you must have written Arkansas to get it in here; isn't that correct?

A: Yes, I am sure. It was a mistake and it was corrected right away. Unfortunately, past the point where it could be corrected on the first edition.

Q: In other words, the two things in your book specifically about Arkansas, one is in error and one you have no authority for; isn't that correct?

A: No. I didn't say I had no authority for it. I said I cannot remember where I got the material on Arkansas. The error, certainly by saying Bob Jones University is in


A: (Continuing) Arkansas, that was just an error. There were also some spelling errors that I found afterwards.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. No further questions.

THE COURT: Court will be in recess until 3:25 p.m. If you would— Do you have any re-direct?

MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know, your Honor. If you would, give me just a moment.

THE COURT: If you do, just have the witness take the seat in the witness stand.

(Thereupon, Court was in recess from 3:10 p.m. until 3:25 p.m.)

MR. CRAWFORD: I have no more questions. I would like to introduce plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for identification, which she was interrogated about and is now marked as an exhibit. I would ask that it be received.

THE COURT: Fine, it will be received. (Thereupon, Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 1 received in evidence.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Also, for the record, your Honor, the Bird resolution which she referred to and I was unable to find, it turns out it had already been admitted as part of Exhibit 83, pages 131 to 135. That has already been admitted.

THE COURT: Are you ready to call your next witness.

Continue to Langdon Gilkey's testimony

Return to McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project Home